Tuesday, March 03, 2009

David Brooks snaps out of it: "Barack Obama is not who we thought he was ..."

I have enjoyed David (Bobos in Paradise) Brooks' columns and commentary over the years. But starting last year something happened to him and I kept reading his columns and listening to his commentary over on PBS and wondering, now what happened? Is that really David Brooks or have the Pod-People snatched him away in the night?

Apparently, he's now snapped out of it. A post on Twitter says he's woken up from his Matrix. Here's an excerpt from his latest column in the New York Times:
The U.S. has never been a society riven by class resentment. Yet the Obama budget is predicated on a class divide. The president issued a read-my-lips pledge that no new burdens will fall on 95 percent of the American people. All the costs will be borne by the rich and all benefits redistributed downward.

The U.S. has always been a decentralized nation, skeptical of top-down planning. Yet, the current administration concentrates enormous power in Washington, while plan after plan emanates from a small group of understaffed experts.

The U.S. has always had vibrant neighborhood associations. But in its very first budget, the Obama administration raises the cost of charitable giving. It punishes civic activism and expands state intervention.

The U.S. has traditionally had a relatively limited central government. But federal spending as a share of G.D.P. is zooming from its modern norm of 20 percent to an unacknowledged level somewhere far beyond.

Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was.
That's the problem with the whole concept of "moderate." Moderate is defined by what you are not, not by who you are. Moderate means "I'll ride the bus with 'em, but I won't share a taxi." Moderates don't really ride the bus, anyway, preferring to drive themselves - or better yet, just walk. Well, it's gotten awfully cold outside lately and perhaps that just did the trick.

Here's more:

Those of us in the moderate tradition — the Hamiltonian tradition that believes in limited but energetic government — thus find ourselves facing a void. We moderates are going to have to assert ourselves. We’re going to have to take a centrist tendency that has been politically feckless and intellectually vapid and turn it into an influential force.

The first task will be to block the excesses of unchecked liberalism. In the past weeks, Democrats have legislated provisions to dilute welfare reform, restrict the inflow of skilled immigrants and gut a voucher program designed for poor students. It will be up to moderates to raise the alarms against these ideological outrages.
The first thing, David, that you will need to restrain yourself from thinking is that you're a moderate. You're a conservative (as Reagan was a conservative), but a stuffy stuck-up one lately. You want your martinis shaken not stirred. You think you are more sophisticated than the rough-rassle that are running the Republican party (and perhaps you are). It's just so embarrassing to show up on the cocktail circuit and have to explain. One might be booted off PBS if the word got out. The New York Times does not do Rush.

Well, enough of that. Moderates are unfunny. Americans like funny. We like wit. Get funny, David, and there's no problem. See, Rush is satire. We've all known that for years. Didn't you get the memo?

At some point America is going to wake up and realize that the president is not funny. In fact, he just told the Prime Minister of England no joint press conference, no joint photo-op and certainly no pics with the wives, thank you very much. That was then, this is now. So much for America's best friend, just get back on that plane and go home to your Monarchy.

Glad you're back, David. But remember - you are a conservative - a conservative with taste, perhaps, but a classic conservative - even William F. Buckley (remember him?) wanted to legalize pot. Just work on funny and you'll do just fine.

15 comments:

Judith L said...

It's becoming clear that O is exactly who I most feared he is. But even in my most optimistic fantasies, I never shared David's illusions. So don't way "we", David. Say "I".

John said...

I give thanks that David Brooks does not understand President Obama.
Having read David's drivel over the years I am glad he does not get it.

BabyBlue said...

Have you read Bobos in Paradise, John? I thought it was one of those fascinating books that's applicable no matter what side of the aisle one might find themselves on.

bb

Rick Arllen said...

Buyers remorse is a concept we will become more and more familiar with as Mr. Obama continues to impose his ideology on us. I pray we will come to our collective (I hate that word!) senses in time to frustrate his plans.

And yes I do want him to fail because for him to succeed is to have America fail.

Anonymous said...

Saw this first at LGF:

President Obama said Tuesday that now is a good time for investors to buy stocks if they focus on the big picture.

The Dow plunged Monday to its lowest level in 12 years.

"What you're now seeing is a profit and earnings ratios get to the point that buying stocks is a good thing if you have a long-term perspective on it," he said to reporters after meeting in the Oval Office with visiting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

And From LGF:

Shouldn’t a President of the US know that “P/E Ratio” means “price-to-earnings ratio,” not “profit and earnings ratio?” There is a difference.

Imagine, if you will, the media reaction if George Bush had made such a basic economic blunder in a time of crisis.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

So go buy yourself some stock Jon: The profit and earnings ratio is perfect for folks like you. Understand?

Anonymous catholic

John said...

No, I have not read "Bobos in Paradise". I have not read "War and Peace."
I could list all the books I have not read. What would it prove?
President Barack Obama has taken over after eight years of a "Bush" disaster.
We Democrats have had to survive eight years of a stolen presidency.
You conservatives could wait at least eight months before you declare "buyers remorse".
Stick to religion. You have no standing in politics.
I have seen my IRA deplete for eight years.

