David Brooks is one unhappy dude – I would be, too, if I was the New York Times token “Conservative “. Problem is, in order to be Conservative, one has to have a solid belief system rooted in actual conservative values – something he actually doesn’t particularly like (my previous post: strong American values are leading to “incredibly backward-looking campaign”).
Or have. I guess this shows how little one actually has to be right-leaning to be considered “Conservative” when everyone around you at the NYT is a flaming Lib. And now he’s got another strike that confirms that view in his column a couple of days ago: The Possum Republicans. A few things struck me – this first on those in the middle on keeping their political offices:
Still, it is worth pointing out that this behavior is not entirely honorable. It’s not honorable to adjust your true nature in order to win re-election. It’s not honorable to kowtow to the extremes so you can preserve your political career.
So when Brooks, the NYT Mr. Moderate, says that, two things jump out:
- “so you can preserve your political career” – The Founders really wanted citizen-politicians, not career-politicians. Like the citizen-politicians here in NH for most, the idea was to go, serve a while, and then come back to your normal life. One can rarely make a living being a professional NH politician – NH House and Senate get $100 / year + mileage. Instead, it is merely a job for the power obsessed who always seem to be gathering more instead of forcing government to do less and leave us alone.
- Er, if you are kowtowing from the middle (where Brooks wants all politicians to be simply for the mantra of “getting things done”), it shows that you are willing to sacrifice what little convictions you have. So, being in a state of always blowing in the wind is a good thing, David?
It also shows the problem that most Conservatives have with “moderates” – a lack of conviction on principles. And with that, a distrust on how they will act and vote. And if you cannot trust people, you replace them with people you can – that is only natural. People WANT to be able to trust others and that is especially true when those people are making decision on how the rest of us are forced to live our lives by Government decree.
But, of course, this is exactly what has been happening in the Republican Party for the past half century. Over these decades, one pattern has been constant: Wingers fight to take over the party, mainstream Republicans bob and weave to keep their seats.
Republicans on the extreme ferociously attack their fellow party members. Those in the middle backpedal to avoid conflict. Republicans on the extreme are willing to lose elections in order to promote their principles. Those in the mainstream are quick to fudge their principles if it will help them get a short-term win.
Hey, Davey boy – isn’t “bob and weaving” what mainstream (er, moderates) do? Pick a little bit of Republicanism, but then throw in a big dash of Democratism simply to be viewed as bipartisan and to be badged as those that “go along to get along” (and get invited to all the neato cocktail parties)? The Republican platform has been violated so many times by so many RINOs, many Conservatives think “and WHY should I vote for more squishes that will go along to get along with those that construct policies that are antithetical to my way of thinking? David wants me to continue to make
Isn’t this the how and why this nation got into this mess of an overly large and intrusive Government and a WAY overdrawn one”? If I cannot rely on how you will vote on the important issues for me, WHY would I continue to support you? If I send you to Congress to stop the spending, I expect you to STOP SPENDING. Full. Stop. If you continue to spend money we don’t have, regardless of the reason (unless we have been attacked and we are in national survival mode), you are betraying my trust. If you have campaigned on certain principles, you had better fulfill those principles; do not vote to save your “career” or we will see that your career will be over anyways.
“are quick to fudge their principles“; Brooks hits the nail on his head but fails to recognize the truth of what he thinks is a failure. It is a failure, but not what he thinks. When I watch a moderate vote, it is NOT clear what those “moderate principles” are! It’s not like there is a parallel of platforms to pick from (“Oh, today, I’ll pick from the Conservative one, and next month, I’ll switch to the Moderate track”). Instead and often, their votes are aligned with the Democrat platform. Brooks may call folks like me “wingers” (in a perjorative manner), but why cannot I believe in “truth in voting” as when someone says that they are a Republican but votes like a Democrat? Well SURE I’m going to replace them.
In the 1960s and ’70s, the fight was between conservatives and moderates. Conservatives trounced the moderates and have driven them from the party. These days the fight is between the protesters and the professionals. The grass-roots protesters in the Tea Party and elsewhere have certain policy ideas, but they are not that different from the Republicans in the “establishment.”
Yo, Brooksie! Guess what! There is this other group of folks that have had a hand in this – we call them “Voters”. Conservative may have done the rabble-rousing, but it is the Voting Class (as opposed to you in the “Political Class”) that looked at the ideas of the “mainstream middle” and looked at the Conservative “wingers” – and consistently have voted for the latter. And I take quite the exception to his notion that there is little difference between the Establishment and the TEA Party – remember, if the Republican Establishment had actually, you know, followed the actual platform, there would have NEVER have been a need for a TEA Party movement. But true to form, Brooks cannot or will not accede to that notion.
