Jonah Goldberg: Paul Ryan once again being cast as pariah |
Featured Commentary

Jonah Goldberg: Paul Ryan once again being cast as pariah

Jonah Goldberg
In this Sept. 5, 2018, file photo, then Speaker of the House Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., listens to President Trump speak during a meeting with Republican lawmakers in the Roosevelt Room of the White House.

Paul Ryan is getting the hate treatment — again.

The former GOP House speaker and 2012 vice presidential candidate is a unifying figure these days. Liberals have long despised him — unfairly in my mind. Anti-Trump conservatives are infuriated by his “surrender to Trumpism,” in the words of Charlie Sykes, editor-in-chief of the Bulwark.

And, of course, the Trumpian true believers have long despised Ryan.

The latest round of vitriol makes sense, of course. The Ryan haters are just following President Trump’s lead.

Excerpts from Tim Alberta’s riveting new book, “American Carnage: On the Front Lines of the Republican Civil War and the Rise of President Trump,” came to Trump’s attention recently, and he was angry. The book’s quotes from Ryan are relatively tame — and tellingly, few are bothering to debate their substance. He accuses Trump of “knee-jerk reactions” and says he “wanted to scold him all the time.”

But Trump did not take the criticism lightly: “Paul Ryan almost killed the Republican Party. Weak, ineffective & stupid are not exactly the qualities that Republicans, or the CITIZENS of our Country, were looking for,” Trump wrote in one tweet.

On the merits, this is more than a little debatable. As a GOP leader and as speaker, Ryan helped build the largest House GOP majority since 1929. When House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced his retirement, Ryan was the one Republican the caucus could unite around to replace him. Trump, not Ryan, cost the GOP seats in 2018. (You can look it up.)

It’s also hard to square Trump’s venom with his congratulatory tweet in April 2018 on the news that Ryan was retiring: “Speaker Paul Ryan is a truly good man, and while he will not be seeking re-election, he will leave a legacy of achievement that nobody can question. We are with you Paul!”

Trump blames Ryan for not funding the border wall, but this is nothing more than scapegoating his own failures — even though the president routinely insists the wall is actually being built. Moreover, Trump forgets that Ryan concocted a border adjustment tax that would have not only satisfied Trump’s tariff cravings in a less disruptive fashion but also provided ample funding for the wall. Trump didn’t like it because it was too complicated, preferring his own approach to trade, which sees disruption as a feature, not a bug.

Ryan’s real sin, it seems, was that he wasn’t good enough at hiding his decency and integrity. This highlights the strange confluence between the “Always Trump” and “Never Trump” critiques of Ryan. Like the biblical Laodiceans, he was neither cold nor hot. Ryan signaled to Trump’s critics that he understood exactly what he was compromising with, and he reminded Trump’s apologists about what they were willingly overlooking.

As Ryan has said, he felt an abiding loyalty to GOP House members to help them navigate the roiling waters of Trump’s presidency. Ryan’s problem was that “the (expletive) Boy Scout,” as Trump called him, couldn’t pretend he was excited about the mission.

This is the crux of the transformation of the GOP. In private, Republican officeholders sound a lot like Ryan. But in public, they’re better at faking their enthusiasm, because that is what Trump demands.

Some sophisticated Trump supporters talk a lot about the need for transactional thinking where Trump is concerned. He’s getting things done, don’t you know? But helping him get things done isn’t what the president demands of his allies. They must also celebrate how he does it. And for an “(expletive) Boy Scout,” that was too tall an order.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.