« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

On David Brooks and the “Great” Reformers

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  November 13th, 2008 at 10:48 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

If you ever wanted to know if there are coordinated spin efforts by the mainstream media on issues, look no further to David Brooks’ latest piece of bird cage liner that is still buzzing around Washington.

It all started Tuesday night with the new meme that we’re a center-left nation from the pundits on the networks. Funny they should all raise the same point that night.

Then it headed into the pages of newspapers.

Finally, David Brooks, the New York Times pet moderate who calls himself a conservative (or at least used to be thought of as one), buys some straw men by wholesale and throws them into a column. You know the one.

There are traditionalists and reformers, according to Brooks. “Traditionalist” is code for conservative. “Reformer” is code for liberal. If you ever needed any more evidence that we are a center right nation, this column is it. Brooks cannot call liberals “liberal.” He won’t even call them “progressive.” No, now it is “reformer.” And he can’t call conservatives conservative because too many people would have embraced the term. If you can’t call yourself what you are for fear of rejection by the majority of the country, then what you are must be predicated on ideas rejected by the majority, i.e. the majority of this country rejects the left and its big government ways.

The facts are these:


According to the exit polling from the 2008 election, 34% of this nation identifies with the term “conservative.” 22%, only up one percent from 2004, identifies with the term “liberal.” The rest identify with the term “moderate” or “independent.”

Who are the conservatives?

They are the pro-lifers, the gun owners, the Christians, the small government people.

Brooks, Christie Todd Whitman, and others would have us believe conservatives should throw the pro-lifers out of the party to begin again anew. Why? No Republican coalition has ever come to power without their help. That the intellectually light loafers of moderate thought think they should be tossed out should be evidence enough the right must embrace the pro-life movement.

Put it to you this way:

Conservatives only need to pick off 17% of moderates/independents to have a governing coalition. Liberals have to pick off 29%. If we accept Christie Todd Whitman’s view that pro-lifers make up only 1/3 of the right, throwing them out puts us behind liberals. Right now, just taking one position, brings the right a third of its strength. Being for the second amendment brings even more. So why ditch them?

Additionally, according to various surveys out there, including the latest by McLaughlin & Associates, “78% of Republicans favored smaller government, 54% of independents did, 78% of self-described conservatives did, and 46% of self-described moderates did. Democrats were at 33% and liberals at 25%.”

So you combine pro-life, pro Second Amendment, and small government principles to get your governing coalition. Remember: moderates and independents do not have a governing set of principles to guide them. They look at each issue on its own. There are plenty of issues out there that would bring the conservative coalition and add to it those it needs from the pool of unaffiliated voters.

What did the GOP ditch The small government principles. Who did it lose? The moderates/independents who raised the coalition to the majority.

If we return to our roots, we win. The one and only time we followed David Brooks’ advice, we nominated John McCain. And we lost. Let’s not do that again.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • aaronbg

    I especially like the closer:

    If we return to our roots, we win. The one and only time we followed David Brooks’ advice, we nominated John McCain. And we lost. Let’s not do that again.

  • TrackerNeil

    “Brooks, Christie Todd Whitman, and others would have us believe conservatives should throw the pro-lifers out of the party to begin again anew.”

    I just read Brooks’ article, and I didn’t see anything about that. In fact, a text search of “abortion” found nothing on the page. So I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea Brooks said anything of the sort, at least in that piece. He DID, however, say:

    “The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. The Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety.”

    Perhaps you can address this?

  • spainishirish

    That Brooks is touted as a “conservative voice” by the NYT speaks more of that discredited rag than it does anything else. The country remains center/right. The mainstream media simply is a left-wing mouthpiece. As Glenn Reynolds recently wrote, the MSM’s embrace of advocacy simply is to staunch a “wasting asset.” That is a brilliant touch.

    As for Brooks and the like, they simply are self-loathing liberal Republicans. They hated majority status, and prefer to bitch and moan about how bad the other 90 percent of the party is.

    McCain was their boy. His campaign staff bought into their crap. And he and they ran one of the worst campaigns in recent memory. The fact McCain still almost pulled it off speaks more about where this nation is than anything positive about the candidate, his campaign, or those who touted him as “the only Republican who could win.” But/for his suspend-the-campaign-stunt and return to D.C. to “help with the bailout,” he still might have won. But he was a long-time senator, and this is what they do. Pass something. Pass anything. Principles be damned.

    Because I think that stunt cost McCain the election, and given the unhidden radicalism and complete lack of qualifications of his opponent, perhaps our nominee was the only Republican who could have lost. But it is time to look forward. We need to laugh in the faces of the Brooks’, regroup, and do exactly what you wrote.

  • Arkieheartland

    I suppose menshevik and bolshevik were already taken.

    Saying you are the majority does not make it so. Conservatives must, however, publically contest the post-modern deconstruction of language.

  • ZootSuit

    The problem really isn’t with conservative leaders, it’s with us conservative followers. More specifically, I disagree with the comment

    The one and only time we followed David Brooks’ advice, we nominated John McCain. And we lost. Let’s not do that again.

    No, we followed David Brook’s advice when we nominated George W. Bush in 2000 and, especially, in 2008. George W. Bush is not and never really was a conservative. But the problem isn’t that!

