The moral demise of Brooks: It has been stunning to watch the intellectual demise of the New York Times’ David Brooks. This morning, he muses about the two major parties’ demagogic approaches to Medicare:
BROOKS (5/27/11): Already many consultants are telling Republicans to drop austerity and go back on offense: Spend 2012 accusing the Democrats of sponsoring death panels. The Democrats will spend 2012 accusing Republicans of ending Medicare. Whichever party demagogues best wins.
Whichever party demagogues best!
Brooks imagines the Democrats “accusing Republicans of ending Medicare.” Last evening, we saw the new head of the DNC on Hardball, and that isn’t what she said. Here was Debbie Wasserman Schultz
, in her very first statement:
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (5/26/11): Well, and on top of that, TimPawlenty the Ryan plan to end Medicare as we know it was put on his desk as president, he committed that he would sign it into law. today, one of their leading presidential candidates, actually said that if that plan, if
So, I mean, I think it is really— It couldn’t be more clear that Republicans want to end Medicare as we know it and yank the safety net out from under our senior citizens, deny them affordable health care.
She said it twice, in the first twenty seconds: The GOP wants to end Medicare as we know it. Demagoguing nicely himself, Brooks put a demagogic face on what is being said.
On the same op-ed page this morning, Paul Krugman offers a serious account of what has actually been proposed in the Ryan plan. He takes a few minor liberties at one or two minor points—his “76 percent” statistic is selective, for instance—but his presentation is thoroughly serious, as is his topic. As Krugman notes, Democrats are telling the truth about Ryan’s plan—and he seems to know what is being said:
KRUGMAN (5/27/11): Take, for example, the statement that the Ryan plan would end Medicare as we know it. This may have Republicans screaming ''Mediscare!'' but it's the absolute truth: The plan would replace our current system, in which the government pays major health costs, with a voucher system, in which seniors would, in effect, be handed a coupon and told to go find private coverage.
Krugman writes a serious piece. By way of contrast, Brooks has descended to a new realm in the past six months. What illness has left him this way?
Some Democrats and liberals will clown on this topic, of course. On Wednesday night, we thought the Maddow show was an unrelenting hour of self-absorption and innate political dumbness. One problem: Maddow seems to have no idea that the Medicare debate is anything but a political story. Does Medicare need to be improved, adjusted or reconfigured in some way? This willful child doesn’t seem to know that these are serious questions.
Does Medicare need to be improved in some way? On Thursday, the Times editorial board said the answer is yes. “Sooner or later, Democrats will have to admit that Medicare cannot keep running as it is—its medical costs are out of control,” the editors said. “Bill Clinton was right on Wednesday to warn his party that it must bring down those costs if it is to have any credibility on the deficit and the economy.”
Is that assessment correct? We’d like to see Maddow stop her incessant clowning and bring some real experts onto her show to discuss this matter on the merits. Why not ask Krugman himself?
Final point: On Thursday, the Times presented this op-ed piece discussing ways Medicare can save money without reducing meaningful care. Could Maddow get over herself long enough to give such topics a hearing?
Almost surely, the answer is no. For unknown reasons, Lawrence O’Donnell’s show seems to be getting much, much smarter. This is a very good thing. On Maddow, though, it’s all about her—and about ways we can learn to adore her, despite her political dumbness.
No comments:
Post a Comment