Republicans and Phonelesscord Vie for David Brooks’ Affections

David Brooks, “one of the most prominent voices of conservative politics in the US,” needs a date.  To the ballot booth.  “We disaffected voters are easy,” he writes.  “We want to go home with you if you give us a reason.”

Brooks’ op-ed piece in today’s NYT, “Waiting to be Wooed,” is a clever how-to piece directed at the Republican party.  Brooks writes,

 ”I’m one of those suburbanites who thought the G.O.P. deserved to lose the last election, and now I find myself floating out there in independent-land, not a Democrat, just looking for something new. 

It’s like being the belle of the ball, because the Republicans really need to woo back people like me.”

And then, helpfully, he offers them some advice on how to do so.

I find this kind of thinking hard to relate to, I suppose, because I can’t relate to being a swing voter.  I just don’t happen to agree with Republicans on much of anything, philosophically.  And choosing between the Green and Democratic Parties is pretty easy, partly because of practicality but particularly because I vote in Missouri where the Green Party is never, ever, on the ballot.  The Democrats have my vote – and I think that if I had to write out a list of things they should do in order to get my vote, it would be a sign that perhaps I should be considering the other team.  But that’s me. 

Brooks’ advice to the GOP starts off with the general.  Don’t listen to your consultants.  Focus on problems, rather than special interest groups.  That’s good advice for anyone.  I know because I have seen lots of episodes of the West Wing, and let me tell you, once you let your advisors get all up in your headspace and you forget those crazy ideals brought you to Washington in the first place, well…  You know, just rent a season and you’ll see for yourself.  Things get ugly.

“Be policy-centric, not philosophy-centric.”  I like that advice too.  Sensible.  Pithy.

Then Brooks starts to get specific:  Get moderate, says.  Create a Republican version of the Democratic Leadership Council (a leading moderate Dem group).  He gets more specific:  support stem-cell research.  Good one.  

Support free trade, while addressing the downside of globalization.  He doesn’t say what that downside is… could he mean poverty?  Movement of American jobs to places where the absence of labor and environmental regulation make it cheaper for large corporations to do business?  Whatever the downside is, I say, yes, address it.  Good idea.

The he gets really specific, and this one deserves a block quote:

 ”The American way is to help people compete, not shield them from competition. Today that means nurturing stable families in which children can develop the social and cultural capital they need to thrive. (A significant expansion of the child tax credit would ease the burden on young parents.) It means publicly funded, though not necessarily publicly run, preschool programs in which children from disorganized homes can learn how to learn.”

Whoa!  David, right on!  That program where poor kids get to go to preschool – you’ll be pleased to find that it already exists.  It’s called HeadStart, and it’s grossly underfunded.  Just a heads up.

“Sixth,” and I quote, I really do, “spread assets.”  Now, this sounds very much like some pinko treehugging (for which read “populist”) redistribution of wealth plan.  But here he suggests IRA-type accounts beginning at birth, which is a great idea.  Encouraging investment mentality and all that.  Eventually replacing Social Security?  I don’t know, but I’m not an economist and I’m happy to give him the benefit of the doubt while we’re talking hypotheticals.

He goes on.  I like this guy more and more.  Sing it David:

“Seventh, raise taxes on carbon emissions,”  What?!?  Why?!?  Man-made global warming is a myth propagated by those crazies down at the National Academy of Sciences motivated by their lefty politics and fiendish desire for grant monies!  Right? 

I’m reading this, and I’m so excited.  I’m about to send David an email saying, “Hey, if you’re looking for a party that has non-fundamentalist views, supports stem cell research, thinks that free trade is important but fair trade is too, supports programs that will get impoverished kids into pre-school and help them compete later in life, and not only believes that global warming exists but that we can/must take steps to stop it, then I have some guys I want you to meet!  They are called Democrats, and they want to take you to the prom!  They will buy you a boutonniere and everything!”

Sigh.  And then I read the rest of the sentence:

“Seventh, raise taxes on carbon emissions… and use the revenue to make the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends permanent.”

Hmm.  Who gets those capital gains and dividends tax cuts?  Rich people.  I can think of a couple other ways to spend that imaginary carbon money, like I don’t know, grants to fund alternative energy research or HeadStart, or just starting to pay for the moneypit that Iraq has become. 

