Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Hackwatch: Now That Republicans Don't Run it, David Brooks Discovers the Virtues of Limited Government
[F]iscal restraint is now the animating issue for moderate Americans. To take the looming $9 trillion in debt and balloon it further would be to enrage a giant part of the electorate.
This is a country that has always been suspicious of centralized government. This is a country that has just lived through an economic trauma caused by excessive spending and debt. Most Americans still admire Obama and want him to succeed. But if he doesn't proceed in a manner consistent with the spirit of the nation and the times, voters will find a way to stop him.
The president's challenge now is to halt the slide. That doesn't mean giving up his goals. It means he has to align his proposals to the values of the political center: fiscal responsibility, individual choice and decentralized authority.
That's quite a different tune than Brooks was singing last September, when he was screaming at the "nihilists" who voted against the bailout (for a few days, anyway), saying:
They still think the biggest threat comes from socialism and Walter Mondale liberalism. They seem not to have noticed how global capital flows have transformed our political economy.
We're living in an age when a vast excess of capital sloshes around the world fueling cycles of bubble and bust. When the capital floods into a sector or economy, it washes away sober business practices, and habits of discipline and self-denial. Then the money managers panic and it sloshes out, punishing the just and unjust alike.
What we need in this situation is authority. Not heavy-handed government regulation, but the steady and powerful hand of some public institutions that can guard against the corrupting influences of sloppy money and then prevent destructive contagions when the credit dries up.
Brooks' belated shout-out to "individual choice and decentralized authority" would have certainly been welcome during the two terms of a presidency that largely embraced Brooksian values of spreading democracy at gunpoint and bribing middle class voters with government goodies. Instead, he spent the Bush years fighting the libertarians in his head, and proudly heralding "the death of small-government conservatism" as we know it. Better opportunistic than never, I suppose.
UPDATE: Great new piece in The New Republic on "The Courtship" between David Brooks and Barack Obama. Sample:
"I don't want to sound like I'm bragging," Brooks recently told me, "but usually when I talk to senators, while they may know a policy area better than me, they generally don't know political philosophy better than me. I got the sense he knew both better than me."
That first encounter is still vivid in Brooks's mind. "I remember distinctly an image of--we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant," Brooks says, "and I'm thinking, a) he's going to be president and b) he'll be a very good president." In the fall of 2006, two days after Obama's The Audacity of Hope hit bookstores, Brooks published a glowing Times column. The headline was "Run, Barack, Run."
These days, the center-right Brooks frequently seems more sympathetic toward Obama than the liberal Paul Krugman. He has written columns praising Obama's Afghanistan policy, education proposals, and economic team. Even on broad areas of disagreement--deficit spending, the sprawling stimulus bill, health care reform--Brooks tends to treat Obama and his administration with respect. "My overall view," Brooks told me, "is ninety-five percent of the decisions they make are good and intelligent. Whether I agree with them specifically, I think they're very serious and very good at what they do."
squarooticus|9.1.09 @ 10:39AM|#
No surprise: the sad truth is that the hypocritical partisan hacks are the rule, not the exception, on both sides of the aisle. It's all part of the two-party theater with which government distracts us while it steals more of our liberties.
|9.1.09 @ 10:46AM|#
Caption Contest!
"We're not the big spenders you're looking for."
"You have a piece of lint on your crotch, can I just...?"
|9.1.09 @ 10:46AM|#
What a novel idea! Government. . .with limits. Hmmm, has anyone
thought of that before? Could. . could we build that into the
structure of our government somehow?
Nah, it'd never work.
|9.1.09 @ 11:00AM|#
That is funny. Brooks because of where he works can never be in anyway a princpled conservative. If he started saying things like "gee maybe Libertarians have a point" he would immediately be disinvited from all the right parties and lose his slot in the NYT.
Fluffy|9.1.09 @ 11:02AM|#
Fuck you, Brooksie.
The most important thing to keep in mind when reading even a single
word written by this man about the virtues of small government is
that it's all a lie. Before anything else, it's a lie.
We all knew that once the GOP was out of power the human refuse
that carried water for them in the marketplace of ideas and found
ways to justify GOP statism for eight years would flip a switch and
pretend they never said or wrote everything they said or wrote. The
most important thing is to refuse to accept their change of heart
and spit in their faces, because they're lying.
Even if it gives Obama eight years instead of four, none of these
sons of bitches can be allowed to "reform". They must all be
denounced as liars and scum until generational change removes them
all from public life. If an entirely new group of
Republican personalities turns up saying that they believe in small
government, I'll give them a respectful hearing. But as long as
it's the same bunch of assholes that defrauded us last time, fuck
them. I'd see the country delivered into the hands of Lenin
himfuckingself before I'd give it back to anyone on Brooks'
team.
alan|9.1.09 @ 11:04AM|#
I would like to give two thumps up to the latest issue of
hackwatch though the partisanship in this particular instance is
Washington lemming instead of the old Left-Right divide.
