Radical?

As expected, Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan is, according to the President’s supporters ‘extreme’, same old charge; move on folks nothing new to see here. Ryan is a radical; according to the Obama Campaign and the Saturday talking heads on the Democratic side.

I understand the charge of radicalism, radical is, after all, a question of perspective. From where the President’s people stand, Ryan is very much the radical. From where others stand the President is the radical. The question is how the undecided 6% to 8% define radical. The question is one of erosion. How many small pieces of heretofore solid voting blocs erode, just a little? A few here, few there: African Americans, Hispanics, Jews, Regan Democrats, National Security Democrats, Economic Policy Democrats. Older Americans who eventually focus on the truth of the Medicare and Social Security numbers? Their definition of radical will prevail.

To accept Ryan as a radical, you have to accept the idea that things are going well for us. You have to accept the premise that our current status quo is a good place for America to be. The President has doubled down on nearly every policy that supports the current set of economic circumstances. The President has not moderated; there is no reason to think he would do so in a second term with re-election concerns absent. The opposite assumption would likely be more accurate based on the facts before us.

You would have to accept the premise that governance by bureaucracy is okay even when legislative and public opinion victories cannot be won is …… not radical. You would have to accept the argument that limiting critical energy production in a recession is …… not radical. It’s not radical to hold the opinion that success is never a result of individual effort and creativity?

It’s not radical to weaken Welfare policy, long standing and successful. It’s not radical to host key operatives of the Muslim Brotherhood who have exposed their strategy to weaken America while MEK, an invaluable intelligence source on the Iranian nuclear program, retains a State Department designation as a terrorist organization, despite a court order to reverse the designation?

It’s not radical to say, as the President did this week, that he wants to essentially ‘bail out’ more industries just like he did with the auto industry. This is the doctrine of Corporatist Fascism. The winners play ball, the losers don’t. Doesn’t matter how capable you are, just how you play ball. The big lie perpetuated by political figures and delivered by spineless corporatists is not the future we should embrace. It is the future we should consider in our imagination. In my imagination it is desperate and colorless, devoid of the energy that has made us what we are.

Don’t laugh at the specter of Corporatist Fascism, we took a long walk down that road under Woodrow Wilson, it happened once it can happen again. Wilson believed that we must be governed by a Strong Man with super constitutional powers. He, of course, had himself in mind for the role, as does his philosophical successor.

The evidence, in part, is three consecutive Presidential Budgets that guarantee financial collapse and garner no support within his own party. That is exactly how Democrats originally swatted away Paul Ryan’s ideas: no support from his own party, which was, at the time, a true statement. Is it radical to generate a budget that three times guaranteed national bankruptcy?

For Ryan to be a radical, one would have to assume Mr. Romney, knowing of this rampant Ryan radicalism must be a radical himself! Mr. Romney may be many things; radical does not come to mind or leap to the tongue.