The Villagers Will Gush Over Brooks' Column Today

But they shouldn't. David Brooks has what seems like a perfectly "centrist" op ed today in the New York Times. At first blush it would seem to take the Republican Party to task and extoll them to step their game up. But there strawmen abound all throughout the piece and there are even some pretty big contradictions. Allow me to explore.

The first three paragraphs start off pretty strong I would say.

The Democratic response to the economic crisis has its problems, but let’s face it, the current Republican response is totally misguided. The House minority leader, John Boehner, has called for a federal spending freeze for the rest of the year. In other words, after a decade of profligacy, the Republicans have decided to demand a rigid fiscal straitjacket at the one moment in the past 70 years when it is completely inappropriate.

The G.O.P. leaders have adopted a posture that allows the Democrats to make all the proposals while all the Republicans can say is “no.” They’ve apparently decided that it’s easier to repeat the familiar talking points than actually think through a response to the extraordinary crisis at hand.

If the Republicans wanted to do the country some good, they’d embrace an entirely different approach.

So lets check out this "new approach"

First, they’d take the current economic crisis more seriously than the Democrats. The Obama budget projects that the recession will be mild this year and the economy will come surging back in 2010. Democrats apparently think that dealing with the crisis is a part-time job, which leaves the afternoons free to work on long-range plans to reform education, health care, energy and a dozen smaller things. Democrats are counting on a quick recovery to help pay for these long-term projects.

Republicans could point out that this crisis is not just an opportunity to do other things. It’s a bloomin’ emergency.

Did you see what Brooks did there? He implied that the Democrats aren't taking the crisis seriously because they have pledged to tackle more than one issue at a time. I believe President Obama called it "walking and chewing bubblegum at the same time" last year when the financial crisis hit and John McCain tried to weasel out of the first debate. Now mind you Brooks doesn't really point out all of the ways that the Republicans have been unserious about the crisis. Nah, better to point out the ways HE thinks the Democrats haven't taken the crisis seriously. Nevermind that it was President Obama and the rest of the Democrats who kept saying the economy was in trouble last year. Nevermind that when President Obama said we were facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression during the campaign last year that the Republicans laughed it off and said he was using hyperbole and exaggeration. Nevermind that just recently the Republicans were saying that President Obama and the Democrats were using "fear mongering" over the economy when he gave sober analysis. No need to point all that out. Just say the Democrats aren't taking the crisis seriously because they aren't just focused on short term problems but also long term problems. Yeah that will teach those Republicans.

Second, Republicans could admit that they don’t know what the future holds, and they’re not going to try to make long-range plans based on assumptions that will be obsolete by summer. Unlike the Democrats, they’re not for making trillions of dollars in long-term spending commitments until they know where things stand.

Again notice that Brooks doesn't point out where Republicans have gone on. He just puts up the "it costs too much" strawman aimed squarely at the Democrats. It doesn't matter that we have big, fundamental problems in this country that have been neglected for decades like our reliance on foriegn oil, sky rocketing health care costs, and climate change. Nope, just say no to visions for reform because we don't know what the future holds. But isn't this pretty much the same approach that he says the Republicans should avoid in the first three paragraphs?

Third, Republicans could offer the public a realistic appraisal of the health of capitalism. Global capitalism is an innovative force, they could argue, but we have been reminded of its shortcomings. When exogenous forces like the rise of China and a flood of easy money hit the global marketplace, they can throw the entire system of out of whack, leading to a cascade of imbalances: higher debt, a grossly enlarged financial sector and unsustainable bubbles.

If the free market party doesn’t offer the public an honest appraisal of capitalism’s weaknesses, the public will never trust it to address them. Power will inevitably slide over to those who believe this crisis is a repudiation of global capitalism as a whole.

Now this was as close to an honest recommendation that you will find in the whole column yet there is still that big fat strawman at the end. The quote "those who believe this crisis is a repudiation of global capitalism as a whole" refers to whom exactly? Well the Democrats of course. Yet still the question remains, what ARE the weaknesses of capitalism??? You see David Brooks won't touch this because he knows it isn't capitalism thats the problem. Its the hands off approach to capitalism that Republicans have adopted meaning less regulation and less oversight which has led us to this crisis in our economy. But to make that admission would be to accept blame for the economic crisis. And of course Brooks would never recommend that the Republicans do that. The GOP is supposedly the party of personal responsibility but what they do best is point the finger at others.

Fourth, Republicans could get out in front of this crisis for once. That would mean being out front with ideas to support the wealth-creating parts of the economy rather than merely propping up the fading parts. That would mean supporting President Obama’s plan for global stimulus coordination, because right now most of the world is free-riding off our expenditures. That would mean eliminating all this populist talk about letting Citigroup fail, because a cascade of insolvency would inevitably lead to full-scale nationalization. It would mean coming up with a bold banking plan, rather than just whining about whatever the Democrats have on offer.

Check the contradiction here. First he says the Republicans can get out in front of the crisis. But then he admits that what they should be doing is supporting President Obama's plan that has already been put forth. How exactly is that getting in front of a crisis? But I digress.

Finally, Republicans could make it clear that that the emergency has to be followed by an era of balance.

I wonder how they could do this. I know, maybe they could convene a fiscal responsibility summit!!! But wait that might show that they weren't really taking the crisis seriously. Bummer.

When you get into the weeds of this op-ed its really just Brooks taking the opportunity to take more shots at President Obama and the Democrats while looking as if he is chastising his party. Grandstanding is the word that most comes to mind when I consider what he is doing here. Yeah he makes a point about calling for a spending freeze but what rational person is actually buying into that plan anyway? But you just wait, by the end of business today the Joe Kleins of the world will be exhalting David Brooks to the king of centrism and for having the "guts" to take on his party. I wish I was only joking.