The Babbling Brooks of the NYT Babbles about Populism and Makes some Sense until Fiscal Reality Appears

Abstract: David Brooks shows off his deep perceptive talents by dividing and categorizing the various political factors in our society. He avoids the tacky issue of identity politics by substitution of other trendy monikers. He seems to focus on populism and elitism as the main divisors of our society. In the second half of this blog, commenting on a later op-ed opinion by Brooks and incorporated here, where Brooks addresses problems of the Obama administration that might be ameliorated by the use of ‘brazen honesty.’ We have no notion what this means, but the words populism and elitism have vanished. We now are advised that independents [who populate both populism and elitism groups] are angry with Obama and his minions. His programs are unpopular. He urges Obama to tell the voters that they cannot continue to demand programs that they cannot pay for. All this flies in the face of the Demon when you try to tell Californians they cannot have more social programs as those in power in Sacramento are more than willing to raise taxes, if permitted, to 100% or beyond, if necessary, to maintain their vision of utopia. Some ugly economic questions are herein proposed for Obama to address and I predict that he cannot broach any of them in depth with even a leftist version of brazen honesty whatever that might mean. We are broke and our financial situation is getting desperate and we face major currency problems and crushing debt and none of these will be addressed by the required spending cuts or tax breaks to small business.  The US, led by California now resembles Greece or Spain and will soon look like a Latin American banana republic. The progressives will resort to type and demand more spending and higher and higher taxes. The voters have until November to tear down much of this mess or we face default, currency debasement and a return to the second half or the Great Depression of 2008.

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,  the crude and unsophisticated but politically efficient 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. There are several talented writers and web-spinners like Maureen Dowd, the Old Red Lady [3][4][5] who 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] [9] usually speaking as a token or acting out some role in some phony dialogue with one of the lesser talents on hand[10], drifts into a meaningful and well-written essay on the salient operating factions of politics. Brooks manages to leap beyond much of the sticky cliché-besotted pulp that is both boring and intellectually insulting and omits the hackneyed nostrum that we need to ‘hear both sides of the story.’ This is a new adventure high for our Chief Babbler and we are astonished at this performance.  But, in an op-ed piece two weeks later he seems to wander off into some economic vacuum and cautions Obama to be honest.

He begins:

“Politics, some believe, is the organization of hatreds.”[11]--The Populist Addiction By David Brooks Op-Ed Columnist Published: January 25, 2010 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

It doesn’t get much more salient that this given what we hear in the media about this process. Note that he properly uses the word politics as a singular noun.[12] He must offer this as some shock element to initiate interest in his works although the statement is mostly true.

An essay on definitions now follows:

“The people who try to divide society on the basis of ethnicity we call racists. The people who try to divide it on the basis of religion we call sectarians. The people who try to divide it on the basis of social class we call either populists or elitists.”--The Populist Addiction By David Brooks

Interestingly, Brooks omits any discussion about identity politics, the division that defines the leftist legions on the far flank. His analysis can proceed calmly without this term, but this could have been added for effect and breadth of coverage.

“These two attitudes — populism and elitism — seem different, but they’re really mirror images of one another. They both assume a country fundamentally divided. They both describe politics as a class struggle between the enlightened and the corrupt, the pure and the betrayers.” --The Populist Addiction By David Brooks” --The Populist Addiction By David Brooks

Some actual definitions:

Populism: “the political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite”[13] 

Elitism: “the attitude that society should be governed by an elite group of individuals”[14]

The  impression after reading this derives from the diametrical antagonism intrinsic to these terms and continues along with his hate-oriented preamble. The moderating adjective here is the word privileged, which does not appear again in this piece.

Brooks gives the political case for populism:

 “[1] First, it makes everything so simple. The economic crisis was caused by a complex web of factors, including global imbalances caused by the rise of China. But with the populist narrative, you can just blame Goldman Sachs.” --The Populist Addiction By David Brooks

“[2] …it absolves voters of responsibility for their problems. Over the past few years, many investment bankers behaved like idiots, but so did average Americans, racking up unprecedented levels of personal debt. With the populist narrative, you can accuse the former and absolve the latter.” --The Populist Addiction By David Brooks

“[3] Third, populism is popular with the ruling class. Ever since I started covering politics, the Democratic ruling class has been driven by one fantasy: those voters will get so furious at people with M.B.A.’s that they will hand power to people with Ph.D.’s. The Republican ruling class has been driven by the fantasy that voters will get so furious at people with Ph.D.’s that they will hand power to people with M.B.A.’s. Members of the ruling class love populism because they think it will help their section of the elite gain power. ” --The Populist Addiction By David Brooks

He must mean the current ruling class in power from this comment.

