A Blast From the Past-No U-Turns By David Brooks

[General Mung Beans]

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/op ... .html?_r=0

Op-Ed Columnist
No U-Turns
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: March 29, 2007

There is an argument floating around Republican circles that in order to win again, the G.O.P. has to reconnect with the truths of its Goldwater-Reagan glory days. It has to once again be the minimal-government party, the maximal-freedom party, the party of rugged individualism and states’ rights.

This is folly. It’s the wrong diagnosis of current realities and so the wrong prescription for the future.

Back in the 1970s, when Reaganism became popular, top tax rates were in the 70s, growth was stagnant and inflation was high. Federal regulation stifled competition. Government welfare policies enabled a culture of dependency. Socialism was still a coherent creed, and many believed the capitalist world was headed toward a Swedish welfare model.

In short, in the 1970s, normal, nonideological people were right to think that their future prospects might be dimmed by a stultifying state. People were right to believe that government was undermining personal responsibility. People were right to have what Tyler Cowen, in a brilliant essay in Cato Unbound, calls the “liberty vs. power” paradigm burned into their minds — the idea that big government means less personal liberty.

But today, many of those old problems have receded or been addressed. Today the big threats to people’s future prospects come from complex, decentralized phenomena: Islamic extremism, failed states, global competition, global warming, nuclear proliferation, a skills-based economy, economic and social segmentation.

Normal, nonideological people are less concerned about the threat to their freedom from an overweening state than from the threats posed by these amorphous yet pervasive phenomena. The “liberty vs. power” paradigm is less germane. It’s been replaced in the public consciousness with a “security leads to freedom” paradigm. People with a secure base are more free to take risks and explore the possibilities of their world.

People with secure health care can switch jobs more easily. People who feel free from terror can live their lives more loosely. People who come from stable homes and pass through engaged schools are free to choose from a wider range of opportunities.

The “security leads to freedom” paradigm is a fundamental principle of child psychology, but conservative think tankers and activists have been slow to recognize the change in their historical circumstance. All their intellectual training has been oriented by the “liberty vs. power” paradigm. (Postwar planning in Iraq was so poor because many in the G.O.P. were not really alive to the truth that security is a precondition for freedom.)

The general public, which is less invested in abstract principles, has been quicker to grope its way toward the new mental framework. As a Pew poll released last week indicated, the public has not lost its suspicion of big government. Most Americans believe government regulation does more harm than good. But they do think government should be more active in redressing segmentation and inequality. Almost all corporations, including Wal-Mart, have extraordinarily high approval ratings. But voters are clearly anxious about globalization.

The Republican Party, which still talks as if government were the biggest threat to choice, has lost touch with independent voters. Offered a choice between stale Democrats and stale Republicans, voters now choose Democrats, who at least talk about economic and domestic security.

The Democrats have a 15 point advantage in voter identification. Voters prefer Democratic economic policies by 14 points, Democratic tax policies by 15 points, Democratic health care policies by 24 points and Democratic energy policies by 20 points. If this is a country that wants to return to Barry Goldwater, it is showing it by supporting the policies of Dick Durbin.

The sad thing is that President Bush sensed this shift in public consciousness back in 1999. Compassionate conservatism was an attempt to move beyond the “liberty vs. power” paradigm. But because it was never fleshed out and because the Congressional G.O.P. rejected the implant, a new Republican governing philosophy did not emerge.

The party is going to have to make another run at it. As it does, it will have to shift mentalities. The “security leads to freedom” paradigm doesn’t end debate between left and right, it just engages on different ground. It is oriented less toward negative liberty (How can I get the government off my back?) and more toward positive liberty (Can I choose how to lead my life?).

Goldwater and Reagan were important leaders, but they’re not models for the future.

The irony is that much of the GOP has adopted the worst aspects of both factions-being fanatically anti-tax and spending on government programs while at the same time retaining the extremely aggressive stance toward Iran, and opposing any cuts in military spending.

[Mr Bean]

Wait a minute... wait a minute.... WAIT A MINUTE

Okay read this portion of the OP again.

The general public, which is less invested in abstract principles, has been quicker to grope its way toward the new mental framework. As a Pew poll released last week indicated, the public has not lost its suspicion of big government. Most Americans believe government regulation does more harm than good. But they do think government should be more active in redressing segmentation and inequality. Almost all corporations, including Wal-Mart, have extraordinarily high approval ratings. But voters are clearly anxious about globalization.

