My Reaction To David Brooks

My Reaction to David Brooks’ Latest Column on Obama (and it’s not pretty) By Sally Morem Only capitalism operates on the basis of respect for free, independent, responsible persons. All other systems in varying degrees treat men as less than this. Socialist systems above all treat men as pawns to be moved about by the authorities, or as children to be given what the rulers decide is good for them, or as serfs or slaves. The rulers begin by boasting about their compassion, which in any case is fraudulent, but after a time they drop this pretense which they find unnecessary for the maintenance of power. [My emphasis] In all things they act on the presumption that they know best. Therefore they and their systems are morally stunted. Only the free system, the much assailed capitalism, is morally mature. --Arthur Shenfield Why is David Brooks finally questioning Obama after months of warm political affirmations, of gushing over his intelligence, his carefully crafted and articulated speeches, his image? Brooks claims to be a great admirer of thinkers like Hayek who rested their political philosophical arguments on “knowing how little we know,” arguing that the limited state was the only type of government fit for limited human beings. In his recent column in the New York Times [February 24, 2009], Brooks admits his admiration for Obama and his bevy of experts: President Obama has concentrated enormous power on a few aides in the West Wing of the White House. These aides are unrolling a rapid string of plans: to create three million jobs, to redesign the health care system, to save the auto industry, to revive the housing industry, to reinvent the energy sector, to revitalize the banks, to reform the schools — and to do it all while cutting the deficit in half.

If ever this kind of domestic revolution were possible, this is the time and these are the people to do it. The crisis demands a large response. The people around Obama are smart and sober. Their plans are bold but seem supple and chastened by a realistic sensibility. Why would a man who professes to not be a liberal be impressed by Obama’s statist views clearly expressed and acted upon before and after he was elected President? As they say, the writing was on the wall, and the writing said, “Behold the man. The socialist.” Yet they set off my Burkean alarm bells. It took this long? Time to get those batteries checked. I fear that in trying to do everything at once, they will do nothing well. Duh! I fear that we have a group of people who haven’t even learned to use their new phone system trying to redesign half the U.S. economy. Brooks says he read Hayek. Hayek explained at great length why no one person or group can even comprehend the U.S. economy, let alone redesign it efficaciously. Didn’t Brooks learn what Obama was planning to do when he was running for President? Didn’t Brooks do any serious reporting at all on that campaign? If so, why didn’t he raise any red flags then? I fear they are going to try to undertake the biggest administrative challenge in American history while refusing to hire the people who can help the most: agency veterans who are registered lobbyists. Sorry, not even the smartest experts in the universe will help us out of the mess Obama is creating. Statism does nothing but destroy. And when our economy fails to respond to Obama’s tender mercies, American conservatives know darned well he’ll keep turning the screws…gleefully. I worry that we’re operating far beyond our economic knowledge. Every time the administration releases an initiative, I read 20 different economists with 20 different opinions.

Duh! I worry that we lack the political structures to regain fiscal control. Duh! Deficits are exploding, and the president clearly wants to restrain them. No he doesn’t. Obama loves those deficits. They give him more political power, not less. He’s already created $2.5 trillion in deficits in his first month in office. The sky’s the limit with this guy. But there’s no evidence that Democrats and Republicans in Congress have the courage or the mutual trust required to share the blame when taxes have to rise and benefits have to be cut. Correction: There is no evidence that any Democrat and some moderate Republicans in Congress have that kind of courage. True conservative Republicans do have that kind of courage. They simply must be released from the stranglehold that our Politically Correct Republican leadership has them under. All in all, I can see why the markets are nervous and dropping. It’s obvious to me, too. Why would sensible capitalists invest in a system they know is going socialist? They know where that leads. Economies can either grow or shrink. Socialists are experts at making them shrink. Like Obama, they punish producers and reward leeches. And it’s also clear that we’re on the cusp of the biggest political experiment of our lifetimes. If Obama is mostly successful, then the epistemological skepticism natural to conservatives will have been discredited. We will know that highly trained government experts are capable of quickly designing and executing top-down transformational change. Sorry, but we know from bitter experience that this can’t possibly happen. It’s not “epistemological skepticism.” It’s hard-won knowledge. Why should we keep trying that socialist experiment over and over and over again? Do we really like beating our head against economic reality? Do we love the pain that much?

If they mostly fail, then liberalism will suffer a grievous blow, and conservatives will be called upon to restore order and sanity. That is, if we’re ever permitted by those liberal fascists. Democrats are already making their moves to make sure conservative victories never happen again. Are any of those moves Constitutional? No. Do they violate the First Amendment? Yes. The Democrats are unmoved by Constitutional restrictions on government power. It’s just a pretty piece of historical calligraphy to them. It’ll be interesting to see who’s right. But I can’t even root for my own vindication. The costs are too high. I have to go to the keyboard each morning hoping Barack Obama is going to prove me wrong. By giving Obama warm wet kisses of support, you’ve put yourself into an untenable position, Mr. Brooks. Obama will fail. And you will fail as a supposedly unbiased political observer by playing the role of his New York Times sycophant. You’ve failed us by not reporting the truth of the situation for over a year. We won’t forget or forgive. Abraham Lincoln has a message for you and President Obama: You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should be doing for themselves.

If you would like to read David Brooks’ column, click on this URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/opinion/24brooks.html?_r=1&pagewan ted=print