David Brooks writes that his most recent transgression against overt reality and basic fairness prompted him to rethink Obama's mistakes and his own "dissatisfaction" with them. And this, from the penumbral universe of desperately thrashing-about conservatism, is what Brooks' ponderous rethink comes up with:
The problem is that [Obama's 'Democratic orthodoxy'] locks us into the same debate framework we’ve been stuck in since 1980, which has produced so much gridlock. If politics is framed [as big government versus small, as the individual versus the collective], then the country divides and policy stagnates. We will keep having these endless budget squabbles. The dysfunction will metastasize.
A moment of silence ...
There. Perhaps by now you've absorbed that offensive barrage of fanciful bullshit. You don't believe it, because it's patently unbelievable, but you've absorbed it. And its thrust is unmistakable: The right, from fringe to core, has got nothing--nothing but make-believe tales and pseudo-realities and a weird kind of deeply disingenuous post-conservatism which even the post-conservatives don't really believe. Because it's patently, provably unbelievable.
To pin the label of "Democratic orthodoxy" on the most philosophically pragmatic president since FDR--as well as a president who has taken as much unhinged heat from the orthodox left as from the intoxicated right--is unbelievably offensive enough. Yet Brooks compounds this trespass by falsely witnessing the president's responsibility for government's resultant gridlock, division, stagnation and dysfunction.
Not even Sean Hannity believes that. He too says it, of course, because it's patently, provably--and best of all--offensively untrue, which is what passes for conservative analysis in these post-conservative days.
David Brooks has sunk to that.
The current situation reminds me of a Nineteenth Century war with both armies amassing for a convential battle field of that time.
There will be a battle. The soldiers will will march side by side into volleys of bullets - march and fire, march and fire. Ultimately, one side will win.
Brooks is correct to suggest that we are nearing the end of thirty years of battles in the war of Reaganism. Where he errs - and many others - is to suppose that a peace treaty is possible before this battle.
Democrats seem to be ready, willing and able to fight this battle. Many Republicans, including Brooks, are frantically looking for a way out because they sense a loss of not only the battle, but the war.
I am not sure of who will win. i am confident that the time has come for someone to win and someone to lose.
The American public is tuning it all out. They have watched the guys guys in the school yard circling each other, threatening to fight, for two years. They seem to believe that it is time for put up or shut up.
Posted by: Robert Lipscomb | February 26, 2013 at 09:07 AM
Can you imagine hard it must be for a man who has spent his entire career preaching about being the adult in the room while indulging and excusing every whim of the psychotic preschoolers he calls a political party. And to finally realize he was just an indulgent babysitter. Of course the problem must lie with the parents of the children next door. Who else is there to blame?
Posted by: Peter G | February 26, 2013 at 09:33 AM
My only quibble with Pm's post is his notion that Brooks has only now "sunk" to this. He's been shoveling this rank bullshit his entire career. Only difference now is that his team, the GOP is scraping the bottom of the barrel so loudly that no amount of fake reasonableness can take the stink off them anymore. Which makes Brooks look like the fool his party has made of him. But there is money to be made in his role, so he'll keep at it.
Posted by: Turgidson | February 26, 2013 at 10:47 AM
The lack of historical perspective is as stunning as anything else. Has it really been so long that people have forgotten that budgets used to be a fairly routine matter on the legislative calendar? It is only since about 2006 (when the Dems retook Congress), that Republicans have adopted a dogmatic principle of using the budget process to subvert the results of the election.
Posted by: Chris Andersen | February 26, 2013 at 11:09 AM
Every day in every way, anyone who identifies with the republican party, or "movement" conservatism in general makes me think of an abusive husband that beats his wife, then blames her for his abusive behavior. There will never be anything that anyone, the president, poor people, the American worker, will ever be able to do that would make these thugs happy. No matter what you do, no matter what you say, they will always find a way to make it your fault, to make you the bad guy, and the sole perpetrator in all of your problems. Perhaps I reveal a little too much familiarity with the subject, but I do know that if you are determined to get out of an abusive relationship, eventually, (and yes it can take some time) you can get out of it. Americans already started taking those steps in 2012, but there will still be more pain to endure before the abusive relationship finally ends for good. But it will end eventually.
Posted by: AnneJ | February 26, 2013 at 12:20 PM
@AnneJ: Good points. I grew up in the home of a rage-aholic. Obama obviously did not. I believe that is why so many of us on the left in 2009 and 2010 gnashed our teeth watching him try to reason with the GOP. We already knew where that was going. It is also why I know there will have to be a final showdown with a clear winner and a clear loser.
Posted by: Robert Lipscomb | February 26, 2013 at 01:10 PM
Yes, Robert I agree with you that a final showdown is bound to happen. But I wonder what that final showdown will look like. Obviously the election of 2012 was not that showdown.
Posted by: AnneJ | February 26, 2013 at 01:31 PM
@AnneJ: We have known for a long time that Americans want their government goods and services but don't want to pay for them. Obama's option is to let us have them and let the wealthy pay for the difference. The Republicans are saying, "No, you can't."
That is an over-simplification and not very flattering, but that seems to be the choice. So, I am guessing Obama wins.
For 30 years, Reaganism said you could have them and not pay for them. So, in a way, the GOP is confessing that they have been lying for 30 years.
Posted by: Robert Lipscomb | February 26, 2013 at 02:13 PM
Robert,
That must be why they have been in such a foul mood lately. I tend to disagree with people who say "trickle-down" economics didn't work. I think it worked exactly the way the people who came up with it wanted it to work. The only trouble for them now is that the time has finally come to pay the piper.
Posted by: AnneJ | February 26, 2013 at 03:19 PM