On Moderation

Great response to Brooks, but I want to take on this point you raise rather casually here:

His education plan is also small-c conservative, working within the current, failed-to-mediocre system of local-controlled public education and rejecting some of the more creative calls for root-and-branch reform (like taking education out of local hands, for example).

This is extreme in my view. I think we can achieve a great deal of reform in the current system simply by articulating new federal guidelines that make sense (rather than the unfunded mandates in no child left behind) and tying these as requirements to getting federal funds. We have, on the federal level, the power of the purse. However, in keeping the current system of education decisions at the local level we also have the opportunity for people to opt-out of decisions made at a federal level and try something new. Politically, I think this is very important. It allows for innovation and experimentation that would not occur IMO in a monolithic federal-run bureaucracy.

So David Brooks ignores history in order to redefine the Center to the extreme Right.
.
Imagine my surprise!

Joe Klein:
.
Aha!
.
I disagree with him profoundly about the Obama budget--and so, I would venture, do most moderate-liberals.
.
So you're calling yourself a "moderate-liberal" now?
.
Or are you just in agreement with most "moderate-liberals"?
.
And Barack Obama is a "liberal" (your quotes)?
.
He rejects left-liberal solutions...
.
OK, so he's a liberal but not "one of those liberals"? Who are "those liberals"? DFH's who opposed the Iraq war from the start...no, wait...
.
but also rejects the radical moderation
.
"radical moderation"? Now you're getting completely incoherent, Joe Klein.
.
I believe that the broad thrust of the plan is not only the correct way to go and an essential rebalancing toward the center
.
Got it now. You're still a centrist, Joe Klein.
.
What a mess your ideology makes of things!

Obama's budget sort of makes clear how foolish, just as an example, some on the left were to have a cat fit about Rick Warren giving the benediction. If he pulls this off he will have made changes more sweeping than most of us could have believed possible politically in such a short time. So I'm inclined to give him a pass on some of the minor disagreements and to support him to the core on his big initiatives.

What, exactly, does "conservative" mean any more? Perhaps David Brooks could identify some. Let's leave out Rush. Who in Congress? Can a conservative believe in biology? Defend the right to abortion? Opose the Israeli settlement program?

What became of the conservative movement and why? Perhaps someone of Brooks' stature and access could address the problems on his side of the street, take some responsibility for the dreadful consequences and propose some conservative solutions for the so-called conservative party.

Until, the so-called moderate conservatives start doing this, they will have nothing to say worth listening to.

Whatever action Obama has taken is a far moire palatable alternative than the Limbaugh anarchy and hate-speech against anything and everything Obama that's been served up by the GOP.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

@SZ,
I'm sure you realize that the problem is that there is no singe left/right sliding scale. I'm to the right of many when discussing taxes, budgets & rewarding irresponsibilty. On privacy, Civil liberties and defense, I am a full flegded DFH.
.
Whats even worse than being a centrist, is being a centrist on principle. Anyone who's built a consistent philosopy on their own can identify where they stand by applying their principles to the issue at hand. JK and Brooks on the other hand, prefer to think that if two sides disagree, the truth must be in the middle. This not only leads to moral inconsistency, but it' how Joe occasionally finds himself trapped arguing with earlier versions of himself.

Obama's budget sort of makes clear how foolish, just as an example, some on the left were to have a cat fit about Rick Warren giving the benediction.
.
How so, Kathy?
.
Assuming for the moment that differences of opinion on legitimizing anti-equality spokespeople is a "minor disagreement", what if Obama had done so, and all he heard was wild applause for it from the right and center?
.
Wouldn't it be "foolish" of the left (and gay people, I guess) not to voice their opposition loud and clear?

