Moderates in a Corner

With Paul Ryan’s entry, democracy becomes more radical.

The politician, who will be vice president of the United States if Mitt Romney wins the White House, has some qualities appreciated by many current voters, not just Americans. Paul Ryan is young (42 years old, but he has been a member of Congress since he was 24), he is a very talented communicator, and he falls firmly in line with the more radical positions of the political family (the Republican right), to which he belongs. He has no doubts. To fulfill the America of his dreams, taxes should be substantially reduced; taxes on business halved; public spending on health care, pension, and food aid to the underprivileged ruthlessly cut; and immigration strictly controlled. He is liberal, but conservative on abortion and same-sex marriage. Again, concerning the right to bear arms, he seems to be close to the National Rifle Association, the powerful lobby of those who think that rifles and large caliber guns are an essential constitutional right.

Apparently, this is nothing new. In the United States there have always been politicians who passionately believe in God and the marketplace. But Ryan has been chosen to enhance the image of a man who, when he was governor of Massachusetts, was considered the more “centrist” of the greatest Republican exponents.

Today, however, Romney seems to believe he stand a better chance to win, if he has by his side a companion known, among other things, for having presented to the Congress a disputed draft budget, which was controversially the opposite of Barack Obama’s budget for 2010 and 2011.

As a result, we are faced with a new strategy. The most credible candidates in the largest Western democracies have long since campaigned, beyond the traditional rhetoric, to gain the moderate center, i.e. the middle zone that is not ideologically aligned, and which the British call, the “floating vote.” It is possible that this new calculation has some foundation. In times of economic crises and strong political conflict, the middle zone is restricted, and the more radical solutions — right or left — seem more attractive.

What is now happening in the United States has already happened in some recent European elections, where the radical fringes have become more frequent almost everywhere — it could also occur in the 2013 Italian and German elections. To believe that winners will have to come down to earth and water down their programs may comfort us. Today, nobody, not even the president of the United States, can make an economic policy without considering a number of uncontrollable external factors, from the euro’s future to the Chinese political system. But a government that does not keep its election promises will, especially at this time, exacerbate the disappointment of voters who believed in those promises, and will nourish anti-political movements, which are now present in all Western countries. We already have a serious economic crisis and, at this rate, we run the risk of having a worse crisis tomorrow: that of democracy.