David Brooks is slowly coming to an uncomfortable conclusion that is at odds with his core mission as a well-paid pseudo-intellectual hack for the corporate right. That conclusion is that the Republican Party has been taken over by fanatics who cannot be reasoned with or trusted with power in our government. That’s progress, I guess, until he conveniently forgets next week what he’s learned and the obvious implications. But maybe with enough two-steps foreward/one-step back moves, Brooks will eventually come to realize that he’s on the wrong side of a deathmatch for the soul of our country. When that happens, he’ll probably see his career reduced to dust.
For now, however, he’s only begun to climb the fence. Straddling will come later, if it comes at all. In today’s column, he establishes a predicate (also progress for Brooks). The predicate is that the Republicans are good negotiators and they’ve succeeded in getting a sweet offer from the Obama administration, but they’re too goddamned insane to take it.
Then he gives us this:
Over the past week, Democrats have stopped making concessions. They are coming to the conclusion that if the Republicans are fanatics then they better be fanatics, too.
The struggles of the next few weeks are about what sort of party the G.O.P. is — a normal conservative party or an odd protest movement that has separated itself from normal governance, the normal rules of evidence and the ancient habits of our nation.
Did he set the predicate for calling the Democrats ‘fanatics’? No. We are asked to make an unsupported logical leap. If, as Brooks established, the Republicans are not negotiating and not interested in evidence, expert advice, or compromise, then the Democrats have no reason to make further concessions to them. That’s a rational decision, not a resort to fanaticism. And Brooks knows this because the next and concluding paragraph affirms it.
If the debt ceiling talks fail, independents voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.
And they will be right.
This is why David Brooks is a hack and frequently honored for his prolific wanking. The point of using poor logic is to deceive. He uses poor logic because he’s afraid of the career implications of coming out against the modern-day GOP with all the vigor and clarity that is required by his conscience. He knows the Democrats are not fanatics. He calls them fanatics anyway.
Plus his writing needs improvement. “They better”? Seriously, David? I would expect something like that from one of my community college students, not from a professional writer. It’s “They had better” or “They’d better”. Grammar nazi out.
I don’t care about his grammar.
But I note Krugman has the same reaction as me, only he’s much more succinct.
There’s no clearer indication of the general state of someone’s mind than their grammar. Language is thought; sloppy grammar is sloppy thinking.
That’s why it’s worth noting.
if you’ve been taught grammar in the first place.
You’re right on the money with your assessment. Brooks’s conclusion is a non-sequitur. If the Republicans are fanatics who won’t take anything less than every impossible thing they want as their notion of a “compromise”, then the Democrats are well within their rights not to want to negotiate with crazy people who cannot be placated with reasonable offers. To call the Democrats “fanatics” for refusing to cave in to fanaticism is intellectually dishonest, not to mention a non-sequitur.
It’s the first rule of Village punditry: “Both sides do it.”
Absolutely spot on about his motivations. The GOP is a vehicle at this point for careerists and, literally, nothing more, save for a means to benefit those in a position to profit from the economic wreckage their non-governance causes. He is one of the Times’ conservative columnists, and that job trumps any possible sober analysis.
Bobo is not a theater critic, he’s a bit actor.
The question is who is writing his lines. Someone in the Village thinks the GOP is endangered by their brinksmanship.
Meanwhile, Tom “Wanker” Friedman is jonesing for a third party.
Methinks the elites are beginning to be afraid they overplayed their hand.
Exactly.
There’s absolutely nothing special about DB.
Dear House Republicans,
Your bosses called. Congratulations on doing such a great job negotiating! But now it’s time to take the deal.
Yours sincerely,
Errand Boy Brooks
‘It is difficult to get a man to understand
something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.’
— Upton Sinclair
he was always a lying wanker.
period
Here’s how the Republicans think:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/07/take-the-deal-people.html
So actually the Republicans are the sane caucus.
Wall Street still doesn’t get it.
Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries are going to punish the Democrats if they are the only ones who sacrifice. Maybe not Obama, but the Congressional Democrats, the folks that people have pulled the lever for out of habit.
Wall Street is asking that things be made worse.
Can we agree then that corporate boards should never, ever, ever consider raising prices under any circumstances? That they focus only on cutting costs, even sacrificing their sales force and their HR department and equipment maintenance and toilet paper for the peons. Oh, and that they never raise CEO pay because it is a cost. And that CEOs who are fanatics about raising prices need to go back to their base and say they’ve raised prices?
OMG, it’s Meaghan McArdle. How does she stay employed? And covering economics for The Atlantic? There is a welfare queen if I ever saw one.
When I saw marginalrevolution cited, I thought it might be Tyler Cowen.