Skip to main content

There was a DKos diary up yesterday about how dumb the recent Bobby Jindal National Review speech was, castigating Republicans for sounding dumb and for supporting unpopular ideas, but then failing to following the reasoning when he then supported dull, unpopular ideas.  Which NYT's columnist nails Jindal for this? Jump over the squiggly to find out ...

If you guessed David Brooks, you must have ESP. Because, you have no reason to guess David Brooks. But, the analysis in his

http://www.nytimes.com/...

article is really good, except at the very end ... .

Check out this third graph:

But, so far, there have been more calls for change than actual evidence of change. In his speech, for example, Jindal spanked his party for its stale clichés but then repeated the same Republican themes that have earned his party its 33 percent approval ratings: Government bad. Entrepreneurs good.
Then he comments on some analysis at a current National Review soul-searching event at which Republicans don't really get that their anti-government rhetoric is collapsing because of the fallacies of its premise.
The next problem with this mentality is that it makes it hard for Republicans to analyze social and economic problems that don’t flow directly from big government. For example, we are now at the end of the era in which a rising tide lifts all boats. Republicans like Mitt Romney can talk about improving the overall business climate with lower taxes and lighter regulation, but regular voters sense that that won’t necessarily help them because wages no longer keep pace with productivity gains.
Brooks goes on to say that he doesn't think today's Republicans can change:
Can current Republicans change their underlying mentality to adapt to these realities? Intellectual history says no. People almost never change their underlying narratives or unconscious frameworks. Moreover, in the South and rural West, where most Republicans are from, the Encroachment Story has deep historic and psychological roots. Anti-Washington, anti-urban sentiment has characterized those cultures for decades.
Brooks calls for a new Republican party that can win in the West and Northeast. Here's where the analysis fails .. because such a Republican party would look a lot like the Democratic party that is already winning in the West and Northeast.

Hmm ...

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (213+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, reflectionsv37, fixxit, Trix, Tool, peachcreek, Youffraita, begone, pvasileff, MKSinSA, historys mysteries, LeftHandedMan, bluesheep, john07801, Jeff Y, jwinIL14, DRo, jayden, outragedinSF, kevinpdx, Bluesee, Chaddiwicker, Rosaura, BadKitties, grollen, TDDVandy, basquebob, chantedor, sceptical observer, Davui, blueoasis, aitchdee, La Gitane, radarlady, doinaheckuvanutjob, tubacat, deha, EJP in Maine, WB Reeves, defluxion10, Over the Edge, coppercelt, Habitat Vic, MadRuth, jnhobbs, shanesnana, randallt, rapala, AnnetteK, DeminNewJ, theKgirls, onionjim, ruleoflaw, Andrew F Cockburn, petulans, elginblt, Pinto Pony, samddobermann, Byblis, TomP, kharma, Justus, OIL GUY, Rumarhazzit, Naniboujou, nomandates, BYw, joanil, bladerunner, Buckeye54, hlsmlane, jamess, Byron from Denver, Dallasdoc, Wreck Smurfy, politik, glitterscale, concernedamerican, Bridge Master, Smoh, Terminus, trueblueliberal, CDH in Brooklyn, Captain Pants, DSC on the Plateau, christine20, howabout, spooks51, DCDemocrat, oortdust, commonmass, miracle11, Philpm, psnyder, Eddie L, a2nite, Joieau, Cedwyn, Tinfoil Hat, our better angels, MKinTN, California06, Yamara, Vacationland, stevemb, AnnieR, Powered Grace, Witgren, zerelda, Marjmar, OleHippieChick, Jay C, Nebraskablue, jfromga, kerflooey, pixxer, arizonablue, johanus, Cronesense, cpresley, VirginiaBlue, JDWolverton, Keone Michaels, dotsright, Fury, Its a New Day, rlochow, sawgrass727, OhioNatureMom, msgeorgia blue nurse, avsp, anodnhajo, annan, niteskolar, Crabby Abbey, remembrance, Caddis Fly, Eowyn9, RUNDOWN, bythesea, Yellow Canary, mbh1023, karmsy, linkage, kuvasz, HeyMikey, Temmoku, DianeNYS, AllanTBG, Mistral Wind, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, joanbrooker, tin woodswoman, checkerspot, JBL55, exNYinTX, camlbacker, LI Mike, annominous, Gowrie Gal, BachFan, Carlo, DawnN, greycat, political mutt, Arahahex, MidwestTreeHugger, The Nose, KayCeSF, Egalitare, countwebb, Headlight, CoExistNow, smartdemmg, Freakinout daily, peteri2, davelf2, Themistoclea, MoDem, gizmo59, Jake Williams, No one gets out alive, MJ via Chicago, Robynhood too, dewtx, Akonitum, Chas 981, splashy, Molly Weasley, Rogneid, wdrath, Linda Wood, pgm 01, fisheye, Jim R, IndependentRadical, carver, offgrid, WisVoter, tofumagoo, chrississippi, missLotus, revsue, Yasuragi, Anne Elk, Mr MadAsHell, PipeUp, science nerd, Old Lefty, Deep Dark, Onomastic, Australian2, MadEye
  •  Electoral College Gerrymandering Fixes This For (34+ / 0-)

    basically all time. Lib/Prog Democrats can never govern again.

    That's what the article is really about: permanent ruling Republican minority.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 10:11:06 PM PST

  •  You have to love it when people like... (37+ / 0-)

    David Brooks start falling off the wagon. He's had a couple of articles lately expressing his(I'm looking for the proper word here) disgust with the current performance of his beloved GOP.

    Unlike most republicans, I think he clearly sees the handwriting on the wall. And that handwriting is telling him if the GOP doesn't start to marginalize the teabaggers and return to support some mainstream policies, the GOP is going to eventually disappear.

    Personally, I love it!! Nothing like a little republican infighting to add sunshine to an already sunny day!

    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

    by reflectionsv37 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 10:25:58 PM PST

    •  It's the old anchor bias. (7+ / 0-)

      The problem they have now is that the teabaggers have moved the goal posts so far to the right that any movement back towards center is viewed as being a socialist that will constantly deride.  They need to jestison this weight (tea party fundamentalists) so that their ship can right itself.  The problem is that the teabaggers are such a verabally violent bunch that no one in their party wants to stand up to them for fear of reprisal.

      ... like tears in rain

      by bladerunner on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 05:23:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Tea Party is only a part of their problems (5+ / 0-)

        Forcing Fundamentalist Religious views and edicts down voters throats is another.

        The religious right is a separate animal from the right wing libertarians who only care about "cowboy capitalism".

        And with all the groveling to immigrant issues lately - still no actions on women's rights.

