The Republicans Are Akin

August 27, 2012, 11:05 a.m.

And Platforms Are Like a Box of Chocolates
["My momma always said, "Life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get." -- "Forrest Gump," (1994).]

Both parties' platforms, and candidates, are stews of many ingredients -- comfort with, commitment to, and membership drawn from the over- and under-privileged; ideology, including sense of noblesse oblige, support of unions and social programs, proportions of individualism and communitarianism; the demands of special interest advocates and contributors; factions within the party; and historical positions.

There are many differences between the parties on the issues. Most will be saved for future blog entries.

But when it comes to women's issues there is good news and bad news. The good news is the progress -- having just celebrated the anniversary of women's constitutional right to vote (first proposed 1848, finally granted in the Nineteenth Amendment, August 26, 1920), Title IX (40th anniversary), women bringing home more Olympic medals than the men (thank you Dr. Christine Grant!), and even the Augusta Country Club finally admitting at least two women to membership.

The bad news? The Republicans didn't get the memo.

There are two ways in which the Republicans are Akin at their Republican National Convention in Tampa this week.

(1) They are achin'. One of their own, Todd Akin, a Member of Congress who sits on the House Science Committee and is now running for a U.S. Senate seat, has revealed that his lack of compassion for pregnant rape victims ("he argued against allowing abortions in cases of rape") is exceeded only by his ignorance of their biological science. ("He claimed a woman's body can typically fend off pregnancy during a 'legitimate rape' . . ..")

Candidates fear Akin's identification as a Republican may make it more difficult for Mitt Romney, and other Republicans, to win in November. "Romney calls on Rep. Akin to drop Senate bid over 'rape' comments," Fox News, August 21, 2012 ("Mitt Romney joined several other Republicans Tuesday in calling on Missouri Rep. Todd Akin to give up his bid for Senate over his controversial comments on rape, as the Republican congressman continued to hold his ground and vowed to stay in the race.").

(2) They are Akin. It turns out that Akin is no errant Republican minority of one wandering in the wilderness when it comes to banning all abortions with no exceptions. The reason Akin is a walking Republican disaster is precisely because his "no exception" views are not unique to him. Although previously unknown to many voters, Akin's no-exception stance is the position of a great many Republicans. It has long been a part of the national, and many state, Republican platforms. Although Romney has tried to distance himself, it is the view of the vice presidential candidate hand picked and thoroughly vetted by Romney, Congressman Paul Ryan, plus a goodly number of Ryan's House colleagues.

(For example, the Republican's 2008 Platform says, "we assert . . . and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children" -- with no mention of exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother. 2008 Republican Party Platform, p. 52.)

And this year?

This year, the Republican platform will include abortion language adopted last week that reaffirms the party's objection to legalized abortion, with no mention of exceptions for cases of rape or incest. . . .

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said last week . . . "[T]hese guys are proud pro-life candidates and we're a proud pro-life party."

William Douglas, "Romney and GOP lay out agenda," Miami Herald/McClatchy Newspapers, August 27, 2012 [Gazette, "Romney, GOP Lay Out Agenda," August 27, 2012, p., 1].

Of course, it's possible to make too much of party platform planks. As the sub-head, above, puts it, "Platforms Are Like a Box of Chocolates" -- and to continue Forrest Gump's line, "you never know what you're gonna get."

Parties aren't too insistent on candidates endorsing and following up on platforms. Elected officials who intend to follow them may find that a change in conditions -- war, the economy, the weather, public opinion -- can necessitate a change in direction, and policy. Presidents discover the power of the House and Senate to frustrate their best intentions -- just ask President Obama.

However, the Republican Party's opposition to a range of women's rights, including abortion (sometimes with, sometimes without, exceptions) is much more than a platform plank. It has been embedded in proposed (and enacted) legislation. It has been the stuff of Republican officials' campaign and other speeches. It is something that enjoys widespread support among those who hold office as Republicans.

Consider, for example, this assessment of Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan's positions on women's issues:

For years, he has been a reliable vote against workplace equity for women, opposing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which makes it easier for women to file wage-discrimination lawsuits, and two similar measures.

The full outpouring of hard-right enthusiasm is based, to a large degree, on Mr. Ryan’s sweeping opposition to abortion rights. He has long wanted to ban access to abortion even in the case of rape, the ideology espoused in this year’s Republican platform. (Mr. Romney favors a rape exception.) Mr. Ryan also co-sponsored, along with Representative Todd Akin of Missouri, a bill that would have narrowed the definition of rape to reduce the number of poor women who can get an abortion through Medicaid.