BabyBlue said...

I meant that as a serious question - I wondered. Now please put the cream pie back down on the table.

bb

M said...

Spot on, Rick Arllen, and I'm a former democrat, now an independent. Initially I wanted to trust Obama, but you couldn't help but notice the glaring inconsistencies, and the lies. I have not trusted him for more than a year now. He's a fascist.

David Brooks isn't a moderate, and I don't view him as a classic conservative. He's a bobo himself, he just has been in denial. I view him as someone who might have been a conservative, though he sneered at average Americans, he has frankly neo-conservative tendencies, thus he jumped into bed with Obama, the way all neo-cons have. Obama, and the far left, have been running in step with the neo-cons. Both ideologies are exactly the same, with minuscule differences, both have the same outcome in mind. In fact, the neo-conservative movement has Marxist origins.

I knew something was hinky, when David Brock, a neo-con, suddenly had an epiphany and become a "progressive", and the same thing with Arianna Huffington. Both were neo-con extremists. Brock formed the Soros' funded Media Matters, and Huffington, the Huffington Post, I wonder if she got some of Soros' payola as well. I think the neo-cons started forming an alliance back in '98 - '99, just to be on the safe side, to buy up corrupt democrats, they sure found a lot of them willing.

Perhaps Brooks has seen enough to cure him of his dalliance with the extremes.. but his take on what's needed isn't going to fly. What's needed is unity, that requires honesty and that includes against the globalist agenda he embraces. The dems haven't even cut back on visa's for cheaper foreign labor, they put some bogus language in a bill that they won't enforce, we're still bringing in 138 thousand Indians and Chinese per month, and have done so for more than a year now. Either he refuses to acknowledge that, or he's lying. He refuses to acknowledge the the bad policies he's supported have actually caused the mess we're in, and the fact that they have to be reversed if we as a country are to survive.. he can't have his much loved legalized slavery, and still have his own freedoms, it doesn't work that way.

John said...

No, we will not put "the cream pie back down on the table."
We have been the loyal opposition for eight years.
You now have a new position to learn.

BabyBlue said...

I really don't like the term neocon. I know what it used to mean, but they way it's used today has a more than subtle antisemitic tinge to it. I don't think it started out that way, but here in DC it's turned into a code.

No, what David Brooks outlines here is Reagan-style conservatism - and that type of conservatism has gone missing for quite some time.

John, if you keep pointing your cream pie over here I may be inclined to pick up one myself and then Hagrid will toss us both out the door. ;-)

bb

Anonymous said...

I sense anger John. You must be a true liberal -- always angry and I'll bet you are depressed and just a bit -- no a lot -- guilty of your existence. Your shame of being what ever it is you are is weighing you down and that hole in your heart never ever gets filled. Interesting you won't even call yourself a liberal "We Democrats..."

Some Democrats voted for Bush, you know. Some Democrats accepted the election results, you know. But the angry liberal, excuse me, progressive, never agreed with the Constitutional outcome.

Obama is my president John. And so was Bush.

And Obama, my president will bring serious harm to this nation.

And really John, do you expect us to believe a person as angry as you waited eight months before you went on about Mr Bush? Please!

Yes, John, your day is here. And you can't even enjoy it.

I recommend therapy. Or a good, traditional religion.

Anonymous Catholic

Anonymous said...

After his last post, I need to add that John shares that other telling liberal, er, progressive trait of arrogance.

And delusion -- Loyal opposition for eight years? Loyal? You are funny John. Pity you don't realize it.

Night all.

Thanks again BB, for a great blog.

AC

WannabeAnglican said...

"Stolen presidency." Geez. Hand John a hanky and a tinfoil hat.

As for whiney Mr. Brooks, he has no excuse. As I repeatedly ranted on my blog, anyone willing to look and listen could see that Obama was a lying Leftist. Thinking he would become this great non-partisan, even moderate uniter who would solve all our problems (instead of making them worse) upon his Holy Inauguration was sheer foolishness.

I have sympathy for regular people who don't have the time to dig into the facts. The news media were so busy cheerleading for Obama that they dropped the ball and didn't do their part to inform voters. I have none for the likes of Mr. Brooks.

John said...

No, I'm not angry.
I have been married for fifty(50) years. I have three wonderful children and seven outstanding grandchildren.
I belong to a great Episcopal church that is growing in Grace and numbers.
Except for the past eight years life is good.
I wish my IRA was as good as my attitude

tpsaye said...

I'm not much inclined to cut Brooks much slack at this point. I don't quite know whether folks like him, Chris Buckley, et al. thought they were being funny, gutsy or safe beer-goggling Obama during the campaign, but for whatever reason they went home with him, politically speaking. And as far as those of us who knew better at the time are concerned, I think we should now ensure that they keep the brown-bag award for a while in punishment for their foolishness.