        If not us ... who? If not here ... where? If not now ... when?

        by RUNDOWN on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 08:25:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  fundies & libertarians on same side (5+ / 0-)

          Fundies boil their antigovernment philosophy down to: "Less government means more God".  Government = socialism = atheism.  They're counting on people living on the edge to look to divine intervention to save them; the kind of people who'll happily convert for food.  A lot of them have bought the argument that laissez-faire capitalism is more "godly" than regulation and government services because it trusts in an external power rather than human hubris forcing the world into a shape that suits only human needs and desires.  They also like the idea of the lack of government allowing them to run their private lives like they want: no more feminism, no more public schools, no more Child Protective Services, no more popular culture ... just the absolute power of god-fearing parents over children, god-like husbands over wives, and pastors with a direct line to God over their flocks, all secure in a fundie bubble made of hot lead if you know what I mean.

          They and the libertarians want the same thing even if it's for completely different reasons.

          Something's wrong when the bad guys are the utopian ones.

          by Visceral on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 08:46:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Brooks has probably seen his speaker fee income (9+ / 0-)

      plummet in the past two years and is thinking that he needs to get some of those $20,000 a pop bookings back, or he won't be able to maintain his jet setting pundit lifestyle.

      That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

      by concernedamerican on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 05:40:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Speaking of encroachment... (57+ / 0-)

    Flashback:

    BROOKS: You know, all three of us spend a lot of time covering politicians and I don't know about you guys, but in my view, they're all emotional freaks of one sort or another. They're guaranteed to invade your personal space, touch you. I sat next to a Republican senator once at dinner and he had his hand on my inner thigh the whole time. I was like, ehh, get me out of here.

    HARWOOD: What?

    BROOKS: I can only imagine what happens to you guys.

    O'DONNELL: Sorry, who was that?

    BROOKS: I'm not telling you, I'm not telling you.

    :-)
  •  As usual, BoBo gets even the most basic facts (60+ / 0-)

    wrong.  A "rising tide" stopped "lifting all boats" about 30 years ago, which is when increases in productivity and in the median wage* started diverging.  (Gee, I wonder why.)  Only deliberately mendacious or systematically self-deluding pundits get such basic facts so ludicrously wrong.

    *Median family income has kept somewhat better pace with productivity because more wives are working and everybody (who's employed) is working much longer hours.  

  •  The GOP's biggest problem (101+ / 0-)

    is that they peaked in the mid-1990's and blew it, and then, when they undeservedly got the keys to the kingdom in the Bush years because the Democratic Party of the post-Monica late 1990's wasn't up to recognizing the GOP for what it was and brawling/fighting it, they failed again. But worse for them. After they won and got a lot of what they wanted, everything they got seemed to fundamentally fail in a way that has a stink they can't wash or bullshit away. And in that, everything they say they stand for epic failed as a platform to run on afterwards.

    They blew their wad trying to impeach Bill Clinton and shut down the Government over temper tantrums instead of, say, governing. And then all their think tankery and economic theories didn't work with their fingerprints all over them for eight long years of Bush.

    It's breathtaking to think about how much help the Right has had in covering up how not tough and not indestructable the Conservative movement from all sorts of avenues outside of itself.

    The traditional news media castrated by fears of 'liberal bias' charges, Democrats too quick to take GOP propaganda as gospel on policy and positions, the GOP's gaming the 2000 election in Florida and Ohio, combined with the national stupor after the horrors of September 11th to give them years of undeserved new life via jingoism, bullshit PR, smearing, and cheating.

    And it was the worst thing that ever happened to them as well as the best thing, because the fail was all on them for all to see.

    George W. Bush was the swansong of fail mistaken for the dawn of a new era.

    Where do they go?

    Even if they weren't trying to lurch farther Rightward, even if they let David Brooks and David Frum take over and give them a make-over, substantively they don't offer much to the American people who aren't very rich or very stupid.

    There is no problem they face that can be solved by cutting taxes and moving further to the Right, and there is no way to change that circumstance when the answer to all problems being cut taxes and move farther to the Right is an existential part of the GOP's survival.

    If Jindal is the 2016 nominee, the GOP will lose huge.

    Why?

    The GOP base is narcissism personified, it wants to vote for itself.

    Because white racists will not for him, Evangelical Christian Conservatives will praise him in public and question his Christianity in private (I will always believe that lily white Mitt Romney faced this problem with being a Mormon) because they want a white Evangelical Christian Conservative standard bearer.

    There is no reason to vote for the GOP if you are not a racist white nativist, rich, or a diehard Movement Conservative activist.

    Movement Conservatism is never more viable than when it is a cranky minority who is always engaged in self-serving whining and moaning about their permanent victim status.

    The Right seems to win by losing, because in losing they get to whine and complain and be rich, fat, and happy, and they lose by winning because then the fail parade comes and it's on them.  

    When they get their way, their policies, principles, and practices do so much damage that they need the Democrats to be able to fix them, or at least tirepatch them enough, to go back to

    The Bush administration has utterly destroyed the fundamental economic foundation of modern Movement Conservatism: cut taxes, gut regulations, leave business alone, and a tsunami of awesomesauce shall be there for all, as well as shattered the most dominantly and widely held foreign policy philosophy, in Neoconservatism, that modern Movement Conservatism used as a muscley substitute for nativist isolationism.

    David Brooks biggest problem is that his best solution to the "GOP problem" as he sees it is that he has to get the Republican Party to actively embrace and rapidly become the Democratic Leadership Council faction of the Democratic Party as a Party itself. At least to be what he envisions. He has to achieve this without anyone knowing that this is really his solution, or that he can't succeed because the GOP's base is too filled with crazy, racist, and stupid they see the DLC as leftist as International A.N.S.W.E.R. to a man. Oh, that and there already is a centrist corporate and Wall Street friendly Democratic Party establishment in the way in DC. Since the GOP base already thinks of him as a liberal traitor and not a conservative he won't admit that this is really his solution. Ever.

    I am from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner wing of the Democratic Party

    by LeftHandedMan on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 10:54:41 PM PST

  •  In the seventies corporations realized (75+ / 0-)

    if they fired middle managers and hired more woman they could keep wages down and take productivity gains for senior mgmt.  That's when they also realized they could steal Defined Benefit plans and replace it w/ corrupt 401k's.  This has led to a whole series of cultural problems.  Two income households now struggle to generate what one union worker could, etc.

    According to the capitalist bible, Forbes:

    "By sitting on their growing investments, the richest five Americans made almost $7 billion each in one year. That's $3,500,000.00 per hour."