    The problem is, when George W. Bush would do his many, many liberal things (e.g. steel tariffs, “no child left behind,” signing McCain/Feingold after he said it was unconstitutional, the Medicare Modernization Act, etc.), we conservatives kept claiming he was one of our own. No wonder the majority of the American public thinks the failures of the Bush Presidency, and they are many and they are real, are failures of conservatism. And this even as a plurality of them still claim to be conservatives themselves.

    If you could go back to my very first comments on RedState about ten months or so ago, you would see that in just about all of them I wrote, “I do not like John McCain.” But honesty forces me to admit that in the last eight years, John McCain has been more conservative than George W. Bush and probably would have made a much better President. For just about every folly of John McCain, George W. Bush either promoted or signed (e.g. McCain/Feingold and McCain/Kennedy). And at least John McCain came out against the Medicare Modernization Act travesty. Plus, if we had “surged” five years ago as John McCain wanted, things would have done much better in Iraq much earlier.

    Whatever his problems — and they are many and they are real — don’t blame John McCain for the failures of us conservatives. I sincerely wish John McCain had won in 2000 and 2004.

    If conservatives want to once again gain the hegemony in this country in policy, governance and philosophical debate, the very first thing we must do is admit that we have not been very conservative these last eight years. The question is, do we have the courage, honesty and principles to do that?

  • Neil_Stevens

    Actually, it’s the New York Times that still hasn’t given up its Pulitzer it got for collaborating with the Bolshevik-run genocide in Ukraine.

    You burned a three year old account for that? To set up a straw man that transparent?

    -shrug-

  • pilgrim

    you state the following-

    …in the last eight years, John McCain has been more conservative than George W. Bush and probably would have made a much better President.

    I don’t believe had John McCain been elected President in 2000 that his first acts by executive order would have been to lift all of the pro abortion executive orders put in place by Bill Clinton.

    I don’t believe that John McCain would have vetoed a bill for taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research.

    I don’t believe that John McCain would have vetoed any campaign finance reform law that came to his desk.

    I don’t believe that John McCain would have lifted the Presidential ban on off-shore drilling.

    Both George W. Bush and John McCain fall short on holding true to the core principle values of conservatives. We need to focus on the farm team of potential leaders for the future, and stop arguing over those politicians of yesterday who have both not been up to the task.

  • aaronbg

    I thought he was saying that calling the country center left doesn’t make it so and that Conservatives must fight against the orwellian doublespeak of Reformer v. Traditionalist….this may call for a review…although I could be completely wrong.

  • ofjay

    Erick, when he called Palin a cancer upon the party was the day I stopped giving him credit of any sort. I am a big believer in the power of definitions, and he who has the power to define words can define thought. This is the danger the MSM poses: they wish to maintain the meme that Conservatives are “traditional” in order to pin the Bush years on them.

    Brooks is the true cancer upon the party. He is known to be such a turncoat the the Democrats don’t trust him with leadership or advice. They just sick him upon the general readership and hope that Repubs would stay like sheep and believe in his crap sandwiches time and again.

    David Brooks is the problem. He needs to be reminded of this day in, day out.

  • Neil_Stevens

    Maybe I erred here. If I did we can resolve it.

  • Neil_Stevens

    But maybe it’s a misunderstanding.

  • aaronbg

    Mensheviks were they minority and Bolsheviks were the majority..and later the mensheviks supported the provisional gov’t whereas the Bolsheviks continued the revolution and dispensed with the provisional gov’t and created the Soviet Union. I think he was playing on the idea of both parties having gone the way of communism and that Conservatives are the only option left to those of us who don’t endorse communism.

    But I will let him explain himself and leave it at that.

  • samantha

    Whatever happened to intellectual thought, the arena of new ideas and critical thinking within the republican party? If you think that the Sarah Palin’s of the party are going to lead us to victory, then you must be patently unaware of the mood of the country right now or must desire to see the GOP as a minority party for decades to come. We lost the real power base of the party, fiscal and intellectual conservatives who either held their noses and voted Obama or just stayed home. Unfortunately, Sarah has the intellect of a fruitfly and the vast majority of Americans view her as a joke or something even worse.

    Romney/Nooney 012′

  • samantha

    that would be Noonan, referring to Peggy

  • Neil_Stevens

    I’d ban someone for invoking the NSDAP or Beer Hall Putsch, too.

  • aaronbg

    By the way if you are gonna throw around accusation about her intellect maybe you would like to provide an example. Otherwise you just sound bitter about your guy not getting the nod as the VP pick.

  • samantha

    Romney/Noonan 012′

  • ofjay

    be my guest. But I’m not going to go there with you. My beef is with Brooks, who wouldn’t win a city council election if he ran unopposed.

    You say: “We lost the real power base of the party, fiscal and intellectual conservatives who either held their noses and voted Obama or just stayed home. “

    I say, that the fiscal conservatives are the ones who stayed home and the intellectual conservatives are the ones who gave us John McCain anyway. Your assertion becomes wrong because you lump the groups together, which I think are partially exclusive.

  • leppard

    If liberalism is so popular, why do they keep changing their name?

  • streiff

    because I don’t see much weight there.

  • samantha

    Let’s forget about the Couric interviews (we all know about that painful disgrace) but she appeared on Wolf Blitzer yesterday and could not explain affirmative action, was clueless about the bailout, and couldn’t even answer what goals she would have for the party. My God, she was the vp pick for chrissakes! I don’t know why she is even involved with politics because she has no coherent or salient ideas about anything…just discombobulated talking points. Come on people, she is an embarassment.

