Link to his original post at the New York Times
That is quite possibly the worst article I have read from David Brooks--A syndicated columnist that I usually enjoy reading because he typically spends his time trying to discover a fresh perspective or back story of some issue which feeds national politics.
Virtually every paragraph is embedded with a silly assumption, false dilemma, lines that beg the question, or blatant ironies.
"The country needs big changes . . "
Does our country really need big changes? No I don't agree with that. If you really think that the country needs big changes, then it is likely that you believe those changes are already under way or you are a tea party voter who hates anything that Obama has done or will attempt to do.
"What really matters in this election? Well, the big issue is national decline."
While this seems to fit in with the misguided "American Exceptionalism" mantra currently possessing the Republican party, the big issue with voters is still the economy stupid. But the economy is slowly recovering (including big housing markets like San Francisco and Miami) despite the best efforts of most congressional conservatives. So the original Republican prime directive of obstructing any recovery long enough so they can blame Obama during the election is shifting to the implied assertion that Obama just doesn't think America is special.
"How can we ensure that the U.S. is as dynamic in the 21st century as it was in the 20th?"
Begging the question. Does the US need to be as dynamic in the 21st century as it was in the 20th? If so then perhaps we need to make things more dynamic by congress legislating legal gay marriage and opening our borders.
The irony of a conservative arguing for more dynamism! These are literally political opposites -- conservative vs. progressive.
"The biggest threat to national dynamism is spending money on the wrong things."
Really? The issue is no longer the classic conservative belief that we are spending too much money, but rather that we are spending it on the wrong things.
I believe the biggest actual threat to national dynamism is a government stocked with people who don't understand science and believe its conclusions and research to be false. (Assuming you accept his premise that the 21st century must be as dynamic as the 20th)
"If you go back and look at the federal budgets during the mid-20th century, you see that they spent money on the future — on programs like NASA, infrastructure projects, child welfare, research and technology."
So now he is arguing for more government spending on precisely the types of things that conservatives have been trying to privatize for two decades. Now these are the right things I guess.
"It’s increasing so quickly that there is no tax increase imaginable that could conceivably cover it. And, these days, the real entitlement problem is Medicare."
False dilemma--You must raise taxes impossibly high or cut medicare. There are many other ways to solve this problem. For example, you could actually do both along with more infrastructure spending which would create jobs.
"You’re still deeply uncomfortable with many other Romney-Ryan proposals. But first things first. The priority in this election is to get a leader who can get Medicare costs under control."
And here is his central premise. Romney-Ryan should be elected for trying to debate for a partially privatized Medicare plan that they will likely never be able to legislate even if Republicans win majorities in both the House and Senate. And meanwhile all of their admittedly odious political beliefs which threaten the dynamism of the country are unimportant.
I read this article looking forward to reading some well supported reasoning as to why Romney-Ryan might reasonably attract voters as a ticket. Instead I ended up reading perhaps the lousiest piece David Brooks has ever written.
In my mind, "Guide for the Perplexed" mainly serves to illustrate how bizarro-world American politics has become --"Conservatives" arguing for radical changes in just about everything and "Liberals" resisting with a fatherly tone.
In honor of all this, I think I'm going to re-watch the Original Stark Trek bizarro episode "Mirror, Mirror" in which all the characters have become selfish, evil "opposites" of their former selves.
Maybe I'll grow a goatee while I'm at it.