    That's more in one hour than most two income households will earn in eighty hours of work, working every week for forty years.  
    And for many, in just one second they will take as much as many who work their entire lives...in ONE SECOND.

    And they use some of that stolen productivity to tell us we've got to take even less...

    From Paul Blumenthal..paulblumenthal@huffingtonpost.com

    "According to a review of tax documents from 2007 through 2011, Peterson has personally contributed at least $458 million to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation to cast Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and government spending as in a state of crisis, in desperate need of dramatic cuts."
    That's "at least".  And that doesn't include the Koch's, de Vos', Waltons, Simmons and the other sociopaths.

    It's a mental illness.  These sociopaths are destroying our families, culture and the planet.
    The Republican party has no coherent, honest, rational economic philosophy and never has.  There is no legitimate conservative economic theory that does more than benefit the staggeringly few.

    And David Brooks is nothing more than a paid sycophant, who continues to mislead, distort and lie.  But I'm sure he's paid very well for it.

    •  some thoughts... (38+ / 0-)

      “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith

      "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." - John Steinbeck

      “It is to the real advantage of every producer, every manufacturer and every merchant to cooperate in the improvement of working conditions, because the best customer of American industry is the well-paid worker.” - Franklin D. Roosevelt

      “If capitalism is fair, then Unionism must be. If men have a right to capitalize their ideas and the resources of their country, then that implies the right of men to capitalize their labor.” - Frank Lloyd Wright

      “There are two types of republicans, the rich and the stupid. The rich ones strive to keep the stupid ones stupid and the stupid ones strive to keep the rich ones rich.” - frankzappatista, Daily Kos

      “That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.” - Franklin D. Roosevelt

      “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov

      “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” — Adam Smith

      "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken

      "Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." - anonymous

      "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half." - Jay Gould

      "It is a general rule of human nature that people despise those who treat them well, and look up to those who make no concessions." - Thucydides, ca. 411 BCE

      "Leaders shouldn't attach moral significance to their ideas: Do that, and you can't compromise." - Peter Drucker

      "I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished. The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

      "The definition of a liberal Republican is someone who, when you're drowning some 30 feet offshore, throws you a 20 foot rope and boasts that he "went more than halfway." -- Mark Shields

      "I like paying taxes... with them, I buy Civilization" - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

      "Modern Conservatism isn't simply about them owning as much as possible; it's also about breaking anything they can't possess." -- Anonymous

      "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious convictions." -- Blaise Pascal, Pensees

      "Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility." - Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

      "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers." - Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"

      "When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag carrying a cross" - Robert Sinclair, 1835

      "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France

      "Don't forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor." - from the play 1776

      "Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference" - John F. Kennedy

      "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

      "The real problem with keeping your ideas in a nutshell is you spend all your time inside with the nuts"  - Captain Frogbert

    •  Have to disagree about the Rethugs not having (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rlochow, madhaus, chrississippi

      "a  coherent, honest, rational economic philosophy." On the contrary, the rich have spent billions over the past century to corrupt the profession of economics from within, driving out the concepts of "economic rent" and "unearned income."

      Michael Hudson explains in Simon Patten on Public Infrastructure and Economic Rent Capture

      America differed from England, as did Germany and other countries confronting British industrial competition. Free-trade policy was not appropriate for conditions that called for steering economic evolution along the most productive lines. And what British economists treated as universal actually reflected its class structure, especially its hereditary groundrent stemming from the Norman invasion. Free-trade economists attributed America’s high wage levels to the nation’s vast backwoods of available land on which to settle as an alternative to working in factories. Like other protectionists, Patten found this explanation insufficient.

      American industrial labor had to be sufficiently productive to sustain higher living standards. This required investment in capital, which in turn required protective tariffs and public infrastructure investment. Patten recognized that rising productivity, public investment, and wage levels went together. That is what enabled well-fed, well-trained, and well-housed American labor to undersell “pauper labor.” American free traders who followed the lead of British economists in urging governments to stand aside bought the idea that market forces by themselves would produce the most efficient outcomes. But what are markets, reformers asked, if not carefully constructed arrangements shaped by tax laws, land and property tenure, government subsidies and price regulation, educational systems, and infrastructure? Would not a market without regulation or public services become “free” for predators?

      The institutional and sociological economists who emerged from the American protectionist tradition and German Historical School were almost alone in retaining from classical political economic thought the concept of economic rent (the excess of market price over intrinsic cost-value) as unearned income. Defenders of property and opponents of tax reform found this focus on rentier revenue disturbing, above all its application to land ownership, and the monopolies and trusts created by Wall Street. These vested interests applauded the free-market marginalists who took property relations for granted.
      ---Published in American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 70, No. 4 (October, 2011).

      It is not an easy read, but I consider it essential to understanding the concepts of "economic rent" and "unearned income. Without these concepts firmly in mind, it is simply impossible to understand how the industrial economy has been financialized and looted over the past half century. Hudson has a somewhat simpler summary in America’s Deceptive 2012 Fiscal Cliff, Part IV– Why Financial and Tax Reform Should Go Together:
      Economies were liberating themselves from the special privileges that European feudalism and colonialism had granted to favored insiders. The aim of ending these privileges – or taxing away economic rent where it occurs naturally, as in the land’s site value and natural resource rent – was to lower the costs of living and doing business. This was expected to make progressive economies more competitive, obliging other countries to follow suit or be rendered obsolete. The era of what was considered to be socialism in one form or another seemed to be at hand – rising role of the public sector as part and parcel of the evolution of technology and prosperity.

      But the landowning and financial classes fought back, seeking to expunge the central policy conclusion of classical economics: the doctrine that free-lunch economic rent should serve as the tax base for economies seeking to be most efficient and fair. Imbued with academic legitimacy by the University of Chicago (which Upton Sinclair aptly named the University of Standard Oil) the new post-classical economics has adopted Milton Friedman’s motto: “There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch” (TINSTAAFL). If it is not seen, after all, it has less likelihood of being taxed.

      The political problem faced by rentiers – the “idle rich” siphoning off most of the economy’s gains for themselves – is to convince voters to agree that labor and consumers should be taxed rather than the financial gains of the wealthiest 1%.

      A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

      by NBBooks on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 07:54:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The BBC says Bill Gates plans to eradicate Polio. (5+ / 0-)

    Kinda no secret who I'm siding with.   ;-)

    Father Time remains undefeated.

    by jwinIL14 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 11:37:06 PM PST

    •  This speaks to something I truly believe (24+ / 0-)

      There are two kinds of rich people:

      People like Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Bert Rutan, and Bill Gates; people who create and innovate and make the world a better place. And get rich doing it.