My understand is that this is simply patently false unless you stick to company press releases. Many corporations are actively hated in America. Wal-mart in particular suffers from being widely hated yet still used by everyone in the 100k or less bracket. And there are plenty of companies who are in that same situation like your Cable Company of choice. I don't care if it's Time Warner, Comcast or Insert name here most people hate their Cable provider but lack of choice means it's them or no one. And what about Airline Companies, is there a Airline company out there with a high approval rating on any survey?

I can understand why some companies like say Apple or Google might be beloved by the public but where is David Brooks getting this idea Americans give corporations high approval ratings. The searches I ran turned up very similar lists with companies like Apple and Google at the top, a few other companies like Starbucks keeping them company, a few mid 50s approval raitings companies and then a giant score of companies with 30% or less approval ratings. People don't forget the shitty customer service that's to be expected these days from a company like AT&T or Comcast and it it's this year or ten years later they remember when their bill was 500$ higher than it should be and it took five hours on the phone to straiten it out, or the cable installer never showed up twice. I can ask people and they remember shit from 1995 that they instantly remember that pre-disposes them to hate certain companies and give them low marks if surveyed on the subject. So again where is David Books getting this idea.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Also ... from the OP ...

the G.O.P. were not really alive to the truth that security is a precondition for freedom.

The same G.O.P. responsible for the Patriot Act? And numerous other curtailments of civil liberties for the stated purpose of protecting our freedom?

I don't buy this argument in the least. It seems really shallow. Hell, I don't even think I buy his argument that Goldwater/Reagan's policies were right for their time and place, but I don't know enough about that to be completely confident.

[Civil War Man]

Also ... from the OP ...

the G.O.P. were not really alive to the truth that security is a precondition for freedom.

The same G.O.P. responsible for the Patriot Act? And numerous other curtailments of civil liberties for the stated purpose of protecting our freedom?

I think you are confusing the point he was trying to make in that regard. When he's talking about security, he's not talking about warrantless wiretapping or extraordinary rendition. Security in the context he was using would include, for example, still having health insurance after you lose your job. Or feeling safe enough that you can go run errands without being afraid that you'll be shot, regardless of whether the shooter is a terrorist, a lone nut, or a corrupt cop. When you have that kind of security, your basic needs are met, which gives you more flexibility in how you live your life.

In that respect, the Patriot Act was the opposite of security, since it was pretty much designed from the ground up to keep people afraid. They fuel paranoia that results in conspiracy theories like FEMA death camps, Trutherism, Second Amendment Solutions, or shipping political opponents to Guantanamo.

[Simon_Jester]

Also ... from the OP ...

the G.O.P. were not really alive to the truth that security is a precondition for freedom.

The same G.O.P. responsible for the Patriot Act? And numerous other curtailments of civil liberties for the stated purpose of protecting our freedom?

I don't buy this argument in the least. It seems really shallow. Hell, I don't even think I buy his argument that Goldwater/Reagan's policies were right for their time and place, but I don't know enough about that to be completely confident.

Ziggy, I wasn't around then (not sure you were) but I've read a lot of the literature of the era.

While we can dispute if they were right, those policies at least made some sense. The 1970s was a period when government power over the economy had been expanding steadily and rapidly for about 40 years without any real sign of reversal or change. If trends had continued to the present day, we could well be living in full-blown state capitalism by now.

And there are real problems with that- an upper limit on how much inefficiency you can tolerate as the price of restraining private power. Take it too far and you get something half-paralyzed and crippled and uncompetitive, like the Soviets.

It wasn't out of line for people to worry in the late 1970s that the US economy had lost its dynamic drive, and was floundering under the control of intrusive federal policies that never seemed to fix or improve anything.

[D.Turtle]

While we can dispute if they were right, those policies at least made some sense. The 1970s was a period when government power over the economy had been expanding steadily and rapidly for about 40 years without any real sign of reversal or change. If trends had continued to the present day, we could well be living in full-blown state capitalism by now.

Umm, I would like to see some evidence for the underlined part.

[Edi]

Most things written by David Brooks should come with a full dump truck of salt as a side dish as a matter of course. He has been consistently wrong on too many issues to be taken at face value and while some of the arguments sound plausible in some respects, he makes too many of them as statements of fact without any supporting evidence.

[kc8tbe]

And there are plenty of companies who are in that same situation like your Cable Company of choice. I don't care if it's Time Warner, Comcast or Insert name here most people hate their Cable provider but lack of choice means it's them or no one. And what about Airline Companies, is there a Airline company out there with a high approval rating on any survey?

