The Babbling Brooks of the NYT Babbles about The Gang System and the Ethereal Forces of Moderates.

Abstract: The conservative token David Brooks writes a piece that appears to criticize the new Obama Regime with the accusation that there is nothing new in his political structure.  Obama talks a strong game about change and then lets the ‘Old Bulls’ of Congress grope for 50s era spending solutions to the current depression. Grunt and Grab politics return like malaria in leftist politics. But, our David Brooks predicts that ‘moderates’ will form a gang and rescue the nation from the excesses of extremists. The stimulus package will be crafted so as to be effective in moderating this depression.  We must wait to see what happens.

As we read the NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1][2]--a turn-of-the-crank Marxian siren, we must always be prepared to suffer the invariable harangues of the current mass attack on capitalism. Continuing on with today’s unusual essay,  the Chief Babbler David Brooks,[3][4] [5] the lonely  conservative ‘token’ who pretends at objective journalism at the Old Gray Lady, instructs us in Gang Theory. We must admit that those who would rewrite his babbles so that he might appear to be the simple stooge  for the NYT, which  needs so desperately to keep up their meager sales,  have let him have too much chain in this instance as he criticizes the Party of Democrats and in particular their saving messiah. He insinuates that the liberals might lose control soon.

  We read:

“Barack Obama is a potentially transformational figure. In political style and intellectual outlook, he is unlike anything that has come before. On matters of policy substance, however, he’s been pretty conventional. The policies he offered during the campaign matched those of just about every other Democrat.”[6]--The Gang System by David Brooks Op-Ed Columnist Published: February 5, 2009 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.][All quotes are from this link in this essay today unless otherwise indicated.]

Being yesterday’s commentary [Feb 6], thus stale history by leftist standards, we are struck by the absence of obligatory drooling praise and for the grand opportunity to p**p for world-wide change. The mandatory slobbering over the Messiah must be considered to be the very minimum of polite conduct in the adoration of leftist politicians by the Walter Duranty Papers. This crusty anti-genuflection by our token in this op-ed is tantamount to heresy by omission and is the rough equivalent of not curtseying before the Queen. Brooks babbles to the outer fringes of what might be deemed intolerable by the Neo-Marxists.

A quiz!

“So an important question for the Obama presidency is this: Will his transformational style eventually lead to transformational policies, or will his conventional policies eventually force him to shelve his transformational style?”

There is an important nostrum that allows the mentally disnimble to be corralled like cross-eyed sheep and that is the cliché of ‘hearing both sides of the story.’[7] A clever politician will stack the political deck so that the sucker is limited to choosing between only two cards, both chosen by the huckster and this is given in spirit by our Babbler in this piece.

We must protest this truncation of the many possibilities that remain to be proffered here in the quest for a solution to minimizing the pain of our worsening depression and offer just a few alternatives:

[1] Obama may be a simple Neo-Marxist and incapable of slithering off his rigid stance of tax and spend legislation and big government as the solution for any problem however slight.

[2] Obama may be a scripted oratorical effigy only capable of honking the party line written by old Guard Democrats. He is thus a follower and not a leader.

[3] Having no experience in anything other than ‘community organizing,’ even yet undefined, he may be lost in the political swamp of praiseful insects and leeching reptiles.[8]

[4] Obama may have no idea what to do, has freaked out, and defers to the ‘experts.’

David Brooks answers his own mystical query with the revelation that some form of sanity must have been imposed upon the tax and spend grab fest and that ‘moderates’ have gained control. Moderates are usually considered to be the ‘silly putty’ of the extremists. I originally published the view that “Moderates are the silly putty of the extremists so they will follow the leader no matter who wins.”[9] A political synonym for the word moderate is moron as one has to struggle to identify successful major ‘moderate’ legislation in the last 8 or 9 decades. The ugly fact is that the moderates have no say in politics. They are simple place holders and act like napkin rings on the political table. There isn’t any notable moderate legislation or government program.

The ‘moderate’ is offered only two choices here: an 800 bln spending spree or a 950 bln one and, of course, the only course for a true moderate moron would be to ‘compromise’ and cut this difference at 850 bln amidst wild applause and gratitude for their studious analyses and the marvelous outcome. The Two Twits from Maine come immediately to mind. They will vote for most of this crap.

Amplifying his own assumptions as proof in the customary manner defined as circular logic, Brooks now enumerates a list of complaints from ‘moderate’ economists and teachers and such that attest to the fact that his stimulus will not work. Stepping into dangerous and unknown territory here, the ‘moderates’ now wonder about the debt associated with these unworkable programs.  Nobody thought of the debt before now? Gee, we can just print money and soar into prosperity with massive spending.  California must have shown us the way!

 According to Brooks, the moderates prevailed: “On Thursday, moderate unease translated into political action. Forty-nine moderate Democrats in the House belatedly signed a letter calling for cuts in the package, and protested the way they had been trampled by the Democratic leadership.”

The coup d’état:

“The big news here is that there are many Democrats who don’t want to move in a conventional liberal direction and there some Republicans willing to work with them to create a functioning center. These moderates — who are not a party, but a gang — seemed willing to seize control of legislation from the party leaders. They separated themselves from both the left and right.”

Being trampled gives the bootlickers a chance to practice their traditional art.  Brooks postulates some unknown political ‘center’ where reason is allowed. There is no such place but in the pipe dreams of other moderates. This means they will produce some effective legislation!!? How wonderful! We just can’t wait to see how the stimulus will be focused on jobs and effective programs and will be devoid of socialist government bloating! We have achieved political nirvana.

But wait!

“The liberals already are mobilizing against the Moderate Gangs.”

And false hope for change:

“Obama didn’t plan them. He didn’t create them. He isn’t yet leading them. But the gangs could be the big new fact in domestic politics. If nurtured and used creatively, they can be the lever by which Obama transforms the landscape of government and creates a broad postpartisan coalition.”

This is lunacy. So, now we transcend from a post racial to a post partisan political era. We’ll see if the moderates seize this opportunity, or whether it’s just business as usual. This sounds like hokum and fluff to me.

Update:

The process is stalled.[10] The good senators await a ‘compromise.’[11] From the ‘moderates’ we hear of ‘Rushing over the cliff.”[12]

We need some more time to see how this will unsnarl:

We are already over the cliff from the grand socialist works of Fannie Mae. We are in massive debt. We have to postpone our examination of the Inspired Brooks Predictions and see if this Gang Theory works to generate some reasonable legislation that might stimulate the economy and not bloat government and exacerbate the depression we are mired in. IF this happens, the Neo-Marxist chance to bury the nation in a leftist socialist swamp might vanish or be moderated a bit.

The  Brooks Theory here is that the ‘moderates’ will prevail and rise above their usual role as drooling stooges and make something happen.  Maybe Brooks can win one this time. That would be a first, but would fly in the faces of his masters at the Old Gray Lady. I place my bet on Pelosi at 3:1 over Brooks. Moderates are mindless dummies with quirky smiles and a general propensity to bow and lick the nearest set of muddy boots.  But, we shall see soon.  Stay tuned.

rycK

 Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com