      And people like Mitt Romney, The Koch brothers, and the like who make their money by gaming the system, rigging the rules, leeching off other people's accomplishments; by making nothing, while taking everything.

      The problem is when society cannot understand the distinction and treat the latter as thought they are the former. I am reminded of a recent Forbes article praising the richest 400 people in the world, six of whom were drug cartel leaders. The fact that Forbes could not see that praising such men was morally corrupt boggles the mind. Simply having money is not a moral accomplishment, indeed, all too often it is evidence of the opposite.

      Until America understands that money is not the be-all and end-all of human existence, we will continue to be a morally and socially bankrupt nation.

      So gratz to Gates for his commitment to more than just having money, but doing right with it.

      •  Uhhhh, I'd put Bill Gates in the latter group (5+ / 0-)

        I see him as gaming the system so that Microsoft can maintain their monopoly.  I can't really think of anything they've innovated.  Windows - Apple, Xbox - Playstation, Zune - iPod, Word - WordPerfect, ... .  He reminds me more of Carnegie.  Makes all his money on something questionable then tries to cloak himself in philanthropy.

        ... like tears in rain

        by bladerunner on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 05:44:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ya caught me (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mistral Wind, DawnN, mmacdDE, KayCeSF, madhaus

          I agree with your assessment, but I thought it ill-mannered to put Gates in the latter class when I was responding to a comment about his philanthropy.

          Microsoft has never really innovated anything, true and they do game the system to maintain their near-monopoly. But I would put Gates sort of between the two groups (thus abrogating my original argument, I know). He's not great, but he's not all bad, either. I sort of see him as a wannabee Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs was not so much an innovator as a person who could see the big picture and had exceptional taste and insight into the marketplace. He gave people what they didn't even know they wanted... yet. He made things so cool, people wanted them instantly and passionately. That's the definition of a leader: not the power to dictate, but the ability to make people want what you want as deeply as you want it yourself. Microsoft has always gone the dictator route: You vill haff ziss! Unt luff it!

          But Gates isn't evil. And I think he really tries.

          •  I kinda see it both ways (0+ / 0-)

            Jobs was Tiffany, Gates is Kay Jewelers.

            One is much more a luxury, and priced that way. The other is not quite such a luxury, emulates the high end stuff but cheaper, and is aiming at the masses.

            That's why Apple didn't have the market share Microsoft did, and still doesn't. There are more cheap smart phones than iPhones. More Windows PCs than Macs, more Android tablets than iPads.

            But Apple is the trendsetters, the leading edge, the innovators. I give them that. They see a different way to do something, and make it happen.

            And their stuff is usually pretty intuitive, with an interface that's way more consistent than the other hodgepodge of systems. That's why I got an iPad for my husband, and an iPhone when it was time for a new phone. He's not very computer savvy, and he can figure them out.

            I've been working with computers and various OS since the 80s, I can usually figure out most things. So it's not as much of an issue for me as it is for him.

             

  •  They kind of lost their Jack Kemp side. (8+ / 0-)

    They don't even try to present ideas that use the market to solve problems anymore.

    Anything less than unfettered capitalism is considered creeping socialism.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 11:41:59 PM PST

  •  why do we care... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, RUNDOWN

    ... about righty loon pontifications?  really.  why?

    the same goes for Noonan, Rubin, Will and the rest of the windbags.

    I'm a blue drop in a red bucket.

    by blue drop on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 11:50:04 PM PST

    •  because the "serious" people are killing us (6+ / 0-)

      the pundent class continues to repeat economic bs, and even the dems hear the volume and mistake loudness for substance.

      fact does not require fiction for balance (proudly a DFH)

      by mollyd on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 12:09:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here We Go Again.... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Justus, RUNDOWN

        "the pundit class continues to repeat economic bs"... and people buy into it.

        Uh, no they do not.

        Our proof is what just happened with the recent election. Obama crushed Rmoney-- a 1%'er who has been selling economic bs for years, not just during the recent election cycle.

        I mostly ignore the talking bobbleheads like Brooks-- although it was amusing watching him squirm and make excuses on PBS Newshour the last six months prior to the election, as it became clear Rmoney was going to lose.

        "The 1% don't want SOLUTIONS; they've worked very hard the last four decades to get conditions the way they are now".

        by Superpole on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 03:11:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Partially true (15+ / 0-)

          It's true that Obama won in spite of the pundit class not because of them.

          Basically more and more people are tuning out the pundit class.  Why?  Because they're starting to believe their lying eyes as opposed to the bullshit these pundits continually feed them.

          However,

          The fact that Rmoney even got 47% means we still have a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNGGGGGG way to go.  There is still a large segment of our society that is STILL buying the bullshit.  If Obama could only beat the living personification of the 1% by 4 then we have a lot of work to do to prevent someone who isn't as obviously on the side of the rich from pulling it out.

          This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

          by DisNoir36 on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 05:19:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  On the other hand (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mollyd, RUNDOWN

            If Obama was a white male southerner, what might the margin have been?

            Policy only explains part of that 47%.

            You couldn't load a pistol with dormitive virtue and shoot it into a breakfast-roll - CS Peirce

            by Mr Raymond Luxury Yacht on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 06:08:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I guess we'll find out in 4 years (0+ / 0-)

              when Hillary runs.  No excuse to vote GOP because they hate the black guy any longer.

              Of course the misogynists will still turn to the GOP but in doing so they will turn the women onto the Dems.  

              I think many areas where Obama under performed will turn more blue in 2016 simply due to the fact that Obama isn't on the ticket.  States like Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina will be alot closer or even flip.  Especially if the Dems get Bill and Obama to help turn out the AA communities in large numbers again.  

              This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

              by DisNoir36 on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 06:39:18 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  The pundit class (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DawnN
            Basically more and more people are tuning out the pundit class.  Why?
            I am willing to bet that few if any Americans under the age of 35 ever read a pundit column or listen to a quacking TV pundit.  
            •  BEENGO! (0+ / 0-)

              It's almost pathetic, really...

              apparently many in Bloggo land have nothing better to do than hang on every word emanating from well paid hacks like Limpbaugh, Hannity, etc., as if they have this huge amount of credibility and power.

              "The 1% don't want SOLUTIONS; they've worked very hard the last four decades to get conditions the way they are now".

              by Superpole on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 05:55:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  You're Missing a Fundamental Point (0+ / 0-)

            "There is a large segment of our society is STILL buying the bullshit".

            I get it-- but this has been the case for decades; it's not a recent development due to FAUX News or the internets. and as always, I maintain FAUX and the rest of the bobbleheads are merely preaching to the choir that has always been there.

