The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPhilip Giraldi Archive
The Peasants Are Revolting
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

My, how the neoconservatives hate the Tea Partiers. David Brooks had a piece on Monday over at the NYT dripping with sweet reason and explaining how the Republicans have a budget victory within their grasp if they can summon up the wisdom to seize it. They will get “trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases.” Brooks specifies Medicare as one of the programs to be trimmed.

But the Republicans will not take the deal being promoted by Brooks, so he reveals that they “may no longer be a normal party” and “are infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical governing alternative.” Worse still, “The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities” and have become “an odd protest movement that has separated itself from normal governance, the normal rules of evidence and the ancient habits of our nation.” He concludes “…that Republicans are not fit to govern.”

Admittedly the thought of an Evangelical fanatic like Michele Bachmann becoming president makes my blood run cold, but the Tea Partiers are as often as not on to something. Government is too big, too expensive, is ruining the country, and must be stopped cold. Which means harsh medicine.

Brooks is a successful product of the status quo, someone who has ridden his ideology to a position with America’s self-proclaimed leading newspaper. It is significant that he is willing to cut Medicare but makes no mention of the defense budget, which is more than half of all discretionary spending. After all, he will have great health insurance when he retires so Medicare doesn’t matter to him while having the wherewithal to wage endless wars is a top priority.

And there is also a problem with Brooks’ math in that it is somewhat fuzzier than he claims. The suggested trillions in cuts are spaced out over a number of years and the increases are considerably more than he is projecting over the same time period. What at least some Tea Party Republicans want is to end government by credit card, to increase the debt ceiling by an amount equal to cuts in the budget. In and of itself, that would not seem to be unreasonable. Undoable possibly, but not unreasonable.

But Brooks appears to be bothered most by the fact that the Tea Partiers are so common. How dare they not pay attention to “scholars and intellectual authorities,” which undoubtedly includes David Brooks himself. Brooks seems unaware that it is precisely folks like him and his scholarly buddies who have gotten the rest of us in a mess that appears to have no exit door. His invocation of the “ancient habits of our nation” appears to accept running up catastrophic debts while fighting a series of wars of choice, which he, of course, chose and even cheerleaded. That is not so much an ancient habit as a recent one, brought to us courtesy of Brooks and his friends over at The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, and the American Enterprise Institute.

(Republished from The American Conservative by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Neocons, Tea Party 
Hide 24 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. tbraton says:

    “Brooks is a successful product of the status quo, someone who has ridden his ideology to a position with America’s self-proclaimed leading newspaper.”

    He certainly has come a long way from his days as an ardent Socialist in his early 20’s. I guess those trips sailing on Bill Buckley’s sailboat can change anyone’s political thinking.

  2. Gary says:

    You are absolutely right that the elitist “establishment “republicans bear much responsibility for the fiscal mess our country is in. That’s why the tea party folks ran against many of them in 2010 and should do so again in 2012, 2014, etc. The job we started isn’t done yet, as far as I’m concerned.

    I do have to take issue with your characterization of Michele Bachmann as an “Evangelical fanatic”. Yes, she does have very strong religious beliefs, but using language like that to cast aspersions is not constructive in my opinion. I don’t share Bachmann’s beliefs, in fact I am an atheist, but I would gladly vote for her over any of the establishment candidates.

    Her religious beliefs don’t bother me. She could be Hare Krishna for all I care, as long as she embraces the concepts of individual freedom, limited government, etc., as expressed in our constitution, and is not afraid to stand up and fight for them against the entrenched establishment in Washington DC.

    The central issue of our time is the uncontrolled growth of the federal government. Of all of the candidates in the race, I believe Bachmann is the most sincere when she talks about cutting spending. I don’t trust the others not to say one thing on the campaign trail, and then compromise and cut a deal once they get into office. As you correctly stated, this is a time for harsh medicine. This is no time for compromise or feckless leadership.

    We need a candidate who says what (s)he means and means what (s)he says. Bachmann is the only one I feel comfortable saying that about. If the election were held today, she would have my vote.