  • streiff

    this is the wrong website for what you’re doing. Modify your behavior or go away.

  • aaronbg

    Provide a friggin link.

    Your opinion is not fact, nor is mine. If you wish to make an accusation please provide a link so that others can look at the information and decide what is and is not true. Can you do that. Oh by the way did you see the diaries here on RedState that blew the hell out of the Couric interview and showed how biased editing was used to make her look stupid even though she provided clear answers to question when asked. Maybe you didn’t, maybe you chose to ignore it. Maybe you are just bitter. Until you provide a link I think I will go with the latter.

  • samantha

    I wasn’t making it about Palin at all. Both comments were in response to other posters. Intellectuals may have given us McAin but didn’t quite want the second on the ticket. I believe that our party does indeed need to embrace some progressive changes and rethink its pandering to the social conservative wing. I live in the northeast and many republicans in this region are indeed more liberal on social issues and conservative fiscally. Guys, this election wasn’t even close. We need some real viable changes.

  • Tman1966

    Mr. Brooks is the liberals’ idea of a “nice conservative.” He knows his place, says “yaa-suh” at all the right times, steps off the sidewalk when a liberal is coming in the opposite direction, and doesn’t get too uppity.

  • aaronbg

    n/t

  • samantha

    Its very simple. You have two choices. You can either go to CNN.com or pull it up on youtube. Take your pick.
    Secondly,as regards to the Couric interview, her own words were that “the bailout was about healthcare..” and her foreign policy creds, she explained, had something to do with “Putin rearing his head”…blah blah. And what? They edited out the newspapers she read and the Supreme Court cases she was familiar with?

  • Rod_Patrick

    Nice! If Rombots act like this, Palinbots will vehemently react. The result? All conservatives ca wait until 2020s for the next potential victory by GOP Candidate as POTUS.

    But it will be too late. The Dems will have already transformed USA into United Socialist States of America.

    Warning to you:

    You don’t promote candidate by throwing muds to other challengers in your own Party! That is destructive to the party and it’s cause!

    You know what? You give me an *Idea * that Noonan was thinking of Romney when she made that article against Sarah that could have possibly slashed some votes to McCain/Palin ticket last election.

    That’s unforgivable.

    Noonan is now just a leper to me.

  • ofjay

    I’m working on a post on that, too, but I guess the heart of the debate these days is whether he have been too progressive or not progressive enough. In that, at the very least, I think we will agree.

  • aaronbg

    n/t

  • John_E

    Apparently he has a split the quilt policy proposal on abortion.

    I can see Brooks’ point that the Republican Party ought not crush dissent. And if "Reformers" create new institutions that support moderate Republican candidates I would let it be. Newt Gingrich is doing his own new thing — I don’t think we can pigeon hole it yet — and so can others.

    I would quibble with Brooks. McCain tried to be the "Reformer" candidate and this says something about the political viability of that approach. But Brooks has a valid point that solid Blue state hatred for Republicans is severe constraint on their political prosperity. We need to figure what we can do about feelings of  hatred for traditionalists that dominate Blue states.

  • longwalker

    the Masters of the Universe. Gobbels was a wantabee.

    Aaron Gardner, FYI, the word menshevik does mean minority and the word bolshevik means majority.

    However, in 1919 Russia, Lenin’s group was in the minority while his Socialist opponents formed the majority.

    Lenin and his people called themselves Bolsheviks and called their opponents Mensheviks, the words caught on with the masses and, as usual, truth lost.

  • ZootSuit

    It’s interesting but, except for offshore drilling, everything you mention falls under the “social issues” category. The question is, however, do just the “social issues” make someone a true conservative.

    Personally, I say, “No!”

    Just as Fred Thompson famously and accurately called Mike Hickabee a pro-life liberal, I think that moniker can accurately describe George W. Bush. George W. Bush was/is nothing more than a pro-life liberal. And frankly, I think we need to stop calling pro-life liberals conservatives.

    But to address your posts, I think John McCain would have lifted Bill Clinton’s pro-life executive orders. In our collective rush to disdain McCain’s “maverickness,” we too often forget that he has a very strong pro-life voting record. Just because he does not make his pro-life stance the centerpiece of his political career — which is both good and bad — does not mean that he is strongly pro-life.

  • John_E

    I’ve read Noonan weekly (by force of will) and do not recall her speaking favorably of Romney. BTW, Brooks was horrified by Romney’s convention speech, describing it as a 2012 pitch to the far right. Sammantha as a Brooks following Romney supporter seems incongruent.

  • ZootSuit

    And that is a very bad thing. However, we have not pandered to them like the many “moderates” among us argue.

    I personally think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and that abortion is murdered and should be outlawed (which, by the way, are two separate issues: abortion should only be outlawed by proper legislative action and not by judicial fiat). And for the record, I am strongly against “gay marriage” or whatever you want to call it. On just about all positions, I can be classified as a “social conservative.”

    However, I agree that we have pandered too long to the social conservatives and that that must change!

    While the Republican Party should be a “pro-life party,” we need to stop pandering to the social conservatives by calling liberals who are pro-life, conservatives.

    Exhibit A of that happening: George W. Bush!

