David Brooks of the New York Times is one of my very favorite thinkers – he’s a calm and intellectual conservative who manages to maintain a great deal of respect for the reality of the sweeping political changes before us, but Brooks is wisely very cautious about the many pitfalls that come with the overwhelming power Americans have granted to the President Obama and the Democratic Party.
In my view Brooks, unlike “conservative” blowhards and political/media buffoons like Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and Sean Hannity, articulates the kind of vision the founders of our American experiment would have appreciated very much. They understood how important it was to debate, discuss, consider and reconsider and then use democracy within a constitutional framework as the key tool to resolve disputes.
On Charlie Rose Brooks made a several of observations I thought were really, really interesting. The first is that Obama – so sharp and confident as President and chief manager – is at risk for overextending himself based on that level of self-confidence. Brooks seemed to suggest (and I’d certainly agree) that this overconfidence is reflected in the governmental and budget optimism that is used to support what I’d call our massively irresponsible spending plans for the post-recession economy. Almost every economist and politician now agrees that a large deficit is appropriate for a few years in an effort to stimulate the global economy, but there are huge differences of opinion about what to do after that stimulus … stimulates.
To me the answer is probably that we should return as soon as possible to the free marketeering mechanisms that got us to the incredible levels of prosperity we now enjoy, and should seek to reduce government … dramatically. However this “small government” view has become so unpopular now that I’m going to avoid the stress and just sit back and watch as the huge government view now so prevalent is tested on the grandest scale in all of human history. I still think we are pushing debts forward at massively unsustainable levels, but luckily we should have a good sense of how unsustainable within a few years as the projected benefits of massive spending fail to materialize.
Another point Brooks made was that Obama’s vision is that of a technocratic and effective government, bringing resources and people to bear on the host of regulatory, security, military, and economic problems Obama inherited from the past. Brooks agrees that unbridled Capitalism needs to be kept in check but worries about the government as the mechanism for that balance. Brooks prefers the ideas of UK Moderate Conservative party leader David Cameron who he suggested is trying to embed the necessary checks on capitalism’s potential for excess in non-governmental institutions such as competing sectors of the market, family, and community.
This “small governments, empowered communities” idea is very provocative and I’d guess very much in line with what the founders would have liked to see, though I think it will take some time to catch on as we’ve spawned a generation of voters who will simply assume that massive government is the status quo.
Capitalism did what it does so well and said “damn the torpedos full speed ahead”. From 1945 until 2008 the global economy dodged most of those torpedos and many – especially in the USA and Europe but also much of the developing world – enjoyed levels of prosperity unparalleled in all of human history. In 2008 the global economy suffered direct hits from a *lot* of the torpedos we’d been dodging so well. Governments failed to see them coming and I doubt they’ll succeed in restoring prosperity without torpedos (I’d argue that’s not even possible – the risks *created* much of all those rewards), but we’ll know soon enough.
In the meantime when you tuck your children into bed be sure to tell them “thank you”. “Thank you for taking on our families share of the USA debt of $473,000 … while you slept” . Source for 473,000 is USA Today.
David Brooks on Charlie Rose:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/content/9335
April 25, 2009
Posted by JoeDuck |
bailout, charlie rose, Globalization, obama, US History | barack obama, charlie rose, david brooks, national debt |
2 Comments
Although I’m a political junkie I’d hoped to try to stay objective in a race I knew would be clouded with the usual nonsense of our American democratic experience where marketing and the politics of personal destruction *always* trump an intelligent discussion of the issues. However I’ve been especially alarmed by the very personal and deceptive attacks on Obama’s character and personal history. Thanks to some huge comment streams this blog has become mostly political for the past week so I should let readers know where I stand.
Barack Obama for President.
Like Christopher Buckley I’m normally a small government low tax fiscal conservative, but also like Buckley I think more than anything right now the country needs a “first class mind” in the oval office. The world faces the greatest fiscal crisis since the great depression, and global terrorism remains a critical threat around the world. Perhaps the John McCain of the 1990s would be a good man for the job now, but that John McCain is not running for President.
Obama, unlike any other prominent American leader, will send a signal to the world that the USA remains both the shining beacon of prosperity we have always been but also is asserting an entirely new approach to internal affairs – an approach characterized by flexibility, compassion, and intelligent reflection rather than the knee jerk ideological responses that have compromised our reputation and standing in the global community for much of the past 8 years.
Obama is the right choice for these challenging times despite some flaws. I’ll keep hoping that the economic challenges will force Obama into more realistic ideas about how the economy and personal responsibility. I hope Obama will soon come to realize how the national debt and deficit are ticking time bombs that pose a greater than the current looming financial crisis, and work hard towards a balanced federal budget.
But trumping those concerns for me is that the country will benefit from Obama’s ability to galvanize support and bring people together. Some will choose to fight Obama and to continue the smears and personal attacks, but in the same way that approach has failed in the campaign I hope that approach fails with America as we move forward to the great challenges that we all must face together, like it or not.
The future is uncertain and potentially very perilous. Major changes and challenges are coming at us with each passing day. We need inspired new leadership.
Obama for President.
Anyway … the cooler logo should win this thing
October 24, 2008
Posted by JoeDuck |
news, obama, Politics | barack obama, endorsements, john mccain, mccain, obama, obama for president |
637 Comments
For me it is always painful to watch our American “Democracy” at work. I’m an independent and I think that allows me to see more clearly how even when they are combined the Democrat and Republican parties fail to do a good job of representing the country in terms of ideology or action planning.
Today the Dems decide how to handle the votes in Michigan and Floriday after previously deciding to totally disenfranchise those electorates. It is certainly true that rules should matter, and true that both campaigns agreed to these rules, and Obama supporters are right to say that it’s not “fair” to allocate to Clinton votes that might have gone to Obama if Florida party hacks and national party hacks had not mangled this process, but it’s *even more unfair* to disenfranchise the Florida voters – again.
I’m guessing they’ll do the 50% allocation thing – ironically the same idea the Republicans had for rogue voting states, though presumably with far less “processing” committee time.
If they did allocate the delegates according to votes in Michigan and Florida here are some scenarios:
Michigan popular vote: 55% to Clinton, 40% Uncommitted to Obama -
Clinton gains 23 delegates.
Michigan split the uncommitted vote: 75% to Clinton, 20% Obama -
Clinton gains 85 delegates
Florida: 50% to Clinton, 33% to Obama. Clinton net gain of 36 delegates.
Thus if we count these states Clinton would gain a net of either 59 delegates or 121 delegates depending on how you allocate the Michigan uncommitted vote.
As of today 201 delegate votes (160 pledged) separate Obama and Clinton so even the rosiest picture for Clinton would still have her trailing Obama, throwing the election squarely to the superdelegates and more party hack back room wheeling and dealing.
Welcome to Democratic Democracy?
More of my views on this at President Picker
May 31, 2008
Posted by JoeDuck |
Politics | barack obama, democratic primary, hillary clinton, US president |
1 Comment
Please subscribe to the feed
