The old old Brooks. Used to have bad ideas, still has bad ideas.
30
I think progressives and liberals need to encourage Hillary to focus less on Government programs that can be seen as giveaways and more on Government programs that remove istructural barriers to individual success. Pre school for 4 year olds is such a program. Most Americans believe success has mostly to do with individual effort. Government programs should be framed as helping people help themselves. This distinguishes Hillary from Bernie and the Republicans and apparently to Mr Brooks who seems to conflate private pursuit of gain with public good. Not always as our recent Great Recession has shown.
7
David Brooks characterized Hillary Clinton's speech as " economically naive but politically masterful."
I wonder whether he characterizes the squad of GOP candidate speeches as
" economically masterful but politically naive."
I wonder whether he characterizes the squad of GOP candidate speeches as
" economically masterful but politically naive."
14
In any society, the fabric of the common good becomes tattered when too many powerful people are allowed to take unfair advantage of other people who are less powerful.
14
Showing off his Nobel Prize in Economics, I see. No, wait. That would be Krugman - who actually gets it right and would agree with the possibilities Clinton proposes. Instead of "liberally" shilling for the right, something Brooks does best.
14
"Well within the general election mainstream" may be your main criterion for whether or not a candidate has "gone crazy", but for some of us it is at the bottom of our must-have lists.
The "general election mainstream" is an advertising contest. I'm still too sad that Warren isn't running to make up my mind, but Bernie supporters are
on to something and you are the naive one for being so dismissive of them.
The "general election mainstream" is an advertising contest. I'm still too sad that Warren isn't running to make up my mind, but Bernie supporters are
on to something and you are the naive one for being so dismissive of them.
10
No David, liberals do not view the business community as dumb. We just know their only legal responsibility is to make money for stockholders. Period. Businesses direct their considerable energy and intelligence to that one goal.
Government is the only body that can make "smarter decisions" when, for example, a business has to choose between a profitable opportunity that will damage the environment, or another that would not, but is less profitable. The board of directors would be fired if they chose the second option. It takes government regulations to force the obviously smarter choice.
The government is not smarter, it just has the responsibility to make decisions that take into account all the "externalities" that private parties would otherwise force the public to pay.
Examples of smarter decisions that the government forced on industry:
-Banned DDT, PCBs, lead based paint, and other toxic chemicals that build up in the environment (there are more that need to be banned).
-Forced autos and factories to vastly clean air emissions.
-Required sewage and industrial waste treatment.
-Implemented worker safety regs that have saved millions of lives.
-Regulated the banking with Glass-Stiegel (later undone, resulting in our 2008 crash)
-invests in basic research, creating vast new opportunity, the internet, computers, habitat protection, public health, etc.
The list goes on, and of course includes some bad government decisions not always caused by industry.
Government is the only body that can make "smarter decisions" when, for example, a business has to choose between a profitable opportunity that will damage the environment, or another that would not, but is less profitable. The board of directors would be fired if they chose the second option. It takes government regulations to force the obviously smarter choice.
The government is not smarter, it just has the responsibility to make decisions that take into account all the "externalities" that private parties would otherwise force the public to pay.
Examples of smarter decisions that the government forced on industry:
-Banned DDT, PCBs, lead based paint, and other toxic chemicals that build up in the environment (there are more that need to be banned).
-Forced autos and factories to vastly clean air emissions.
-Required sewage and industrial waste treatment.
-Implemented worker safety regs that have saved millions of lives.
-Regulated the banking with Glass-Stiegel (later undone, resulting in our 2008 crash)
-invests in basic research, creating vast new opportunity, the internet, computers, habitat protection, public health, etc.
The list goes on, and of course includes some bad government decisions not always caused by industry.
42
" liberals do not view the business community as dumb"
NO, them view it as evil. To them, everyone should work for either their great god government or a non-profit.
NO, them view it as evil. To them, everyone should work for either their great god government or a non-profit.
4
That Mr. Brooks would use the phrase "a pitchfork marauder" in judging Sec. Clinton is probably the most laughable statement I've ever read of his. Have you looked at your own party, Mr. Brooks?
21
The political scene today is based on an amalgam of extremist positions, or in practical effect, statement, or implementation, an amalgam of watered-down versions of those same extremist positions.
In some things, like national security and the matter of the Middle East and its environs or further beyond, both parties essentially have been accepting the same extremist, militaristic kind of policy that has resulted in a sequence of unending wars.
In other things, now both parties are coming to be forced to accept the same kind of extremist positions on matters of various rights, like rights to marriage, rights to welfare, rights to cross borders with impunity, rights to mandated higher wages, to 'equality' in anything.
So there can't exist a middle ground because even the majority come to accept if not a watered-down version at first, which never actually can work, but almost a full version of the extremist position as posited by radicals who now dominate everything, both foreign and domestic, if not already, in the process of getting to do just that for any matter for government to get its officialdom to work on.
This trend represents an ultimate kind of degradation of democracy, or republic, as we ever knew it. It represents an absolute abdication of leadership. Leaders should not be having to gain respect on basis of lies made, and sheep willing to submit and believe those lies. Leaders should supply real answers.
In some things, like national security and the matter of the Middle East and its environs or further beyond, both parties essentially have been accepting the same extremist, militaristic kind of policy that has resulted in a sequence of unending wars.
In other things, now both parties are coming to be forced to accept the same kind of extremist positions on matters of various rights, like rights to marriage, rights to welfare, rights to cross borders with impunity, rights to mandated higher wages, to 'equality' in anything.
So there can't exist a middle ground because even the majority come to accept if not a watered-down version at first, which never actually can work, but almost a full version of the extremist position as posited by radicals who now dominate everything, both foreign and domestic, if not already, in the process of getting to do just that for any matter for government to get its officialdom to work on.
This trend represents an ultimate kind of degradation of democracy, or republic, as we ever knew it. It represents an absolute abdication of leadership. Leaders should not be having to gain respect on basis of lies made, and sheep willing to submit and believe those lies. Leaders should supply real answers.
5
Mr. Brooks:
It would be refreshing if you might tell us what you are for, instead of finding cause for your speciality: damning with faint praise. Please, tell us what ideas conservatives have for fixing an economically broken society. With fifteen candidates in line for the G.O.P. nomination there must be something that you can advocate for. Show some character, for a change, instead of writing about it.
It would be refreshing if you might tell us what you are for, instead of finding cause for your speciality: damning with faint praise. Please, tell us what ideas conservatives have for fixing an economically broken society. With fifteen candidates in line for the G.O.P. nomination there must be something that you can advocate for. Show some character, for a change, instead of writing about it.
25
"There’s not much individuals can do given the structure of economic power."
This statement is the complete antithesis of Bernie's campaign. Clearly, Brooks has not been paying attention. 250,000 individual contributors believe they can impact the structure of economic power.
This statement is the complete antithesis of Bernie's campaign. Clearly, Brooks has not been paying attention. 250,000 individual contributors believe they can impact the structure of economic power.
16
The irony is thick enough to cut with a knife. Brooks perceives a "fever swamp of class warfare" in what is, in actuality, on honest political movement of the disenfranchised - spontaneously organizing all without an expensive media mouthpiece. It's exactly the idea that this is inherently dismissable which gives that movement strength.
Brooks and his ilk may indeed awake one day to find the world in a state that is not comforting to them, but they will have only their flippancy and tacit cynicism to blame.
Brooks and his ilk may indeed awake one day to find the world in a state that is not comforting to them, but they will have only their flippancy and tacit cynicism to blame.
14
Let's face it Hillary will say anything for a vote. She is pander pander pander all the time. She has a resume that is filled with no accomplishments and she expects people to believe that she can lead. She has not shown any leadership qualities in any of her government jobs. Mr Brooks pointed out the hollowness of her pontifications and the fact that her OLD ideas have not worked. I hope the voters do their homework on her before the pull the lever
6
"Neopaleoliberalism".
This is a Brooksian masterpiece of neoretroobscurantism. He proactively regresses in revising the future. He passive-aggressively forgets to remember the constructive deconstruction of the economy under the pseudoRepublican disAdminstration, whose work relied on word-sausages like this to characterize arson as a neighborhood barbecue.
I love David Brooks. He's funnier than Sarah Palin because he uses way more syllables than she does.
This is a Brooksian masterpiece of neoretroobscurantism. He proactively regresses in revising the future. He passive-aggressively forgets to remember the constructive deconstruction of the economy under the pseudoRepublican disAdminstration, whose work relied on word-sausages like this to characterize arson as a neighborhood barbecue.
I love David Brooks. He's funnier than Sarah Palin because he uses way more syllables than she does.
27
So how does Mr. Brooks propose fixing the giant income gap in this country? While not great, seems to me like government does a much better job regulating than private companies do. The key error in this article, is that democrats believe government is more competent at steering companies towards EVERYONE's best interest, not just their own. We've given the private sector an inch and they've taken a mile over and over and over again.
10
if one wishes to confront the rich, one must wander into the class warfare fever swamps since this is where you will find them. they have been conducting class warfare for 35 years and they're winning. union busting, deregulation, tax breaks, election financing. time to bring justice back to the american economic system.
26
Would it be a good idea, GMoney, for Hillary Clinton to be designated our "Swamp Fox" to lead us into battle and in honor of Revolutionary War Hero, Francis Marion? Marion gave Lord Cornwallis fits in South Carolina long before the Lord was defeated at Yorktown up north. Mrs. Clinton might pick up a few votes from the Palmetto State, to the consternation of the excitable Lindsey Graham.
1
A Big So What on this: ".....and to the left of where Barack Obama was in 2008 or 2012."
What politicians say during the campaign and what ya get are two different things. Most say exactly what they believe will get them elected. So what, why care what each candidate says.
What politicians say during the campaign and what ya get are two different things. Most say exactly what they believe will get them elected. So what, why care what each candidate says.
2
So she's not a leftist wolf, just a leftist coyote. Then again, given her recent challenges with the truth, she may be a leftist T Rex in hiding. All we know for sure about Hillary (other than here gender which will be mentioned ad nauseum during the campaign) is that she will say what she needs to say and do what she needs to do to win.
Beyond that, pick and choose your evidence to build the image you desire. She's basically a candidate embodiment of the Pelosian political school. You have to elect her to find out how far left she really is.
Lest we forget, HillaryCare included fines and jail time for any MD who dared operation outside HillaryCare's embrace. "Work the way I say you work or you won't work at all". That sounds more like T Rex that coyote.
Beyond that, pick and choose your evidence to build the image you desire. She's basically a candidate embodiment of the Pelosian political school. You have to elect her to find out how far left she really is.
Lest we forget, HillaryCare included fines and jail time for any MD who dared operation outside HillaryCare's embrace. "Work the way I say you work or you won't work at all". That sounds more like T Rex that coyote.
4
Today I volunteer to translate how David Brooks hears what Hillary Clinton says:
"Government can write rules to govern how much companies pay their workers" = Raise the minimum wage, pay workers for overtime.
"Government can direct investors toward more sensible long-term investments" = Invest in clean energy and our infrastructure.
"Government can refashion the way companies distribute equity in their companies" = Encourage companies to share profits with their employees
When I look at what Hillary Clinton actually said - as opposed to how David Brooks translates what she said - it seems mighty reasonable.
"Government can write rules to govern how much companies pay their workers" = Raise the minimum wage, pay workers for overtime.
"Government can direct investors toward more sensible long-term investments" = Invest in clean energy and our infrastructure.
"Government can refashion the way companies distribute equity in their companies" = Encourage companies to share profits with their employees
When I look at what Hillary Clinton actually said - as opposed to how David Brooks translates what she said - it seems mighty reasonable.
12
Are you trying to be cute or what. What could be a more meaningless puzzle that a term like "neopaleoliberalism". Is this supposed to be some kind of contribution to the discussion?
And is the repeated use of the concept of government planning supposed to raise fearful concepts of Hilary Clinton as a socialist/communist?
And just in case the reader missed it, a paragraph with the phrase "government can" used 4 times.
So cute.
And is the repeated use of the concept of government planning supposed to raise fearful concepts of Hilary Clinton as a socialist/communist?
And just in case the reader missed it, a paragraph with the phrase "government can" used 4 times.
So cute.
7
The government does make it worse but certain parts of the went up for sale with the help of SCOTUS and now they own Congress which makes the decisions of how business is controlled or not controlled at all. Our country has gone steadily downhill since Reagan was elected. His people pulled the wool over too many minds and how we have to push that back so ordinary people have a chance.
6
Yes. raising the minimum wage would cost some jobs, so instead let's lower the minimum wage to zero and really get full employment like they did in that lovely small government paradise called the antebellum South.
27
David, you have set up a straw man with Hillary as an absolutist. She is one who will effectively negotiate a compromise position with public good interests and private interests. I hope she can swing the pendulum back softly.
8
Oh Please you must be living in La La Land !!!!
1
Universal prosperity is impossible to achieve since the wealthy have cornered the market using the coercive power of government. When hedge fund manager pay taxes on their income using the same laws as the ones applied to line attendants at the local fast food franchise our Miss Brooks will have something to complain about regarding class warfare and other gobbledeygook word salad concepts neo, paleo or otherwise.
The nice financiers who gave the world derivative swaps and AAA mortgage securities larded with built-to-fail loans knew exactly where to send the money when they divvied up the loot. When it came to jailing the responsible parties it all became too complicated to trace. A criminal conspiracy is still a criminal conspiracy regardless whether it is prosecuted or not. People pretending to be corporations getting preferential treatment is the problem. Calling it class warfare is nice, but so far the only side winning is the class of rule makers who mistake themselves for actually making anything useful to anyone but themselves.
The nice financiers who gave the world derivative swaps and AAA mortgage securities larded with built-to-fail loans knew exactly where to send the money when they divvied up the loot. When it came to jailing the responsible parties it all became too complicated to trace. A criminal conspiracy is still a criminal conspiracy regardless whether it is prosecuted or not. People pretending to be corporations getting preferential treatment is the problem. Calling it class warfare is nice, but so far the only side winning is the class of rule makers who mistake themselves for actually making anything useful to anyone but themselves.
15
Mr. Brooks:
interesting that you make an observation,
your own,
that HC's talk was:
"...Stylistically, Clinton still sounds as if she is talking down to her audiences. "
however,
speaking about calling the kettle black,
i am afraid,
sir,
that your recent pronouncements have contained all of the elements to support the argument that this "style-ism" completely matches your presentations.
mirror-mirror-on-the-wall.....
grrrrr
4
David Brooks is perpetually in search of a topic on which he has something interesting to say. The effort is taking him ever further afield.... and this isn't the first time he's thought he should offer Hillary some campaign feedback/advice. which is pretty hilarious in my opinion. I don't know what the NYT pays Brooks but it's hard to believe the money couldn't be spent better elsewhere.
4
Oh, Sander’s "Occupy Wall St" rhetoric? You mean too left wing for American voters? Quick label, instead of discussing Sanders points.
In fact, majorities of voters now agree with many of Sanders proposals. They were once main stream in America, and even ok by Gop decades ago, when moderate Repubs existed on this earth.
But our politics turned so rightward, that the only people in the US who would even utter the words economic inequality –99 vs the 1 %, --was Occupy Wall St. Before that, it was unmentionable.
Middle America wouldn’t be caught dead marching with Occupy. They were trained to equate it with radical counter culture, though they thought maybe it had a point. After all most people’s incomes were stuck, and h/c and education costs were soaring.
But now only the marginalized do street protest for anything. It identifies one as powerless and marginalized. The mainstream citizen stays away. They still don’t realize they have very little influence on our lawmaking, thanks to big money swallowing up our politics.
The financial elites like it when the mainstream news portrays Sanders as some kind of exotic, radical, aging hippie odd-ball!
This makes many voters suspicious of him, though they may like his ideas. This is how the elites keep their hold on our politics and economy.
Let's see how far Clinton evolves, in our overly long election campaign. Her statements were better than I expected. And expressed intelligently.
In fact, majorities of voters now agree with many of Sanders proposals. They were once main stream in America, and even ok by Gop decades ago, when moderate Repubs existed on this earth.
But our politics turned so rightward, that the only people in the US who would even utter the words economic inequality –99 vs the 1 %, --was Occupy Wall St. Before that, it was unmentionable.
Middle America wouldn’t be caught dead marching with Occupy. They were trained to equate it with radical counter culture, though they thought maybe it had a point. After all most people’s incomes were stuck, and h/c and education costs were soaring.
But now only the marginalized do street protest for anything. It identifies one as powerless and marginalized. The mainstream citizen stays away. They still don’t realize they have very little influence on our lawmaking, thanks to big money swallowing up our politics.
The financial elites like it when the mainstream news portrays Sanders as some kind of exotic, radical, aging hippie odd-ball!
This makes many voters suspicious of him, though they may like his ideas. This is how the elites keep their hold on our politics and economy.
Let's see how far Clinton evolves, in our overly long election campaign. Her statements were better than I expected. And expressed intelligently.
6
Another dismissive reference to Thomas Piketty from a self-described centrist. In a frank admission that he himself didn’t bother to read the book, Ross Douthat called “Capital in the 21st Century” a “dense economic text.” It is anything but; Piketty goes out of his way to make the explication of its main theses limpid. The danger that that book, which too extensively harps on similar material toward the end (it could’ve been 100 pages shorter), presents to Ludwig von Mises’s disciples is that its principal argument suggests capitalism has been misrepresented, that the “shocks” (the World Wars) of the 20th century destroyed the capital stock of the Western world and, in tandem with policies put in place to pacify the citizenry, produced a scenario that camouflaged the inherent tendency toward inequality within market systems. This gave the illusion that “capitalism had been overcome.”
David mischaracterizes Clinton’s positions on the economy, making them sound like dirigisme when they’re hardly that. The Wall Street Journal called Clinton’s economic policies a redux of Obamanomics. The only problem is that we never actually got to see Obamanomics in action, did we? Not really. The GOP, overwhelmingly a reactionary lot, has resisted EVERYTHING that this president has attempted to do economically. To call the present state of the economy, still better than the rest of the world, a direct result of Obama’s economic advisors’ policy prescriptions is misleading at best.
David mischaracterizes Clinton’s positions on the economy, making them sound like dirigisme when they’re hardly that. The Wall Street Journal called Clinton’s economic policies a redux of Obamanomics. The only problem is that we never actually got to see Obamanomics in action, did we? Not really. The GOP, overwhelmingly a reactionary lot, has resisted EVERYTHING that this president has attempted to do economically. To call the present state of the economy, still better than the rest of the world, a direct result of Obama’s economic advisors’ policy prescriptions is misleading at best.
9
"The main narrative of the Sanders camp is that the economic game is rigged against ordinary people. The top 1 percent controls the fundamental economic conditions. Major transformation is required. There’s not much individuals can do given the structure of economic power."
Um, this statement is 100% correct. And the argument that government can't help society was proven untrue by FDR. The only problem is that we've been rolling that progress back in the decades since. Heck, I'd just be happy if we went back to the tax structure of the 1950s-1970s. No one was claiming the tax code was "socialism" at that time. But now, no politician (except Sanders) is talking about reestablishing the tax code of the past. It worked then, and it can work again.
Um, this statement is 100% correct. And the argument that government can't help society was proven untrue by FDR. The only problem is that we've been rolling that progress back in the decades since. Heck, I'd just be happy if we went back to the tax structure of the 1950s-1970s. No one was claiming the tax code was "socialism" at that time. But now, no politician (except Sanders) is talking about reestablishing the tax code of the past. It worked then, and it can work again.
15
Dear Mr. Brooks--
Please tell us that you read the comments, especially the Reader's Picks. The only possible reason you could be writing for the New York Times is that you need to learn something, since it is evident from your columns that you are a Know Nothing, 21st century style. You go on and on week after week, putting out the same tired gabble gabble, showing no sign that you see how the world around you, and your oligarchy, work. Please reply to this comment just to show that we are not wasting our time with you. Thanks.
Please tell us that you read the comments, especially the Reader's Picks. The only possible reason you could be writing for the New York Times is that you need to learn something, since it is evident from your columns that you are a Know Nothing, 21st century style. You go on and on week after week, putting out the same tired gabble gabble, showing no sign that you see how the world around you, and your oligarchy, work. Please reply to this comment just to show that we are not wasting our time with you. Thanks.
11
David Brooks typically throws cold water on any effort by government to alter the state of the economic condition of the electorate. Then he repeats that "most people" don't believe in government, echoing the drumbeat of Fox News for the past 20 years. But the truth is that history shows that government action in fact does have a real impact on the economic conditions of its people -- Brooks simply cherry picks some unsuccessful examples to make his case.
I grew up in the 50's and the 60's, when America was considerably more socialist than it is today. That's right, the halcyonic period that so many conservatives idolize was in fact one of the most socialist periods of our history. And in that period, the middle class thrived. Then the GOP, using social issues and outright racist appeals, began the work of dismantling that system. And sure enough, the economic conditions for most Americans began to erode. By the turn of the century, with full-throated conservatism driving liberalism into hiding, the economic conditions for most Americans took a nose dive, while the rich became the super rich.
Those are not opinions, Mr. Brooks. Those are the facts. Those darned pesky facts. Your mythology is not nearly as persuasive as those facts.
I grew up in the 50's and the 60's, when America was considerably more socialist than it is today. That's right, the halcyonic period that so many conservatives idolize was in fact one of the most socialist periods of our history. And in that period, the middle class thrived. Then the GOP, using social issues and outright racist appeals, began the work of dismantling that system. And sure enough, the economic conditions for most Americans began to erode. By the turn of the century, with full-throated conservatism driving liberalism into hiding, the economic conditions for most Americans took a nose dive, while the rich became the super rich.
Those are not opinions, Mr. Brooks. Those are the facts. Those darned pesky facts. Your mythology is not nearly as persuasive as those facts.
12
Actually the CBO study showed $10 minimum wage would have little impact and possibly positive impact because consumers would have more money in their pocket to spend at these places.
8
500,000 jobs lost if minimum wage is raised? That is a completely made up statistic.Youu will hear Republicans quote it again and again, because they think if you repeat something often enough it becomes fact. But it is not.
11
You have written: "In each case, in this view, government is more competent at steering companies toward their own best interests than the companies are themselves. "
That is not basically true. The executives, who run the big companies, are focused on short-term profits. That is because the compensation of the executives is based upon short-term results.
Consequently the long-term interests of the companies often are neglected.
For instance, the executives will be motivated to offshore outsource as many American jobs as possible. The same cost-saving considerations will motivate the executives to grind down the wages of their remaining workers as far as possible.
A long-term outlook would result in programs that valued workers. It makes sense to pay workers more, in order to build a loyal, skilled, and motivated workforce at the company. A long-term outlook would give rise to the training of American workers for higher positions in the firm.
Government programs that benefit workers help the companies that they work for.
That is not basically true. The executives, who run the big companies, are focused on short-term profits. That is because the compensation of the executives is based upon short-term results.
Consequently the long-term interests of the companies often are neglected.
For instance, the executives will be motivated to offshore outsource as many American jobs as possible. The same cost-saving considerations will motivate the executives to grind down the wages of their remaining workers as far as possible.
A long-term outlook would result in programs that valued workers. It makes sense to pay workers more, in order to build a loyal, skilled, and motivated workforce at the company. A long-term outlook would give rise to the training of American workers for higher positions in the firm.
Government programs that benefit workers help the companies that they work for.
3
HC is aspersed as "epistemologically naïve"--itrself epistemically naive-- all naivety lacks knowledge. Besides--general similarity is no basis for dismissing her ideas; the devil's in the details, otherwise "try try again" would be foolish.
Brooks exaggerates the gap between HC and Sanders. They are perfectly compatible.
Sanders--"the economic game is rigged against ordinary people. The top 1 percent controls the fundamental economic conditions. Major transformation is required. There’s not much individuals can do given the structure of economic power."
HC--" individuals can rise and succeed if they are given the right helping hands from government ... childhood education, family and medical leave, tax credits for job training, affordable child care programs ... increased minimum wage ... government is more competent at steering companies than [non government or individuals]...federal interventions would increase growth and productivity, not limit them in the name of fairness.
And "avoiding radical policy ideas embraced by the left, such as a blanket tax on the rich" just means she avoided them.
Major (vs minor) is the weasel word here. Brooks inflates Sanders as a "radical ... pitchfork marauder ...angry...cutting-edge left."
He deflates HC as--wait for it--"paleoliberal." He also dismisses her ideas as "meaningless" which applies to "paleoliberal" in spades. Ideal for Humpty Dumpty--who makes words mean whatever he wants.
Brooks exaggerates the gap between HC and Sanders. They are perfectly compatible.
Sanders--"the economic game is rigged against ordinary people. The top 1 percent controls the fundamental economic conditions. Major transformation is required. There’s not much individuals can do given the structure of economic power."
HC--" individuals can rise and succeed if they are given the right helping hands from government ... childhood education, family and medical leave, tax credits for job training, affordable child care programs ... increased minimum wage ... government is more competent at steering companies than [non government or individuals]...federal interventions would increase growth and productivity, not limit them in the name of fairness.
And "avoiding radical policy ideas embraced by the left, such as a blanket tax on the rich" just means she avoided them.
Major (vs minor) is the weasel word here. Brooks inflates Sanders as a "radical ... pitchfork marauder ...angry...cutting-edge left."
He deflates HC as--wait for it--"paleoliberal." He also dismisses her ideas as "meaningless" which applies to "paleoliberal" in spades. Ideal for Humpty Dumpty--who makes words mean whatever he wants.
4
Neo-paleoliberalism, my eye! I am so sick of Brooks's retread Gilded Age feudalism in a modern business suit. What hasn't worked is the betterment of the great mass of American society as a neo-aristocracy buys up government and everything else.
3
"This speech was more Children’s Defense Fund than Thomas Piketty. It was the sort of speech you give if you spend more time listening to voters, especially female ones, than studying the quintiles in the income distribution charts."
Anoen who has read 'It Takes a Village" has no doubt about her empathy and intelligence and focused view about the most important mission for humanity:
To maximize the potential of their children with love and understanding and solid parenting acumen.
You can't make better adults unless you make better children and in America and Worldwide most children are raised by individuals who should never have bred! And many in conditions that are a disgrace to all of us.
It always saddens and amazes me that The Bible Belters care more about ill equipped people propagating than they do about policies that will augment effective and compassionate Parenting.
Anoen who has read 'It Takes a Village" has no doubt about her empathy and intelligence and focused view about the most important mission for humanity:
To maximize the potential of their children with love and understanding and solid parenting acumen.
You can't make better adults unless you make better children and in America and Worldwide most children are raised by individuals who should never have bred! And many in conditions that are a disgrace to all of us.
It always saddens and amazes me that The Bible Belters care more about ill equipped people propagating than they do about policies that will augment effective and compassionate Parenting.
5
The "private good public bad" notion is as simplistic as the "four legs good, two legs bad" chat upon which it is based.
After the 2001 power blackouts on the West Coast, it was learned that privately owned energy companies had caused these blackouts deliberately and unnecessarily as a means of gaining approval for new power plants.
But there were a few places that had no blackouts, the largest of which was Los Angeles, which has a municipal power system.
For seven years, I lived in a small Oregon town that was otherwise conservative but had somehow ended up with a municipal power company. Friends in Portland marveled at the monthly bill for an all-electric two-bedroom apartment, which was about 1/4 of what they paid for a similar setup. During the seven years, we had exactly one blackout.
When I moved to Portland, served by a privately owned power company, I not only had to start budgeting for higher electric bills but also endured five (count 'em, five) blackouts the first year.
So don't tell me about the virtues of the private sector.
After the 2001 power blackouts on the West Coast, it was learned that privately owned energy companies had caused these blackouts deliberately and unnecessarily as a means of gaining approval for new power plants.
But there were a few places that had no blackouts, the largest of which was Los Angeles, which has a municipal power system.
For seven years, I lived in a small Oregon town that was otherwise conservative but had somehow ended up with a municipal power company. Friends in Portland marveled at the monthly bill for an all-electric two-bedroom apartment, which was about 1/4 of what they paid for a similar setup. During the seven years, we had exactly one blackout.
When I moved to Portland, served by a privately owned power company, I not only had to start budgeting for higher electric bills but also endured five (count 'em, five) blackouts the first year.
So don't tell me about the virtues of the private sector.
5
David, I think you read too much liberal into Ms. Clinton's speech. Perhaps because you need a foil?
Ms. Clinton's speech argues that there is a role for government in looking out for the welfare of the unempowered in a somewhat capitalist economy. That's Eisenhower Republicanism not Dukakis Liberalism.
Ms. Clinton's speech argues that there is a role for government in looking out for the welfare of the unempowered in a somewhat capitalist economy. That's Eisenhower Republicanism not Dukakis Liberalism.
4
Clinton pivoted just enough to woo potential Sanders voters, after all she's running in the primaries. I can't believe anyone would think her sincere.
2
The right-wing Cameron government in the UK just raised the British minimum wage to $14. The right-wing Aussie gov has a minimum wage of $18,
Guess what? The economy is sustained by demand and an economy where one per cent has 46 per cent of the money ain't going nowhere except down the tubes.
Take away food aid and school meals from hungry children! Abolish the estate tax so Kochs' can pass on mastery undiluted to their next and final generation. (oops, mass species extinction, sorry for releasing 2m tonnes of greenhouse gases a month for 50 years.)
Guess what? The economy is sustained by demand and an economy where one per cent has 46 per cent of the money ain't going nowhere except down the tubes.
Take away food aid and school meals from hungry children! Abolish the estate tax so Kochs' can pass on mastery undiluted to their next and final generation. (oops, mass species extinction, sorry for releasing 2m tonnes of greenhouse gases a month for 50 years.)
4
"Clinton’s unchastened faith in the power of government planning is not shared by most voters."
Of course it's not, with the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress why should people have faith in government - except of course the wealthy who benefit from Republican control.
Oh sorry, am I engaging in "class warfare"? I realize we should just keep quiet and let the wealthy do what they want and someday, magically, we'll all benefit. (How many decades or centuries will that be?)
Of course it's not, with the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress why should people have faith in government - except of course the wealthy who benefit from Republican control.
Oh sorry, am I engaging in "class warfare"? I realize we should just keep quiet and let the wealthy do what they want and someday, magically, we'll all benefit. (How many decades or centuries will that be?)
6
Mr. Brooks characterizes his "neopaleoliberalism" as saying "... the private sector is not evil or power hungry, just kind of dumb."
No, I think a better characterization is to be found the word "greed", a la Ayn Rand -- a sort of let-them-eat-cake ism.
Indeed, the Pope has recently expressed on opinion on the matter:
"...[Free market] ideologies ... defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born,..."
On this matter I think liberals stand with the Pope. Free markets require a kind of government guidance that takes into account the "common good", because free-markets, in themselves, do not.
No, I think a better characterization is to be found the word "greed", a la Ayn Rand -- a sort of let-them-eat-cake ism.
Indeed, the Pope has recently expressed on opinion on the matter:
"...[Free market] ideologies ... defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born,..."
On this matter I think liberals stand with the Pope. Free markets require a kind of government guidance that takes into account the "common good", because free-markets, in themselves, do not.
4
Pure GOP defensive speculation that raising the minimum wage costs jobs. When the working class gets a raise they spend it, increasing demand, thus increasing production and employment. The states with higher minimum wages have more employment. Stop spreading myths to protect the greedy producers.
4
Clinton may be naive, but at least she accepts that 'government' isn't ALWAYS the problem, and does, indeed, have a positive role to play in the development of fiscal policy
3
Paleoliberal is defined by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, as "Extremely or stubbornly liberal in political matters." But wait, he states that Hilary is a paleoliberal while seeming to like the word, and apparently misuse it, since Hilary is not as extremely liberal as is Bernie Sanders. Does that make Bernie a super-paleoliberal? And add to this Brooks babbles on about a neopaleoliberal... what a bunch of hogwash.
1
This is a shallow, lazy analysis even for David Brooks. Here are the takeaways:
"Bernie Sander's positions are radical!" Care to provide some examples besides asking the rich to pay their fair share?
"Hillary Clinton believes in Goooovverrrrrnnnnmennnttttt (cue lightning bolt and scary music)." There are 2 types of people running for office: those who believe in using the power of government to advance their agenda, and liars. Only in American politics would candidates have the chutzpa to run repeatedly and desperately for office inspired by the notion that government is always the problem and lack of government action always the solution.
"Hillary is so snobby! Not a single mention of Nascar, deer hunting, AR-15s, or Jesus." You know, all the things that appeal to red blooded conservatives like David Brooks.
"On the plus side, she sounds like Mike Dukakis." Nice touch.
Dave, you really ought to take the summer off and come back when you have an original thought.
"Bernie Sander's positions are radical!" Care to provide some examples besides asking the rich to pay their fair share?
"Hillary Clinton believes in Goooovverrrrrnnnnmennnttttt (cue lightning bolt and scary music)." There are 2 types of people running for office: those who believe in using the power of government to advance their agenda, and liars. Only in American politics would candidates have the chutzpa to run repeatedly and desperately for office inspired by the notion that government is always the problem and lack of government action always the solution.
"Hillary is so snobby! Not a single mention of Nascar, deer hunting, AR-15s, or Jesus." You know, all the things that appeal to red blooded conservatives like David Brooks.
"On the plus side, she sounds like Mike Dukakis." Nice touch.
Dave, you really ought to take the summer off and come back when you have an original thought.
4
"....more on a tremendous faith in government to manage the economy....." And why this emphasis on government? Because, to the left, the most hated words in their lexicon: For profit! The basic assumption is that government workers are idealistic self-sacrificing individuals who sacrifice their own interests for the "communitarian" good. People who think this way (i.e. progressives and other shades of leftists) cannot ever have had close contact with the average government worker - except, of course ideologically sympathetic appointed officials, The nomenklatura of our age.
1
Mr. Brooks has obviously NOT been listening to Senator Sanders. To reduce the Senators positions to one of looking to incite class warfare is frankly pathetic. Since Mr. Brooks has not yet gotten it let me try again.
To put is succinctly... We can do better. Other democracies have better access to health care, better educational systems, a more just distribution of income, more compassionate immigration policies, more enlightened environmental policies, etc....WHY CAN'T WE?????
It's a fair question to ask and one that only Senator Sanders seems to have an answer to.
To put is succinctly... We can do better. Other democracies have better access to health care, better educational systems, a more just distribution of income, more compassionate immigration policies, more enlightened environmental policies, etc....WHY CAN'T WE?????
It's a fair question to ask and one that only Senator Sanders seems to have an answer to.
10
This knuckle-dragging anti-republican had to look up "epistemologic."
Only sure thing is anybody in the GOP using the word correctly has no chance making decisions in the party.
Only sure thing is anybody in the GOP using the word correctly has no chance making decisions in the party.
2
The ideas of the right vs the left -- nonsense. The bottom line is that nobody wants to pay taxes, but somebody has to pay them. Nobody likes government regulations, but regulations are necessary to balance the freedoms and rights of competing individuals. Capitalism works and is an extremely powerful tool because incentives matter. However, capitalism without rules is economic anarchy -- which doesn't work -- and capitalism which is manipulated by the rich and powerful is crony capitalism which seems to be where we are heading now.
The extremely unfortunate and wrong lesson that people seem to have learned from the Reagan era and that Republican's have grabbed on to, is that lowering taxes is good for the economy and creates jobs. But, what Regan and his successors actually did is leverage up the economy with debt and call it growth. And, most people recognize that there is a limit to debt funded growth.
