Governor Romney’s selection of Congressman Ryan as his running mate assured the re-election of President Obama. Will Milberg already explained this from the point of view of the politics of economics a year and a half ago, while I first suggested my reasons in my review of Obama’s 2011 State of the Union address and Ryan’s official Republican response.

Romney has now firmly identified himself with a true-believing ideologist. The Ryan – Romney budget proposals, empowered by Ryan’s ideology, will hurt the guy who wanted Obama to keep his dirty, government hands off his Medicare, and many more people who depend on social programs in their daily lives. Thus, Milberg was quite sure when the Ryan plan was announced that the Republicans were finished.

And even though the nation is very divided, ideological extremism, even when it is in the name of the core American value of liberty, turns people, left, right and center, off, as the Republican nominee for president, Barry Goldwater learned in 1964.

Ryan’s ideology is not completely coherent. It has three sources: libertarian thought, a fundamentalist approach to the constitution, and a narrow understanding of natural law theory and the theological foundations of modern democracy. He recognizes tensions between these positions, but it doesn’t seem to bother him or slow him down. He still moves from theoretical certainty to practical policy as a true believer, and he does it with a happy and appealing smile on his face, which would be quite familiar to Milan Kundera, as he depicted such smiles in his novels A Book on Laughter and Forgetting and The Unbearable Lightness of Being.

The Congressman’s libertarianism comes via Ayn Rand, revealed in a speech he gave to the organization dedicated to keeping her flame, the Atlas Society. He explained:

I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are. It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff. We start with Atlas Shrugged. People tell me I need to start with The Fountainhead then go to Atlas Shrugged [laughter]. There’s a big debate about that. We go to Fountainhead, but then we move on, and we require Mises and Hayek as well.

But the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.

In almost every fight we are involved in here, on Capitol Hill, whether it’s an amendment vote that I’ll take later on this afternoon, or a big piece of policy we’re putting through our Ways and Means Committee, it is a fight that usually comes down to one conflict: individualism vs. collectivism.

Ryan approaches the constitution as a libertarian and an avowed enemy of progressivism. He explained in an interview with Glenn Beck, which led Beck to become Ryan’s very strong advocate.

What I have been trying to do, and if you read the entire Oklahoma speech or read my speech to Hillsdale College that they put in there on Primus Magazine, you can get them on my Facebook page, what I’ve been trying to do is indict the entire vision of progressivism because I see progressivism as the source, the intellectual source for the big government problems that are plaguing us today and so to me it’s really important to flush progressives out into the field of open debate.

GLENN: I love you.

PAUL RYAN: So people can actually see what this ideology means and where it’s going to lead us and how it attacks the American idea.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on just a second. I ‑‑ did you see my speech at CPAC?

PAUL RYAN: I’ve read it. I didn’t see it. I’ve read it, a transcript of it.

GLENN: And I think we’re saying the same thing. I call it ‑‑

PAUL RYAN: We are saying the same thing.

GLENN: It’s a cancer.

PAUL RYAN: Exactly. Look, I come from ‑‑ I’m calling you from Janesville, Wisconsin where I’m born and raised.

GLENN: Holy cow.

PAUL RYAN: Where we raise our family, 35 miles from Madison. I grew up hearing about this stuff. This stuff came from these German intellectuals to Madison‑University of Wisconsin and sort of out there from the beginning of the last century. So this is something we are familiar with where I come from. It never sat right with me. And as I grew up, I learned more about the founders and reading the Austrians and others that this is really a cancer because it basically takes the notion that our rights come from God and nature and turns it on its head and says, no, no, no, no, no, they come from government, and we here in government are here to give you your rights and therefore ration, redistribute and regulate your rights. It’s a complete affront of the whole idea of this country and that is to me what we as conservatives, or classical liberals if you want to get technical.

GLENN: Thank you.

PAUL RYAN: ‑‑ ought to be doing to flush this out. So what I was simply tying to do in that speech was simply saying those first versions, those first progressives, they tried to use populism and popular ideas as a means to getting ‑‑ detaching people from the Constitution and founding principles to pave the way for the centralized bureaucratic welfare state.

In the Hillsdale Speech and the Oklahoma speech Ryan does indeed explain himself more fully. His way of thinking about contemporary problems is deductive. He starts with simple propositions about the world, liberty and the rule of law, and then based on these propositions he understands complexity in a way that is quite similar to Beck’s approach. Progressivism bad. Individualism good. The constitution is understood as a univocal document that supports one party, the Republican Party, and its present agenda. The Democrats and their leader, on the other hand, are seen as undermining the founding document. They are a cancer, not opponents, but enemies.