"... rebuilding the infrastructure of the country, not just physically, but also socially and intellectually."
.
Well put. I think especially (as George Lakoff discussed the other day) the *systemic* problems of the failure of the banking system, and climate change, are almost inconceivable to the modern "conservative" mind. It just doesn't fit into their ideology. (Conservative in scare quotes, because were the actions in Iraq "conservative"? In both the invasion and the "rebuilding", Burke would have been horrified.) This is a moment like the New Deal, where the nation's political system has to adjust to the changes introduced with the industrial revolution. Even conservative idols like Russell Kirk and de Tocqueville worried about the effects of industrialization...

from the "stopped clock is alway right twice a day" file...
_
I fear that the ultimate result, without strong guidance from the Administration, will be an homage to health industry lobbyists and assorted Congressional health eccentrics.
_
no doubt JK will revert to form soon enough...

I'm not sure if Joe is describing a Rorshach test he took, or one he is giving us, but that's what the post amounts to. The whole center-right-middle-conservative-pantywaist-progressive-whig thing means whatever Joe wants it to means when he writes it.
.
On balance, not the most illuminating thing ever posted.

If I may add to greenlyfe's comment: I second the endorsement of the overall critique of Brooks.
But, there is too much glib misunderstanding about local control of schools by people who don't do it. As a small town school board member of a pretty competent school system, my experience is that almost always state or federal mandates are ill-conceived, under-financed, badly-sequenced and therefore virtually incapable of positive implementation. Call me a dreamer, but I would love a system in which local schools would be treated as real collaborators with a state or federal department of education. A top-down bureaucracy has been a hinderance, not a help to our students and teachers.
And, one of the fundamental tasks of a school system is to help shape the next generation of active citizens, not just to create new market place competitors. What kind of message about democracy does it send to students if a bigger branch of government decides that local citizens are not competent to run such institutions?

OK, so he's a liberal but not "one of those liberals"? Who are "those liberals"? DFH's who opposed the Iraq war from the start...no, wait...
_
I think Joe is defining Obama as a "borrow and spend" centrist...
_
in essence, we're getting the worst of both worlds here -- fiscal irresponsibility in the name of policies that move the "Overton window" well to the right by redefining "liberal" as center-right policies (like charter schools, big bank bailouts, and massive deficit producing middle class tax cuts.)

What kind of message about democracy does it send to students if a bigger branch of government decides that local citizens are not competent to run such institutions?
_
the kind of democracy that doesn't allow local school boards to mandate the teaching of 'creation science', for one thing...
_
ultimately, the question comes down to money and accountability -- inequities in funding/resources correlate closely with "successful/failing" schools, but just throwing money at failing schools is not the answer either.

We've had many wonderful conversations, publicly and privately, over those years, and I value the quality of his mind, his decency, his essential sanity.
.
Yes, compared to the Palin-Limbaugh-Malkin wing of the GOP -- or, I should say, compared to the vast majority of public "intellectuals" on the Right -- Brooks appears sane. But his whiny screed is not the manifesto of a genuine conservative who is making good-faith criticisms. It is not intellectually honest. It isn't even well-argued.
.
There is a time and a place for complaining about America's welfare system. There is a time and a place for discussing how to make America's burdens "shared broadly, rather than simply inflicted upon a small minority." There is a time and a place for Brooks' conservative "vision that puts competitiveness and growth first, not redistribution first."
.
That time and place is not the op-ed page of the NY Times while America on the day after American taxpayers "redistribute" another $30 billion to AIG.
.
Brooks is no moderate. A moderate would be outraged that a tiny minority of the world's population has nearly destroyed the world's financial system. A moderate would not be whining about that "no new burdens will fall on 95 percent of the American people" even as millions of Americans have lost their jobs and the rest of us have to suffer through a recession or depression. A moderate wouldn't think the "first task will be to block the excesses of unchecked liberalism" while we suffering daily through the excesses of unchecked Republican deregulation.

mfritter wants a specific defense of conservatism from Brooks.
-
It will never, ever happen.
-
Brooks writes about his emotions and develops his schtick. He's a bright enough, pleasant enough fellow. Sometimes he writes something worth thinking about.
-
But it all must be viewed in the context of his "sensible centrist" schtick. (See Greenwald on Broder today for more on that). It's unprincipled, by definition. And he came up in the right-wing para-media, so he's predisposed to defend his "side," the GOP, regardless of any principles involved.
-
Of course he'll attack Obama; of course he'll do it in a mild, hand-wringing, polite manner. His critique will never, ever involve principles or context.