This is a nitpick, since I totaly agree with your point, but yes, I'm of the opinion that Southwest Airlines is awesome. The prices are very competitive, you can check two bags for free, sit wherever you want, change your ticket without a penalty, and they even give you a bag of peanuts! Airlines are interesting in that, even with the recent consolidation that's been going on, there are still typically more than three airlines that operate between your origin and destination. Contrast that with Amtrak's monopoly or Cable/DSL Internet duopolies where the companies either can't please everyone or don't care to. Unfortunately, the US government probably fits in the duopoly category.

[Simon_Jester]

While we can dispute if they were right, those policies at least made some sense. The 1970s was a period when government power over the economy had been expanding steadily and rapidly for about 40 years without any real sign of reversal or change. If trends had continued to the present day, we could well be living in full-blown state capitalism by now.

Umm, I would like to see some evidence for the underlined part.

I concede temporary reversals, but look at the long term trend:

1920s:
Laissez-faire capitalism leads to horrible economic crash in 1929.

1930s:
"Rugged individualism" is tried and fails under Hoover, FDR elected in 1932. FDR proceeds to enact large new federal programs, claiming and getting wide-reaching federal power over banks, industry, labor relations,

AT THE TIME, the constitutionality of many of his measures was questioned by conservatives who thought they were unnecessary and possibly harmful to the American way of life. Some of those same measures were struck down by the Supreme Court as going beyond the level of power the Constitution allows to the federal government.

Note that 'technocratic' government was quite popular in the US in the 1930s; FDR was somewhat influenced by this. The ideal model might be thought of as public-private partnership, instead of socialism, but it definitely involved more state management of the economy.

FDR's New Deal didn't make the Depression go away, even as it did a huge amount to relieve the pain and keep it from destroying the American political system the way it did to, say, Weimar Germany.

1940s:
First we have World War Two: take the major expansion of New Deal control over the economy, and add a big dose of total war mobilization. Essentially all aspects of economic life were being managed. That had happened in World War One, but back then the controls were removed as a "return to normalcy" when the war ended.

This time, a lot of the mobilization controls were removed, but some weren't- the government never shrank back to its prewar size, nor did the military-industrial complex because of the Cold War. The federal government also began asserting more power to enforce federal policy in areas the states traditionally saw as their own- you may think the central government was right to do so, so do I, but the fact remains that it did assert such powers. The balance of authority was definitely shifting from provincial to federal.

1950s:
This was a time of a growing military-industrial complex to feed the Cold War, an ongoing federal role in resolving labor and civil rights issues (see Little Rock Nine), huge new federal infrastructure projects that changed a lot of lives in America (the interstate highways). Top tax brackets were up around 90%, a legacy of World War Two. Capitalism was alive and in no threat from the state- but mostly because it cooperated closely with the state. "What's good for General Motors is good for America, and vice versa" was an attitude you might hear from either a government official or a GM executive. And both men would probably agree on what kind of company GM should be for that to remain true.

1960s:
Great social ferment, the boomers coming of age, the civil rights movement reaching its peak of energy. More massive federal projects (Apollo, the Vietnam War, continuing federal spending on urban renewal and highway construction). Federal laws that changed the basis of racial and gender relations (civil rights). The "Great Society" welfare programs, which for the first time guaranteed that the federal government would spend large sums of money supporting entire economic classes of people.

You can say all this was progress; I'm inclined to agree. But again, we cannot deny that it was happening- that the federal role in society was growing stronger, while local governments and traditional 'NGO' centers of power grew relatively less strong.

1970s:
For the first time since World War Two, the economy enters what everyone agrees is a sharp, painful slump. Nixon and Ford (both Republicans; how times have changed) continue the tradition of trying to use federal action to stimulate the economy back to life, beating the combo of economic stagnation and currency inflation. Nixon in particular uses what would now be seen as fairly extreme measures, like price controls and the abandonment of the Bretton-Woods standards.

Government action does not appear to fix things. The oil crises don't go away, the Middle East remains in chaos, the Soviets keep getting stronger. The economy stays stagnant, jobs are hard to come by- it's not nearly as bad as the Depression but it's bad.



Now. You can question my interpretation. You can say "but you're ignoring X!"

To do so is kind of missing my point. While the narrative I've just written isn't 100% nailed down with piles of statistics and a ten page thesis, it's not grossly out of line with the picture you'd get from most history books, or from living through the era in question. We can agree that FDR's reforms were a good idea, but it's grossly stupid to deny that they were change, and a change that involved increasing government power.