    And Exhibit B could well be Mike Huckabee.

    When we can rationally explain our social conservatism within the context of the wider conservative movement — like Reagan did — we win. Our problem is, we cannot.

    Our problem is, we have allowed “conservatism” to be defined as nothing more than being pro-life.

    In that sense, we have pandered to the social conservatives among us and that must stop!

  • aceintx

    The low turn out of Conservatives this election combined with the break towards Obama is what lost this election…

    The height of folly is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result…yet we kept Boehner in the House Minority Leader, McConnell to the Senate Minority Leader, and we’re on our way to putting Steele who is allied with Christi Todd Whitman and John Danforth and the social liberals they represent…On top of that, the primary schedule was set at the Republican Convention to guarantee the same front loaded primaries that gave us John McCain!

    Conservatives need to figure out who is going to represent us in 2012 and start working to solidify every single Conservative behind them or we’re going to end up with another squish assending to the nomination while we fight amongst ourselves over who we want!

  • aaronbg

    I think he was saying that we need to fight the Orwellian style of redefining words. I may be totally off but that is how I read it.

  • aceintx

    nt

  • aceintx

    Brooks may not have trashed SoCons and the Pro-Life movement in this particular article…but he has in others so I wouldn’t engage in that arguement if I were you because his anti SoCon bent can be demonstrated…so he’s Anti-SoCon without question…

    Add to that this article which basically advocates a big spending government expanding approach for the Republican Party and you have the formula for what’s wrong with the Republican Party…

    Brooks’ views on both Fiscal and Social Conservatism is the elitist’s view of the party leadership and is why we are losing elections…we don’t need more of the same from these clowns…we need *TRUE *Conservative leadership and not “Pale Pastels” as described by Reagan!

  • ofjay

    “I am a big believer in the power of definitions, and he who has the power to define words can define thought.”

    Aaron, since we Conservatives tend to not like to silence our opponents, it is incumbent upon us to counter their charges and discredit them with the truth.

    Is Brooks the new Lenin? I wouldn’t ascribe to him as much talent.

  • pilgrim

    The woulda coulda and shoulda arguments about George W Bush and John McCain can go on til the cows come home, and it no longer matters for anything because it is all over for both of them.

    Have you ever read Ludwig von Mises? Nobody thinks of him as a pro-life lefty. Yesterday I stumbled upon an article about Ludwig von Mises that was written by Murray Rothbard. An excerpt-

    As a free trader and a classical liberal in the tradition of Cobden, Bright, and Spencer, Mises was a libertarian who championed reason and individual liberty in personal as well as economic matters. As a rationalist and an opponent of statism in all its forms, Mises would never call himself a ?conservative,? but rather a liberal in the nineteenth-century sense.

    Indeed, Mises was politically a laissez-faire radical, who denounced tariffs, immigration restrictions, or governmental attempts to enforce morality. On the other hand, Mises was a staunch cultural and sociological conservative, who attacked egalitarianism, strongly denounced political feminism as a facet of socialism. In contrast to many conservative critics of capitalism, Mises held that personal morality and the nuclear family were both essential to, and fostered by, a system of free-market capitalism.

    I admire Mises a lot more than I admire “true conservatives.” Mises understands laws of economics just like laws of physics cannot be repealed by any government plan.

  • aceintx

    and let be categorically clear here…I no longer support him for POTUS and wouldn’t again if my life depended on it…I want to make one simple point…

    For all his fiscal liberalism…he opposed the bailout and nationalization of a banking system which is more than you can say for McCain and 1/3 of the Republican Party who voted for it…

    That in a not shell is why we’re in trouble as a party!

  • aaronbg

    Are you saying that you were/are Arkieheartland? If so did you re-tread or did you get the blam revoked? If you re-treaded, I would suggest you email the directors instead and explain your case and recover your old account.

    Anyhow, on to the point of the post…I wouldn’t say Brooks is the new Lenin..after all he is much too transparent in his attempts to redefine what is.

  • MaybeNot

    I am not here to defend Brooks, but this blog post contains some truly bizarre claims. First, Erik’s description of conservatives is pretty odd: “They are the pro-lifers, the gun owners, the Christians, the small government people.”

    1. Do you have to be a Christian to be conservative? That’s a very European view. Why exlude other religions or non-believers. Are there no Jewish conservatives? I thought Lockean individual rights were universal. 2. Do you have to own a gun to be a conservative? I support the second amendment, but do not own a gun.

    2. this whole “return to our roots” thing is a bunch of bunk. Did Ronald Reagan skrink the government? Absolutely not. Was he punished by conservatives or the public for not doing so? No. Please explain how you would make the government “smaller” and win more votes. What spending and agencies would you eliminate that would cause a great surge in support for your plan? In theory I’m all for LIMITED government, but conservatives have never been able to implement this concept. You can’t return to such roots – they simply don’t exisit.

  • NightTwister

    I’m sure he heard our complaints loud and clear.

  • ZootSuit

    I am even more of an “Austrian” than I am a “Chicagoan.” And if you know who Mises is, then you get my drift. Ludwig von Mises is one of my all-time favorite economists.