Besides that, he has co-sponsored more than three dozen anti-abortion bills, including measures that would require women to get an ultrasound first, bar abortions after 20 weeks in the District of Columbia and end federal spending for family planning programs. Though he urged Mr. Akin to end his Senate race last week over an offensive remark about “legitimate rape,” Mr. Ryan has actually co-sponsored more of these measures than Mr. Akin.

“I’m as pro-life as a person gets,” he said in 2010.

He also co-sponsored a bill last year to allow employers to decline coverage of birth control if it violated their moral or religious convictions, and his budget would end all government financing for Planned Parenthood while slashing spending on prenatal care and infant nutrition.

Editorial, "Paul Ryan’s Social Extremism," New York Times, August 27, 2012, p. A18.

Here is a comparable assessment: "A much more far-reaching bill [than Republicans' bills banning abortion] co-sponsored by Ryan, the 2011 Sanctity of Human Life Act, states that the 'life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent' and empowers states to 'protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions' that meet this definition of personhood. Not only would this give states the ability to treat any kind of abortion as murder, experts have said it could also ban in vitro fertilization procedures and some forms of birth control like the 'morning after' pill." Benjy Sarlin, "A Brief Guide To Paul Ryan’s Abortion Record," TPM, August 23, 2012.

I have written relatively favorable evaluations of both Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan in prior blog entries -- in which I do not discuss their positions on the issues. "Why Mitt Romney? Better Than 'Least Worst' Republican," March 22, 2012; "Is Ryan Ready . . . To Be President?", August 14, 2012.

That distinction is perhaps the most important take-away from this blog entry. As I commented along with the praise of Romney,

"no matter how wonderful a presidential candidate of either party might be, he or she brings with them a cast of thousands to which at least some deference must be paid. (Although, as President Obama has shown the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party that got him the nomination and much of the election, it need not be all that much deference.) I'm not thrilled with the national and Iowa leadership of either party. But I think the Democratic Party's gang of party members, major contributors, political consultants, staffers, lobbyists, elected officials, influence peddlers, and hangers-on would be at least marginally better than those who would surround and pressure any Republican president.

Without parsing possible distinctions, let's concede that all four -- Obama, Biden, Romney and Ryan -- are each, as individuals, sufficiently intelligent, skilled and able to perform in the office for which they are running.

That is why it is a bit misdirected to consider this presidential election a choice between two (or four) white guys. It is, rather, a choice between two large wagon loads of baggage, and the folks who are pulling one wagon rather than another. Frankly, if both the House and Senate were controlled by progressive Democrats, I think Romney's record as Massachusetts governor provides some evidence that (with the possible exception of tax cuts for the wealthy) he would govern, as president, somewhere to the left of where Obama has been able to go. (I am not so sure the same thing can be said of Ryan.) [E.g., support for assertion about Romney, added subsequently: Binyamin Appelbaum, "Business and Political Experiences Pull Romney 2 Ways on Economy," New York Times, August 28, 2012, p. A1 ("Mitt Romney declared during his unsuccessful campaign for the Senate in 1994 that the federal minimum wage should rise with inflation . . .. Mr. Romney has now maintained that position for almost two decades, [as something] good for workers, good for employers and good for the broader economy. . . . [H]is steady support for an idea vigorously opposed by conservatives and business groups underscores the complexity of predicting how he might manage the national economy.").]

That is why the parties' platforms, prior legislative proposals, and the deeply-held ideological convictions of the candidates need to be our focus.

Here's where the Republicans -- as a Party (not all individual Republicans) -- are on issues involving women in general and abortion in particular. The differences between the parties, and candidates, is stark. The choice is pretty clear. The choice is ours to make.

# # #

Is Ryan Ready . . .

August 14, 2012, 9:30 a.m. . . . To Be President?
What is the number one job of the Vice President of the United States?

In the words of Governor Mitt Romney, when introducing his pick for vice president last Saturday [August 11], it is to be "the next president of the United States, Paul Ryan!"



Aside from the possibility of becoming the next president, Senator Bob Dole described the other tasks of the vice-presidency as merely "indoor work with no heavy lifting."

Vice President John Nance "Cactus Jack" Garner of Texas (1933-41) said, in his most erudite Texas-speak, that the vice-presidency was "not worth a bucket of warm piss."

Nonetheless, it's no joking matter when it falls to the vice president to assume his most awesome and highest responsibility, and he or she instantly becomes "the next president of the United States" for real.