If you were an American in the mid-1970s, it would not be unreasonable to think the following:

"The government has been getting bigger and stronger with at most minor local reverses since 1932. There is very little more the state can do to increase its control over the economy, short of outright nationalizing industries and so on. And yet the economy is bad, and isn't getting better. Some of these social projects like the Great Society don't seem to be working right either; instead of crime and poverty getting lower they only seem to get worse!* Maybe... maybe the government is as big as it can get without making things worse. Or maybe we've passed the point of making things worse. Maybe Nixon and Ford, or even Johnson and Eisenhower, have been trying too hard to run everything. Maybe less is more, less control means more freedom and flexibility..."

And it would not be unreasonable to want to explore that possibility a bit. It would represent a big change of direction for the country, but then if you live in the mid-1970s, a change of direction sounds pretty good.

Today, we've explored that possibility very thoroughly and it turned out that it led to a lot of dead ends and crises. But at the time it wasn't some kind of sheer drooling idiocy to be interested in the idea.

People in a democracy deserve the right to explore different approaches to government without being condemned as idiots every time they vote for something that turns out not to work as well as they'd hoped.
__________

*This is an exaggeration, influenced partly by mass media. But people ARE influenced by mass media, they do not have to be stupid to think "more TV news reports of slashers killing people in parks" means "more people are getting killed in parks." At least, not for a definition of 'stupid' that doesn't include practically the whole human race...

[Ziggy Stardust]

I am not doing a piece-by-piece response to Simon Jester, but I am just going to quote the following bit because it is a good example of what I want to make a point about:

1920s:
Laissez-faire capitalism leads to horrible economic crash in 1929.

1930s:
"Rugged individualism" is tried and fails under Hoover

This is my problem with arguments like the one in the OP essay. Summing up a decade of political and economic events into a catch-phrase. I am not saying that "laissez-faire" is a meaningless term, and wasn't a part of what was responsible for the stock market crash, but it is an incredible oversimplification. Hell, just reading the Wikipedia entry on the subject, without even getting into actual academic and historical works, paints a more complex and nuanced picture of what happened. And this is what the OP did, as well, turning the argument into a simplistic model that may or may not fit all the facts.

It is exactly this type of thinking that is exacerbated by TV sound bites, and seems to be the entire basis of modern American political discourse. Nobody actually discusses, or even comprehends, the totality of the issues, because everything is reduced to these distorted 140-character-or-less* strawman representations.

"Hey, America! Remember how much you liked being alive in 1987? Do you know why that was? REAGAN! And why did you hate 2007 so much? NOT ENOUGH REAGAN!"

Obviously this is a cartoonish exaggeration, but I think my point stands. It is neither informative nor helpful to just waive your hands and say, "Laissez-faire caused the Depression" or "Big government caused X problem".

*= pointless bash at Twitter, heh.

[D.Turtle]

I concede temporary reversals, but look at the long term trend:

snip

Now. You can question my interpretation. You can say "but you're ignoring X!"

To do so is kind of missing my point. While the narrative I've just written isn't 100% nailed down with piles of statistics and a ten page thesis, it's not grossly out of line with the picture you'd get from most history books, or from living through the era in question.

Within two posts you've jumped around between stating the development towards increased state capitalism as an opinion/narrative and fact several times. If you think it is a possible interpretation of the development over several decades, then say so. Do not make statements like:

While we can dispute if they were right, those policies at least made some sense. The 1970s was a period when government power over the economy had been expanding steadily and rapidly for about 40 years without any real sign of reversal or change. If trends had continued to the present day, we could well be living in full-blown state capitalism by now.

Because that statement does not in anyway reflect the view that this is a possible interpretation/narrative, but instead is a clear statement of fact.

One that is patently untrue.

The development of the US was towards something more akin to social capitalism, and not state capitalism. Pretty much all the things you mentioned (with exception of the economy during World War 2) are things that add to the social safety net. Of course that leads to an increase in involvement in the economy, but they do not in any way represent a development towards state capitalism, which would require the government to take over or use state-owned businesses to a large degree.

Your statement was patently untrue, and your explanation of that statement already is a huge backpedaling from that spot. Maybe you should think about what you write, before you write long posts completely missing the point, bringing up a hundred disconnected matters, resulting in huge-ass posts that are almost entirely useless.

