Long-time readers may recall a discussion we had back in December, about the quality of the debate over health care reform. It was obvious at the time that the meaningful, interesting disputes weren’t between conservatives and liberals, but between liberals and other liberals.
It’s not that the right remained silent; it’s that they offered arguments that no serious person could find credible. Consider, just off the top of your head, the most prominent concerns raised by opponents of the Affordable Care Act. What comes to mind? “Death panels.” “Socialism.” “Government takeover.”
It was the biggest domestic policy fight in a generation, but most of the policy debate was spent debunking transparent, child-like nonsense. The left approached the debate with vibrancy, energy, and seriousness. The right thought it was fascinating to talk about the number of pages in the legislation.
This is a result of the FrankLuntzification of the Republican Party. Nevermind the frothing maniacs on the radio or Fox News, the Republicans are actually operating in lockstep on the basis of focus-grouped talking points. Then the nutters throw in some Death Panel nonsense for good measure and suddenly Chuck Grassley isn’t looking to cut a deal but talking about a government conspiracy to kill our grandmas.
So, yeah, there is no doubt that the only interesting political conversations going on in this country right now are between liberals and other liberals, and sometimes with centrist Democrats, too. The only factual criticism of the president is coming from the left. And there is plenty of it. A lot of it isn’t fair, but much of it is. I heard David Brooks say on NPR today that the whole Crist-Rubio spectacle (and what is signifies for the modern GOP) makes him want to suck on a tailpipe. I don’t blame him.
After reading Brooks’ column today, I’m not too surprised to read that he wants to suck on a tailpipe. Anything to avoid facing honestly the truth of what American conservatism has become….
I had the exact same thought as I listened in my car.
What has Bobo done to turn the tide, though? Nothing!!
I think that’s Booman’s point. (It’s certainly mine.)
Brooks occasionally makes interesting sociological observations or has interesting cultural insights. He has an ability to appreciate the perspectives of political figures (like Obama) who differ from him. Not only that, at times he’s willing and able to present those perspectives for what they are and then reckon with them.
Which makes Brooks’ failure to confront honestly the nature of today’s conservative movement all the more baffling and ultimately, disappointing. He could be one of those conservatives fighting to reconstruct a non-racist, non-sociopathic conservatism, but he’s not.