David Brooks, the Democrat

So David Brooks is now a swing voter. He's grown so disenchanted with the Republican leadership that he has started giving them advice on how to woo him back. For the most part, I agree with his advice and support his policy proposals. He advises the Republican leadership to "support stem cell research," "spread assets," and "raise taxes on carbon emissions". Those are all important ideas. Unfortunately, they have zero chance of ever gaining the support of George Bush, let alone the Republican party. That's why I'm a Democrat.

What I don't understand is why Brooks isn't a Democrat. Does he really expect Bush to change his mind on stem cells? Or reverse his tax cuts for the rich, which have concentrated assets? Or suddenly propose a tax on carbon? As far as I can tell, nobody but wonky Republican economists are even daydreaming of such policy shifts. However, if Brooks dared to look across the aisle he'd find a solid group of Democratic support for much of his agenda. If he were a genuine swing voter, he'd have given up on Bush and the Republicans a long time ago.

Tags

More like this

I didn't blog about the debt ceiling becauseâ¦Â ugh. The idea that the Republican party would hold the country, and indeed the world economy, hostage is unimaginably awful. The idea that, in the midst of a recession barely worse than the Great Depression, we're talking about cutting government…
Obama's recent tax/unemployment deal with Republicans is a lot less demoralizing once one recognizes that Obama is a Republican, albeit not a completely batshit lunatic one. So I wasn't really going to comment on the most recent Obama capitulation. But several readers asked me for my thoughts on…
Hillary has lost it. First, she signs on with John McCain's idiotic plan to eliminate gas taxes for a while. This is stupid, because it won't actually cut prices (the price of a good like gasoline is dominated by how much customers are willing to pay, and fiddling with the tax won't change demand…
So, there's been much argument lately in my neck of the woods, over the BC's new carbon tax. This is coming online in a few days (July 1st), and will be responsible (amongst many other things) for what has been figured to be a 2.4c/litre hike in gas prices. Anyway, folks are getting quite antsy…

"What I don't understand is why Brooks isn't a Democrat"

Because Milton Friedman whupped his behind in a debate years ago, far as I can tell, and ever since he's wanted to be the right's friend ...

Seems like some "false duality" at work here; either a person must be a Republican or a Democrat. The Republican party has shifted so far to the right that I routinely vote for Democrats, but I have never been a member of that party.

By Mustafa Mond, FCD (not verified) on 30 Nov 2006 #permalink

The answer is real simple. Brooks is a pundit (Brooks and Shields).
He is the one who's supposed to give Republican leaning views. If he declares he's quit the party, he's out of a cushy job.