This is where Ryan parts company with Rand. Instead of her atheism, he believes that the American system is a manifestation of God’s will. This he strikingly demonstrated in his speech on Saturday, accepting Romney’s nomination of him for Vice President. He declared: “Our rights come from nature and God, not government.” The sentence passed without much notice. Red meat for the religious right no doubt. But I wonder whose God and why God, and whose account of nature? Is it that of sound biology and environmental science? Or is it the creationist account? This is scary stuff. And I think as Americans went in response to Goldwater, they will go as well with Romney – Ryan.

Perhaps, therefore, the Romney – Ryan ticket will try to moderate their positions. Romney’s politics is notably flexible. Ryan is the ideologue. Romney isn’t. But they will then be running not only against Obama, but also against themselves. Romney was for “Romney – Obama Care,” until he was against it, and now Romney and Ryan may try being against (or perhaps more accurately not completely for) the Ryan Budget after they were for it. As Milberg put it: Obama Wins!

All I could do was to look at my friend with a blank expression, completely stunned and humbled. These words weren’t spoken with the least bit of aggression, as one might think. Rather, they were delivered with a straight, honest face and in a soft-spoken manner, and still managed to convey all the seriousness in the world. The words struck me more so for two reasons. Firstly, I consider my undergraduate senior thesis to be the culmination and high-point of a grueling intellectual journey undertaken over five years. Secondly, my project is dedicated to my friends because they have often been my most ardent supporters as well as my harshest critics during this journey. Yet, there she was, a friend mind you, effortlessly reducing my best academic work to a heap of worthless trash!

In retrospect, her attitude towards a piece of academic writing and a person who aspires to be an academic was not surprising at all. Current opinion on the value and worth of the institutional home of the academic — the university — is far from being conclusively positive. My friend had recently experienced and witnessed some of the worst tendencies of academia at a conference at which she presented a paper. Rather than asking a question about the presentation, a philosophy instructor in the audience had chosen to speak to my friend in a patronizing manner, suggesting that her interest in her chosen subject of inquiry was worrisome, thinking that it was unhealthy for a girl of her age.

Thus, understanding the source of her disdain towards my project was not difficult. Academics and university professors aren’t always worthy role-models, to say the least. Many people I’ve spoken to insist that academics don’t really do anything, just talk; and you can bet there’s going to be a lot of self-serving conversation (at academic conferences, for example, not to say that there aren’t constructive conferences). No wonder academics are often guilty of having inflated egos, which would put the most proud of monarchs to shame. Moreover, academics often have a (well-earned) reputation for being dreamers whose “work” isn’t really of much worth. They don’t really live in the “real world” (or so we are told).

This is not only the view of those who remain outside the university as an institution, but also of those who are very much part of it. Let me cite a few examples from the field of study with which I am most familiar. With regards to economics, Robert Heilbroner and William Milberg have written that “at its peaks, the ‘high theorizing’ of the present period attains a degree of unreality that can be matched only by medieval scholasticism” (The Crisis of Vision in Modern Economic Thought, pg. 4). John Kay (Visiting Professor at the London School of Economics) wrote an essay last year on the state of economics and concluded it with a remark about economists’ “work” during this last economic crisis: “Economists – in government agencies as well as universities – were obsessively playing Grand Theft Auto [a video game] while the world around them was falling apart.” In a similar vein, an article published in 2009 by The Economist on the state of economics was titled “The other-worldly philosophers.” Of course, even though these observations are restricted to economics as a discipline and as a profession, I wouldn’t hesitate to think that they are indicative of the culture of academia in general. In doing so, I am following Peter Berger, who in his article on the state of sociology, says:

“In diagnosing the condition of sociology, one should not view it in isolation. Its symptoms tend to be those afflicting the intellectual life in general.” [Peter L. Berger, “Sociology: A Disinvitation?,” Society (November/December 1992): 18.]

What does all this mean for my (and others’) aspirations of being an academic? Despite the above observations, the fact remains that academia as a world in itself is very real and its influence is far-reaching, extending into society, politics and economics no less. The crucial question is this: Can academics – and the university as an institution – still engage with society in a meaningful and constructive manner? A dialogical relationship with society at large is a must if universities are to remain relevant to modern society in general and to the varying, specific cultural contexts in which they are individually situated.

