In Mr. Brooks' Universe, the Democrats are always to blame for radical Republicans obstructionism, pathological Republican lying and premeditated Republican economic terrorism because in Mr. Brooks' solution the only acceptable solution is complete capitulation.
And since this is Mr. Brooks' core, existential axiom, if the radical Republicans obstructionism, pathological Republican lying and premeditated Republican economic terrorism has not stopped yet, it is must be because Democrats have not been sufficiently capitulative.
At the Big City Newspaper, Mr. Brooks speculates an Obama victory next week would turn out:
Then Obama would go to the House. He’d ask Eric Cantor, the majority leader, if there were votes for such a deal. The answer would probably be no. Republican House members still have more to fear from a primary challenge from the right than from a general election challenge from the left. Obama is tremendously unpopular in their districts. By running such a negative presidential campaign, Obama has won no mandate for a Grand Bargain. Obama himself is not going to suddenly turn into a master legislative craftsman on the order of Lyndon Johnson.There’d probably be a barrage of recriminations from all sides. The left and right would be consumed with ire and accusations. Legislators would work out some set of fudges and gimmicks to kick the fiscal can down the road.
Mind you, this the same person who found Republican economic terrorism so sickening that he pronounced the party "not fit to govern" just last year:
Over the past few years, [the Republican Party] has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative. The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. … The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. … The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. … The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. … If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern. And they will be right.
But like his brief flirtation with honesty after Katrina, this condition lasted but a moment. Mr. Brooks quickly remembered (or was reminded) that he has really no marketable skill set in this world other than ass-kissing, bootlicking and administering lavish public blowjobs to Conservative power-brokers and so he almost immediately came bellycrawling back to the Right, obediently resuming his extremely well-paid position as Party of God's Tokyo Rose.
Its Baghdad Bob.
Because Mr. Brooks is a Beltway Conservative, his entire career is built on groveling before Republican power, in a relationship based on lying, cowardice and doglike obedience. In David Brooks' Universe, the way to deal with fascists is to be the one who bows the deepest and grovels the best, and for being absolutely consistent in this cravenness and dishonesty year-in year-out, Mr. Brooks has been rewarded with the highest honors the Beltway can bestow. Which is why, in the face of radical Republicans obstructionism, pathological Republican lying and premeditated Republican economic terrorism, Mr. Brooks' can suggest the following with a straight face:
The bottom line is this: If Obama wins, we’ll probably get small-bore stasis; if Romney wins, we’re more likely to get bipartisan reform. Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama. He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans. He’s more likely to get big stuff done.
Dag Blog points out that, based on his own logic of coping with monstrous behavior by immediately appeasing it, Mr. Brooks may well be the world's worst parent.
Over at "The New Republic" Timothy Noah notes:
...until now, I thought conservatives were reluctant to acknowledge that the GOP was, in effect, running a protection racket. But in his column today ("The Upside of Opportunism"), David Brooks more or less says so.