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.