Chait writes: "Moderate Republicanism is a tendency that increasingly defies ideological analysis and instead requires psychological analysis. The psychological mechanism is fairly obvious."
New York Times columnist David Brooks. (photo: unknown)
David Brooks Is Pathological
18 January 13
oderate Republicanism is a tendency that increasingly defies ideological analysis and instead requires psychological analysis. The psychological mechanism is fairly obvious. The radicalization of the GOP has placed unbearable strain on those few moderates torn between their positions and their attachment to party. Many moderate conservatives have simply broken off from the party, at least in its current incarnation, and are hoping or working to build a sane alternative. Those who remain must escape into progressively more baroque fantasies.
The prevalent expression of this psychological pain is the belief that President Obama is largely or entirely responsible for Republican extremism. It's a bizarre but understandable way to reconcile conflicting emotions - somewhat akin to blaming your husband's infidelity entirely on his mistress. In this case, moderate Republicans believe that Obama's tactic of taking sensible positions that moderate Republicans agree with is cruel and unfair, because it exposes the extremism that dominates the party, not to mention the powerlessness of the moderates within it. Michael Gerson recently expressed this bizarre view, and the pathology is also on vivid display in David Brooks's column today.
Brooks begins by noting that the Grand Bargain on the deficit, which he has spent the last two years relentlessly touting, is not actually possible. Why is it impossible? Because, he writes, "A political class that botched the fiscal cliff so badly are not going to be capable of a gigantic deal on complex issues."
Oh, the political class? That's funny. In 2011, Obama offered an astonishingly generous budget deal to House Republicans, and Brooks argued at the time that if the GOP turned the deal down, it would prove their "fanaticism." Naturally, they turned it down. Obama continues to offer a bargain including higher revenue through tax reform in return for lower spending on retirement programs, but Republicans refuse to consider higher taxes. So, in summary, this proves "the political class" is to blame.
What Obama should be doing in response, Brooks argues, is push for policies that provoke no opposition even from the craziest of the Republicans: "We could do some education reform, expand visa laws to admit more high-skill workers, encourage responsible drilling for natural gas, maybe establish an infrastructure bank." Brooks argues that these issues would be uncontroversial enough to "erode partisan orthodoxies and get back into the habit of passing laws together." Then, maybe we could pass some laws under a future president.
Note that solving actual problems is besides the point here. Brooks is almost explicit about this. He begins with the need for initiatives that he thinks will lead to happiness and comity between the parties in Washington, and then comes up with policies that might fit the bill. Not surprisingly, viewed from the standpoint of an agenda designed to make life better for Americans in some way, shape or form, Brooks's proposed agenda is strange. Let's consider his ideas:
Education reform. I love education reform. Obama passed a sweeping education reform in 2009. Brooks writes a column the next year fulsomely praising it. (Obama "has used federal power to incite reform, without dictating it from the top.") Is there more education reform to be done? There may be, but I don't know what it would be, and Brooks doesn't seem to know or care.
Expand visa laws to admit more high-skill workers. Would this really pass right away without partisan animosity? Brooks says yes. We don't have to guess. Democrats tried this last month. Republicans loaded it with poison pills and killed it dead. So instead they're trying to do it as part of comprehensive immigration reform.
Encourage responsible drilling for natural gas. Wait, how much more encouragement do we need? The country is undergoing a massive natural gas boom:
Is there some element to natural gas policy that needs fixing? Does Brooks just think the two parties should get together and congratulate each other for all the natural gas being produced?
Establish an infrastructure bank. Okay, this one is a good policy idea. But is it something Republicans would easily pass without rancor? In fact, Obama has been asking for this very thing for years now. And Republicans have called it dead on arrival.
