Brooks-Ryan Debate Reveals GOP's Inner Struggle

Today's debate between David Brooks and Rep. Paul Ryan on the role of government is one the entire GOP should be having.

Think tank debates in aren't usually dramatic events. So when Journalist Robert Stacy McCain tweeted that a debate at AEI between Rep. Paul Ryan and New York Times columnist David Brooks would be a "Cage Match Duel to the Death" an observer from outside the beltway might find the description hyperbolic.

The debate was ostensibly between competing conservative visions of government, the "limited government"of Rep. Ryan and AEI President Arthur Brooks, and the "limited but energetic" government of David Brooks.  Ryan argued that government should do little, and Brooks argued that government could, and should, be proactive to deal with issues such as human capital and income mobility. While there seemed to be a lot of commonality between the two on policy, there were serious divides in both tone, and underlying philosophy.

The most important potentially confrontational point for David Brooks was that the absolutist rhetoric pushed by Ryan and Arthur Brooks was contributing to the inability for the American political system to reach consensus on some of the most pressing entitlement challenges of a generation. The implications of this argument ring far beyond the confines of the AEI lecture room and could potentially rock the current consensus within conservatism if the implications were fully understood.

As a practical manner, one limitation of the debate was that Ryan had to leave early for a vote in the House and there was no Q&A afterwards. Given the high profile crowd of bloggers, journalists, and public intellectuals in the audience, the event seemed ripe for an informative back and forth.

If we had the chance, here are some questions we would have asked Rep. Paul Ryan:

1. Ryan argued that circumstances and politicians have forced America to face a stark choice, between a government that provides "a social safety net" and one that provides a "cradle-to-grave welfare state." Yet where exactly does he see the threat of a welfare state of that size?

The majority of the American welfare state is centered around the "grave" part of that equation (Social and Security and Medicare) with very little existing at the "cradle" part. Both Ryan and Brooks reminded us that we have already removed huge parts of the welfare state with 90’s era welfare reform, and Republicans have also been very successful in preventing the passage of unemployment insurance.

The problem is that we have a hyper-generous welfare state for old people. Where exactly else does Ryan see the pernicious reach of government hand-outs?

2. Ryan proposed a contrast between the mobs in France, Greece and the UK which have protested the austerity measures their governments put in place, with the more peaceful Tea Party rallies that  occurred in America. To what extent does Ryan think that the Tea Partiers are truly free market/austerity advocates when:

a) They want their elected representatives to "Keep your government hands off my Medicare"

b) They are more skeptical of free trade than even Democrats and Independents

c) The Radio and TV hosts they trust and listen to tell them that means testing Social Security is no different than confiscating their wealth:

Would Ryan perhaps be open to the counter argument that many of the Tea Partiers and people who voted in the 2010 midterms did so not because of Free Market principles, but because they were older?

As a rejoinder, I would ask whether it is a good thing that the GOP can proudly call itself the party of septuagenarians.

3. Ryan stated that one problem with America was that the perception of the role of government has changed since 1776. He blamed the progressives for this, and gave a short retelling of American history that revealed his worldview:

"Progressivism basically came from Germany to Madison, so I am very familiar with Hegel and Weber."

Ryan argued that because of this, Americans now believe that it is government's job to "grant" rights as opposed to believing that they have "inherent" rights from nature or God.

An appropriate question to Ryan (and other critics of 19th century progressivism) might be "So how do you think the Founding Fathers would have responded to the Industrial Revolution? Would they have done nothing at all? Would that have been right?"

David Brooks also could afford to develop some of his own ideas more.

1. Brooks suggested that Republicans had squandered the chance to reform Social Security because they represent an older and less educated electorate which is afraid of change. Would he be willing to extend this criticism directly and openly to the GOPs handling of the Obamacare?

2. Brooks spoke about how there was less of a "free market culture" in Europe compared to America, and he praised America for its uniquely dynamic culture. However, this was before commending the British and German center-right governments for their austerity measures. In addition, the Fraser Institute's rankings of Economic Freedom give Hong Kong and Singapore the highest rankings of economic freedom, with the US ranked 6th and other European social welfare havens (such as Denmark) highly ranked as well.

Ultimately, aren't these sorts of grand arguments about which "culture" is "more receptive" to a free market largely unhelpful? Especially when we see how economic freedom can be a truly global phenomenon. (In fact, hasn't a conservative talking point since the fall of the Iron Curtain been the success of capitalism to lift millions out of poverty across the globe in previously closed societies?)

3. Brooks suggested that different strands of conservatism have different points where they would want to "go back in time" in order to restore America: the Tea Party would want to go back to the founding, scholars at Claremont McKenna would want to return to before the progressive era, Amity Shlaes would want to return to before the New Deal, and David Brooks would want to return to before the Great Society (which he argued "eroded the character of society.") This brings up two points:

a) Does David Brooks think that his fellow conservatives have legitimate reasons to return to pre-industrial societies?

b) What hope is there for a conservative movement that can think about the problems in the future when it operates under the assumption that "Everything is now bad, and it was better in the past."

4. Brooks gave extensive praise to Paul Ryan's roadmap, as well as his Ryan-Rivlin plan. Does he think the GOP is capable of tackling his own pet issues, human capitol and income mobility, with the same gusto that it has when it tackles long term deficits?

The debate that Paul Ryan and David Brooks need to have is not only an interesting one, it is also desperately needed within the entire Republican party and conservative movement at all levels. It’s a shame that the debate at AEI only gave a small sampling of the scope of what is at stake.

Tweet

Follow Noah on Twitter: @noahkgreen