David Brooks & Friends
Posted by Jack Hunter on November 19, 2008
When New York Times columnist David Brooks pondered why the Republican Party was in such bad shape recently, he came to the conclusion that a majority of Americans simply no longer support traditional conservatism. Where one might have found any conservatism for the last decade is beyond me, but make no mistake--voters did not reject traditional conservatism on Nov. 4; they rejected George W. Bush. And the Republican Party is a wreck today because it faithfully rode shotgun with a president fueled by neoconservative ideology, who drove his party into ditch after ditch at every turn--with men like David Brooks as the persistent backseat drivers.
Comments
The Two Prophets mentioned in this piece—Buchanan & Paul—represent the deepening rift in the laternative Right: Hamiltonianism (Buchanan) vs. Jeffersonianism (Paul).
Nevertheless, Hunter’s thesis is (as usual) correct: the Republican Party and its hacks did themselves in by offering voters no meaningful alternative. That the GOP is remotely equated with conservatism is sickening.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The most recent Republican election defeat can be laid at the feet of George W. Bush and his several failed policies. First, the war and occupation of Iraq is a debacle that has cost about a trillion dollars so far, over 4000 American soldiers’ lives and 25,000 wounded. To compound the problem, when angry voters gave Bush and the GOP a drubbing in 2006, they did not work to extricate the USA from a war no longer supported by the vast majority of the American people. Second, Bush and the Republican Party spent money like Democrats which not only was foolish in itself but made the Republicans incoherent as the party of small government. Third, Bush and John McCain stabbed their own party supporters in the back by their pushing Ted Kennedy’s immigration amnesty bill in 2007. McCain earned the mistrust of conservatives by his actions on illegal immigration. Fourth, the Wall Street meltdown was a final nail in the Republican coffin.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
George W. Bush is an apt symbol for the Rove-demolished GOP. He is an elite camping about in a cowboy suit. The GOP Elite pursued the Southern Strategy.... Richard Nixon’s courting of the Dixiecrat due to his paranoia of the elite..... and have pulled off a superb Bait and Switch which cynically fused Southern Conservatives with the Thinktanks and Media of Empire.
Brooks, one of the many noisy peacocks of the GOP Elite was always an able mouthpiece of the urban neo-conservatives. He fed them feel-good stories of liberal empathy smeared with a sheen of something he calls pragmatism but is simply good old fashioned bullshit.
What is most amusing in this hustle is the fact that the Big Government Forces of a Body-snatched GOP have actually succeeded in gaining traction to the myth that this abject failure of the GOP is proof that the conservative agenda is the root of the problem. This bit of sophistry has successfully ignited a battle between the libertarian wing of conservatism and the traditional theocrats for the remains of the party. The neo cons will simply jump ship to the power center.
Simply put, the GOP and their Democrat enablers have broken both laws and tradition and are presiding over the biggest national debacle in 70 years. An autopsy is required if we are to learn anything but what should really happen is the delivery of several indictments along with the punishments which are so richly deserved. Without this, the madness will continue and cannibalism surmounts a food chain that thrives on sensationalism and acrimony.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
While being a Buchanan fan, I do find it a little amusing that Pat was praising Lincoln and Hamilton the other day on Morning with Joe. Buchanan and Ron Paul agree on many things, but trade policy isn’t one of them. Ron was against NAFTA WTO for sure, but only because they’re managed trade and threaten our sovereignty, Buchanan is a trade protectionist.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The astute Jack Hunter is correct as usual—but there’s a deeper point here that’s worth noting, in Brooks’ implicit assumption.
I.e.—Our party stood for principle X.
However, principle X is not selling well with the American people.
Ergo, rather than change our marketing strategy in order to better convince the people, we must instead change our principles to match the way the wind is blowing.
What kind of a man (I use the term loosely) would suggest we change our convictions and philosophy for a reason such as this?
Yet this attitude is typical of Republican thinking (except of course when X is “benevolent global hegemony”, which is non-negotiable).
