When someone says a public figure is a “good politician,” what they usually mean is that the person is able to convince a given audience–pundits, journalists, the public–to believe something about them.

This is Buzzfeed trying to illustrate that Paul Ryan is down with black people.
Republican Rep. Paul Ryan is a good politician.
For years, he was able to convince elite media that he was a “budget wonk” (FAIR Media Advisory, 8/14/12). He knew more about the way the government spent money than most of his colleagues, and he had bold ideas about how to balance the budget and reduce the debt
The truth is that the math never really added up, and it wasn’t clear he had any special knowledge of government spending (FAIR Blog, 8/20/12). What was clear was that Ryan’s budgets would inflict pain, mostly on poor people, in order to bring tax relief to wealthy people. And they wouldn’t really balance out anytime soon.
Nowadays, Ryan is on a new mission. To hear him–and the coverage he attracts (FAIR Blog, 11/20/13)–tell it, he wants to discover and promote new ways of helping poor people, since the old ways are (in his view) not working. The best way to make this case is to be seen near poor people, to speak about how you see fighting poverty as an important mission, and to hope that very little attention is paid to the actual policies you have pursued.
Ryan got all of that in a massive Buzzfeed report by McKay Coppins (4/28/14) headlined “Paul Ryan’s Inner City Education.” Ryan is on the scene at a Baptist church in Indianapolis to listen to “a combination of Bible verses and counseling for the neighborhood’s underachieving men.” Coppins cheers Ryan’s “immersion into a world that few in the D.C. political class dare to visit,” and writes that this
political transformation–from right-wing warrior-wonk crusading against the welfare state, to bleeding-heart conservative consumed with a mission to the poor–is one of the most peculiar, and potentially consequential, stories in politics today.
Indeed, Ryan “has charged headfirst into the war on poverty without a helmet; zealously and clumsily fighting for a segment of the American public that his party hasn’t reached” in years. He “is doing something rather unprecedented for a Republican: He is spending unchoreographed time with actual poor people. He is exposing himself to the complexities of low-income life that don’t fit in the 30-second spot, the outlay spreadsheet, or the stump speech applause line.”
Well, that all sounds great. So what’s the problem? Turns out, sadly, that some people don’t like Paul Ryan. Coppins writes that he
is also a deeply polarizing figure in Washington and beyond, a fact that has largely filtered the responses to his newfound passion for the poor into two categories: swoons and sneers.
So Paul Ryan is doing something remarkably admirable, which makes his critics “sneer”–or, as Coppins puts it later, “the audacity of his mission has driven some of his detractors nuts.” One such critic, New York‘s Jonathan Chait, is “rabid…the most prolific soldier in an army of liberal political writers” who have made Ryan “a natural villian in their writing” and have “relentless prosecuted him.”
In such a lengthy piece about Ryan, readers only get passing references to what critics have to say about Ryan’s actual policy record. It is evidently more important to characterize the attacks on Ryan as being unusually harsh. For instance, Ryan caused a minor controversy when he spoke about the problem of the “culture in our inner cities…generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value of the culture of work.” Afterwards, Buzzfeed explains, the “liberal punditocracy pounced,” and that wasn’t all: “Serious political reporters began calling Ryan’s office to ask if the congressman ‘really hates black people,’ according to one aide.”
That sounds a bit far-fetched, but an anonymous aide can say what they want. It all adds up to a portrait of an earnest guy trying to do the right thing who sometimes uses the wrong words, and the obsessive critics who won’t cut him a break.
Coppins spends little time conveying the criticism of Ryan’s budget proposals, but he does offer him some support:
If his rhetoric lacks poetry, his arguments against the current state-centric approach to aiding the poor is compelling. Since Lyndon B. Johnson declared a “war on poverty,” the US government has spent an estimated $13 trillion on federal programs that have resulted, 50 years later, in the highest deep poverty rate on record.