“So it’s easy to see the seductiveness of populism. Nonetheless, it nearly always fails. The history of populism, going back to William Jennings Bryan, is generally a history of defeat.

That’s because voters aren’t as stupid as the populists imagine. Voters are capable of holding two ideas in their heads at one time: First that the rich and the powerful do rig the game in their own favor; and second, that simply bashing the rich and the powerful will still not solve the country’s problems.”--The Populist Addiction By David Brooks

This is all very interesting as Brooks omits any discussion of the classical Marxian class struggle arguments and finesses the existence of the bourgeoisie [i.e. formerly the property-owning middle class] who are now the controlling capitalists in our society because they own and control the bulk of the wealth and their struggles with the proletariat [originally those with no property and hence restricted to wages]. His implied notion that the rich and powerful [bourgeoisie and their leaders] rig the power scheme in the same way the liberals do with concentrated power at the top of government is not mentioned.

Much of this interpretive quagmire is rooted in  a rudimentary definition dilemma here since the proletariat now conforms closely to the union groups although they own property and stuff  IRAs with common stocks in public corporations—a few attributes Marx never dreamed of.  It is also complicated by the fact that the elitists [those with advanced education] are no longer found solely on the left and many are capitalists, industrialists and lawyers abundantly found in all strata of our society.

So, we must reshuffle the citizens of our social structure and parse the occupants by not only property ownership or common stock inventories or educational status but mainly by their views on government to follow his arguments here as he gives us a history lesson.

“Hamilton championed capital markets and Lincoln championed banks, not because they loved traders and bankers. They did it because they knew a vibrant capitalist economy would maximize opportunity for poor boys like themselves. They were willing to tolerate the excesses of traders because they understood that no institution is more likely to channel opportunity to new groups and new people than vigorous financial markets.”-- The Populist Addiction By David Brooks

This is an apparent concession and one that the lefties do not like to hear about. The promise that social opportunities can be offered by “a vibrant capitalist economy” is not acceptable to the radical left so Brooks falls off his NYT stoolie perch and flat on the floor with this comment.  Government is always the solution with the Democrats. The contemporary nanny state as defined by the elites has no room for unbridled channels of opportunity wherein all the masses cannot fit comfortable.  The absence of a 100% inheritance tax is believed to enable the  launch of the successful offspring directly into the privileged class strictly from a financial power perspective hence they use their unfairly gotten gains to jump ahead of the masses and hold back competition from the little guys.

“The populists have an Us versus Them mentality. If they continue their random attacks on enterprise and capital, they will only increase the pervasive feeling of uncertainty, which is now the single biggest factor in holding back investment, job creation and growth. They will end up discrediting good policies (the Obama bank reforms are quite sensible) because they will persuade the country that the government is in the hands of reckless Huey Longs.

They will have traded dynamic optimism, which always wins, for combative divisiveness, which always loses.”-- The Populist Addiction By David Brooks

Much of that is very true. I still detect a mix and match conflict here. The Us/Them contest slogan is aged and uninteresting as it pervades the political architecture everywhere and I don’t know where Brooks dredged up the term uncertainty as a major business variable, but he nails that one. Small businesses will not hire people because they cannot construct a decent 1, 2 or 5 year business plan so they can plan expansions or drive for higher revenues.

Contributing to this definition conundrum are items like Oregon’s  tax  Measures 66 and 67[15] that would only affect the top  wealth 3%  as discussed by Mark Stein sitting in for Rush Limbaugh today. The unions were behind this. Oregon has a kicker tax that feeds back some tax revenues in good times and now they face a deficit and need more revenues.

 ““What’s the saying? ‘Don’t tax me. Don’t tax thee. Tax the man behind the tree?’ ” said Tim Hibbitts, a longtime independent pollster in Oregon. “The measures were designed and have been sold with the idea that somebody else is going to pay, people who are high-income earners and businesses.””[16]--Tax Increase for the Rich Is at Issue in Oregon By WILLIAM YARDLEY  Published: January 23, 2010”-- The Populist Addiction By David Brooks  [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

““It only asks a little bit more from the fortunate few who did well during the last upturn and are still doing well today,” he said. “If you’re going to raise taxes, do what’s fair and equitable and right.””-- Charles Sheketoff, executive director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy quoted in The Populist Addiction By David Brooks

A few weeks later, Brooks now notifies us that independents are angry with the administration.