    Actually, if you are into Austrian economics, you may want to look at Peter Schumpeter. He is often overlooked but his book, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, may unfortunately prove prophetic. Forgive the excerpt from Wikipedia but:

    Schumpeter’s theory is that the success of capitalism will lead to a form of corporatism and a fostering of values hostile to capitalism, especially among intellectuals. The intellectual and social climate needed to allow entrepreneurship to thrive will not exist in advanced capitalism; it will be replaced by socialism in some form. There will not be a revolution, but merely a trend in parliaments to elect social democratic parties of one stripe or another. He argued that capitalism’s collapse from within will come about as democratic majorities vote for the creation of a welfare state and place restrictions upon entrepreneurship that will burden and eventually destroy the capitalist structure, a theme elucidated upon by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged. Schumpeter emphasizes throughout this book that he is analyzing trends, not engaging in political advocacy. ?If a doctor predicts that his patient will die presently,? he wrote, ?this does not mean that he desires it.?

    In his vision, the intellectual class will play an important role in capitalism’s demise. The term “intellectuals” denotes a class of persons in a position to develop critiques of societal matters for which they are not directly responsible and able to stand up for the interests of strata to which they themselves do not belong. One of the great advantages of capitalism, he argues, is that as compared with pre-capitalist periods, when education was a privilege of the few, more and more people acquire (higher) education. The availability of fulfilling work is however limited and this, coupled with the experience of unemployment, produces discontent. The intellectual class is then able to organize protest and develop critical ideas against free markets and private property, even though these institutions are necessary for their existence. This analysis is similar to that of the philosopher Robert Nozick, who argued that intellectuals were bitter that the skills so rewarded in school were less rewarded in the job market, and so turned against capitalism, even though they enjoyed vastly more enjoyable lives under it than under alternative systems.

    I highly recommend his book (along with just about everything ever written by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, and the rest of the Austrian luminaries).

  • ZootSuit

    No other comment necessary!

  • John_E

    I didn’t know what his abortion stance was so I googled it.The article linked above indicates that he doesn’t support Roe as it currently stands but he also favors abortion up to a certain point. I guess that is one of his "dissents" and he seems to blame the pro-life and pro-choice camps equally for not working toward what he must think of as a sensible compromise.

    Now I don’t happen to agree that we can split the quilt that way, but I don’t fault him for making the argument. I don’t think he should be demonized for it. I’m pro-life but I’m personally more threatened by SoCons in our party who refuse to have anything to do with Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney than I am by Brooks. I don’t feel that his "anti-ness" is quite so absolutist in its rejection as the anti-anti-SoCon’s is.

    On fiscal matters I’d say that the WSJ editorial board provides the right leadership. Brooks hasn’t influenced me on fiscal matters in any way that I know of. So I don’t know why we need to gen up animosity toward him. He is pretty much toothless by his own admission. Of course I much preferred it when Paul Gigot was matched up against Mark Shields on Leher’s News Hour, but I still recognize Brooks as a thoughtful guy. Am I mistaken to think that he doesn’t have much grip at all on the Republican Party Ace?

  • eburke

    this whole ‘the SoCons are ruining the party for the FisCons’ IS SUCH A CROCK!

    The ‘socially moderate’ Georgetown cocktail circuit Republicans are no more fiscal conservatives than they are social conservatives and your comments about Brooks and the rest of the ‘elite’ conservatives just nails it.

    Just why oh why, I would love to have all these fiscon social moderates explain to me, do those who consistently support SoCon issues also score overwhelmingly higher than ‘socially moderate fiscons’ on the scorecards of the NTU, Club for Growth, and any number of other FisCon groups on the issues of fiscal responsibility.

    I’d like one of these clowns to give me 5 names of socially moderate CongressCritters who voted against the bloated farm bill because I can give you the names of a few dozen SoCons who voted against it.

    Rant….off

  • aaronbg

    But like you said…I would never support him for any longterm position….because populism is wrong more than it is right…especially in an environment where the masses are indoctrinated in the public school system.

  • aceintx

    He says he is for overturning Roe but he opposes doing anything to bring about it’s appeal…Yes he blames pro Choice Republicans for some of the acrimony in the party…but he advocates the Pro Choice movement giving up getting anything for their participation in the Party…The article we’re talking about is about how he thinks we need to moderate our stances on fiscal restraint and limiting the size and scope of the federal government…

    To be honest…I don’t know if he’s conservative on anything unless it’s foreign policy and defense issues but if my memory serves…I think he’s called for moderation on these issues as well.

  • aceintx

    nt

  • pilgrim

    .

  • aceintx

    for his fiscal apostasy yet support Romney and McCain, and the rest of the tea sipping raised pinky crowd who brought us a $300 billion Farm Bill, and a bailout/nationalization of industry and banks plan that is approaching $2 trillion!

    I’ll leave it there because again, I don’t want to be accused of being a Huckster…but the slams are ironic to say the least!

  • Erick

    The Club For Growth has a better track record of picking pro-life candidates than NRTL does. Why?

    Because anyone can say they are pro-life and fill out the survey.

    CFG picks people who have stood hard and fast and dared to be unpopular while doing what’s right.

    And if you are for small government, you are going to be against wasting tax dollars to kill children.

  • tcgeol

    We don’t even have to go that far. Just restore pre-New Deal government and I’ll be happy.

  • Herodotus

    to stand against the bailout.

  • aaronbg

    Something to consider though is that there are a few lines of distinction here.

