The Babbling Brooks of the NYT Babbles about Four Choices for the Dems

 Abstract: David Brooks shows off his deep perceptive talents and scoops up four scenarios for paths forward [and backward] for the Democrats to pursue into a neat four square package.  He personally chooses the mumble and sob option. The Democrats have lost credibility and Obama has just struck out three times in VA, NJ and now MA by losing the Eternal Chair of Kennedyism. The massive healthcare juggernaut is stalled and our spending and debt must be highlighted and the evil consequences pinned on Obama and his progressives.  Hopefully, the voters were listening to Anita Dunn, Van Jones, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other far left radicals and weighted what they were saying against reality. Obama has struck out three times [VA, NJ and now MA] and lost the 60 Senate votes necessary to take over the government for decades. So, now the Republicans need to purge their ranks of liberalism and get back to capitalism, spending cuts, tax breaks for small business and repairing the damage to the economy.

As we read the NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1][2]--a turn-of-the-crank Marxian siren, we must always be alert for deviations from obvious facts,  veiling of true political designs and other odd bits of propaganda that are thoughtfully woven into the fabric of the average op-ed piece presented before us. Usually, more talented writers and web-spinners like Maureen Dowd, the Old Red Lady [3][4][5]offer us interesting political enigmas to dissect as she sandwiches literary clichés, unlikely metaphors and newsworthy characters with leftist political demands with sound and fury and the messages is usually very clear. But today our Chief Babbler David Brooks[6],[7] [8] speaking as a token, which is permitted only to offer mild and seemingly incontrovertible comments against the manifold fault of liberalism, gives the Democrats four thoughtful avenues to escape their self-inflicted dilemma on the ugly and testy issue of healthcare and other matters. We can wonder how Brooks managed to leap above the sticky cliché that we need to ‘hear both sides of the story.’ This is a new adventure into unexplored analytical jungles for Brooks and we wonder if he can follow the crumbs he uses to mark the trail in the forest to get back to reality.

Brooks begins with some ancient history that languishes in the lost dust on some lonely bookshelf begging for a restroke:

“In November 2008, William A. Galston and Elaine C. Kamarck wrote a report called “Change You Can Believe In Needs a Government You Can Trust.” Galston and Kamarck, who served in senior positions in the Clinton administration, threw up some warning flags for the incoming Obama administration.”[9]--Politics in the Age of Distrust By David Brooks Op-Ed Columnist

Published: January 21, 2010 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

“Despite the Democratic triumph that month, they noted, public distrust of government remains intensely high….Therefore, they counseled, the new administration should move cautiously to rebuild trust before beginning a transformational agenda.”--Politics in the Age of Distrust

This is not exactly astonishing news and we wonder if there was ever an Era of Trust where the good citizens were thankful for the paternalism that drove many of them into bankruptcy or the grave from miscues from our government. How do the good citizens assess the likes of with Jeremiah Wright[10], Bill Ayers and others who make Obama look like an ideological racist[11][12], a liar[13] and a Marxian advocate or a simple stooge[14] and how he learns from associations with Jeremiah Wright[15], Van Jones[16], Anita Dunn[17], Andy Stern[18], Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi[19] , Barney Frank[20][21], Chuck Schumer and others into this trust equation? What happened to the stimulus and jobs? What about the secretive meetings in the House and Senate to quickly pass a bill with text that nobody had read? What about the massive debt and wild spending?? Where did transparency fly off to?

The New Deal pitched again as predicted:

“The Obama administration interpreted the political climate in an entirely different way. As John F. Harris and Carol E. Lee wrote in a smart piece in Politico on Wednesday, the administration interpreted the 2008 election as a rejection of not only George W. Bush-style conservatism, but also Bill Clinton-style moderation. The country was ready for a New Deal-size change. It had a leader in Barack Obama who could uniquely inspire a national transformation.”--Politics in the Age of Distrust

This comment transcends the usual sophomoric mumblings we read in ‘expert quotes’ cited by Brooks in the past. He recovers somewhat here:

“As happens every four years, hubris defeated caution, and the administration began its big-bang approach. As always, it backfired. Instead of building trust in government, the Democrats have magnified distrust.”--Politics in the Age of Distrust

Okay, now for the solutions to restoring trust in Obama:

“The Democrats now have four bad options.

[1] The first is what you might call the Heedless and Arrogant Approach. … We know this is unpopular, but we think it is good policy and we are going to ram it through and you voters can judge us by the results.

