Krugman v. Brooks

I read the New York Times only rarely; mostly I go to its website to read the opinion columnists, and occasionally I scan the rest of the site on Sundays.  But two days ago, I happened across an abandoned copy of the Friday's NYT on paper, left behind by some thoughtful soul at the Pentagon.  When I got to the editorial page, I found these two articles there--one by David Brooks and one by Paul Krugman.  Interestingly enough, they were arranged as if mirrored images of each other down the left and right sides of the page respectively--but the messages contained in each could not have been more different.

Both columns speak to the current economic doldrums besetting the US economy--but that's where the similarities end.  Krugman's column focuses on what can be done to get the economy moving (by government, naturally) because of the failure of the Obama economic stimulus.  Why did the stimulus fail?  Why, because it was too small (of course).  Here is Krugman on that point.  "In the case of the Obama administration, officials seem loath to admit that the original stimulus was too small. True, it was enough to limit the depth of the slump — a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office says unemployment would probably be well into double digits now without the stimulus — but it wasn’t big enough to bring unemployment down significantly."  How does one know that this is true--that the failure of the stimulus was in its modesty?  Why, because Krugman says so--and he's a Nobel Prize Winner. And by the way, who are you to question Professor Krugman?

David Brooks on the other hand, handicapped of course without a white tie and tails moment of his own, instead puts forward some data--or more correctly, a case study.  In it, he contrasts the German economy (humming along at 9% growth rate) to ours.  The point Brooks makes is that Germany chose NOT to engage in stimulative government spending (as a percentage of GDP, Germany's stimulus was 1/4 the size of ours); rather, Germany decided to act like an adult and impose spending restraint.  Here's Brooks:  "Over the past few years, the Germans have built on their advantages. They effectively support basic research and worker training. They have also taken brave measures to minimize their disadvantages. As an editorial from the superb online think tank e21 reminds us, the Germans have recently reduced labor market regulation, increased wage flexibility and taken strong measures to balance budgets."  

Brooks takes this one, hands down.  Krugman's economic analysis continues to be heavily influenced by his political biases.  While he may be considered an effective political columnist, his insights on the macro-economy are simply derivative of the latest liberal talking points.  

Goldberg Skewers Brooks

Great Corner post here by Jonah Goldberg. Again, I think both Goldberg and Brooks are superb thinkers, though Goldberg taps into one of the serious lines of doubt I have about Brooks' judgment. Key line: "Brooks is turning out to be like Big Bird to Obama's Snuffaluffagus! He's the only one who can see the real Obama and nobody believes him."



HT Instapundit

David Brooks On Tea Parties; Jonah Goldberg on David Brooks

This is a heavyweight discussion. First David Brooks took the ramparts of the New York Times editorial pages to offer his analysis of the Tea Party movement. Then, Jonah Goldberg offered his analysis of Brooks in National Review's blog The Corner.

A couple of things. These two--along with Mark Steyn--represent for me a sort of Holy Trinity of conservative thinkers. Day in and day out, Steyn, Brooks and Goldberg can be counted on to pen some of the most insightful, readable, and analytical views of policy and social events to be found. Brooks is brilliant and prep schoolish--and bit too cozy with Obamanism. Goldberg is a giant of conservative thinking, but I think his Puckishness sometimes causes him to be taken less seriously than others--though a reading of Liberal Fascism should cure even the toughest critic of charges that Goldberg is unserious. And Steyn--he's simply in a class by himself.

Brooks' piece on the Tea Party movement upon first reading made eminent sense to me, and it helped put me in touch with some of the basic, deep down, questions I have about their approach to policy. Had Goldberg not then made his commentary, I would likely have simply put a check in the box that Brooks had once again fairly well encapsulated my way of thinking. But Goldberg does a great job of standing Brooks' argument on its head. Whereas Brooks wrote an article showing the similarity of the New Left of the 60s with the Tea Party movement of today, Goldberg does just as admirable a job of staking out the differences--which are important, and redound to the benefit of the Tea Partiers.

Here's the bottom line for me--both of them are right as far as their arguments go, and I will consider myself better informed for having read them. That said, the real question for me is the extent to which the Tea Party movement will impact the character of the Republican Party. Not the Conservative Movement mind you....but the Republican Party. While there are conservatives in the Tea Party movement, and some of its basic instincts are conservative, it is not an abidingly conservative impulse. It is populist, and populism knows no ideological bounds--it speaks largely and simply to its own requirements. In our two-party system, the Tea Party movement is far more likely to (and has already done so) find its impact within the Republican Party--and I have to wonder if that impact will make the party more or less electable in upcoming contests.

At this point, the Tea Party movement seems to have little or no interaction with social questions (abortion, gay rights). If it manages to remain devoted to questions of fiscal restraint and good governance, I think the Tea Partiers will strengthen the Republican Party. If for some reason, the Tea Party movement takes on a social component more reminiscent of the Religious Right of the late 70's and early 80's, I fear it will have little positive impact and potentially negative effects.

David Brooks Can Be So Disappointing

I really, really like David Brooks. A lot. He's a fantastic writer and thinker, his delivery on Friday evenings on The News Hour beside Mark Shields is pitch perfect, and his clubby sort of Brooks Brothers Republicanism has always appealed more to me than some of the red meat populism currently masquerading as ideology and ideas. He's an insightful social trend-spotter and, well, he just seems like a pretty nice guy.

But man, does he have a BLIND SPOT for this administration. He's Chris Matthews psyched about our dreamy President, and today, he's got a column up that raises the Prince of Amtrak (Joe Biden) to levels of legitimacy generally not seen outside the pages of Daily Kos.

I'm all for giving the other side their due, but c'mon David. This one's a bit much.

David Brooks on the Elderly

David Brooks with a common-sense view, though I am not hopeful for its adoption. One stat floored me--the feds spend $7 on Seniors for every 1$ they spend on children. Yikes.

David Brooks On The Senate Healthcare Bill

David Brooks does a pretty good job of teasing out the good and the bad in this bill. Additionally, he reminds us that a Republican President and a Republican Congress passed a prescription drug benefit without really figuring out how to pay for it (as opposed to the proponents of this measure who seem to have thought through offsets, though they rely on Congress resisting the urge to act like itself). The current fascination among Republican leaders with deficit neutrality rings somewhat hollow in the face of that vote.