    Elites v. Commons

    Liberals v. Conservatives

    Progressives v. Constitutionalists

    Notice all the ones on the left are natural allies as are all the ones on the right. Funny how that works out.

  • aceintx

    what mood would that be??? The Pro Obama mood?

    He won by de-emphasizing the Democrat’s positions on social issues and promising tax cuts?

    and as Eric pointed out…it wasn’t moderates who stayed home…it was those disaffected with a party that would cram John McCain down our throats and insult us by declaring that we wouldn’t go anywhere when the party was told over and over again there would be enough that stayed home to throw the election…This was done by declaring that the Republican Party could not win without tacking left to appeal to moderates and independents despite the fact that we we did just that 4 years ago…Well…where did that get us?

    Moderates and independents went to Obama because they couldn’t see a difference between McCain and Obama and enough Conservatives stayed home because of the left turn by the Party to throw the election to Obama…

    The fact is that turnout was the same this year as it was in 2004 with the exception of the Conservatives who stayed home…their votes could have swung this election the other way…but you want us to do the same thing in 2012?

    No thanks!

  • Herodotus

    .

  • birdmojo

    Or, heck, 1995.

    Who am I kidding: Get rid of PATRIOT and let me wear my shoes through airport security and get to the other side even though I’ve got a grown-up sized tube of toothpaste (it’s 90% used though!!! There are less than 3 ounces in it!!!) intact and I’ll be a happy camper.

  • aaronbg

    “They are the pro-lifers, the gun owners, the Christians, the small government people.”

    These are inclusive statements not exclusive.

    Did Ronald Reagan skrink the government? Absolutely not.

    Ronald Reagan did not have a filibuster proof majority in the House and Senate in order to enact what he wanted to do.

    Now before you say anything about Pres Bush and his majorities you need to remind yourself that President Bush was no conservative and did not prescribe to small government or a return to pre-new deal government structures.

  • aceintx

    Have you seen Greta’s interviews…or Hannity’s?

    If she has bad judgment about anything…it’s going on with these liberal journalists whose only interest in talking with her is playing gotcha by asking questions of her that they won’t ask of any other candidate!

    And your telling me Romney is any better…He’s more wooden and inauthentic than Al Gore…He governed in Mass as a Liberal passing a socialist health care law that he bragged about at every opportunity during the primaries and is bankrupting the state…He promised a nanny state bailout of Detroit and the state of Michigan and worked over time to kneecap every viable candidate that could have defeated McCain which makes him likely the one person more responsible for the results on November 4th with John Sydney McCain as the loan exception!

    and you want to blame Palin?

  • MaybeNot

    LOL! It would be nice. But I’m afraid a party advocating that position would easily fit into a Model T. Besides, conservative hawks need a big government for their wars, and the social conservatives need their government to help make us better Christians. The economic, social and military conservatives have always had tensions. Their interests may not be aligned the same way they were in 1979. That’s the core problem for Republicans and the conservatives right now.

  • mom2oneson

    I’m glad they are giving an exception to allow nursing mothers and infants visiting grandma for the holidays! They are such a threat usually!

    We have offices set up to allow the wealth students from the middle east and asia to study over here with their families, we hand out visas like water to them, our government pays public institutions to have an international student office but we have to watch out for those young American mothers with infants and tolddlers flying over Thanksgiving.

  • eburke

    And if you are for small government, you are going to be against wasting tax dollars to kill children.

    Spot on….spot on!

  • aceintx

    I believe that our party does indeed need to embrace some progressive changes and rethink its pandering to the social conservative wing.

    What specific policies should we take a more progressive stance I wonder?

    I live in the northeast and many republicans in this region are indeed more liberal on social issues and conservative fiscally. Guys, this election wasn’t even close. We need some real viable changes.

    OK…let’s see how your strategy has worked out in the Northeast since you brought it up…

    Maybe you missed it but Chris Shays has run the way you suggest since he’s been in Congress and guess what…He was the last of his breed from New England when he last November 4th.

    So…how do you figure your strategy is going to work in the South, the Midwest and the rest of flyover country?

  • aceintx

    The only way they win is by acting the way Brooks wants us to repudiate

    Ironic ain’t it?

  • mbecker908
  • aceintx

    I gree with you here:

    While the Republican Party should be a “pro-life party,” we need to stop pandering to the social conservatives by calling liberals who are pro-life, conservatives.

    Bush did indeed play us for suckers and I didn’t like a lot of what he did…but labeling SoCons for his Big Government policies is foolishness…the fact that he’s Socially Conservative while being Fiscally Liberal does not mean that all Social Conservatives are fiscally Liberal…I would argue the opposite is true…more often than not Social Conservatives are more distrustful of the federal government than the Republican Party as a whole because we have learned from experience…

    More often than not its people like Brooks who are anti Socon that also advocate fiscal liberalism and more government control of our lives!

    But on the rest of your post I think you’re out of your mind…aside from the foolishness of passing federal legislation which applied to a specific individual ala Terry Shiavo…how exactly has the Republican Party pandered to the SoCon wing?

    and do tell…what specific SoCon positions do you disagree with?

    1. That we should have judges that apply the law instead of making it from the bench?

    2. That Children should be able to go to school without being force fed liberal ideology on sex ed and gay rights and almost every other socially liberal philosophy?