What is needed to fix the deficit problem and address income inequality, in addition to trimming some expenses, is some new taxes such as increased income taxes across the board and increased gas taxes.
If done correctly, taxes can, in addition to raising money, incentivize hiring, alternative fuels, investment, U.S. manufacturing, clean air, etc.
The extremely unfortunate and wrong lesson that people seem to have learned from the Reagan era and that Republican's have grabbed on to, is that lowering taxes is good for the economy and creates jobs. But, what Regan and his successors actually did is leverage up the economy with debt and call it growth. And, most people recognize that there is a limit to debt funded growth.
What is needed to fix the deficit problem and address income inequality, in addition to trimming some expenses, is some new taxes such as increased income taxes across the board and increased gas taxes.
If done correctly, taxes can, in addition to raising money, incentivize hiring, alternative fuels, investment, U.S. manufacturing, clean air, etc.
2
David Brooks, you still have a job?
You know they keep you around so that they can all laugh at you behind your back don't you?
You know they keep you around so that they can all laugh at you behind your back don't you?
3
I've heard more than one conservative claim that the Congressional Budget Office concluded that raising the minimum wage would cost 500,000 jobs. If one actually reads that report, the CBO says that there have been many studies of the job impact of raising the minimum wage, with some going as low as no job loss and some going as high as a million jobs lost, and the mid-point of the estimates is 500,000. The CBO took no position itself on the number of jobs that might be lost if the minimum wage were raised. But it's too convenient to claim that the CBO said that raising the minimum wage would cost 500,000 jobs. It didn't, and while millions would get a raise, I doubt that many, if any, would lose their jobs. The recent minimum wage increases in states and cities around the country point to more jobs being created because demand has increased.
4
Dear Mr. Brooks,
Take the buyout the Times has hopefully offered to you and confine your readership to the true believers, residents of the fever swamps of the right. Wouldn't you much prefer the worshipful adoration of those who believe that another President Bush is a good idea? It can't help but promise more fulfillment than being pummeled by readers who can actually think and reason?
Take the buyout the Times has hopefully offered to you and confine your readership to the true believers, residents of the fever swamps of the right. Wouldn't you much prefer the worshipful adoration of those who believe that another President Bush is a good idea? It can't help but promise more fulfillment than being pummeled by readers who can actually think and reason?
2
" The New Old Liberalism " hmmmm .... and what do we call the Supreme Court ruling " Citizen's United " that basically turned our democracy over to billionaires and multinational corporations ? That ruling was an affront to every voting American and, actually, to our sevice men and women who put their lives on the line for our country. We're in new terroritory David with globalization forced on working Americans, lower wages and no job security to help plan for the future. All of the gains of labor is going to the top and to the CEOS and their executives it is not being shared with their workers. God forbid, that it actually gets reinvested in the business today, it gets siphoned off to the CEOS and shareholders. The same 1% that are getting all of the economic spoils are the same people screaming at the everyday workers who need the minimum wage to increase to be able to live. The current business model isn't sustainable where the 1% stash their money in overseas accounts to avoid paying their fair share of taxes and all of our country's infrastructure costs are put on the backs of the shrinking middle-class. Bernie Sanders is an intelligent and honest man who doesn't pander to special interests and that drives people like you crazy David ! Bernie actually gets it, he voted against going to the Iraq war...he was right . He knows our tax system is skewed to the wealthiest and our college kids are in servitude to outrageous loans. Even the Pope gets it ! Bernie ' 16 !
7
Mr. Brooks opined that
" in this view, government is more competent at steering companies toward their own best interests than the companies are themselves.", which is a clever turn of emphasis on behalf of his class allegiance.
I don't think Hillary was questioning the competency of CEOs to serve their own interests. Like so many of us, she questions their capacity to serve the interests of their workers and the broader national interest.
" in this view, government is more competent at steering companies toward their own best interests than the companies are themselves.", which is a clever turn of emphasis on behalf of his class allegiance.
I don't think Hillary was questioning the competency of CEOs to serve their own interests. Like so many of us, she questions their capacity to serve the interests of their workers and the broader national interest.
5
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Hillary Clinton -
6/29/2004
6/29/2004
1
I cringe at the coupling "neopaleo" but, whatever.
There is one difficulty for Dems to overcome: Our current "depression" was caused by an irresponsible Republican credit bubble that left the consumer so indebted that he was unable to spend at a level that would keep an acceptable minimum of the labor force employed. The solution was for the government to use its borrowing power (and record low interest rates) to employ the unemployed resources in the economy. The solution was denied to us by Republicans and Democrats' hesitancy to taint themselves with the "budget deficit" brush, even as it was Republicans who had taken Clinton's 2000 budget surplus and turned it into a deficit. The last paragraph of Brooks' column today shows that the status quo ante prevails after Hil's speech.
However, there appears to be a sliver of light in the mention of an infrastructure bank.
There is one difficulty for Dems to overcome: Our current "depression" was caused by an irresponsible Republican credit bubble that left the consumer so indebted that he was unable to spend at a level that would keep an acceptable minimum of the labor force employed. The solution was for the government to use its borrowing power (and record low interest rates) to employ the unemployed resources in the economy. The solution was denied to us by Republicans and Democrats' hesitancy to taint themselves with the "budget deficit" brush, even as it was Republicans who had taken Clinton's 2000 budget surplus and turned it into a deficit. The last paragraph of Brooks' column today shows that the status quo ante prevails after Hil's speech.
However, there appears to be a sliver of light in the mention of an infrastructure bank.
2
The term "neopaleo" is obviously intended as a put down. It is one of those "ain't I smart" back of the hand slaps across the face.
rhetoric (def)- language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.
I think people dismiss your views Brooks because of their lack of substance and basis in reality. I think there's a word for that.
I think people dismiss your views Brooks because of their lack of substance and basis in reality. I think there's a word for that.
3
I think it's neopaleoconservatism.
1
The Bernie Sanders rhetoric isn't as crazy as Mr. Brooks believes. He hopes (emphases on that word) to create a working class coalition that spans the conventional, liberal-conservative dichotomy. He said himself, "I am not a liberal", in an attempt attract traditionally conservative classes into an almost apolitical (in its partisanship) movement. Running on the Democratic ticket is the only feasible way to have a chance at winning.
4
Mr. Brooks:
your chosen role of "Head Master overseeing Class Elections"
is abyslmally self-serving.
until you are able to recognize the utter failure of our current
economic model to sustain lives in any reasonable way,
meaningful change of any kind will be impossible for you to comprehend.
no single batch of suggestions will ultimately assist any of us
in moving the common good forward,
but they should continue the conversation to help us to find the best alternatives.
your blind worship at the alter of corporate greed,
always misidentified as some "free-market" that actually is absent
anything resembling 'free',
is a polar position that provides little in the way of solution-making.
"government" should be used to put braking-mechanisms into
our systems, NOT controls...
to provide universal tools of opportunity...
to equitably enforce our laws and rules...
to keep the long-term goal and view in focus...
no single market-place, and surely no corporation, can ever
perform or alone is capable of doing this---ever.
the actual manifestations of a balanced equilibrium in a society
are up to each individual'a active participation in order to achieve.
it is past-time for a re-fresher course, Mr. Brooks...
this summer would be infinitely better than next...
a syllabus is available for you upon your request.
The Phrase "Paeloliberalism" doesn't exactly dance off the tongue does it? I don't think you have set loose a lasting meme with this one, Mr. Brooks. Try, try again.
1
Inferring that Bernie Sanders is crazy in his opening sentence is the tactic of a morally bereft intellectual fraud.
9
He is not inferring it, he is IMPLYING it....
1
"She’s way to the left of where her husband was and to the left of where Barack Obama was in 2008 or 2012."
Considering that both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are for all intent and purpose Rockefeller Republicans in their views, to perceive Hillary Clinton's perceived liberalism is not much of a stretch politically or intellectually.
In essence, more babbling Brooks...
Considering that both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are for all intent and purpose Rockefeller Republicans in their views, to perceive Hillary Clinton's perceived liberalism is not much of a stretch politically or intellectually.
In essence, more babbling Brooks...
6
> In each case, in this view, government is more competent at steering
> companies toward their own best interests than the companies are
> themselves.
Don't think anyone's ever said that. But one of the characteristics of a corrupt debater (you) is the straw man argument.
> companies toward their own best interests than the companies are
> themselves.
Don't think anyone's ever said that. But one of the characteristics of a corrupt debater (you) is the straw man argument.
3
While Brooks seems to think rising through government programs may be a good thing, how will these programs be paid for? Republicans, including Brooks, have a hard time with raising taxes.
The only taxes Brooks seems to think should be raised are the ones for Hedge Fund Managers and even though that has been thrown around since Obama's first term, we still haven't been able to get rid of it.
We need a candidate that will run on a platform and get support for that platform -- not something vague. Without that, we have no mandate, and with no mandate (not for a candidate, but for a platform) we have no hopes that a Congress will do the right thing.
The only taxes Brooks seems to think should be raised are the ones for Hedge Fund Managers and even though that has been thrown around since Obama's first term, we still haven't been able to get rid of it.
We need a candidate that will run on a platform and get support for that platform -- not something vague. Without that, we have no mandate, and with no mandate (not for a candidate, but for a platform) we have no hopes that a Congress will do the right thing.
1
So going crazy is "drifting towards Bernie Saunders"? Well, count me in. I am so crazy for revising the tax code so millionaires pay as much as firefighters (How radical!), that we offer school to all who qualify (Germany does this for free and we know how radical they are), That we recognize the private insurers will not answer the health care problem and we go to single payers system like the rest of the world, That we pay a decent living wage to workers, that we stop then hiding of trillions of dollars off shore, that we stop the corporate welfare of free trade deals, that we guarantee women equal pay, that we stop the defense corruption and welfare and transfer the money to infrastructure repair, that we enforce regulations on the banks including stopping to big to jail actions. Yes, i have drifted towards Bernie. I am soo crazy!!
8
Clinton's speech was pretty good and I will support her if she is the nominee, but until then I'm in Bernie Sanders' camp. Sanders is advocating programs that would truly benefit the 99%, rather than merely tidying up the current system as Clinton is doing.
For Brooks: what in the heck is a paleoliberal or a neopaleoliberal? I'm guessing they're not diets.
For Brooks: what in the heck is a paleoliberal or a neopaleoliberal? I'm guessing they're not diets.
9
Surely Mr. Brooks knows that 'Class Warfare' is a buzzword or euphamism, like 'State's Rights'.
Mr. Brooks is well aware that nobody is 'Going After' the rich, there are not nests of radical 'Communards' preparing to 'occupy Wall Street' for real, despite Beckian fear-mongering. Nobody is marching up Round Hill Road to burn down mansions of the filthy rich or send Trump to the Guillotine.
It's disingenuous to perpetuate the Beck & Limbaugh code-words or promote Reagan's greed-based, trickle-down yuppie ideological extremism so the wealthiest can further corner all the cash.
Promoting policies that correct a regulatory environment that overwhelmingly favors extreme fat-catism to the extreme detriment of everyone else is not radical
If the pretense of the Reaganites was to promote upward mobility by greasing the path for the wealth-obsessed to become immensely more wealthy in the hopes that some of it will rub off on the 'Wage Slave' classes, clearly that is a failed model.
Robber-baron industrialistm & the Finance Cartel are old-school. Great opportunity is no longer created purely by the Profit Motive (Wikipedia was built for free). Great wealth also inhibits altruism & compassion, so favoring the wealthy is therefore destroying the very bonds of society, not lifting all boats.
Mr. Brooks is well aware that nobody is 'Going After' the rich, there are not nests of radical 'Communards' preparing to 'occupy Wall Street' for real, despite Beckian fear-mongering. Nobody is marching up Round Hill Road to burn down mansions of the filthy rich or send Trump to the Guillotine.
It's disingenuous to perpetuate the Beck & Limbaugh code-words or promote Reagan's greed-based, trickle-down yuppie ideological extremism so the wealthiest can further corner all the cash.
Promoting policies that correct a regulatory environment that overwhelmingly favors extreme fat-catism to the extreme detriment of everyone else is not radical
If the pretense of the Reaganites was to promote upward mobility by greasing the path for the wealth-obsessed to become immensely more wealthy in the hopes that some of it will rub off on the 'Wage Slave' classes, clearly that is a failed model.
Robber-baron industrialistm & the Finance Cartel are old-school. Great opportunity is no longer created purely by the Profit Motive (Wikipedia was built for free). Great wealth also inhibits altruism & compassion, so favoring the wealthy is therefore destroying the very bonds of society, not lifting all boats.
11
Tell you what, David. Get back to us when you hear how Ms. Clinton is going to pay for all the unicorns and rainbows. If we just rack up another $4 billion in more debt every day, the next US election cycle may not involve 50, or even 40 states. Bankrupt nations don't get to do much.
As I suspected, there is no here here. Another clump of words not meaning a thing.
Don't know why I bother reading Brooks, at all.
Don't know why I bother reading Brooks, at all.
4
It is rare that somebody trying to sound so smugly intelligent comes across as so dumb. Neopaleoliberal? Come in Mr. Brooks. You can do better than that.
3
I don't think David reads his comments because he just keeps putting out the same story and never tries to answer his critics. He's too right wing to ever adjust his commentary. He is imprinted.
3
Mr. Brooks is a bit more accurate with his political analysis here, but as usual, is way off base with his economics. His rhetoric is insulting. Our economic/corporate elites are not dumb, and they clearly do not see it as their "interest" or mission to enable most US citizens to obtain jobs that will sustain families with some degree of security. That should be the goal of government policy, but our government has not held these folks accountable for the damage they do. It is time for US citizens to hold both government and corporate elites accountable for their negligence and malfeasance.
5
The problem with the left's view of the government's role is that more government equals more corruption. I don't want government bureaucrats creating winners and losers. I don't want the government selecting which wind energy or solar panel company will be awarded subsidies, for example, because invariably the process will be corrupted by special interests, cronyism etc. Private companies are out for themselves but this is a good thing: they are out there clobbering each other to offer the most competitive prices to consumers etc; and in the private sector how well you do is determined by the market, not by "who you know" in government. It's a beautiful thing.
1
"Personally I find this faith epistemologically naïve" Besides being a passive aggressive statement Mr. Brooks has used every pretzel twisting argument he can to make his brand of conservatism seem more reasonable. His assumption that liberal proposals have failed while conservative ones are right on(although he doesn't state which ones). $7 and change is not a living wage. The loss of jobs includes people who now earn enough they do not have to work as many hours. And the effect is minimal. Health Insurance reform has happened only it needs more progressive tweaking. Staying out conflicts that widen our involvement. Social Security. Medicare and Medicaid. Now what social programs have the Republicans produced that has produced as far reaching improvements?
"Personally I find this faith epistemologically naïve. Clinton seems to have no awareness that many of the programs she endorsed have been tried and did not work. ... Clinton displayed no awareness that most federal requirements involve difficult trade-offs." Give it break, Brooks. When was the last time a presidential candidate emphasized "trade-offs" in the primary phase of a campaign and won the nomination? Personally, I'm glad Hilary lives in the real world and not an epistemological one.
Also, your examples of programs that didn't work are wrong or, at best, only partly right. Obama took advantage of the stimulus opportunity to invest in green energy, and despite one high-profile failure (and some failures were to be expected), most of those investments paid off handsomely in a more robust clean energy industry than we ever had before. And empowerment zones largely worked at first, but the poor communities helped could not sustain their economic gains thru later recessions. So rather than not invest in empowerment zones, adjusting the approach to help assure sustainability makes sense. But one thing we can be sure of: Republicans winning the presidency & Congress will bring back plenty of policies that not only did not work, but were disastrous, from tax cuts for the wealthy, to cuts to safety net programs that help those in need AND the broader economy, to deregulation of financial institutions that caused the great recession.
Also, your examples of programs that didn't work are wrong or, at best, only partly right. Obama took advantage of the stimulus opportunity to invest in green energy, and despite one high-profile failure (and some failures were to be expected), most of those investments paid off handsomely in a more robust clean energy industry than we ever had before. And empowerment zones largely worked at first, but the poor communities helped could not sustain their economic gains thru later recessions. So rather than not invest in empowerment zones, adjusting the approach to help assure sustainability makes sense. But one thing we can be sure of: Republicans winning the presidency & Congress will bring back plenty of policies that not only did not work, but were disastrous, from tax cuts for the wealthy, to cuts to safety net programs that help those in need AND the broader economy, to deregulation of financial institutions that caused the great recession.
2
I welcome a bit of class warfare, since the moneyed classes have engaged in such for generations-only they call it by another name, like "read my lips, or "supply side". If you're unhappy with the solutions provided by big government, should we wait for same by big business? We all know where that tack takes us.
3
"The main narrative of the Sanders camp is that the economic game is rigged against ordinary people. The top 1 percent controls the fundamental economic conditions. Major transformation is required. There’s not much individuals can do given the structure of economic power."
What about the above is not true? Brooks says Hillary's ideas have been tried before and didn't work. Same could be said for all the ideas on the Republican side too. So maybe it's time to admit Bernie has a point?
What about the above is not true? Brooks says Hillary's ideas have been tried before and didn't work. Same could be said for all the ideas on the Republican side too. So maybe it's time to admit Bernie has a point?
3
There is no evidence that raising the minimum wage would cost jobs. Other states have raised the minimum wage and INCREASED jobs.
1
Yes, Hillary Clinton certainly believes in letting government be pro-active when it comes to matters of money. The H1-B work-visa programme which has turned all bet the most techno-elite Americahn citizens and legal residents (In other words, the few with the most prestigious sheepskins and a seemingly lasting ability to work 25-8-366) into persona non grata in the IT industry? Not a word. (But the record shows she's been all for it.) Bringing back the Glass-Steagall Act (Hubby signed the repeal, back in 1997) which kept Wall Street speculators out of the mortgage business, perhaps with an update for automated trading (That didn't exist when it was passed by Congress and signed into law by F.D.R., back in 1933)? No way.
So should those of us who actually need something resembling a decent, steady job - and some confidence that our homes might be better shelters and investments than the current house of cards - be supporting her? Same answer.
So should those of us who actually need something resembling a decent, steady job - and some confidence that our homes might be better shelters and investments than the current house of cards - be supporting her? Same answer.
1
I just wish the "neopaleo" business leaders and politicians would shift their beady eyes past their emphasis on short term profits and election results toward long term viability of our communities, environment and planet.
I don't think anyone could argue that corporate America has its focus on the short term - maximize the quarterly return at all costs - because their outrageous compensation packages are based upon nothing but.
Unfortunately, with the added corruption of campaign finance by Citizen United, many politicians - and thus the government - are caught up in the same short term phobia - maximize the next election cycle opportunity at all costs and say whatever it takes to court big business bucks and faux news sound bites.
Who is considering the long term sustainability of our economic and environmental existence? Who is standing up for future generations? "Neopaleo" columnists???
Stack all the prefixes together that you want and add them to the party label of your choice, the truth remains that functioning governments - the will of the people - and reasonable regulation have been and should be the guardians of society as a whole over the long term. It wouldn't hurt for more corporations to develop a conscious and a longer term perspective; it really would be in their self-interest. It really can't be either / or.
I don't think anyone could argue that corporate America has its focus on the short term - maximize the quarterly return at all costs - because their outrageous compensation packages are based upon nothing but.
Unfortunately, with the added corruption of campaign finance by Citizen United, many politicians - and thus the government - are caught up in the same short term phobia - maximize the next election cycle opportunity at all costs and say whatever it takes to court big business bucks and faux news sound bites.
Who is considering the long term sustainability of our economic and environmental existence? Who is standing up for future generations? "Neopaleo" columnists???
Stack all the prefixes together that you want and add them to the party label of your choice, the truth remains that functioning governments - the will of the people - and reasonable regulation have been and should be the guardians of society as a whole over the long term. It wouldn't hurt for more corporations to develop a conscious and a longer term perspective; it really would be in their self-interest. It really can't be either / or.
1
To a political centrist, the economy from the end of WW2 up to the mid-1970s, which was defined by a large and strong middle class, and a devoid of plutocrats and excessive, concentrated wealth, was the epitome of economic success: both growth and fairness thrived, neither one at the expense of the other.
Today, after 35 years of “Reaganomics,” the economy is defined by growing poverty, a shift of population going from middle class to working poor, and a redistribution of wealth from the middle and working classes to the top 1%, and especially the top 0.1%. Growth has been strong, as capital continues to accumulate in the stock markets in the hands of the 1%. Fairness has been gradually destroyed.
In foreign policy, conservatives chose to start an endless war by destabilizing Iraq, resulting in large profits to weapons contractors; large, long-term financial obligations to veterans; and a bloated defense department. Military conquest may have sometimes been profitable to the aggressors in the days of swords and muskets (and even that is doubtful), but today, military conquest is almost always a lose-lose proposition for an aggressor country as a whole, and their victim country.
To a political centrist, we have lost our way, mired so much in far right propaganda that we desperately need as many politicians and commentators like Bernie Sanders as we can get to offset the constant barrage of extreme right nonsense to get us back to reason and moderation again.
Today, after 35 years of “Reaganomics,” the economy is defined by growing poverty, a shift of population going from middle class to working poor, and a redistribution of wealth from the middle and working classes to the top 1%, and especially the top 0.1%. Growth has been strong, as capital continues to accumulate in the stock markets in the hands of the 1%. Fairness has been gradually destroyed.
In foreign policy, conservatives chose to start an endless war by destabilizing Iraq, resulting in large profits to weapons contractors; large, long-term financial obligations to veterans; and a bloated defense department. Military conquest may have sometimes been profitable to the aggressors in the days of swords and muskets (and even that is doubtful), but today, military conquest is almost always a lose-lose proposition for an aggressor country as a whole, and their victim country.
To a political centrist, we have lost our way, mired so much in far right propaganda that we desperately need as many politicians and commentators like Bernie Sanders as we can get to offset the constant barrage of extreme right nonsense to get us back to reason and moderation again.
2
HILLARY'S SPEECH WAS SOLIDLY LIBERERAL -- REALLY? . . .
Firstly I have no idea what the terms "liberal," "Liberal" "conservative" or "Conservative' mean these days. Well, except for the unwashed and uneducated devotes of the Koch backed Teapartiers who though may be labeled as conservatives these days, they are far from what the term "conservative" meant even two decades ago. (See the writings of Edmund Burke.)
So back to First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State Mrs. Clinton. How can her speech yesterday be called "solidly liberal or Liberal" when she is beholden to Wall Street, the banks and other financial institutions. That is how she will really get the nomination and the presidency?
Yes, some women will stupidly vote for her out of just because because she would become the woman president. And she can count on blacks and Hispanics -- especially after the obscene remarks of Donald Celebrity.
Mrs. Clinton's ideology (assuming she has one) is become president. (See Machiavelli and Shakespeare.)
Hillary began as a 1963-64 Goldwater girl. I suspect that attaining power is her main goal and she will tailor her comments to achieve it ... by any means necessary.
Just compare her to Senators Sanders and Warren. As both of them just say what they really believe, she and Team Hillary just use focus groups as the manner which operative Frank Luntz uses them for the G. O. P.
We may be destroying democracy, but it's sure more interesting than my old passion: baseball.
Firstly I have no idea what the terms "liberal," "Liberal" "conservative" or "Conservative' mean these days. Well, except for the unwashed and uneducated devotes of the Koch backed Teapartiers who though may be labeled as conservatives these days, they are far from what the term "conservative" meant even two decades ago. (See the writings of Edmund Burke.)
So back to First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State Mrs. Clinton. How can her speech yesterday be called "solidly liberal or Liberal" when she is beholden to Wall Street, the banks and other financial institutions. That is how she will really get the nomination and the presidency?
Yes, some women will stupidly vote for her out of just because because she would become the woman president. And she can count on blacks and Hispanics -- especially after the obscene remarks of Donald Celebrity.
Mrs. Clinton's ideology (assuming she has one) is become president. (See Machiavelli and Shakespeare.)
Hillary began as a 1963-64 Goldwater girl. I suspect that attaining power is her main goal and she will tailor her comments to achieve it ... by any means necessary.
Just compare her to Senators Sanders and Warren. As both of them just say what they really believe, she and Team Hillary just use focus groups as the manner which operative Frank Luntz uses them for the G. O. P.
We may be destroying democracy, but it's sure more interesting than my old passion: baseball.
3
Reading this column by David Brooks (especially his coinage of the word "neopaleoliberalism"), I immediately thought of George Orwell's warning in "Politics and the English Language." Orwell said, "The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink."
Brooks is a cuttlefish.
Brooks is a cuttlefish.
9
Naive? You think? The people Mrs. Clinton wants to provide relief to are the very same (and only) people who can pay for the stuff she wants to provide. The big lie - and Mrs. Clinton must know it - is that there simply are not enough of these evil one percenters to tax to make a difference. Do the math.
But the American middle class is huge. And taxing them even a little more will bring in huge revenues. Sorta like profits on Tide detergent and Crest toothpaste. Razor thin but P&G sells so much of the stuff it has made them a fortune.
But the American middle class is huge. And taxing them even a little more will bring in huge revenues. Sorta like profits on Tide detergent and Crest toothpaste. Razor thin but P&G sells so much of the stuff it has made them a fortune.
2
It seems to me you can make a distinction between liberty and freedom. Liberty usually means some kind of untrammeled action while freedom usually means action within limits. Yes we have a free market but there are always limitations on the market. There are government restrictions on what kind of movie I can make. I can make a sex movie as along as the actors are of a certain age; that's how the free market works. Libertarians see things differently--the skies the limit mostly on what you can do.
Clinton is a free marketer but--government gets involved. I'm sure of that with the others.
Clinton is a free marketer but--government gets involved. I'm sure of that with the others.
CBO is wrong on the 500,00 k job loss number, mw has been raised before around the country and it doesn't cost jobs FACT.
1
So, Hillary says family and medical leave and Jeb! says work harder and longer hours.
Which do you think is correct?
I, for one, know that when I lie on my death bed my last thought will be, "If only I had worked 60 hr. weeks I would have had a better life. My family life would have been much fuller and richer. If only I had taken home that extra $150.00 a week all would have been different. I will reccomend to all my children to spend all their life in their work cubby hole and never call in sick, no matter what, and they will have life and have it more abundantly. Isn't that why we were created in the first place? So that our bosses could have a summer house on the beach? Isn't that our purpose in life? What else could possibly have any meaning to our existence?"
Which do you think is correct?
I, for one, know that when I lie on my death bed my last thought will be, "If only I had worked 60 hr. weeks I would have had a better life. My family life would have been much fuller and richer. If only I had taken home that extra $150.00 a week all would have been different. I will reccomend to all my children to spend all their life in their work cubby hole and never call in sick, no matter what, and they will have life and have it more abundantly. Isn't that why we were created in the first place? So that our bosses could have a summer house on the beach? Isn't that our purpose in life? What else could possibly have any meaning to our existence?"
5
I'm not sure where conservatives like David Brooks come up with the idea that government planning is incompatible with economic growth. They're not. All of the successful Asian economies: Japanese, South Korean, Taiwanese, China, etc. owe their success to governmental intervention on behalf of certain critical industries and/or currency manipulation.
1
"The top 1 percent controls the fundamental economic conditions. Major transformation is required. There’s not much individuals can do given the structure of economic power."
Mr Brooks seems to be saying that all this is true, but a candidate had better not say it.
Very sad.
Mr Brooks seems to be saying that all this is true, but a candidate had better not say it.
Very sad.
5
Rebuild our infrastructure, improve public education, and invest in basic research; those are things a responsible Federal Government can and should do. And if that bothers people because they think the approach is too Liberal, well that's to bad because it happens to be intelligent.
11
Enough with the "paleo" and "neo" and all that gibberish.
Do the proposals make sense? Yes.
Do they advance American interests? Yes.
Do they promote the growth of American citizens? Yes.
Do they promote the growth of the American economy? Yes.
Do they treat American citizens equally? Yes.
How about calling policies "sensible" or "far-fetched," rather than using illegible gibberish that twists the meaning of words?
Do the proposals make sense? Yes.
Do they advance American interests? Yes.
Do they promote the growth of American citizens? Yes.
Do they promote the growth of the American economy? Yes.
Do they treat American citizens equally? Yes.
How about calling policies "sensible" or "far-fetched," rather than using illegible gibberish that twists the meaning of words?
9
The only thing refreshing about this column is the monotonous dogma behind it. The blanket denial of any successes proven by any of the Great Society programs is Republican boilerplate. Brooks is simply repeating the snake oil slogan yet again. The only real analysis of Sec. Clinton's economic policy speech is that it played safe and Brooks did note that she is significantly left of center. Clinton's drift leftward is a consequence of the economic debacle of the Bush II presidency, and the divided/Republican Congress's resistance to anything other than austerity politics with greater and greater tax breaks for the wealthiest. Her drift leftward is also a consequence of the attraction of Sen. Sanders, a results driven socialist, who has demonstrated those results throughout his lifetime in politics which is something all the candidates claim, but none of claims stand up to the light of scrutiny.
2
Hillary Clinton will say anything, absolutely anything, to get the vote. I'm getting to the point where I can't bear to listen to her - but I do, and get disgusted. It's very upsetting to think about November 2016 when there's a good chance our choice will be either Clinton or Bush. If that's the case, I'd like to see: none of the above.
3
Had I written this column for my freshman rhetoric course (many years ago), I would have received an F, and deservedly so. Brooks was accurate in his description of Sanders's views of our economy, but somehow neglected to support his assertion that said views are crazy. The only reasonable assumption I can make is that Brooks is saving that for his next column, because there's no way such a writer could be employed as an opinion columnist in a major newspaper.
5
I love the hypocrisy involved in calling for moderation when discussing Wall Street and its behavior. According to Mr. Brooks, Bernie Sanders (who is linked here to Occupy Wall Street in a subtle Brooks-ian attempt to portray him as a idealistic nut, completely out of touch with actual fiscal realities, and lost in a haze of anti-capitalist rage) should be more temperent in his language about the financial industry which, seven years ago almost succeeded at bringing the nation to economic ruin. Moderation and balance, however, wasn't trumpeted much on Wall Street as irrationally exuberant financiers thought they could erase risk, but instead simply chose to look away from it, pooling high-risk mortgages together to make them look like low-risk securities (collaterized debt obligations), which were overrated by Moody's and Standard & Poor's, who were beholden to the banks who created those obligations. The economic violence perpetrated on this nation had nothing polite, moderate, or balanced about it--yet taking to task the scoundrels responsible for this disaster requires a degree of politesse that Emily Post would find excessive.
4
Ah, wrong once again when Brooks writes about something he knows nothing about. Hillary's economic agenda will not "excite the progressive base" because she is so beholding to her corporate/Wall Street patrons, the same ones who have made her and Bill uber rich with $250,000 speaking fees and murky Clinton Foundation/campaign donations.
Hillary, a product of a mid-western working class family, is now thrilled to be part of the .01% and, with her two million dollar + mega mansions, has long ago forfeited her role as an advocate for the middle class, muchless the poor. This is simply another chapter in her focused grouped, frequently revised, staff-written campaign faux agenda. As to what Hillary actually believes, that depends on which way the wind is blowing.
As for her her speech sounding like one given to the Children's Defense Fund, no. That is an insult to the Children's Defense Fund.
Hillary, a product of a mid-western working class family, is now thrilled to be part of the .01% and, with her two million dollar + mega mansions, has long ago forfeited her role as an advocate for the middle class, muchless the poor. This is simply another chapter in her focused grouped, frequently revised, staff-written campaign faux agenda. As to what Hillary actually believes, that depends on which way the wind is blowing.
As for her her speech sounding like one given to the Children's Defense Fund, no. That is an insult to the Children's Defense Fund.
5
Brooks conveniently forgets what Bush wrought by demolishing regulation. He also insinuates that green energy has failed when it is just beginning to take off.
2
Interesting to see Mr. Brooks arguing against Mitt Romney. Much of Romney's wealth comes from the so-called "carried interest deduction." Apparently Mr. Brooks memory is short-term memory :-(
3
Whew! The beginning of this column sounded like an endorsement of Clinton's candidacy, which would be the kiss of death of Democratic circles. Thankfully Brooks makes clear in the last few paragraphs that he still believes in the magic of markets to make everything right, even in the face of how disastrously wrong they have been in the past decade. Maybe Mr. Brooks is too young to remember, but all that regulatory stuff actually worked when we let it...it enabled us to rebuild the world after WWII, put a man on the moon, build a large, vibrant middle class that is now fraying at the edges, falling back into poverty and insecurity.
9
I am not sure it is useful or constructive to label the ideas as liberal. Given the realities of our current global competitive conditions, there are clearly opportunities to address in increasing the effectiveness and competitiveness of our economy. It is naive to think that the "markets" will solve the inequalities that Mrs Clinton has addressed. To date they have not and there is no evidence that they have the capacity or willingness to do so. Government can help. It has in the past and will in the future. Capitalism has been wildly successful as an economic plan. It has excesses that detract from its effectiveness. Taming those excesses is a good idea. The debate we should be having is the plan to become more competitive. The debate has to address reality, ditch the unnecessary labels, and bury the wishful thinking. We need government and we need markets!
"In each case, in this view, government is more competent at steering companies toward their own best interests than the companies are themselves. "
This is NOT the argument. Rather, companies ARE adept at pursuing their self-interest, but they are lousy at ensuring that self-interest creates a wider public benefit. As both Milton Friedman and Reich showed, corporations are ill-suited to do so left on their own. A democratic government's role isn't to direct private interests to become more proficient at pursuing private interests, but to create rules that eliminate gaming the system in anti-social ways and to ensure a wider benefit when companies do so.
This is NOT the argument. Rather, companies ARE adept at pursuing their self-interest, but they are lousy at ensuring that self-interest creates a wider public benefit. As both Milton Friedman and Reich showed, corporations are ill-suited to do so left on their own. A democratic government's role isn't to direct private interests to become more proficient at pursuing private interests, but to create rules that eliminate gaming the system in anti-social ways and to ensure a wider benefit when companies do so.
7
This column claims that Hilary Clinton advocates policies "that were tried and didn't work".
It fails to point out that Republican policies have been in the driver's seat for most of the past 40 years -- even when Democrats won the Presidency Republicans in Congress fought tooth and nail, with almost unprecedented ferocity, to prevent any accomplishment of liberal policies and ideas. The results overall of the past 40 years have been deplorable for most Americans (other than the ultra-wealthy and powerful), and for the country: an historic financial collapse, growing income inequality, failure to maintain infrastructure, lack of investment in education and research, increasing environmental danger,....
Conversely, when Democrats have been in the Presidency over this period -- and when they have not been -- they have usually sought in good faith to work together with Republicans. The historic health care program enacted in the first Obama term was basically an adaptation of ideas and programs developed by conservatives; cap and trade, carbon tax, education reform, and others have similar origins. And the disastrous "financial reforms" enacted under Clinton were indisputably conservative.
Whose Ideas and policies have not been working for the past 40 years?
It fails to point out that Republican policies have been in the driver's seat for most of the past 40 years -- even when Democrats won the Presidency Republicans in Congress fought tooth and nail, with almost unprecedented ferocity, to prevent any accomplishment of liberal policies and ideas. The results overall of the past 40 years have been deplorable for most Americans (other than the ultra-wealthy and powerful), and for the country: an historic financial collapse, growing income inequality, failure to maintain infrastructure, lack of investment in education and research, increasing environmental danger,....
