Is David Brooks suggesting we hold random twitter commenters, late night hosts and salad bar denizens to the same high standard that we hold the president? Or did he just rush to meet the deadline and come up with the most lavy BOTH SIDES argument ever?
Democratic leadership in the House have actually had really intelligent conversations about Iran. Left leaning media has done that as well. Even the mainstream media is doing a reasonable job. You paper is doing a good job. The facts and analysis are out there.
Is he imagining some rouges gallery echo chamber the rest of can’t see?
But the events of the past week have shown that the anti-Trump echo chamber is becoming a mirror image of Trump himself — overwrought, uncalibrated and incapable of having an intelligent conversation about any complex policy problem.
If you google “david brooks profiles in timidity” you’ll see he often makes the exact oppisite argument. That the dems lack courage of conviction and lean on technocratic policy arguments. David Brooks doesn’t care what dems do or don’t. He’ll argue that it’s the wrong thing.
If you are a young professional in a major city, you experience inequality firsthand. But the inequality you experience most acutely is not inequality down, toward the poor; it’s inequality up, toward the rich.
You go to fund-raisers or school functions and there are always hedge fund managers and private equity people around.
Is Mr. Brooks an idiot? Does he realize that for 98% of the population, this is simply not true.
The inequality problem is not between the 90->99% and the 1%. To think that is to basically discount 90% of the population. The 90% plus of the population that simply doesn’t see the inequality first hand and his eyes, isn’t even worth bringing into the discussion.
emphasize that the historically proven way to reduce inequality is lifting people from the bottom with human capital reform, not pushing down the top. In short, counter angry progressivism with unifying uplift.
Piketty argues that r > g, that return from financial capital is greater than overall economic growth. Brooks totally ignores this point in his criticism of Piketty.
He argues for unifying uplift; a phrase that sounds like it comes from an American Apparel bra ad. What exactly is unifying uplift? If he is talking about increasing social spending, why not actually say that? Is he really just saying we can stop the formation of vast oligarchies if we come up with the right platitudes?
members of the Muslim Brotherhood are defined by certain beliefs. They reject pluralism, secular democracy and, to some degree, modernity. When you elect fanatics, they continue, you have not advanced democracy. You have empowered people who are going to wind up subverting democracy. The important thing is to get people like that out of power, even if it takes a coup.
Replace Muslim Brotherhood with Conservative Movement and it is oddly accurate.
Greece, Spain, and Italy have among the least developed welfare states in Europe. If someone wants to make an argument that there is some inherent problem with the welfare state model then we should look for crises in Sweden, Denmark and Germany, all states with far more generous welfare states than these Mediterranean countries. In fact, the welfare states of northern Europe are doing relatively well through the crisis, it is difficult to understand how anyone can look at the pattern of the crisis across Europe and conclude that it implies that the welfare state model has reached its end.
Dean Baker make a really good point that no one on the right will listen to. And most certainly not Mr. Brooks. But this is the kicker:
If the U.S. paid the same amount per person for health care as Denmark, Germany, or Sweden we would be looking at massive budget surpluses.
If you just look at the numbers, a better welfare state model would put us in a much better economic situation. Not that anyone on the right would consider such a thing.