Nor is this just a theoretical possibility, sufficiently unlikely to warrant playing the odds and taking the risk that an unqualified vice president will never have to take on those responsibilities. Nine of our vice presidents have become president through the death, resignation or impeachment of the president. That's nine out of 44; over 20 percent.

So I think it's not only fair, it is imperative, that we take a look at Congressman Paul Ryan's -- and Vice President Joe Biden's -- qualifications to be president.

As I wrote when evaluating Governor Mitt Romney's qualifications, "Why Mitt Romney?" March 22, 2012,

In 2007-08, as the candidates were touting their "experience" as qualifying them to be president, I gave some thought to "Just what is the experience that would qualify someone to be president?" Here's an abbreviated excerpt from an op ed column I wrote on the subject at that time:

There’s no perfect, qualifying “experience.” But two things can help.

One is experience at administering large institutions: a federal cabinet-level department, a state government, military branch, major university or corporation.

The other is the understanding and rapport earned by having worked in institutions with which a president must relate: city, county and state government; the federal executive, legislative, judicial and administrative branches; international organizations and embassies; labor unions and Wall Street, among others.

By these standards both Democrats [Senators Clinton and Obama] and Sen. John McCain are unimpressive.

Nicholas Johnson, "Politics: Assessing Candidates' 'Experience,'" The Gazette, March 30, 2008, p. A9, embedded in blog, with links to many more items, in "Gazette Op Ed: Candidates' 'Experience,'" March 30, 2008 ("Compare these candidates’ 'experience' with that of Gov. Bill Richardson: 15 years’ legislative experience in the U.S. House, understanding of state government from two terms as governor and of federal government from [his service as Secretary of] the Department of Energy, the significant administrative experience as a governor and cabinet secretary and the international perspective of a former U.N. ambassador. His international accomplishments, including successful hostage negotiations with Saddam Hussein and others, inspired five Nobel Peace Prize nominations.")

At that time Governor Bill Richardson came the closest to the range of experiences I thought useful. Mitt Romney doesn't rank that high, given his relative lack of experience with the House, Senate, White House, and Cabinet positions. And his work with the Olympics, while useful, is not exactly the same as the State Department, an ambassadorship, or the United Nations, World Bank, IMF or other international organization. But he has been a governor (and in a state where he had to work with Democrats), which comes the closest to any training we have for the presidency, he's administered other large institutions (Bain; the Olympics; this year's campaign), and certainly has ties with Wall Street and the business community.

Another example of a Republican with Richardson's range of experience is former President George H.W. Bush. Not only did he come to the job with eight years experience as vice president, he had also been a member of the House of Representatives, an ambassador to the United Nations and envoy to China, director of the CIA, and someone with experience in both the oil and banking business. "George H.W. Bush", Wikipedia.org.

(In that evaluation of Romney, I made clear that although his positions on most major issues differed from mine, he also had strengths, notwithstanding his lack of experiences that would be useful for a president to have had (see, e.g., "Romney as Ambassador in Chief," July 31, 2012):

As I've learned more about Romney, I've become increasingly impressed with his smarts, education, experience, accomplishments, commitment to public service, and obvious managerial ability in running a presidential campaign. Today I would say of him (as I said earlier [2008] about Jon Huntsman), Mitt Romney is much, much better than just the "least worst Republican." . . .

I may well be wrong, but what others see as flip-flopping I see as managerial pragmatism. . . . Some others are troubled by his Mormon religion. I see it as a positive. . . . Whether you call it religion, ethics, or morality, I think it useful for individuals (and the communities in which they live) to carry a moral compass that they check for directions from time to time. Maybe it's no more than a hunch, but Romney seems to have that. . . .

Nor do I find his seeming inability to speak the language of ordinary Americans disqualifying -- that his tie to NASCAR fans is that he knows a number of folks who own race teams, his appeal to UAW members is that his wife has two Cadillac cars . . .. I find such unscripted comments almost charming in an odd sort of way. . . . What I see in Romney is a bright, well informed, analytical, hard working, focused, pragmatic, problem-solving manager.

I mention this simply to make the point that my effort to evaluate Paul Ryan's qualifications is not an effort to put down the Romney-Ryan ticket, any more than my finding both Senators Clinton and Obama to be short on experience (when at least Clinton was claiming she had it) was an effort to put down the Democratic Party's effort to elect a president.