Conversely, when Democrats have been in the Presidency over this period -- and when they have not been -- they have usually sought in good faith to work together with Republicans. The historic health care program enacted in the first Obama term was basically an adaptation of ideas and programs developed by conservatives; cap and trade, carbon tax, education reform, and others have similar origins. And the disastrous "financial reforms" enacted under Clinton were indisputably conservative.
Whose Ideas and policies have not been working for the past 40 years?
8
A columnist has a right to blather about just anything but I think Brooks needs to concentrate on his own beloved party, the GOP, and their ideas rather than tinker with Hillary at this point. Brooks should be raising the alarm about the 16 Republican candidates running for President and how they reflect a political party so extreme it is off a cliff. When Brooks has to say Bush and Rubio over and over and over to show who he backs on that clown bus then I think he needs to scratch a little harder to take a long look at those two right wingers and what they would really mean for this country if elected. They both terrify a great hunk of the electorate. Why is that?
8
How odd to think that raising the minimum wage to a more reasonable $10 an hour would cost 500,000 jobs, when one considers that people earning this money would go out and spend it, thereby creating more jobs. Henry Ford built the car that even people making it could afford - there was a point to that. Surely, David, you're not advocating a continuation of the present minimum wage?
And for all of the commentators advocating for Bernie Sanders and deprecating Hillary, it's worth remembering that a lot of Republican time and money is going into strategies to manipulate the electorate into disliking her. It's relatively easy to damage someone's reputation: we should not permit ourselves to get suckered by the slick manipulators who want, at all costs, to put a Republican in the White House from where, among other things, he can nominate the next Supreme Court justices.
And for all of the commentators advocating for Bernie Sanders and deprecating Hillary, it's worth remembering that a lot of Republican time and money is going into strategies to manipulate the electorate into disliking her. It's relatively easy to damage someone's reputation: we should not permit ourselves to get suckered by the slick manipulators who want, at all costs, to put a Republican in the White House from where, among other things, he can nominate the next Supreme Court justices.
11
Mr. Sanders is as honest as American apple pie, and brings to mind an afternoon summer in the country with an honorable uncle, a justice of the peace, inclined to vote for Mr. Perot instead of Mr. Clinton. Mr. Sanders and he sound both on the same page, at times like the gentlemen they are, would have begged to disagree with each other on occasion. Good manners always carry the day in the most sensitive of political discussions.
Edmund might have raised an eyebrow if Mr. Sanders had decided to talk about sexual relations in America for instance, and offered him another glass of water from the cooling well on his premises in CT.
Hillary Clinton offers this voter substance and stability. Her feet are grounded in the soil. It would be difficult to work for her as a clerk, this to be expected, but I doubt she would blink if I showed, not wearing a suit and one of my dull shoes needed a polish.
She has a presidential look which I admire. To my mind, there is no such thing as an 'Ordinary Person' and I tend to look at the individual, regardless of culture, background and bank account, as a person in their own right.
Labels are dear to our American hearts and this 'neopaleoliberal' tag is a mouthful. Come back to the heath and heart, Mr. Brooks. It will take the clout and strength of Clinton to place Wall Street back together after 'Humpty-Dumpty' took a big fall.
Standing beside Mrs. Clinton at this time from an American who needs to learn more with an open mind.
Edmund might have raised an eyebrow if Mr. Sanders had decided to talk about sexual relations in America for instance, and offered him another glass of water from the cooling well on his premises in CT.
Hillary Clinton offers this voter substance and stability. Her feet are grounded in the soil. It would be difficult to work for her as a clerk, this to be expected, but I doubt she would blink if I showed, not wearing a suit and one of my dull shoes needed a polish.
She has a presidential look which I admire. To my mind, there is no such thing as an 'Ordinary Person' and I tend to look at the individual, regardless of culture, background and bank account, as a person in their own right.
Labels are dear to our American hearts and this 'neopaleoliberal' tag is a mouthful. Come back to the heath and heart, Mr. Brooks. It will take the clout and strength of Clinton to place Wall Street back together after 'Humpty-Dumpty' took a big fall.
Standing beside Mrs. Clinton at this time from an American who needs to learn more with an open mind.
4
"The main narrative of the Sanders camp is that the economic game is rigged against ordinary people. The top 1 percent controls the fundamental economic conditions. Major transformation is required. There’s not much individuals can do given the structure of economic power." This is a fine elucidation of the Bernie Sanders's thesis, which is essentially correct. Brooks's comments that "paleoliberal" policies that rely on government shaping economic policy don't work to benefit the poor and the middle class fails to recognize that failure is due to ability of the very wealthy to shape government policy in their favor. A power shift akin to that in the 60's and 70's is needed to undo the "Reagan revolution" which began the power shif tto the right.
13
Me thinks that Bernie Sanders is putting the fear of God into conservatives like Mr. Brooke who came to imagine that their brand of economic selfishness would never be challenged. And I wouldn't be so certain that Sanders does not represent what a majority of Americans really believe. It's fashionable these days to claim that Bernie is only speaking for a fringe on the left, but I know 5 guys who haven't touched a Democrat since Ronald Reagan's first election that are now enthusiastically supporting Sanders. This is going to get interesting. And I suspect that Bernie is enjoying this to an extent he probably never thought possible. More the Happy Warrior than the old curmudgeon.
25
I reject the idea that 'reform' equals adopting the same old laissez faire policies that characterized the 19th century and the socially progressive alternative is somehow 'old'. This country has only flirted with social democracy yet it led to our best years, the post New Deal, post WWII boom that lasted until the 1970's. The failure was due to LBJ's insistence on 'guns and butter' with Vietnam and the New Deal both costing real money. Democratic socialism, try it we may like it.
5
"Clinton’s unchastened faith in the power of government planning is not shared by most voters."
the reforms she calls for are quite reasonable and in now way can be called an unchastened faith in government planning except by someone like Brooks - pure nonsense.
Adn i love the way the right castigates any reasonable proposal class warfare. To me, real class warfare is the reduced capital gains tax rates - the rich eating at the expense of the poor. There is no excuse for taxing labor at a higher rate than earnings from capital.
the reforms she calls for are quite reasonable and in now way can be called an unchastened faith in government planning except by someone like Brooks - pure nonsense.
Adn i love the way the right castigates any reasonable proposal class warfare. To me, real class warfare is the reduced capital gains tax rates - the rich eating at the expense of the poor. There is no excuse for taxing labor at a higher rate than earnings from capital.
5
They only call it "class warfare" when we fight back.
Mr. Brooks has no faith that government regulation could ever work; I suggest he try a 12-month vacation in Somalia to experience what no gov't regulation means. But perhaps he would not be in position to share his wisdom afterwards.
Let's try a sports analogy; that's always fun and accessible.
In sports, regulation is the rules and the umpire/referee.
Without regulation, baseball would be won by the team that bludgeoned the other to death with bats first. Without regulation, football, soccer and basketball would be won by the team that bludgeoned the other death with fists first. Without regulation, hockey would be won by the team that bludgeoned the other to death with hockey sticks first.
Or maybe, since there are no rules/referees, the winning team would be the first to think to bring guns. Get it?
Here in reality, humans needs government and the rule of law. It's not 'epistemologically naïve' to discuss what that government and that law are going to be. It's just basic civics.
Let's try a sports analogy; that's always fun and accessible.
In sports, regulation is the rules and the umpire/referee.
Without regulation, baseball would be won by the team that bludgeoned the other to death with bats first. Without regulation, football, soccer and basketball would be won by the team that bludgeoned the other death with fists first. Without regulation, hockey would be won by the team that bludgeoned the other to death with hockey sticks first.
Or maybe, since there are no rules/referees, the winning team would be the first to think to bring guns. Get it?
Here in reality, humans needs government and the rule of law. It's not 'epistemologically naïve' to discuss what that government and that law are going to be. It's just basic civics.
10
As reported last week, more than a billion people have been lifted from extreme poverty since 1990 around the globe, especially in China and India. That's a very good thing, but such massive change cannot happen without impacting the rest of the world. It is a major factor in creating income inequality in the U.S. Those engaged in enterprises in the U.S. that can be duplicated overseas for a fraction of the cost have been crushed. Neither Hillary Clinton nor any other politician has a realistic solution to this terrible problem.
5
The left's favorite fake-conservative says Hillary has a misguided sense of trust in government's ability, then says this: "Substantively she’s offered at least a coherent response to today’s economic conditions."
There is nothing coherent about pushing for more of what does not work.
There is nothing coherent about pushing for more of what does not work.
"In each case, in [Clinton's] view, government is more competent at steering companies toward their own best interests than the companies are themselves."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
What comprises a company's best interests? Is it a long-term commitment to prosperity, as evidenced by paying a sufficient wage in order to attract and retain the most talented workers? Is it a forward-thinking policy of plowing profits back into productive R&D initiatives, even if they may depress the short-term bottom line to achieve long-term prosperity? Or rather, is it a policy which favors the funneling of short-term profits into stock buybacks and dividends to reward speculators and the payment of gargantuan bonuses to free-agent CEOs whose allegiance to the company lasts until someone else offers a better deal?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
What comprises a company's best interests? Is it a long-term commitment to prosperity, as evidenced by paying a sufficient wage in order to attract and retain the most talented workers? Is it a forward-thinking policy of plowing profits back into productive R&D initiatives, even if they may depress the short-term bottom line to achieve long-term prosperity? Or rather, is it a policy which favors the funneling of short-term profits into stock buybacks and dividends to reward speculators and the payment of gargantuan bonuses to free-agent CEOs whose allegiance to the company lasts until someone else offers a better deal?
2
If Bernie Sanders is elected as President, what will be interesting to see, is whether he is called "liar" in his first speech to Congress, or something worse.
3
Only if his skin darkens....
I don't want government planning. I want government protection. I want the protection of a retirement fund that won't be sucked up by Wall Street brokers manipulating the market. I want the protection of an environment that won't poison me or my kids. I want the protection of a job that can't be taken away just because of whom I love. I want protection from a real estate mogul who buys up the house I a saving for and offers to rent it to me at exorbitant rates. I want protection from the high frequency trader who snaps up the stock I'm interested in and sells it to me at a 10% markup. I want protection from the investor class who have absorbed the profit from my increased productivity and then tell me I should be working harder and longer.
I want protection from profit-driven planning.
I want protection from profit-driven planning.
9
While I usually respect your views, even when they differ from my own, I found one of your remarks in today's column mind ridiculously sexist: "One pictures squads...telling CEO's when their outfits are too mind boggling". This is the kind of comment that is subversive sexism. which has been discussed at length about reporters and editorialists. It is this subtle poisoning that will make women vote for Hillary despite any reservations we have about problems with her past. Shame on you.
2
Though I would love for all politicians and candidates for political office to say things that are backed up by facts and that have proven to be effective, but the GOP has demonstrated repeatedly that voters don't care. The reality is - say something voters believe or want to believe, not something that's real.
Politicians from both parties operate largely within a fact-free zone, though Republicans seem to fill the void with worse ideas than Democrats do. I don't know how to change that, or even if change is possible.
Politicians from both parties operate largely within a fact-free zone, though Republicans seem to fill the void with worse ideas than Democrats do. I don't know how to change that, or even if change is possible.
1
I think Brooks has forgotten, that we live in bailout nation. The private sector, (banks, wall street casinos. et. al.) failed. The FED came to the rescue. Too, he also uses the analysis of a government agency, (CBO) to degrade Clinton's support of raising the minimum wage.
5
What we do know is the politics of the Democrats and Republicans have failed the American people. We know that American is not headed in a good direction. The politics of Bernie Sanders has never been tested in a country like the USA.
I started visiting Vermont before Bernie arrived. I remember Burlington and St Albans when Vermont was Mississippi North. For those that don't know Vermont it was conservative fifty years ago and it is still the most conservative state in the union. It believes in the constitution but like Jefferson. Adams and Franklin it believes evolution can't be stopped.
When Bernie and his gang arrived in Vermont they were not greeted with open arms and warm hugs but the skills education and adapt-abilities have translated well into society that is now respectful of difference and has gone from Mississippi North to the best educated and most democratic state in the union.
The politics of division and derision of the GOP can now be seen to be self destructive. Many of us spend our time in London, Paris and Tokyo with people of our own ilk, we cannot feel connection to the peoples of Kansas Oklahoma and the Dakotas whose life experiences and education has no relevance in our lives.
Mr Brooks a paid propagandist of America's right wing establishment knows Hillary all too well as they are fellow travelers on the middle class American road of life.
Bernie Sanders is a Vermonter and he brings to the table hope for a future where we may get back our country.
I started visiting Vermont before Bernie arrived. I remember Burlington and St Albans when Vermont was Mississippi North. For those that don't know Vermont it was conservative fifty years ago and it is still the most conservative state in the union. It believes in the constitution but like Jefferson. Adams and Franklin it believes evolution can't be stopped.
When Bernie and his gang arrived in Vermont they were not greeted with open arms and warm hugs but the skills education and adapt-abilities have translated well into society that is now respectful of difference and has gone from Mississippi North to the best educated and most democratic state in the union.
The politics of division and derision of the GOP can now be seen to be self destructive. Many of us spend our time in London, Paris and Tokyo with people of our own ilk, we cannot feel connection to the peoples of Kansas Oklahoma and the Dakotas whose life experiences and education has no relevance in our lives.
Mr Brooks a paid propagandist of America's right wing establishment knows Hillary all too well as they are fellow travelers on the middle class American road of life.
Bernie Sanders is a Vermonter and he brings to the table hope for a future where we may get back our country.
6
We are here today on verge of a historical shift as to diplomacy in the Middle East and beyond. The idea of trust has been used ridiculously.
We expect those nations to be worthy of our trust, while our actions and words say we remain a standing threat to most of those gov'ts, one after the other.
First we had been abusing those countries, draining them of their resources, not earning reason to emulate our 'freedoms'. That idea only started, as an excuse, to condemn Iraq's government under Saddam Hussein. It became the new 'diplomatic style' to denigrate, and call for any governments, like Libya's, Egypt's, of Syria's, to in effect, just go away. In that regard, see: 'Propaganda wins as Russia cans American professor', saying: "The head of Russia's Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, said last week that Washington 'would like it if Russia did not exist as a state at all." (Wash. Times 7/13/15).
While asking in effect for their governments just to go away, we keep claiming how their people yearn for our kind of government system, free of 'autocracy'. But such a price we expect to be paid for that! Look at Syria today. Look at what happened in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya, in Yemen, and the list goes on.
We cannot expect those leaders to 'step down'; it can't happen! The U.S. has made a terrible mistake in Libya, in Syria, because what good has all the destruction really done when it creates over 3 million refugees from Syria alone, >220,000 dead?
We expect those nations to be worthy of our trust, while our actions and words say we remain a standing threat to most of those gov'ts, one after the other.
First we had been abusing those countries, draining them of their resources, not earning reason to emulate our 'freedoms'. That idea only started, as an excuse, to condemn Iraq's government under Saddam Hussein. It became the new 'diplomatic style' to denigrate, and call for any governments, like Libya's, Egypt's, of Syria's, to in effect, just go away. In that regard, see: 'Propaganda wins as Russia cans American professor', saying: "The head of Russia's Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, said last week that Washington 'would like it if Russia did not exist as a state at all." (Wash. Times 7/13/15).
While asking in effect for their governments just to go away, we keep claiming how their people yearn for our kind of government system, free of 'autocracy'. But such a price we expect to be paid for that! Look at Syria today. Look at what happened in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya, in Yemen, and the list goes on.
We cannot expect those leaders to 'step down'; it can't happen! The U.S. has made a terrible mistake in Libya, in Syria, because what good has all the destruction really done when it creates over 3 million refugees from Syria alone, >220,000 dead?
2
OK, patronizing paternalism is par for the course; but "One pictures squads of Federal Simplicity Enforcers roaming through the corridors of Midtown Manhattan telling C.E.O.s when their outfits are too mind-boggling." ???? [!].
3
It's difficult to assess how naïve Hillary Clinton's economics are, but it's safe to say that the Republican economics of the past 30 years have only benefited a very small number of privileged people. Maybe it's time to try something else ... before it's too late.
3
In spite of some disagreements, it seems that over all Mr. Brooks feels safe with Hillery. Thank God for that. Now I can relax.
4
So, right off the bat Hillary Clinton Hillary "hasn’t gone crazy". Unlike apparently hard core Marxist total wacko class warfare advocate Occupy Wall Streeter Bernie Sanders, who seems to somehow think that the rewards for doubling of overall productivity of the economy in the past several decades should not have gone exclusively to the already rich and even more so to the super rich. And maybe that this is not even a particularly good way for an economy to operate. And has the insane idea that corporations and super-rich should not be able to spend billions supporting candidates and parties and lobbyists writing legislation. And other Commie Socialist stuff like that.
Hillary is generally a very mainstream progressive. Sanders is generally to her left. Both are well within the historical politics of the US, and both would be even more in the middle in most of Europe. Either would be fine as president.
Maybe David would prefer a front runner from his own party, like the idiot TV celebrity blowhard rich guy, or the Ohio politician who announced his candidacy yesterday with a long string of totally horrifying and ignorant policy positions.
Hillary is generally a very mainstream progressive. Sanders is generally to her left. Both are well within the historical politics of the US, and both would be even more in the middle in most of Europe. Either would be fine as president.
Maybe David would prefer a front runner from his own party, like the idiot TV celebrity blowhard rich guy, or the Ohio politician who announced his candidacy yesterday with a long string of totally horrifying and ignorant policy positions.
3
I much prefer the "new old liberalism" of Hubert Humphrey to the neoconservatism we have had to endure from the periods of Republican rule since 1980. Neoconservatism has proved selfish in its economic policies, heedlessly aggressive in foreign affairs, wrong on science, and mean-spirited on social issues.
5
"Neopaleoliberal?" "Epistemologically naïve?" Please, David, spare us.
5
You got any better ideas than Hillary? Let's hear about the Brook's program for reducing the wealth and income gap.
5
"The private sector is not evil or power hungry, just kind of dumb."
No, they are dumb and power hungry. Mitt Romney proved that. In fact that GOP proves it daily. Many of it's candidates come from the so called Power Elite and they prove over and over they are dumb as stumps and greedy as sharks.
As to the minimum wage increase, please let's stop this nonsense about job loss. Prices may go up. That is true, but as long as there is work there will be jobs. Companies don't say, oh, I'm going to close my doors and not make money because the minimum wage went up. And you know it Mr. Brooks. Are you implying now because the minimum wage is so low companies are employing people out of the goodness of their heart? Please.
And dare I yet again point out that most of the rest of the Western World seems to work just find paying ALL employees living wages? It's just the US that funnels most of the cash into the pockets of the Corporate Robber Barons.
No, they are dumb and power hungry. Mitt Romney proved that. In fact that GOP proves it daily. Many of it's candidates come from the so called Power Elite and they prove over and over they are dumb as stumps and greedy as sharks.
As to the minimum wage increase, please let's stop this nonsense about job loss. Prices may go up. That is true, but as long as there is work there will be jobs. Companies don't say, oh, I'm going to close my doors and not make money because the minimum wage went up. And you know it Mr. Brooks. Are you implying now because the minimum wage is so low companies are employing people out of the goodness of their heart? Please.
And dare I yet again point out that most of the rest of the Western World seems to work just find paying ALL employees living wages? It's just the US that funnels most of the cash into the pockets of the Corporate Robber Barons.
2
"Edgier, angry economic policy" describes exactly what the Democratic Party stood for when it commited itself to empowering unions, levying punitive taxes on the wealthy, and regulating Wall Street to within an inch of its life. That Democratic Party's leader, Franklin Roosevelt, ringingly declared at Madison Square Garden that he "welcomed the hatred" of, among others, practicioners of "business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, [and] class antagonism."
Brooks sneers at the idea in this column, but history in fact vindicated the old Democratic economic plan. Redirecting money and power from owners to workers led to decades of broadly-based prosperity unprecedented in the world. Now the owners have undone almost all of those gains - the wealthy receive a higher share of national income than every before since the Great Depression, and corporate profits as a percent of GDP have never been higher - and the rest of us pay with stagnating wages, increasing debt loads, and the steady erosion of dignity and decency at work.
Bernie Sanders represents the original strain of modern Democratic thought on the economy, whether you want to call it "paleo" or something else. Hillary Clinton, then as now, stands firmly in the neoliberal camp and has never pretended otherwise.
Brooks sneers at the idea in this column, but history in fact vindicated the old Democratic economic plan. Redirecting money and power from owners to workers led to decades of broadly-based prosperity unprecedented in the world. Now the owners have undone almost all of those gains - the wealthy receive a higher share of national income than every before since the Great Depression, and corporate profits as a percent of GDP have never been higher - and the rest of us pay with stagnating wages, increasing debt loads, and the steady erosion of dignity and decency at work.
Bernie Sanders represents the original strain of modern Democratic thought on the economy, whether you want to call it "paleo" or something else. Hillary Clinton, then as now, stands firmly in the neoliberal camp and has never pretended otherwise.
1
Liberalism in its core was a political philosophy that sought effective constitutional ways to limit the sphere of state, not its expansion. If Ms. Hillary Clinton pleads state planning even for private sector, how could she be described paleoliberal in her convictions, if at all she has any to improve public life?
1
Sanders is right the system is rigged for the rich…and the government helps make it so. Problem with Sanders is he paints with a broad brush. I make under 50K and I'm confident I'd end up with less disposable income with him as president, even if he says I wouldn't.
The answer is not more government "help" but rather less government period.
The answer is not more government "help" but rather less government period.
9
yah...take away the police and people will stop robbing the people's banks.
1
Political speeches are cheap talk designed more to spur emotion than logic. The best indicator of future actions are past actions. Based on her political history, Hillary is actually a rather middle of the road pragmatist. Paleo schmaleo.
3
In my mind I see Mr. Brooks on stage with Scott "Horatio Alger" Walker at his coming out party yesterday. Walker's maudlin paean to the mythic America of "equal opportunity, not equal outcomes." Let's just say, in 2015, we have ample
evidence that this is " . . . epistemologically naïve."
evidence that this is " . . . epistemologically naïve."
10
As well as his total rejection today of the Iran nuclear agreement. Has he read it?
yes, and Mr. Walker wants to be the one to insure that outcomes are not equal.
When David Brooks talks about "class war fever swamps," it is clear he wants the targets of those waging the class war to smile and bow and say to their oppressors I know how much you care and love me. Anything short of that David thinks is class warfare instigated by the victims. "Look what you made me do," the abuser always says to justify their actions.
10
Politicians in this day and age only say what will get them elected. What they really think is something we will never know if they even know it themselves.
So, David, here's a question: Would you rather have a President Clinton or a President Trump? I can't imagine that your answer would be Trump. How Trump jumped into second place is a very frightening comment on your party. It's frightening to me that he actually might become president. And, I have to say, if that happened, I would, at the age of 64 leave this country because I know we would be completely lost. So how do you answer that so many people in your party like this horrible person? He 'tells it like it is'. Yes. Meanness and hatred come oozing out of him and the people who like it, just suck it right up. Do you want to be counted among them, David?
5
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result"
Albert Einstein
Tax breaks for the wealthy, skewing income distribution in favor of the rich, limiting government spending when the economy is in deep recession, crippling the American dream, buying into job creators versus the 47% and opposing too big to fail, the social safety net, healthcare, education and infrastructure spending the country needs so desperately....
Mr. Brooks, you should perhaps consider recusing yourself from commenting on economic policy as you clearly adhere to an ideology and are promoting an agenda--'the same thing over and over again'--that has not and is not and will not work...
Albert Einstein
Tax breaks for the wealthy, skewing income distribution in favor of the rich, limiting government spending when the economy is in deep recession, crippling the American dream, buying into job creators versus the 47% and opposing too big to fail, the social safety net, healthcare, education and infrastructure spending the country needs so desperately....
Mr. Brooks, you should perhaps consider recusing yourself from commenting on economic policy as you clearly adhere to an ideology and are promoting an agenda--'the same thing over and over again'--that has not and is not and will not work...
7
It's always interesting to here the 0.1% Hillary talk about income inequality, Wall Street, banks, etc, and everything else that she has enriched her life using. I bet in private, she is just buddy buddy with the other rich elitists in NYC. She just has to learn to lie better, or at least be more believable when she opens her mouth.
3
" The main narrative of the Sanders camp is that the economic game is rigged against ordinary people. The top 1 percent controls the fundamental economic conditions. Major transformation is required. There’s not much individuals can do given the structure of economic power."
David that pretty well sums conservative Reagan supply side trickle down economics and its devastation of the middle class over the last thirty plus years doesn't it. It's time for a bold change and new direction Mr. Brooks not more of the same from the field of Republican candidates or the timid Hillary Clinton.
What and who is "crazy" is not Bernie Sanders but doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
David that pretty well sums conservative Reagan supply side trickle down economics and its devastation of the middle class over the last thirty plus years doesn't it. It's time for a bold change and new direction Mr. Brooks not more of the same from the field of Republican candidates or the timid Hillary Clinton.
What and who is "crazy" is not Bernie Sanders but doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
8
Right as usual David, companies should be left alone to produce their own best outcomes? What could possibly be wrong with that? Yes, the programs she is promoting are non-starters, unlike the ideas of Trickle-down, or Laffer curving, or whatever your tribe is calling it's worthless economic plans these days. I don't believe that the green energy programs have been given an honest shot and countries like Saudia Arabia and China will take our place as world leaders in these efforts. As a professor of government and public policy, I don't share your disdain for regulation and oversight. American government, not private industry, is the reason the United States is a developed, modern country. Go to the developing world if you want a primer on how countries with weak governments work. What I find epistemologically naive, is your inability to comprehend the failures of your political ideologues on every front from the economy to the environment to the ethics of a civil society.
9
"American government, not private industry, is the reason the United States is a developed, modern country." I do not want to dismiss government contributing but to say Private Industry had no role is a bit much don't you think? How much did government have to do with the success of Ford, IBM or Apple? Government has a role but so does industry and the question shouldn't be which to favor but how can we have an environment that encourages innovation and investment and responsible management. Most debate is usually about the differing opinions regarding the merit of a proposed regulation, will it be effective? We all have different objectives. Cheap energy vs clean energy is one example? A case can be made for and against both. I'd suggest that neither side is all evil and the other all pure in its motives. Hillary obviously believes in corporate oversight but to say the right doesn't isn't factual. They are perhaps more cautious and have different objectives. What are Hillarys priorities? Allowing investment by foreign investors in our uranium reserves?
Funny to have Clinton's cautious political pablum described an naive - why? Does David know better (about producing good jobs?) If he does, it is time to write what would surely be a best seller. Nor is it fair to blithely label Bernie Sanders as engaging in class warfare. Why can't David admit that in fact we have a problem and the powers that be will not admit it, because the solution is not acceptable to the powers that be. We have gotten rid of tariffs and import controls over 70 years and watched jobs leave. Now we see the result.
4
Maybe it's just me, but I don't feel being "...talked down to." If you feel "being talked down to", I suggest you work on your self concept, or better yet your equanimity. We need a strong woman in the white house. Bernie would be a great V-P -- haters wouldn't dare to have her replaced by the V-P.
4
The basic assumption of this analysis is that the growing inequality of wealth cannot be stopped. The class war is over the 0.1 percent have won, and there is nothing that can be done-within existing political or economic structures. Does the author realize that his article is basically an invitation to extralegal actions to level the playing field?
6
The economic "game" IS rigged against ordinary people. Everybody knows it. Bernie wants to do something about it, and we hope he will push his fellow candidates to make promises to the general population. You may not think class warfare is necessary, but a lot of us think it would be the only way to take back our right to run our country for the well being of EVERY citizen, not just the rich and corporations. And, this sentiment is progressive, not "liberal." Get with the 2015 program and language. You don't seem capable of saying, or thinking, anything modern.
13
Thank you David for laying it all out so well.
America must decide if they want 1990s neo-liberalism, GOP neo-fascism or they can embrace the 21st century with Bernie Sanders and 21st century social democracy.
I hope America embraces hope I am tired of the anger frustration and the retreat from evolution.
Bernie and a new congress may be fraught with danger but at least gives us a hope of arresting a long slow perpetual decline.
America must decide if they want 1990s neo-liberalism, GOP neo-fascism or they can embrace the 21st century with Bernie Sanders and 21st century social democracy.
I hope America embraces hope I am tired of the anger frustration and the retreat from evolution.
Bernie and a new congress may be fraught with danger but at least gives us a hope of arresting a long slow perpetual decline.
11
It's not even your country. Do you get all twisted up about the election scene in Wales? Belgium?
Of course, your long decline comes from the Hillarys and Bernies so why expect a change now?
Of course, your long decline comes from the Hillarys and Bernies so why expect a change now?
Steve you know nothing about me. I pay both US Federal and Canadian and Quebec Income Tax. my children are US citizens. My wife and I receive US, and Canadian pensions and like most of the world what happens in the US is very much a concern.
Yes I get all twisted up about what happens in Wales and Belgium and I get all twisted up because too many like yourself have so little understanding of how small a planet this has become and how even Hopkinsville KY might provide us with solutions if its people would be educated to understand it is 2015 not 1980.
If things had worked out a little differently in 1990 we might be living in Eastern Kentucky. Steve go back to school you are desperately in need of courses in critical thinking. Who knows what have happened in your life if instead of remaining in Canada my wife would have gone back to Kentucky to teach.
Yes I get all twisted up about what happens in Wales and Belgium and I get all twisted up because too many like yourself have so little understanding of how small a planet this has become and how even Hopkinsville KY might provide us with solutions if its people would be educated to understand it is 2015 not 1980.
If things had worked out a little differently in 1990 we might be living in Eastern Kentucky. Steve go back to school you are desperately in need of courses in critical thinking. Who knows what have happened in your life if instead of remaining in Canada my wife would have gone back to Kentucky to teach.
1
"Paleoliberalism?" "Neopaleoliberalism?" I don't think these are labels that will catch on with the voters and attach to Clinton. They may, however, flow freely among the talking heads in the continuous cable news cycle where air must be filled with vacuous commentary.
Hillary has never dodged her liberal underpinnings and relabeling her to confuse or obscure her solid leftist positions will not work.
Hillary has never dodged her liberal underpinnings and relabeling her to confuse or obscure her solid leftist positions will not work.
5
In the end the debate on the Democratic side is one of how best to, in the TR/FDR tradition, save capitalism from itself. Dedpite the fears of the right, not even Sanders is proposing a move away from a market economy. Sanders' argument is that the system has ceased to work for most Americans. That's an increasingly mainstream view.
On the one hand Sanders is right that the game is rigged. On the other, the issue of what can actually be accomplished is one that those of us on the left are struggling with. Clinton's approach is fundamentally incremental and perhaps too much so in that it is yet unclear whether she is seeking an accommodation with the existing economic order or proposing something more along lines of changing that order.
Time will tell what course we eventually go down but the glory days of the Reagan Revolution are numbered. The question is whether we get incremental but meaningful change or a true reshuffling of things.
On the one hand Sanders is right that the game is rigged. On the other, the issue of what can actually be accomplished is one that those of us on the left are struggling with. Clinton's approach is fundamentally incremental and perhaps too much so in that it is yet unclear whether she is seeking an accommodation with the existing economic order or proposing something more along lines of changing that order.
Time will tell what course we eventually go down but the glory days of the Reagan Revolution are numbered. The question is whether we get incremental but meaningful change or a true reshuffling of things.
5
REJOSHHILL. Your idealism is admirable, and a return to New Deal progressivism which u advocate would be wonderful if it were possible to do so. However, the New Deal predated globalism and the loss of good American jobs to developing countries, and to return to that period in history is out of the question. Moreover, it was not NEW DEAL legislation that got us out of the Great Depression, but our entry into WWII. Nonetheless, FDR was a great man , and a courageous one, and his efforts noteworthy.
Each and every political candidate, including Hillary, and regardless of party affiliation promises "a chicken in every pot." That's what they do. We know it. They do too. Does anyone else see the absurdity and even mockery in that kind of game playing we've become so accustomed to we no longer even anymore flinch--or barf. Yet I, for one, want to know specifics. Anyone can promise the stars. Not everyone can deliver. We need to be able to discover the difference. And that requires forced, if necessary, specifics. And we should accept no less than how exactly they plan to get that chicken into every pot. That's one of the few ways we can separate those qualified to meet the many challenges of a leader from those simply full of hot air.
3
Manufacturers from highly government regulated economies (and where the term "National Industrial Plan" is not met with derision) are opening plants in the U.S. (BMW, Mercedes, Volkswagen, Volvo, Michelin, Continental, etc.) and taking Market Share from U.S. companies who have been allowed for decades to operate under Laissez-faire (and haven't built any new factories in the U.S. in decades).
According to Mr. Brooks, it should be the other way around...
According to Mr. Brooks, it should be the other way around...
7
Hilary has some helpers in being able to satisfy many us in the liberal base while not turning off middle of the road voters : the GOP candidates,especially Donald Trump,who probably makes many in the middle welcome her now reasonable sounding liberalism.And if she's to the left of her husband and of Obama I'm to the left of her,much closer to Bernie,whose campaign I support.But as delighted as I am with the crowds Bernie's been drawing,I expect Hilary will be the nominee,in which case I'll have no problem voting for her.And I've never felt like she was talking down to me.Especially when the 15 Republican candidates-so far- have NOTHING to say to me.
5
Brooks damns with faint praise, Clinton's neopaleo(?) liberal ideas, (All of which she is either "unaware" or too naive to realize have either been tried before and FAILED, or involve, 'difficult trade-offs") before dismissing them as little more than a "neat trick", designed to excite the progressive base. Far be it from me to accuse the esteemed Mr. Brooks as being "epistemologically naive", in his dismissal of the "power of planning", or the concept that, "...government is more competent at steering companies toward their own best interests than the companies are themselves." But it would seem that Mrs. Clinton lays out a framework that combines pragmatism with compassion and offers a vision for the middle class that is unlikely to be promoted by any of her potential GOP opponents.
2
"The private sector is not evil or power hungry, just kind of dumb." Hmmm, well maybe not dumb but driven by short-term greed, which may be dumb or simply misguided or stupidly faith-based. Industrial policy works pretty well in Germany and many other countries whose overall standard of living far surpasses our "greed is good" simplicity here in the states. Considering the fallout from our last economic debacle caused by speculation and exploitation, maybe its time to stop worshiping the "market gods".
11
Why is it after the most advantaged, those able to attend the Ivy Leagues, head to Wall Street and amass fortunes under the guise of providing capital, building companies get to rig the game totally to their advantage and then leave masses trying to chart a new course? They have their families covered and have bought political clout while the majority of workers are lectured by condescending politicians about values. It's really rich when the coddled Bush boys tell people to work harder.
9
Wow, lots of new labels to try and get these negative stereotypes to stick to Bernie (and by association Hillary). Bernie is a middle of the road centrist moderate. Our right wing political and news machine has made any thought near the center to be "edgier, angry economic policy" when in fact it is middle of the road common sense policy. The extreme policies we are facing today are the outlier, not Bernie. The only "people" getting ahead these days are corporations (or those who own corporations) and that will change because as humans, we will change it. It happened before and will happen again. Let's just hope we give someone reasonable like Bernie a chance to change it. The other option was tried a while ago in France, and we don't want the rich to repeat that mistake (but it looks like they didn't learn that lesson well enough). Let's hope Bernie can save them from themselves.
