Home Politics Atheism Culture Books
Colophon Contact RSS



Aug 22, 2012 4:49 PM

Parsing Ferguson


Certain corners of the blogosphere are getting testy:
He is merely absurd, or simply evil, I can’t decide which. He has made a fool of himself, of course, but his performance doesn’t deserve the dignity that would derive from this designation. He’s not a Joker, he’s a Thief. He remains a moron, in any case.
Probably taking things a tad too far. Ferguson is, generally speaking, an academic with a history of fine scholarly writing behind him. He has produced a number of excellent books and documentaries, and deserves respect for his standing in the academic community. I don't by any means agree with Matthew Yglesias in saying that he has crossed from the realm of respectability to a kind of "kitchen sink" cheap punditry. I just think he's wrong. But in any case, he's certainly presented a far more persuasive and convincing case for Romney than anyone on the Right — and that includes Romney himself.

What irks me more than anything else in Ferguson's piece is the way in which he wrongly picks up the thinking that this election is somehow an assessment of Obama's report card. Even Ferguson himself admits that Romney is "not the best" candidate he can imagine. His love of Romney's campaign is instead the product of his being so very, very enamoured of his running mate. Ferguson writes of being "blown away" by Ryan. " On meeting him:
Ryan blew me away. I have wanted to see him in the White House ever since.
There's a very good reason why Paul Ryan is a dangerous choice for Mitt Romney, and it's because Ryan makes people very nervous. Ferguson says that Paul Ryan is most unlike Obama in that he has a plan and not a "narrative" for the country.

But of course Ryan does have a narrative, and it's one based on a strict set of conservative ideological rules. You might remember when, in 2004, Ryan persisted with a plan to privatise social security. As a conservative measure, it made no sense in any vein other than an ideological one. It wouldn't have in any way reduced government debt, as was frequently claimed, since it was simply a plan to shift money from one place to another, privately-held place, and at a cost of two trillion dollars in transition expenses. But, naturally, such details didn't much matter: Ryan's plan was not so much about sincere conservatism but instead about making a strident ideological statement about what he perceived to be the proper relationship between Americans and the federal government. Ryan's narrative, and the plan that is derived from it, takes its cues from pre-determined Randian philosophy.

Never mind the details.