So Brooks's proposed alternative agenda consists of either empty list-filler or actual policies that Obama has proposed and Republicans have killed. But instead of this happy term of modest accomplishment, Obama is pursuing a nasty, partisan agenda. Step one of this devious ploy is to, as Brooks puts it, "invite a series of confrontations with Republicans over things like the debt ceiling - make them look like wackos willing to endanger the entire global economy."
Right - Obama is the one inviting confrontations over the debt ceiling. Never mind that, before 2011, the debt ceiling was just an occasion for routine posturing, and Republicans insisted on turning it into a showdown with real, dangerous stakes. Also never mind that Obama offered to sign the plan - proposed by Mitch McConnell! - to permanently defuse the debt ceiling and let Republicans use it to posture against him rather than actually threatening a global meltdown. And never mind as well that, by refusing to cave in to extortion, Obama seems to actually be defusing the real danger to the world economy.
This is all Obama's fault because it makes Republicans "look like whackos willing to endanger the entire global economy." Brooks displays an almost surreal lack of interest in the underlying reality that Republicans actually are whackos willing to endanger the entire global economy. It is his responsibility to conceal this reality from America.
Worse, argues Brooks, Obama is nastily choosing an agenda intended only to harm Republicans. Obama's proposals on gun safety and immigration, he writes, are "wedge issues meant to divide Southerners from Midwesterners, the Tea Party/Talk Radio base from the less ideological corporate and managerial class."
Brooks asserts, but does not actually explain, that Obama chose these issues for the purpose of dividing the opposition - as opposed to trying to cut down on mass murders and fix a huge field of broken policy. Brooks concedes that Obama's proposals here are moderate, but believes that the moderation is what makes them so nasty. By appealing to mainstream Republicans, he is splitting them from the most extreme Republicans!
You would think proposing policies that large numbers of Republicans agree with would qualify as the kind of centrism and bipartisanship Brooks has spent the entire Obama presidency calling for, but now that it's here, it turns out to prove just the opposite to him.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 18 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Let him eat cake as the last flipping of the tail of the last dinosaur Republican dies on the vine...PLEASE!!
It's only the billionaire corporate money that keeps Republicans afloat, not the American people.
N.
Such people are in a place they are not used to. So it is with Republicans who are used to rationalizing all their thinking, rather than thinking rationally.
David Brooks is the token "conservative" for PBS. He's supposed to talk like a conservative, if he wants to collect a paycheck.
And, now, maybe Fox News will offer Dennis Kucinich to its audience.
BIG DIFFERENCE: I doubt that David Brooks has much support among today's political conservatives. Although he's comparatively young, he represents the old liberal wing of the Republican Party. A wing that was broken when Reagan won the White House.
In contrast, Dennis has some significant political support. Democrats take him seriously. And some Democrats may pay more attention to Fox News. (Which may boost the ratings, in order to sell more dog food or whatever Fox is selling nowadays.)
But, although the grammar isn't bad, I, REALLY, want to "red -pencil" the punctuation. ( I hope that I made no punctuation mistakes on THIS post! )
His latest:
http://www.driftglass.blogspot.com/2013/01/true-conservatism.html
Brooks is allowed to continue to write his specific brand of drivel for the NYT in order to gaslight so called "moderate readers."
Chait:
"Brooks displays an almost surreal lack of interest in the underlying reality that Republicans actually are whackos willing to endanger the entire global economy. It is his responsibility to conceal this reality from America."
Exactly.
intrigues me, and I read it; after which I remember that he is 180 degrees wrong about everything--and I promise myself that never again will I waste my time with his stilted tripe. This philosophy, mercifully, limits my intake of Brooks to two reads a year. He started his career as Nancy Reagan's lapdog, and has regressed from there.
Brooks' book "Bobos in Paradise" explains David Brooks and the political culture that he represents.
If I were teaching a class about American politics in the 21st century, "Bobos in Paradise" would be on the reading list.
Who are the "bobos"?
The list includes LGBT people who support the Republican Party.
The list includes "food movement" people who talk for hours about food politics without mentioning poverty and the increase in food prices in the global marketplace.