    3. Maybe you think it’s OK to Censor churches by threatening IRS audits if they dare to speak the truth from the pulpit?

    4. Mybe you’re OK with the purge that is going on against Christian’s in the Public Square…

    Please…enlighten me?

  • aceintx
    1. Do you have to be a Christian to be conservative? That’s a very European view. Why exlude other religions or non-believers. Are there no Jewish conservatives? I thought Lockean individual rights were universal. 2. Do you have to own a gun to be a conservative? I support the second amendment, but do not own a gun.

    Nice diversion…No one says you have to be those things to be Conservatives…but it can be said that most Conservatives are those things…

    this whole “return to our roots” thing is a bunch of bunk. Did Ronald Reagan skrink the government? Absolutely not. Was he punished by conservatives or the public for not doing so? No. Please explain how you would make the government “smaller” and win more votes. What spending and agencies would you eliminate that would cause a great surge in support for your plan? In theory I’m all for LIMITED government, but conservatives have never been able to implement this concept. You can’t return to such roots – they simply don’t exisit.

    You have some good points here but it’s what you don’t say that matters…

    Republicans won elections in 1980, 1984, 1988 and Congressional elections from 1994 to 2006 by promising to shrink government. Reagan wasn’t able to shrink government because he had to deal with a Democrat House for his whole time in office and a Dem Senate for a large part of it. Gingrich swept Republicans in Power in 1994 by promising a smaller government but was unable to implement mach of it because Clinton was there to veto it…The huge exception to this was welfare reform where a good part of the “Great Society” was rolled back…then comes GW Bush…He ran as a Conservative and signaled his fiscal liberalism by using his “Compassionate Conservative line…but by and large he ran as a traditional conservative rhetorically…Republicans were able to take cover for not being able to shrink government or at least stop it from growing for four years because the Dems controlled the Senate…

    Then comes 2004…Republicans controlled the Executive as well as the legislative branch for the first time in nearly 100 years and a chance to do what they’ve been running on since 1980…what did they do???

    They spent like Democrats, they sat back and let the Democrats run circles around them…they refused to deal with Earmark abuse, they refused to deal with currupt leaders in their midst, they never even voted on making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent which expire in 2010, (which by the way is the first tax increase in the Obama Presidency since they will expire without any action by the Dems so when the Marriage penalty returns, and the death tax and the taxes on lower incomes that were eliminated return…it will be the Republicans who are responsible for it)…They’ve laid down before the Dems on the Judiciary committee after the gang of 14 and haven’t confirmed nearly any judges since that deal was done by our former fearless leader…and along comes 2006 and 2008…

    Is it any friggin wonder we are where we find us today?…And David Brooks want’s more of the same?…In fact he want’s to stomp on the gas!

    In the words of James Trafficant, Former Congressman and current inmate….Beam me up Scotty!

  • aceintx

    nt

  • aceintx

    nt

  • ofjay

    I can’t pay attention to all the threads that go on, just sayin’ I said something to the same effect I guess, and I thought you were talking about me.

    I really want to scuttle back into my shell right now I feel a little embarassed.

  • aaronbg

    I think we are on the same page overall.

  • aceintx

    the social conservatives need their government to help make us better Christians.

    Most Christians are part of the “Leave me alone” coalition…we want to be allowed to congregate in public an be allowed to exorcise the same free speech rights the rest of you have…We’re not all for big government encroachment in our lives…and I’d be willing to bet that if it could be quantified there are far more Conservative Christians that want a less intrusive smaller central government that all the intelectualoids and self proclaimed fiscal conservatives in the Party

  • ZootSuit

    I am most definitely NOT arguing that social conservatives are (invariably or even mostly) fiscally liberal. Indeed, I think the facts show the opposite: that, generally speaking, social conservatives are also fiscal conservatives. Indeed, I even put myself in that category; notice that I call myself out for my socially conservative views (and even, in a separate post, reference my “Austrian” economic views to highlight my fiscal conservatism).

    But what I am saying is that once a candidate comes out in support of life and/or marriage, irrespective of any other positions they may hold, not only the press but also we conservatives start labelling them as “conservatives.” Indeed, look at George W. Bush and Mike Huckabee (the latter coming out against the “bailout” package notwithstanding). Quite frankly, when you look at their total records, it is quite hard to consider either Bush or Huckabee as conservatives. Yet, not only the MSM but we also accredit them as such.

    If a pro-life, pro-family candidate or politician supports the other tenants of conservatism (i.e. free-markets, limited government, individual responsibility, and the rule of law), then I personally will consider them a conservative. But if they do not, they are simply “pro-life liberals” in my book.

    That is what I mean when I say that conservatives have been pandering to the social conservatives; because, in general, we have not held many of them accountable for their non-conservatives views, policies, and positions. George W. Bush being Exhibit A.

  • aceintx

    But what I am saying is that once a candidate comes out in support of life and/or marriage, irrespective of any other positions they may hold, not only the press but also we conservatives start labelling them as “conservatives.” Indeed, look at George W. Bush and Mike Huckabee (the latter coming out against the “bailout” package notwithstanding).

    That’s why I said I agree above…I guess I did in deed misinterpret what you were saying mainly because there are many here making the false dichotomy that I accused you of…i.e. that all SoCons are FisLibs

  • davo

    I saw Brooks on CMS a while back and was completely disgusted by his excited pandering for the approval of these losers. That’s when I saw the light.