11
Personally, I find anyone who identifies with the republican party epistemologically maybe even willfully ignorant. And that's before any mention of the 15 or so submediocre bozos seeking to be the republican candidate for president. Not to mention the cretinous Trump, who seems to speak for a great number of republican voters. Not to mention the whistle brained dodo W, his dodo father, and saint Ronald, who did everything they could to wreck, pollute and loot this country largely by dismantling regulation
Yah, Hillary is a real numbskull, epistemologicallywise. She's so vastly inferior to anything on offer from the republicans. She actually has ideas and maybe a policy or two. Mr. Brooks seems to have swallowed whole the robotic republican mantra that all government is bad, and we should shrink it till we could drown it in the cess pool of big, private, greedy business. Brooks seems to find the deeply superficial meanderings of the Scott Walkers and Jeb Bushes of his party just fine: that people should work more and vote less and earn less and expect less out of life, lest people be thought of as merely takers, as the epistemologically sophistocated Rpmney-Ryan robotic republicans would have it.
Nah, leave the taking to the banks and gangsters too big to be prosecuted. Now that's real sophistication.
Yah, Hillary is a real numbskull, epistemologicallywise. She's so vastly inferior to anything on offer from the republicans. She actually has ideas and maybe a policy or two. Mr. Brooks seems to have swallowed whole the robotic republican mantra that all government is bad, and we should shrink it till we could drown it in the cess pool of big, private, greedy business. Brooks seems to find the deeply superficial meanderings of the Scott Walkers and Jeb Bushes of his party just fine: that people should work more and vote less and earn less and expect less out of life, lest people be thought of as merely takers, as the epistemologically sophistocated Rpmney-Ryan robotic republicans would have it.
Nah, leave the taking to the banks and gangsters too big to be prosecuted. Now that's real sophistication.
10
"New Democrats like her husband believed in using market mechanisms to increase economic security....In each case, in this view, government is more competent at steering companies toward their own best interests than the companies are themselves."
1) Her proposals ARE market mechanisms .... just not laissez-faire mechanisms. E.g., requiring employers to pay sufficient wages so that workers are not reliant on public welfare is a foundational requirement for an acceptably efficient market system.
2) No, her view is that government is more competent at steering companies toward AMERICA'S best interests. I.e., we do not regulate the financial industry because its fun but because this industry has proven itself to tend toward excess and to possess the capacity to destroy the rest of the economy.
The only "paleo" theory of economics I see being put forward is from Mrs. Clinton's GOP opponents who speak and act as if they'd learned nothing since the early days of a Reagan candidacy nearly 50 years ago.
1) Her proposals ARE market mechanisms .... just not laissez-faire mechanisms. E.g., requiring employers to pay sufficient wages so that workers are not reliant on public welfare is a foundational requirement for an acceptably efficient market system.
2) No, her view is that government is more competent at steering companies toward AMERICA'S best interests. I.e., we do not regulate the financial industry because its fun but because this industry has proven itself to tend toward excess and to possess the capacity to destroy the rest of the economy.
The only "paleo" theory of economics I see being put forward is from Mrs. Clinton's GOP opponents who speak and act as if they'd learned nothing since the early days of a Reagan candidacy nearly 50 years ago.
4
Neopaleojournalism n. Coining or invoking neologisms to express stale ideas, especially while exhibiting an affinity for the sesquipedalian.
7
Well done, CragieBob:
As Pete Townshend might have boiled down Brooks' moldy complaint: Meet the new liberal, same as the old liberal...
As Pete Townshend might have boiled down Brooks' moldy complaint: Meet the new liberal, same as the old liberal...
1
Thinking that government is smarter than private enterprise is just plain scary. Look at the recent ineptitude of Congress, the IRS, the Office of Personnel Management, Hillary Clinton's own email server...on and on. The government is completely inept and wasteful, and they want to be the big bosses in charge? The bureaucrats and community organizers wouldn't last a year in private business.
1
Thanks to Barack Obama this nation was spared the Great Depression Redux to which it was hurtling in late 2008. His economic "failings" result from the fact that he couldn't get much of what he wanted through Congress (not even when he had a minute Democratic majority there). Hopefully, Hillary will go on to appropriate some of the progressive left's ideology FOLLOWING her election as President. After all, she doesn't want to scare away the folks in the hinterland who recognize that this country's got big problems but can't get their heads around the fact that addressing those problems will inevitably involve radical changes.
3
Maybe YOU were spared (in NYC, the capital of the financial industry) but nobody I knew (in the Midwest Rustbelt) was or is spared. We are still hurting. Obama did nothing for us.
The Clinton speech was a pure exercise in focus group liberalism. It's pain free for Hilary's patrons and insipid pablum for her base. With a 2008 meltdown brewing to a fever pitch, Fall of 2016 will be a much deeper crisis than 2008. Clinton is in no way prepared to address this state of affairs.
1
I once was a young "old" liberal. I bought into the idea that I had no money because the big guys on top were hogging all the loot and wouldn't let me have any. I even suspected that they conspired to keep little guys like me from succeeding because they liked the exclusive status.
Turns out, I eventually became kinda right. Limousine liberals like Hilary and about 95% of the .com wizards around Seattle have already made theirs, they have it snuggly sheltered, and now they are perfectly happy to increase regulations and raise tax rates (on new entrepreneurs only) while they themselves are grandfathered into a secure left-wing aristocracy.
They have it made and are "good people."
After World War Two the U.S.A. really lost its chance to guarantee that capitalism would always work for us. Other major industrial economies were bombed out rubble. We had world markets at our mercy.
The depression-era top income tax rate of up to 90%, however, lingered on, which meant that successful people spent a lot of time looking for tax dodges or just quit bothering with forward thinking. GM, which seemed to be destined to last forever, became complacent and as predictable as its chief critic, Roger Moore.
Actor Ron Reagan found that by May every year he had reached the top tax bracket and may as well take the rest of the year off. He took up politics.
Taxes went down. New folks got really rich.
The middle class diminished because they climbed the ladder. Who will unblock that ladder?
Turns out, I eventually became kinda right. Limousine liberals like Hilary and about 95% of the .com wizards around Seattle have already made theirs, they have it snuggly sheltered, and now they are perfectly happy to increase regulations and raise tax rates (on new entrepreneurs only) while they themselves are grandfathered into a secure left-wing aristocracy.
They have it made and are "good people."
After World War Two the U.S.A. really lost its chance to guarantee that capitalism would always work for us. Other major industrial economies were bombed out rubble. We had world markets at our mercy.
The depression-era top income tax rate of up to 90%, however, lingered on, which meant that successful people spent a lot of time looking for tax dodges or just quit bothering with forward thinking. GM, which seemed to be destined to last forever, became complacent and as predictable as its chief critic, Roger Moore.
Actor Ron Reagan found that by May every year he had reached the top tax bracket and may as well take the rest of the year off. He took up politics.
Taxes went down. New folks got really rich.
The middle class diminished because they climbed the ladder. Who will unblock that ladder?
Simple minded conservatives believe there is a single cause of any problem. They don't understand that the world is multi-variate and interactive. It will take multiple actions on many fronts to slow the rapid transfer of wealth from the many to the few that is inherent in capitalism. Tax cuts for the rich is NOT one of those actions.
4
The talking heads keep saying Americans aren't ready for a real progressive, one who's not in bed with big oil and finance, yet all over the Internet and away from the corporate media Bernies taking the country by storm. In Boston alone 1500 are scheduled to show up for a Bernie rally- and he won't even be there. Wake up.
4
An honest progressive (Sanders) is far preferable to a fake liberal (Clinton), and both are dramatically better for most working Americans than the current oligarchy / plutocracy that seems to suit Brooks just fine.
6
David Brooks, again, cites another's work without explaining why or how it helps the point he's supposedly trying to make. But ideology aside, doesn't his instinct as a writer make him cringe at the use of a term such as "neopaleoliberal"??
3
There are two life threatening challenges facing the world today: climate change and income inequality due to the triumph of capitalism. If the next president of the United States fails to address these problems, there could be grave consequences for a very large portion of humanity.
3
Brooks damns with faint praise, Clinton's neopaleo(?) liberal ideas, (All of which she is either "unaware" or too naive to realize have either been tried before and FAILED, or involve, 'difficult trade-offs") before dismissing them as little more than a "neat trick", designed to excite the progressive base.
Far be it from me to accuse the esteemed Mr. Brooks as being "epistemologically naive", in his dismissal of the "power of planning", or the concept that, "...government is more competent at steering companies toward their own best interests than the companies are themselves."
But it would seem that Mrs. Clinton lays out a framework that combines pragmatism with compassion and offers a vision for the middle class that is unlikely to be promoted by any of her potential GOP opponents.
Far be it from me to accuse the esteemed Mr. Brooks as being "epistemologically naive", in his dismissal of the "power of planning", or the concept that, "...government is more competent at steering companies toward their own best interests than the companies are themselves."
But it would seem that Mrs. Clinton lays out a framework that combines pragmatism with compassion and offers a vision for the middle class that is unlikely to be promoted by any of her potential GOP opponents.
3
Brooks: "In each case, in this view, government is more competent at steering companies toward their own best interests than the companies are themselves.
Are the best interests of companies all that is at stake? Are the best interests of companies, i.e., interests rooted in market principles, all our nation needs in attaining the lofty goals of forming "a more perfect union", establishing "justice," insuring "domestic tranquility"...promoting "the general welfare," and securing "the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..." articulated in the Preamble to our Constitution?
Surely, we can all trust that greed is good and trickle down economics will certainly work to advance the public/common good, right?
Are the best interests of companies all that is at stake? Are the best interests of companies, i.e., interests rooted in market principles, all our nation needs in attaining the lofty goals of forming "a more perfect union", establishing "justice," insuring "domestic tranquility"...promoting "the general welfare," and securing "the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..." articulated in the Preamble to our Constitution?
Surely, we can all trust that greed is good and trickle down economics will certainly work to advance the public/common good, right?
4
Mr Brooks, if you are going to write about liberal policies that have been tried and failed, I wish you would at some point acknowledge that conservative politics and policies have been in ascendancy since at least 1980 and have by and large failed even more. Well to be more precise, they have succeeded in enriching CEOs and bankers, and they have failed for just about everyone else. Why is it class warfare to suggest that the rich should pay their fair share of the costs of running the country?
7
Look, you can pick around the edges of this scab all you like, but the larger and more dangerous truth is that wealth in this country is steadily moving upward to the thin veneer of 1% of the population. That wealth comes from the middle class who are steadily growing poorer and falling out of the middle class.
This is a dangerous trend for any country. Without a middle class you have an inherently unstable society. When your economy creates a very large underclass with little material wealth, little hope for a better life and no belief that their kids can prosper, you have a large group of folks with little loose. These are dangerous people. Once even the appearance of fairness is stripped from a social system and people see enough evidence in their own lives and the those of their friends and family that the system is genuinely rigged against them and in favor of the wealthy, their idea of a reasonable response to the injustice being perpetrated upon them degrades. And that is when you get upheaval. The American Dream creates expectations; a country thwarts them at its peril.
It can happen here. Let wealth inequality continue to grow for a few more generations and this once great country could become a very feral place to live.
Our system right now is rigged against the majority of its participants. We all feel it. It is broken and corrupt. If we don't find the moral fiber to recognize that and to change it, we will deserve the consequences.
This is a dangerous trend for any country. Without a middle class you have an inherently unstable society. When your economy creates a very large underclass with little material wealth, little hope for a better life and no belief that their kids can prosper, you have a large group of folks with little loose. These are dangerous people. Once even the appearance of fairness is stripped from a social system and people see enough evidence in their own lives and the those of their friends and family that the system is genuinely rigged against them and in favor of the wealthy, their idea of a reasonable response to the injustice being perpetrated upon them degrades. And that is when you get upheaval. The American Dream creates expectations; a country thwarts them at its peril.
It can happen here. Let wealth inequality continue to grow for a few more generations and this once great country could become a very feral place to live.
Our system right now is rigged against the majority of its participants. We all feel it. It is broken and corrupt. If we don't find the moral fiber to recognize that and to change it, we will deserve the consequences.
9
Let's do an experiment.
How about we take away all the wealth the people like Mr Brooks and those he supports has and without changing anything else let them go out into the world and show us how they can lift themselves up without government intervention? Of course they cannot use contacts or anything else that was a gift of being wealthy they have to approach it as if they were born poor and had minimal education and all the other disadvantages of coming from that place in society.
I'll bet in no time at all they will exhibit all the same symptoms we see in society among the working poor.
How about we take away all the wealth the people like Mr Brooks and those he supports has and without changing anything else let them go out into the world and show us how they can lift themselves up without government intervention? Of course they cannot use contacts or anything else that was a gift of being wealthy they have to approach it as if they were born poor and had minimal education and all the other disadvantages of coming from that place in society.
I'll bet in no time at all they will exhibit all the same symptoms we see in society among the working poor.
7
Mr. Brooks tells us that Bernie Sanders is crazy. Wonder how he would characterize Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina and the rest of those running for the Republican nomination. They all favor cutting taxes on the rich (even more than they've already been slashed) so that money can trickle down to the 99%.
It's okay for Republicans to put their faith in a failed idea that hasn't worked for over three decades, but Clinton is "epistemologically naive" because some programs she endorses has been tried and did not work. Talk about a double standard!
It's okay for Republicans to put their faith in a failed idea that hasn't worked for over three decades, but Clinton is "epistemologically naive" because some programs she endorses has been tried and did not work. Talk about a double standard!
10
"...Budget Office, raising the minimum wage to even $10.10 an hour would increase pay for millions of workers, but would cost roughly 500,000 jobs..."
In any urban environment where food and shelter cannot be provided from living off the land, low wages and unemployment both lead to impoverishment, want and loss of opportunities to improve one's circumstances. Those 500,000 people living on less than $10.10 per hour are not supporting themselves, they are living in extreme want, they are taking assistance from others to get by, the employers are getting a free ride from society, the customers are not going to spend more if wages go up, they are going to spend more on the products and services but less on the hidden costs of keeping the workers from destitution. The entire contemporary conservative litany of lower taxes, less government, and not helping the needy to stiffen their self reliance is just silly, they do not care about their fellow human beings, they want to keep their money to use as they wish. As a nation, we need to sustain our people's future by managing ourselves to assure that everyone can prosper, not just the wealthy.
In any urban environment where food and shelter cannot be provided from living off the land, low wages and unemployment both lead to impoverishment, want and loss of opportunities to improve one's circumstances. Those 500,000 people living on less than $10.10 per hour are not supporting themselves, they are living in extreme want, they are taking assistance from others to get by, the employers are getting a free ride from society, the customers are not going to spend more if wages go up, they are going to spend more on the products and services but less on the hidden costs of keeping the workers from destitution. The entire contemporary conservative litany of lower taxes, less government, and not helping the needy to stiffen their self reliance is just silly, they do not care about their fellow human beings, they want to keep their money to use as they wish. As a nation, we need to sustain our people's future by managing ourselves to assure that everyone can prosper, not just the wealthy.
2
Another opinion piece that is epistemologically challenged but rhetorically effective. Im sorry but it takes a spinner to know a spinner. For example, Democrats don't generalize about people in the indefinite terms Brooks employs here. Moreover, beliefs don't matter. What difference does it make whether Hillary has "tremendous faith in the government" if the specific policies she proposes have a positive bearing on the general welfare, as contemplated by the Constitution?
4
So, to put a point on it, NOTHING can be done in America to create more economic fairness, no greater sharing of our enormous national wealth can be achieved? This seems to be David Brooks conclusion and it is not at all surprising since he bleeds Republican royalist blood when nicked.
As always, you can't possibly pay people more, right? "..raising the minimum wage to even $10.10 an hour would increase pay for millions of workers, but would cost roughly 500,000 jobs."
What good is a "job" that doesn't pay enough to cover "bills"? Is it better to be unemployed and in trouble or working and not able to support yourself or your family? Tough choice. I only wish Brooks and his cohorts had to face that dilemma so they'd broaden their outlook.
Business owners always bellyache when raises have to be paid. They always adjust, too, and most of the time they find ways to pay more.
What David Brooks and no one on the neopaleo-farright wish to address is that one time, not so long ago, we had a national economy in America where almost all boats were rising. Now we have one where more than half the boats are sinking while the topper most are literally flying high in their own jets and where the upper percentages actually own most of the assets. The rest of us? A life of debt and hoping.
If you can't answer what happened to America, you can't formulate a plan, any plan. As for things that have been tried before, we once had reasonable controls on interest rates, now we don't. ETC.
As always, you can't possibly pay people more, right? "..raising the minimum wage to even $10.10 an hour would increase pay for millions of workers, but would cost roughly 500,000 jobs."
What good is a "job" that doesn't pay enough to cover "bills"? Is it better to be unemployed and in trouble or working and not able to support yourself or your family? Tough choice. I only wish Brooks and his cohorts had to face that dilemma so they'd broaden their outlook.
Business owners always bellyache when raises have to be paid. They always adjust, too, and most of the time they find ways to pay more.
What David Brooks and no one on the neopaleo-farright wish to address is that one time, not so long ago, we had a national economy in America where almost all boats were rising. Now we have one where more than half the boats are sinking while the topper most are literally flying high in their own jets and where the upper percentages actually own most of the assets. The rest of us? A life of debt and hoping.
If you can't answer what happened to America, you can't formulate a plan, any plan. As for things that have been tried before, we once had reasonable controls on interest rates, now we don't. ETC.
8
Bernie Sanders is the real paleoliberal. David, show me an economic policy he advocates that was not mainstream during the Eisenhower administration. You can't. Milton Friedman and even Friedrich von Hayek advocated similar stuff - in fact Ronald Reagan signed Friedman's signature negative income tax proposal, the Earned Income Tax Credit. Hayek advocated universal free health care and unemployment payments as things best left to the state. Now Bernie is seen as "Occupy Wall Street" because he advocates Reaganite and Hayek-type policies?
16
I do often wonder if the often perceived 'talking down' voicing of Mrs. Clinton is due to society's bias towards women in power or if the assertion is warranted. Obama and Mr. Clinton's approach is as top-down and instructive (if not more in Mr. Clinton's case), and yet most of us readily embrace it as an expected norm. Of course, Mrs. Clinton has been trained incessantly during this campaign to come across with a more gentile approach. This could also explain the content of her economic message. Staying clearly away from the extreme left while crafting an actionable plan shapes her as someone who cares and will implement on relevant solutions. Too much to the left and she is fluffy, not enough involvement and she seems more distant. It is important for her to shape as one, her job ahead as well as her persona in order to appeal to the electorates. It is now the job of the voters to rethink one's potential bias towards women leaders. Following the election and reelection of the first Black president, it would be important for Americans to forge transformative ways to gauge women leaders. Mrs. Clinton has presented her case, now it is up to America to vote without bias.
1
Almost every David Brooks column, read while drinking my morning coffee, involves a spit-take where my coffee comes up and lands on my lap.
This column's event happened early, at the end of the first paragraph: " If any Republicans were hoping that Clinton would make herself unelectable by wandering into the class warfare fever swamps, they can forget about it."
Oh, you mean those fever swamps occupied by the hippie dreamer radical Mr. Warren Buffet, the "there-is-class-warfare-and-my-class-is-winning" fever swamp denizen?
David, you are as out of touch as was George H. W. Bush at the grocery store check-out, marveling over the laser scanners that rank and file Americans had been seeing for years. It was clear he'd not shopped for groceries in a l-o-o-o-ng time and was, well, inhabiting a different world from ordinary Americans, now known as the 99%.
Go Bernie.
This column's event happened early, at the end of the first paragraph: " If any Republicans were hoping that Clinton would make herself unelectable by wandering into the class warfare fever swamps, they can forget about it."
Oh, you mean those fever swamps occupied by the hippie dreamer radical Mr. Warren Buffet, the "there-is-class-warfare-and-my-class-is-winning" fever swamp denizen?
David, you are as out of touch as was George H. W. Bush at the grocery store check-out, marveling over the laser scanners that rank and file Americans had been seeing for years. It was clear he'd not shopped for groceries in a l-o-o-o-ng time and was, well, inhabiting a different world from ordinary Americans, now known as the 99%.
Go Bernie.
16
A word of advice, Lennard, finish your coffee before reading Brooks. Of course, nausea is a side effect of Brooks consumption, too.
2
Bernie knows work visas drive down American wages, unlike the billionaire-friendly political class immigration 'reformers.' Bernie is not part of the Democrat-Republican corporate machine.
The corporate-friendly media is less eager to point that out than they are to cover the crazy Donald. Hillary and Jeb are both completely entangled in big corporate money, chasing it enthusiastically whenever out of office. They hope to run against one another so the subject won't come up.
The corporate-friendly media is less eager to point that out than they are to cover the crazy Donald. Hillary and Jeb are both completely entangled in big corporate money, chasing it enthusiastically whenever out of office. They hope to run against one another so the subject won't come up.
3
When will David Brooks talk about the prospective presidential candidates? Not one of them has articulated a viable economic policy. Sanders and Clinton are exemplars of sanity compared to the clown car whackos of the Republican Party and he knows it. In marginalizing Sanders, he never actually attempts to show that anything Sanders says is actually incorrect. Clinton's remarks are much like Sandrrs' (except for the Brooklyn accent). Let's hear what Brooks has to say about Trump and his meteoric rise in Republican polls, or Walket or Jindal with their states in tatters.
10
Ah yes, Mr. Brooks parrots the Right's approach to raising the minimum wage as a job killer. For sure let's keep people below a living wage.
Let's take Jeb's! advice and make people work more in the US, even though Americans work more hours tun any other western workers in the world, and even though people, like his brother, worked less than any previous president.
In fact, George W. Bush’s 65 combined trips to his Texas ranch and his parents’ home in Kennebunkport, Maine, totaled 407 days!
Not included in this data are trips to the Camp David presidential retreat in western Maryland, which Bush visited 108 times for all or part of 341 days! Boggles the mind, no?
Thanks to the Republicans for perpetuating our current class system, and squealing when Sanders or any other Democrat dares to point out the inequities in our country and our rush to dismantle our democracy by suggesting the rich are too rich and need to share the wealth.
Let's take Jeb's! advice and make people work more in the US, even though Americans work more hours tun any other western workers in the world, and even though people, like his brother, worked less than any previous president.
In fact, George W. Bush’s 65 combined trips to his Texas ranch and his parents’ home in Kennebunkport, Maine, totaled 407 days!
Not included in this data are trips to the Camp David presidential retreat in western Maryland, which Bush visited 108 times for all or part of 341 days! Boggles the mind, no?
Thanks to the Republicans for perpetuating our current class system, and squealing when Sanders or any other Democrat dares to point out the inequities in our country and our rush to dismantle our democracy by suggesting the rich are too rich and need to share the wealth.
11
David Brooks gives us the same old neopaleoconservatism we have been listening to since the Reagan era with no tangible results. Let corporations rule and everything will be fine. Anything the government does is nothing less than interference in the marketplace and a waste of taxpayers’ money. People are poor because they are lazy and/or too stupid to be anything else. This is what conservatives think. I know I live amongst many of them. Their disdain for minorities and the working poor is so clear it reverberates all the way down the road. David seems to have forgotten 2008 and the years just prior. How corporations nearly destroyed this country’s economic system. He grossly underestimates the hostility there is by the general public on the concentration of wealth that is killing the middle class, the little that is left of it. He forgets that George junior made a mess out this country and started a needless war that has cost taxpayers trillions with no result to show for it. Unfortunately this painted the Obama administration into a corner they have not been able to get out of. Hillary is doing her best to play the middle but for the neopaleoconservatives anyone left of Ayn Rand is a commie.
9
You may very well be right that the government is not likely to be completely successful in running an economy. But at the same time, the private sector has shown over and over again a tendency to ignore or at least underestimate the risks of actions intended to increase the personal gain of a few. The standard "But it will create jobs!" will only go so far. It would be one thing if unsuccessful risk takers were the only ones who suffered as a result of the failure of a high risk course of action. But as 2008 has shown (and many example prior to 2008), those who would not reap the rewards of a successful risk strategy nevertheless suffer the punishment of its failure. This seems unjust and a reason for the government to level the playing field somewhat. One hopes that is what Hillary is after.
1
Always a pleasure to read David Brooks. But it's really quite a stretch for most of us to swallow Republican advice on economic policy after they did such a stellar job last time.
10
Clinton is proposing policies that merely seek to mitigate the worst effects of modern American capitalism. If conservatives knew what was good for them, they would embrace many of these proposals as an acceptable alternative to the more radical ideas espoused by Bernie Sanders and his supporters. But of course they won't. More trickle-down and deregulation will be the order of the day, and the devil take the hindmost. The only question is how long the American people will tolerate this, and how their rage will manifest itself when they finally figure out the economic game is, in fact, rigged.
6
One of these days I am hoping that enough of these folks who have been enabling the republican party to destroy our democracy and our economy will wake up, slap themselves upon the forehead, and say, "these jerks are talking about me. They think I am one of the moochers."
Then maybe poor and middle class working stiff white guys will realize they have way more in common with the poor and middle class working stiff black guys than with the fox cartoon network, with Glenn Beck or Limbaugh.
I hope it is not too late, by then.
Then maybe poor and middle class working stiff white guys will realize they have way more in common with the poor and middle class working stiff black guys than with the fox cartoon network, with Glenn Beck or Limbaugh.
I hope it is not too late, by then.
I do get so tired of those arguing against increases in the minimum wage keep trotting out the old shibboleth connecting improving wages for the poor with job losses. This has been proven wrong so many times and, apart from occasionally finding the odd isolated instance of someone losing a job, there's a heck of a lot more evidence that it actually improves job creation and stimulates economic growth.
Repeating the lie doesn't make it true.
Repeating the lie doesn't make it true.
5
This is well thought out. Instead of paleoliberalism, Mrs. Clinton should study Henry Clay and Lincoln -- American Whig-ism. Infrastructure, Education, etc. Early childhood education? Where is the evidence it is anything more than group babysitting? It could be more, but that would require massive training of the providers. Now, I suspect it is another cottage industry whose members all vote Democratic. Are some large corporations/banks too complex to manage? Perhaps they are, but better to have the market correct that, because the government cannot keep its own house in order very well: SEC and Madoff? The VA? Note the report today that JPMorgan Chase reduced expenses in part by selling its commodities division -- did the government tell it to do that?
There is no free market when monopolies write the rules of commerce.
We have not seen a free market since before Reagan.
Reagan is the chief reason we no longer have a democracy.
We have not seen a free market since before Reagan.
Reagan is the chief reason we no longer have a democracy.
A many syllabled word will not hide the fact that modern winner- take- all- unregulated capitalism brought a good part of our world to its knees. A system has to work for all its people, not just the mightily rich.
Brooks ignores the practices of the financial and corporate world that are undermining any sense of financial security and well being for the majority of us. And the past few decades have in no way shown that corporate America is good at solving major problems. What it has shown is that it protects and overpays its chief executives. ka
Brooks ignores the practices of the financial and corporate world that are undermining any sense of financial security and well being for the majority of us. And the past few decades have in no way shown that corporate America is good at solving major problems. What it has shown is that it protects and overpays its chief executives. ka
5
Bernie Sanders may have once called himself a Socialist but policy wise, he is no more than a progressive liberal and most people support his policies for economic change. Obviously, the appeal of Sanders scares Brooks so he must bring up the specter of class warfare and say some nice things about Hillary.
10
Pay attention. Sanders still calls himself a Socialist.
Brooks's anti-government remarks remind me of what Churchill said about democracy - it's the worst political system, except for all the others.
Tasking government to manage our economy is the worst possible solution - except for letting the private sector do it. You know, the private sector that took crazy risks with borrowed money, that bet trillions on the idea that the housing boom would go on forever, that crashed the economy in 2008 as a result of that stupid bet? That private sector? You remember them, right David?
What's your alternative, D? The same trickle-down economic policies your party has been selling since Reagan? The same policies that got us in the mess we're in today? Do us a favor and pipe down until you come up with some ideas that are better than the failed policies your party has been pushing on us since the 80's, okay?
Tasking government to manage our economy is the worst possible solution - except for letting the private sector do it. You know, the private sector that took crazy risks with borrowed money, that bet trillions on the idea that the housing boom would go on forever, that crashed the economy in 2008 as a result of that stupid bet? That private sector? You remember them, right David?
What's your alternative, D? The same trickle-down economic policies your party has been selling since Reagan? The same policies that got us in the mess we're in today? Do us a favor and pipe down until you come up with some ideas that are better than the failed policies your party has been pushing on us since the 80's, okay?
8
This sort of column reminds one that when push comes to shove, David Brooks has a lot more in common with Scott Walker et al than with grownups.
In the first place, it's in no sense "crazy," to think that Bernie Sanders has a poont. More than that, it's not a far-left, wacky out-of-the-middle point: the idea that a small pack of oligarchs run the country for their own benefit and at the expense of most of us goes all the way back to Twain's "Gilded Age," Bryant, Roosevelt (no, the first one), Bob LaFollete, Roosevelt (the second one), and so on. And today, it's about the one thing that the Tea Party and Occupy agrees about.
As for the "tried and didn't work," Oh, come on. more Americans work in renewables than oil and coal these days. Head Start works--until you cut the programs, and stick kids into underfunded ghetto schools. And so on.
By the way, how's the new old far-rightisme doin' these days? Kansas, Wisconsin, Louisiana, New Jersey, they just purring along, are they?
In the first place, it's in no sense "crazy," to think that Bernie Sanders has a poont. More than that, it's not a far-left, wacky out-of-the-middle point: the idea that a small pack of oligarchs run the country for their own benefit and at the expense of most of us goes all the way back to Twain's "Gilded Age," Bryant, Roosevelt (no, the first one), Bob LaFollete, Roosevelt (the second one), and so on. And today, it's about the one thing that the Tea Party and Occupy agrees about.
As for the "tried and didn't work," Oh, come on. more Americans work in renewables than oil and coal these days. Head Start works--until you cut the programs, and stick kids into underfunded ghetto schools. And so on.
By the way, how's the new old far-rightisme doin' these days? Kansas, Wisconsin, Louisiana, New Jersey, they just purring along, are they?
10
California, New York and Illinois - with far more population than Kansas, Wisconsin, Louisiana and New Jersey - have temporarily restored some semblance of fiscal sanity to years of brinksmanship. So, how about that far-leftism?
several things:
Any comment on economics from a supporter of "tinkle down" economics is highly suspect. Are we to be surprised that the same plan with a new name keeps being sold to the ignorant.
Lets look at class warfare. 4 of the last 5 republican candidates running for president were silver spoon kids growing up in the shadow of, and being aided by their accomplished fathers.
The last 2 Democratic presidents were children of modest means who made good on their own.
From the party of the aristocracy we expect fear of class warfare. Let's all go eat cake
Any comment on economics from a supporter of "tinkle down" economics is highly suspect. Are we to be surprised that the same plan with a new name keeps being sold to the ignorant.
Lets look at class warfare. 4 of the last 5 republican candidates running for president were silver spoon kids growing up in the shadow of, and being aided by their accomplished fathers.
The last 2 Democratic presidents were children of modest means who made good on their own.
From the party of the aristocracy we expect fear of class warfare. Let's all go eat cake
7
Brooks reveals his true colors when using phrases like "class warfare fever swamps." Nothing that follows can be taken seriously, as this premise conveys the essential delusion of conservative politics.
"Class warfare" is an absurd notion. Poor people have no power. They have no ability to "wage war" against the richest Americans. "Class warfare" is a deeply offensive phrase used to dismiss any effort to achieve economic justice by characterizing the quest for justice as "envy" or "jealousy."
Brooks goes on to use the phrase "class conflict" and to characterize Bernie Sanders's policies as "angry." At least that last characterization is accurate.
Angry. He is. I am. We should all be.
"Class warfare" is an absurd notion. Poor people have no power. They have no ability to "wage war" against the richest Americans. "Class warfare" is a deeply offensive phrase used to dismiss any effort to achieve economic justice by characterizing the quest for justice as "envy" or "jealousy."
Brooks goes on to use the phrase "class conflict" and to characterize Bernie Sanders's policies as "angry." At least that last characterization is accurate.
Angry. He is. I am. We should all be.
13
Clinton's agenda is cautious and exceedingly bland. She sure isn't winning any hearts and minds with this speech. That said, she isn't alienating anyone either. That might be enough to get her elected but only as the candidate where everyone had to settle. Not exactly the message that rallies voters.
27
The Clinton Family Farewell tour continues. Political pundits will either castigate her or laud her and crowds will still turn out to cheer her but the plain fact today is the same as it was in 2008. Nobody of any intelligence wants to see her in the White House. She makes Nixon look like a saint.
2
A lot of sexists and stupid people don't want to see her in the White House. So what?
It was uninspiring New Democrat, don't-poke-the-neo-liberal-bear, milquetoast, hormoneless, boring small ball; the kind of cowardly small ball in which Democrats can't even bring themselves to slide head first into home to score the winning run. The same thing that's gotten the Democrats plastered when they should be dominating. Democrats choose to lose, and Clinton just did. It was a great gift to Republican because nobody in the base will be fired up to fight for it because there's nothing to fight for. After Obama, nobody believes Democrats will fight for anything. Democrats fight for nothing because they believe in nothing.
1
"In each case, in this view, government is more competent at steering companies toward their own best interests than the companies are themselves."
To me, this interpretation of Clinton's economic philosophy seems naive, couched in traditional GOP fear tactics, better heard on Limbaugh than in a Brook's column. No president, be her liberal, conservative or paleoliberal, or neoplaeoliberal, will be able to "steer" any American business over its CEO, board of directors and the best interests of the shareholders. Clinton's reactions to the engines of capitalism are not to control them, not that the players are "dumb"--far from it--just that a clear and smart regulation is needed to ensure balance and rein in the boom and bust, bubble and burst patterns that have plagued us in the past. Unfettered capitalism leads us down a robber baron's path which the GOP would like to pave in favor of the one-percent. Clinton sees us evolving past that, and it's about time. She knows these business leaders are crafty, very smart, yet willing to make decisions that unfairly line their pockets to the detriment of the poor and middle class. The type of regulation Clinton supports is smart, and, ironically, creates a steady, even keeled economy that leads to long-term, conservative economic growth for ALL of America, not just the financiers and the well connected.
To me, this interpretation of Clinton's economic philosophy seems naive, couched in traditional GOP fear tactics, better heard on Limbaugh than in a Brook's column. No president, be her liberal, conservative or paleoliberal, or neoplaeoliberal, will be able to "steer" any American business over its CEO, board of directors and the best interests of the shareholders. Clinton's reactions to the engines of capitalism are not to control them, not that the players are "dumb"--far from it--just that a clear and smart regulation is needed to ensure balance and rein in the boom and bust, bubble and burst patterns that have plagued us in the past. Unfettered capitalism leads us down a robber baron's path which the GOP would like to pave in favor of the one-percent. Clinton sees us evolving past that, and it's about time. She knows these business leaders are crafty, very smart, yet willing to make decisions that unfairly line their pockets to the detriment of the poor and middle class. The type of regulation Clinton supports is smart, and, ironically, creates a steady, even keeled economy that leads to long-term, conservative economic growth for ALL of America, not just the financiers and the well connected.