  3. Art R. says:

    You can’t in all honesty blame the current state of affairs entirely on the neocons and their propaganda organs. Our constitution was designed to produce perpetually “weak” governments and concomitant with the mealy-mouthed, self-serving political class who infest the halls of Congress have enabled “special interests” and alien philosophies to control the course of events to the detriment of the nation.

    The “Tea Party” is a grass roots, populist revolt against the status quo. Their project to bring fiscal sanity back to the government is admirable. But they will fail in the end. Our governing class, with the peoples’ tacit approval, will keep on borrowing and spending until the world says enough.

  4. Emma says:

    I could not agree more. It’s the “scientists,” “intellectuals,” and so-called “physicians” that continue to propound the false theories of evolution, of antibiotic drug resistance, of genetic mutations as a cause of some diseases, of preventive vaccines for viral and bacterial diseases, and so on.

    None of these theories are true and that’s why you don’t find any trace of this in the ancient wisdom of folk remedies. Our ancestors were not so easily duped; they had faith in God the Creator. Michelle Bachmann understands this — David Brooks does not — and that’s why I am voting for her in our Republican primary. God Bless Michelle!!

  5. “the Tea Partiers are as often as not on to something. Government is too big, too expensive, is ruining the country, and must be stopped cold.”

    so where were they when bush was president?

  6. “Admittedly the thought of an Evangelical fanatic like Michele Bachmann becoming president makes my blood run cold ” ……
    Indeed, his Royal Highness David Brooks has been spewing venom on the Tea Party for years. Servants should always know their place. As for Phillip, since most Tea Partiers are Christians, isn’t this a case of ET TU BRUTE.

  7. Begin by cutting foreign aid to all countries. Start with Israel.

  8. Bravo! Yes, David Brooks supports endless war and continued idiotic squandering of trillions of dollars on “defence”.

  9. An how very true, that the recent insanity of American “defence” policy owes so much to Brooks and his pals at the American Standard, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Wall Street Journal.

  10. I don’t see or hear anyone from any faction, aside from Ron Pau,l adressing real solutions to our spending crisis aside from taking it out on the middle class.
    Let’s start by reelin in the American Empire for starters. We were never meant to be an empire. So why are we still in Korea, Germany and other countries who are prosperous now because we bore the brunt of defending them. And I say this as a retired combat arms NCO.
    Lets bring the troops home from the senseless Middle East wars which are only serving to create MORE terrorists and benefit only the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about.
    And if you’d like to get REALLY radical, how about we stop giving tax breaks to companies who offshore jobs, then secure our borders and drastically limit the importation of cheap, foreign labor under the H1B visa to replace American workers.
    As the Beltway has never in our hsitory ben so totally controlled by the corporations, I am afraid the American Experiment is over. Entropy has set in to that wonderful system designed by the Founders. And until we realize thart nothing will ever change.

  11. tbraton says:

    “An how very true, that the recent insanity of American “defence” policy owes so much to Brooks and his pals at the American Standard, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Wall Street Journal.”

    I can understand your confusing Brooks with a company that makes toilets (American Standard), but I believe you meant Weekly Standard (or Weakly Standard, if you prefer).

  12. Doug says:

    I think some credence ought to be given to the possibility that radical change is more robust over a long enough period to also be gradual. The deficit is 10% of GDP right now which is a good reason to get on the shrinking of the budget. But eliminating a tenth from the economy overnight strikes me as a terrible idea. I don’t often agree with Brooks, but I agree that this skirmish could have costs greater than its importance and I’ll be happy to blame the GOP for the disaster. It’s funny, but the phrase “the fierce urgency of now” has been in my head a lot lately.

  13. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Brooks is a prime example of someone able to simulate the manner of reasonable discourse without actually being reasonable. ,

    From the perspective of a normal American, Brooks belongs to a small and shrinking faction – dangerously well-placed – that believes the United States can and must fight cripplingly expensive wars regardless of cost or relation to the real security of the United States. Until Brooks and his kind are relegated to the far corners of national debate where they belong these economic and military catastrophes will continue.

  14. George says:

    It is significant that he is willing to cut Medicare but makes no mention of the defense budget, which is more than half of all discretionary spending.