            FAUX News is not converting 1,000's of liberals or moderates to "the dark side". that is hysterical nonsense; again the proof is the recent election.

            Not only is FAUX not as remotely as successful as people here and elsewhere think-- it's not the responsibility of lamestream media to "educate the public" regarding reich wing lies and bullcrap.

            you can demand  lamestream media take on this role all you want, it's not going to happen.

            "The 1% don't want SOLUTIONS; they've worked very hard the last four decades to get conditions the way they are now".

            by Superpole on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 05:51:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Bay Buchannan decided to quit punditry (0+ / 0-)

      ..and sell high-end real estate.

      Go for it, Mr. Brooks. You're a natural born salesman. Just don't forget the cookies for the clients.

      Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to #&@$ in the first place? - George Carlin

      by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 09:09:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  maybe if/once the Republican Party (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, Justus

    totally tanks we can get a real Progressive party

    "a lie that can no longer be challenged becomes a form of madness" -Debord

    by grollen on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 12:05:21 AM PST

  •  He's actually correct. (14+ / 0-)

    Republicans don't have a messaging problem.  It's not that too many Republican politicians feel the need to say aloud what they really think about rape victims and the working poor.  It's that they actually believe that shit, and saying it out loud is simply a natural consequence of having politicians who are far out of touch with the real world.  In a climate in which nobody is hiring, Republicans say that the problem is that all those jobless people are lazy.  After the hottest summer on record, Republicans want to pretend that climate change isn't happening.  And with corporations posting record profits and paying zero taxes, Republicans think the problem is that they're taxed too high and it's stifling job creation.

    Look, the best their skeez could manage against a Democratic President dragged down by a weak economy was 47 percent of the vote.  Imagine what the score would have been if the 2012 election were played with 6 percent unemployment and 3 percent GDP growth.  They would have literally been crushed.  Nobody is buying their shit any more.

    28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

    by TDDVandy on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 12:14:31 AM PST

  •  What I've seen, and this is ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Justus, hlsmlane, efrenzy

    ... only anecdotal evidence and needs to be researched, is that the average Fox viewer had their tongue firmly in cheek early on during the Obama Administration and would claim, with a straight face, that the President was born in Kenya. Most didn't believe it, but they said it anyway.

    After four years of Fox propaganda, though, that same average viewer has come to loath everything about the government, including the Republicans. The Fox poison, in other words, worked too well and seems to have had the best of unintended consequences.

    That same average Fox viewer will not go to the polls like his father and grandfather did. That's good for us.

    I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

    by Tortmaster on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 01:06:47 AM PST

  •  Its not ESP (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roadbed Guy, Cedwyn, David PA

    Its in the title

    There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

    by slothlax on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 01:14:03 AM PST

  •  The South isn't where antagonistic (14+ / 0-)

    self-centered people are from; it's where they congregate and settle. Talented, imaginative and creative people get out. Even the adventurous, hard workers from further south, move through the southern states and on to the lands of opportunity. The migrants keep right on moving.
    In Florida, self-centered snow-birds settle on the west coast, while the self-centered in flight from the northeast and mid-Atlantic states end up on the east coast. What prompts their flight? They claim not to like the cold. But then they sit in air conditioned houses that keep the same temperature year round. So, what they really don't like is the change from hot to cold and back again. Visually, the changing seasons are pretty, but they don't like how they feel.

    In our neighborhood in Georgia, we've just had some new arrivals from Michigan and Indiana. The Michiganders put out a Romeney sign -- one of just two in the entire area. I guess they thought they were signaling consensus. The folks from Indiana (by way of Oklahoma) are downright unfriendly. Of course, I don't entirely blame them. They got took on the purchase of their house. But then, they didn't inform themselves.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 02:23:26 AM PST

    •  Here, here (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hannah, Philpm, sydneyluv

      Nothing more annoying/repulsive than all the transplants who move here because they hanker after them old time, antebellum values.

      Nothing human is alien to me.

      by WB Reeves on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 02:29:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They call 'em SNOW birds for a reason ... the a/c (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, sydneyluv, samddobermann

      may be set at 70 all year but it doesn't generate ice and snow. No trees broken by the weight of ice, no sidewalks that need shoveling ...

      And, really ... "Talented, imaginative and creative ... adventurous, hard workers" ALL move on north?  Really? Nobody left? None of us blue southerners here on dkos could possibly be talented, adventurous, or hard workers? Sounds like RedState.

      •  I don't think I said ALL. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Philpm, codairem

        But, there are some parts of the south that are simply unbearable, unless you're a hermit and don't much care that the neighbors are daft.

        The daft are in the northern climes, as well. Some can only afford to go south for the winter. Establishments of religion seem to provide good cover for them. Some of the churches they set up are nothing but tax exempt social clubs. And going on missions is an excuse to travel on the cheap and claim the cost as a religious donation.

        It's my guess that some of the antagonism towards the Obama administration springs from the effort to actually enforce the requirement that organizations prove their revenue stream is eleemosynary and legitimately tax exempt. Taxing their quasi commercial enterprises is likely frosting some brains. Then too, derelict commercial properties are sprouting as churches like mushrooms.

        We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

        by hannah on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 04:21:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  What if they outflank them on the left ? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, Justus

    You know - really return to the party of Lincoln.     The Democrats are way too inculcated with conservatives, Third Wayers, and WS Dems.    It would be so easy to turn the tables and make the Dems the party of the of rich.   People are still pissed at the banks and lack of prosecutions.   Lots of hay in their to make.

    What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

    by dkmich on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 03:46:22 AM PST

  •  Heh, David Brooks was wrong about this: (13+ / 0-)
    As Bill Kristol pointed out at the National Review event, the G.O.P. fiercely opposed the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law but never offered an alternative. The party opposed Obamacare but never offered a replacement.
    Obamacare WAS a Republican plan.  Before it was Obamacare, it was Romneycare, and Romney ran on it in 2000.  And before it was Romneycare, it was BobDoleacare, and in 1996, Bob Dole ran on THAT.  

    So the Republicans have lowered themselves to new levels of silliness and allowed their conservative ideas to be taken over by people like Obama -- and they can't understand why they look out of touch.

    ... ALSO... we're all enjoying this.  Me too.  But the Republicans are probably hitting their alcoholic bottom.  We're all laughing at them because they brought a knife to a gunfight.  But they aren't all that insane or stupid and they'll learn.  They always do.  Nothing ever really changes.  We just go through cycles like this.  

    The Republican Party will successfully rebrand itself and we'll all go "huh, how'd they do that so easy?"  The reason they will succeed is that there are always people who will want to vote for the OTHER party, whatever the OTHER party is.  If the OTHER party can figure out how to not go out of its way to offend them.