  • EricS

    Infants should not be allowed on planes. Period. Because their inner ears are not fully formed, they suffer far more severely than adults, who can at least rationalize the pain. Taking infants on airplanes is a form of child abuse. As a veteran of many intercontinental flights, I’m astounded at the number of parents who are willing to subject infants to such pain. Or two subject tow or three-year olds, who so desperately want to move around,to restraints.

    My advice? If you want your children to unite with other family members, drive.

  • KyleH

    While conservatives were the majority of the GOP and while the GOP had majority control of the House and Senate, it was a slim control with always enough RINO’s to thwart most conservative policy.

    Even so, those who were suppose to be conservatives in the GOP did not vote like it.

  • Diogenes314

    I suppose menshevik and bolshevik were already taken.

    Saying you are the majority does not make it so. Conservatives must, however, publically contest the post-modern deconstruction of language.

    You could start there by refraining from refering to the proressives/leftists as ‘liberal’. As was pointed out, Mises was a self defined Liberal. As were Hayek and at one point Reagan. Our founding fathers-Liberals. The conservatives then were known as Tories. You know, the side that lost.

    And your telling me Romney is any better…blah, blah, blah…which makes him likely the one person more responsible for the results on November 4th with John Sydney McCain as the loan exception!

    and you want to blame Palin?

    No, I want to elect her. I’d put the onus on the Huckster and his disciples. Good job on voting for the guy who only polled well in the solid red states, enabling the guy who was loved in the solid blue states to push out the candidate who could have won the swing states.

    …and as Eric pointed out…it wasn’t moderates who stayed home…it was those disaffected with a party that would cram John McCain down our throats and insult us by declaring that we wouldn’t go anywhere when the party was told over and over again there would be enough that stayed home to throw the election..The fact is that turnout was the same this year as it was in 2004 with the exception of the Conservatives who stayed home…their votes could have swung this election the other way…

    **And there you have it. Who elected Obama? The ‘conservatives’ who sat on their hands because their particular candidate wasn’t running.

    Good job. Enjoy the Obamanation.**

  • EricS

    I can’t help but agree. The so-called SoCon movement has increased the size of government and extended government intrusiveness into our personal lives (e.g. the Patriot Act.)

    It’s time for SoCons to go. I don;t want a government that spends millions of dollars sneaking into my internet searches, deciding who I can marry, or whether my daughter can have an abortion (that is her decision, not the government’s). I’m offended by such intrusions into my and my family’s private lives.

    President Reagan made a devil’s deal when he enlisted SoCons as his support base. George W. Bush extended the error by expanding the government and handing out intrusive executive orders like Halloween candy.

    It’s time government got out of our personal lives.

    My advice to the Republican Party: Get rid of the SoCons. The Palins, the Limabughs, and the Hannity’s. They have no business preaching to the public, and are only interested in promoting themselves. They are a drag on the ticket and have no real understanding of the fundamental principles of the Republican Party.

    Let’s get back to basics: Smaller government and no intrusion into personal lives.

  • gamecock
  • gamecock

    Can have some of what you are taking!

    on a roll ee

  • Diogenes314

    is refering to the left wing of the GOP as ‘reformers’. Reagan was a reformer, as was Newt. They reformed the party and the political dialogue by focuaing on issues with a broad base of support within the GOP and the nation at large. Reagan with a strong defense and sound economic policy, Newt with the Contract with America which focused on areas of broad appeal. Those who would have us do anything to regain power are nothing but politicians. In the worst sense of the word. And neither those who wish to pander to particular issue groups within the GOP or those who want to meet the Party of Pelosi in the middle are thinking clearly about long term success.

    We need to focus on such things as reforming the economy, energy policy, education policy and other areas where the Pelosistas are acting diametricly opposite to the interests of the electorate, and frame the discussion in a way that exposes their warped ideology.

    Or we could just argue about abortion, gay marriage and stem cells. And help (re)elect someone to be President who will appoint SC Justices who will create more new ‘rights’ and strike down more sensible laws. Cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face-The new GOP pasttime?

  • eburke

    are at about the same level as your reasoning skills.

    Um, if you actually read what I wrote you would realize that I was skewering you and your ‘socially moderate/fiscally conservative’ brothers and sisters for being fiscally irresponsible at a far higher level than the SoCons could ever dream of being. So much for basic reading comprehension.

    The rest of your reply demonstrates a lack of knowledge of voting patterns and a dearth of basic reasoning skills. Hate to break it to you, but with your friends, the SocMods leading the way on a drunken spending orgy causing independents to see the party of Reid/Pelosi/Obama as the fiscally conservative party for crying out loud, booting the SoCons out of the GOP would leave you and McCain with about, oh, 20% of the popular vote.

    But hey, the MSM kool-aid does taste good, don’t it?

  • mom2oneson

    I have excruiciating ear pain when flying too. I had to fly with an infant on a two leg flight, I nursed him during take off and landing, most of flight time he slept and nursed, he was fine, I was ready to scream with the ear pain as usual though.
    I agree though, I would never fly wtih small children for something that isn’t a necessity.

  • Uma_Richie

    None of my infants showed the slightest indication of pain. All three flew by the age of 3 months. Two made intercontinental flights at that age.

    Believe me, I am not masochistic enough to want to fly with my children, usually without my husband, unless it were absolutely, positively necessary.