One part of the NewsHour I have learned to avoid over the years is
that segment he does with Mark Shields on Fridays where Shields
typically spiels off into a Grandpa Simpson talking about tying a
potato to his belt worthy rant on how Americans are not sacrificing
enough for the war effort by not paying enough in taxes, and Brooks
just folds his little hands together and nods along. True the brunt
of sacrifice falls on the volunteer forces of the military, but
would it kill Brooks to just turn around and point out that to
destroy the economy (Shields started pitching this creed a few days
after 9-11) for the 'noble' purpose of sacrifice would be to cut
off your nose to spite your face?
Just once, man. Give the batty old bastard a real response.
|9.1.09 @ 11:05AM|#
You guys have it wrong. Brooks is just conventional wisdom. They
guy never writes anything out of principle or independent thought.
People like Brooks write whatever conventional wisdom is and
whatever is safe and doesn't offend their masters.
This actually is a significant collumn. But it is not significant
because Brooks has any idea what he is talking about or anything
important to say. It is important because it shows that
conventional wisdom among the beltway media is that perhaps the
Obamasiah is going too far.
alan|9.1.09 @ 11:09AM|#
I'll give them a respectful hearing. But as long as it's the
same bunch of assholes that defrauded us last time, fuck them. I'd
see the country delivered into the hands of Lenin himfuckingself
before I'd give it back to anyone on Brooks' team.
I salute your passion, good sir!
|9.1.09 @ 11:10AM|#
Did Brooks just emerge, stumbling and blinking, from his mom's terrorist-proof basement?
|9.1.09 @ 11:10AM|#
"I'd see the country delivered into the hands of Lenin
himfuckingself before I'd give it back to anyone on Brooks'
team."
From the looks of things, that is pretty much what has happened. So
what is your bitch?
Mike M.|9.1.09 @ 11:12AM|#
Yeah, what a joke. Brooks is one of those moderates who
willfully chose to ignore everything about Obama's real-life
history and instead listened to the campaign rhetoric, and he was a
big Obama cheerleader in the very early days. Now, he's shocked and
horrified to discover that Obama is really a reckless,
huge-government loving, hard left wing socialist. Imagine
that!
David Brooks is to conservatism what Cheez Whiz is to cheese.
Joe M|9.1.09 @ 11:14AM|#
We're living in an age when a vast excess of capital sloshes
around the world fueling cycles of bubble and bust.
The statement demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of all
things economic.
The capital isn't "sloshing" around; it's the monetary policy
distorting natural market functionality. His statement indicates
that he thinks there is no other reason for bubbles other than
random chance, rather than idiotic government contrivances and
incentives.
Barry Loberfeld|9.1.09 @ 11:14AM|#
"Better opportunistic than never, I suppose."
Brooks is just another Spite Right
pseudocon whose sole imperative is to "sock it to the Left."
Back when liberals were "Bush bashing," it was a Spite Right duty
to defend Bush, no matter what he actually did.
Now that it's a liberal (i.e., a Democrat) who's increasing
government, the Spite Rightists must fight those
efforts.
"Sock it to the Left!"
|9.1.09 @ 11:16AM|#
It is important because it shows that conventional wisdom
among the beltway media is that perhaps the Obamasiah is going too
far.
The most positive take. I think, though, that the conventional
wisdom is more like "Obama tried to go too far, too
fast". The conventional Beltway types have never had, and
never will have, any objection to the growth of government. Their
only beef with Obama is that he is botching an opportunity to grow
government.
|9.1.09 @ 11:17AM|#
One other thing. PBS and the NYT keep people like Brooks around to discredit Libertarians and Conservatives. If he actually had any principles, they might have to respond to him. As it is, they let him spout off when it is convienent or incredibly obvious. But then use him to smear libertarians and conservatives when it matters by saying "see even a rightwinger like Brooks thinks you are nuts."
|9.1.09 @ 11:18AM|#
Good point RC. Regardless, conventional wisdom no longer considers BO to be the One.
Ska|9.1.09 @ 11:22AM|#
Grandpa Simpson talking about tying a potato to his belt
worthy
It was an onion, as that was the style at the time. Anywho, I was
asking for 5 bees for a quarter....
alan|9.1.09 @ 11:28AM|#
Barry Loberfeld | September 1, 2009, 11:14am | #
"Better opportunistic than never, I suppose."
