Tuesday, October 30, 2012

David Brooks Promises Peace in Our Times

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.


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.


marindenver said...

I like your labels. And David Brooks is such a complete, total, ignorant (willfully so) moronic tool of whatever masters he tries so desperately to appease so his vast spaces for entertaining shall never cease that I find it almost nauseating.

" 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."

Give. Me. A. Fucking. Break. I mean what does that even mean?? RMoney has "more influence" over exactly who and why?

Gah! gah! gah! as another blogger said recently.

Grayson Mendenhall said...

Mitt is indeed a flip-flopper, but "bipartisan reform"?

Romney is no less psychotically religious than any of the other Tea Baggers. He just has a different name for his imaginary friend and different silly rituals to perform.

You can bet your bottom dollar that he will slash and burn anything that doesn't agree with his faith. After all, Mormons aren't allowed to put anything in authority above their god/church.

He would essentially be a theocrat.

blackdaug said...

Remember when the right's repetitive rap against Carter was that he didn't know how to work the beltway sufficiently to get bi-partisan support for anything? He brought up his truckload of bumpkins from Georgia, and they were not apparently smooze worthy enough to grease the wheels in D.C.
Their intention from day one has been to Carter-ize this president, throw enough roadblocks at his agenda to make the perception of him as weak and ineffectual.. stick.
It's been play one in their play book since 1980.
Problem is, they also want to project him as being some kind of elitist knife wielding shark from the bowels of a mythical Chicago machine at the same time.
So he has to be a meany who runs a negative campaign and would be too "inflexible" to actually govern..and by govern they mean jump.
Never mind that he spent the first two years of his presidency rupturing vertebra bending over backwards to try and accommodate pigs like Cantor and Boner.
Brooks is a robot programmed to cater to a razor thin, moneyed slice of the "party of stock options".
"Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama."...nudge, nudge...wink..wink
You can almost hear the cigars being chewed. You guys may not like Willard..but you know he'll play ball...in fact, he'll play with your balls if you want.....
Romney's been auditioning for the prestigious role of sock puppet this whole time, and Brooks is just explaining how far up his ass they will be able to stick their hands.
He's fucking Nixon without alcohol.
I will say this though. You don't hear any more talk from Obama about consulting with Brooks, or Wills or any of the rest of their sneering ilk.
He made time for Jon Stewart, but hasn't done an interview with Disco Dave.
Get ready for the ultimate pantie wad pouting frenzy when they find themselves frozen completely out of the White House loop for the next four years.
I hope he is as pissed off as he should be...and I hope he spends his unencumbered second term..stomping the shit out of roaches like Brooks.

blackdaug said...

"Should Obama win, I would hope that he understands (as Brooks apparently does not) that he has a pretty good hand to play against GOP bullies..."
I think he understands that fully. In fact, I don't think he has or ever has had,any intention of pursuing any form of the "grand bargain" Brooks is so in love with.
He offered those spending cuts to social programs because he knew there was absolutely no possibility the republicans would ever actually go through with the deal. Congress has to enact the cuts across the board..or not at all. Which means cuts to the military. He doesn't have to do anything but sit back and say: Okay Boner, your move..and he can veto any bill that attempts to separate them out..but he wont have to, because they will never make it through the senate.
He even tipped his hand in the debate: "Those cuts are never going to happen".
He can throw the whole thing back in to the laps of the monsters who created it...it was structured that way.

RockDots said...

"He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans."

Since this sentence is obviously missing some critical bit of punctuation, I'll offer one possible fix:

"He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation: THE FUCKING HOUSE REPUBLICANS."

Eh, still not true.

Redhand said...

I took the trouble to read Brooks' column yesterday, which is something I usually leave to the "I read these idiots so you don't have to" types like you.

Reasoning? His logic is as linear as cornmush. Why indeed is the NYT paying this nebbish to write anything?! "Romney would probably get more done?" Christ Almighty!

Anonymous said...

"Protection Racket". Yeah, that's the ticket. I think I see the end product of the "Both Sides Do It" scam.

If both sides do it, than you might as well go with the guy who grovels the mostest to the Galtian Overlords.

Anonymous said...

The sad thing here is that Brooks is just flowing the lead of a number of papers like the Des Moines Register (RIP) rather than leading the pack. Big money for "me too" and nice work if you can get it.

D Johnston said...

What Brooks doesn't get (or acts like he doesn't get) is that Romney's Etch-a-Sketch act isn't because he's flexible, it's because he's dishonest. Romney is a egotist, saying whatever is popular at the moment because he thinks it'll put him into power. He's certainly not the first politician to do this, and I somehow doubt he'll be the last.

Anonymous said...

Grayson Mendenhall said: "You can bet your bottom dollar that [Romney] will slash and burn anything that doesn't agree with his faith."

In my experience, the wealthy view religion in the Neocon sense: Religion and Patriotism are the two Noble Lies used to channel the will of the masses.

Religion becomes more of a socialite club, and an opportunity to impress people in "your community" (loyal voters) by doing things you think they want. As for actual theology, most of it could be written by Ayn Rand.

While Romney will likely go after many recent items of social progress, it will probably be to pander to the vote of his church congregation. I think that personally, he sees the LDS church as a social network that can open doors for him.


stickler said...

Shorter David Brooks: "Hey, nice little country ya got here. Be a shame if anything bad happened to it."

daver said...

After Obama wins (BTW, game, set, and match - thanks Sandy. Nate Silver's back from 2 to 1 to 4 to 1 again) and the clock runs out on the lie-a-thon, the next republican threat to national security will come from the 'fiscal cliff sack castration' circus.

A point to bear in mind from the last republican extortion crisis (the debt-ceiling-bond-rating-markdown one): republicans will give in under rare, extreme circumstances (they did give in) - but only in the extreme case that they can see political disaster for themselves. That is, when they can see that their non-cooperation will penetrate the deep layer of stupid in the american public and the 'both sides do it' propaganda that drenches corporate media, when it becomes obvious who's doing it and who's to blame.

If failure to raise the debt ceiling had caused a real, concrete disaster, it would have become clear, even to americans, who exactly wouldn't vote to raise it. The European press, as well as the bond-rating people themselves, were already over it, and even a few prominent folks in american high-volume media 'just came out and said it', if you recall. Brooksie's 'unfit to govern' comment was telling republicans their hand was exposed, in case they hadn't noticed.

The illusion that, because there was no agreement the blame was to be equally shared, was about to fall away; repugs could see that, and they capitulated. I doubt they'd do it in any other circumstance.

I don't know how the next manufactured shock will play out (and I have dark forebodings about it), or how to engineer it so that it will once again be unavoidably clear who's doing the obstructing, but I think this situation would be good to bear in mind. We may just have to take the opportunity to call their bluff (at very high stakes), should the occasion arise. There are a few (precious few) other examples where they have caved, but only when you cut to the bone of their game.

Anonymous said...

The time for appeasement may be drawing to a close. As a big black friend of mine (Steve Gilliard? - close resemblance) said, "Nigger Day was yesterday."