The David Brooks non-Fail Thread: Or, Conservatism is Out of Balance

Along with many voters, Brooks gave up on Republicans 2012 this month. He had been bending over backwards to be supportive. But Mitt & co. pushed too far. So now Brooks is in the mode of "my guys are broken, they need to be fixed."

I would add that Brooks's distinction between social & economic conservatives is useful.

 

No, sorry, this is a fail too.

Brooks (all too conveniently) overlooks the reactionary branch of the GOP -- the old Birchers, the Tea Partiers, the Tenthers and so on. Those certainly aren't traditionalists, and they're not economic conservatives either. They're a resentful and basically paranoid branch of the GOP. Some reactionaries may be Randians, but Randians really aren't economic conservatives in the way Brooks is thinking either. Brooks is thinking mostly of business and supply-siders. And for that matter he also ignores the the religious zealots in the GOP.

So, frankly, Brooks is pretty much ignoring the actual population of the GOP (which is increasingly a combination of reactionaries and religious zealots) and imagining instead a non-existent GOP that could be populated by traditionalists and business conservatives. It's that imaginary GOP that he thinks is out of balance. Well, fine -- his imaginary party is out of balance. Great.

 

OK how about the "Not a Complete Fail" thread.

 

I think it really is a complete fail. This is an ostrich of a Brooks column -- he's got his head firmly buried in the sand.

 

That's our Mr. Brooks alright.

That said, at the least he deserves some credit for bravery. Or foolishness. He's now officially, completely, and unalterable a RINO and that's a lonely place to be. Ask Jon Huntsman.

 

Hasn't Brooks written this same basic column before?

 

Like our movie industry, the quality has gone downhill for Republican candidates. Richard Cohen compared the shit stains that the Republicans put up now - failed or insignificant Congressmen, pizza company CEOs, Governors of Texas (haha!), etc. versus who Reagan had to defeat:

In 1980, Ronald Reagan won the Republican nomination. He beat a future President, George H.W. Bush, two future Senate majority leaders, Howard Baker and Bob Dole, and two lesser-known congressmen.

This year Mitt Romney won the GOP nomination. He beat a radio host, a disgraced former House speaker, a defeated Senate candidate, a former appointee of the Obama administration, a tongue-tied Texas governor, a religious zealot who happens to serve in the House of Representatives, and a cranky libertarian doctor. Where did all the talent go?


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/gop-stuck-mitt-article-1.1167099#ixzz27c6l7OYw

 

I have to admit that I thought the article presented an interesting viewpoint until I read your comments (probably because I fall under the economic conservatives at one time). Fail may be a little harse, but it was definately incomplete in large part for the areas that you mentioned. If he choose to ignore those areas, then, yes, it was a complete fail.

I used to be a Republican about 15-20 years ago. With the rise of religious zealots, I left and never looked back...

 

Actually, at this rate Gary might beat Mitt in some of the northeastern states or Hawaii.

 

I think the GOP has a short bench problem with the wonks and the agency ranks. The State Department spent the Bush years driving away anyone who wasn't a neocon, while Justice was hiring unqualified candidates from Regent and Liberty Universities.

To me, that's a pretty good reason to vote against any Republican candidate - I have doubts about their ability to attract and place talented people.

 

Yes. I think the type of political appointees that would be put in positions of authority in scientific and health agencies like the FDA, CDC, NIH, NOAA, etc. is sufficient reason to vote for democrats.

 

If I had a nickel for every time that's been said...

 

Keeping the Republicans out of the executive branch is a good reason to vote Democratic. Voting for Gary Johnson won't do it.

Cynicism aside, for a policy wonk, working in the executive is pretty close to the holy grail, and there's no indication the Democrats require some sort of loyalty oath or that they're hiring graduates out of dodgy grad schools, and Obama's made a point of appointing Republicans to cabinet positions (yes, I know, Bush appointed Norman Mineta, but Justice is way, way bigger than Transportation).

It also helps that Democratics want the executive branch to, you know, do its job.

 

But not a practical difference.

 

But ultimately, the idea is not to get the GOP out of the White House. It's to get more smart, policy-minded people working in the executive branch, and that's more likely to happen with a Democratic president.

 

You know it isn't, but whatever let's you take terrorist money and sleep at night.

Oh, look, I said something over-the-top and not true.