    For instance, everybody seems to think it's impossible that the Republicans can improve their numbers with blacks and latinos.  Actually, it would be hard for those numbers to get worse, so they will get better even through simple benign neglect, if they can restrain the racist shit long enough.  If they can go back to actually dogwhistling instead of acting like entitled white lynch mobs.  That's a pretty low standard to meet.

  •  Right Wing Media Can Get 40%+ Stirred Up (7+ / 0-)

    Don't think they can walk away from that money. It is a huge portion of the electorate. Just not a majority. It is enough with gerrymandering and low turnout elections to give them some power from time to time. They can try to change the message. But FOX news and right wing radio and right wing online sites need the passion of the crazy.

  •  shorter bobo: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    codairem, The Nose

    "we need a new republican party, based on the writings of their greatest philosopher david brooks"

    anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock

    by chopper on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 05:34:17 AM PST

  •  And his analysis fails because he doesn't... (7+ / 0-)

    ... outline how a Republican presidential candidate escapes primary season under such a scenario. Basically, he is saying Republicans can kiss the presidency goodbye. Either that, or this is his opening salvo for a Chris Christie candidacy.

    •  True. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bob Johnson, ahumbleopinion

      Republicans have encouraged the most extreme among them to become party activists, because it was easy, and now their primaries are controlled by the John Birch wing. Their bench, i.e. state representatives and local office holders, is also populated by fringe lunatics who will have little or no appeal to anyone outside their deep red strongholds.

      They are well and truly fucked, and guys like Brooks know it. They just don't know what to do about it, because at this point there is no quick fix. It took them since Goldwater to get like this, and now they're becoming a regional party with a shrinking base and no way out. Well, unless they can rig the electoral vote, which frankly seems like a sign of utter desperation, IMHO.

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 06:16:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hmmmm...I thought you TTFNed yesterday. :o) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight

      Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

      by Smoh on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 06:26:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Chris Christie is not so golden (0+ / 0-)

      that he can escape what happened to Mitt Romney. Sorry, he's a no-hoper. I think Romney even got as far as he did because he LOOKS like a presidential candidate, and people instinctively gravitate toward tall, handsome, distinguished-looking men with nice heads of hair. Subtract five points or more of advantage from Christie. Yeah, I know it's not fashionable to be "weightist", but it's just reality. Lots of people don't look beyond packaging, which really gave Romney a leg up.

      Jon Husted is a dick.

      by anastasia p on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 09:58:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The GOP isn't dead... (4+ / 0-)

    ...it's just pining for the fjords. Bobo isn't dead either, he's just pining for the fjords too!

  •  It's like saying that the flu (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn

    has all these problems: it makes you feel all achy and like you're sick and stuff. The republican party doesn't have problems, it is a problem.

  •  Hahahahaha!!! (3+ / 0-)

    Brooks is a pinhead, and his "analysis" is frivolous. The problem for Republicans is not some nuanced, intellectual policy framework that they can tweak so it'll work better to attract average voters. The problem is that they are owned 100% by the plutocrats. They support every measure that enriches the 1%, while adamantly opposing anything--a safety net, collective bargaining, living (or even minimum) wages, Social Security... they do this not out of some deeply held belief that their policies will make the economy better for everyone, they do it because it enriches their wealthy patrons.

    Brooks has, as usual, produced a completely irrelevant analysis.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 06:08:16 AM PST

  •  The New Republican Party (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David PA, a2nite
    Brooks calls for a new Republican party that can win in the West and Northeast. Here's where the analysis fails .. because such a Republican party would look a lot like the Democratic party that is already winning in the West and Northeast.
    Would be the old Republican party. At least a Republican party that had room for Nelson Rockefeller, John Lindsay, Jacob Javits  Lincoln Chafee and Dwight Eisenhower.  Even Ronald Reagan wouldn't be welcome in today's Republican party, although, the monster that is currently the Republican party is largely his and Richard Nixon's doing. Personally, it would be welcome, because the Democrats could become Democrats again and leave the Republican party...to the Republicans.
  •  I remember watching Brooks on election night. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smoh, David PA

    It was obvious from his demeanor that he knew the GOP was delusional and that Romney was toast.  I disagree with almost everything he has to say on matters of policy, but he seems to be one of the very few conservatives that see their party for the flailing zombie that it is.

    "Give to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." - Robert G. Ingersoll

    by Apost8 on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 06:19:28 AM PST

  •  Brooks and his strawman (0+ / 0-)

    "President Obama’s second Inaugural Address because of its excessive faith in centralized power"

    Brooks needs to argue what he wants to argue with, not what was said. He's got a major issue: The intellectual foundation of modern conservatism was totally ignored by modern "conservatives" and wasn't related to the real world in any regard. There's a question that we all have to address which is making a crowded society work. Neither our(? at least my) side, the FDR Democrats or their side, the Reaganauts, have any new ideas. The difference is FDRism worked and Reaganism didn't.

    A thoroughly cowed intellectual conservative movement could bring interesting ideas to the table if we get a liberal resurgence in the next decade. A big if, for sure, but there will be a time for the progressives / liberals to improve on our working model and some of the poses and conceits of intellectual conservatism could add to the dialog.

    I think there are problems with FDRism but right now discussing them is aid and comfort to the enemy. After today's Republican Party resembles Berlin, 1946 (did I just go there?) we can have a discussion.

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 06:33:04 AM PST

  •  Need to move against gerrymandering! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David PA, The Nose

    Problem is that both Dems and GOP reps like their current safe districts and wouldn't want an independent commission drawing the lines every 10 years.  But it has to happen - safe seats cause ideologues to be elected, those that have to worry much more about a primary challenge, and thus never have to compromise or be seen as working with the other side.  

    The GOP can't change as a party because they have too many teabaggers elected in safe seats.  Even if there is only 50, that's a quarter of their caucus, and even if they ignore them on votes and such, they're still out in their communities and in the local and statewide media spouting off their crap.  

    "The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self awareness" -Annie Savoy (Bull Durham)

    by Jacoby Jonze on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 06:55:52 AM PST

    •  SOME Democrats are fine with it (0+ / 0-)

      because, while population density does work a bit against Democrats, fair redistricting usually benefits them in the end. In Ohio, Democrats are totally behind an independent citizens commission, and were joined by the Greens, Libertarians and other small parties. It was defeated at the ballot in November because of Republican lies and big corporate money backing Republican water carriers.