Exactly Elvis,

First, Brooks is a fraud and should be ignored. Second, is there anybody anywhere in the so-called conservative movement who will take any responsibility for what happened? I'm not aware of anyone.

To me, there are two very key differences between Obama's large budget and Bush's:
.
1) Obama is accounting for everything up front. The budget has a staggeringly large sticker shock, but taken in context of a 10-year plan it gets somewhat more reasonable. Bush would submit a deficit-incurring budget, and THEN tack on "Emergency spending" bills that equalled its size later in the year (ostensibly for the 'war costs' but there were lots of other items unrelated in them).
.
2) Obama has a plan and a vision. Bush...well, we've already covered his inability to plan beyond "Oil good, terrist bad" and like his father he wasn't so good at that "vision thing"--how many tangents and abandoned goals were strewn throughout his terms? Mars mission, the ephemeral and elusive hydrogen car, integrity to the oval office, etc.
.
Obama is no Bush. Much like someone buying a home, he's come in with plans on how to redecorate...only to find the water heater's broken, raiders have stripped out most of the copper pipes, the wiring's shot, and there's some water damage on the south side. You could ignore some of that in the short term, but unless you start writing some checks and doing hard work things will only deteriorate further and be more expensive down the line to fix.
.
The banking system is a wreck, the investment market is shot, roads and bridges and the electrical grid are all in dire need of upgrade/maintenance/replacement, and our health care system is maybe 10 years away from being unable to sustain care for the vast majority of the population--it's already an instant bankruptcy for 15% of america to use.
.
We need bold ideas and a brave plan. Obama's budget has audacity and the virtue of never being fully tried before. It might yet fail, but sitting around and applying half-@ssed bandaids is no longer an option. The last decade ensured that one.

From Tanenhaus's "Conservatism is Dead" essay:

Schlesinger noted... there was a strange disconnect. Kirk and others genuinely revered traditional conservatism. And yet, once "they leave the stately field of rhetoric and get down to actual issues of social policy, they tend quietly to forget about Burke and Disraeli and to adopt the views of the American business community."

Who have been Brooks's paymasters all these years? He and his movement have been trained well by the Scaifes and the like.

David Brooks, the moderate
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/opinion/06BROO.html?ex=1388725200&en=39e0c5c2749496d1&ei=5007
.

Do you ever get the sense the whole world is becoming unhinged from reality? I started feeling that way awhile ago, when I was still working for The Weekly Standard and all these articles began appearing about how Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Bill Kristol and a bunch of "neoconservatives" at the magazine had taken over U.S. foreign policy.
.
Theories about the tightly knit neocon cabal came in waves. One day you read that neocons were pushing plans to finish off Iraq and move into Syria. Web sites appeared detailing neocon conspiracies; my favorite described a neocon outing organized by Dick Cheney to hunt for humans. The Asian press had the most lurid stories; the European press the most thorough. Every day, it seemed, Le Monde or some deep-thinking German paper would have an exposé on the neocon cabal, complete with charts connecting all the conspirators.
.
The full-mooners fixated on a think tank called the Project for the New American Century, which has a staff of five and issues memos on foreign policy. To hear these people describe it, PNAC is sort of a Yiddish Trilateral Commission, the nexus of the sprawling neocon tentacles.
.
We'd sit around the magazine guffawing at the ludicrous stories that kept sprouting, but belief in shadowy neocon influence has now hardened into common knowledge. Wesley Clark, among others, cannot go a week without bringing it up.
.
In truth, the people labeled neocons (con is short for "conservative" and neo is short for "Jewish") travel in widely different circles and don't actually have much contact with one another. The ones outside government have almost no contact with President Bush. There have been hundreds of references, for example, to Richard Perle's insidious power over administration policy, but I've been told by senior administration officials that he has had no significant meetings with Bush or Cheney since they assumed office. If he's shaping their decisions, he must be microwaving his ideas into their fillings.

