WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 2011
What have they done with the real David Brooks: Many people have commented on David Brooks’ remarkable and puzzling column in Tuesday’s New York Times (click here). These are just a few of the things Brooks has now suddenly said:
“The Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.”
“The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms.”
“The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities.”
“The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency.”
“The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name…Members of this tendency [sic?] have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation.”
These comments don’t seem to be typos. Near the end of his column, Brooks says the GOP may now be “an odd protest movement that has separated itself from normal governance, the normal rules of evidence and the ancient habits of our nation.”
These are not flattering comments.
Understandably, liberals and progressives have tended to second Brook’s all-new remarks; Paul Krugman takes a victory lap in this short post. For our money, some of Brooks’ assessments are in fact a bit shrill. But most of all, his new remarks raise an obvious question:
Will the real David Brooks please stand up? Or perhaps the actual question is this:
What have they done with the real David Brooks, the one whose previous columns are hard to square with these all-new thoughts?
Good lord! In recent months, Brooks has pounded away at those who made similar observations about the oddness of Republican conduct and proposals. Now, in a fiery reversal, he hammers away at the GOP in ways which would have seemed unacceptably shrill if they had come from Krugman. Can this be the same David Brooks who wrote all those Ryan Plan-lovin’ columns? If it is, does this perhaps suggest that Brooks doesn’t know what he’s talking about?
Does David Brooks know what he’s talking about? Here’s the way he started this column, in which he trashes the GOP for rejecting Democratic proposals:
BROOKS (7/5/11): The Republicans have changed American politics since they took control of the House of Representatives. They have put spending restraint and debt reduction at the top of the national agenda. They have sparked a discussion on entitlement reform. They have turned a bill to raise the debt limit into an opportunity to put the U.S. on a stable fiscal course.
Republican leaders have also proved to be effective negotiators. They have been tough and inflexible and forced the Democrats to come to them. The Democrats have agreed to tie budget cuts to the debt ceiling bill. They have agreed not to raise tax rates. They have agreed to a roughly 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to revenue increases, an astonishing concession.
Moreover, many important Democrats are open to a truly large budget deal. President Obama has a strong incentive to reach a deal so he can campaign in 2012 as a moderate. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has talked about supporting a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or even $4 trillion if the Republicans meet him part way. There are Democrats in the White House and elsewhere who would be willing to accept Medicare cuts if the Republicans would be willing to increase revenues.
If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases.
On-line, the Times has made a formal correction, changing “a few hundred million dollars” to “a few hundred billion.” Anyone can make that mistake, we suppose. But what makes Brooks say that Dems have agreed to “a roughly 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to revenue increases,” which he calls “an astonishing concession?” There may be an answer to our question. But recent reporting had seemed to say that the Dems were proposing 83 percent in spending cuts as compared to 17 percent in new revenue. That would be a 5-to-1 ratio—but Republicans won’t do that either.
Forget about that 3-to-1 crap! Republican leaders are still saying they won’t permit any new revenues, in line with that “sacred fixation.”
Presumably, no one really knows what has been proposed or agreed to in the ongoing talks. But does David Brooks know what he’s talking about when he talks about these matters? In this column from last week, Brooks pontificated about the appropriate role of testing in public and charter schools. In this case, he typed from the Aspen Ideas Festival—the festival named for the type of thing you’re least likely to encounter if you attend. Can we talk? Despite the lofty setting, we got no sense that Brooks knew what he was talking about in that column either. He did seem skilled, as pundits are, at repeating various types of congenial conventional wisdom.
The Times appended a correction to that column too. Brooks misspelled the name of Caroline Hoxby, one of the conservative-leaning experts whose wisdom he had channeled.
Does David Brooks know what’s he talking about? More scarily: Did the real David Brooks type yesterday’s column? Funny things can happen in Aspen. Did one David Brooks attend the fair, a different Brooks return?
No comments:
Post a Comment