    It sure as hell is. Brooks, first and foremost is a Zionist. It is therefore little surprise that he favors an effective wealth transfer to Israel (in the form of our defense budget and warmaking) away from healthcare for American peasants and other ‘white trash’ as he pushes the founding stock of this country toward the grave.

    FU Brooks

  15. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Wiki says that Brooks floated the idea of a “McCain Lieberman Party” that he thought would nicely represent the “moderate mainstream” of the country. That gives you some indication of what “normal” means to Brooks. Lieberman – a Zionist fanatic – is history, of course, and McCain, the 2008 loser who increasingly looks and sounds like a caricature of Curtis LeMay, soon will be.

  16. Goose says:

    I agree with everything snowcrash7 said. We need a smarter foreign policy that would allow us to rein in military spending. At the same time, we must clamp down–hard–on immigration.

    Meanwhile, Israel is seeking to transfer its African immigrants to Australia. The joke’s on the West.

    http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=227332

  17. Once President Perry is sworn in, this tempest in a teabag will subside very quickly and things will be back to normal: Big Government working hand in glove with Big Business while pundits, politicos and hacks sing the praises of Free Enterprise.

  18. “Admittedly the thought of an Evangelical fanatic like Michele Bachmann becoming president makes my blood run cold ” ……

    Mine too. I was willing to consider cutting her some slack up until her proclamation that the US needed to keep the nuclear option with respect to Iran on the table as part of our commitment to Israel, which is securing God’s blessing for us. Any candidate willing to murder millions of Iranians at the behest of Israel for fear of being cursed by God must be avoided at all costs.

  19. Ginger says:

    Gary said:
    “The central issue of our time is the uncontrolled growth of the federal government. Of all of the candidates in the race, I believe Bachmann is the most sincere when she talks about cutting spending.”
    But what spending does she want to cut? All but military spending. While calling the President a “socialist,” Bachmann is actually the highest form of a socialist, the militarist, where everything in the economy must be subordinated to the military and military conquest and industry, even if it means bringing our own nation to its knees, like the Japanese and Germanmilitarists of the 1930’s did to their own countries. Ignorant Tea Party folks had better figure that out pretty quick or they will rue the day; they will get both economic collapse as well as strategic defeat. And they call themselves Nationalists, yeah, National Socialists.

  20. Barry says:

    Philip: “Admittedly the thought of an Evangelical fanatic like Michele Bachmann becoming president makes my blood run cold, but the Tea Partiers are as often as not on to something. Government is too big, too expensive, is ruining the country, and must be stopped cold. Which means harsh medicine.”

    Proof?

    Gary:

    “You are absolutely right that the elitist “establishment “republicans bear much responsibility for the fiscal mess our country is in. That’s why the tea party folks ran against many of them in 2010 and should do so again in 2012, 2014, etc. The job we started isn’t done yet, as far as I’m concerned.”

    I notice that the Tea Party didn’t run against ‘them’ in 2002, 2004, 2006 or 2008.

    sal magundi: (re: the Tea Partiers)

    “so where were they when bush was president?”

    Supporting a Strong America(n Executive Branch), foreign wars of choice, the President’s right to break the law if he feels like it, the idea that criticizing a (Republican) president is betraying America, and in general salivating at and worshipping the Empire. Oh, and desecrating Jesus and God by conflating them with the GOP and the USA.

  21. […] Giraldi, writing for The American Conservative, was unconvinced by Brooks’ appeal to “scholars and intellectual […]

  22. AH says:

    Re: Emma, on July 6th, 2011 at 9:05 am (above)

    Wow. I’ll have to judge a political party by the company it keeps. The ‘Emmas’ of the world -no doubt a very sweet lady- and the Bachmanns -no doubt a very unsweet lady- make it clear what the Republican party has become. No wonder Brooks wrote what he did.

  23. Prophet says:

    Brooks will eventually find his way back to the Democrat party, and from there back to Canada.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Philip Giraldi Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
A Modern Guernica Enabled by Washington
Pressuring Candidates Even Before They Are Nominated
But is it even a friend?
The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.
Today’s CIA serves contractors and bureaucrats—not the nation.
Pay no mind to the Mossad agent on the line.