      The only Democrats who have opposed it in Ohio have been those with really limited local visions, like former Cuyahoga County commissioner Jimmy Dimora, now on his way to prison, and those who narrow self-interest rejects an larger benefits, such as traitor Dennis Kucinich, who completely lost me when he supported the radical GOP gerrymander of Ohio because it personally benefited him, he thought. (I rejoiced when he turned out to be wrong, and my friends over on the west side of this county got better representation).

      The GOP plan now is to propose their own "reform," which involves expanding the apportionment board with MORE politicians and requiring a certain amount of minority buy-in. This weak plan WOULD lead to what you describe: horse trading to protect incumbents.

      Jon Husted is a dick.

      by anastasia p on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 10:04:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It must be hard (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mistral Wind

    to have no nothing left of your guiding principles but dog-eared copy of The Fountainhead and an AK-47.

    On the other hand, it probably beats golf.

  •  It's amazing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David PA

    how Republicans and Democrats have completely different interpretations of the phrase "A rising tide lifts all boats."  I've never heard it used to defend voodoo economics.

  •  If the Rethuglicans ever get around to reframing (0+ / 0-)

    "Government bad. Entrepreneurs good," to " Government bad when it falls under the influence of special interests and is used to prevent competition, and entrepreneurs good so long as they aren't predators extracting economic rent by asset-stripping companies and underpaying employees," the Democrats are toast. Especially if the Democratic Party remains funded by hedge fund managers and its position is "There's nothing to be done about entrepreneurs who extract economic rent by asset-stripping companies and underpaying employees, except to try and preserve the social safety net as best we can."

    A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

    by NBBooks on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 07:31:04 AM PST

    •  To most people "entrepreneurs" (0+ / 0-)

      means small, independent, start-up types with innovative ideas. In fact, under the GOP "government bad" frame, those people get crushed. If you strip government — that is, US — of all its power, then something surges into the gap. For instance, without government, in Somalia, pirates and murderous warlords effectively become government.

      In this country, that power would shift to the biggest, wealthiest corporations who would crush competition and innovation. True entrepreneurs would suffer.

      Jon Husted is a dick.

      by anastasia p on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 10:07:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Brooks is a liar. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David PA, a2nite, burlydee, 420 forever

    To read his columns is to be flabbergasted by how disingenuous he is. He lies so much that I cannot believe anything he says.  People like Brooks will sometimes hurl mild criticisms at the Right in order to appear balanced.  Watch for him to say something insanely untrue about the Left in the coming weeks to balance out his mild criticism of the Right.

    The term "Christian Conservative" is an even greater oxymoron than "Colosseum Lion Trainer for Christ".

    by StevenJoseph on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 08:00:42 AM PST

  •  The real problem is that they are fracturing. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    karmsy, Mistral Wind, a2nite, Gowrie Gal

    Historically Republican groups like the religious right, big businessmen, rural ranchers, and anti-tax libertarians don't really have a lot in common. George W. Bush's major political accomplishment was being able to play to all these components of the Republican base. He had a ranch (that he sold as soon as out of office). He was pious in public. He courted the rich, and he cut taxes (borrowing to do that).

    But now, you can't readily find a candidate who can bring the pieces of the party together. The libertarian Tea Party wing is so extreme that nobody who hasn't drunk that Kool-Aid is joining them. The religious wing wants to nominate someone like Santorum, who scares everyone else. And big business Republicans don't appeal to the rest of the base.

    Just as the Republican/Democratic party ideological divide is getting wider, so the divisions within the Republican Party are widening.

  •  David Brooks is a shill, not an idiot (3+ / 0-)

    I'm not going to bother reading his piece because I don't bother reading any paid pundits anymore. But it sounds like a typical Brooks construction.

    Brooks is a smarter shill than most because he usually starts his essays by anticipating the common counter-argument and builds his case around that counter-argument. But by the end of the essay he warps back to the message du jour he is paid to spread.

    His essay openings are why he has the false reputation for being open-minded (or whatever) and his conclusions are why genuine open-minded readers find him so irritating.

  •  More convincing liars (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    is what they need. (Thought I'd save Brooks and the GOP the trouble.) The message has been getting garbled lately (i.e. too clear).

    Bold at inappropriate times.

    by steep rain on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 09:15:37 AM PST

  •  Recced for last paragraph. I'd add (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David PA, a2nite, KayCeSF

    That the Rs aren't just losing regions and Demo groups.  They are losing urban areas and educated people in these red states.

    That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

    by Inland on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 09:33:35 AM PST

  •  When will people stop listening to David Brooks? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FoundingFatherDAR

    He tries so hard to disguise himself as a reasonable, intelligent person. But he has supported virtually every repugnant party talking point, policy, strategy, and tactic over the past decade. Even in his latest column, he posits that Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz are the guiding lights of the party. No surprise there, from a writer who previously extolled the "wisdom" of one George Duhbya Bush.

    David Brooks will never, ever learn.

    Will you?

  •  The fundemental reason the GOP won't change (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David PA

    They are conservative.  They, by definition, do not like and have difficulty with change.  Accepting new ideas is their antithesis.

    It is clear that the GOP has lost on the issues of Women's and LGBT rights.  They are still fighting but at this point they are only postponing the inevitable.  Logically, they should cut their losses and drop resistance to equality, but they won't, because they can't.

    They are going to lose on the issues of immigration, marijuana and climate change.  They could make considerable gains with young voters and the next generation of voters by taking the lead on these issues.  To stop fighting against them and to start championing them.  But if they could do that then they wouldn't be conservatives.

    "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

    by Quanta on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 09:49:24 AM PST

  •  WTF sort of idiotic plan is this? (0+ / 0-)

    David Brooks is an idiot, and people who think he has a good plan are also idiots.

    (a) Northeast and Midwestern Republicans have been routinely Tea Party primaried. This would not stop if they split based on geography (if, say, GOP1 only competed in the South and GOP2 only competed in the Great Lakes and Coasts). The Tea Party isn't going to say, "oh, well, this is GOP2, we can't primary them anymore!). So it would solve nothing.

    (b) Or, if they split in terms of branding, but both parties were even remotely competitive in every given area, Democrats would win every election, every time, in all areas. So that would also accomplish nothing for the GOP.

    So either (a) the plan wouldn't work because the Tea Party would primary the local race no matter if it were GOP1 or GOP2 or (b) The plan would just split the vote in regions and hand every election to the Democrats.

    David Brooks is stupid. To the extent that you think he's smart, you are also stupid. But your stupidity can be remedied. Just stop thinking David Brooks isn't stupid. Brooks' analysis should only be distributed and discussed at Applebee's salad bars.