Brooks is just another Spite Right pseudocon whose sole imperative
is to "sock it to the Left." Back when liberals were "Bush
bashing," it was a Spite Right duty to defend Bush, no matter what
he actually did.
Now that it's a liberal (i.e., a Democrat) who's increasing
government, the Spite Rightists must fight those efforts.
"Sock it to the Left!"
Let me see if I can draw an adequate enough picture here to
underline how utterly clueless those remarks are. Recall the first
time Family Guy used the Kool-Aid Punch Bowel, punching through the
wall of a courtroom where Peter was on trial. Recall what happened
just before that, Louis just revealed Mort was Megs real father.
Everyone in the courtroom looks at Meg, but she is just jamming
away, finger dancing, and listening to her CD player. That's Barry,
Oh Yeahhh!!!!!
alan|9.1.09 @ 11:32AM|#
FWIW, like that one episode of Space Ghost where Brak pops out a pterodactyl egg and Dino steals it so Fred can have eggs for breakfast, I'm tying all or my post today to cartoons. It is a form of protest over Walt Blandsey buying up Marvel.
alan|9.1.09 @ 11:36AM|#
used the Kool-Aid Punch Bowel
Lil' Abner: 'Fuck. I'm from the South. There is an extra vowel in
there.'
Xeones|9.1.09 @ 11:41AM|#
Kool-Aid Punch Bowel
I had that once. Bad Thai food. Spent three days in the
hospital.
|9.1.09 @ 11:42AM|#
Kool-Aid Punch Bowel
Sounds uncomfortable.
No more so than your standard Hawaiian Scrunch or Flav-o-ice Hat
Trick.
alan|9.1.09 @ 11:43AM|#
Kool-Aid Punch Bowel
Sounds uncomfortable.
Kool-Aid punch sounds uncomfortable? It would be as easy as Hank
Hill stepping inside from the alley after a few beers to relieve
himself.
Rhywun|9.1.09 @ 11:45AM|#
If an entirely new group of Republican personalities turns
up saying that they believe in small government, I'll give them a
respectful hearing.
Someone should start a political party endorsing that
principle.
Ska|9.1.09 @ 11:46AM|#
CC:
"At first I said, 'Slow down Barry, just this much.' Then I started
getting into it."
Joe M|9.1.09 @ 11:58AM|#
Is it just me, or does that look like a stunt hand? It seems disembodied, and I don't see a jacket sleeve on it. Maybe it was shopped in afterward.
Abe Simpson|9.1.09 @ 12:03PM|#
Now my story begins in Nineteen-dickety-two. We had to say "dickety" because the Kaiser had stolen the wold "twenty". I chased that rascal to get it back, but gave up after dickety-six miles.
KingShamus|9.1.09 @ 12:49PM|#
Didn't David Brooks gush about the crisp crease in Barack
Obambi's pant leg recently?
That should tell you all you need to know about the intellectual
capacity of Brooksie.
Mike M.|9.1.09 @ 1:02PM|#
Didn't David Brooks gush about the crisp crease in Barack
Obambi's pant leg recently?
Yeah, and by his own admission he fell in love with Obambi more
than three years before the election, and was encouraging him to
run for President in the fall of '06.
He is pathetic, and is just a pretty typical elite country club
Republican who reveres an Ivy League pedigree above all else and
desperately wants to be liked by the liberals in the circles he
occupies.
Matt Welch|9.1.09 @ 1:15PM|#
Please read update to the post, and click on the New Republic link. Remarkable.
|9.1.09 @ 1:27PM|#
Here's Brooks barely a year ago on the shiny new future of
"Progressive Corporatism" :
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/opinion/23brooks.html
So we have arrived at one of those moments. The global
financial turmoil has pulled nearly everybody out of their normal
ideological categories. The pressure of reality has compelled new
thinking about the relationship between government and the economy.
And lo and behold, a new center and a new establishment is
emerging.
The Paulson rescue plan is one chapter. But there will be others.
Over the next few years, the U.S. will have to climb out from under
mountainous piles of debt. Many predict a long, gray recession. The
country will not turn to free-market supply-siders. Nor will it
turn to left-wing populists. It will turn to the safe heads from
the investment banks. For Republicans, people like Paulson. For
Democrats, the guiding lights will be those establishment figures
who advised Barack Obama last week - including Volcker, Robert
Rubin and Warren Buffett.
These time-tested advisers, or more precisely, their acolytes, are
going to make the health and survival of the financial markets
their first order of business, because without that stability, the
entire economy will be in danger. Beyond that, they will embrace a
certain sort of governing approach.
