Our
Abstract: David Brooks looks into the future and sees harmony and cooperation between diametrically opposed political parties swimming in debt and lofty rancor and proposes that the two meet warring factions meet objectively and mutually select the brightest fruits hanging from their warring trees. A new socio-economic metric is invented herein [an Achievement Test—a metric for government efficacy] where the ‘character and behavior of citizens” transcends government spending levels, phony stimuli and corrosive debt service. This is a craggy sop tossed to the far right in some vain attempt to convince them not to slash government into little pieces like they deserve.
As the cold winds attacks the body, the inane scribblings of the New York Times continue to do violence to the brain cells of those who seek competence in reporting, reasonable amounts of studied reason in editorials and a coherent analysis of contemporary politics. A reading of the emblematic pedestrian-grade propagandistic screeds from the far left-oriented writers at the near-bankrupt New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1][2]--mostly wearies the senses of those with better cognitive skills because of the ragzine’s perpetual leftist turn-the-crank tautology. Not to break tradition or wave off the slightest elements of pedantry, our Chief Babbler David Brooks[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] appears to objectively examine our contemporary potential political debate agendas and pronounces them “largely beside the point.” Of course, political debates—particularly about the size and spending of government-- are never beside the point, they tend to define the future of our country and are the point.
Skillfully employing standard 1919 propagandistic protocol, Brooks throws out the most important element in his story in the second paragraph and commences to tell us what is important and what is not in his little piece. To wit:
How to best read my blogs:
[I offer extensive quotes in this blog so that the reader can view the exact language and can be confident that nothing was taken out of context or that nobody was misquoted. The easiest way to take in the salient points is to read the emphatic points in the quotes and then peruse my comments. Comments on my comments are always welcome: ryckki@gmail.com.]
A prediction:
“Unless something big and unexpected happens, 2011 will be consumed by a debate over the size of government. Republicans will launch a critique of big government as part of their effort to cut spending. Democrats will surge to the barricades to defend federal programs.
This debate will be contentious, but I hope it’s not rude to mention that it will be largely beside the point.”[11]-- The Achievement Test By David Brooks Op-Ed Columnist
Published:
We are now panting and primed to read what is important in 2011!
“National destinies are not shaped by what percentage of G.D.P. federal spending consumes. They are shaped by the character and behavior of citizens.”-- The Achievement Test By David Brooks
If this be true, in any measure, we might skip ahead and vacate this screed and leap to the conclusion that since the percentage of
Focusing in on Brook’s intangible term ‘character,’ I wonder if the temperament attributes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will be malleable enough for them to participate peacefully in this intermezzo without the usual spitting, threats and back-biting.
Our attention is now focused on “how people live.”
“The crucial issue is not whether the federal government takes up 19 percent or 23 percent of national income. The crucial question is: How does government influence how people live?”-- The Achievement Test By David Brooks
Hmmm. The
Ah! Metrics!
“The best way to measure government is not by volume, but by what you might call the Achievement Test. Does a given policy arouse energy, foster skills, spur social mobility and help people transform their lives? Over the years,
The last sentence in this paragraph is beyond comprehension and appears to be a twisty gloss on the facts. What was the ‘effort’ here on the part of welfare recipients and were those gratuitous payments for doing nothing some ‘reward?’ Histories of this period tend to indicate that the Welfare Reform Act [cited here as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, Pub.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, enacted August 22, 1996) [12] was highly unpopular with the left and that predictions of mass starvations were paramount in papers like the
Criticism from the far far left by Frances Fox Piven [13]
“"Logically, but not in the heated and vitriolic politics created by the attack on welfare, a concern with the relationship of welfare to dependency should have directed attention to the deteriorating conditions of the low-wage labor market. After all, if there were jobs that paid living wages, and if health care and child care were available, a great many women on AFDC would leap at the chance of a better income and a little social respect."-- Frances Fox Piven
“Workers of the World Unite!!”[14]
“The government has erected a welfare state that, as Matthew Continetti of The Weekly Standard has pointed out, spends vast amounts on consumption (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, interest on the debt) and much less on investment (education, research, infrastructure), while pushing the costs on future generations. Meanwhile, the private sector has encouraged a huge increase in personal debt to fuel a consumption bubble. The geniuses flock to finance, not industry.”-- The Achievement Test By David Brooks
This is a solemn confession that tends to taint the hackneyed notion of “A chicken in every pot.”[15]
So, now for the plan! The solemn duties of each political wing are revealed for our excitement:
“As part of the budget process, Republicans could champion the things they believe will enhance productivity and mobility. Many of these will mean making sure people have the incentives to take risks and the freedom to adjust to foreign competition: a flatter, simpler tax code with lower corporate rates, a smaller debt burden, predictable regulations, affordable entitlements.