    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

    by Addison on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 10:52:36 AM PST

  •  Didn't Charles Krauthammer (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    enemy of the people

    Just say that David Brooks was his favorite Liberal columnists, so the asshattery continues apace from the deluded conservatives.  What's next, George Will as a hippie?

  •  That's rich; Brooks talking about intellect. (0+ / 0-)
    Can current Republicans change their underlying mentality to adapt to these realities? Intellectual history says no. People almost never change their underlying narratives or unconscious frameworks.
     Can't say that I've ever been impressed by Brooks' own intellect.

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 11:03:16 AM PST

  •  Exactly......these "calls for change"..... (0+ / 0-)

    ....are all the change you are going to get out of Republicans. They truly believe that their message of free market chaos and weak national and local governments except when they are busy suppressing minority rights is a great message, but one that has been well communicated.

    They intend to MAKE IT SOUND like "they get it". The media will dutifully pass this noise on. Some people will think "message received", but there will be no change in policy.

    Instead, you can expect the usual subterfuge, obstruction and outright oppression in places where they are in power, such as in certain state governments.

    If you hate government, don't run for office in that government.

    by Bensdad on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 11:07:03 AM PST

  •  Stunning denial. (0+ / 0-)
    For example, we are now at the end of the era in which a rising tide lifts all boats. Republicans like Mitt Romney can talk about improving the overall business climate with lower taxes and lighter regulation, but regular voters sense that that won’t necessarily help them because wages no longer keep pace with productivity gains.
    Wages haven't kept up with productivity gains for 30 years.

    Unpacking that stunning contradiction of reality alone is frightening.

    It is the only possible way he can not concede that Conservative economic policy since Carter has been a failure. Even though people are now catching on.

    Sense that it won't necessarily.

    David Brooks remains in will full denial of reality even while conceding that "regular voters" are on to it.

    Anti-Washington, anti-urban sentiment has characterized those cultures for decades.
    "Urban"?! He is an intellectual coward.

    Decades, indeed. Your party built itself on ignorant and racist  effluent of the Democratic Party of 45 years ago.

    Which brings us to...

    The question is: Who’s going to build a second G.O.P.?
    The Democratic Party, David Brooks, that's who.

    Because it is not your place to choose what change to oppose. It is not the Conservative's  purvue to effect progress, but to "stand athwart it, yelling Stop".

    The Republican concept of 'creating new realities' has been retested and revealed, again, to be nasty, brutish and short.

    It’s probably futile to try to change current Republicans.
    That futility is what defines Republican Party ideology. The party will simply fail. Fail with racism, and fail with trickle down economics, and be relegated to it's rightful minority status.

    It will only grow as opposition to what new forms of progress emerge from liberalism, and progressivism, while maintaining a fictional history of success.

  •  The subtext of the Brooks article, (0+ / 0-)

    and it is only barely below the surface, is that Brooks represents one arm of the Republican schism playing out right now. The non-radical faction is now trying to work out how to stuff the crazy faction back into the closet, hence the pessimistic tone of the article, in my opinion. A number of us predicted a split in the GOP, and it is now seeping out of back rooms into public discussion. Nothing concentrates the mind like losing. The most bizarre exemplar of the schizophrenia going on is Bobby Jindal. He may fervently wish that the GOP not be the stupid party, but he seems to have no problem with it being the crazy party.

    For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

    by Anne Elk on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 01:31:12 PM PST

  •  Brooks isn't a Republican anymore (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David PA

    if you go by the current definition of what is a Republican. Neither is Colin Powell.

    Rational, thoughtful, moderate people don't have a place in their party.

    Brooks is doing a good job being honest and telling it like it is. In that way too the Republican party really doesn't have room for him.

    I actually wish they did. As they are, they seem dangerous. I was reading about Eisenhower's Presidency the other day and trying to wrap my head around what Republican meant then.

Thumb, paradox, JWC, PLS, Trix, oofer, grollen, glitterscale, Linda Wood, Gooserock, Powered Grace, newjeffct, dengre, Wintermute, SanJoseLady, LeftHandedMan, davelf2, JLFinch, concernedamerican, missLotus, wonkydonkey, whenwego, mkfarkus, otto, aitchdee, revsue, kharma, slippytoad, psnyder, annan, Boppy, johanus, HeyMikey, wdrath, niteskolar, defluxion10, outragedinSF, zerelda, KellyB, randallt, KayCeSF, tomjones, oortdust, sawgrass727, Gowrie Gal, Dirk McQuigley, historys mysteries, Bluesee, radarlady, Tinfoil Hat, Freakinout daily, Militarytracy, basquebob, dewtx, EJP in Maine, Kevskos, reflectionsv37, fixxit, Beetwasher, Inland, rlochow, peteri2, Tool, Rogneid, Jim R, begone, Philpm, BachFan, WB Reeves, Keone Michaels, BlueInARedState, ruleoflaw, global citizen, Rosaura, Terminus, el cid, sceptical observer, doinaheckuvanutjob, hlsmlane, onionjim, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, BB10, Temmoku, jobird, cpresley, pgm 01, john07801, fisheye, Cronesense, Habitat Vic, offgrid, mbh1023, jnhobbs, Bridge Master, OIL GUY, Rumarhazzit, TDDVandy, trueblueliberal, TomP, gizmo59, JDWolverton, jwinIL14, MKinTN, rogerdaddy, gundyj, JaxDem, OleHippieChick, Sixty Something, dadadata, NewDealer, elwior, skohayes, Old Lefty, Akonitum, tofumagoo, hwmnbn, Jake Williams, Jeff Y, petulans, BYw, JBL55, christine20, arendt, bobatkinson, TheFern, Nebraskablue, Zotz, MKSinSA, Tortmaster, commonmass, awcomeon, politik, tubacat, womankind, pixxer, Yasuragi, Onomastic, kerflooey, MidwestTreeHugger, annominous, I love OCD, Liberal Capitalist, Captain Pants, spooks51, Mr MadAsHell, La Gitane, Mistral Wind, OhioNatureMom, lillyspad, California06, Teiresias70, CoExistNow, Haf2Read, Reinvented Daddy, Caddis Fly, Andrew F Cockburn, Vatexia, joanbrooker, Mentatmark, Apost8, Davui, No one gets out alive, DawnN, AnnetteK, Pinto Pony, Eowyn9, anodnhajo, IndieGuy, joanil, orpurple, Betty Clermont, AnnieR, a2nite, deanarms, Arahahex, MartyM, Buckeye54, avsp, arizonablue, databob, Robynhood too, Chaddiwicker, countwebb, argomd, remembrance, paccoli, howabout, Smoh, BadKitties, RUNDOWN

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site