David Brooks really is insufferable. He runs in the most elite, intellectual circles and, yet, he is completely obsessed with the working man. He works for the New York Times but he tells us that the Republican Party is the party of the white working class. What about being the party of Wall Street and rich, white people in general?
Think Progress ran a piece recently that had a chart showing that all seven Republican candidates support:
1. New tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans
2. New tax cuts for corporations
3. Ending Medicare as we know it
4. Cutting Social Security benefits
5. Repealing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms
6. opposition to the Buffett Rule, that would tax millionaires at at least the same rate as their secretaries.
All but Huntsman oppose:
1. cutting Big Oil subsidies
2. eliminating tax cuts for companies that ship jobs overseas
So, I think about why a working class person (white or any other color) would support a Republican or think that the party belongs to them. And then I read this:
Santorum is the grandson of a coal miner and the son of an Italian immigrant. For years, he represented the steel towns of western Pennsylvania. He has spent the last year scorned by the news media — working relentlessly, riding around in a pickup truck to more than 370 towns. He tells that story of hard work and elite disrespect with great fervor at his meetings…
…He is not a representative of the corporate or financial wing of the party. Santorum certainly wants to reduce government spending (faster even than Representative Paul Ryan). He certainly wants tax reform. But he goes out of his way in his speeches to pick fights with the “supply-siders.” He scorns the Wall Street bailouts. His economic arguments are couched as values arguments: If you want to enhance long-term competitiveness, you need to strengthen families. If companies want productive workers, they need to be embedded in wholesome communities.
Here’s one of my many questions: if Rick Santorum were a representative of the corporate or financial wing of the Republican Party, how would we know? He already supports lowering the top marginal personal income tax rate, the corporate tax rate, the capital gains tax, and the estate tax. He already supports big tax subsidies for energy companies and big multinational outsourcing corporations. He already supports the repeal of the only financial reforms and consumer protections to pass through Congress since the financial collapse. What more could he possibly do to signal to David Brooks that he is a representative of the financial elite?
But, then, the same is true of Michele Bachmann. It’s true of all the Republicans. If white, working class people think that these policies are going to make their lives better or easier, they’re irredeemable morons. And that’s what David Brooks is depending on. He acts like he sees and values the unique dignity of the white working class, whom he casts (a la Palin) as the quintessential Americans, transmitting the essential virtues and genius of our system from generation to generation.
For David Brooks, Rick Santorum is really only concerned about people who live in trailer parks having wholesome families.
And, get this next bit:
While in Congress, he was a leader in nearly every serious piece of antipoverty legislation. On the stump, he cries, “The left has a religion, too. It’s just not based on the Bible. It’s based on the religion of self.”
For real. David Brooks just wrote that.
And this:
If you took a working-class candidate from the right, like Santorum, and a working-class candidate from the left, like Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and you found a few islands of common ground, you could win this election by a landslide. The country doesn’t want an election that is Harvard Law versus Harvard Law.
You want to know how weak that is? Sherrod Brown went to Yale.
The truth is, Rick Santorum is the worst of all worlds. He’s a sanctimonious tightass who would like nothing more than to put the government in charge of everyone’s sex life, and he’s a representative of the financial elite, too.
Come to think of it, he’s a little like David Brooks.
very easy solution to all of this. Declare them terrorists and have a drone drop a bomb on them. or just arrested and detained indefinitely.
as they say, death solves all problems, no man no problem.
.
Saves the burden of transport, sorting into a category, bad PR, etc.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
i see you got under joefromlowell’s skin.
he sure hates in when anyone disagrees with his hero.
Hmmm… maybe this is just another one of those “Applebee’s Salad Bar” mix-ups with David Brooks. I’m pretty sure Santorum has been riding around Iowa for a year in a minivan – or two when he brings the family. This year the phony pickup truck image-guy is Mitt Romney.
Interestingly though, I have heard a few different bobbleheads (even liberals) on the TV today repeat this David Brooks sentiment almost verbatim as if it were their own, right down to the incorrect pickup truck reference.
And we wonder sometimes who sets the crazy media narrative.
Interestingly though, I have heard a few different bobbleheads (even liberals) on the TV today repeat this David Brooks sentiment almost verbatim as if it were their own, right down to the incorrect pickup truck reference.
What liberals are those?
Perhaps I should have said “Designated Liberals” instead of “Liberals.” We all know that there are few True Liberals allowed to spew their toxic views (per the Powers That Be) on national television. For god’s sake, what do you think this is? Western Europe?
But I am not biting on the bait you’ve laid out with your question by naming names because I couldn’t anyway. The TV is on. I’m not necessarily watching it or know who’s talking (or care, usually.)
