Telling the Lie of Paul Ryan

After the 2008 crash, there were stories in most major media outlets about the role MBA-culture and finance fetishism played in the creation of false value. These were the stories that hinged on the argument that old textbooks had pictures of capital goods--forged steel and sweat-covered workers, cogs carried down an assembly line, and other comfortingly tangible industrial era relics--while today we have photos of money-stacks or graphs modeling growth: a lack of realism at the core of our economy.

These arguments aren't wrong, of course--just obvious. And they lean toward the common fallacy that pointing to a problem is the same as solving it, resting on the implication that all we need to do is go back to our old ways.

The people who love to make that argument are the same ones who point to the increasing capitalization of presidential elections while screaming "campaign finance reform!" as though those three words are the mildly-informed chant necessary to transform the process that created the Congress with an approval rating so low it's actually impressive. All we have to do, we're led to believe, is go back to the good ol' days when attack ads were charming newspaper numbers and George Washington was decrying factionalism, right?

The promotion of Paul Ryan from inflammatory representative to Vice Presidential candidate is the final blow to any such optimistic longing for any good ol' day--even Ike's true conservatism.

Articles and opinion pieces are pouring out with arguments against Ryan daily--pointing out his utterly insane budget, following his support of TARP and the largest additions to the deficit, highlighting his strikingly unsympathetic (to put it mildly) voting record, and implicating him in abuse of both rhetoric and position. The very point of Ryan's nomination, however, is that the veracity of these claims and the soundness of their reason is irrelevant.

Paul Ryan joined the Romney ticket because of the symbolic value he adds. He captures a certain feeling, a mindset, a budding zeitgeist--whatever term you prefer. That symbol exists outside of Ryan's actions as congressman--how else could he be both loved and hated for different reasons with the facts in plain view? A lack of realism at the core of our politics.

Ryan plays the same role for Romney that financial trading does for the economy--he drives value without relying on tangible results. It's a matter of presentation alone, a growth model whose working parts are vague at best, but whose line still trends upward.

The public debate over Ryan--and the debate funded by the Obama campaign--may convince voters of various facts about the man from Wisconsin and may succeed in poking holes in his aura. But these arguments imply that he is a viable candidate who must be argued against. In that way, his mere nomination demonstrates how little currency reality has in politics. Just as the financial industry can't be done away with without destroying the economy, the empty symbols our politicians have become--Ryan foremost among them--are holding politics hostage.

Pointing that fact out is almost insultingly obvious, and, more important, it misses the point. Everyone knows politics is one big lie--it's just a lie we've become completely dependent upon.