This morning I passed on another serving of David Brooks' syrupy political wholesomeness, and I'm glad I did, because as Paul Krugman points out, Brooks wrote this:
The federal government should borrow money at current interest rates to build infrastructure.... The fact that the federal government has not passed major infrastructure legislation is mind-boggling, considering how much support there is from both parties.
As Krugman further points out, what's truly mind-boggling is that a prominent pundit could actually write such trumpery. Brooks is boggled that major infrastructure projects have not gone forward despite "how much support there is from both parties," which is a quantitative conclusion deriving from absolutely nowhere.
In fact it's such a stunningly counterfactual claim, I just now violated my day's Brooks-abstinence and checked his column to see if it was taken out of context by Krugman. It was, in a way. Here's how Brooks led into his befuddlement over the federal government's infrastructure inaction: "If you get outside the partisan boxes, there’s a completely obvious agenda to create more middle-class, satisfying jobs." If you get outside the partisan boxes....
In other words, if one altogether ignores the ruthless, relentless, existing Republican partisanship that is obstructing infrastructure projects, then one's mind is boggled at the lack of such projects which otherwise enjoy tremendous bipartisan support!
In precisely what sort of Maxwell Smart Cone of Silence walled off from reality does David Brooks write?