David Brooks’ column today was actually epic. Jon Chait’s takedown was so masterful that it dissuaded me from trying to add anything even more devastating. Sometimes you just have to tip your hat. Still, I have to share this bit from Brooks because it’s hard to believe he wrote it:
I may be earnest, but I’m not an idiot.
That is exactly backwards. Or, we must hope it is backwards, because if David Brooks is earnest then he needs a visit from Dr. Kevorkian.
I think I may revisit Brooks’ column tomorrow (or relatively soon, anyway) not to mock it but to embrace a couple of points he tried to make but got wrong. Specifically, I agree with this advice for Congress, but not in the sense that Brooks intends:
As you know, I am an earnest, good-government type, so the strategy I’d prefer might be called Learning to Crawl. It would be based on the notion that you have to learn to crawl before you can run.
I believe he is right about this, and John Boehner is currently being given a crash-course in crawling. This isn’t because the administration wants to be mean, or even because crawling can come in handy after a hard night’s drinking. It’s because we can’t govern the country unless Boehner basically becomes the leader of the Democrats and a couple dozen moderate Republicans in the House. And that means he needs to go through a few iterations of the practice just to get him used to the idea.
But, more later. You know I’ve been saying this forever…
I’ve read a few things from liberals recently suggesting that Obama’s primary goal is to destroy the GOP, and that he is choosing policies and positions specifically to create a schism between the moderate Republicans and the Tea Party. I suspect that he is actually more interested in fixing our problems, but I don’t doubt that he is extremely aware of the affect he is having. Of course, it wouldn’t be working if they weren’t freaking insane, but as long as they are, why not take advantage of it? Brooks’ “Kill the Wounded” plan is exactly what I would like to see the Democrats do.
Obama is absolutely looking to drive a huge wedge into the GOP, splinter it, marginalize the crazies, and force Boehner to use the Democrats to pass bills. Brooks is right about that. He has even advocated it in the past. But, yes, it wouldn’t be possible if the GOP wasn’t crazy. And it wouldn’t be so easy if the GOP was less rigid and predictable.
If the GOP weren’t crazy, it wouldn’t be necessary.
I’m good with the barbaric ideal: to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
Booman, I don’t think you or your gang have done a post on Brooks’ guest course at Yale on, get this, “Humility”. Too easy?
OhmiGod, it just makes you want to grab a ton of popcorn, leaf through the course syllabus and get its pages all stained with the layered butter while laughing and laughing…
Again, the Onion is left with no ground to cover.
I’d be pleased if my son grew up and got an Ivy League education, but all Princetonians are ingrained with one indelible value judgment: Yale Sucks.
My son will not be an Eli.
As John Chait explains, the explanation is more psychological than ideological: specifically child psychology. It’s always someone else’s fault. Even when your opponent is being nice, it’s all a devious plot. There used to be a semi-serious accusation thrown at liberal parents that they were engaging in “repressive tolerance”. I.e. by letting their kids get away with stuff they were actually just throwing guilt trips at them.
It’s also a classic symptom of a ruling class in decline: their sense of entitlement is not being respected by the upstarts. It wouldn’t be so bad if he weren’t an uppitty N. Hence the Krauthammer rant about Obama being arrogant and intransigent if he simply doesn’t cave and do what his betters tell him to do every time.
It’s not as if Republicans are prone to campaign on “wedge issues” that used to work for them. To bad the wedges have moved from somewhere down the middle of the body politic (gay rights, abortion) to somewhere down the middle of the GOP. It’s not as if their “starve the beast” strategy isn’t now reaping the harvest it so richly deserves.
The main problem is that Obama is refusing to play ball with them on their terms, so they want to take the ball away – having realized, too late, that it isn’t their ball to take anymore. So they just petulantly rant and rave.
Parents will recognize that strategy in a jiffy: Shout and roar and scream so much (preferably in a public place) so that the parents will fold out of shear exhaustion or embarrassment. And it’s so damn unfair when they don’t fold, or, even worse, don’t rant in return – merely smile sweetly and wait until you cry yourself into exhaustion.
How horribly permissive is that? When you were brought up in an authoritarian paradigm, you expect an authoritarian response. And the worst part is that you realize your strategy isn’t working but you don’t have a plan B. All you can do is sob at the unfairness of it all. Wimper and hope for mercy. Understanding from the black man? How humiliating is that.
Reminds me of a European commercial that has been going around for several years and seems to fit the tantrum portion of the issue perfectly:
It’s interesting to read the comments following BoBo’s column and see him excoriated again and again. The may be one or two sycophants, but no one supports his thesis and almost everyone sees through him.
The idea that it’s Obama’s fault that the GOP keep soiling their diapers is pretty much the end-stage of brain-dead villager “balance”.
It seems like he has become a mental contortionist to try to justify his continued identification with the Republican party.
I have a family member who is still a Republican (and a public servant who has held and run for office) even though he is quite moderate and data driven. The Republican party left him a long time ago but he still hangs in there. I really don’t get it.
It isn’t rational; it’s tribal.
BoBo’s column is truly bizarre. Our President should help the House of Reps via training wheels?