Brooks: sort of calling it quits

David Brooks is now calling for a free-soil Whiggery north of the Mason-Dixon and out to the Pacific which would peacefully coexist but compete with the Republican Party's nihilistic feudalism of "the South and rural West." This "second G.O.P," as Brooks calls it--that is, the first G.O.P. aforementioned--"would be based on the idea that America is being hit simultaneously by two crises, which you might call the Mancur Olson crisis and the Charles Murray crisis."

Yes we might, but if we do, then goodbye second G.O.P. Rallying millions of profoundly disaffected conservatives and befuddled centrists to the cry of "Remember Mancur Olson!" isn't exactly the motivational stuff of Lexington and Concord or the October Revolution or the Arab Spring. And slogans are important; in fact they're supreme, especially when your new movement is founded on the somniferous exigencies of Mancur Olson and Charles Murray.

Suspecting this, Brooks takes a more explanatory stab at what the new Whiggery could mean:

The second G.O.P. ... would be filled with people who recoiled at President Obama’s second Inaugural Address because of its excessive faith in centralized power, but who don’t share the absolute antigovernment story of the current G.O.P.

Putting aside that Brooks' characterization of Obama's inaugural speech as an "excessive faith in centralized power" is merely the same old hyperbolic humbug against which Brooks is simultaneously inveighing, there is already a superabundance of authentically conservative Democrats who naturally "don’t share the absolute antigovernment story of the current G.O.P."

Thus a G.O.P.-winged duplication of thoughtful conservatism is, by now, and by definition, superfluous. Your party's real problem, Mr. Brooks, is that the Democratic Party (assuming it doesn't lose its head and overreach) is fast becoming the American consensus party--a rough coalition of moderates, liberals, progressives, and Burkean conservatives. In short your party, Mr. Brooks, is being squeezed out of business, because your business party failed to plan, failed to diversify, and failed to strive for anything but the quick profit. 

Comments

[japa21]

I always get a kick out of people who claim that a speech in which Obama clearly stated that "Government is not the answer to every problem" really stated "Government is the solution to every problem."

[Peter G]

I'm guessing you are or were a chess player at some point. If you ever were you would recognize that tipping point in every game where the loser starts to make moves of desperation. Some of these can be quite clever and even reverse the game though that seldom happens. The truly stubborn will continue to play for the draw. For what it is worth. The Republicans are well past the tipping point.

[dr.e]

Mr. Brooks is just wishful thinking. After all, it would be heresy for him to join the conservative Democrats.

[shsavage]

The upcoming immigration reform debate will be an indicator of how far this impending breakup is likely to go. If the Whig branch of the GOP throws the Know-Nothing branch under the bus, then we can pretty well conclude that the split has finally been achieved.

[Turgidson]

Amazing how every "centrist" and "reasonable conservative" critique of the Republicans basically says "be more like Democrats and/or Obama," but must desperately obfuscate this obvious takeaway by throwing out idiotic strawmen and deliberate mischaracterizations of what the Democrats say and believe. Frum is the most obnoxious in this regard, followed closely by Brooks and Sullivan.

Maybe Brooks has finally, at long last, reached the point where he can no longer look at himself in the mirror as a water carrier for the braindead goons that are now running his beloved party. Because he's an intellectually dishonest weasel, I highly doubt it, but...I guess anything is possible.

[Robert Lipscomb]

As the Culture War ends, the Democratic Party is now built on a unique tribe - a tribe defined by its diversity. As such, it is a true expression of liberalism (individual liberty). People of all types, including white straight males, who are similarly inclined will have a natural affinity to this group.

Unique indeed in the history of tribalism.

This group also has an affinity for what I will call free market -socialism. That is use either socialism or freemaket capitalism depending on which one seems to work best. Think agnostic. Add to that an instinct for progressive taxes. This is what Americans have pursued for about 100 years. So the emerging Democratic Party is conservative on economic issues.

Relative to forign policy, seems inclined towards what I call practical hegemony, in contrast to empire or isolationism. This lies somewhere between political agnosticism and progressivism.

Because of its inherent diversity, the emerging Democratic Party (purist bloggers aside) will naturally accomodate a great deal of political heresy on just about anything but diversity. (See "Blue Dog Democrats".)

In other words, the emerging Democratic Party looks like a traditional American political party of times past.

The GOP is not.

So, back to Brooks, I really do not know what their unified theory of governance will be.

[MinneapolisPipe]

David Brooks is entering his slow descent into madness.

I would not be shocked enough to even raise an eyebrow when reading about him being found late at night in Times Square wearing only boxers, drinking from a near empty bottle of Scotch, and screaming about school vouchers and block grants.

[Thrasymachus]

Brooks conveniently overlooks the fact that there used to *be* a "second Republican Party" in places like the Northeast, filled with pragmatic good-government types and social moderates. That wing of the Republican Party didn't disappear because the movement conservatives used primaries to purge them... It disappeared because the electorates of those states came to understand that if you elect any Republican -even a moderate, reasonable one- you're voting for Republican *policies*, and those have been and will continue to be the movement conservative policies of the reactionary South.