.
Well he maybe a moderate but he is DEFINITELY a dumb ass.

Perfect Brooks quote from sgwhite. At the end of the day, Brooks is a loyal partisan. He said what he believed the GOP needed to have said in 2004; he does the same today. (Could neoconservatism be any different from conservatism, btw? Yet neocon militarist nationalism is 100% of GOP foreign policy today). Different tone, different trappings, same schtick.
-
mfritter, I'd say Brooks shouldn't be ignored because he occasionally says something interesting, and because it's worthwhile to know what today's justification for GOP interests might be. And avoiding responsibility is in the conservative DNA, right there with a lack of capacity for shame.

I'm sure you realize that the problem is that there is no singe left/right sliding scale. I'm to the right of many when discussing...
.
Dirks: you know I'm with you on that.
.
The left and right sliding scale has been grossly distorted in this country, in no small measure because of centrists like Joe Klein's pathological hatred of "the left", but also because of single-issue advocacy institutions' short-term gain-oriented political tactics.
.
That said:
.
Whats even worse than being a centrist,
.
What's even worse than being a centrist is being a dishonest centrist who blames the excesses of Bushism squarely on the radical right, instead of the centrist enablers in the Beltway who were too concerned about being identified with the awful "left" than stopping the madness.
.
When Joe proclaims "We are at the end of a 30-year period of radical conservatism", he needs to add "abetted by centrists in the Democratic party and Beltway establishment", or he's being terribly dishonest about how the his kind and the rightists got us into this mess.
.
If there had been less "moderates" (centrists) like Joe Klein in the Democratic party establishment for the past eight (or twenty) years, and more liberals, then the rightists would have had to fight every inch of the way toward perdition.
.
When Joe Klein declares that "a major rectification is called for now-", "socially and intellectually", he needs to include his own brand of ideology, or explain to the public how it was that a lack of "moderation" on liberals' part caused their representatives in Congress to vote for the rightist cause in Iraq.
.
Once again, the people who were right all along about the war or deregulation --everything-- are somehow still "extreme" or "radical" according to the centrist ideology of Joe Klein.

While Brooks and other anxiety-filled opinionmeisters fret and fume President Obama, VP Biden and Mrs Obama are visiting each and every government department/agency engaging those who will have to play a significant role in the economic recovery program. The much maligned civil service is getting some attention and being asked to help. Success or failure lies there; not in the gasbaggery that takes place among those who have not had to deliver goods and service to us rubes.

Let the op-eds continue for they provide employment if nothing else and help feed those who love circular arguments. But spare a moment to look at the people who will actually have to deliver as opposed to the Wall Street types who brought us to this place.

Joe, your history is simply incorrect when you say: "The past 30 years have been such a violent departure from the norm, such a profound destruction of the basic functions of government, that a major rectification is called for now".

Reagan's policies were not a "departure" but a return. You may obviously disagree with his policies but they were not new. The "chicago boys" themsevles who played a vital role in the intellectual formulation of Reagan's policies regurlarly invoked their own lessons learned from the Gilded Age and Victorian England after the repeal of the Corn Laws and advocated a return to this more traditional role of laissez-faire.

Moreover, Reagan's policies were far more in step with the traditional role of American government. Your understanding of the "norm" of government is largely founded on the period 1933-1981 which itself should be understood as a departure from history.

Whatever your view, liberal or conservative it is fundamentally incorrect to argue that Obama's policies represent an historical norm in the United States. Of course, merely being a departure does not mean Obama's policies are wrong, but your history is simply false.

Sz, kathy--
.

Wouldn't it be "foolish" of the left (and gay people, I guess) not to voice their opposition loud and clear?
.
And Obama seems to be just fine when people express opposition loud and clear. You've heard the administration remark on the vacuity of cable chatterers, but not about people who are committed to causes,and express themselves loud and clear.
.
And sz, you've got mail.