That jumped out at rabid Ryan critic Jonathan Chait (New York, 4/28/14), who argues it is deeply deceptive:
This statistic is one of the very few fact-based policy assertions in Coppins’ story. It is wildly misleading. Ryan is using a measure of poverty that excludes a lot of the subsidies government gives to the poor. He’s saying, in other words, that giving poor people money doesn’t make them less poor, if we disregard the money government gives them. If we count such subsidies, then the War on Poverty has in fact reduced deep poverty substantially.
Coppins writes that Ryan will present a poverty report at the end of this month,
and sometime this summer he plans to release a package of conservative anti-poverty proposals that will be trumpeted as the culmination of his work with the poor. His admirers will no doubt use the occasion to celebrate him as a forward-thinking Republican visionary. He will make the rounds on the Sunday morning talk shows. Political reporters will write stories about his rising stock in the 2016 campaign.
This piece will serve those efforts nicely.




A zealous rightwinger seeking favor from unemployed young men… Where have I heard that before?
Will Ryan’s campaign song be
“Cruel to Be Kind” … ?
Fifty years and $13 trillion later… I wonder what are the administrative expenses of distributing those funds and who is receiving the salaries and just how are those funds used to help those in “deep poverty”?
Seems to me parsing Paul Ryan like this misses the point. He is a central figure in the Republican Party’s successful effort to replace the American democracy with a plutocracy, and he should be removed from office.
Eh. Every time he falls out of the public spotlight, he scrambles to come up with something, anything, for attention (assurance of relevance). This show has run its course. It has grown stale.
Please, Ayn Ryan a budget wonk?
Only if you belive in fantasy fiction.
Why do remember the first Ryan “budget” being about 30 sheets of paper? That must have been one hell of a budget. I do not recall any publication of said budget though.
Listen to Ryans speech two weeks before the election where he laid out how Obama would effect this country and her poor.Her middle class,and her rich.Then listen to Obamas speech the same day.Ryan…..was correct in everything he prophesied.Listen to his speech.Write down the numbers and match em up.Then listen to Obama.Wrong on everything.Conversation over.We have two ways to go people.One is a nanny state where we tax success and subsidize failure.The other is the American way.
“”Then listen to Obamas speech the same day.Ryan…..was correct in
everything he prophesied.””
Still taking heavy amounts of Psychotropics I see. Only Micheal’s mind can the Republicans be gods and the other people have no clue. But then we have seen that neither does he.
Once more for the Road; Claiming something as factual, does not in fact, make it so. Simply being Troll-parrot for Tush Limburger is no way to go through life.
Padre if you remember Im not sold on the Rs either.But give the devil their due.They were right.And the left was as wrong as any political bunch has ever been.Listen to the speeches.Amazing how right they were.Though Ryan thought that by this time our economy would be up by 2%.It is actually one tenth of one percent!China over the last 5 years is up 24%.Padre if you are still carrying water for this bunch of morons…….
I would have liked to see more context for the $13 Trillion claimed spent over 50 years on poverty. If my math is correct, & the link below is accurate about fed spending, the 50 years from 1964 – 2013 the US spent a total of ~ $66.5 Trillion. $13 Trillion is ~ 20% of that. Is that correct?
http://federal-budget.findthebest.com/
Assumming $13 Trillion is correct & my math is correct – $13 Trillion = $13,000 Billion divided by 50 years = $260 Billion / year. The US pop grew from ~ 200 Million to 300 Million+ in those years. Poverty rate is ~ 10% (??), so $260 Billion would be spent on around 40 Million (? – assumming some above official poverty rate get some of this spending). That would make spending per person ~ $5,000 (? – after admin costs). A family of 3 would get ~ $15,000.
Some of these assumtions / math may very well be wrong. But I think a writer has an obligation in these kinds of stories to dig deeper & give us some context to give a good idea on whether anti-poverty spending is effective or not.
Prague Spring…….I would not try to extrapolate out simplistic gov supplied numbers.It is so much more complicated.Basically we see that money helps.Some would say HELPS to keep the poor quiet and anesthetized.But it does not overcome certain sociologic factors that seem to be becoming more entrenched.