The Straddler
David Brooks writes in the New York Times (Ultimate Spoiler Alert) that Barack Obama and Paul Ryan are misinformed about each others positions on the budget, because they have not taken the time to get to know each other.
If they met,says Brooks, they would not resolve their differences, but they would understand them better because they are both smart and admirable men.
Brooks says Obama believes Ryan wants to take America back to “the savage capitalism of the 1920’s,” and Ryan believes Obama wants to “turn America into a declining European welfare state.” Ryan believes the health care system will collapse unless benefits are adjusted for seniors, whereas Obama thinks the current welfare arrangements do not need to be fundamentally altered.
Brooks lists five areas of disagreement between Obama and Ryan, and says he agrees with Ryan on three and with Obama on two. Obama is right about targeted investments to grow the economy, and about the need for tax increases. Ryan is right about the system being unsustainable, the need for benefit adjustments, and more freedom of choice for consumers and providers of health care.
Brooks thinks Obama will be re-elected easily, because he has made a sincere call for debt reduction, without specifying any tough choices. These are exactly the sort of vague policies that have sold well in past elections. Brooks writes the president is not being cynical, because he sincerely believe “that seniors and the middle class can be spared from any shared sacrifice.”
My associates tell me they are surprised that I bother to read what Brooks writes, because in the columnist profession he is a “straddler” who struggles to keep a foot in each camp. He has personal and professional reasons for doing so, and this tends to diminish the value of his opinions. For one thing, it is impossible for a true conservative to write for the NYT. Brooks’ colleague, Ross Douthat, who is also considered to be a conservative, wrote a column about this a while ago. NYT’s readers are so liberal they would ignore anything written by a conservative, unless it contained something that advanced liberal causes. With respect to today’s column, liberals can now say:
“Did you read that Brooks wrote that Obama is sincere when he says there is no need to cut welfare spending?”
Liberals can also cite the conservative Brooks’opinion that Obama is right about targeted investments for high speed rail, wind and solar projects.
It could also be that Brooks writes for effect because he enjoys the idea that he is viewed in sophisticated liberal circles as the thoughtful and reasonable conservative. It has been said that Brooks is Obama’s favorite conservative. When Brooks wrote that Ryan and Obama are both smart, admirable and genial men he might have been tempted to add “just like me.”
It is true that when we evaluate what people write we should focus on the substance and not engage in personal attacks, one reason being that even a bad clock is right twice a day. On the other hand, when we read Machiavelli we should keep in mind that if he had lived in a peaceful age he probably would not have written “The Prince.” The Italian peninsula was afflicted with never-ending wars and Machiavelli was trying to get the attention of rulers by offering bold solutions that could bring stability out of chaos. Brooks’column is read by people in power, and there is enough to satisfy the cravings of NYT readers eager to feel good about themselves.
Brooks’ biggest problem is to protect his conservative credentials. For example, he writes he agrees with Ryan about “market mechanisms to allocate resources’and also with Obama about the government’s ability” to selectively nurture prosperity” by making targeted investments. A true conservative thinks of this as an attempt to square the circle. Obama thinks he should take the lead and the private sector should follow into alternative energy, such as wind and solar, which increases the cost of energy and must depend on tax payer subsidies. An advocate of free market solutions normally objects to government being in the business of picking winners and losers. This is what is meant by crony capitalism. Just ask General Electric.
One Response to “The Straddler”
Leave a Reply
I agree with your point here of Mr. Brooks. I have a friend that is a big fan of Mr. Brooks and I just couldn’t put my finger on what it was about him that bothered me. It may have been too close to my face as this seems to be a common trait of several of the current crop of writers and talking heads, I feel Mr. O’Reiley is in there with them.