Also, the people who want to raise consumer energy prices because "Americans are wasting too much energy." Yeah, sure. Tell it to the homeless and to the elderly who beg for fuel assistance and public transit.
"Bobos" worry about polar bears and climate change. Less attention is given to impact of droughts and heat waves in Texas. (Any suggestions on how to respond? Send improved lightbulbs to Houston, maybe?)
"Bobos" support public education. Although they don't want to send their kids to public schools.
David Brooks can explain the "bobos."
Ad hominem attacks upon Brooks aside (only because I agree with you)
'fulsome' - Adjective
1. Complimentary or flattering to an excessive degree: "they are almost embarrassingly fulsome in their appreciation".
2. Of large size or quantity; generous or abundant.
"Hello, kettle, this is the pot...you were saying?"
Ad hominem attacks upon Brooks aside (only because I agree with you)
'fulsome' - Adjective
But by the 16th century, fulsome’s meaning had taken “full” overboard, to “satiating, cloying, excessive.” Shakespeare used it often, meaning “loathsome” and “rank with lust.” The O.E.D. defines its application to language and style as “offensive to good taste . . . from being ‘over-done.’
Welcome to your participation in the clown rodeo circus, Mr. Brooks.
"Bobos in Paradise" - one of Brooks' first books - is still one of the best books for explaining the new "liberals" of the 21st century. Call them "yuppies" or "limousine liberals" or whatever you like. Brooks himself is one of their chief spokespersons.
The "bobos" are drifting around looking for political acceptance and influence. On social issues - for example, gay rights and abortion - they're libertarians. With economics - anything that looks like it might limit "bobo" prosperity - they're often surprisingly cheap. Although most of the "bobos" are far more generous than the Tea Party. (In part, because "bobo" therapists, teachers, artists, etc., often depend on government programs for their careers.)
A hundred years ago, most "bobos" supported Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt. Fifty years ago, the
"bobos" liked Nelson Rockefeller. Nowadays, the "bobos" have been pushed to the far margins in the GOP. Even in the Northeast, it's difficult to find "bobos" in high political offices.
David Brooks is usually ignored by Republican conservatives. He makes his appeal to "bobos" who spend more time with Bill Moyers than they do with Rush Limbaugh. Brooks is the "token conservative" who "liberals" like.
Poor David! He lives in a difficult place in American politics.... Don't take the man too seriously.
The whole mission of the republican party derives from Reagan and his lackeys like Grover Norquist. The goal is to make the government so dysfunctional that americans demand a shut down of huge parts of it -- especially anything that has to do with sustaining american living standards like education, healthcare, health, environment, and safety standards. They want to shut the government down because they hate it (except the military). Now this is truly pathological. They do not believe in "society," "community" or anything done collectively. They are RAndians who think everyone is on their own. Everyone must get their own things or simply die. This is the pure theory of the survival of the fittest. Now that is pathological. At the root of this belief is racism. They really think this will mean the mass death of all people with dark skins. The white cream will rise to the top.
The nice thing is that it is the republican loonies who are disappearing. In another generation, they will be almost gone and the US will be a wonderful mixed race nation as it always has been.
Thank you. Paid-for retirement insurance is NOT a hand out. And, for self-employed the rate was over 15%. There is no crisis in the trust fund and raising the cap would correct any shortfall decades hence. Spread the word, everyone.
Thank you SO much for reminding everyone that LANGUAGE MATTERS !
Those out to destroy the U.S. Government by undermining the entire New Deal are incredibly successful simply in employing the childish, but *WILDLY* effective tactic of employing Orwellian speech and sucking the Media Mynahs into echoing their pap.
