When political opinion holders discuss the disconnect between the outlook of House Speaker Paul Ryan vs the perspectives of republican presidential nominee Donald Trump the emphasis is often on the wrong ideological syllable. Here’s the consideration as viewed through our rather lengthy historical research.
At the very core of the legislative bodies within the House of Representatives and the Senate a person must first focus their own perspective and ask themselves: “what does a representative legislative body mean to me“?
If you answer that question with a form of opinion “the federal politician should represent the will of his/her constituency“, you are holding a traditional federalist type outlook and expectation.
However, in modern political reality -with the increased legislative influences of corporate interests superseding the will of the electorate- a person must accept the legislative outcomes are no longer based on the ‘will of the electorate’.
An intellectually honest person only needs to look as far as the statements from Jonathan Gruber, ObamaCare architect, to understand the legislative objectives are now carried forth on a principle of ‘we know better‘. Indeed, when Obamacare was created a full 70% of the electorate did not want it, yet congress were determined to create it.
Now a conservative person would decry that ObamaCare was exclusively a usurpation carried out by the Democrat party, and indeed that’s the traditional and popular opinion. However, that same perspective must also accept that large, generally republican, corporate enterprises also supported ObamaCare – like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
It is a fact that Democrats suffered a severe and generational punishment for ObamaCare. They lost more seats in the next election (2010) than in all of modern history. The electoral push-back continued again in 2012 with even more losses. The reverberations also carried through state governorships and legislative bodies. The downstream consequences of passing legislation with only 30% national support were massive, and remain today.
The 2009 supreme court Citizens United decision only made matters worse. The influence of the electorate now further diminished because corporations can provide all the financial resources needed to retain office. Politicians no longer need to rely upon donations from their constituents and are capable of filling funding gaps through corporate donations to political action committees.
The leverage to ensure a federal budget is completed was also inherently dispatched.
Conservatives heralded the C.U. decision without fully thinking through the unintended consequences. Six years later and we see Super-PAC’s are able to fund an entire run for presidential office, and Omnibus spending bills now finance federal spending. In essence, the candidate has been financially pulled further away from the voter’s opinion they need to connect with. It’s an odd dynamic.
This sets the stage to understand the fundamental disconnect between Donald Trump and Paul Ryan. If you look at what Ryan’s agenda items are, as shared via various interviews and op-eds, you’ll note they are almost entirely disconnected from the electorate, from Main Street.
Speaker Ryan is working on a set of legislative agenda items which are entirely divergent from the prioritization of the electorate. Traditional special interests are now exclusive interests.
If you look at the origin of the legislative priorities from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, you’ll find they are Wall Street priorities – they are also Paul Ryan priorities. A Puerto Rico bond holder investment bailout appears at the top of the current list.
Nationalist priorities like a federal budget, border security or military finances, now fall far down the priority scale. As long as those who finance the political system are happy, Ryan’s job is secure.
Corporate interests now determine legislative priorities. You can attempt to refute this assertion, but reality speaks for itself.
This is fundamentally why Donald Trump continues to tell Paul Ryan that his endorsement is essentially unneeded. Trump tells Ryan not to compromise his “principles“, because Ryan’s principles are not in alignment with the priorities of nominee Donald Trump.
At their very core Donald Trump is a nationalist-minded politician; hence “America First” as the guiding principle. Speaker Paul Ryan, in his 18th year inside the DC bubble, is now a globalist-minded politician in alignment with Wall Street, not Main Street.
Nothing about this difference will ever reconcile.
In 2011 when Ryan created the budgetary pathway, President Obama put him in the front row of a policy speech where he ridiculed Ryan into irrelevancy. It was an inflection point; Ryan didn’t fight for it, he sulked. With the Pathway To Prosperity rebuked by the larger UniParty, Ryan’s compatriots attended his delicate sensibilities.
Wounded, Ryan never recovered from that undressing. Nor did he ever attempt to push for a federal budget again. He lost. He acted as a loser. U.S. CoC president Tom Donohue, noting an opportunity to expand his own influence, stepped in to sooth the battered ego.
In many ways Donohue was the bridge Wall Street used to connect Paul Ryan to Mitt Romney only a year later.
Ryan doesn’t think about the closed manufacturing plants in Janesville Wisconsin, because he see’s himself as bigger than Main Street. He is absolutely beholden to those who pen the scripts he repeats to the electorate. Ryan is now listening to those who reinforce his goals are to carry out larger agenda items in Indonesia, Vietnam and Taiwan via the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal.
When Ryan hears the word “immigration”, he defines it as the corporate need. When Trump hears immigration, he defines it by considering an impacted U.S. worker.
When Ryan hears the word “jobs”, he defines it through the Wall Street service economy. When Trump hears the word “jobs”, he thinks about people creating things, building things, manufacturing things.
Ryan’s legislative priorities are now disconnected from our representative opinions of those priorities. Affirming those priorities, to the antithesis of the U.S. electorate, is also why corporate media -in particular Right-Wing corporate media- will attempt to protect Ryan from the consequences of focusing on their synergistic needs.
In the era of the UniParty, the corporations which control the funding of the structure will now oppose any entity who can/would disrupt their plans and objectives. The traditional Democrat vs Republican stance is no longer valid. Both represent the interests of their financiers, Wall Street.
This is why Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump begin their campaigns against the same oppositional forces. The difference between the two groups of supporters, is that Donald Trump’s primary team, us, have more historic reference points and were able to overcome the Republican side of the UniParty apparatus by highlighting what was factually evident and irrefutable by the Uniparty defenders.
Many Sanders supporters, sans PUMA’s, don’t have the same points of reference; they cannot fight their way out of their pigeon holes. If they do actually unite and decide to make that battle urgent, Philadelphia will be uncontrolled chaos.
No-one should expect to see nationalist-minded Donald Trump unifying with globalist-minded Paul Ryan in any way other than mere shallow optics. Nor will any member of congress (House or Senate), who holds Ryan’s “principal outlook”, be an integral part of the Trump campaign or Trump administration.
Exactly the opposite is true amid all elected officials. Just like there was in 1979, there are two factions antithetical to each other. The difference between 1979 and 2016 is we will not see any acquiescence to the opposition.
Remember, absolutes: “we either have a country or we do not“!
There will not be a vice-president Bush.
Donald Trump will not cede an inch – instead he will call out the opposition, even within his own party, and label them as the opposition. “We either have a country, or we do not”.
Trump is taking all opposition down to the mattresses. This contrast is not about ego or even ideology…
…. This contrast is about Making America Great Again.
Finally, watch Marco Rubio closely. He is, at this moment, directly in that introverted “Robert the Bruce” space where very personal and philosophical decisions are being made.