3
I am voting for Hillary and the plans to raise the minimum wage and other suggestions made by politicians will only tweak the income disparity situation. The only way that you are going to once again have a strong middle class is to bring back the blue collar industries to this country, which will never happen, or create new industries that they can work for. Most technology jobs require either a certain type of mind set or are there to eliminate jobs.
2
Market mechanisms work but only to a point. Ever since Theodore Roosevelt used the power of government to lean against the growing power of industrial and commercial capitalists the view espoused by Brooks has shown to be wrong. Without Franklin Roosevelt's governmental programs the Great Recession would have been a lot worse. Reagan and race may have poisoned the well of government power but Americans tend to favor governmental programs that help them.
1
From: David
To: Hillary
Candidly, your positive spin on government is not appreciated. If the conservative revolution has taught us anything, it's that personal character trumps all (OK, sorry for using the word "trumps"- see, I'm sensitive to people's feelings). Remember, if it wasn't for the Community Reinvestment Act the Global Financial Crisis wouldn't have happened! So lighten up on the government bit and add more tales of personal character and heroism. Oh, and you might want to dust off your copy of Marcus Aurelius!
To: Hillary
Candidly, your positive spin on government is not appreciated. If the conservative revolution has taught us anything, it's that personal character trumps all (OK, sorry for using the word "trumps"- see, I'm sensitive to people's feelings). Remember, if it wasn't for the Community Reinvestment Act the Global Financial Crisis wouldn't have happened! So lighten up on the government bit and add more tales of personal character and heroism. Oh, and you might want to dust off your copy of Marcus Aurelius!
1
"This neopaleoliberalism is built less on going after Wall Street and the rich and more on a tremendous faith in government to manage the economy more intelligently than the private sector. It’s less a negative assault on the elites and more an optimistic faith in the power of planning. The private sector is not evil or power hungry, just kind of dumb."
I think you are really overstating the degree to which Hillary Clinton wants to be involved in "planning" the economy. Like most people with a decent knowledge of history and of the history of the political economy, Ms. Clinton understands that some government controls are necessary to be sure that the rich and powerful don't continually grab more of the economic pie for themselves, beyond any reasonable claim to those increased rewards.
I think you are really overstating the degree to which Hillary Clinton wants to be involved in "planning" the economy. Like most people with a decent knowledge of history and of the history of the political economy, Ms. Clinton understands that some government controls are necessary to be sure that the rich and powerful don't continually grab more of the economic pie for themselves, beyond any reasonable claim to those increased rewards.
2
When other arguments fail, just label something as an old idea.
7
When the political dialogue is hijacked by conservatives and dragged further and further to the right for several decades and the results are disastrous for the middle and working classes, the pundits shrug. But the minute a few commonsense progressive ideas are aired by the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, they squawk about "electability."
They don't seem to realize that we may have reached the point where enough is enough. Where we realize if right-wing wackos can turn out in large numbers, we can, too. Maybe it's time for us to demand "our country back" from the Kochs and Adelsons.
They don't seem to realize that we may have reached the point where enough is enough. Where we realize if right-wing wackos can turn out in large numbers, we can, too. Maybe it's time for us to demand "our country back" from the Kochs and Adelsons.
5
Check out the references to Bernie. That "crazy" in the first sentence refers to him. Along with "unelectable" and "radical." This gives us a taste of how the GOP is positioning themselves against him.
Strangely, elsewhere in the piece, Brooks described Bernie's position precisely: "the economic game is rigged against ordinary people. The top 1 percent controls the fundamental economic conditions. Major transformation is required."
We couldn't have said it better! This nugget of accuracy in Mr. Brooks' fantasy world of unicorns and lollipops is astonishing and refreshing. I guess Brooks thought the horror of the concept was so self-evident that none of his overblown prose was necessary.
Well, Mr. Brooks will be more horrified when he learns just how many Americans agree with Bernie. But I think he sorta suspects already. Why else would he even mention an unelectable candidate? Unless maybe the candidate is not unelectable.
Strangely, elsewhere in the piece, Brooks described Bernie's position precisely: "the economic game is rigged against ordinary people. The top 1 percent controls the fundamental economic conditions. Major transformation is required."
We couldn't have said it better! This nugget of accuracy in Mr. Brooks' fantasy world of unicorns and lollipops is astonishing and refreshing. I guess Brooks thought the horror of the concept was so self-evident that none of his overblown prose was necessary.
Well, Mr. Brooks will be more horrified when he learns just how many Americans agree with Bernie. But I think he sorta suspects already. Why else would he even mention an unelectable candidate? Unless maybe the candidate is not unelectable.
8
I don't believe that ANYBODY thinks that the government can run big business' necessarily "better," than the private profiteers. The government CAN run a big business with much less of the gouging and price rigging that occurs in the private sector as the government is a non-profit, profit is not the sole motivating factor of the going concern.
The government should not regulate but run the banking, financial and insurance industries. The savings to the US would be measured in hundreds of billions in not trillions of dollars. Look at these industries if you want to see the root problems of our economic system and while you're at it, look at the most socially destructive "bank," the Federal Reserve.
Our elected representatives are no where close to putting forward a sensible agenda that will permanently stabilize our economy, they will continue to leave this in the hands of people whose social interest reach only as far as profits will take them.
The government should not regulate but run the banking, financial and insurance industries. The savings to the US would be measured in hundreds of billions in not trillions of dollars. Look at these industries if you want to see the root problems of our economic system and while you're at it, look at the most socially destructive "bank," the Federal Reserve.
Our elected representatives are no where close to putting forward a sensible agenda that will permanently stabilize our economy, they will continue to leave this in the hands of people whose social interest reach only as far as profits will take them.
Funny how the majority of Americans polled agree with Bernie Sanders' positions on things like the growing wealth gap, social security expansion, college debt, money in politics, investment in infrastructure, raising the minimum wage and so on.
Brooks didn't do his homework ... again.
Brooks didn't do his homework ... again.
13
In an effort towards fairness to all readers, could you please tell Scott Walker and the students in Wisconsin where Mr . Walker has cut spending on public education, just what the dickens does "epistemoligical" mean?
Go Bernie!
Go Bernie!
5
During the Golden Age of American Greatness -- I guess this would be the 50's or early 60's before the Beatles landed -- a corporate CEO took home about 60 times what his average worker took home. Now it's about 300 times! We were paying off WWII, we put a man on the moon, public colleges were cheap, there were lots of union jobs, the Rams were in LA... Now, the top 10% of wealth holders own 75% of everything and 100% of all capital assets (you know, stuff that creates wealth), and the bottom 40% own 0% (Zip!) if not a minus percent due to debt and mortgages. Something has indeed changed in America since I was born, and it hasn't been good for most Americans.
I just find it strange that David Brooks thinks that any government subsidy, any tax cut, or any easement of regulations for the rich-who-are-getting-richer is GOOD for our character, for our economy, for our people, and for our morals, and that any pay raise, any tuition cut, any student loan deal, any right to organize labor, any level playing field is BAD for competition, character, morals, the economy, the American family, or our nation.
As Lindsay Graham recently said in criticism of the negative things GOP candidates are saying (to paraphrase) -- "This is how the Republicans view people." Nobody (well, except maybe Bush and Trump and Romney) just comes out and says "working class people are bad!" It's often couched in other terms, like "working class people are being corrupted by unscrupulous Liberals."
I just find it strange that David Brooks thinks that any government subsidy, any tax cut, or any easement of regulations for the rich-who-are-getting-richer is GOOD for our character, for our economy, for our people, and for our morals, and that any pay raise, any tuition cut, any student loan deal, any right to organize labor, any level playing field is BAD for competition, character, morals, the economy, the American family, or our nation.
As Lindsay Graham recently said in criticism of the negative things GOP candidates are saying (to paraphrase) -- "This is how the Republicans view people." Nobody (well, except maybe Bush and Trump and Romney) just comes out and says "working class people are bad!" It's often couched in other terms, like "working class people are being corrupted by unscrupulous Liberals."
6
Nominating Bernie Sanders means electing a Republican as president. I am unenthusiastic about Hillary Clinton, but an elderly Ben and Jerry socialist isn't the alternative. Maybe he COULD get the gun lobby vote.
2
I am hoping the American public will have more evaluative skills than you exhibit in this comment. Listen to what Bernie Sanders is saying are the major issues for our country and his solutions. If you disagree with his assessment don't vote for him. However please don't base your vote on your view of him as "an elderly Ben and Jerry socialist". Choosing the President of the United States should not be a beauty contest.
Nuanced discussions of political matters and the complex human beings whom they involve tend to be more to my liking. “Which side are you on” dichotomies have often struck me as limiting. But when I think of a few small people of power, sitting in a room in New York City, scheming to determine how to land high interest credit cards in the hands of as many vulnerable people as possible… if that’s not the definition of a squad of villains, then I don’t know the dictionary.
There’s a time for subtlety, and a time to call a rotten apple a rotten apple. In 2015 Bernie Sanders has it right. David Brooks’ more nuanced analysis misses the mark by a continent or three.
There’s a time for subtlety, and a time to call a rotten apple a rotten apple. In 2015 Bernie Sanders has it right. David Brooks’ more nuanced analysis misses the mark by a continent or three.
10
I don't see any principled reason why government should be assumed to be less wise than private business. Both are run by human beings, with all their vices and virtues, and I think we can stipulate that the balance of vice and virtue is about equal in the humans who run either of them. So that leaves incentives. In government, if you harm a lot of people with your ideas, but benefit a few, you should be voted out of office (unless those few have so much money that they can prevent that mechanism from working.) In business, if you harm many people but benefit a few, as long as those few are your investors, you're fine. If you harm the many so much that they can no longer afford your products,t hen you may have long-term problems, but history has shown that you can impoverish a lot of workers for a long time before they rise up against you. Government at least has the mandate to work towards fairness for all, while business has taught itself that its only mandate is to increase shareholder value (and has tried to convince everyone else that this will help others in the long run--when, as Keynes reminds us, we're all dead.
7
In general people who work in government are looking to make the ideals of our nation come into fruition which means making choices that keep the society equitable and fair regardless of personal benefit.
Private enterprise is by default a greed based endeavor and therefore unlikely to do anything for anyone unless it benefits the actor.
Private enterprise is by default a greed based endeavor and therefore unlikely to do anything for anyone unless it benefits the actor.
Why does this still sound paternalistic? A weak pat on the head, at best? Maybe it's because David Brooks can only hear "echos" of male politicians, even in Hilary's voice. I thought I heard a little Eleanor Roosevelt in that speech. You?
10
Mr. Brooks has an arrogant, pompous streak that is well illuminated if you watch his performance on PBS Nightly News friday nights. Sometimes he shows a bit of distain for his "liberal" counterpart. Last week he "forgot" E.J. Dione's name and called him Mark (Shields).
the game IS RIGGED.
what else do you call it when hedge fund guys use "carried interest" to disguise their earnings from taxation and then pay only capital gains rates
what else do you call it when uber wealthy pay less taxes on interest income than the rest of us do on our labor?
what else do you call it when hedge fund guys use "carried interest" to disguise their earnings from taxation and then pay only capital gains rates
what else do you call it when uber wealthy pay less taxes on interest income than the rest of us do on our labor?
12
Dennis, actually, the top one percent pay about half of all federal income taxes.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-t...
I too find Bernie Sanders appealing, but untruths are not the way to make a case for him.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-t...
I too find Bernie Sanders appealing, but untruths are not the way to make a case for him.
1
"One pictures squads of Federal Simplicity Enforcers roaming through the corridors of Midtown Manhattan telling C.E.O.s when their outfits are too mind-boggling."
Not as silly as it sounds, when one thinks back to to the 2008 crash or Enron et al. A lot of pain might have been avoided.
Not as silly as it sounds, when one thinks back to to the 2008 crash or Enron et al. A lot of pain might have been avoided.
12
That is why Bernie Sanders makes more sense. If big financial conglomerates pose such a danger to the economy that their every move must be monitored by government, it makes far more sense to break them up so that none is so large it risks taking down the economy.
Obama promised to end "too big to fail." He failed. That's because there is no way to end that problem without doing something Wall Street will fight to the death to prevent - limit the size of financial companies. Obama's administration is far too compromised by Wall Street influence to do what is necessary. So is Hilary.
Obama promised to end "too big to fail." He failed. That's because there is no way to end that problem without doing something Wall Street will fight to the death to prevent - limit the size of financial companies. Obama's administration is far too compromised by Wall Street influence to do what is necessary. So is Hilary.
"neopaleoliberalism"? David, where on earth did you dig that one up ??
In fact it is the "neo-liberal" economic policies of the Reagan/Thatcher era which have enabled the world's bankers and corporate elites to siphon the wealth and resources of the world's nations into the pockets of the oligarchs and their political puppets.
Anyone who cannot clearly see the results of this "trickle down", 'deregulate', "anti-worker", Free Trade" economic agenda is either wearing blinders. a complicit pawn or a fool !!!
In fact it is the "neo-liberal" economic policies of the Reagan/Thatcher era which have enabled the world's bankers and corporate elites to siphon the wealth and resources of the world's nations into the pockets of the oligarchs and their political puppets.
Anyone who cannot clearly see the results of this "trickle down", 'deregulate', "anti-worker", Free Trade" economic agenda is either wearing blinders. a complicit pawn or a fool !!!
27
Indeed, and maybe companies can really grow once they treat their worker bees with more respect and pay wages that can feed a family.
1
or in Dave's case: all of the above.
If Hillary seems to have too much faith in government, it is very clear that there is no Republican presidential candidate who has any faith in government. In fact, the Republican platform seems to be to abolish the federal government -- starve it to death -- while allowing each state to implement its own policies on issues like education, health and the social safety net.
14
Yes. Bring control closer to the people so elected officials can be held responsible for their actions. Sounds a lot like freedom and accountability.
We will then be The Un-United States of America!
It's surprising that Brooks mentions "wandering into the class warfare fever swamps".
Republicans are engaged in class warfare: they promote the rich at the expense of the poor and the middle.
But whenever anyone points out this truth, they accuse the truth-teller, not themselves, of "class warfare".
Republicans are engaged in class warfare: they promote the rich at the expense of the poor and the middle.
But whenever anyone points out this truth, they accuse the truth-teller, not themselves, of "class warfare".
23
Hmm, faith in government or faith in the private sector.
Government has the interests of all of us at heart, while the private sector exists to profit (large) investors. Government exists to do all that good stuff in the Constitution, while the private sector exists to turn a buck. I believe incompetence & bad intentions are equally common across both - but I'll put my trust in government - the worst it can do is just muddle through.
Government has the interests of all of us at heart, while the private sector exists to profit (large) investors. Government exists to do all that good stuff in the Constitution, while the private sector exists to turn a buck. I believe incompetence & bad intentions are equally common across both - but I'll put my trust in government - the worst it can do is just muddle through.
159
@KEF, Government used to be very good at doing the things it is supposed to until the GOP started hamstringing it in secret of course then pointing to the results of their handi work as proof of the lies they tell about government. That was one of the things about reagan's rhetoric was that there was little or no proof of his assertions about bad government until after he had been in office long enough to have created them. It came out later that he had been secretly defunding agencies and having his appointees make new operational policy that caused the problems he pointed at and then said "SEE I was right."
This is GOP SOP.
This is GOP SOP.
1
Both government and private sectors affect WE the People, yet we only get to vote for one of them. It is amazing so many Americans have been propagandized to trust the one they cannot vote for over the one they can vote for.
It's a statistical bet: which sector do you believe nets out, really and truly, in the public interest? It turns out also to be a fools' bet, the answer being, from the sum of all interests (with a large neutral component of "just doing my job") divided by the number of participants and discounting a commercial PR/propaganda multiplier, GOVERNMENT. By a country mile. Believing otherwise will correlate directly with 1. one's commercial interest in bamboozling an electorate to believe otherwise, or 2. susceptibility to the Great Bamboozle. This is PRECISELY what's the matter with Kansas, pace Tom Frank.
If Hillary Clinton's economic policies have been tried and proven fruitless what would Mr. Brooks say about the disasters of Reaganomics and George W.'s policies of hands off, let the pigs eat whatever they want ?
Has Mr. Brooks forgotten what policies were in effect and which party was in power that brought us The Great Depression and The Great Recession ?
How many more decades will it take for Republicans to admit that Social Security and Medicare and building infrastructure works ?
David, if you're tired of hearing the same old, same old that never works you should stop listening to conservatives.
Has Mr. Brooks forgotten what policies were in effect and which party was in power that brought us The Great Depression and The Great Recession ?
How many more decades will it take for Republicans to admit that Social Security and Medicare and building infrastructure works ?
David, if you're tired of hearing the same old, same old that never works you should stop listening to conservatives.
33
The principal mistake Bill Clinton made was repealing Glass-Stegall. Hillary should correct that mistake. Reinstate Glass Stegall. Repeal Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
15
Glass_Steagall interferes with banking in the context of the games central banks play driving interest rates to extremes. That's why it had to go.
I am all for clarity via brevity. If Hillary is a neopaleoliberal then let's be clear and concise, the entire field of Republican candidates has no conservatives, only reactionaries.
21
Charles, as a native of Germany I would even go father than calling Republicans 'reactionaries'. The have - especially after the election of President Obama and the rise of the so-called grassroots and now dominant Tea Party - marched so far to the arch-right that they have arrived at the abyss of fascism pure.
Both their acts and language reflect the worst fear mongering and lies against all those 'others' out to destroy them that far too many fell for during the last century.
Both their acts and language reflect the worst fear mongering and lies against all those 'others' out to destroy them that far too many fell for during the last century.
1
What Brooks doesn't understand is that an activist government which tries different approaches--even some that might be variations of previous measures--is being pragmatic. His alternatives: the spectacular failure of voodoo economics, the idiotic faith in the unfettered market, the blind belief of letting business act without constraint--all of which has led to the death of the middle class in America. He naively accepts pro-business memes and dismisses practical solutions to the hollowing out of middle class lives.
145
Are people losing 15 pounds on the new Neopaleoliberal Diet? Enough with the gobbledygook.
13
It's "meaningless" when Hillary says we should punish
Wall Street criminals? Not to me, David, not to me.
Wall Street criminals? Not to me, David, not to me.
26
.."wandering into class warfare fever swamps" According to David Brooks, class warfare was a result of Liberals being liberals and conservatives therefore are being persecuted. The reality is that the class war is over and America lost. It's time for the great push back. It's coming. I haven't given much thought to a Bernie Sanders presidency but I'm starting to see the light.
15
Amen, bro, amen!!
1
The GOP espouses Social Darwinism. Bernie Sanders has called them out on it. Since the days of "Saint Reagan" The GOP has successfully demonized the term Liberal. Too many people seem ignorant of the fact that without Liberals, there would be no Social Security, minimum wage, Medicare, Civil Rights, and anything that benefits the ordinary citizen. Corporations have rarely done what is right or fair, only what is profitable. I sincerely doubt Bernie Sanders will get the nomination, but if he has pushed Hillary to the left , then he has accomplished something.
19
By current law corporations can only do what is profitable or face a potential shareholder lawsuit. This is one change that has to be made. Originally in the USA, corporations were only allowed to exist to serve the public good. We should get back to that as soon as we can. It would improve the world, not just the USA if we were to lead in reigning in the corporations. Do you realize that many corporations are bigger than many small countries? What happens when Wal-Mart/Verizon/Time-Warner merge into an entity larger than most US States? Will we be happy then that the states have the ultimate power in the USA? Who then will protect the human people?
"She is best viewed, as the progressive commentator Matt Yglesias put it in a Vox essay, as a new paleoliberal."
Oh come on, David. Please. Stop with the labels and listen to the substance. Of course she believes in "central planning" as you put it to equate her proposals to some Soviet style morass. But it's less central planning than policies to rein in the unabated greed of capitalism.
Without some interventions, capitalists will run amok as Piketty wrote and we see happening every day. Corporations today have all the power. Cheaper labor overseas? Sure, let's export jobs. Wage increases? Why bother, when there are 3 people for every job and we can keep our employees anxious and overworked. Invest here in the US? Why bother when even more "efficiencies" can be squeezed out of labor and production. Don't like US tax laws? Go incorporate in Ireland but keep the profits stuffed in your own banks.
Capitalists, as in multinationals and the big guys who donate to campaigns and write rules for TPP, have too long been unfettered. Time to create incentives and policies that benefit labor for a change. When I hear JEB! saying his "working longer hours" applies to part-timers, I reply: Part time jobs is all they can get these days!
Hillary's liberalism isn't neo, paleo or antediluvian. It's traditional belief in checks and balances that can address the inequities of today's overly powerful corporate and financial sectors.
Oh come on, David. Please. Stop with the labels and listen to the substance. Of course she believes in "central planning" as you put it to equate her proposals to some Soviet style morass. But it's less central planning than policies to rein in the unabated greed of capitalism.
Without some interventions, capitalists will run amok as Piketty wrote and we see happening every day. Corporations today have all the power. Cheaper labor overseas? Sure, let's export jobs. Wage increases? Why bother, when there are 3 people for every job and we can keep our employees anxious and overworked. Invest here in the US? Why bother when even more "efficiencies" can be squeezed out of labor and production. Don't like US tax laws? Go incorporate in Ireland but keep the profits stuffed in your own banks.
Capitalists, as in multinationals and the big guys who donate to campaigns and write rules for TPP, have too long been unfettered. Time to create incentives and policies that benefit labor for a change. When I hear JEB! saying his "working longer hours" applies to part-timers, I reply: Part time jobs is all they can get these days!
Hillary's liberalism isn't neo, paleo or antediluvian. It's traditional belief in checks and balances that can address the inequities of today's overly powerful corporate and financial sectors.
42
We live in a world that is much more complex than earlier times. More and more people do not have the capacity to function successfully in this more complex economy. That means more government involvement or more people falling off the pathway to a livable life. The old idea of individualism, with a sink or swim culture, would fill the streets with people in need of help. Since religion is diminishing as a option for charity, no one is left but the government.
“In progressive societies the concentration[of wealth] may reach a point where the strength of number in the many poor rivals the strength of ability in the few rich; then the unstable equilibrium generates a critical situation, which history has diversely met by legislation redistributing wealth or by revolution distributing poverty.”
― Will Durant, The Lessons of History
“In progressive societies the concentration[of wealth] may reach a point where the strength of number in the many poor rivals the strength of ability in the few rich; then the unstable equilibrium generates a critical situation, which history has diversely met by legislation redistributing wealth or by revolution distributing poverty.”
― Will Durant, The Lessons of History
73
The "old idea of individualism" was never a reality.
Even on the frontier "self sufficient" people had to rely on one another and even if they disliked each other were conscious of the need to be helpful when they could to bank favor for the day when they were in need. And when that help was not available they did not "make due" they simply died or survived the less for it.
There is nothing intrinsically wonderful or good about being an animal surviving as best as one can without any other persons about. That is what we evolved to do. It is our evolving humanity that lead us to live in communities and be helpful to one another. But of course according to most conservatives evolution is not real at least insofar as it makes clear the unnatural fallacy of their POV.
Even on the frontier "self sufficient" people had to rely on one another and even if they disliked each other were conscious of the need to be helpful when they could to bank favor for the day when they were in need. And when that help was not available they did not "make due" they simply died or survived the less for it.
There is nothing intrinsically wonderful or good about being an animal surviving as best as one can without any other persons about. That is what we evolved to do. It is our evolving humanity that lead us to live in communities and be helpful to one another. But of course according to most conservatives evolution is not real at least insofar as it makes clear the unnatural fallacy of their POV.
The "Arab Spring" seems to be an example of the latter. One hopes we will take the former.
Thank you for praising Hillary with faint damns, David! How amazing that you can yanl the rug out from under Mrs. Clinton, while you stick to the ancient GOP ethos of inequality of income, taking our country "back, etc. You LIKE Donald Trump and JEB!, David? You are FOR the 16 declared Wannabe POTUSes in your antidiluvian party? Please! Our country is in a deep hole halfway to China that was dug by the Republicans and their plutocrats and greedy rich folk and FAUX news Kling-Ons who don't know the meaning of, and can't abide the hubris of the "Neopaleoliberal" and "episytemologically naive" Democrats. Crikey, high-flown phrases won't cut the mustard of the Republican/Tea Party's dreadful ignorance 16 months before Election Day 2016! Blatherskite is the Republicans' platform and mantra, now that their fervent desire to remove President Barack Obama from the White House and Oval Office will occur in January 2017!
9
David:
Nice editorial, but I disagree with your predictions: what evidence do you have that a $10 min wage will cost 50,000 jobs? I've read credible studies that show it would have no negative impact. It might even reduce or eliminate the private profit subsidy when $7 per hr workers have to apply for food stamps or other gov support.
Nice editorial, but I disagree with your predictions: what evidence do you have that a $10 min wage will cost 50,000 jobs? I've read credible studies that show it would have no negative impact. It might even reduce or eliminate the private profit subsidy when $7 per hr workers have to apply for food stamps or other gov support.
14
Can we eliminate food stamps, section 8, cash assistance, and some of the over 75 means tested programs IF we raise the minimum wage?
Of course not. Blood would run in the streets.
Mr. Brooks gave a link to the increased unemployment. I suggest you use it.
Of course not. Blood would run in the streets.
Mr. Brooks gave a link to the increased unemployment. I suggest you use it.
Mr. Brooks attempts to draw some small distinction between the strident message of Bernie Sanders and that of Hillary Clinton--but in reality, there is not much daylight there. Liberals, it seems, have abandoned any semblance of a positive message to the American people. Instead they are busily constructing demons and bogeymen--who can only be slain by brave Democrats.
Whether it's Wall Street, the hated 1%, oligarchs, racists, Republicans or the Koch Brothers--it is clear that Liberals believe their way to elected office lies in heroic posturing--holding themselves up to be protectors of the Middle Class--of the 99%. It's as if their only message is, "vote for me...vote for me, I promise you really can have it all--we'll punish the wealthy, and get them to pay for everything". A negative strategy for sure--and one we should hope fails in 2016.
Whether it's Wall Street, the hated 1%, oligarchs, racists, Republicans or the Koch Brothers--it is clear that Liberals believe their way to elected office lies in heroic posturing--holding themselves up to be protectors of the Middle Class--of the 99%. It's as if their only message is, "vote for me...vote for me, I promise you really can have it all--we'll punish the wealthy, and get them to pay for everything". A negative strategy for sure--and one we should hope fails in 2016.
1
Some questions:
1. You really think the middle class is NOT in crisis? There's NO increased peril for the people in the middle of the income spectrum?
2. You think the wealthy are being punished NOW? Excuse me...was there a carried-interest deduction for hedge fund managers under Eisenhower? In your math is a top income tax rate of 39.6% somehow higher than Ike's top rate of 91%?
3. What is the Republicans' solution to the crisis of the middle class? More of the same, right? FEWER protections, MORE tax cuts for those who are already doing fine and exporting more jobs overseas and replacing them with robots, right?
It is clear that in the past we DID have higher taxes on the rich, and capitalism did just fine, and the middle class throve. Now, that's no guarantee it will work now. But it IS a rebuke to those who say it is impossible to have higher taxes and a prosperous society.
1. You really think the middle class is NOT in crisis? There's NO increased peril for the people in the middle of the income spectrum?
2. You think the wealthy are being punished NOW? Excuse me...was there a carried-interest deduction for hedge fund managers under Eisenhower? In your math is a top income tax rate of 39.6% somehow higher than Ike's top rate of 91%?
3. What is the Republicans' solution to the crisis of the middle class? More of the same, right? FEWER protections, MORE tax cuts for those who are already doing fine and exporting more jobs overseas and replacing them with robots, right?
It is clear that in the past we DID have higher taxes on the rich, and capitalism did just fine, and the middle class throve. Now, that's no guarantee it will work now. But it IS a rebuke to those who say it is impossible to have higher taxes and a prosperous society.
David Brooks may sneer at Bernie Sanders and others staking out positions on what Brooks calls the unelectably far left, but without that, Hillary Clinton wouldn't feel pressured to take what Brooks see as more "sensible" liberal positions but would still be a corporation-boosting New Liberal a la the 1990s.
Brooks' snide, dismissive tone about an entire segment of the population that's fed up with how plutocrats destroyed our economy and our middle class over the past decades makes it hard to even read what otherwise could have been an interesting insight into how conservatives see where Clinton is positioning herself.
Brooks' snide, dismissive tone about an entire segment of the population that's fed up with how plutocrats destroyed our economy and our middle class over the past decades makes it hard to even read what otherwise could have been an interesting insight into how conservatives see where Clinton is positioning herself.
14
Hillary is energizing her base. I supported Barack in 2008. I wanted to win and he represented the best chance to win. Hillary has learned how to campaign. She should serve as the nominee. Bernie should read a book or two on economics and get back to Vermont.
3
Yes Mr. Brooks, corporations do so well absent federal regulation. GM learned how to kill people to save a few dollars on the ignition switch; meat packers realize that regulations to prevent salmonella outbreaks cost them a few dollars on the bottom line, BP et al balk at taking safety precautions, so what if the people of the Gulf Coast have their economy smashed as those funds are better used by BB than the residents of Louisiana, etc.
Clearly any attempt by the government to rein in corporate behavior is not in the public interest.
Clearly any attempt by the government to rein in corporate behavior is not in the public interest.
18
The "angry rhetoric" of Bernie Sanders is resonating because it's the truth. And Clinton avoids the "angry rhetoric" and the "class warfare" rhetoric because she's part of the one percent and is very comfortable in top tier dominance at the expense of the middle class. Remember the old adage: if you want to know what people are thinking, watch what they do, not what they say. And Clinton is Ms. Wall Street, with plenty of Wall Street money and lots of Wall Street support, replete with parties and speeches.
I understand why people are nervous about Bernie Sanders, especially that tiny percentage that's benefiting from the status quo. But really, Mr. Brooks, regardless of all the propaganda and money and truth bashing, the American people are no longer gullible or interested in a diminished standard of living to appease the insatiably greedy. We've allowed that greed to send our jobs abroad to cheap labor and nearly destroy our manufacturing sector. It's time for a change, and that change is not embodied in Clinton. And for a conservative and beneficiary of the status quo to defend her is telling in and of itself.
I understand why people are nervous about Bernie Sanders, especially that tiny percentage that's benefiting from the status quo. But really, Mr. Brooks, regardless of all the propaganda and money and truth bashing, the American people are no longer gullible or interested in a diminished standard of living to appease the insatiably greedy. We've allowed that greed to send our jobs abroad to cheap labor and nearly destroy our manufacturing sector. It's time for a change, and that change is not embodied in Clinton. And for a conservative and beneficiary of the status quo to defend her is telling in and of itself.
18
We the people who rally round Bernie Sanders must vote for him, no matter where is listed on the ballot, as I am sure he will be. The Republicans will do everything they can to block their rivals. Is that the party of the people?
3
End the carried interest "deduction"? Mr. Brooks use of that [incorrect] term (there is no deduction involved in the carried interest issue) made me wonder if our supposed pundits or politicians even begin to understand the buzzwords they throw around. "No more carried interest deduction! No more loopholes! [No more fundamental reform!]"
6
Whatever anyone wants to call it, carried interest is a rule in the tax code that lets the managers of some types of private investment funds—hedge, private equity, venture capital, real estate and other types of vehicles—pay a lower rate than most individuals. The result is that elite private fund managers can make millions or even billions of dollars in a single year because of the much lower tax rate they manage to pay. Their job is to play with other people's money, and they are taxed as if it is their own.
Call it what you will, everyone knows what it is.
Call it what you will, everyone knows what it is.
Economically naive?
It took Mr Brooks a long time to actually say why. Turns out it's the old regulation-vs-non and public-vs-private arguments. We know which side Brooks takes. Guess he forgot Bush's little economic crisis. Silly Brooks.
It took Mr Brooks a long time to actually say why. Turns out it's the old regulation-vs-non and public-vs-private arguments. We know which side Brooks takes. Guess he forgot Bush's little economic crisis. Silly Brooks.
19
Yes, in many ways Mr. Brooks seems to think our economy of the 1890s was the ideal :-(
"New Democrats like her husband believed in using market mechanisms to increase economic security. "
President Clinton's using of "market mechanisms" did us no favor when he helped repeal the Glass–Steagall Act which was an important factor in the financial crisis. This was just another example of the unfettered "invisible hand of the market" slapping the face of the average American.
That being said just about anything Hillary does about the economy would better then the "one trick pony" solution of the republicans which is to slash income taxes for corporations and the top earners and to eliminate all sensible regulations.
President Clinton's using of "market mechanisms" did us no favor when he helped repeal the Glass–Steagall Act which was an important factor in the financial crisis. This was just another example of the unfettered "invisible hand of the market" slapping the face of the average American.
That being said just about anything Hillary does about the economy would better then the "one trick pony" solution of the republicans which is to slash income taxes for corporations and the top earners and to eliminate all sensible regulations.
11
Yep, once again we were taught that we do need some regulation because the market is NOT smart enough to avoid the mistakes of the past. They are simply smart enough to gamble with investors' money with the expectation that the taxpayers will bail them out if they gambled wrong :-(
I can understand and even agree with Mr. Brooks's endorsement of "classic liberal efforts to give people a boost," but I dislike his condescension when he calls progressives "crazy" and suggests that they inhabit "class warfare fever swamps." I do not think that reducing excessive, unjust, and unsustainable economic inequality is a crazy idea at all. I will vote for Clinton over any Republican, but I would prefer a Democratic nominee who is not so cozy with Wall Street and corporate America. Call me crazy.
190
Comparing the paleoconservative and epistemologically obscure column by Mr. Brooks with the clarity and precision of Bernie Sanders I conclude that Mr. Brooks' stylish fog reveals a fear to face the issues and a belief that dismissiveness equals true argumentation. It will not do.
13
"The main narrative of the Sanders camp is that the economic game is rigged against ordinary people."
But the economic game is rigged against ordinary people, who suffer job anxiety, underemployment and unemployment, and have their wages determined by the elites, who also give themselves generous pay increases year after year.
"This speech revealed a woman who does not have her heart in class conflict." That is true, but expected of someone who is in the top 0.1%.
Still, there is, and has been, a class conflict for decades. It is waged by the rich against the rest.
"She carefully avoided the more radical policy ideas embraced by the left, such as a blanket tax on the rich. She dodged the trade issue. She endorsed a minimum wage hike but didn’t commit, as many progressives do, to a $15an-hour rate."
Also true, but that is why we need Bernie Sanders.
But the economic game is rigged against ordinary people, who suffer job anxiety, underemployment and unemployment, and have their wages determined by the elites, who also give themselves generous pay increases year after year.
"This speech revealed a woman who does not have her heart in class conflict." That is true, but expected of someone who is in the top 0.1%.
Still, there is, and has been, a class conflict for decades. It is waged by the rich against the rest.
"She carefully avoided the more radical policy ideas embraced by the left, such as a blanket tax on the rich. She dodged the trade issue. She endorsed a minimum wage hike but didn’t commit, as many progressives do, to a $15an-hour rate."
Also true, but that is why we need Bernie Sanders.
24
Neopaleoliberalism. Exactly. Liberals have been rehashing the same types of government handout programs for several decades. They always fail. The social problems they purport to alleviate refuse to be alleviated. And liberals never stop proposing more tax and spend policies. Not because they thing they might actually work someday, but because its the cheapest way to buy votes.
