As Paul Ryan edges closer to his House speakership decision, which half of his personality will come out? The controller or the corporatist?

First, there’s Ryan the controller: it’s rooted in the trauma he suffered at age 16 when he found his father (age 55) dead from a heart attack. He’s determined to beat the reaper by relentless physical exercise and his ambition to accomplish as much as possible ASAP. Deep inside his mind is a reminder at age 45, he’s got just ten years to go – to either surpass his father’s lifespan or not.  

Always ambitious, he made a wise choice in his freshman year to not to be a deputy whip in the leadership’s greasy pole contest. The deputy whip field is crowded; the winner must be an incredible fundraiser for Republican House campaigns.

Ryan’s path was to serve on top committees and rise within them to the chairmanship. He followed a predecessor’s example: Bill Thomas (R-CA, former employer of Kevin McCarthy). Thomas broke the old rule of seniority to become the Ways and Means committee chairman. He was a tireless fundraiser, but also a top policy guy with detailed knowledge of the 1990s health care law – something Thomas had made a priority to learn.

Likewise, Ryan’s name is linked with ‘wonk’ – due to his knowledge of entitlement laws.

Working one’s way up through the committee system takes self-discipline and control.

As for Ryan’s controller facet, when I worked on the Hill, it was well known that anyone who worked for him had to have read – and agreed with – Ayn Rand. This was how he ensured his staffers exactly matched his philosophy. Within his office walls, no time was wasted on internal debates or discussion: if Ryan had an initiative, it was the right one.

Vigorous fundraising is and was par for the course, but rising through a committee also means showing up for work: attending committee and subcommittee hearings. Going to full committee hearings is like showing up for class; the teacher (the chairman) takes attendance, and woe betide the absent member.  

Further, attending subcommittee hearings proves a commitment to the full committee’s work. Subcommittee hearings rarely focus on big issues, they’re mostly about minor stuff. But it means the member has self-discipline – by giving up several hours of precious time on Capitol Hill for the subcommittee and forgoing meetings with lobbyists or constituents.

The payoff: the engaged member is distinguished from the others by his or her initiative. All this Ryan did with gusto; keeping his eye on the prize of a committee chairmanship.

As for Ryan’s corporatist facet: while his fundraising has given him access to corporate boardrooms, on a fundamental level he is committed to Ayn Rand’s philosophy that successful businesses need a government that serves their interests.  

Rand’s novels conflated businesses into one successful male industrialist – but her idea was if government has a minimal role, businesses will flourish, and individuals will benefit. Libertarians and Rand fans may disagree with me, but I think it fits an old gender stereotype: the alpha male (business) versus the weak female (who needs help from the government).

We can find Ryan the corporatist in his policies for Social Security, Medicare and immigration.

For Social Security, Ryan supports putting some of a worker’s Social Security tax into an investment account – where Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) can be bought and sold. Even if a stock bought for an ETF is done via a computer program, it must be owned by a firm with a seat on the stock exchange. The firm then charges a fee for the trade. If the fee is just one cent per trade for one person’s account, multiply that by hundreds of millions of accounts, and total fees become large, with the Wall Street trading house recouping the fees.

With Medicare, Ryan has proposed a voucher system for seniors to purchase private health insurance. Poorer seniors would get a larger voucher; wealthier seniors would pay more out of pocket. Insurance companies would compete for customers, but would gain millions of dollars in fees, profits, etc.

Immigration: Ryan’s open-borders stance became headline news only recently but it fits his corporatist facet. He believes firms should hire any anyone they want regardless of the worker’s national origin. He uses ‘American Dream’ language to defend his plan, but its roots are strictly Randian.

For the speakership, Ryan’s ‘no conditions’ demand is no surprise, as it’s against his nature to cede control to others.

However, the speakership would give Ryan more scope to exercise his corporatist facet. His ambit to lift burdens from businesses would expand exponentially. While he might have to bring (infrequently) a hard-right bill to the floor, perhaps it’s worth it for the extra power.

Speaker Ryan would no longer be limited to tax and trade policy (per his current situation on Ways and Means). Instead, he could prioritize House floor action on all matters, including environmental and labor laws, intellectual property matters, and oil exports.
And being speaker would appeal to his deeply held beat-the-reaper sense. Before he hits age 55, his name would be in the history books as Speaker of the House, his portrait hung inside the Capitol. That just might be the tipping point if he chooses the speakership.