Democrats could champion the things they believe will enhance productivity and mobility. Many of these will mean making sure everybody has the tools to compete: early childhood education, infrastructure programs to create jobs, immigration policies that recruit talent, incentives for energy innovation.”-- The Achievement Test By David Brooks
I am not sure about others who have read this, but it seems to me that these selections for progress and enlightenment seem to wander off into separate directions inviting more conflict, hate and discontent. Those champions will meet in heated battle. How do we pay for new ‘tools’ and ‘infrastructure programs to create jobs’ given the massive deficit we have?
In the
A compromise?
“The two agendas sit in tension, but they are not contradictory. The exciting thing about this moment is that everything is on the table. Thousands of policy proposals are floating around, thanks to the various deficit commissions and policy entrepreneurs. As the parties argue about the debt limit and the rest, it should be possible to take items from both and ram them into a package that cuts consumption spending in order to make investment spending more affordable.”-- The Achievement Test By David Brooks
This is a pep talk that rivals the best hokum and hucksterism of Elmer Gantry and invites us to share the new vision with Lulu Baines.[18]
Brooks has woven a new fairy tale replete with wondrous ideas, perfected outlooks and a level of sincere cooperation rivaling the Benedictine Monks during bottling time. Nothing is on the table but defaults on our massive debt. We cannot afford another Great Society—we are broke.
The average cab driver in NYC could scrape a more cost-effective plan off his shoes.
rycK
Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com
[1] The Babbling Brooks of the
[2] In honor of that celebrated Communist stooge and liar and winner of the Pulitzer Prize for the
“He said that these people had to be "liquidated or melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the proletarian mass". Duranty claimed that the Siberian labor camps were a means of giving individuals a chance to rejoin Soviet society but also said that for those who could not accept the system, "the final fate of such enemies is death." Duranty, though describing the system as cruel, says he has "no brief for or against it, nor any purpose save to try to tell the truth". He ends the article with the claim that the brutal collectivization campaign which led to the famine was motivated by the "hope or promise of a subsequent raising up" of Asian-minded masses in the
[3] The Babbling Brooks of the
[4] The Babbling Brooks of the
[5] The Babbling Brooks of the
[6] By David Brooks Op-Ed Columnist Published:
[7] The Babbling Brooks of the
[8] The Babbling Brooks of the
[9] The Babbling Brooks of the
The Babbling Brooks of the
The Babbling Brooks of the
The Babbling Brooks of the
The Babbling Brooks of the
The Babbling Brooks of the
From the Babbling Brooks: Confusion, Hokum and Fluff: Vote for Obama
Echoes from the Babbling Brooks Envision a New Conservatism. The New York Times Advises Us on Society, as Usual: Higher Taxes Posted by rycK on
Brooks of the New York Times Mumbles about Bugs, Independent Voters and Mechanical Liberalism
http://rycksrationalizations.townhall.com/g/50bf9f36-0e0b-4e9a-be6d-5234d0d54f2c
The Babbling Brooks of the
The Babbling Brooks of the
Echoes from the Babbling Brooks Envision a New Conservatism. The New York Times Advises Us on Society, as Usual: Higher Taxes Posted by rycK on
[10] The Babbling Brooks of the
[13] Recently, Ms. Piven has advocated the use of strikes and riots as a vehicle of social change. "An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across
[14] The political slogan Workers of the world, unite!, is one of the most famous rallying cries of communism, found in The Communist Manifesto (1848), by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. A variation ("Workers of all lands, unite") is also inscribed on Marx's tombstone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_of_the_world,_unite!
[15] "Chicken in Every Pot" is a quotation that is perhaps one of the most misassigned in American political history. Variously attributed to each of four presidents serving between 1920 and 1936, it is most often associated with Herbert Hoover. In fact, the phrase has its origins in seventeenth century
[16] The
[17] My comments on the Telegraph blog: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/tracycorrigan/8218428/It-may-be-time-for-a-little-investor-bashing.html
No comments:
Post a Comment