Election after election after election.
Election after election after election.
1
And, Tim, the rich keep getting tax breaks, and Wall Street keeps getting protected election after election after election. Corporate hand-outs, like Exxon might be a good example of hand-out programs for the rich corporations. Exxon has had record-breaking profits these past few years, and still they get subsidies.
And, it's not just Exxon? Make any sense. I think not.
And, it's not just Exxon? Make any sense. I think not.
1
The mouth breathers within your party will have written off this column long before you reached the last two paragraphs belatedly condemning Hillary. Your implicit recommendation of Bush III & a return to amplified warfare and the tired Republican refrain of urging Americans to work two & worldwide three jobs until able to oversee someone else working two or three jobs, no longer holds water. I'm afraid for you & your economic elite that experience is rapidly teaching a new generation that creation of new billionaires based on offshore production & tax avoidance doesn't equate with opportunity here in America, unless your ambition is relegated to management of a big-box retail store or the manufacture of guided missiles.
7
As a practicing neopaleoconservative Mr. Brooks is in perpetual denial of the simple fact that his party's worship of unregulated capitalism combined with endless tax cuts for the rich has been wonderful for those at the very top, and a forty year disaster for our disappearing middle class. So if Clinton dare suggests that another round of Republican tax cuts may not be the answer to obscene income inequality, she must be pigeonholed, labeled and put in the proper box. Nice job, David.
15
If the ideologues on both sides would stop this incessant tinkering around the edges of these issues, promise to institute a one hundred bracket, graduated income tax with no freebees for the well off or the welfares, this nation might finally get on with the serious business of invading someone we could actually beat.
3
Class conflict is something that occurs when the very rich and the huge corporations decide that the middle and working classes don't deserve enough money to have decent lives. America started down that road in the 80s when St. Ronnie, he of the voodoo economics and morning in America slogan used those words to cover up the transfer of wealth to the very, very rich.
She won't be able to reform the economy to make it work for the 99% who are not rich. Nor will Bernie Sanders. Why? Because all of our elected officials are bought and paid for by the very rich. They donate the money for campaigns, pay lobbyists to keep Congress from voting yes on things that will harm them but help us, and they pay less in taxes, percentage wise, than we do. They aren't struggling to survive, worrying about the future, or living with the knowledge that losing a job, having a serious illness or needing time off for personal matters could leave them in poverty.
We live in a country that has become so unequal that being anything less than very, very rich means constant worry and with it constant, unremitting stress. However, Mr. Brooks, in his kowtowing to the GOP, doesn't want to see that. He sees an America that doesn't exist, that ended in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan. Criticize Clinton all you like but at least she has some idea of what it's like to be middle class. I'm not sure you do.
She won't be able to reform the economy to make it work for the 99% who are not rich. Nor will Bernie Sanders. Why? Because all of our elected officials are bought and paid for by the very rich. They donate the money for campaigns, pay lobbyists to keep Congress from voting yes on things that will harm them but help us, and they pay less in taxes, percentage wise, than we do. They aren't struggling to survive, worrying about the future, or living with the knowledge that losing a job, having a serious illness or needing time off for personal matters could leave them in poverty.
We live in a country that has become so unequal that being anything less than very, very rich means constant worry and with it constant, unremitting stress. However, Mr. Brooks, in his kowtowing to the GOP, doesn't want to see that. He sees an America that doesn't exist, that ended in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan. Criticize Clinton all you like but at least she has some idea of what it's like to be middle class. I'm not sure you do.
12
The only thing I agree with Mr. Brooks on is she won't get anything through an obstructionist Republican Congress, neither will any other Democrat. The best the Left can hope for is more gridlock; the alternative is undivided Republican rule and you know what happen last time we had that. Most analysts say there is no chance of getting the Congress back in Democratic hands until the next census in 2020 and until then Democrats should be concentrating on winning back state legislatures.
I know it is not inspiring but the best the Left can hope for in 2016 is more stalemate. Even if Sanders were electable and no one but hard-core liberal fantasists believes he is, he still wouldn’t get his agenda passed. This is a time to get behind the most electable Democrat out there, Hillary Clinton. She has the most foreign policy experience, she has seen firsthand how the Presidency works, and she knows what she can accomplish with executive power.
Now is the time for the Left to be pragmatic and do everything to ensure a Democratic victory instead of damaging the Democrats best hope. However, you shouldn’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
I know it is not inspiring but the best the Left can hope for in 2016 is more stalemate. Even if Sanders were electable and no one but hard-core liberal fantasists believes he is, he still wouldn’t get his agenda passed. This is a time to get behind the most electable Democrat out there, Hillary Clinton. She has the most foreign policy experience, she has seen firsthand how the Presidency works, and she knows what she can accomplish with executive power.
Now is the time for the Left to be pragmatic and do everything to ensure a Democratic victory instead of damaging the Democrats best hope. However, you shouldn’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
5
Labels r meaningless: Whether u call it the "old liberalism, " or the "new old liberalism," jobs will continue to vanish from the AMERICAN landscape, and real unemployment will inexorably rise so long as both parties promote the distribution of H-1B visa programs to replace American workers with their counterparts from developing nations, and an open borders policy, de facto if not de jure, which allows immigrant labor to enter the country to compete for lower wages with our working class. What does Clinton or any of the candidates have to say about that? Sorry to say, but both parties r in cahoots with the multinationals to internationalize the work force here at the expense of native born Americans. What does even Bernie Sanders, for all his populist rhetoric, have to say about the issue? Not much, and even if he did speak about the issue, what could he do about it, even if he wanted to?
1
Did you ever think whether Donald Trump, if he were in the Oval Office, behind that desk, could "do anything about it"?
I know: he could say "You're fired!" He knows how, he's enured to, and will fire people without compunction!
And didn't Hillary, maybe it was Bill, I can't remember, got rid of ALL the attorneys there at the White House when they were first elected! The trouble is, some leaders are plain selfish, ignorant, or incompetent. Some candidates would be nothing more than that. We need a president who is dedicated to the work we need a president to do, not the 'work' of maintaining a good 'rating'.
I know: he could say "You're fired!" He knows how, he's enured to, and will fire people without compunction!
And didn't Hillary, maybe it was Bill, I can't remember, got rid of ALL the attorneys there at the White House when they were first elected! The trouble is, some leaders are plain selfish, ignorant, or incompetent. Some candidates would be nothing more than that. We need a president who is dedicated to the work we need a president to do, not the 'work' of maintaining a good 'rating'.
Once again David, your comments are overly neopaleoconservative. You recite that old mantra that 'the private sector knows best' and that government should step aside. "In each case, in this view, government is more competent at steering companies toward their own best interests than the companies are themselves". You describe this faith as "epistemologically naïve". On that basis, you would step aside as Wal-mart acquired Costco, Target and Walgreens? No, the consumer is not well served by the creation of monopolies. It's government's role to ensure that markets remain healthy through competition. The breakup of AT&T is an example of government intervention benefiting the consumer. The communications industry is better served by multiple providers. Financial institutions that had reached a scale of influence and power during the last crisis were deemed "too big to fail" which FORCED intervention by the Federal Reserve to save the economy. Pre-emptive action on these businesses could have spared us from disaster. While you find humor in the notion of an army of interfering bureaucrats "One pictures squads of Federal Simplicity Enforcers roaming through the corridors of Midtown Manhattan telling C.E.O.s when their outfits are too mind-boggling". I do however agree with one opinion, "The private sector is not evil or power hungry, just kind of dumb." I don't believe 'government is inherently evil either and can play a role in making the dumb less so.
9
My own cynical view is that Bernie Sanders is one of the few politicians who is saying what he believes in - if he does get elected he might do something really radical. Or fail trying. On the other hand the rest are just saying what we want to hear. She does study quintiles - but not the one you alluded to - but quintlles of votes - if I say this I will get that sort of a thing.
What we need is a leader who can build consensus between various wings of the political parties and move the country towards rebuilding our infrastructure, invest much more in science, technology, education and research, and use diplomacy and not war to project our views to the rest of the world. Do I see one in the horizon? I am afraid not. So we vote quintiles!
What we need is a leader who can build consensus between various wings of the political parties and move the country towards rebuilding our infrastructure, invest much more in science, technology, education and research, and use diplomacy and not war to project our views to the rest of the world. Do I see one in the horizon? I am afraid not. So we vote quintiles!
5
Seriously, Mr. Brooks?
I can not believe you dispute "Sanders" assertion that "the economic game" is controlled by--and run for the benefit of the "top 1 percent".
For one thing, I don't think at this point--there is any contentious about that assertion, across all but the far-right side (where the belief remains that "big government', "big labor", "big unions" and a magical coven of climate scientists" are running the show) of the political spectrum.
At this point, the real debate is whether or not that is a good thing (with the right wing saying yes, yes, yes--set the "job creators" and rich free to do their wondrous work) and the rest of us wondering if there is anything that can be done to reverse the ultra-rich takeover.
Really, it speaks volumes about where Secretary Clinton's politics reside on the ideological spectrum of America--that Mr. Brooks--one of the "conservative" voices in the country's chattering class--seems to be totally on board.
Really.
She's Jeb-lite--a centrist-conservative with a pants suit instead of an exclamation mark.
I can not believe you dispute "Sanders" assertion that "the economic game" is controlled by--and run for the benefit of the "top 1 percent".
For one thing, I don't think at this point--there is any contentious about that assertion, across all but the far-right side (where the belief remains that "big government', "big labor", "big unions" and a magical coven of climate scientists" are running the show) of the political spectrum.
At this point, the real debate is whether or not that is a good thing (with the right wing saying yes, yes, yes--set the "job creators" and rich free to do their wondrous work) and the rest of us wondering if there is anything that can be done to reverse the ultra-rich takeover.
Really, it speaks volumes about where Secretary Clinton's politics reside on the ideological spectrum of America--that Mr. Brooks--one of the "conservative" voices in the country's chattering class--seems to be totally on board.
Really.
She's Jeb-lite--a centrist-conservative with a pants suit instead of an exclamation mark.
7
For what it's worth, there is actually no such thing as a "carried interest deduction." The tax benefit associated with a carried interest is that it's taxed at the lower capital gains rate as opposed to the higher ordinary income rate. This is controversial because carried interests are paid to fund managers in exchange for services they performed. In almost every other situation, a payment for services performed is taxed at ordinary income rates.
4
David may not agree, but we have seen how past conservative economic policies have failed! The Republican administration G,W, Bush, ended in an economic disaster that was called; "the Great Recession". The previous Republican Administration of G.H.W. Bush, ended in a recession. It took two Democratic Administrations to rescue the nation from the economic chaos! European austerity, encouraged for America by the current "Presidential" field of conservatives, has also failed!
Hillary's "main stream" political positions are more Republican, than the liberal programs our country needs today to move forward! That is why voters, who have witnessed incompetence, inactivity, cowardliness and lack of leadership from Democratic politicians over the past forty years, totally support the one candidate who expresses true liberal ideas and positions.
Because a Democrat, Bernie Sanders has spoken out to denounce right wing propaganda, and championed progressive issues, We are beginning to see the rebirth of the true progressive Democratic party and the rebuilding of a more fair and prosperous America!
Hillary's "main stream" political positions are more Republican, than the liberal programs our country needs today to move forward! That is why voters, who have witnessed incompetence, inactivity, cowardliness and lack of leadership from Democratic politicians over the past forty years, totally support the one candidate who expresses true liberal ideas and positions.
Because a Democrat, Bernie Sanders has spoken out to denounce right wing propaganda, and championed progressive issues, We are beginning to see the rebirth of the true progressive Democratic party and the rebuilding of a more fair and prosperous America!
8
I keep looking for a leader to cast my vote for, and Hilary Clinton always seems to disappoint...David Brooks you are right when you say much of what Clinton endorses has been tried before and found wanting, or failed. She is pandering to the more liberal side of her Party, which, at this point is what all of the candidates seem to be doing, playing to the most liberal or most conservative elements of their Parties. What the speech shows me is that she is still an "empty suit" albeit a liberal one.
In his wonderfully slanted "Government can" paragraph Mr. Brooks willfully overlooks the fact that government is already involved in each of these areas, but to the detriment of the middle and lower classes. This is not an argument over whether government (which is us, by the way) should sit on the sidelines, but about what it should be doing. Why shouldn't government write rules to limit executive pay (how much companies pay their workers) and prevent for profit corporations from throwing their employees onto an assortment of government programs in order to make up for abysmally poor wages? Why shouldn't government direct investors away from 'one quarter only' and toward long-term investments. Mandate reasonable rules for equity sharing with employees. What Mr. Brooks also misses is that we the people can choose to have our government keep company structure to manageable and govern-able sizes, if we have the votes to do so.
Oh, and by the way, when it comes to competency, didn't we the people have to bail out a bunch of these so-called high flyers with the outrageous executive compensation?
Oh, and by the way, when it comes to competency, didn't we the people have to bail out a bunch of these so-called high flyers with the outrageous executive compensation?
4
Despite being a liberal, I agree with Brooks on one thing. The left often demonizes Wall Street for the sins of corporate America. It's a natural tendency to try to assign as much blame as possible on as few (and remote) people as possible.
That being said, I like the idea of high minimum wages/overtime threshold, command and control mechanisms in healthcare (Medicare for All), and tax and transfer systems. I guess that's not distrusting the private sector's capacity for self-aggrandizement as much as it is a rebalancing of wealth ex post to compensate for misaligned incentives.
That being said, I like the idea of high minimum wages/overtime threshold, command and control mechanisms in healthcare (Medicare for All), and tax and transfer systems. I guess that's not distrusting the private sector's capacity for self-aggrandizement as much as it is a rebalancing of wealth ex post to compensate for misaligned incentives.
3
At least Mrs. Clinton acknowledges that there is an enormous divide in America between the super wealthy and the rest of us.
The economy we have is the economy we choose to have. We tax wealthy people at very low rates. We have free trade agreements that de-industrialized our cities, and sent manufacturing around the globe to the lowest bidders. We spend huge sums of taxpayer money on military hardware and defense contractors while allowing tens of millions to subsist on low wage and part-time work, driving Uber cars and working as waiters and free lance coffee baristas. Finally, we also have opened the floodgates of illegal immigration to further degrade the wages of Americans. (the last item is decidedly an un-Democratic Party thing to bring up).
Tragically, no candidate running today, in either party, will work to re-industrialize and revitalize the once thriving manufacturing economy of America. We are doomed to become a gutted and empty glass towered nation of texting robots who spend all day online and look enviously at everyone else.
The economy we have is the economy we choose to have. We tax wealthy people at very low rates. We have free trade agreements that de-industrialized our cities, and sent manufacturing around the globe to the lowest bidders. We spend huge sums of taxpayer money on military hardware and defense contractors while allowing tens of millions to subsist on low wage and part-time work, driving Uber cars and working as waiters and free lance coffee baristas. Finally, we also have opened the floodgates of illegal immigration to further degrade the wages of Americans. (the last item is decidedly an un-Democratic Party thing to bring up).
Tragically, no candidate running today, in either party, will work to re-industrialize and revitalize the once thriving manufacturing economy of America. We are doomed to become a gutted and empty glass towered nation of texting robots who spend all day online and look enviously at everyone else.
2
Paleoliberal? I guess we have never heard the term "paleoconservative" because it is redundant.
9
For some years the middle class, or what remains of it, and the working class have been getting shafted by the private sector and by a government controlled or paralyzed by radical reactionary politicians who serve the billionaire class and not the people who elected them.
Saying that HRC came across like Humpfery, McGovern and a liberal; Dukasis is saying that she sounded like 3 losers rejected by the voters. To say that Bernie Sanders is offering a class war (which was fought and lost) is the same as saying that FDR’s New Deal or LBJ’s Great Society were class war administrations.
When conservatives are confronted by liberal ideas the first claim is class war. I like Sanders and I agree with him but I do not think, seeing what the GOP is offering, that I can risk a GOP victory against a “socialist” which will sound like a revolutionary in the negative add which are sure to come.
I give HRC’s speech a A- because I still do not know were she stands on the job killing Pacific Trade Pact, or the pipeline. She did not commit to a $15/he min. wage and a cut in the interest rate for guaranteed student loans. I guess seeing the GOP slate the people will show up to vote for either HRC or Sanders or risk president Trump who has found the hate button and is pushing it. I hope for a Clinton/Sanders ticket.
Saying that HRC came across like Humpfery, McGovern and a liberal; Dukasis is saying that she sounded like 3 losers rejected by the voters. To say that Bernie Sanders is offering a class war (which was fought and lost) is the same as saying that FDR’s New Deal or LBJ’s Great Society were class war administrations.
When conservatives are confronted by liberal ideas the first claim is class war. I like Sanders and I agree with him but I do not think, seeing what the GOP is offering, that I can risk a GOP victory against a “socialist” which will sound like a revolutionary in the negative add which are sure to come.
I give HRC’s speech a A- because I still do not know were she stands on the job killing Pacific Trade Pact, or the pipeline. She did not commit to a $15/he min. wage and a cut in the interest rate for guaranteed student loans. I guess seeing the GOP slate the people will show up to vote for either HRC or Sanders or risk president Trump who has found the hate button and is pushing it. I hope for a Clinton/Sanders ticket.
3
It's been so long since anyone could really talk about reforming our capitalist system without getting drowned out by the angry crazies of the Fox News right that nobody realizes how many new ideas are out there waiting to be put into play by the next liberal or populist President who has congressional majorities (which will happen once every generation). We need to use regulatory powers to restructure stock markets so that public companies that make share offerings to the public are offering something more substantive than just fictional ownership, such as preferred shares, mandatory dividends, or mandatory redemptions. We need to fight offshoring by instituting a federal incorporation law with significant barriers against dissolving or offshoring federal corporations and mandatory participation in order to be allowed to list on stock exchanges or use certain tax benefits. We need basic regulation of executive pay through tax penalties; we need the Fed and treasury to control the offerings of exotic derivatives by financial engineering firms on the ground that these products amount to private monetary expansion affecting the public interest. Intelligent and creative government regulation can reform capitalism in ways that even current capitalists would highly approve of...
3
When David Brooks endorses what you are doing, there's something wrong.
9
Government should provide guidelines and enforce constraints according to the public policies to be implemented according to our democratic and legal way of governing. If it tries to be too specific as to how individuals and private groups of individuals behave, it will tend to interfere rather than to facilitate the most efficient use of time and resources because it is too far removed from the events. But too little engagement by government in our social behaviors, including commerce and finance and industry, has been clearly shown to be against the interests of society, especially over the long run. The notion that markets are self regulating and operate best when government stands aside and lets it work is silly -- it is an unreasonable assertion. In addition we find that allowing the accumulation of wealth in private hands does not lead to some kind of organic economic super garden but to over control by too few individuals with totally selfish motives that simply takes the resources we need to prosper away from nearly all of us. The only reasonable solution to restore the balance by raising taxes and to use government regulation on behalf of the public good.
2
First, I read Brooks' column, then the comments. Later, I come back and read more comments that refute, criticize and take Brooks' ideas to task. That is how I know all's right with the world.
7
Bill embraced market mechanisms in the belief that they would work effectively in a broad, holistic sense. Hill's return to "Children's Relief Fund" programs is an acknowledgement that that approach didn't (and doesn't) work. The problem isn't that the 1% don't know how to govern, it's that they're Machiavellian when given the reins of power.
1
Ah, there you go David. Lighting a candle at the Altar of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" -- something the market forces know is a joke.
2
Hillary cannot engage in the class warfare rhetoric since she is now a member of the "upper"stratum.The "government can play a broader role"platform plays to the same audience,one that makes virtually no distinction between class warfare and fighting "greedy banks and corporations".Unfortunately for her,but fortunately for us,the tone remains regal,the style self indulgent and the theme,whatever it's merits,convenient but hardly authentic.
1
'Your friend is just as you described, classy and erudite. It helped to listen to what she has to say about my daughter's education and welfare' from a contractor living in a trailer, working industriously to make ends meet. Her father was a farmer, I replied, and she left home at 16 to study and travel the world. She meets lots of famous people, this public health expert and water engineer. Intellectual conversations are kept for her other friends, while we discuss the future of our Children in America.
If there is a note of self indulgence in Mrs. Clinton's make-up, please send word to this voter. Both these persons mentioned above, have tremendous will-power, strength of character and a wish to take on viable challenges.
Mrs. Clinton comes across as tough but fair. And, while you may see her wandering the corridors of Midtown Manhattan where an international children's agency is to be found, or cracking down on a Wall Street firm that is out of hand, I see my friend and Mrs. Clinton having a quiet talk on a weekend where they are walking together, both visionaries who seldom give themselves a fair deal.
A paleoliberal? Too much, Mr. Brooks, come back to earth. We need you or we wouldn't be reading your column.
If there is a note of self indulgence in Mrs. Clinton's make-up, please send word to this voter. Both these persons mentioned above, have tremendous will-power, strength of character and a wish to take on viable challenges.
Mrs. Clinton comes across as tough but fair. And, while you may see her wandering the corridors of Midtown Manhattan where an international children's agency is to be found, or cracking down on a Wall Street firm that is out of hand, I see my friend and Mrs. Clinton having a quiet talk on a weekend where they are walking together, both visionaries who seldom give themselves a fair deal.
A paleoliberal? Too much, Mr. Brooks, come back to earth. We need you or we wouldn't be reading your column.
What has happened to this once great country that a woman with no accomplishments other than marrying a president, could possibly be seriously considered in her own presidential bid by espousing this lunacy? The American experiment is over, I guess its now time to let Iran take over.
1
You mean besides being elected to the United States Senate twice, being Secretary of State, an accomplished attorney and commencement speaker at her graduation from college and then on the cover of Time Magazine?
No accomplishments? NY senator, Secretary of State? Or don't those count?
Lunacy? It's over? I respect your opinions, but how about at least some respect in return.
Lunacy? It's over? I respect your opinions, but how about at least some respect in return.
I'd ask what happened that so many Americans could know so little, and be unwilling to find out. But by all means, let's see the doubtless lengthy list of accomplishments put up on the board by the Republican front runners.
1
While the ostensible subject of Mr. Brooks' column is Hilary Clinton, he uses Bernie Sanders as a foil, without ever actually critiquing any of Mr. Sanders positions. He states that Mr. Sanders posits that the top 1 percent controls financial and economic conditions. Well, with an undergraduate degree in economics, and an MBA and 30+ years of corporate life, I don't find that to be an unrealistic assessment. Unregulated banking (what right-of-center politician isn't trying to water down what's left of Dodd-Frank), Citizen's United, which essentially puts our elections up for sale, and the ever-growing gap between the 1% and everyone else, are facts, not theories. I would appreciate it if Mr. Brooks would devote a column to an analysis of exactly which of Mr. Sanders proposals he finds so incorrect or extreme. As to Mr. Brooks' critique of Hilary Clintons position, I am not sure if she is really arguing that the government knows better than businesses how the businesses should be run; what needs to be recognized is that without government restraints on business practices, we risk a return to the "Robber Baron 1900s" of unrestrained laissez-faire capitalism. History has taught us better.
3
"She carefully avoided the more radical policy ideas embraced by the left, such as a blanket tax on the rich."
In the Eisenhower-era, the top marginal rate was about 90%. What is "radical" about a return to what was sensible Republican policy before it got corrupted by the goodies-for-the-rich mentality (because they're the job creators, except that they don't create any jobs).
In the Eisenhower-era, the top marginal rate was about 90%. What is "radical" about a return to what was sensible Republican policy before it got corrupted by the goodies-for-the-rich mentality (because they're the job creators, except that they don't create any jobs).
4
What you call "crazy" in your first sentence, I call "fair." You and others only called it "class warfare" when we began to fight back...
7
Government never proposed to run business it only kept them honest and safe. Nice try.
Calling rational reform that intends to reform the system installed by reagan and his cronies which is undeniably, rigged against the common working person “class warfare fever swamps” gives away your true nature Mr. Brooks.
Calling the rational work of making the economy a fair place for all anything other than that is part and parcel of the nonstop war national conservatism has waged against the common man for decades.
The only people quite literally waging class warfare against the people they regard as lower class and quality than themselves, are the conservatives like you (remember your proposing poverty may be genetic? BTW that idea is called Eugenics.) whom have had a miraculous 35+ years of almost unopposed freedom to rewrite the economy as it pleased them to.
Your trying to make the rational and reasonable reforms that Sen. Sanders points out must be made to save Government by the People, (we are losing it to the autocracy of wealthy people with the help of a corrupt SCOTUS) seem illegitimate is not unlike how the “natural” ice collectors and transporters used similar false and mendacious
propaganda to make man made ice or as they labeled it “artificial ice” seem unhealthy.
Yet here we are today and all ice for sale is “artificial” in fact it is the standard for purity and most would eschew natural ice as the impure and unsafe option it always was.
Calling rational reform that intends to reform the system installed by reagan and his cronies which is undeniably, rigged against the common working person “class warfare fever swamps” gives away your true nature Mr. Brooks.
Calling the rational work of making the economy a fair place for all anything other than that is part and parcel of the nonstop war national conservatism has waged against the common man for decades.
The only people quite literally waging class warfare against the people they regard as lower class and quality than themselves, are the conservatives like you (remember your proposing poverty may be genetic? BTW that idea is called Eugenics.) whom have had a miraculous 35+ years of almost unopposed freedom to rewrite the economy as it pleased them to.
Your trying to make the rational and reasonable reforms that Sen. Sanders points out must be made to save Government by the People, (we are losing it to the autocracy of wealthy people with the help of a corrupt SCOTUS) seem illegitimate is not unlike how the “natural” ice collectors and transporters used similar false and mendacious
propaganda to make man made ice or as they labeled it “artificial ice” seem unhealthy.
Yet here we are today and all ice for sale is “artificial” in fact it is the standard for purity and most would eschew natural ice as the impure and unsafe option it always was.
4
The private sector is not kind of dumb, but it IS power hungry. (Not sure about evil.) Glad Mr Brooks is so happy with Ms Clinton's speech. What? Did he say it's naïve, tried before, and won't work? Is that what he's really happy about? So then maybe we DO need a blanket tax (?) on the rich. If what's been tried before didn't work, how can you argue AGAINST more "radical" ideas?
Bernie for President!
Bernie for President!
5
It's amazing that thoughtful pundits are still trying to use the word liberal as if it were a pejorative. One would expect more than a litany of catch phrases and "Hillary is a clever rich lady" talking points from David Brooks. But no, the same tired "big government take-over" stuff. Meanwhile what is resonating with voters is: working people deserve a fair wage and "Wall Street is robbing me of my future retirement a little bit at a time." Much as they try to cast Democrats as paleo, it's the grand old party that's living in the past.
7
As a liberal, I am not excited by Clinton's pronouncements. She provides ambiguous sops to liberals but shows none of the fire needed to get anything done. I am fearful that if she is elected she will embrace a "moderate" stance that Bill did just before he pulled the Democratic Party to the right.
In addition, we've seen how merciless the GOP was against Obama and Bill Clinton, why would we suppose that they would be any less rabid with Clinton and all the baggage she carries. A Clinton-Bush face off would be an open acknowledgement that the Oligarchs have won.
In addition, we've seen how merciless the GOP was against Obama and Bill Clinton, why would we suppose that they would be any less rabid with Clinton and all the baggage she carries. A Clinton-Bush face off would be an open acknowledgement that the Oligarchs have won.
1
She and her husband are southerner's and therefore actually republicans in spirit if not name or DINO (Democrat In Name Only).
If she is elected she will continue on the disastrous path her husband set of undermining the People's protections from corporate depravity. He made possible all the criminality and looting of the nations coffers for their corporate buddies the W admin was engaged in assisting (remember ENRON and the phony energy shortage?) before 9/11 which gave them even more cover to widen the scope and continue in the same vein to the tune of trillions of dollars so far. The boom under Clinton was a coincident fruition of the "high tech" industry that had been growing on its own since it was invented and had nothing to do with his policies.
If she is elected she will continue on the disastrous path her husband set of undermining the People's protections from corporate depravity. He made possible all the criminality and looting of the nations coffers for their corporate buddies the W admin was engaged in assisting (remember ENRON and the phony energy shortage?) before 9/11 which gave them even more cover to widen the scope and continue in the same vein to the tune of trillions of dollars so far. The boom under Clinton was a coincident fruition of the "high tech" industry that had been growing on its own since it was invented and had nothing to do with his policies.
A digression on a word: from Mrs. Clinton's statement "we'll ensure that no firm is too complex to manage and oversee", Mr. Brooks gleans "government is more competent at steering companies toward their own best interests than the companies are themselves." - NO, this is not a nanny-state 'I know what's better for you than you do argument', and I think that Mr. Brooks has misrepresented the logic of governmental oversight into corporate organization/operation.
Corporations do a fine job of looking out for themselves, Mr. Brooks, and surely they don't require any help from the government in this regard. Where they fail is in looking out for US! Everything that is external to the corporation is secondary (if it somehow affects the corp) or simply nonexistent (if it doesn't) to the calculus of profit - this is simply descriptive, no evaluative - it is simply the nature of the beast.
I believe a policy discussion should consider at the least three actors: Government, private sector, and the People (and their interests) - I believe the more accurate interpretation of Mrs. Clinton's sentiment is "government is more interested in steering companies toward OUR best interests than the companies are themselves" - would anyone disagree with this? really?
Corporations do a fine job of looking out for themselves, Mr. Brooks, and surely they don't require any help from the government in this regard. Where they fail is in looking out for US! Everything that is external to the corporation is secondary (if it somehow affects the corp) or simply nonexistent (if it doesn't) to the calculus of profit - this is simply descriptive, no evaluative - it is simply the nature of the beast.
I believe a policy discussion should consider at the least three actors: Government, private sector, and the People (and their interests) - I believe the more accurate interpretation of Mrs. Clinton's sentiment is "government is more interested in steering companies toward OUR best interests than the companies are themselves" - would anyone disagree with this? really?
3
What is epistemolologically naive is Brooks' belief that government is always a bad idea and that corporations will act in the best interests of human beings.
What is not naive is a belief that a modern economy relies on private sector and public sector complementing one another, and that big government is necessary as a check on the power of giant corporations and their billionaire owners.
Brooks has wasted his entire intellectual life on the dogma that less government is always good and nobody wealthy should ever have to pay taxes.
We want good government, not necessarily more or less government, just good government. And we should want to pay the right amount of taxes to support the right sized government.
What is not naive is a belief that a modern economy relies on private sector and public sector complementing one another, and that big government is necessary as a check on the power of giant corporations and their billionaire owners.
Brooks has wasted his entire intellectual life on the dogma that less government is always good and nobody wealthy should ever have to pay taxes.
We want good government, not necessarily more or less government, just good government. And we should want to pay the right amount of taxes to support the right sized government.
6
You can try to smear Bernie Sanders as crazy in your opening paragraph, but that just shows that you're not above ad hominem attacks, Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Sanders' view of economics may be well to the left of yours - and your fellow low tax, let the workers sink or swim conservatives - but his policy goals and prescriptions are not crazy.
There is plenty of evidence that indeed, the economy is rigged to benefit the very top. Income inequality is probably the most pressing economic challenge facing our country, and conservative remedies (work longer! says Jeb) are laughable.
We can see who the takers are, and many of them are in fact on Wall Street. The insane incomes the traders, financiers and CEOs "earn" are very far out of line with the economic good the produce. And decades of low and then lower capital gains taxes have created huge incentives to reward lazy capital rather than productive workers.
Its all about dividends and stock price, and never about wage raises or profit sharing. The economy has become much more tilted towards an elite few than it has in my lifetime, and that needs to be addressed realistically. Calling it crazy is a cheap move to dismiss a real and costly problem.
Mr. Sanders' view of economics may be well to the left of yours - and your fellow low tax, let the workers sink or swim conservatives - but his policy goals and prescriptions are not crazy.
There is plenty of evidence that indeed, the economy is rigged to benefit the very top. Income inequality is probably the most pressing economic challenge facing our country, and conservative remedies (work longer! says Jeb) are laughable.
We can see who the takers are, and many of them are in fact on Wall Street. The insane incomes the traders, financiers and CEOs "earn" are very far out of line with the economic good the produce. And decades of low and then lower capital gains taxes have created huge incentives to reward lazy capital rather than productive workers.
Its all about dividends and stock price, and never about wage raises or profit sharing. The economy has become much more tilted towards an elite few than it has in my lifetime, and that needs to be addressed realistically. Calling it crazy is a cheap move to dismiss a real and costly problem.
5
David Brooks has previously told us that he was raised in a liberal family and left the liberal fold when he saw how much money was not spent well on all those liberal government programs. In fact, as I recall he was completely dismayed and that was when he became a conservative.
So here we have the simplistic reasoning of a disillusioned young man that has wrought yet another poorly reasoned column. And why Mr. Brooks is not qualified to write on economics.
I do agree with him on the politics of Hillary's masterful speech. He should stick to politics. Maybe he could give some time to write about the disastrous Republican policies. Now that could be edifying.
So here we have the simplistic reasoning of a disillusioned young man that has wrought yet another poorly reasoned column. And why Mr. Brooks is not qualified to write on economics.
I do agree with him on the politics of Hillary's masterful speech. He should stick to politics. Maybe he could give some time to write about the disastrous Republican policies. Now that could be edifying.
To the contrary, I think David is neither naive or unqualified, he is actually quite smart and knows exactly what he is doing: playing the reasonable conservative working to diminish the threat of a more-liberal next president. I think he actually knows what his doing, and that makes him even more insidious. The reality is that the American populace is now intelligent and learned enough to understand that the trickle-down theories don't actually work, and it is inherently unfair that Mitt Romney pays lower tax rates than the middle class. He writes a series of emotional or philosophical-style essays to make it seem that he understands the lives of typical Americans, and then loads it up to serve his masters with these columns designed to promote whatever Republican candidate survives the current clown show. Shame on him.
Self proclaimed progressive here, and I must say that Hillary is the least exciting candidate on the Democratic side, perhaps the least exciting in the whole race. Heck, Lincoln Chafee is more exciting, at least he promises real change, albeit on the national system of measurement.
Her ideas and policies could only appeal to someone who doesn't know for a fact that the financial crisis was caused by the blind greed of the Wall Street banksters, or someone who hasn't really thought out her policies.
Go Bernie!
Her ideas and policies could only appeal to someone who doesn't know for a fact that the financial crisis was caused by the blind greed of the Wall Street banksters, or someone who hasn't really thought out her policies.
Go Bernie!
6
She sounds more like a modern day FDR, which is good. Government is a very essential component of our economy. Regulations, for one, ensure that we aren't all robbed blind. But Republicans are fighting regulations on banks and Wall Street as though they are the plague. Left on their own, American businesses will do what's in their best interest without regard for America. The results of such rapaciousness is crystal clear: The Great Depression, The Great Recession, a poorer America.
The government also protects our environment; something Republicans care nothing for. All they care about is money and power. Paradoxically, it was a Republican, Nixon, who started the EPA. No matter, the EPA is under a WW3 level assault from the Right.