The government will be much more active in economic management
(pleasing a certain sort of establishment Democrat). Government
activism will provide support to corporations, banks and business
and will be used to shore up the stable conditions they need to
thrive (pleasing a certain sort of establishment Republican). Tax
revenues from business activities will pay for progressive but
business-friendly causes - investments in green technology, health
care reform, infrastructure spending, education reform and
scientific research.
If you wanted to devise a name for this approach, you might pick
the phrase economist Arnold Kling has used: Progressive
Corporatism. We're not entering a phase in which government stands
back and lets the chips fall. We're not entering an era when the
government pounds the powerful on behalf of the people. We're
entering an era of the educated establishment, in which government
acts to create a stable - and often oligarchic - framework for
capitalist endeavor.
I wouldn't exactly call him "opportunistic". More like "easily
excited".
|9.1.09 @ 1:36PM|#
If you wanted to devise a name for this approach, you might
pick the phrase economist Arnold Kling has used: Progressive
Corporatism Fascism.
To seal the deal:
We're entering an era of the educated establishment, in which
government acts to create a stable - and often oligarchic -
framework for capitalist endeavor.
Mike M.|9.1.09 @ 1:43PM|#
Please read update to the post, and click on the New
Republic link. Remarkable.
Indeed. I love the fact that Rahm Emanuel takes time out of his
incredibly busy schedule as the Chief of Staff to personally call
Brooksie every time he writes something they don't like.
alice bowie|9.1.09 @ 2:04PM|#
Now That Republicans Don't Run it (government), David Brooks
Discovers the Virtues of Limited Government
Exactly!!!
They shoved IRAQ, Patriot Act, paying for faith based initiatives,
paying for Israel, etc.etc.etc. down our throats.
Atanarjuat|9.1.09 @ 2:14PM|#
"we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his
pant leg and his perfectly creased pant"
WTF
|9.1.09 @ 2:36PM|#
Didn't David Brooks gush about the crisp crease in Barack
Obambi's pant leg recently?
log cabin RINO?
Meta4|9.1.09 @ 2:38PM|#
"Lil' Abner: 'Fuck. I'm from the South. There is an extra vowel
in there.'"
I once worked in Atlanta with a Atlanta native for whom "lid" was a
three syllable word. True story.
alan|9.1.09 @ 2:54PM|#
If you wanted to devise a name for this approach, you might
pick the phrase economist Arnold Kling has used: Progressive
Corporatism. We're not entering a phase in which government stands
back and lets the chips fall. We're not entering an era when the
government pounds the powerful on behalf of the people. We're
entering an era of the educated establishment, in which government
acts to create a stable - and often oligarchic - framework for
capitalist endeavor.
When I was thirteen, I had a poster of Joan Collins on my wall
David Brooks had one of Robert McNamara.
|9.1.09 @ 4:07PM|#
Umm, progressive corporatism = fascism, if words mean anything. (I haven't read the column where Arnold Kling used the phrase.)
Gilbert Martin|9.1.09 @ 4:08PM|#
"That is funny. Brooks because of where he works can never be in
anyway a princpled conservative. If he started saying things like
"gee maybe Libertarians have a point" he would immediately be
disinvited from all the right parties and lose his slot in the
NYT."
Just like the Southern Poverty Law Center has it's business model
niche feeding the alarmist fantasy of the left about "miltias" and
"radical rightists" groups, Brooks has found his own market niche
as a person the left likes to portray as "conservative" in order to
help them bash and undermine real conservatives. In this regard he
is exactly like Kevin Phillips.
Cheez Whiz|9.1.09 @ 4:43PM|#
David Brooks is to conservatism what Cheez Whiz is to
cheese.
Yo! Fuck You Mike M!
I'm made out of CHEESE.Brooks is no kind of conservative.
|9.1.09 @ 4:44PM|#
I think my favorite quote from that Brooks pice is this:
The country will not turn to free-market supply-siders. Nor
will it turn to left-wing populists. It will turn to the
safe heads from the investment banks.
WTF?
alan|9.1.09 @ 5:14PM|#
I once worked in Atlanta with a Atlanta native for whom
"lid" was a three syllable word. True story.
Atlanta, huh? Let me guess. It sounded like, 'please, put the
lee-(followed by an Arabic like soft 'h' almost its own vowel
sound, and ending)--ud back on.'
If you said Charleston, I would have went with, 'leee-uD-ah'.
qwerty|9.1.09 @ 6:44PM|#
Brooks, you are completely devoid of any principle. Please do us all a favor and retire.
mark|9.2.09 @ 4:33PM|#
I'm actually surprised that the New York Times has not collapsed in a singularity of suckitude, the moment David Brooks and Paul Krugman found themselves in the same room together.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245