Just when I thought that maybe David, Nancy Pelosi, Barack and I could borrow Chuck Schumer’s car and go on a really fun double-date, we come up against that “fiscal conservatism” deal-breaker.  Which I guess leaves Mr. Brooks right where he said he was, waiting to be wooed.

30 Days Hath November

And not that many November posts hath my blog.  So, uhm, about that “NaBloPoMo” thing, during which we were all supposed to write a post every day…. I seem to have fallen off the wagon.

Having news&politicked myself out leading up to the midterm elections and then blissed myself out following them, I have spent the last couple of weeks shamelessly neglecting my corner of the worldwideinterwebnets.  Things like Thanksgiving, a sick kitten and heretofore shamelessly neglected grad school applications have taken my attention from its rightful owner:  daily blog posting.

 Anyway, gentle readers, I am back.  And my corner has been deemed to contain “healthy media critique.”  So hurrah.

In the spirit of healthy media criticism, I would like to offer you two quotations from this week’s Time Magazine, which are either sparklingly witty pieces of journalistic prose or overwritten metaphors with distracting alliteration, depending on your personal politics, reading sensibilities, and current mood.

 On George Bush during his recent visit to Vietnam, and the comparisons being drawn between the Vietnam War and War in Iraq:

“The reluctant traveler dropped into the capital of his least favorite analogy as part of a sweep through Southeast Asia that allowed him to look commanding, even regal, at a time when postelection Washington is buzzing about the onrushing twilight of his presidency.”

On Nancy Pelosi’s recent endorsement of John Murtha (her pal) over Steny Hoyer (apparently her arch-nemesis) for the position of House majority leader:

“Was putting her muscle behind the hero of the party’s antiwas wing a sign that she would steer her fractious and fragile coalition over the guardrails on the left?”

Yes, I realize it is very half-assed to post direct quotes without offering any commentary on substance or style.  Guilty.  But I had fun reading these sentences on the train this morning and thought you might too.  Meatier and more considered posts to follow shortly…

Those Spooky “M” Religions

This Tuesday Harry Reid was elected Senate majority leader in spite of his Mormony ways, reports the Washington Post. 

“He also opposes abortion rights, a position derived from his Mormon religion, which has put him at odds with many other Democrats.”

I’m kind of picking on the WP here – I think there’s just a smidgen of a grammar problem in the sentence – perhaps they meant that Reid’s position on abortion puts him at odds with other Dems, but the way the sentence is written, that’s not what it says.  OK, but I am veering into grammar nerd-dom here.  Let’s talk about that other religion that begins with M.  You know the one I mean, the scaaaaaaary one.

You think Mormons with their rules against card-playing and beer-drinking and their secret polygamy camps are spooky?  Well, at least they’re not in cahoots with a sleeper cell of their Mormon brethren overseas.

TV newsman Glenn Beck, who appears to be trying to get a job as a correspondent on the Colbert Report, asked Keith Ellison (the first Muslim elected to Congress) in an interview Tuesday, to prove that he isn’t working with our enemies.  If this were on Comedy Central, it would have been genius.  Unfortunately, it was on CNN.

You know your interviewer is up to no good when he puts this adorable disclaimer out there before asking a question:

“May I — may we have five minutes here where we’re just politically incorrect and I play the cards face up on the table? 

No offense – and I know Muslims, I like Muslims…”

You know when some old white guy says “can i just put my cards on the table… no offense…. i like (insert one: Muslims/Gays/Blacks/Jews/Lesbians/Immigrants/Asians/Mexicans/Arabs), why, I even have a (Muslim/Homosexual/Black/Jewish/Immigrant/Asian/Mexican/Arab) friend!” that you’re in for a treat.

Oft-maligned though it may be, the idea of political correctness came about for a reason.  Because when you insinuate that a Congressman-elect works with terrorists because he’s Muslim and he’s from a district where Somalian immigrants vote, you should have to give a disclaimer for that.  You should have to say something to acknowledge that yes, you are about to launch into some seriously prejudiced douche-baggery.

No offense, Glen.  I know douche-bags.  I like douche-bags.