To the Editor:
Well, I certainly got that wrong. On the subject of Mitt Romney's likely running mate, I had previously speculated on three possibilities. Paul Ryan wasn't one of them.
Bottom line, it was a matter of misreading Romney's capacity for risk-taking. I'd bought into the idea of him as a super-cautious technocrat - if you like, the consultant-in-chief.
But, on reflection, that was too simple a view. Romney didn't accumulate his vast fortune by eschewing all risks. He made it by doing prodigious amounts of homework, and then taking calculated risks.
Even so, many of the ventures failed. But enough of them came in big to make all the difference.
And as political decisions go, choosing Ryan certainly involves a degree of risk. Or put another way, safer options were available.
For one thing, it'll be tougher for Ryan to deliver his home state than would have been the case for any of the three possibilities (Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Virginia Republican governor Bob McDonnell and Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman) mentioned in the June column. After all, Wisconsin hasn't gone Republican at the presidential level since Ronald Reagan's back-to-back victories in 1980 and 1984.
Further, Barack Obama carried the state by 14 points in 2008, so a Republican win there would require a huge turnaround. In fact, a transformation on that scale would likely mean a national Romney landslide, in which case Wisconsin wouldn't be critical.
Then there's the way in which Ryan, in his congressional capacity, has openly tackled the question of reforming Medicare, which is the giant U.S. government health insurance programme for seniors. Launched in the mid-1960s, Medicare has vastly expanded in the intervening decades.
Pretty much everyone now concedes that the current cost trajectory is unsustainable. However, getting specific about solutions is considered politically dangerous. Among other things, seniors pay close attention to politics and have a higher electoral participation rate than that of younger demographics.
But danger notwithstanding, Ryan has been active on the file for several years, proposing solutions and subsequently refining them. The latest iteration contemplates offering future seniors two options. One option would be to stay with traditional Medicare. The other option would provide government premium-support to buy a health benefits package from a private insurer.
Hence the accusation that Ryan would "end Medicare as we know it." At the same time, Democrats are generally reluctant to talk about the fact that Obama himself plans to cut Medicare.
Indeed, as liberal columnist - and Obama supporter - Ezra Klein acknowledges, "both Ryan and Obama envision the same long-term spending path for Medicare. The difference between the two campaigns is not how much they cut Medicare, but in how they cut Medicare."
Ryan proposes to do it by injecting a significant element of competition. By offering the option of premium-support - which includes allowing seniors to buy a less expensive package and pocket the difference between the support payment and their actual premium - the hope is that normal competitive processes will put a brake on costs.
Obama's approach is more top-down. New entities like the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) would determine what benefits to pay for and how much to pay for them.
But the disagreement is about means not ends. Both Ryan and Obama aim to curtail annual Medicare spending growth to GDP plus 0.5 per cent.
In an ideal world, these different approaches would make for a constructive debate. However, the world of politics is different. There it becomes a matter of competing narratives. Or to put it more crudely, who will win the demagoguery war.
Democrats will talk about Republicans gutting Medicare and "throwing granny off the cliff." In turn, Republicans will talk about Democrats raiding Medicare to pay for ObamaCare and subjecting seniors to IPAB-administered "death panels."
Given Ryan's visibility on the issue, Romney's choice runs the risk of raising his own campaign's exposure to Democratic attacks. In return, he gets a running mate who is personable, articulate, knowledgeable, and perfectly capable of going to battle. We'll soon see how the gamble plays out.
But whatever way it comes down, there's a noteworthy postscript. With the Romney-Ryan team consisting of a Mormon and a Roman Catholic, we have a Republican presidential ticket without a Protestant presence! To borrow a thought from Bob Dylan, the times are certainly changing.
Pat Murphy, Troy Media Corp.