The big difference is that the protesters don’t believe in governance. They have zero tolerance for the compromises needed to get legislation passed. They don’t believe in trimming and coalition building. For them, politics is more about earning respect and making a statement than it is about enacting legislation. It’s grievance politics, identity politics.
Oh, the TEA Party does believe in governance – but one cannot believe that proper governance has been around for a long, long time. Unless, Brooks believes that the Leviathan we now have “is just right” – but is certainly not a limited one that the TEA Party espouses. Why would we wish to compromise the nation’s progress into further failure and bankruptcy? Or does Brooks believe that now attaining that hallowed level of Federal debt higher than the nation’s yearly economic output a result to be proud of? And a Government that can tell a church that its ministries are not a church simply for political ideology purposes? No, sir, it is not – simply a symbol and byproduct of when the middle has compromised on each and every ‘principle’ and enabled the tax and spend Dems to spend more and more in small increments. You sir, and folks like you, have earned the title of “useful idiots”. Your vaunted professional politicians have brought us to this place and there is little evidence that they have done any trimming of anything government related at all.
It is also quite revealing that Brooks would apply the attributes of Democrat views, grievance and identity politics, to those that, like William F Buckley, are trying to stand athwart history and shout “Stop” (or, as how Lars Larson has in his talk show’s opening “Hey, Jackass, get your hands off my freedom!”). It is telling that while the TEA Party is all about going back to Constitutional values of governing, not once does Brooks even mention it. I guess he’s with Ruth).
Of course, the professional politicians don’t want to get in the way of this torrent of passion and resentment. In private, they bemoan where the party is headed; in public they do nothing.
Hmm, So, but still not willing to be courageous enough to stand for what little they believe in? And he’s surprised?? That’s what the Middle does – compromise on most everything. You know, after a while, the truth comes out and unless the constituents are birds of a feather, they will be out as well.
But where have these party leaders been over the past five years, when all the forces that distort the G.O.P. were metastasizing? Where were they during the rise of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck? Where were they when Arizona passed its beyond-the-fringe immigration law? Where were they in the summer of 2011 when the House Republicans rejected even the possibility of budget compromise? They were lying low, hoping the unpleasantness would pass.
Why, David, acting EXACTLY as moderates have always acted – and as you described! Moderates have no values for which they will hang their hats for fear for their careers; as Rush says: a leopard acts its nature – and so do Politically Correct “leaders”. You’ve asked the right question, but have refused to see the right answer – you get what you get when moderates are in the middle. Leaders? No, fingers-in-the-wind politicians all – all out to CYA. Just like their elected counterparts, they decided that the perks and paycheck were worth more to them than their beliefs. Stand up for Principles? Brooks, you can now answer your own question: leaders actually LEAD, and not hide. If you hide, you are no Leader.
Heh!
Leaders of a party are supposed to educate the party, to police against its worst indulgences, to guard against insular information loops. They’re supposed to define a creed and establish boundaries.
And that is THE problem – and again, he doesn’t wish to face up to real answer. A Platform IS the creed – but your vainglorious leaders have looked upon it as mere words – nice sounding, but too trite to actually use. When is the last time a Republican leader in the GOP actually stood up and said “Dude, follow the Platform or else”? And that is the lesson to be learned – we TEA Party type folks actually believe that those words mean something and that we believe those words on the paper need to be put into practical action (especially the papers associated with “We the People”). The “mainstreamers”? You, obviously, not so much. Why?
If they had the fortitude of the folks that wrote the Declaration and Constitution, just maybe the Brooks squishes would have the spines to actually stand up for what they believe. Problem is, they don’t know what that should be….and are left forever swinging in the breeze, blown hither and thither for the lack of solid ground to stand on.
What a way to govern?
Oh, parting shot: then Brooks decided that Godwin’s Law didn’t apply to him (“he who brings up the Nazis first, loses”):
First they went after the Rockefeller Republicans, but I was not a Rockefeller Republican. Then they went after the compassionate conservatives, but I was not a compassionate conservative. Then they went after the mainstream conservatives, and there was no one left to speak for me.
No, we didn’t come after you. Instead we’re doing something else: if you are the “last squish standing”, we’re not out to “get” you – we’re just ignoring you.
