Posted on 04/24/2010 3:28:11 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
David Brooks is on a search to find out how it was that we elected such a “moderate” president and wound up with the worst of big government liberalism and a polarized electorate. He seems stumped as he explores these questions in what can only be described as evasive phrasing:
"The country had just elected a man who vowed to move past the old polarities, who valued discussion and who clearly had some sympathy with both the Burkean and Hamiltonian impulses. He staffed his administration with brilliant pragmatists whose views overlapped with mine, who differed only in that they have more faith in technocratic planning.
Yet things have not worked out for those of us in the broad middle. Politics is more polarized than ever. The two parties have drifted further to the extremes. The center is drained and depressed.
What happened?
History happened. The administration came into power at a time of economic crisis. This led it, in the first bloom of self-confidence, to attempt many big projects all at once. Each of these projects may have been defensible in isolation, but in combination they created the impression of a federal onslaught."
History happened? Oh, let’s see if we can’t be more precise than that. “As government grew [by itself? did someone grow it?], the antigovernment right mobilized. This produced the Tea Party Movement — a characteristically raw but authentically American revolt led by members of the yeoman enterprising class.” History happened and government grew. (Like magic!) And now Brooks is disappointed.
Brooks writes that the Democratic party did this and that, that opposition grew, and that we wound up in the big- vs. little-government debate. What’s missing from this autopilot version of politics? Hmm … could it be Obama, the moderate fellow, who did the government-growing?
I have a rule of thumb: when a writer, especially a good one, excessively uses evasive or convoluted rhetoric, he is hiding something. Let’s try this: Obama, a very liberal politician, was smart enough to know he couldn’t win the presidency as a hard leftist. He posed as a moderate. New York Times columnists sung his praises. Pundits assured us that he was beyond ideology, a sort of philosopher-king with very neat pants. He got into office. He governed from the far Left. The president signed bill after bill, spending money we didn’t have and running up the debt. Obama insisted on a mammoth health-care bill the country hated. He egged Congress on to pass it. Meanwhile, the country recoiled. They hired a moderate on advice of pundits and media mavens and got a far-Left liberal, a ton of debt, an expanded federal government, and a slew of new taxes.
How’s that?
The bottom line: history doesn’t just “happen.” Presidents make choices. Pundits make miscalculations. Voters exact revenge. It’s not that complicated — if you are honest about who did what to whom.
“The 2008 election was a perverted form of reverse racism whose consequences may take a generation or two to unwind.”
That election was political and racial correctness taken to its utter, illogical, irrational, pathetic extreme - and we will pay for generations. The only silver lining is that we may have woken up. Maybe. I hope.
“Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Actions speak louder than words.”
And that’s what we could find out. There’s a massive amount more that we weren’t allowed to see. That made me hit the total REJECT button early and often re: his little phony lying 2004 ‘post partisan’ speech and subsequent hero worship.
Uh....what candidate DOESN'T vow to move past polarities, idiot Brooks. Even a first-grader knows that.
And what's this about Brooks believing Zero valued discussion? Sheesh. What in his leftist past would convince any sane person of that?
I think you’re right, in the sense that the masses of sheeple are ign’ant followers, but the creeps at the top of the food chain who create the propaganda, and who further the ideology are not nincompoops.
But for every Commie/NEA schoolteacher, there are hundreds of impressionable students who end up getting indoctrinated into left wing doctrine.
For every red diaper baby like the one who wrote this article, there are thousands of mindless followers who read it and take their cues from him without any critical analysis.
For every Fifth Column TV news anchor, there are millions who vacuuosly lean on his every word.
Case in point, like the one in the WH, red diaper and all, who went on and graduated from the Alinsky University for Communism.
Funny, it's the only graduate degree that we know for sure that 0b0wa has completed with flying colors.
Agree
Bumping your fabulously succinct post!
Now..now, don’t be racist!! :-)
BTW,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2499680/posts?page=32#32
Thanks, dear!
“The Alinsky University for Communism”
Excellent.
I’ll be using that one in the future, along with another word I recently picked up exclusively from a Freeper, to describe this administration: Marxofascist.
He still doesnt get it.
David Brooks is very much a product of his class -- the "educated class", as he has put it.
As events have unfolded, he should be getting an idea about just how much that "education" is worth. But I doubt it...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.