Two kinds of Republicans
Two kinds of Republicans fascinate me right now. The unapologetic activists and the reflective guys. David Brooks is the latter. See here:
Today, if Republicans had learned the right lessons from the Westerns, or at least John Ford Westerns, they would not be the party of untrammeled freedom and maximum individual choice. They would once again be the party of community and civic order.They would begin every day by reminding themselves of the concrete ways people build orderly neighborhoods, and how those neighborhoods bind a nation. They would ask: What threatens Americans' efforts to build orderly places to raise their kids? ....
The party sometimes seems cut off from the concrete relationships of neighborhood life. Republicans are so much the party of individualism and freedom these days that they are no longer the party of community and order. This puts them out of touch with the young, who are exceptionally community-oriented. It gives them nothing to say to the lower middle class, who fear that capitalism has gone haywire. It gives them little to say to the upper middle class, who are interested in the environment and other common concerns.
The Republicans talk more about the market than about society, more about income than quality of life. They celebrate capitalism, which is a means, and are inarticulate about the good life, which is the end. They take things like tax cuts, which are tactics that are good in some circumstances, and elevate them to holy principle, to be pursued in all circumstances.
Rob, it is tiresome to have you label "liberal" Republicans (and Brooks' stands on quite a few issues would put him in that category) as the reflective ones. Just because someone agrees with you does not make them more reflective than someone who does not. We are all reflecting on different things.
Plus, here he is pontificating to hear his keyboard rattle, apparently. You could make a pretty good argument that "the party of untrammeled freedom and maximum individual choice" was more a Democrat description than a Republican, given certain social issues and definitions. UNTRAMMELED freedom and MAXIMUM choice indeed. Hmmmm.
And what else but self-important blathering could explain his condescending dismissal of all those citizens who indeed don't know how they can make their paychecks stretch any further to support their families--you know, the ones worried about Obama's spending hemorrhage? They know what is threatening their effort to build an orderly life for their children.
The concrete relationships of neighborhood life? What the HELL does that have to do with the federal government sucking us dry? Republicans aren't the party of community and order? By extension, he is saying the Democrats are the party of community and order? We know they've never been the party of law and order, so perhaps he's referring to all those "community organizers."
A message of federal fiscal responsibility resonates with all levels of society. If any particular group (Brooks says the lower middle class) thinks that capitalism has gone haywire, wait till they get a load of the alternative.
Is it UTTERLY disingenous to say that Republicans talk more about "income" than the "quality of life." What does Brooks thinks makes for a nice quality of life? Most people with less education than him (people who aren't annoying windbags that is) are fully aware the answer is: a good income. Well there ya go. Guess the Republicans aren't so far off after all. Republicans are hardly inarticulate about the good life. They have history on their side in pointing the way to exactly that.
Diane, if you look at some of the articles I posted yesterday, you'll see that even David Horowitz -- who is harshly right wing -- is saying the negativity of the GOP activists is out of hand. I'm not going to call Brooks a liberal. No person should. George Will and David Frum and various other non-liberals would agree with aspects of Brooks' writing. If you need to be staunch enough to dismiss Brooks as a liberal or to give Obama no points for keeping a guy like Gates on, that's your prerogative in our wonderful free country. I'm sorry that it's a "tiresome" job, but it's the one you chose.
"Harshly right wing" is an interesting choice of term. But in any event, the fact that Will or Frum or Diane or anyone "would agree with aspects of Brooks' writing" doesn't change the fact that on several key issues he tends toward a more liberal viewpoint. I just think if we're going to label, we should be as honest with our labels as possible.
I hardly dismissed him as a liberal, conservative, or anything else. I wrote five paragraphs critiquing has comments in detail. That was not a dismissal.
As for giving Obama points for keeping on Gates... I neither gave or took away points. All I did was comment on you and Galt's discussion. I didn't jump into that fight on Gates' merits or lack thereof.
And I don't think expressing my opinion is tiresome at all. I think it's tiresome when people dismiss viewpoints with which they do not agree as "not reflective."
I'll have you know I reflected quite a bit before writing the above statements. :) And they truly reflect my reflections.
Diane - With reflections like yours, I don't know whether to have sympathy or hatred for your mirror. There are good Republicans and bad Republicans. The bad cling to the fascist dogma of the previous Neocon regime and the good Republicans are either now called Independents or have already gone on to your Cosmic Eternal Disneyland.
David used the f-word again!