Another friend recently asked me something to the following effect: “So after this undergraduate experience, have you become disillusioned with academia?” My answer to this question is both yes and no. Yes, there are many narrow-minded ideologues and pseudo-intellectuals whose work and teaching make students like me (who are not yet truly entrenched in academia like many of our professors are) question the supposed worth of academia. At the same time, there are academics whose work informs and contextualizes public debates and conversations so as to make them more constructive and relevant. That is, they do help improve our understanding of our world and of ourselves.

One of my teachers recently said to me that the best writing is that which is informed by an academic perspective, yet is accessible to an educated non-specialist. This remark encapsulates for me the idea of a “public intellectual”, which perhaps serves as a more worthy model than that of a “pure academic.” Far from being an “other-worldly philosopher”, the public intellectual is not a permanent resident of the proverbial ivory tower – more like a visitor. While enthusiastically participating in the town square adjoining the tower, he does bring to his discussions in the former the perspective he gains from trips to the latter. Conversely, his view of the town square from above is consciously shaped by his experience on the ground in the town square. That is, the public intellectual allows his academic work and his engagement with the public at large to re-shape and complement each other in a dialectical manner.

Periods of change and transition offer us good opportunities to reflect on the past. Having just finished undergraduate studies spanning half a decade, I’d say my experience of academia has been a mixed bag. There certainly has been a certain amount of disillusionment, but I have no doubt universities and academics still have a lot to offer. However, to remain relevant and to be able to contribute, current and future academics will do well to listen closely to the voices – coming from within and without academia – which are expressing dissatisfaction about the current role of academia (or the lack thereof) in helping societies across the world grapple with major concerns of the day. Ignoring these voices will only undermine their own value as academics and of the university as a major institution.

I welcome Will Milberg’s response to my book and was pleased with his appreciation of how the case of Argentina challenges conventional wisdom in economics. His review adds to the debate about Argentina, highlighting one of my motivations for writing the book: to show how the Argentine experience since 2001 flies in the face of economic pundits, both in the academy and in the financial press, and that it is important to pay attention. Milberg’s message was seconded by Paul Krugman in a NY Times blog posting in which he directly identifies “conventional wisdom” as obscuring accurate perception of strong Argentine recent economic performance.

I would carry this further to the case of the recent re-nationalization of the Argentine oil company, YPF. The exaggerated external critique and prediction of economic doom once again for Argentina fails to see that this decision makes sense if the government is able to achieve its own institutional objective of making YPF a well-run enterprise serving the national interest by expanding energy production. Commentaries by The Financial Times and The New York Times, with the exception of Krugman, sound eerily similar to their alarmist predictions in 2002 that Argentina would fall off the tip of South America after the default on its debt. Conventional wisdom, I believe, as Milberg notes, is sorely in need to revision.

And while I very much agree with most of Milberg’s observations about the Argentine case, and accept his friendly critique of some parts of my book, I think that he is too easily accepting some external views, from the U.S. and Europe, that “the country is once more on the edge.” This is not true in terms of its growth, balance of payments, fiscal deficit, growing investments in infrastructure, and most importantly reduced poverty and inequality. Low unemployment continues despite some slowdown in the construction sector.

Recent policy decisions and major legislative victories by President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner on critical issues of social policy and the reorganization of the Central Bank demonstrate continued governmental momentum in strengthening “the model.” GDP growth in 2011 was 8.9%, an outstanding performance, particularly in a context of global economic uncertainty in Europe and the United States.

The YPF decision is supported by more than 75% of the Argentine population and is again an example where the logic of giving priority to domestic interests above foreign obligations makes good political sense and has brought clearly identifiable economic benefits to the country.

The issue of inflation remains a major concern, as real inflation is probably close to 25%, and deserves government attention. The unresolved issue of the controversial  calculation of inflation by INDEC, the government’s statistical office, probably itself contributes to uncertainty and thus itself fuels inflationary expectations.

The continuing drama of Argentine expectations deserves deeper historical analysis. Expectations play a major role in behavior and for different reasons, both the government and external observers should be careful in fueling negative expectations. Global capital will not benefit if Argentina’s economy fails to grow or worse still, falls into recession. Smart investors should study the Argentine case in detail to learn that there are lessons which should be considered, as solutions are suggested for Greece, Spain, and the rest of Europe, not to speak of a still sputtering US economy. Argentina’s government has learned that it must chart its own path, listening to the world at large, but in the end, make its own decisions in the interests of its people. That, after all, is part of the meaning of sovereignty and democracy, both of which cannot be taken for granted in a period of globalization.