"Entitlements", in ALL CASES, are Insurance PAYMENTS. From now on, all clowns who wish to refer to SSA, Unemployment Insurance Payments, Medicare, etc. as "entitlements" must repay any future reimbursements from either Auto or Homeowner's Insurance payouts because they can't be taking "entitlements" and, the Insurance Companies *obviously* need the money more than do the "entitled" persons who paid the premiums all their lives. Let's see how that works.
Yes, from "Entitlements" for simple Insurance payouts, to "Death Tax" for Estate Tax, "Death Panels" for insuring End of Life Counseling, "Clear Skies Initiative" for "No Penalty Polluting", "Operation Iraqi Freedom" for ..... you get the idea, there has been no let up.
The drumbeat has become so common, and the media sources so bought-up an controlled, that the Orwellian speech now goes largely unchallenged but for a few lonely writers.
Yes, it IS negative and painful noise coming in, but if we do NOT critically listen and call them on their sh*t, we can *seriously* be made to pay dearly for our complacency.
They care not one whit for the truth. They care only for what WORKS.
Thank you for putting it so succinctly. I will make use of the phrase when arguing with friends and family about the so called "Entitlememts"
This is a very funny page. Loved the wacko statements by everyone, especially the serious ones. Brooks is funny. I watch him and Mark every night and enjoy the entertainment. That is their jobs. And don't forget getting rid of Big Bird,,,
Moyers on the other hand is what I watch for serious. He is the man now.He still does his homework.
Years ago I even learned to enjoy Bill Buckley's humor, even though he was a stone killer, especially around Norman Mailor.
Fromm was right, the problem with humans is that we have a thin veneer of civilization covering our atavistic natures. We really never left the caves, and our wolf pets are now toy dogs. They bite too.Ruff.
let me add: yes we paid for it. an amount that is almost exactly what we would have had to "save" at an interest rate 2 04 3 percent above inflation in order to get the "benefits" we end up getting.
in the case of the very poor, the effective interest rate is closer to 10%... something they could not hope to get "on the market" even on a good day. this is paid for by the "effective premium" that people who end up "rich" after a lifetime of work pay for the insurance that Social Security provides... in case they hadn't ended up rich.
This is very important to understand because the "right" lies about it, and the "left" would like to change SS into a pure welfare program... where you could never again say "i paid for it myself"
meanwhile SS contributes NOTHING at all to the deficit, and the "actuarial shortfall" that you hear about {"SS is broke, flat bust") turns out to mean that workers today would need to gradually increase the percent of their incomes they pay into Social Security in order to pay for the fact that they are going to live longer than their grandparents.
The increase needed is less than one tenth of one percent per year. About eighty cents per week more each year. And you get the money back with interest.
Medicare does take some from the budget (a mistake made by folks who what "the rich to pay for it). But even at that, Medicare is paying for keeping you alive and healthy, using money that you paid in while working. It is not clear to me that money spent for "education" goes to anything that real people need quite so much. Education is paid for mostly by state taxes, and while it's important, it probably doesn't really need to steal granny's medical care in order to do a very good job educating kids.
In short, Brooks is a liar, playing the old "think of the children" scam that damn liars have played for as long as I can remember.
Dear Vauban ........ my condolences. :)
The trouble is that at present the far right has real power, while the most the far left can do is sputter and snipe from the sidelines. This has the effect of shifting the spectrum of actual political discourse ssharply to the right, with all the negative consequences one would expect from the enabling of a worldview hostile to compassion and reason alike.
It reminds me of the families of violent, abusive men blaming the men's wives/girlfrien ds for the men's violence. Why, the women make the men crazy and that's why they beat them, sometimes to death.
Yeah. Right.
The entire elite and their political servants have no patriotism - in the sense of caring about other citizens and the generations to come. They are loyal only to the class with which they identify: the class of wealth and power. This condition of our country could not have reached its present state without the cooperation of mainstream media and journalists, which - after all - are nothing more than the propaganda arms of the ruling elite. They are social psychopaths because they have no morality. For them, anything is possible.
RSS feed for comments to this post