“The country has reacted harshly to the course the administration ended up embracing. Obama is still admired personally, but every major proposal — from the stimulus to health care — is quite unpopular. Independent voters have swung against the administration. Voters are not reacting to the particulars of each bill. They are reacting against the total activist onslaught.”[17]-- What’s Next, Mr. President? By David Brooks Published: February 11, 2010  [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

A remedy? Tell the truth? Some new trendy slogans needed for this?

“The next challenge is to find a new project, a new one-sentence description of what this administration hopes to achieve. It is obvious: President Obama will show that this nation is governable once again. He should return to the other element in his original campaign.

That would mean first leading a campaign of brazen honesty with the American people. He could lay out the fiscal realities and explain that voters cannot continue to demand programs they are unwilling to pay for.” What’s Next, Mr. President? By David Brooks

So, how does this idea fit with the wording above about populism and elitism? If the debt is openly addressed[18] people will suddenly realize that we are all financial lepers like Greece[19] and highlighted by our biggest state California.[20] Obama will talk about spending cuts?

California[21][22][23][24] New York and soon New Jersey and Maryland, along with several other tottering states, are all in deep financial trouble and are so frantic that they will do odd things like try to peddle and tax dope to get some cash. Their leaders bray like donkeys for some more grain:

“Unless the federal government coughs up $6.9 billion dollars more for California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenneger says he will completely eliminate a host of social programs, including Healthy Families, the state sponsored health insurance for children; CalWORKS welfare program; and In-Home Support Services for the elderly, blind, and disabled (IHSS).”[25]-- California Budget Crisis Cuts Close to the Bone New America Media, News report, Aaron Glantz, Posted: Feb 04, 2010 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

All this conflicts with the premise that voters cannot continue to demand programs they are unwilling to pay for simply because they cannot pay for them. There is no way to collect enough tax revenues to implement all this socialism because their only source of tax revenue is business and the salaries they pay to employees and Obama is anti-business and 77% of those believe this statement.[26]

Perhaps the myth may be extended that we can ‘soak the rich’ and get back our inheritance and put all that loot to good use in public programs. Since there are only 1,699,000 who make more than $250,000 we can just divide that into 14 trillion dollars and look at the results.[27] It is not amusing; it should be very clear that the ‘rich’ don’t have enough money to pay for this debt. Adding in some EU nations and other bits here and there we can see that known world is awash in debt and we cannot even survive at our current levels of spending and taxation. A conflagration of the world’s financial system is at hand.[28] Greece and Spain may ignite the flames very soon.

If some policy of brazen honesty might suddenly blossom and spring to life we would then ask some of these questions:

[1] What is Obama saying about years of 1 to 2 trillion dollar deficits and its impact on our currency and banking system?

[2] How do we fund Social Security and Medicare as they are going broke?

[3] How do we handle Cap and Trade taxes in the trillions when they force higher costs for energy hence are inefficient to business and everyday living?

[4] How do we grow the tax base if small businesses are mired in uncertainty over massive new taxes of every sort like Oregon has just bestowed on their citizens?

[5] Can we really spend ourselves into prosperity?

[6] Can massive tax increases actually help businesses and create jobs?

The ugly facts are that Obama is not going to address any of these questions with brazen honesty because he has no intention of allowing capitalism to continue to dominate our society. He is anti-business and anti-capitalism and pro-Marxist[29] and pro-socialist in what appears to be some curious blend of Marxism and Fascism[30] and a severe intolerance of criticism.[31]

A partial recovery scenario for this massive deficit problem would be to cut government spending in several places as Greece has ‘promised to do’ and quit expanding government and more socialist programs. There is no evidence that Obama is willing to cut anything at this time and only talks about spending and adding more illegal aliens to our society for their votes and taxes on everything in sight.

As such, we will descend into a much deeper financial gulch and revisit the second half of the Great Depression of 2008 with fewer hopes. Our currency will inflate to the point where the debt is meaningless and that is apparently the government plan to pay back the horrendous national debt. Any hint of brazen honesty would bring some of these points forth for discussion so the Obama administration will not discuss any of this in public. Obama may be the next Hoover before this is finished.

rycK [a 5^th generation Californian in exile]

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

[25] California Budget Crisis Cuts Close to the Bone New America Media, News report, Aaron Glantz, Posted: Feb 04, 2010 http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=0152bbe37f5edc31175bd7fa21a197ee