Ms. Clinton is reacting to conditions, as did FDR. On one hand, the economy has recovered wonderfully under Obama. On the other, there is great imbalance carried forward from Reagan. The free market cannot be the arbiter of a minimum wage. The value of our workers is heavily skewed towards those who are more educated in America, ignoring how much we depend on low-skilled workers. Simultaneously, hedge fund managers earn $200K per hour while under-performing the S&P 500. Who's more valuable, the person who makes your burger or the person who strips a half billion dollars of the top of our economy by doing practically nothing?
When you ignore these realities you get masses who vote against Marie Antoinette and for Hillary Clinton.
The government also protects our environment; something Republicans care nothing for. All they care about is money and power. Paradoxically, it was a Republican, Nixon, who started the EPA. No matter, the EPA is under a WW3 level assault from the Right.
Ms. Clinton is reacting to conditions, as did FDR. On one hand, the economy has recovered wonderfully under Obama. On the other, there is great imbalance carried forward from Reagan. The free market cannot be the arbiter of a minimum wage. The value of our workers is heavily skewed towards those who are more educated in America, ignoring how much we depend on low-skilled workers. Simultaneously, hedge fund managers earn $200K per hour while under-performing the S&P 500. Who's more valuable, the person who makes your burger or the person who strips a half billion dollars of the top of our economy by doing practically nothing?
When you ignore these realities you get masses who vote against Marie Antoinette and for Hillary Clinton.
1
"The Obama administration spent mightily on green energy jobs programs and they did not work.."
Microsoft poured money and effort into their Zune media player and it flopped. Therefore, making a media player doesn't work. Ford spent mightily on the Edsel automobile and it was a disaster. Making new car models doesn't work. The new restaurant on the corner went out of business after a year. Therefore, restaurants don't work.
For conservatives, repeated and even epic failures on the part of businesses don't imply anything about the means (private business) or the ends (failure or success). Instead, they are seen as necessary casualties of innovation and risk-taking. But when any government effort fails, it is seen as proof that government can't do anything right instead of seeing problems and even failure as a normal part of any complex human undertaking.
Microsoft poured money and effort into their Zune media player and it flopped. Therefore, making a media player doesn't work. Ford spent mightily on the Edsel automobile and it was a disaster. Making new car models doesn't work. The new restaurant on the corner went out of business after a year. Therefore, restaurants don't work.
For conservatives, repeated and even epic failures on the part of businesses don't imply anything about the means (private business) or the ends (failure or success). Instead, they are seen as necessary casualties of innovation and risk-taking. But when any government effort fails, it is seen as proof that government can't do anything right instead of seeing problems and even failure as a normal part of any complex human undertaking.
19
The critical difference, of course, being that the companies mentioned above were spending their own money, not yours.
Why this rush to 'tar' Sen. Sander's Progressive views with the ''class warfare'' brush? Class warfare is what results AFTER an elite marginalizes all the other citizens in a nation. The fear or concern over the possibility of class warfare is what moved early Twentieth Century reformers (both from the rich and from the ranks) to see the vital need for a 'Fair Deal' for all. Their tools were the sort of government programs that recognized worker rights (freedoms) to associate and to bargain on level ground with employers. Their tools included the creation of reasonable regulatory agencies to curb abuses of unregulated business such as environmental pollution, harmful food industry practices, adulterated or useless medicines and the like.
The individual was empowered by freedom to work within an honest system; not by economic give-aways. Capitalism was preserved by adding guarantees that a dollar earned and spent would produce a dollar's worth of reasonable benefit.
The individual was empowered by freedom to work within an honest system; not by economic give-aways. Capitalism was preserved by adding guarantees that a dollar earned and spent would produce a dollar's worth of reasonable benefit.
5
When you dispense with the hyperbole, David Brooks's case is based on a false premise: that unburdened of regulations, the economy will correct itself and everyone who wants a job will be able to find one. This premise was shown to be false in 1936 by John Maynard Keynes in his General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. Keynes showed that an economy with flexible wages and prices can achieve a stable equilibrium with a good deal of unemployed workers, which is basically what we have today, and will have tomorrow.
Unless we elect Hillary Clinton or, better still, Bernie Sanders. Sanders in particular believes that government spending will not only help to restore our deteriorating infrastructure but will provide hundreds of thousands of willing workers with useful jobs paying decent wages.
Brooks seems to have learned nothing from the Keynesian stimulus of 2009, which stemmed the crash and brought us out of the deepest economic trough since the Great Depression.
Unless we elect Hillary Clinton or, better still, Bernie Sanders. Sanders in particular believes that government spending will not only help to restore our deteriorating infrastructure but will provide hundreds of thousands of willing workers with useful jobs paying decent wages.
Brooks seems to have learned nothing from the Keynesian stimulus of 2009, which stemmed the crash and brought us out of the deepest economic trough since the Great Depression.
7
On the contrary, the Keynesian stimulus is widely believed to have failed, according to both liberal and conservative economists. It led to the worst economic recovery since the great depression and massive debt. Keynesian economics did not work in the depression, and still does not work today. Government spending has proven to be a net drag on the economy, both here at home and across the world, throughout history.
Brooks is inured to his own east coast default mode of thinking. He is one of "them," and doesn't even recognize it. Clinton, on the other hand, is the newest iteration of that same thinking, making her and Brooks one and the same.
Clinton's carefully crafted rhetoric is both cynical and dishonest, intended to promote the status quo, or more exactly, to return us to the status quo of 30 years ago. By now, with the major reports of the theft of America by corporations, it should be plain that America is being dismantled. Brooks serves as a watchman for the old times when Republicans were hoping for the very thing that we have right now - the dismantling of our country and decline into third world status for all but the very top 1 percent, of which she is the brand name.
It is likely true that Sanders will not win the nomination. But it will be because of archaic thinking in the electorate, not the truth which he speaks. I am going to content myself into voting for anyone but Hillary as my expression of leaving the liberal perspective altogether, for it has become the elite themselves. And Hillary is the queen of the elite. She is simply not believable. I am a liberal; she is something entirely different.
Clinton's carefully crafted rhetoric is both cynical and dishonest, intended to promote the status quo, or more exactly, to return us to the status quo of 30 years ago. By now, with the major reports of the theft of America by corporations, it should be plain that America is being dismantled. Brooks serves as a watchman for the old times when Republicans were hoping for the very thing that we have right now - the dismantling of our country and decline into third world status for all but the very top 1 percent, of which she is the brand name.
It is likely true that Sanders will not win the nomination. But it will be because of archaic thinking in the electorate, not the truth which he speaks. I am going to content myself into voting for anyone but Hillary as my expression of leaving the liberal perspective altogether, for it has become the elite themselves. And Hillary is the queen of the elite. She is simply not believable. I am a liberal; she is something entirely different.
2
"Personally I find this faith epistemologically naïve." That is: Brooks is naive. The regulation of business worked just fine prior to deregulation. Revoking the Glass Steagall Act established the means to turn Wall St into a gambling casino.
Naive? Corporations are created with the permission of government. It is already the function of government to rein them in when they violate their charters. It is just that we have not seen this happen for a long time. It is time that all corporations stop behaving as if they have a right to exist. It is time that they were prevented from influencing the government that chartered them.
Clinton struck a cord with the liberal base and piqued the short-hairs of the paleolithic Neanderthals in her moderate speech. We do not have to dread the unibrow grunts that emanates from their mob's of stoneage cruelty. Appeals to our lowest common denominator no longer resonate with Americans who can finally see that the march into the swamp of selfishness and greed leaves little hope for the human race.
Naive? Corporations are created with the permission of government. It is already the function of government to rein them in when they violate their charters. It is just that we have not seen this happen for a long time. It is time that all corporations stop behaving as if they have a right to exist. It is time that they were prevented from influencing the government that chartered them.
Clinton struck a cord with the liberal base and piqued the short-hairs of the paleolithic Neanderthals in her moderate speech. We do not have to dread the unibrow grunts that emanates from their mob's of stoneage cruelty. Appeals to our lowest common denominator no longer resonate with Americans who can finally see that the march into the swamp of selfishness and greed leaves little hope for the human race.
8
So Hilary Clinton is "epistemologically naive?" Rubbish. People are asking up to the fact that this nation and its people flourished most under liberal ideas that fostered both economic growth and fairness - the Great Prosperity of 1946-1973.
Reaganomics was a fraud from the start. Slashing taxes on the wealthy forced government to borrow from them instead, in essence flipping the balance sheets on both. For the wealthy, tax liabilities became creditors'assets. For the public tax revenue based assets became debt liability. Debt exploded, and every time the bill came due there were loud sanctimonious demands from the right that the middle class and poor had to pay.
The whole thing is a fraud designed to turn government into a machine for sucking wealth out of the general populace and channeling it to the privileged few. The "trickle down" promise was just a bright shiny object used to distract the marks while the scam went down.
Reaganomics was a fraud from the start. Slashing taxes on the wealthy forced government to borrow from them instead, in essence flipping the balance sheets on both. For the wealthy, tax liabilities became creditors'assets. For the public tax revenue based assets became debt liability. Debt exploded, and every time the bill came due there were loud sanctimonious demands from the right that the middle class and poor had to pay.
The whole thing is a fraud designed to turn government into a machine for sucking wealth out of the general populace and channeling it to the privileged few. The "trickle down" promise was just a bright shiny object used to distract the marks while the scam went down.
10
"government is more competent at steering companies toward their own best interests than the companies are themselves." In truth, owners decide what is in the best interest of THEIR companies. It is true that over long periods of time with those who build those companies and own them are gone the managers and directors decided and their decisions are made very much in alignment with their interest which is often how to make the company more valuable, not the country, not the plant locations or the workers but the company of which they are now major owners.
Families are I suspect a bit more likely to make decisions based in part on the best interest of the communities in which they thrived, and some may see this as the Nation, but few leave their bequest to the nation, more likely it is much closer to home.
The nation competes with families, cities, states, employees, and others for having the company keep their best interest in mind. Washington serves Washington best, not all parts of the many families, cities and states. So yes, David many do resist such Washington centric thinking. Mostly those without a stake in any company seek Washington control and benevolent guidance, not those who own or help make the company great.
Families are I suspect a bit more likely to make decisions based in part on the best interest of the communities in which they thrived, and some may see this as the Nation, but few leave their bequest to the nation, more likely it is much closer to home.
The nation competes with families, cities, states, employees, and others for having the company keep their best interest in mind. Washington serves Washington best, not all parts of the many families, cities and states. So yes, David many do resist such Washington centric thinking. Mostly those without a stake in any company seek Washington control and benevolent guidance, not those who own or help make the company great.
9
"Clinton's unchastened faith in the power of government planning is not shared by most voters." Verbally voters, especially libertarian Republicans, are suspicious of government planning. But, I have never heard of a Republican President, Cabinet Secretary, Senator, Congress person complain about their healthcare plan. Republicans even endorsed a plan to travel to Mars! On the campaign trail Tea Party voters objected to the ACA by ignorantly shouting, "Don't take my Medicare away!" Voters travel our nation's highways, ride public transportation, fly across the country because government planning facilitated and provides continual support for these modes of transportation. Government planning created the institutions which voters use that promote and protect the welfare and health of all; e.g. courts, law enforcement, laws, EPA, military, FDA, FDIC,CDC, and NEA. Government planning has tried to fund bridges to nowhere, but the private sector has also built and tried to market Edsels. Americans have more faith in their institutions than they would admit, despite the mistakes these same institutions have made.
4
Actually, they held up signs reading, "Keep the government out of my Medicare," thereby display an even greater depth of ignorance than your mis-quote implies. They personified the time-honored tradition of the ideologue: I know what I know and don't try to confuse me with the facts!"
1
Not sure if David read the same Picketty that I did, but that speech was right out of "Capital in the 21st Century". Picketty made the all important point, predictably lacking in Brooks' ever right -lurching analysis, that unwinding the concentration of capital that has led us (again) to this point does not occur naturally. In the previous recent most recent example which occurred prior to WWI, it took two wars and a depression along with a massive destruction of capital to make a dent in the inequality. And yet here we are: back to the future.
The case that Hillary was making was that not only can government be a force for good, it is the only backstop against the forces that inevitably drive capital to concentrate. Capitalism is not a panacea; you do not have to be a flaming red communist to realize that it has serious shortcomings. She was pointing out that government has been (it has) and needs to be, that back stop. Either that or envision the alternative: more market crashes, stagnant growth, rising inequality, and ultimately more wars. There was also something called the French Revolution when all else fails.
The case that Hillary was making was that not only can government be a force for good, it is the only backstop against the forces that inevitably drive capital to concentrate. Capitalism is not a panacea; you do not have to be a flaming red communist to realize that it has serious shortcomings. She was pointing out that government has been (it has) and needs to be, that back stop. Either that or envision the alternative: more market crashes, stagnant growth, rising inequality, and ultimately more wars. There was also something called the French Revolution when all else fails.
6
This column says much more about David Brooks than it does about Hillary Clinton. Mr. Brooks either fails or refuses to realize what Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and millions of ordinary Americans know to be true -- that the current form of zero-sum, winner-take-all capitalism that has come to dominate the U.S. economy over the past three-plus decades is not only not working in the interest of the vast majority of Americans, but is actively working against them. It has impoverished many of them, forced many more to work harder and longer for less pay, robbed them of their retirement security, and worse, stripped them of the dream of providing their children with the education, training and jobs that would lead to a better future -- and all of this in order to further enrich a tiny sliver of the population that already has more than it can possibly consume, use or enjoy.
In the face of this continuing national travesty, Mr. Brooks criticizes Mrs. Clinton for her response, which in reality is itself is too tactical. This column of his is like criticizing a soldier, who's about to go into a battle to determine the fate of his nation, on the color of his uniform. What America really needs is an FDR-like, progressive revolution of the kind Senator Sanders calls for that would fundamentally reform our economy and democratic institutions, and once more save capitalism from itself.
In the face of this continuing national travesty, Mr. Brooks criticizes Mrs. Clinton for her response, which in reality is itself is too tactical. This column of his is like criticizing a soldier, who's about to go into a battle to determine the fate of his nation, on the color of his uniform. What America really needs is an FDR-like, progressive revolution of the kind Senator Sanders calls for that would fundamentally reform our economy and democratic institutions, and once more save capitalism from itself.
5
"Solar industry was the top performer in 2013 for generating clean energy jobs. The Solar Foundation estimated there were close to 143,000 solar jobs in the United States in 2013, including 24,000 new jobs announced that year. The rate at which jobs were added in 2013 was more than 20 percent over 2012 levels.
A 2014 report, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) indicated that the wind energy industry directly supported 50,500 full-time-equivalent jobs in 2013
Hydropower industry supports 200,000 to 300,000 jobs in the United States, as well as a supply chain of more than 2,500 companies. A Navigant Consulting study found the industry could support an additional 230,000 to 700,000 direct and indirect jobs by 2025 and expand its capacity by 23,000-60,000 megawatts (MW) with policies supportive of hydropower development."
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/01/fact-sheet-renewabl...
I think one could credibly argue that green energy IS a job creator. My son has worked for a residential photovoltaic installer for 3 years. The company grew from 6 employees to 60 in 3 years. MA is one of the greenest states in the country leading in solar electric. The data doesn't support Brook's alleged "facts" that green energy is not a viable job producer. Many residential oil companies are now installing ground source heat pump equipment, more green energy jobs. But if the facts interfere with the belief just ignore the facts. Typical right wing SOP.
A 2014 report, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) indicated that the wind energy industry directly supported 50,500 full-time-equivalent jobs in 2013
Hydropower industry supports 200,000 to 300,000 jobs in the United States, as well as a supply chain of more than 2,500 companies. A Navigant Consulting study found the industry could support an additional 230,000 to 700,000 direct and indirect jobs by 2025 and expand its capacity by 23,000-60,000 megawatts (MW) with policies supportive of hydropower development."
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/01/fact-sheet-renewabl...
I think one could credibly argue that green energy IS a job creator. My son has worked for a residential photovoltaic installer for 3 years. The company grew from 6 employees to 60 in 3 years. MA is one of the greenest states in the country leading in solar electric. The data doesn't support Brook's alleged "facts" that green energy is not a viable job producer. Many residential oil companies are now installing ground source heat pump equipment, more green energy jobs. But if the facts interfere with the belief just ignore the facts. Typical right wing SOP.
8
It's disorienting to hear someone like David Brooks, himself epistemologically naive, accuse others of being that.
He writes, "In each case, in this view, government is more competent at steering companies toward their own best interests than the companies are themselves."
The naivete in this statement is this. Nobody, on the left or right, doubts corporations' competency in promoting their best interests. They have armies of tax lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists to help.
The left's argument is that these entities promote their interests at the expense of the public interest. They evade taxes with vigilance and zeal. They sponsor laws, and candidates, that concentrate their power, absolve them of social responsibility, and benefit them alone.
Brooks laments the way the left foments "class warfare" in a similarly naive way.
"Class warfare" isn't an angry left-wing speech or two. It's the cold, efficient, relentlessly "competent" extraction, over decades, of an ever-larger percentage of the world's money and power by an ever-smaller number of hands.
The people winning this class war so spectacularly just don't want the rest of us to mention it, or even know about it.
He writes, "In each case, in this view, government is more competent at steering companies toward their own best interests than the companies are themselves."
The naivete in this statement is this. Nobody, on the left or right, doubts corporations' competency in promoting their best interests. They have armies of tax lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists to help.
The left's argument is that these entities promote their interests at the expense of the public interest. They evade taxes with vigilance and zeal. They sponsor laws, and candidates, that concentrate their power, absolve them of social responsibility, and benefit them alone.
Brooks laments the way the left foments "class warfare" in a similarly naive way.
"Class warfare" isn't an angry left-wing speech or two. It's the cold, efficient, relentlessly "competent" extraction, over decades, of an ever-larger percentage of the world's money and power by an ever-smaller number of hands.
The people winning this class war so spectacularly just don't want the rest of us to mention it, or even know about it.
437
"The people winning this class war so spectacularly just don't want the rest of us to mention it, or even know about it."
And David Brooks is turning out to be the Obfuscater in Chief. He just cloaks it in fancy words like paleo-liberal.
And David Brooks is turning out to be the Obfuscater in Chief. He just cloaks it in fancy words like paleo-liberal.
He's not naive. He is just as consciously dishonest as every other repub propagandist. Watch him on the PBS Newshour he can't look anyone in the eye and is never able to respond naturally or normally to nearly any question.
I may be unaware of him having some condition other than being conservative that might cause this but it plays as a very clear sign of his dishonesty to me.
I may be unaware of him having some condition other than being conservative that might cause this but it plays as a very clear sign of his dishonesty to me.
Do not forget the outright crimes that these corporate entities get away with every day.
I won't address the conservative throw away line --most government programs do not work---because it is just that, a throw away line that masks what underfunding and program cuts can do to any governmental program --- with the exception of corporate welfare, which is never underfunded or cut. I do agree that Hillary is threading the liberal needle between class Lite and government Lite. Her liberal Lite brand will offer an effective counter to the conservative "takers" class warfare now started by the Republican ticket. At the end of the day, however, Pinckney's description of the structural inequalities generated by our market system, what Bernie Sanders points at, is the underlying economic reality. The conservative "takers" policies or Hillary's liberal Lite policies are not designed to address the structural inequalities of our market system. If Hillary is elected the sharpness of the inequality pain will be dulled. If a Republican is elected the sharpness of the pain will increase. But, at the end of the day, no party will eliminate the economic pain of middle class now trapped in a falling class elevator.
3
What I find so amusing in David Brooks' criticisms of both Hillary's and Bernie's political perspectives is that he's quick to criticize the increasingly progressive focus of both candidates without really addressing why many within the Democratic party, and the electorate in general, are now much more receptive to the progressive message.
He mentions "class warfare" but fails to acknowledge that the class warfare being ruthlessly waged over the past 20 to 30 years has been authored largely by those on the far right of the political spectrum.
The reason why Bernie in particular is getting such huge crowds at his campaign events is because people know what's going on and recognize authenticity when they hear it. Hillary is being more measured in her response, hoping to appeal to a wider middle I suspect.
The fact remains that there has been tremendous social upheaval over the past two decades and the corporate-friendly Republicans have been the prime movers behind this change. The result is that the "misery index" has now reached new highs for the vast majority not seen since the 1930s when Republicans' laissez-faire policies brought about the Great Depression.
I suspect that David Brooks writes off these cataclysmic changes as just the result of "free market forces", and that we should all be accepting of the new corporate globalization process, despite the painful social costs involved. Nonsense. Republicans should get used to the criticism. They deserve it.
He mentions "class warfare" but fails to acknowledge that the class warfare being ruthlessly waged over the past 20 to 30 years has been authored largely by those on the far right of the political spectrum.
The reason why Bernie in particular is getting such huge crowds at his campaign events is because people know what's going on and recognize authenticity when they hear it. Hillary is being more measured in her response, hoping to appeal to a wider middle I suspect.
The fact remains that there has been tremendous social upheaval over the past two decades and the corporate-friendly Republicans have been the prime movers behind this change. The result is that the "misery index" has now reached new highs for the vast majority not seen since the 1930s when Republicans' laissez-faire policies brought about the Great Depression.
I suspect that David Brooks writes off these cataclysmic changes as just the result of "free market forces", and that we should all be accepting of the new corporate globalization process, despite the painful social costs involved. Nonsense. Republicans should get used to the criticism. They deserve it.
9
The key to successful management is preparing for both the anticipated and the unanticipated so that opportunities are exploited and disruptions are minimized. Government can help us to do that especially when we reach a cul de sac where a few actors control all the means to address our needs and are focused only upon their own needs. The taxes on the rich are too low which has resulted in their controlling all the new wealth created and it's use.
Anticipating and apprehending what is likely to happen and how to prepare to mitigate harm and to use opportunities is the great advantage that humans have over all other animals. Using that in the service of a community or a nation is the role of a government. The notion that a great summation of individual, self centered decisions will some how provide better and more optimal outcomes than any intelligent use of the known facts to guide behavior is frankly, absurd. It comes from a misreading of the extreme difficulties of predicting outcomes of complex events to indicate that we cannot act deliberately to control our futures and so should just allow whatever happens to happen.
The success of the human race has depended upon not just our individual capabilities as self conscious and reasoning entities but our ability to convey what people have learned over their lives to the young. But humans are mortal and they can never be sure that they really understand as much as they need to until unexpected things happen.
Anticipating and apprehending what is likely to happen and how to prepare to mitigate harm and to use opportunities is the great advantage that humans have over all other animals. Using that in the service of a community or a nation is the role of a government. The notion that a great summation of individual, self centered decisions will some how provide better and more optimal outcomes than any intelligent use of the known facts to guide behavior is frankly, absurd. It comes from a misreading of the extreme difficulties of predicting outcomes of complex events to indicate that we cannot act deliberately to control our futures and so should just allow whatever happens to happen.
The success of the human race has depended upon not just our individual capabilities as self conscious and reasoning entities but our ability to convey what people have learned over their lives to the young. But humans are mortal and they can never be sure that they really understand as much as they need to until unexpected things happen.
3
Clinton is a pragmatic Democratic technocrat who believes in government management of the economy and society, and the irreversibility of the administrative state. It's basically a message of competence and moderation over ideological excess from left or right. Brooks comments about epistemological naivety are laughable given the numerous ideological nostrums he's embraced over the years from invasions of Iraq to supply side economics.
10
I had thought that Brooks was worth reading even if I rarely agreed with him. His smiley, pleasant attack on Hillary Clinton, however is not only biased, which one would expect from a Republican supporter, but it is intellectually dishonest, which is not one would have expected from Brooks.
Somehow if workers want a fair deal, this is class warfare, but the rich have been practicing class warfare against American workers and the disadvantaged since the New Deal. Since Reagan, the rich have been very successful, greatly lowering their taxes, leading to either deficit finance or reduced services. The very programs that Brooks cites as sort of OK, such as decent, affordable housing and access to quality education, and those directly aiding the less well off, have been those hardest hit by the phoney fiscal "probity" advocated by the paleo-conservatives, whose ranks the genial Brooks now seems to have joined with great enthusiasm.
As for knowing what is best, Brooks seems to have missed the confessions of Greenspan who admitted that he was wrong in assuming that business acted in their own long-term self interest. Fortunately, the government, ignorant of how to make long-term investments, was around to bail out the business community, and in a self-denying act of noblesse oblige, the taxpaying working people financed the bailouts that kept banking executives in the bonuses.
Maybe Brooks would like to earn $10/hour, then he won't have to pay income taxes.
Somehow if workers want a fair deal, this is class warfare, but the rich have been practicing class warfare against American workers and the disadvantaged since the New Deal. Since Reagan, the rich have been very successful, greatly lowering their taxes, leading to either deficit finance or reduced services. The very programs that Brooks cites as sort of OK, such as decent, affordable housing and access to quality education, and those directly aiding the less well off, have been those hardest hit by the phoney fiscal "probity" advocated by the paleo-conservatives, whose ranks the genial Brooks now seems to have joined with great enthusiasm.
As for knowing what is best, Brooks seems to have missed the confessions of Greenspan who admitted that he was wrong in assuming that business acted in their own long-term self interest. Fortunately, the government, ignorant of how to make long-term investments, was around to bail out the business community, and in a self-denying act of noblesse oblige, the taxpaying working people financed the bailouts that kept banking executives in the bonuses.
Maybe Brooks would like to earn $10/hour, then he won't have to pay income taxes.
11
BDR....your realistic comment shows factual good sense. Yet you would not expect intellectual dishonesty from Brooks? His every column is just that.
He constantly ignores the legalized class warfare against the majority, waged by the 1 percent. That's only applied to the majority trying regain their rights and basic security for the middle class.
Haven't you read his frequent sermons to the downwardly mobile insecure Americans to build character, and go get an education?
He constantly ignores the legalized class warfare against the majority, waged by the 1 percent. That's only applied to the majority trying regain their rights and basic security for the middle class.
Haven't you read his frequent sermons to the downwardly mobile insecure Americans to build character, and go get an education?
Mr. Brookes' adoption of the term "paleo-liberal" to describe government intervention against distributive imbalances is confusing. Let us assume that there is a distributive imbalance--i.e., much more currency flowing to people than is necessary to motivate creative and/or productive initiatives, and moreover, that the currency is flowing into investments benefiting foreign markets (and small benefits returning from such investment). Who should intervene to address the imbalance? Will the market-mind correct or reverse the trend? That, it seems requires an extraordinary faith in something, which over the last 50 years has not been producing good results. Let's call it "paleo-conservative"--so that we might emphasize the primitive in it. If government is all we have as a source of intervention, it is more productive to "pray" that interventions be made wisely than to pray to the market-mind, and to find out after 100 years (as many suspected all along) that it is both mindless and savage. To suppose otherwise strikes me as remarkably naive.
No one is trying to tell rich people what is good for them, but commentators like Piketty are trying to tell them to stop taking what isn't theirs. But who defines what belongs to whom--the market or government?
No one is trying to tell rich people what is good for them, but commentators like Piketty are trying to tell them to stop taking what isn't theirs. But who defines what belongs to whom--the market or government?
112
I'm not sure that paleo-conservatives are "conservative"--they seem intent on destroying what is there rather than preserving it.
"..Except for periods in the 1950s and 1960s and possibly the 1990’s when tax rates on the rich just happened to be high enough to prevent overinvestment, the economy has generally suffered from periodic overinvestment cycles.
It is not just a coincidence that tax cuts for the rich have preceded both the 1929 and 2007 depressions. The Revenue acts of 1926 and 1928 worked exactly as the Republican Congresses that pushed them through promised. The dramatic reductions in taxes on the upper income brackets and estates of the wealthy did indeed result in increases in savings and investment. However, overinvestment (by 1929 there were over 600 automobile manufacturing companies in the USA) caused the depression that made the rich, and most everyone else, ultimately much poorer.
Since 1969 there has been a tremendous shift in the tax burdens away from the rich on onto the middle class. Corporate income tax receipts, whose incidence falls entirely on the owners of corporations, were 4% of GDP then and are now less than 1%. During that same period, payroll tax rates as percent of GDP have increased dramatically. The overinvestment problem caused by the reduction in taxes on the wealthy is exacerbated by the increased tax burden on the middle class. While overinvestment creates more factories, housing and shopping centers; higher payroll taxes reduces the purchasing power of middle-class consumers. ..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642
It is not just a coincidence that tax cuts for the rich have preceded both the 1929 and 2007 depressions. The Revenue acts of 1926 and 1928 worked exactly as the Republican Congresses that pushed them through promised. The dramatic reductions in taxes on the upper income brackets and estates of the wealthy did indeed result in increases in savings and investment. However, overinvestment (by 1929 there were over 600 automobile manufacturing companies in the USA) caused the depression that made the rich, and most everyone else, ultimately much poorer.
Since 1969 there has been a tremendous shift in the tax burdens away from the rich on onto the middle class. Corporate income tax receipts, whose incidence falls entirely on the owners of corporations, were 4% of GDP then and are now less than 1%. During that same period, payroll tax rates as percent of GDP have increased dramatically. The overinvestment problem caused by the reduction in taxes on the wealthy is exacerbated by the increased tax burden on the middle class. While overinvestment creates more factories, housing and shopping centers; higher payroll taxes reduces the purchasing power of middle-class consumers. ..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642
3
Please stop with the lies.
The recession of 2007 had everything to do with the government's pushing of housing ownership to all, even those with minimal income, and undocumented income at that. Wall street was there to put fuel on the fire.
The depression of 1929 was the result of massive expansion of the stock market without regulation. When people found out the stocks they owned were not worth the paper it was printed on, depression set in.
The recession of 2007 had everything to do with the government's pushing of housing ownership to all, even those with minimal income, and undocumented income at that. Wall street was there to put fuel on the fire.
The depression of 1929 was the result of massive expansion of the stock market without regulation. When people found out the stocks they owned were not worth the paper it was printed on, depression set in.
You know, there is something to the idea that corporations could act more efficiently and provide better benefits to shareholders, employees, and customers, alike, by reducing complexity. I believe that boards of directors and management often introduce complexities into the institutions they oversee in order to hedge their own private vested interests. However, Ms. Clinton's proposals have two fundamental problems. First, the government is even worse, much worse, than corporations are in introducing unnecessary complexities to protect vested interests. Second, Ms. Clinton's proposals (and all current liberal or progressive proposals) are too heavy-handed to successfully create positive effects in the market. Government can have a positive effect on the market and on motivating corporations to act in the best interest of all their stakeholders, but it must do so with a light touch, or otherwise it creates more problems than it solves. The government must act as a catalyst, not as a manager. And the catalyst itself must be relatively simple and unbureaucratic.
1
After the catastrophic bank failures of 1929, and the resulting Great Depression, the nation elected a liberal president, FDR, then re-elected him three more times! The lessons learned were short lived. WWII certainly played a part, but the campaign from the right, slowly but surely, put us on the march backward, back to the policies that paved the way to the Gilded Age and the resulting depression.
The Right have done a marvelous job of obliterating the memories of those lessons learned. They've succeeded in redefining the word liberal as an obscenity and associating socially responsible policies with Communism. Trickle-down economics remains their ideal economic policy. When LBJ signed into law new measures that would insure equality for all, the lessons learned were all together forgotten.
The nation's economic future, should we elect yet another trickle-down advocate as president and a like-minded congress, will soon be as "broke as the Ten Commandments".
I have no doubt it could happen. Ignoring history is easy, given that such a large portion of the electorate are proud of their ignorance, and backers of such destructive policies know well how to exploit the deliberately ill-educated. These are the people who do not understand that Citizens United has allowed the ultra-rich to buy the government they wish.
Still, I wonder, how big of an economic meltdown will it take for the majority of voters to realize they've been duped?
The Right have done a marvelous job of obliterating the memories of those lessons learned. They've succeeded in redefining the word liberal as an obscenity and associating socially responsible policies with Communism. Trickle-down economics remains their ideal economic policy. When LBJ signed into law new measures that would insure equality for all, the lessons learned were all together forgotten.
The nation's economic future, should we elect yet another trickle-down advocate as president and a like-minded congress, will soon be as "broke as the Ten Commandments".
I have no doubt it could happen. Ignoring history is easy, given that such a large portion of the electorate are proud of their ignorance, and backers of such destructive policies know well how to exploit the deliberately ill-educated. These are the people who do not understand that Citizens United has allowed the ultra-rich to buy the government they wish.
Still, I wonder, how big of an economic meltdown will it take for the majority of voters to realize they've been duped?
5
I totally agree with today's column but my perspective is of a 20th century socialist who looks at the calendar and sees 2015.
The last leadership convention for my New Democratic Party saw it wake up to the realization that it is no longer the 20th century and if we are to continue to progress in making our society more responsive to human needs we must develop new policies and communities that take into account the incredible technological and sociological changes that have occurred in my lifetime. Today's needs are not about more stuff but of providing affirmation of the value of people and their role in society. My party of old socialists talks less about unions and workers rights than it does about urbanization, multiculturalism and real education. My party talks about healthy environments, child care and parks and recreation and cleaning up toxic dumps instead economic growth. My party talks about human needs not the needs of bankers and oil barons.
Canada's Conservatives had a similar discussion when they last had a leadership convention and decided the conservatism of Joe Clark and Kim Campbell did not suit the 21st century and opted for the old time religion and the old time feudalism that stood the long test of time before democracy could even be a conception of a conception.
The Liberals of course looked to the good old days of the 1960s when we were young and the future held the promise of good jobs and a secure future.
Bernie Sanders is the ONLY hope.
The last leadership convention for my New Democratic Party saw it wake up to the realization that it is no longer the 20th century and if we are to continue to progress in making our society more responsive to human needs we must develop new policies and communities that take into account the incredible technological and sociological changes that have occurred in my lifetime. Today's needs are not about more stuff but of providing affirmation of the value of people and their role in society. My party of old socialists talks less about unions and workers rights than it does about urbanization, multiculturalism and real education. My party talks about healthy environments, child care and parks and recreation and cleaning up toxic dumps instead economic growth. My party talks about human needs not the needs of bankers and oil barons.
Canada's Conservatives had a similar discussion when they last had a leadership convention and decided the conservatism of Joe Clark and Kim Campbell did not suit the 21st century and opted for the old time religion and the old time feudalism that stood the long test of time before democracy could even be a conception of a conception.
The Liberals of course looked to the good old days of the 1960s when we were young and the future held the promise of good jobs and a secure future.
Bernie Sanders is the ONLY hope.
3
"She carefully avoided the more radical policy ideas embraced by the left, such as a blanket tax on the rich."
The Estate Tax was championed by Teddy Roosevelt, and the top marginal tax rate for the richest Americans during the Eisenhower Administration was 91%.
Were they "radical" leftists?
The Estate Tax was championed by Teddy Roosevelt, and the top marginal tax rate for the richest Americans during the Eisenhower Administration was 91%.
Were they "radical" leftists?
67
The GOP has moved so far to the right that, yes, indeed, TR, Ike, and even old Abe himself, would be considered radical leftists today.
21
Today's Republican Party would run them out of town on a rail.
Heck, if today's Tea Party were honest with itself, they'd have to turn on Saint Reagan.
Heck, if today's Tea Party were honest with itself, they'd have to turn on Saint Reagan.
1
No, they were constantly "wandering into the class warfare fever swamps."
1
Perhaps Mr. Brooks' condescension toward Hillary Clinton and outright dismissal of Bernie Sanders stems from his own party's inexorable descent into the politically grotesque. Not only have they created, through irresponsible rhetoric, a constituency so rabidly hateful and out of touch but one that appears ready to support a wealthy, simplistic blowhard gaining perhaps the most important office on the planet. That someone as vile and utterly clueless as Trump can immediately become the front runner says more about the GOP than any conservative columnist can about the dems.
