David Brooks' Moderate Manifesto

There's an interesting article by David Brooks reflecting so many of the topics I've been engaged in today titled A Moderate Manifesto:

You wouldn’t know it some days, but there are moderates in this country — moderate conservatives, moderate liberals, just plain moderates. We sympathize with a lot of the things that President Obama is trying to do. We like his investments in education and energy innovation. We support health care reform that expands coverage while reducing costs.

But the Obama budget is more than just the sum of its parts. There is, entailed in it, a promiscuous unwillingness to set priorities and accept trade-offs. There is evidence of a party swept up in its own revolutionary fervor — caught up in the self-flattering belief that history has called upon it to solve all problems at once.

So programs are piled on top of each other and we wind up with a gargantuan $3.6 trillion budget. We end up with deficits that, when considered realistically, are $1 trillion a year and stretch as far as the eye can see. We end up with an agenda that is unexceptional in its parts but that, when taken as a whole, represents a social-engineering experiment that is entirely new.

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.

Brooks goes on to discuss the eery feeling that moderates have as they're wedged somewhere between unchecked liberalism and Rush Limbaugh's brand of conservatism, hoping they can "try to tamp down the polarizing warfare that is sure to flow from Obama’s über-partisan budget".

I think he nails the increasingly grim national mood of so many moderates and centrists who voted for Obama nicely.  I call it Buyer's Remorse.

Note:  a great companion piece to this article is ddemilo's post titled Cramer:  Does Obama Care About the Stock Market?

4
Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

Comments

And to think...

...these were the people trying to tell us last year that Obama wasn't some kind of dangerous radical socialist.

Dawn Breaks Over Marblehead

I read Brook's piece too... and it hit me as a realization: Geez, he's not the guy we thought.

I spent a lot of time last year digging up obscure stuff on the net, much of it crap, some of it revealing, to understand Obama's thought process and his foundation beliefs. It was not easy, but it was there. I have to ask: Were these guys sleeping?

I'm glad to see Brooks, Cramer and others realize that Obama is not a supporter of capitalism, but how could they have missed the signs? After all, Obama is doing exactly what he told us he would do.

As a tiny example, here's a moment during one of the primary debates where Charlie Gibbs exposes Obama's egalitarian aims, questoning him about his position on increasing the capital gains tax (ignore the hyperbole in the video text).

 Obama dares not deny Gibbs' statement of fact that lower cap gains taxes yield higher government revenues. But then he says it's not really about money.

You see, it's about fairness. That is, it's not fair to have some people making so much dough. Then he founders on the practical aspects of how you would turn the cap gains tax into a progressive tax, making it clear that he had never thought the idea through to its implications.