I will also note, in that connection, that then-Senator Biden did not score much better on my experience scale in 2008 than did Senators Clinton, McCain, and Obama. See "Joe Biden," Wikipedia.org; "It's Biden -- for 'Experience'?" August 23, 2008.

In that Joe Biden blog entry there is a point that bears repeating with regard to Paul Ryan:

I don't think a breadth of experience is a prerequisite to being president (or vice president). Someone can be perfectly well qualified to be president without it. Few of our presidents have had the breadth of experience of, say, President George H.W. Bush (the current president's father), or New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. And many have done quite well without it.

All I am saying is that if all (or most of) what one has ever done is to be a member of the United States Senate [to which I would now add with regard to Ryan, "or House"], given the range of experience that would be helpful for a president to have had, it's a little silly to talk about how "qualified" they are for the job based on that very narrow and limited experience, regardless of how long they've done it.

Clearly, Senator Biden brings "foreign policy" experience [as Chair, Senate Foreign Relations Committee], with emphasis on "policy." He certainly has established relationships among many of the world's leaders. He's brighter, has better judgment, and is far more knowledgeable than Senator McCain on such matters. It's just that it's not the equivalent of having had responsibility for making the decisions, and administering the follow up, as Secretary of State or Defense, or even National Security Adviser to the President.

By now, of course, Vice President Joe Biden has had four years of experience serving as vice president. It's hard to get any better "experience" than that. So, by now, he clearly has the edge on Paul Ryan in that department. (Similarly, Romney, today, scores better on the experience scale than Obama did in 2008. But by now, with four years' experience as president, President Obama clearly has the experience edge over Romney.)

Paul Ryan's relative lack of experience is no more disqualifying for him in 2012 than it was for Joe Biden in 2008. It is, however, a negative, to be balanced against whatever positives one may perceive.

Let's examine the categories used in the past.

(1) "One is experience at administering large institutions: a federal cabinet-level department, a state government, military branch, major university or corporation." Ryan has spent his entire post-college 42-year life in politics, first as a staffer, and subsequently as a member of Congress (with some earlier successful forays into student politics). He has had no administrative or managerial experience running any large institution, let alone anything the size of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government.

"The other is the understanding and rapport earned by having worked in institutions with which a president must relate: (2) city, county and state government; (3) the federal executive, legislative, judicial and administrative branches; (4) international organizations and embassies; the Pentagon, or national security organizations; (5) labor unions and Wall Street, among others."

Congressman Ryan's primary strength is his successful career in the U.S. House of Representatives, a group of 435 in which he rose to the top (as Chair, Budget Committee) primarily while in his thirties.

But (2) he does not have direct experience with the impact of the federal government on state and local government, in that he has never served as mayor or council member of a city, county supervisor, member of a state legislature or governor, or even school board member (so far as I know).

(3) He has had no experience heading, or even working in, the federal executive branch or administrative agencies, with direct knowledge of the impact of the White House and Congress on their work. He has not worked as a judge, or as a law clerk to one; as he is not a lawyer -- something I assume some will see as a great asset :>).

(4) Neither he nor Romney have the foreign relations experience of running, or even working in, the State Department, a foreign embassy as an ambassador, or the United Nations, World Bank, IMF or other international organization. (Romney illustrated the consequences of a president with a lack of foreign relations acumen during his recent trip to London, Israel and Poland. "Romney as Ambassador-in-Chief," July 31, 2012. Vice presidents are often called upon to provide some of our nation's outreach to other countries. Would Ryan have done any better than Romney?)

Neither has headed agencies of, or even worked inside, the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, or other organizations focused on national security. I believe (but have not confirmed) that neither even served in any way in the U.S. military.

(5) Romney clearly has useful ties to Wall Street and the business community generally. Ryan's ties to labor are a little more spotty. His family's business, Ryan Construction, benefits from the Davis-Bacon Act's requirement that federal construction projects pay workers the "prevailing wage." Unions like that. Overall, however, his votes against union members' interests have produced a 16% rating from the AFL-CIO. See, e.g., Laura Clawson, "Paul Ryan is with unions on one lone issue—the one connected to his family's business," Daily Kos, August 13, 2012.

So what is the answer to the question with which I began: "Is Ryan Ready to be President?" "Certainly not," we'd have to say, on the basis of his prior range of experience regarding those things that would be useful to a president. On the other hand, he is certainly not the first vice presidential candidate to have been lacking in that kind of experience. And at least some of them have turned out to be not only "qualified," but among our best presidents when their time came to be tested. # # #