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.
“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.”
Good description.
Hey DUFUS (David Brooks), BO and his captive media told you what they wanted you to hear. They lied, manipulated, cheated, played you for a fool.
David’s Dilemma: How do I keep getting invited to the right cocktail parties?
David Brooks has comdemned himself to be forever stuck on stupid.
Everyone else, well, we have moved along.
Usual liberal teeth-gnashing when things do not go their way. Will never blame themselves.
Hey Brooks, it’s a lot worse than you realize. We are in the midst of a worldwide communist coup, the likes of which Lenin could only dream of. If the United States goes down, and it’s looking dicey, it’s a new dark age for the entire globe.
Very well stated! Although Brooks would still be in denial if faced with your assessment.
“but in combination they created the impression of a federal onslaught.””
Impression? What a complete and utter fool.
Is David Brooks REALLY that stupid, or does he just play a
stupid reporter for the LSM?
David and millions of others who voted for the ‘magic negro’ are suffering from buyer’s remorse. The Kenyan was a radical socialist thug in Chicago, in the US Senate, and as a presidential candidate. There was no reason to think he would be any different as president.
The 2008 election was a perverted form of reverse racism whose consequences may take a generation or two to unwind.
What a dope
Here’s WHY:
Our national nightmare is:
I think after 9 years with Frank Marshall Davis, the guy with the 601 page FBI file, that Obummer was a full fledged red diaper baby even in Hawaii, and more so at Occidental.
Ask Dr John Drew, PhD, who knew him well .....
(Even Obama’s grandpa had a FBI file !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBGBszZ2Qw0
http://www.wor710.com/pages/6350883
http://www.breitbart.tv/the-b-cast-interview-was-obama-a-committed-marxist-in-college/
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/02/13/marxist-obama-why-the-media-has-been-silent/
We now know the full details of Barry’s Occidental years.
He was an avowed and committed Marxist.
He looked forward to the revolution when the Marxists would overthrow our government.
His love for Marxism was unusually strong .
He was in passionate agreement with the most radical Marxist Leninist professors.
The full interview is devastating.
Too bad Fox News ignored Dr Drew in 2008 when he contacted them.
And:
He wants his own army:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
And
The First Time I Heard of Barack Obama
http://www.jrnyquist.com/media/FifeLeary_Int-1.mp3
By Tom Fife
indylindy: “David Brooks has condemned himself to be forever stuck on stupid.”
I seriously have a hard time understanding people like David Brooks. You could have picked a FReeper at random prior to the 2008 election, and they would have told you EXACTLY how Obama was going to behave. It was no secret whatsoever.
How can someone like David Brooks be so incredibly naive (or is it ignorant)? He and a lot of the other “Obama is a moderate centrist” pundits aren’t unintelligent. I simply don’t understand how they can be so incredibly blind.
One, (other than his friends and family) who cares? And two, what difference would it make in your treatment of the fellow's written opinions?
Whether he's stupid or a liar doesn't change the credit his drivel merits.
Amen. Great post. Mushy moderates need to get the heck out of the way and let us fught this battle against the communist hoardes like reid pelosi obama and their followers.
Btw isn’t this the same fool who sat w obama on the coach an talked about the creases in his pants?
What a pathetic society we have become w the likes of brookes et al.
Sarah Palin: “Institutionalizing Crony Capitalism”
Sarah Palin’s Notes.
Thu at 7:28pm
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=382303098434
Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Actions speak louder than words.
A link in this piece takes the reader to an earlier Brooks column where he wrote this:
“But “they’re always nice,” Brooks said, adding, “It’s never, ‘You’re a complete asshole.’My line is, the Clinton people would tell you you’re a complete and total asshole. The Obama people say, ‘We love you. You’re a great guy. It’s sad you’re a complete and total asshole.’ They’re always very mature about it.”
Brooks sounds like he accepts their description of him. So, who are we to argue?
“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.”
I can really help Mr. Brooks with his problem. Mr. Brooks, one does have to look at a candidate’s PAST if one wants to see what the future will be with him. WE HAD THAT PRESIDENT you dream of - it was Bush-43 - Bush invited Kennedy and Clinton and everyone else that hated him into the White House to work with him. Bush was a genuinne NICE GUY, who got along GREAT with Democrats - in TEXAS. But he got along great with them (just ask the Democrats here). Bush was about as post-partisan as one could get. Of course in DC the Democrats are a different bunch and more interested in jailing you for not agreeing with them, rather than working together...so Bush never had a chance.
Obama, on the other hand, HAS ZERO RECORD of working with Republicans and he DESPISES them. No one should be surprised how this presidency’s going - if one simply looked at his past.
Please, someone send that to Chris Buckley!! LOL Hilarious!!
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.