The “pickup truck” bit was caught my ear because I KNOW it’s false. Part of Santorum’s campaign has been their bragging about their shoestring budget and the fact that they’ve visited all 99 counties in Iowa by MINIVAN. I think they did a video of it for the Ames Straw Poll. And his family history of immigration and coal mining is compelling but Little Ricky has nothing to do with THAT. His real experience shows him running a mafia-style undertaking running the hiring dictates of the “K Street Project.” …not exactly a wholesome and virtuous Christian endeavor.
What I heard were pundits who don’t want to offend the Powers That Be and have obviously read Brooks’ column this morning regurgitating it on-air as though it’s gospel and that shows us where we are as a country. The fact that EVERY decent blogger has to call out Brooks as “Wanker of the Day” is testament to it.
Santorum was knee deep in all the K Street stuff. And he’s not owned by Wall Street? Hahahahaha!!!!!
Santorum is a working-class sellout like Boehner. I suppose it shows one difference between left-wing people and right-wing people — right-wingers think selling out means you’ve made it, and working-class right-wingers are fine with guys like Santorum and Boehner selling them out.
of the last 40 years trying to figure out why the working stiff with the six pack in his pickup truck votes Republican. He’s voting against his best interest, getting screwed continually, and seems to love it.
It’s because they vote based on other reasons. That much should be clear.
You might almost say that they define their best interests for themselves, whatever others may think.
I was reminded of that because yesterday someone Tweeted a link to a Chris Hayes(yes, that one!!) from a few years ago. It was basically how he went around with a group in Wisconsin doing canvassing. He talks about what he heard from voters and why they were voting the way they were. Interesting stuff.
It’s not about interests and they’re just stupid.
I once remarked to a close relative barely scraping by on Social Security she was voting for people who would push her into poverty.
She shrugged and said, “Oh, well. If it’s good for the country . . . “
Many others just really believe the libertarian, Randian notion that redistribution is theft and reject it for exactly that reason.
You want to “spread the wealth around”?
You’re no better than a pickpocket.
And unions are just organized extortionists and thugs, they think.
I don’t dispute that there’s a good degree of stupid involved, but that is only the beginning and not the end of the problem. These people have needs and grievances which are not always unjustified, in fact many are the same as those that make other people vote Democratic. What is stupid is the way such people propose to address those problems — or rather, the way unscrupulous politicians and publicists win their adherence. And even this has at least as much to do with sociology (cultural cues) as bare stupidity.
Why is this important? It’s absolutely vital, because until Democrats understand it, they will not win hearts and minds and votes because they cannot “talk their language” to convince them of better solutions. This absolutely does not means Democrats should adopt the Faux News techniques of lies and misrepresentation. It means Democrats have to figure out techniques of getting truth and accurate representation through these people’s rhetorical/cultural filters. In many cases, prejudices, stupidity and downright cussedness are so strong that this is truly impossible — and maybe this is the line between “independents” and republican true-believers. But when the problem is simply dismissed as “teh stupid”, given the degree of polarization of the electorate at this point, you essentially write off the possibility of getting through to anyone who doesn’t already agree with you. It’s way more complicated than just “teh stupid”. Fortunately, I don’t think this is Obama’s attitude at all; I think it’s the so-called “professional left”‘s problem.
Partly , they have bought into the Republican baloney that an unfettered free market is the ideal system to allow the best and brightest to rise to the top. Someday they can be like Donald Trump, if they work hard! Those socialist dems are always rigging the playing field against them with their job-killing regulations, taxes, and affirmative action.
This message has worked with a certain class of low information voters, for decades.
Most accept that they are not among “the best and the brightest” and will never rise.
They accept that they belong right where they are, and that unlike the specially bright or talented they don’t deserve more.
They accept that the race is to the swift and that they are slow.
And they never question the legitimacy of an economy whose workings are captured by competitive metaphors.
Yes, there definitely are people like that. They will not change their minds until they’re REALLY hurting, and even them some will not. They’ll just become religious fanatics, cultists or cranks. Or they already are.
Sometimes one can’t avoid revealing which side of one’s bread is buttered.
“…He is not a representative of the corporate or financial wing of the party.” But he put quite a bit of effort into representing them during his post-Senate career working with Delay, Abramoff, ad nauseum.
I’m a poor, white, rural, gun-totin’ Leftist & David Brooks can hike on up here to the ol’ farm & kiss my working-class derriere.
The man’s ‘Wanker of the Day’ every day.
It’s easy to get them mixed up.
I’m glad you read Brooks, Booman, so that I don’t have to. I don’t need the aggravation.
I hear you. I can never get past the first paragraph. Friedman — every once in a great while I can actually make it through one of his to the end, or damn near close. But Brooksie? No f–in way.
And obviously doesn’t know how to use Google.
You wrote,
“If white, working class people think that these policies are going to make their lives better or easier, they’re irredeemable morons.”
That is the secret of conservative success in any nation in which they do well.
Politics as IQ test.
Americans are dumber than anybody.
Norwegians are smart.