[2] The second route is what you might call the Weak and Feckless Approach. Democrats could say: We have received and respect the message voters are sending. We are not going to shove the biggest social transformation in a generation down the throats of a country that has judged and rejected it. We are not going to concentrate immense new powers in a Washington the country detests.

[3] The third approach is the Dangerous and Demagogic Approach. This begins with the presumption that what Americans really want is a bunch of pseudopopulists to tell them they can have everything for free.

[4] The fourth approach is the Incoherent and Internecine Approach. This would involve settling on no coherent policy but just blaming each other for cowardice and stupidity for the next month. Liberals, who make up 20 percent of the country, could complain because they didn’t get their version of reform. The Senate and the House could bash each other. The intelligentsia could bash the public.”--Politics in the Age of Distrust

Well, he did select four bad options, at least in my view. Now for his selection:

“I support the Weak and Feckless Approach. Trust is based on mutual respect and reciprocity. If, at this moment of rage and cynicism, the ruling class goes even further and snubs popular opinion, then that will set off an ugly, destructive, and yet fully justified popular rebellion. Trust in government will be irrevocably broken. It will decimate policy-making for a generation.

These are the choices ahead. Have a nice day.”--Politics in the Age of Distrust

With choices like this the Democrats have no realistic choices. Clearly, the factors that caused this mess [subprime mortgages and the debt-driven deflationary spiral[22] that almost crashed our financial system and massive social spending that continues to drives us further downward] are beyond the scope of this missive. There is no mention of the salient fact that this green revolution [read EcoNazi[23] administered in the worst interests of nations by EcoQuislings[24]] merely builds new asset bubbles because the left is using borrowed or printed monies to set up expensive and inefficient replacements for existing systems that will raise prices, cost more jobs and lower the efficiency of our economy. Fecklessness is the disease of indecision and that attribute does not characterize many left-liberals who are going for broke here.[25] I guess Brooks just wants us to mumble about our 100% debt-to-GDP ratio and just shuffle off down the merry pathway. 

Where is the suggestion for Obama that he try to change the general view that he is anti-capitalism and pro Marx? What can Obama reasonably do to persuade the voting public that he is not soft on Islamo-Fascism[26] and or the kind of Marxism brewing in South America? There is no remedy for trust reclamation here.

Brooks chooses a default pathway designed to keep as much of the recent loot in the hands of the left as they keep their heads down and slink from publicity, as is his mission in his current job, and wants to mumble the salient points away. The unspoken analysis here is that we are mired in debt from both Bush and Obama and if conservatives get their way spending will be slashed and taxes will be cut for corporations and that means unemployment in the government sectors will soar and phony energy programs like the sort that temporarily prevent California[27][28][29] from going into default will tip them into bankruptcy when defunded. MA, NY, NJ and MD follow along soon after. They must not be bailed our as the NYT pleads.[30]

This is the equivalent to the juvenile game of ‘hot potato[e]’ where the ticket to the train wreck is passed off to someone else to deal with.

I have never thought that Obama was anything other than a Marxist, a follower of Saul Alinsky, a radical stooge of the far left who hates America and its heritage, a person who will do or say anything including exploiting racism and bigotry to grow government and debase the business community and to spend everything we have to and then gleefully deal with a collapse of our currency or economy or both and then to announce that ‘capitalism has failed’ and we need something else.  He is a stooge of ACORN, the unions like SEIU and any and all far-left political organizations even if they are as phony and unconvincing as the environmentalists.

He had at least a chance to restroke Leninism in America in this try with the wild applause of those oppressed and brainwashed people of the Euro zone and most of South America. He missed his chance.  He is a failure in so many ways.

So, the Republicans need to [1] purge their ranks of RINOS, [2] pin every single nasty and fruitless vote, the debt and massive spending and recite the speeches of any and all Democrats that supported Obama and to [3] tear down any and all phony social programs that he built up. They need to show the world that this massive spending is threatening our currency and economic future and showcase every single leftist who make accommodative speeches on the subject and voted for such legislation. They all need to be voted out of power in local, state and federal elected positions.

We can probably save the currency if we stop spending now and cut numerous phony social programs but only at the expense of more unemployment especially in government where ‘employment’ is the least needed. States like CA ,MA, NJ , NY and MD and probably IL will have to be forced to avoid default by implementing  massive government cuts in both spending and jobs and to stop subsidizing bankrupt businesses for political reasons like GM, Chrysler and most of the big banks.

Obama has shown the voters his true side and now they are outraged. I have having a nice day as Brooks suggested.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com