What We Can Learn From Ryan’s Endorsement

Sen. Paul Ryan endorsed the Republican Party’s 2016 Republican nominee, the presumptive and de facto nominee at least. The convention will formal confer the official title in an exciting climax that will keep everyone on the edge of their seats. As soon as ?news? of the endorsement broke there was an immediate and self-evident explanation by the political analysts and talking-heads that Ryan had no choice but to endorse. One might ask therefore, what does it mean to be endorsed by someone who has no choice; or what does it tell us about the politics of political parties?

So what can we learn?

We can learn, if we didn’t already know, a variety of things about politics, Parties, media, and the voters/public. Of course that we can learn from this doesn’t in any way mean that we will. As in all areas, the act of learning requires that information is noticed (in some way attended to), that some processing of the information creates a new state of awareness that would affect future behavior differently than if that information had not been noticed, and that the information or the processed results from it are retained/remembered at some level. Perhaps a simpler statement would be that ‘learning means that a changed understanding has occurred’, but like most things in life making simpler statements doesn’t mean that it’s easier to comprehend the meaning of such statements.

Learning something about politics: Ryan didn’t immediately endorse Trump once he had breached the ‘inevitable’ delegate barrier so there must have been some reasoning for refraining to ‘hop on the wagon’. Since we are talking about a politics the reasoning at least in part needs to be examined through the lens of a political calculus. One variable for Ryan most certainly was how to use his endorsement delay (assumes the inevitability as a given) to gain influence, position and commitments from the situation. In other words, to do what any politician would do, to increase their political capital and to get his agenda included in the Party’s platforms, policies, and plans. Thus through his delay tactic, Ryan is more powerful and influential within the Party. His position is strengthened regardless of whether Trump wins or loses, and he has established himself as an independent power-base for shaping and directing legislative direction and as a counter-balance to the Administration, even should it be Trump’s.

As a leader in the Party, particularly among the ideological conservatives, the delay provided for Ryan to get meetings and understandings from the Trump campaign that he thinks will serve his views, principles and policies. By engaging in these discussions, Ryan provides a basis for why what he thinks is in the best interests of the Party, the nation and his own career are being sufficiently met by or agreed to by Trump and his campaign. Thus Ryan enhances his image and his actual credibility with the Party, and with his own supporters.

Given that his endorsement was a given, or more accurately an event that he had no choice but to make, Ryan used his delay to an advantage which he could not have gotten had the Trump campaign been more politically astute in reacting to. At the political level, Ryan out maneuvered everyone else and it’s not clear anyone noticed.

Learning something about the Party: There are a few things that I would expect are commonly known about the Party, but on the off chance that they aren’t then you could learn that the Party puts its own interests before the nation, our citizens, its own constituents, its own ideology and principles, and our democratic form of government and American values. Since Ryan had and has no choice in endorsing the Party’s candidate, the Party requires absolute allegiance and obedience to its Party-first doctrine. This isn’t a unique or novel aspect of a political Party, it’s just a disappointing one. Surprisingly, it represents a philosophical and social mentality that is in oddly what should be in direct opposition to Ryan’s own views. Perhaps Ryan is struggling as best he can within a situation where he cannot find a clear path toward the goals that he believes in. What we can learn for this dilemma is that not every challenge is met and overcome by those who are confronted by the challenge, no matter how much they want to do what is right the Party offers no choice but to conform and obey.

Learning something about the media: The ‘Ryan Endorsement’ issue even tells us something about the media. What was the issue(s) that concerned Ryan that were at odds with the Trump campaign or Trump’s policies that required clarity or compromise before an endorsement could be given? What were the details of the resolution that enabled Ryan to support Trump? If it’s accepted that Ryan didn’t have a choice except to endorse then what did the media provide by way of information about what the delay was for? Did the media ever mention that Ryan would eventually ‘have to endorse’ before he announced his endorsement?

So what does this inform us about the media? It says that the media is quite ineffective and inefficient in applying any critical analysis to topics that they identify as an issue. They turn to ‘experts’ who they expect to provide them with answers and insights into an issue, to their questions, and to provide an understanding of an event, condition or circumstances. However, they don’t get answers or insights that appear to actually provide any substantive information. That may be a result that they don’t know they are not getting any value-added information and just accept that the answers given are the best that they can get. We learn that the media is very inept at following up on a response, in assessing defects or contradictions in answers, or in challenging their ‘experts’ to provide either immediate sources or references to their statements or in even asking if the sources will be provided within 24 hours in writing.

We can learn much from the media here, but it’s not necessarily much that puts them in a favorable light.  The purpose of a free, independent and constitutionally protected media is to provide information on events that serve to inform the public. Meeting this objective isn’t something that is accomplished simply by spending more and more time talking about the issue without providing any substance about the issue.

Learning something about the voters/public: What can be learned about voters or the public depends upon the various groups and demographics that compose the overall population. There are the Party-aligned groups, the Party-unaligned, the non-Partied but ideologically bent, the single-issued, the racial/ethnic/economic/gender/belief-orientation/generational/level of education stratifications that present views of the world that filter the ‘meaning’ or ‘importance’ of items like Ryan’s endorsement. If you are a Party faithful or die-hard then Ryan’s endorsement is demanded and required or you cannot be a Republican. Much like there will be a Democratic endorsement expectation and requirement for their Party faithful and die-hards. So for that segment of the population that falls into these groups, Party affiliation preempts any individual or personal views on what justifies and validates an endorsement. A Party member’s endorsement being required renders it unsubstantial and unimportant, it's just a pro forma task to retain one’s credentials in the Party. 

For the unaligned the endorsement is more relevant in terms of the individual given the endorsement than about the person being endorsed. Most people who are unaligned likely expect that the ‘no choice’ requirement means that it doesn’t mean anything that they care about. But the conditions and circumstances and the nature of the endorsement may be significant to this segment of voters. If the endorsement comes with a rationale and energy that demonstrates that the endorsement would have been made regardless of the Party’s ‘no-choice’ requirement. If the endorsement seems to be a cursory action that just couldn’t be avoided, then it may in fact be a de facto act of rejection in disguise.

For other groups/segments in the population that view Ryan’s endorsement through their own lens the consequence is more likely to be a response impacting Ryan than Trump. If the endorsement is seen as a capitulation on principles, policies or issues that are the core drivers to those individuals then it would not be advantageous to Ryan. If the endorsement is seen as a misjudgment or failure of leadership then it weakens Ryan’s image, support and influence with these groups.

The public may be influenced by endorsements but not necessarily in the manner or ways that the politicians or the Parties believe. Endorsement are double-edged weapons which more likely than not hurt the endorser than benefit the endorsed. For those who require it, the endorsements are useless in gaining any actual value. For those who look at the endorsement in non-Party terms, the significance is much more unpredictable since the “cause and effect” consequences from the endorsement depends upon other factors that are relevant to the individual voter who judges that endorsement in terms of their values, issues, and positions.

We learn that the public can see an endorsement as anywhere from being total unimportant and irrelevant to being a critical test of character, principles and values. Thus if not placed in the right context, politicians are skating on thin ice if they do not understand how the ripples from their endorsement will affect the voters’ boats.