Posted on 06/16/2012 4:48:16 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
In the 1950s, Dwight Eisenhower reconciled Republicans to the 20th-century welfare state. Between Ike and George W. Bush, Republican leaders basically accepted that model. Sure, they wanted to cut taxes and devolve power, but, in practice, they sustained the system, often funding it more lavishly than the Democrats.
But many Republicans have now come to the conclusion that the welfare-state model is in its death throes. Yuval Levin expressed the sentiment perfectly in a definitive essay for The Weekly Standard called “Our Age of Anxiety”:
“We have a sense that the economic order we knew in the second half of the 20th century may not be coming back at all — that we have entered a new era for which we have not been well prepared. ... We are, rather, on the cusp of the fiscal and institutional collapse of our welfare state, which threatens not only the future of government finances but also the future of American capitalism.”
To Republican eyes, the first phase of that collapse is playing out right now in Greece, Spain and Italy — cosseted economies, unmanageable debt, rising unemployment, falling living standards.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
read
Punctuation.
not a bad article from Brooks, who usually turns my stomach...that said you have to love his hypocrisy in using the line; “This is the source of Republican extremism: the conviction that the governing model is obsolete. It needs replacing. “ then basically going and saying this “extremism” is needed...
too bad he didn’t counter by saying “change you could believe in” equaled the same failed incompetence that’s put Europe on the brink....
The amazing thing is to read the comments from the Lib readers of the Times!!
But considering that Brooks is the token conservative to the Liberal establishment, many liberals will read this thinking that Brooks will, as usual, offer luke warm support for conservative positions only to find out that by innuendo and intimation, he has soundly trashed Obama, the welfare state, and the Liberal ideology.
4 years ago Brooks was impressed by the crease in Obama’s pants.
“...he has soundly trashed Obama, the welfare state, and the Liberal ideology. “
If he has really done that to the NYT, he’d better be looking for another job.
Supreme Court
Now with four federalists and one republican, if there were 5 federalists, the GOP could "roll back the new deal", "roll back the 20th century".
Check out the comments. The NYT readers are p!ssed!
Seems like nearly everyone who reads the NYT is a certified whack job.
4 years ago Brooks was impressed by the crease in Obama’s pants.
Can you believe a grown man would admit to something that stupid? I have a hard time giving someone that stupid any credibility at all.
That is why there are Republicans (people like Brooks), and there are conservatives. People tend to conflate the two words, but there is a difference. Many Republicans are conservative only by comparison with Democrats, and then some only by the slimmest margin. Whereas a real conservative places values and ideals above loyalty to some political party. They stand for something other than merely getting along with the opposition. I think Brooks is still admiring that crease in Obama's pants.
... goes to show what a “deep” thinker Brooks is.
the crease in Obama’s pants.
Did not know that this is how you measure a mans charactor, honesty, dignity, humility and leadership.
oh the children
Surprising to see such a balanced essay coming from the New York Times. I agree that the comments section shows how New Yorkers are at a total loss. Maybe they do need a Nanny State to help them think through their lives!
I lot of these problems were effectively manufactured by an alliance of the Progressive movement and the pragmatists in government. For all intents and purposes, it began with Teddy Roosevelt. Some of the highlights:
1) TR was an “aggressive expansionist”, who saw American power finally able to assert itself on the world stage. He saw the US as being far too ‘federal’, a union of powerful states, instead of ruled by a powerful central government like other nations, which he wanted. International colonialism was like the game of Risk, a way to enlarge power and influence.
He joined in the worldwide warship arms race despite a reluctant congress, and made efforts to “horn in” to other nations disputes (the Russo-Japanese War, for example). He also used the previously minor “presidential proclamation” to start the federal seizure of state lands which continues to this day.
2) Woodrow Wilson adopted this expansion of federal and presidential power and ran with it, but did not limit himself to the idea of just a dominant central government. He dreamed of internationalism, and even imagined the first world government, the League of Nations. This idealistic fantasy, of savage barbarians ruling over civilized peoples, exists even today, by religions like the socialist international, an organization of leftist political parties around the world.
His administration was also the first to imagine federal spending as an unlimited pool of money.
3) The next problem was Herbert Hoover, whose administration understood economics, but not people. Had his economic program continued the economy would have recovered much faster, but many Americans were starving and needed immediate relief. To his credit, he did eventually begin to provide this, but by then it was too late.
This resulted in not just the political ruination of the Republican party, but the loss of a stable economic system.
4) “Ol’ Frank” Roosevelt (and his demonic horde) knew of Lenin’s utter failure with socialism, and how he had reversed course, though this was reversed by Stalin who insisted on socialism. So instead they decided to embrace the more trendy economics of fascism. This eventually became unpopular for some reason, but some of those systems still exist, such as our agricultural system.
Truman decided to show favoritism to “socialist-democratic” parties in Europe, as the weakest alternative available that would still be both acceptably anti-communist and bring about welfare states we considered as ‘moderating’ their societies.
5) Eisenhower was a military pragmatist, the first Republican president since TR totally captivated with foreign policy. Republicans, still smarting from Hoover, and dominated by “moderates”, at the time called “country club Republicans”, which we today call RINOs, adopted the “go along to get along” policy with most of what the Democrats wanted. Ike himself would be called a “social liberal” today.
This annoyed the Republican rank and file then so much that they made Goldwater the nominee, which came close to restoring order in the US.
6) JFK and his followers, liking the European model, wanted the US to go fully socialist-democrat, which they styled as “Camelot”, so LBJ introduced his “Great Society” welfare state. And that was the beginning of the end of avoiding the economic catastrophe we have today.
In 1972, the Democrats went fully radical and pushed their moderates out of power. Carter decided to inflate the dollar horribly on the theory that inflation favors debtors, the US government was the biggest debtor, so by diluting that debt he would have more money to spend.
Eventually, though, there is a reckoning, and the repair will be entirely Republican, because the Democrats are in complete denial that there is even a problem.
You’re right about the whack job comments NYT readers posted on Brooks’ column. But you should know that the Litterbox Liner of Record tends to delay posting, or censor, comments from conservatives. I know because I tried to post a comment on Brooks’ article, and it never appeared.
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.