The common narrative is that Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Marco Rubio have been crowned the young leaders of the Republican party. On the surface it makes much sense, both are intelligent, quick-witted, handsome, and excellent orators. If partisan politics in favor of the Republican party is the goal, then you could not find two better men to be standard bearers for the party.
Ryan is portrayed as the leading fiscal conservative in Congress. Somebody with bold plans for the future. Yet his budget doesn't balance until 2040. This is unfathomable considering the current situation we are in. It is absurd and irresponsible, and I seriously doubt that Democrats intellectually oppose his proposal. On the other hand, Rep. Jim Jordan, leader of the Republican Study Committee, is the voice of reason. He has a plan that would balance the budget within five years. But Ryan is chairman of the Budget Committee, not Jordan, and that is because he will keep the status quo going for the Washington establishment. The political insurgency in 2010 sent the Republican party the message that massive debt, which would lead wreckingly high taxes and hyperinflation, was simply not acceptable. It is also telling that the Wisconsin Congressman voted for the bank and auto bailouts(and CEO bonus taxes), No Child Left Behind, the 2008 Stimulus, Head Start ,Medicare Part D, and Sarbanes-Oxley. For any serious conservative, libertarian, or Constitutionalist, how are these votes acceptable? They cannot be forgiven as anomalies, no, they give a peak into Ryan's ideological core(does he have one?). Milton Friedman or F.A. Hayek would have called Ryan a socialist and a statist, and would have laughed at his proposals and records. The aforementioned Jim Jordan of Ohio is the perfect candidate to replace Ryan and Budget chairman, and become the new leader of entitlement and budget reform for the Republican Party.
Rubio is supposedly the next Reagan. The man who will save the Republican party from the growing Mexican-American voting block. I will admit, Rubio has voted pretty solidly on the fiscal side of things. I can tell that Rubio's specialty is foreign policy. I have a serious problem with his views. While I agree with Rubio that America has a role in the world, I disagree that we should attempt to fight evil at every opportunity and spread democracy. Prepared speeches have the ability to make a utopia sound attainable, and it is convenient to leave out the consequences of those attempts. For example, Senator Rubio believes we should have taken a strong lead in Libya to oust Gaddafi and support the rebels. Yet we are broke, and we do not have vital national security interest in Libya. The rebels are led by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the new regime is sure to be far worse than the previous. Perhaps Rubio would have suggested we create our own puppet state, but how could that be accomplished and to what benefit? Rubio takes a similar stand with Syria. I would argue that Iraq was a similar situation, and had he been in Congress Rubio would have pushed for that war as well. The simple fact of the Middle East is that while deplorable, the region is much more stable when in the hands of power hungry dictators. Besides, human reaction tells us that more enemies arise when we involve ourselves in Middle Eastern affairs due to anger and occupation and collateral damage. I am not an isolationist, and there are times when intervention is reasonable, such as situations of nuclear ramifications, being Iran and North Korea, but fighting for the sake of fighting has always been the downfall of the great nations. I am afraid Rubio is too trigger happy. Had his bill to bring Georgia into NATO not been filibustered, who knows what could have happened with Russia. McCain, Graham, and Lieberman...and Rubio are simply dangerous. I will also point out that Rubio is already showing he is sympathetic to amnesty with his new DREAM Act being proposed.
Only analyzing the policies of these two men ignores the deeper issue: Do they interpret the Constitution of the United States as originally intended, as Justice Clarence Thomas does? Do they even care? They took a sacred oath to uphold it. Ryan and Rubio have shown by their words and deeds that they are not upholding their oaths.
The leaders of our party must emphasize the Constitution with everything they do. There are few that do. This is not meant as a personal attack on Ryan and Rubio, but an attack on the status quo of Washington and the rejection of the Constitution and conservative/libertarian ideals in favor of partisan power games.