As Will Milberg anticipated, President Obama gave a speech last night that did not just involve political positioning. It was a serious Address to a Joint Session of Congress about our economic problems, proposing significant solutions. The address was also politically astute, and will be consequential. Obama was on his game again, revealing the method to his madness.

His game is not properly appreciated, as I have argued already here. He has a long term strategy, and doesn’t allow short term tactics to get in the way. He additionally understands that politics is not only about ends, but also means.

Many of his supporters and critics from the left, including me, have been seriously concerned about how he handled himself in the debt ceiling crisis. He apparently compromised too readily, negotiated weakly, another instance of a recurring pattern. In the first stimulus, healthcare reform, and the lame duck budget agreement, it seemed that he settled for less, could have got more, was too soft. But, of course, this is not for sure. I find that my friends who supported Hillary Clinton look at me, as an early and committed Obama supporter, differently now and express more open skepticism about Obama these days. But I think, as was revealed last night, that Obama’s failures have been greatly exaggerated. (Today only about political economic issues)

A worldwide depression was averted. The principle of universal health care for all Americans is now part of our law, the most significant extension of what T. H. Marshall called social citizenship since the New Deal. And, a completely unnecessary American induced global crisis did not occur. None of this was pretty. The President had to gain the support of conservative Democrats (so called moderates) and Republicans for these achievements. But it was consequential. In my judgment, despite complete, and not really loyal, Republican opposition to every move he has made, he has governed effectively, steering the ship of state in the right direction, despite extremely difficult challenges.

And during his political battles, he has maintained a civil respect for his opponents, never treating them as enemies, his soft touch, which is greatly criticized by the base. From serious economic critics, such as Paul Krugman, to his African-American celebrity critics, such as Tavis Smiley and Cornell West, there is a sense that he has not fought hard enough.  But hard is not always the most effective. This was revealed last night.

His speech was part of his overall strategy to address the primary economic challenge of our day and to do so without abandoning a commitment to social justice. There is a broad consensus among economists and serious policy analysts that the American economy requires two things: short term stimulus and long term deficit control, and that a key to this long term goal is controlling the costs of health care in America. Sober, politically wise analysts also recognize that pursuit of perfect solutions should not get in the way of politically possible solutions. It’s better to move in the right direction than to not move at all, or to move in the wrong direction. This requires that people who don’t agree on everything to manage to act together on some things. It requires compromise, persistent effort. Obama is on to this. He does it as a matter of principle, not simply as a tactic. He clearly wants to find a common ground. Every move he makes he tries to include Republicans and their ideas, conservative as well as liberal Democrats. He is a principled centrist.

But last night he revealed that he is not pursuing a center just because he likes to be in the middle. As I have maintained before, he is a centrist working to move the center left. He understands the conservative criticism of statism, but still thinks the state has an important role to play. He is centrally focused on social justice, as he works to make a concern for social justice a matter of centrist concern.

The speech presented his American Jobs Act, a bill that utilizes the two primary means to address the great danger of a double-dip recession that Milberg highlighted in his post: payroll tax cuts for employees and employers, and an increase in infrastructure investment. There was also special focus in the speech and in the proposed legislation on those who are suffering most directly from the recession: the unemployed, the poor and the young.

And he managed to do this by proposing actions that have all had bipartisan support in the past. He is identifying a center, which will enable common action.

“Every proposal I’ve laid out tonight is the kind that’s been supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past.  Every proposal I’ve laid out tonight will be paid for.  And every proposal is designed to meet the urgent needs of our people and our communities.”

But he is still committed to central principles:

“But what we can’t do — what I will not do — is let this economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades.  (Applause.)  I reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety.  I reject the argument that says for the economy to grow, we have to roll back protections that ban hidden fees by credit card companies, or rules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury, or laws that prevent the health insurance industry from shortchanging patients.  I reject the idea that we have to strip away collective bargaining rights to compete in a global economy. “

Things are adding up. Stimulus, health care, deficit control, more stimulus. He is building on his past, even if flawed achievements. He is pushing hard for a big stimulus package. It is a package that the Republicans can refuse, but at their peril. He has taken the initiative.