[Simon_Jester]

I am not doing a piece-by-piece response to Simon Jester, but I am just going to quote the following bit because it is a good example of what I want to make a point about:

1920s:
Laissez-faire capitalism leads to horrible economic crash in 1929.
1930s:
"Rugged individualism" is tried and fails under Hoover

This is my problem with arguments like the one in the OP essay. Summing up a decade of political and economic events into a catch-phrase. I am not saying that "laissez-faire" is a meaningless term, and wasn't a part of what was responsible for the stock market crash, but it is an incredible oversimplification. Hell, just reading the Wikipedia entry on the subject, without even getting into actual academic and historical works, paints a more complex and nuanced picture of what happened. And this is what the OP did, as well, turning the argument into a simplistic model that may or may not fit all the facts.

The OP essay is itself a complaint about the oversimplified, under-nuanced, inflexible state of modern American conservatism. That it keeps being cast as "government power versus individual economic freedom," when it's really not that simple. And that pretending it is could wreck the Republicans' ability to govern the country effectively.

This is Brooks, the same guy who more or less wound up persona non grata among Republican intellectuals by pointing out that the party has taken a sharp turn toward lunacy with the rise of the Tea Party. And he wrote this in, what, 2007? I consider it interesting as a prediction of what the post-Bush Republican party would become.

Obviously this is a cartoonish exaggeration, but I think my point stands. It is neither informative nor helpful to just waive your hands and say, "Laissez-faire caused the Depression" or "Big government caused X problem".

It's usually not. On the other hand, sometimes it's nice to say things concisely. Sometimes writing a ten-page position paper on every detail of your argument just clutters things up, and gets you nowhere.

(And yes, it's me saying it)

Within two posts you've jumped around between stating the development towards increased state capitalism as an opinion/narrative and fact several times. If you think it is a possible interpretation of the development over several decades, then say so. Do not make statements like:

While we can dispute if they were right, those policies at least made some sense. The 1970s was a period when government power over the economy had been expanding steadily and rapidly for about 40 years without any real sign of reversal or change. If trends had continued to the present day, we could well be living in full-blown state capitalism by now.

Because that statement does not in anyway reflect the view that this is a possible interpretation/narrative, but instead is a clear statement of fact.

One that is patently untrue...

If you're going to issue orders, will you permit me to clarify my position?

If you like, I'll be happy to clarify in my next post- but if I do it and get accused of backpedaling from whatever version I'm supposed to have believed before, it's pointless to bother.

[D.Turtle]

If you're going to issue orders, will you permit me to clarify my position?

If I act in my position as a moderator, I generally make it clear I am. In this case, I am making it clear (now) that I was not acting in my position as a moderator.

If you like, I'll be happy to clarify in my next post- but if I do it and get accused of backpedaling from whatever version I'm supposed to have believed before, it's pointless to bother.

Your clarifications generally are of the same type of clarification as those made by politicians. So, if it makes you feel better, go ahead and clarify. Won't stop me from pointing out how far you're backpedaling and changing your position.

Of course, changing one's position because of further thought, arguments, debate, etc is not bad. Acting like one has always had the new/changed position - when evidence clearly shows that not to be true - is something else however.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The OP essay is itself a complaint about the oversimplified, under-nuanced, inflexible state of modern American conservatism. That it keeps being cast as "government power versus individual economic freedom," when it's really not that simple. And that pretending it is could wreck the Republicans' ability to govern the country effectively.

My problem with the essay is that his justifications for complaining about oversimplified idealism are based themselves on oversimplified idealism. At least, so far as I can tell. As I have already admitted, this is not a topic in which I am well versed. It just seems to me his boiling down of the 1970s to "big government BAD" doesn't hold water. Though I could very well be wrong.

This is Brooks, the same guy who more or less wound up persona non grata among Republican intellectuals by pointing out that the party has taken a sharp turn toward lunacy with the rise of the Tea Party. And he wrote this in, what, 2007? I consider it interesting as a prediction of what the post-Bush Republican party would become.

Meh, I've never heard of this guy, in all honesty.

On the other hand, sometimes it's nice to say things concisely. Sometimes writing a ten-page position paper on every detail of your argument just clutters things up, and gets you nowhere.

That's the problem with arguments like the one I am making. Just how far can you realistically simplify something before it loses meaning? There aren't any hard and fast rules, it depends entirely on the issue and the audience. I just feel that politics are especially prone to a particularly distorted type of simplification. For example, the common meme of a president or politician having "political capital." It's an utterly meaningless statement; political capital doesn't exist. Technically, it is short-hand for "not pissing off his colleagues," but is that really how it is used? Pundits and news media actually treat political capital as if it were something real and meaningful as opposed to a metaphor. And that's what I see happening here, with this essay. By simplifying the issue in a particular way, you can shape other people's thinking about that issue. Sometimes unreasonably.