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The current political duopoly has a lot more to do with Marx than with Hamilton or Jefferson.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The GOP was hijacked by a tiny political group originating from the left,when they could not get their pet project (Securing the Realm) taken up by their ideological brothers in the Democratic party (with Joe Liebermann being the exception). I can imagine Bill telling them: “Go sell that idiotic idea to that dimwit in the GOP, we’ll support you behind the scenes and in the media. Once the American people figured out how stupid that was, the GOP is finished, and you all will find a new home here with us.” Mission accomplished!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
This video does a good job of cutting through the noise and going to the root of the problem: the GOP’s abandonment of traditional conservatism for the slick, corporate, warmongering, market liberalism brand of Neoconservatism.
It’s unfortunate, but the American people indeed regard the Democrats as the “mommy party” and the GOP as the “daddy party.” When the American people want to be coddled, sweet talked and indulged, they elect a Democrat; when they understand it is time for belt tightening, they elect a Republican. And fter the Clinton years, when Americans were ready for a belt tightener, and thought they were getting one in Bush, the corporatized GOP instead gave them another slick grifter, and this one under the sway of Neocon Svengalis.
Because the corrupt GOP didn’t deliver, the Americans are now trying to get a belt-tightener in the form of a Democrat, which is going to be yet another disaster. The question is, will the GOP continue to let the corporate Machiavellis bait and switch pseudo-conservatives into leadership positions until the country finally collapses, or will it get serious about saving the country and flog the charlatans from the temple so that the party can produce an authentic conservative?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“The current political duopoly has a lot more to do with Marx than with Hamilton or Jefferson.”
I was referring to the “alternative Right,” i.e. Taki’s Mag, Chronicles, Lew Rockwell, et. al., that is splintering along what can be described as neo-Hamiltonian (protectionist, nationalist) and neo-Jeffersonian (pro-free market, anti-central bank) lines.
You are certainly correct, Publius, that our government is infested with Marxism.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’d like to see Buchanan come out against the Central Bank. Favor a return to the gold standard. Just this week two former FED officials have chimed in that a return to Gold might be the thing to do.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1115/p09s01-coop.html
Click to flag this comment as abusive
What are we - two years old? Do we not all remember that *every* time the Republican Party loses an election, the first thing that happens is that the Rockerfeller/"moderate"/neocon wing of the party blames conservative Christians and says the party has to become more “moderate” (read: pro-big government, pro-abortion) in order to stay relevant? Am I the only one who remembers late November, 1992?
I am less angered by the blame game that the likes of Brooks, Kathleen Parker, and the Frumbag are playing than offended that they think I’m so stupid as to buy the idea that the election of 2008 was decided over - get this - abortion and gay marriage.
Then again, if you were a neocon, what other excuses could you make?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Everytime we lose the moderates say we must move left. Every time we win, the moderates say we must move left to govern and stay in power. Every time we nominate a POTUS candidate the moderates say they must move left to get elected.
Notice a pattern?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Voters rejected the Likudnick wing of the Israel lobby that allied with the Republican party. Voters did not reject conservatism.
As a side note, when America loses its status as the world’s leading economy, it will be thanks to mainstream pro-socialistic papers like the New York Times who did fulfill their responsibility, as a leading mainstream paper, of promoting limited government and went along with the slide towards big government interventionism.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“who did fulfill their responsibility”
should be
“who did NOT fulfill their responsibility”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’m tired of the RINOs attacking the real Republicans. I think their managerial structure needs to be attacked, undermined, and brought down. I think many problems are caused by taxation, regulation, the duration of intellectual property rights, and the indoctrination camps called schools that produce incompetent RINOs and DINOs. I think the educational system is a ponzi scheme that tries to reinforce the social hierarchy and is antagonist to self government (which is denied by the State).
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It’s not much of a danger if neo-cons have a say in the Republican party because that party is dead. Not to mention that as long as people like McCain continue to have any power in the party it will continue to be an instrument of Israel.
The real danger is whether Baruch Obama’s goverment will also submit to the Israeli lobby industrial complex and thereby continue the policies of Bush. Another 4-8 years of neo-cons running America will leave this country in ruins. Especially if that is followed by 4-8 years of the Democrats’ version of McCain: Hi(srae)llary.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Liberals actually believe David Brooks is a conservative. How weird is that?
Click to flag this comment as abusive