The Republicans’ Incompetence Caucus
Brooks - OpEd
That man is ticked off. Can’t blame him.
American was built on compromises. The “Freedom” caucus, and their ilk, have lost sight of that historical fact.
Brooks is a partisan hack. Establishment Republicans like him were content to pander tothe GOP’s racist, rabid anti-government base when it helped them get their kleptocrats elected, but now that Frankenstein’s monster wants to take over the castle, suddenly Brooks has grown a conscience.
Luke 17:7
Or, maybe not.
If we’re going to quote old timey books, I prefer:
Gilgamesh
Ducks, breaking wind
All we are is ducks breaking wind
Let’s Pit David Brooks instead. I’ve always detested this imbecilic and pretentious twit of a hypocrite. That he is a leading GOP “intellectual” just shows the scarciity of brains they have to choose from.
Examples:
[ul][li] He rushed to condemn the critics when GWB’s competence came under attack. To pretend an objectivity, in the same column he “regretted” his own wanton criticism of the Clintons the decade before.[/li][li] On a key anniversary of Martin Luther King he wrote a column praising the great man … only to twist it into another pro-Republican screed.[/li][li] He wrote an article condemning universities for not hiring more “conservative” teachers. He didn’t respond to my e-mail asking if he expected biology departments to hire more creationists.[/li][/ul]
The man oozes pretension and sophistry. If you find yourself agreeing with one paragraph, it will segue into another that makes you want to puke.
This being the Pit, I can’t blame folks for shots at Brooks. But to the OP’s point, the points that Brooks is making is worthy of an Op Ed column. The conservative party, or the power players within it, have shifted over the past 30 years. Given the fragmentation, it appears to be un-unifiable, regardless of how many times Reagan is invoked.
That’s fine, but it is still galling to read him write about it as if he were a disinterested observer rather than an active participant and apologist in the whole process. How about some personal accountability?
Also, to quote an Illinois Nazi, “What are you gonna do about it, whitey?”
Fair point. It will be interesting to see how loud that point gets made in the responses to the column.
As far as conservative columnists go, Brooks is one of my favorites. To be clear, that’s a low bar, as his competition is the likes of Charles Krauthammer and George Will. But he’s usually shown a willingness to look askance at his own side and call them out when necessary. He’s observed on Shields and Brooks (a short, weekly segment on PBS’s Newshour) countless times that the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot with their behavior.
This column isn’t some sort of break from his usual thinking - it’s an elaboration of it.
He may be a wiener but I think he has some valid points. Since Reagan, maybe even back to Nixon, Republicans have picked a lot of low-hanging votes by giving lip service to conservative social issues, whether it’s busing, affirmative action, abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, etc. And for a long time these right-leaning voters happily punched the R ticket because of it. Thanks to Hate Radio, Fox, and social media, it has become a contest of who could be the most bombastic and uncompromising. Now all of these right wing voters are not content to just have lip service paid, they want results and they don’t think they have to wait for them or compromise with anybody. They don’t want to ride the bandwagon, they want to steer it. I think Republicans are merely reaping what the have sown.
Conservative with 90+ IQ comes out against stupidity and lunacy. News at eleven.
That is a very good question.
I predict he will go on PBS and proclaim sorrowfully that however bad the Freedom Caucus is, Obama is worse because he won’t compromise with them.
and being a conservative, by “compromise” he means “capitulate completely to all of their insane demands”.
Are you serious? If so, I’d love to place a bet against that.
You didn’t even read the linked editorial, did you? Because Brooks is actually saying the complete opposite of that. He’s specifically bemoaning the unwillingness of The Freedom Caucus to compromise.
In his blog, Krugman pulls this quote out of the Brooks’ oped piece: [INDENT]By traditional definitions, conservatism stands for intellectual humility, a belief in steady, incremental change, a preference for reform rather than revolution, a respect for hierarchy, precedence, balance and order, and a tone of voice that is prudent, measured and responsible. Conservatives of this disposition can be dull, but they know how to nurture and run institutions. [/INDENT] That variation of traditional conservatism left the Washington Republican Party long ago and it is sadface that Brooks doesn’t acknowledge that. Reagan embraced voodoo economics, a theory that had no standing in any University at the time, including the University of Chicago. That’s not humble. Gingrich shut down the government, holding the economy hostage in order to obtain leverage over President Clinton. That’s not “Respect for hierarchy, precedence, balance” or order. Hell, the dominant rhetoric of the Republican base has been one of revolution.
Traditional conservatives belong in the Democratic Party. The Affordable Care Act was basically the most conservative form of health care reform possible: it didn’t even contain a public option. It received no Republican votes. Not one. The US spends more on its military than the next 10 highest spending countries combined. Yeah, more than China+Russia+France+UK. Yet Republicans continue to jabber nonsense about US military weakness and the like.
David Brooks. The horseshit is strong in this one.
Brooks has done this before.
In a week he’ll have forgotten he wrote this, and be back to his old talking points.
I can only give 3/5 an agreement.
Brooks is one of many gears in the Washington consensus media machine. Getting mad at him makes as much sense as getting mad at the checkout clerk because the store doesn’t carry your favorite potato chips anymore.
Counter-revolution, if anything.
It’s interesting though, since the Republicans (and some Dems) want to dismantle New Deal policies, when the New Deal itself was a compromise to save capitalism. Maybe they figure there’s nothing to be afraid of anymore because the threat of a worker’s revolt is laughable in this day and age.
[Talking Heads Voice]… and you may ask yourself [/THV]
Why haven’t they? Those voters still aren’t swinging to the Democrats in any numbers. It’s easy to point all the fingers at the other side while laughing self righteously. “They must be too stupid to see how awesomely perfect our politics are.” A good hard look in the mirror might be in order on the Democratic side if they genuinely want to create that broader and overwhelming coalition.
Hi, BigAppleBucky–somewhat unrelated question: I recently went through some old topics here, and remember seeing a topic, started by you about “Rape Culture in University of Virginina”, based on some bogus story in “Vanity Fair”.
Does my memory serve me right here? Were you the one who started that topic?