63
Trump is unelectable. You don't need to worry about him and liberals are promoting him with the incredible flood of postings I see everywhere, like yours and on Facebook. Sanders is also unelectable, much as he might be a great next-door neighbor or a great Dad, he could not even get to 40% nationally, so game over for both of them. More useful to use time focusing on the ones who have broader appeal, and thus a shot.
If only once Mr Brooks were to call "class warfare" Republicans' ranting or his own opinions against unions, universal healthcare, food stamps, unemployment benefits, Medicaid, social security, and living wages. But I guess he figures there is only one side with a right to carry and fire.
46
It's a reasonable and accurate phrase. The anger directed at the 1% or the 10% is quite specifically about what they have and others don't, and how to reassign it more evenly. The word that is used most often is "inequality", not anything about "belief systems", let's day.
Either the economic game is rigged or people can get ahead. That the economic game is somewhat but not entirely rigged (as it is in, say, Angola or most of the central Asian stans) and that some people can get ahead but not all those who are trying to do so (the moderate or middle position) is a view not worth mentioning. We do not talk about the history of income distribution, because it is natural for income to accrue upwards and for this income to periodically vanish in bubbles, and unnatural for it to be distributed more widely. If everyone tries hard enough, all can be above average.
6
But, Virginia, we are not in Lake Wobegon any more .
It sounds very much like Clinton's strategy is to not lose the race rather than to win it. Bernie Sanders, knowing his chances are slim, attacks aggressively because he thinks that approach offers the only chance to inflict a fatal wound on his chief rival for the nomination. He frightens as much as he inspires, while Clinton's attempt to cross all the tees and jot all the 'i's fails to arouse much enthusiasm. As the first woman with a real chance to win the presidency, she should be able to ignite a firestorm of support. Her loss to Obama in 2008, however, combined with her long career on the public stage, have apparently tamed the passion of the insurgent she needs to be to bring out a large Democratic vote. The odds favor her winning the nomination, but her chances on election day are extremely uncertain. Unless the Republicans make an exceedingly stupid choice, we may be in for a return of rule by the troglodytes.
4
Bernie "attacks aggressively" because he knows exactly what our problem is and he knows that he is likely the only candidate that would try to do anything about it as president. He has to get his message out to enough people to get elected. If Bernie fails (more like if the American people fail) I still believe most Americans trust Hillary to at least not be as bad as the troglodytes. And if we don't then maybe we need some more pain, to learn the hard way, that you don't put troglodytes in charge of a country.
David, I knew Hubert Humphrey. Hillary Clinton is no Hubert Humphrey.
He never complained. He always smiled. He could work with other politicians. He truly cared about those he served. Had it not been for Lyndon Johnson's policies in Vietnam, Humprhey would have been president.
Hillary is a complainer. She never smiles unless on camera. She is unable to work with other politicians, even those of her own ilk. She does not truly care about those she would serve.
Don't be fooled, David. You really ought to know better.
He never complained. He always smiled. He could work with other politicians. He truly cared about those he served. Had it not been for Lyndon Johnson's policies in Vietnam, Humprhey would have been president.
Hillary is a complainer. She never smiles unless on camera. She is unable to work with other politicians, even those of her own ilk. She does not truly care about those she would serve.
Don't be fooled, David. You really ought to know better.
5
@Lake Woebegoner: I do not concur with your claim that Hillary cannot work with anybody. She was famous in the Senate for working with her colleagues. How'd you miss that? Even Republicans liked and worked with her. So I don't buy that.
1
I don't recall Brooks using the word naïve to describe the many far-fetched plans of his conservative heros. Jeb wants us to work harder to double our growth, Rand can't add, Trump can't count, the others... well with fifteen of them I need an account just to keep track of them.
No, Mr. Brooks, no amount of lipstick or suspended disbelief will make those pigs fly!
No, Mr. Brooks, no amount of lipstick or suspended disbelief will make those pigs fly!
32
Meanwhile, Hillary is trudging onto with her clay feet. Oblivious to anything or anyone but herself.
The status quo will be preserved at all costs. Since the status quo serves my won interests just fine I really can't complain. Liberals like me and Clinton ought to at least have the decency to be up front about that. Neither Clinton nor Bush will change the economic system in any meaningful way. We'll make more progress setting up a charity to help people than to invest more money in government.
It is astonishing how every couple of years we allow these politicians to tell us that they plan to change the country in a way that will make our lives better. It's just not going to happen. It is not within their power nor is it even their intention. And yet, we will spend the next 16 months pretending that what they say is important. Amazing.
It is astonishing how every couple of years we allow these politicians to tell us that they plan to change the country in a way that will make our lives better. It's just not going to happen. It is not within their power nor is it even their intention. And yet, we will spend the next 16 months pretending that what they say is important. Amazing.
9
The sad fact is, they can make our country worse. The failed trickle down theory of Ronald Reagan, deregulation of the banks and tough on Crime policies of Bill Clinton have caused the divide between rich and poor to grow.
Yes good for Hillary. She avoided storming the barricades.
Now let's get back to the class warfare part and talk about Scott walkers merciless attack on the middle class and minoritieis
Now let's get back to the class warfare part and talk about Scott walkers merciless attack on the middle class and minoritieis
25
While it is clear that government cannot direct the economy in every situation, it can adjust its malfunctions. There is no argument regarding the essential selfishness of the market and its potential for destructive acts (we are living the consequences of this right now). Markets should be allowed to develop their potentialities until they begin to be harmful to the economy and society. It's like your rights stop when they infringe on my rights. Thus government should step in whenever it sees that market actions are becoming harmful. It is less than "government can manage the economy more intelligently than the private sector" and more that it is the responsibility of government to step in to remedy the faults or abuses of the private sector.
25
Sorry… but the "progressive base" is not going to be excited by Hillary Clinton. Why? Because she carefully avoids "..the more radical policy ideas embraced by the left" like (gasp) increasing the marginal tax rates on the top earners to Reagan era levels, (holy cow) refusing to enter into trade agreements that result in the loss of jobs or the reduction in wages of American workers, and (omg) a minimum wage that would enable someone to earn $31.200 per year AND receive (death glare) health care and a vacation. Her speech was NOT "the sort of speech you give if you spend more time listening to voters" instead of "...studying the quintiles in the income distribution charts". It was EXACTLY the kind of speech you give if you listen to inside-the-beltway handlers…. and progressives have lost their patience with those who only want to get elected to office by offering "Third Way" alternatives to those who want to dismantle government completely. That's why Bernie Sanders is drawing crowds while Ms. Clinton is eliciting eye-rolls.
29
I always maintain, no matter what side of the isle your on, we all should know what to expect after the coronation, and the Clintons move back into the White House. Just more Boomer politics and corruption, on a legalized scale. After all this waste and charade of a campaign, managing our foreighn policy and the retraction of being the worlds policemen, will require all the skills Bill has. Hillary can do zero about seeing that the so called middle calss gets a raise. Globalization marketed as free trade, exported millions of jobs to slave labor jurisdictions. Corporations would be insane to bring any of these direct labor or even service jobs back. The primary thrust of major corporations,is to keep profits in off shore incorporated tax havens. To alter that would require comprehensive tax revision, and our lawmakers including Hillary, are not capable, or more importantly want to avoid it. To many influences donate to politicans campaign's.
3
Dan, just fyi that when you use hperbole like "coronation" some of us skip to the next post without reading further.
I think that David has created a new word. There is a word neopalio. I believe that Mr. Brooks required two words or a hyphen between neopalio and liberalism. Palio refers, of course to the famous horse race in Italy.
3
I noticed the same thing too! I think that he wants to sound hip!
A typical conservative polemic aimed a typical liberal approach. Brooks first incorrectly describes the regulations and programs Mrs. Clinton espouses and then attacks them as he has mischaracterized them.
Moreover, she is closer to Sanders and Warren than he gives her credit to be. Thank goodness.
Moreover, she is closer to Sanders and Warren than he gives her credit to be. Thank goodness.
30
"Personally I find this faith epistemologically naïve. Clinton seems to have no awareness that many of the programs she endorsed have been tried and did not work..."
Nice to see David Brooks endorsing Mr. Sanders's point that neither individual diligence nor paleoliberal cheerleading and tinkering is sufficient to constrain the damage that intensely concentrated wealth and its attendant political clout wields in producing social injustice!
Nice to see David Brooks endorsing Mr. Sanders's point that neither individual diligence nor paleoliberal cheerleading and tinkering is sufficient to constrain the damage that intensely concentrated wealth and its attendant political clout wields in producing social injustice!
35
Speaking of programs that did not work, Brooks pretends to be blithely unaware that 35 years of tax cuts for the rich have not produced the trickle down effects predicted by his party. In fact, the architect of them, David Stockman, has admitted that it was know within the Reagam Administration that they would *never* work.
In fact, the liberal programs that Mrs. Clinton is promoting have a much better track record than relentlessly cutting taxes, which is the Republican default economic prescription.
In fact, the liberal programs that Mrs. Clinton is promoting have a much better track record than relentlessly cutting taxes, which is the Republican default economic prescription.
1
Hillary Clinton is no longer "dead broke". Both her and Bill went to the banquet and consumed as much as they can, and now they want you us to believe that money isn't concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, that everybody has a chance at obtaining riches.
These Clinton's are selfish, self absorbed, and inauthentic. What possible connection to the common man and women do they possess. They need to liquidate Clinton Inc., give it to the poor and spend the rest of their days explaining to welfare recipients why it was wrong cutting their benefits for political gain.
FDR understood the significance of greed and avarice. That is why he gave back and led from a position of moral authority.
Mr Brooks you are wrong, and history will prove this. Greed and narcissism are akin to a camel attempting to go through an eye of an needle.
.
These Clinton's are selfish, self absorbed, and inauthentic. What possible connection to the common man and women do they possess. They need to liquidate Clinton Inc., give it to the poor and spend the rest of their days explaining to welfare recipients why it was wrong cutting their benefits for political gain.
FDR understood the significance of greed and avarice. That is why he gave back and led from a position of moral authority.
Mr Brooks you are wrong, and history will prove this. Greed and narcissism are akin to a camel attempting to go through an eye of an needle.
.
22
If the "reality of growing inequality" doesn't make you "angry," you are the 1%.
76
For David: Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.
Fredrick Douglas
Fredrick Douglas
46
Mr. Brooks - live in this America. Please. This America where thanks to Citizens United billionaires openly finance candidates. This America where costs (aka pay) is kept low, while productivity increases yet the profits go to businesses and their owners. Live in this America where college debt is outrageous and safety nets for those in the most need get cut but taxes on the most well to do go down.
Several politicians over the years have claimed to live at the poverty level to understand those that live there permanently. I challenge you to live three months at minimum wage, in lower class housing and to make ends meet. Not go home to the nice house and a glass of wine.
Sanders, Clinton, and Warren do understand the plight of a large majority of citizens. The Republican party, and to a large extent you personally, live in a world that is far apart from the norm. Show a little empathy, walk in the shoes of others.
Several politicians over the years have claimed to live at the poverty level to understand those that live there permanently. I challenge you to live three months at minimum wage, in lower class housing and to make ends meet. Not go home to the nice house and a glass of wine.
Sanders, Clinton, and Warren do understand the plight of a large majority of citizens. The Republican party, and to a large extent you personally, live in a world that is far apart from the norm. Show a little empathy, walk in the shoes of others.
99
"This America where thanks to Citizens United billionaires openly finance candidates." Now, thanks to D. Trump, billionaires are openly candidates. The mask is off.
The trouble with Brooks is that all he has is labels--left, right, radical, progressive, liberal, conservative paleoliberalism, progressive, etc. There is no there there.
Someone who calls himself a conservative should look to history to see what results various policies have had in the past, but no, Brooks acts as if history began yesterday.
One can compare the 1920's together with the 2000''s with 1946 - 1973. The first 2 periods led to disaster while the third was one of Great Prosperity.
To measure corporate taxes, the best statistic is taxes actually paid to the Treasury divided by GDP because neither of these figures can be fudged by corporations. Today that figure is 1.8% which is the lowest among developed nations. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-o... During the Great Prosperity, that statistic was about 3 times what it is today.
During the 20's and the 2000's tax rates on the Rich were low; they were very high during the Great Prosperity. These high rates discourage the Rich from taking obscene compensation and combined with the higher corporate taxes encouraged them to pay their workers more. Thus inequality was much lower than in the 20's and the 2000's. This, in turn, meant that the people who spend had enough money to buy stuff, and the people who speculate has less money to wreck the economy.
Sure this time may be different, but why not try what has worked before you try what has failed?
Someone who calls himself a conservative should look to history to see what results various policies have had in the past, but no, Brooks acts as if history began yesterday.
One can compare the 1920's together with the 2000''s with 1946 - 1973. The first 2 periods led to disaster while the third was one of Great Prosperity.
To measure corporate taxes, the best statistic is taxes actually paid to the Treasury divided by GDP because neither of these figures can be fudged by corporations. Today that figure is 1.8% which is the lowest among developed nations. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-o... During the Great Prosperity, that statistic was about 3 times what it is today.
During the 20's and the 2000's tax rates on the Rich were low; they were very high during the Great Prosperity. These high rates discourage the Rich from taking obscene compensation and combined with the higher corporate taxes encouraged them to pay their workers more. Thus inequality was much lower than in the 20's and the 2000's. This, in turn, meant that the people who spend had enough money to buy stuff, and the people who speculate has less money to wreck the economy.
Sure this time may be different, but why not try what has worked before you try what has failed?
70
It is not comparable to look at the income tax in isolation - what exists today that is taxed that wasn't in the 20s? It is like when we compare straight income tax rates in Europe to the US....but conveniently forget all the other taxes (by a thousand names) that higher income Americans pay. When you add these up those of us that are merely well off (really depend on our pay check to live and work hard for it) are being taxed at a higher rate than you think....and are far from "rich"
Len,
Do you seriously believe the fiction that corporations actually "pay" taxes, rather than merely collect it from customers and pass it on to the government?
And you apparently believe the fiction that effective tax rates were high during the Great Prosperity. Do you really think that the dozen people who paid the 90% tax rate, nationwide, had any real effect on tax collection?
Do you seriously believe the fiction that corporations actually "pay" taxes, rather than merely collect it from customers and pass it on to the government?
And you apparently believe the fiction that effective tax rates were high during the Great Prosperity. Do you really think that the dozen people who paid the 90% tax rate, nationwide, had any real effect on tax collection?
Len, I have yet to see a republican have any use for "facts". This is why they campaign on "moral" issues and appeal to emotions rather than intelligence. Hillary cannot be expected to be a "barn raiser" in rhetoric, but has the brains and savvy to implement better policies.
1
Looking at the world through Mr. Brooks' eyes provides for a rather strange interpretation of the events around us and the world as it is. Over intellectualizing is an illness, of sorts, in Brooks' case a defense against ideas that he neither understands or accepts but is unabashedly, and decidedly disapproving. I do not recall any of Mr. Brooks ideas, however, being affirmed in reality, which is why, I suppose, he has stopped offering any directly and delivers them only in a left handed way, to be cute, sort of. He obviously doesn't understand liberalism, certainly not well enough to advance all these nuances in terms of distinctions, which he basically tosses around as if they were the makings of a salad. Only he pictures "squads of Federal Simplicity Enforcers roaming through the corridors of Midtown Manhattan telling D.E.O.s when their outfits are too mind-boggling." If there is anything positively clear, it is that business serves it's own interests first and last and in the process harms society on occasion, in fact on multiple occasions. Only Mr. Brooks pretends that others are suggesting that government can regulate what is best for business, when the goal is to regulate what is good for our society. That appears to be a strange concept for Mr. Brooks, who is too busy making up points of view that do not exist in reality. He reached the end of his short conservative rope a long time ago and seems incapable of rendering reality.
41
Here's a couple of 'smart' government policies and how they really work out: years ago in the days when banks and other financial institutions competed with credit card offers, rates typically were around 1 1/2 % per transaction. Today, transaction costs are in the 3 1/2 to 4% range, small retailers and merchants get shaved while enormous corporations move supply lines overseas. Small business that offers a flexible alternative is shafted, major corps win. Local jobs lost. Same with minimum wage. Major corps absorb the cost, small companies close, fewer choices for everyone, and the least skilled shut out. Dem choices invariably help major corp interests and government though always presented as helping the people. Bearnie is clueless. Hillary calculating. Hold onto your wallets folks, one way or another you'll be picked clean.
Given the choice between Liberal wonks like Clinton and an entrenched civil bureaucracy making all the decisions for the country and an engaged populace, working as individuals in their messy non-linear approach to aspiration and conflict, I will take the side of individuals.
In innovation, free individuals will find the answer faster than a think tank. If we are trying to solve a big problem, millions of instrinsically motivated citizens will outwork a government handing out instruction manuals. If we are dealing with behavior we find objectionable, I want citizens called out for their misdeeds and change to come from inside.
Liberals seem to believe that all people are good and we just need a few smart folks to "guide" our steps, free will be damned with explicit laws. Conservatives speak from a different vantage point: people are not necessarily good, but trying to coerce them extrinsically introduces a worse outcome. The same people who know that human nature is flawed prefer to force people to a reckoning that is messy but realistic.
I am tired of the trope that Conservatives are either the selfish 1 percent or Christian moralists. It is a great stereotype foisted by NYTimes readers on the country, not dissimilar to the Red-baiting comments of Fox News. But the truth lies in the middle. People are often lazy. People will lie when convenient. And citizens set the relativistically, defining a culture.
Freedom is messy, but it starts with self-discipline.
In innovation, free individuals will find the answer faster than a think tank. If we are trying to solve a big problem, millions of instrinsically motivated citizens will outwork a government handing out instruction manuals. If we are dealing with behavior we find objectionable, I want citizens called out for their misdeeds and change to come from inside.
Liberals seem to believe that all people are good and we just need a few smart folks to "guide" our steps, free will be damned with explicit laws. Conservatives speak from a different vantage point: people are not necessarily good, but trying to coerce them extrinsically introduces a worse outcome. The same people who know that human nature is flawed prefer to force people to a reckoning that is messy but realistic.
I am tired of the trope that Conservatives are either the selfish 1 percent or Christian moralists. It is a great stereotype foisted by NYTimes readers on the country, not dissimilar to the Red-baiting comments of Fox News. But the truth lies in the middle. People are often lazy. People will lie when convenient. And citizens set the relativistically, defining a culture.
Freedom is messy, but it starts with self-discipline.
6
I agree with most of what you say, but corporations don't have self-discipline, and now that they have become people, they need to be regulated. There is no other way, sorry.
1
"...the individual can rise with help from the government."
This is not at all inconsistent with the clear fact that the economy and government power are rigged against the individual. Unless one can gain access to the politicians, the person in the street will not get to the highest reaches of wealth or power -- and a few exceptions do not prove anything.
The government should be helping all of the citizens lead better lives: by doing what must be done collectively (e.g., conserving resources and protecting the environment) and with no thought of profit, guaranteeing rights and opportunities (regardless of how unpopular any individual or group is), and assisting in catastrophes and small downturns (which any of us could face).
No Republican is dedicated to this. Hillary Clinton may desire this, but her advisers will, no doubt, steer her away (perhaps to Mr. Brooks' delight). If she is the nominee I shall vote for her, but I support Sen. Sanders. My support for him grows every day as he speaks clearly the truth that Mr. Brooks dismisses so lightly.
This is not at all inconsistent with the clear fact that the economy and government power are rigged against the individual. Unless one can gain access to the politicians, the person in the street will not get to the highest reaches of wealth or power -- and a few exceptions do not prove anything.
The government should be helping all of the citizens lead better lives: by doing what must be done collectively (e.g., conserving resources and protecting the environment) and with no thought of profit, guaranteeing rights and opportunities (regardless of how unpopular any individual or group is), and assisting in catastrophes and small downturns (which any of us could face).
No Republican is dedicated to this. Hillary Clinton may desire this, but her advisers will, no doubt, steer her away (perhaps to Mr. Brooks' delight). If she is the nominee I shall vote for her, but I support Sen. Sanders. My support for him grows every day as he speaks clearly the truth that Mr. Brooks dismisses so lightly.
15
For someone that preaches the historical virtues of Gen. Robert E. Lee this essay is equally offbeat and meaningless. Your problem with HRC is the uncanny events piling up against the GOP and the Golden legacy of President Obama. You fear that the 2016 will be a coronation instead of an election. You're right to worry as the RNC stable of candidates now appear without depth because no one could align that body of misfits. Worse, by mid year 2016, Georgia will be sandblasting the likeness of Lee and the other killers from the face of Stone Mountain, HRC will be approaching two billion in contributions.
11
Liberals want to end poverty with other people's money.
All the liberals I know, and I know many, always try to minimize their own tax burden. These liberals think taxes should be raised on other people.
Big government is inefficient and often fails, especially in the utopiam social engineering of the progressives.
If you disagree, please send your personal checks to the IRS!
All the liberals I know, and I know many, always try to minimize their own tax burden. These liberals think taxes should be raised on other people.
Big government is inefficient and often fails, especially in the utopiam social engineering of the progressives.
If you disagree, please send your personal checks to the IRS!
5
All people, liberals or conservatives, will try to minimize their tax burden, just like all people will try to get the best deal when shopping. And those streets you drive on were also built and maintained with (mostly) other people's money, because that's where most of the money is, unless you are one of the super-rich.
3
All the conservatives I know think that we should be the world's police. The pentagon should always have its budget increased and are lackadaisical about the the military losing $8.5 trillion dollars since 1996. They think that money should be offline and not counted as part of a responsible budget.
All the conservatives I know think that business should pay less and less in taxes as they ship all the jobs overseas. They think that CEO's should be paid hundreds of of times what the lowest paid people at their places of business earn. They have no problem with billionaires paying a lower percentage of their taxes than their secretaries. Most conservatives think they had no responsibility in melting down the economy, and that corporate welfare carries no moral hazard, and that white collar crime should be overlooked.
Most conservatives I know think climate change is a hoax, along with the garbage pile in the Pacific the size of a continent. Most conservatives I know think that people will be sheep forever.
Beware.
All the conservatives I know think that business should pay less and less in taxes as they ship all the jobs overseas. They think that CEO's should be paid hundreds of of times what the lowest paid people at their places of business earn. They have no problem with billionaires paying a lower percentage of their taxes than their secretaries. Most conservatives think they had no responsibility in melting down the economy, and that corporate welfare carries no moral hazard, and that white collar crime should be overlooked.
Most conservatives I know think climate change is a hoax, along with the garbage pile in the Pacific the size of a continent. Most conservatives I know think that people will be sheep forever.
Beware.
Funny I think the same things about conservatives.
Mr. Brooks has pulled out the favorite Republican trigger words and themes, "planning" and redistribution etc. Focus group tested and frequently used by the GOP, these trigger words tell a narrative that stir emotional response and obfuscate the truth all at the same time. Mr. Brooks' commentary dismisses the real-world concerns of inequality and the fact that money really does mean political and economic favors...often through the guise of "free speech". Mr. Brooks' rhetoric is passionate but does not persuade.
18
I have high regard for your intellect. However, your comment that Clinton believes the government can manage more intelligently than the private sector indicates that you, at best, have a serious blind spot. You seem to labor under the false assumption that government and the private sector have goals that are fully aligned. That is far from reality. Private sector firms are out to optimize profits at the expense of competitors and customers. They want to have freedom to pay as little as possible and not worry about the impact of their processes on the environment or society at large. They want to move their profits out the country to avoid paying taxes which are essential to maintain the very infrastructure they need to operate their businesses. Government, on the other hand, should be concerned with the greater good. Some of the tasks the government is asked to undertake are unbelievably difficult and fraught with pitfalls. Perfect solutions are seldom available and the media is ever ready to report when perfection is not fully achieved within a very tight timeframe. People need to decide which party they want to have power to make key decisions that impact the general welfare. Given a choice between Hillary Clinton and the Koch brothers it is a no brainer for me.
448
66hawk, your comment goes to the heart of the published statements of Goldman Sachs workers who said they were screwing their customers while "investing" for them...
To paraphrase St. Ronnie, "I'm from the Fortune 500, and I'm here to help."
To paraphrase St. Ronnie, "I'm from the Fortune 500, and I'm here to help."
2
There is every indication that "the general welfare" is at the bottom of the list for Republicans running for president.
1
Your negative generalizations of private sector objectives are very unfair but not unusual and seem to be the starting point assumption of most liberals today. I also see you assume that all government attempts to control and regulate are only driven by pure and worthy motives, this also seems to be a liberal belief accepted as pure fact. Oh if life were so simple as the liberal mind we would certainly achieve the promised land of Utopia just around the next election. Is that our choice really - Hillary or the Koch Brothers? I guess in the world of a NY Times reader that about sums it all up doesn't it?
A rather long-winded way to say that Hillary made it clear that she will not bite the Wall Street hands that feed her, which is just another way of saying that she will be unwilling and unable to attack the serious structural problems that plague the United States. As reported by the NYT yesterday, she even gave her Wall Street pals advanced notice of her speech to assure them that they had nothing to fear.
Hillary is certainly no FDR, who famously said about corporate and financial elites: "They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred." FDR called out business leaders who "consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs,” and warned that "government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob.”
Instead of a willingness to take on the vested powers that are destroying the nation, Hillary delivered a speech that Matt Bennett, Senior Vice President of Third Way, the triangulating, centrist think tank formed by former Wall Street and investment bankers from husband Bill's administration, praised as: “She gave something rhetorically to both sides, and she didn’t go too far that either side got uncomfortable.”
FDR recognized that the only way to correct serious structural problems and inequalities of wealth and power was to take actions that sometimes made elites uncomfortable, even if they hated him for it. But the Clintons, consummate strivers, dare not offend their new friends.
Hillary is certainly no FDR, who famously said about corporate and financial elites: "They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred." FDR called out business leaders who "consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs,” and warned that "government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob.”
Instead of a willingness to take on the vested powers that are destroying the nation, Hillary delivered a speech that Matt Bennett, Senior Vice President of Third Way, the triangulating, centrist think tank formed by former Wall Street and investment bankers from husband Bill's administration, praised as: “She gave something rhetorically to both sides, and she didn’t go too far that either side got uncomfortable.”
FDR recognized that the only way to correct serious structural problems and inequalities of wealth and power was to take actions that sometimes made elites uncomfortable, even if they hated him for it. But the Clintons, consummate strivers, dare not offend their new friends.
207
We, the Democrats who prefer that neither Hillary Clinton nor Bernie Sanders get the party nomination, still have to be fair, Timmy. Your comparison of Clinton’s speech to the boldness of FDR, who enjoyed overwhelming popularity, is meaningless. She needs to get the nomination, but she’s already thinking ahead to the general election. That’s smart politicking.
How many “structural problems” of America do you think a Republican president will solve or even want to solve, Timmy? What Democrats see as problems, Republicans see as happy opportunities.
How many “structural problems” of America do you think a Republican president will solve or even want to solve, Timmy? What Democrats see as problems, Republicans see as happy opportunities.
FDR didn't say any of that stuff when he was trying to get elected for the first time. She may not be FDR, but she's head and shoulders above anyone in the Republicrat clown car.
Interesting that the opening sentence identifies the policies and rhetoric of Bernie Sanders as "crazy." Only when you start with such an assumption can you end up placing Hillary Clinton as far left.
31
Brooks is so lucky to have someone like Hillary Clinton to write about. Otherwise he might have to write about Trump or another of the 15 dwarfs.
38
Wow - it's as difficult to make up a name to cover Hillary's positions "neopaleoliberal" as it is to understand what she really stands for.
I'll tell you what - I'll go with the old guy who speaks truth to power, at least for now. He actually stands for something I understand, me, the little person, whatever you want to call it.
I'll tell you what - I'll go with the old guy who speaks truth to power, at least for now. He actually stands for something I understand, me, the little person, whatever you want to call it.
16
"epistemologically naïve"
As opposed to ontologically jaded?
I get it. She puts too much faith in governmental solutions. This doesn't really have much to to with an overall theory of knowledge. This has more to do with a particular theory of the connection between government and economics. Did you throw that in there to be fancy?
As opposed to ontologically jaded?
I get it. She puts too much faith in governmental solutions. This doesn't really have much to to with an overall theory of knowledge. This has more to do with a particular theory of the connection between government and economics. Did you throw that in there to be fancy?
16
Mr Brooks seems to believe that the private sector can manage the economy intelligently. He seems to believe that the top 1% have no influence on economic conditions. He seems to believe that an economy characterized by growing income inequality and flat wage growth is not rigged against ordinary people.
And yet, it is Ms Clinton who is "epistemologically naive." Go figure.
And yet, it is Ms Clinton who is "epistemologically naive." Go figure.
44
What worked for Americans as a whole was FDR liberalism. That is what brought general prosperity for most of America. What has taken that away from so many was catering to the rich championed by Reagan. It is obvious to anyone with eyes in his head, despite the pundits and bisiness school professors. Taxes are part of civilized societies and the richest should and at the height of America did pay the most, but it was a graduated marginal tax, not a "blanket tax". And they paid estate taxes.
You are an apologist for the very practices that have hurt most Americans the most
You are an apologist for the very practices that have hurt most Americans the most
54
"Business." Note to self. Proofread and don't type comments on cell phone with fat fingers.
Yes indeed. The Lewis Powell memo started the backlash to FDR's policies that continues to this day.
Absolutely, Jim. Government has an important part of balancing the needs of all strata of its citizens. Regulation is needed to further prevent the starving of most of us - from our social security to crumbling roads. When one party seeks to legislate their "morality" instead of working for the good of all, desperate change is needed - if only to veto more insanity and salvage the Supreme Court. The GOP machine will destroy Bernie and try to with Hillary, but she could survive it.
We are ensnared in an economic system driven by global inputs. The idea that any politician left or right can put forth policies to lead us out of a global economic malaise is overly optimistic. The biggest economic issues we will face during the term of the next President won't be whether the rich are taxed too little or the minimum wage is too low but how to deal with the internal contradictions of a system where capital constantly chases least wage production. We are not going to need an economic theoretician for our next president, but a crisis manager.
4
I wonder if this article wasn't written exclusively so that Brooks could deploy the term "neopaleoliberal," which I can only imagine he's been holding in the chamber for long enough to nurture doubts about its efficacy, until the perfect moment arrives and he can enlighten us as casually as one might dispose of a candy bar wrapper. To spend an article on this sort of political taxonomy strikes me as borderline sophomoric, something better suited to the five-paragraph essay response of a pimply teenager than a columnist at a respectable publication like the New York Times. The one "opinion" we get is the pretentious garbage, "I find this faith epistemologically naive." Wow, Brooks, you know some big words ! Bravo.
Flaubert cries when articles like this are published.
Flaubert cries when articles like this are published.
22
Business owners who fire people and downsize before raising their pay to $10.10 are greedy. Profits should take the hit before people. Or maybe these business owners need that new SUV, need to run their expensive clothes driers and dishwashers every day, to take that expensive trip; they truly need all that stuff they and the rest of us are choking on.
10
For a while, I thought you were making an online application to the new Clinton administration, Mr Brooks! Then half way into your column, you choose to make your usual pivot. In so doing, the first half is more a strawman exercise. Style aside, do you have a point? I am not sure.
Anecdotal evidence suggests green energy may not be so bad. Critics, especially Republicans, like to criticize it. But building a new industry requires a lot of infrastructure buildout. Heck, even old industries require constant infrastructure maintenance. Just the other day, a huge chunk of concrete fell off from a overpass of a local thruway. No private company is willing to support it since such activities will never flow to the bottomline. Yet it is absolutely necessary. Indeed, a lot of green companies went belly up because they tried to build the infrastructure themselves. It is a government job to do the dirty work. In return, government will get a cut of the profit some when down the road when the industry gains steam, Sadly, the shortsighted financial engineering like offshore outsourcing and inversion allow some companies without a soul exploit the infrastructure here without paying for it directly via taxes and indirectly via employment. It is also the government job to hold them accountable.
Incidentally, Robert Wolf, one of President Obama's favorite investment bankers, seems to like Hilary Clinton's speech a lot. Perhaps her liberalism is not going the way of the dinosaur just yet
Anecdotal evidence suggests green energy may not be so bad. Critics, especially Republicans, like to criticize it. But building a new industry requires a lot of infrastructure buildout. Heck, even old industries require constant infrastructure maintenance. Just the other day, a huge chunk of concrete fell off from a overpass of a local thruway. No private company is willing to support it since such activities will never flow to the bottomline. Yet it is absolutely necessary. Indeed, a lot of green companies went belly up because they tried to build the infrastructure themselves. It is a government job to do the dirty work. In return, government will get a cut of the profit some when down the road when the industry gains steam, Sadly, the shortsighted financial engineering like offshore outsourcing and inversion allow some companies without a soul exploit the infrastructure here without paying for it directly via taxes and indirectly via employment. It is also the government job to hold them accountable.
Incidentally, Robert Wolf, one of President Obama's favorite investment bankers, seems to like Hilary Clinton's speech a lot. Perhaps her liberalism is not going the way of the dinosaur just yet
185
To elaborate, by infrastructure it is meant more than physical infrastructure, there are also intellectual and other infrastructures. Sec Clinton uses the case of the new gig economy is a great example. By turning everyone into a temp, unnecessary burdens are added to the insurance pool and social security pay-in. Also, while outfits like Uber raise a lot of money and spend little on infrastructure, the taxi folks are stuck with expensive medallions and other regulations.
So sure, no one wants red tape, but without regulations to make everyone play fair, those with the deep pocket and without a conscience will inevitable win, marginalization those with no backer but are conscientious to play by the rules.
So sure, no one wants red tape, but without regulations to make everyone play fair, those with the deep pocket and without a conscience will inevitable win, marginalization those with no backer but are conscientious to play by the rules.
Excellent comment, Bos. How about we incorporate that green technology to slow down global warming? Silly me, thinking long term. How much longer can the US sustain ignoring these increasing infrastructure hazards before we pay a few more cents in gas taxes to salvage our roadways? Does no one comprehend "maintenance", whether it's a car, or even a coat of paint?
What does the term "paleoliberal" mean? Paleo- a combining form meaning old ancient, long ago, far back. Liberal- generous, worthy or befitting free men, favorable to political freedoms, tolerant.
Once again Brooks is redefining/making up a word incorrectly to suit his agenda.
Once again Brooks is redefining/making up a word incorrectly to suit his agenda.
9
The only one here economically 'naive' is David Brooks. Not only is employee ownership or employee profits not economically naive, it is the future. It is the future of democratic capitalism and the one force capable of not only creating equity (in every sense) but of sustaining the planet. Having workers 'buy in' to their work is a win-win for all. It is a form of collaborative capitalism that shares the wealth, not through redistribution to the unworthy, but to every worker who creates the wealth in the first place. There is no place for extra privileges to hereditary or accumulated wealth of Brooks' rich friends. Bring it on, Hillary, bring it on!
11
The immediate dismissal of Bernie Sanders is prime David Brooks, hippie puncher extraordinaire.
22
love "hippie puncher extraordinaire"!
Berne Sanders isn't "crazy," Mr Brooks, nor does he occupy anything resembling a "fever swamp." And in no way does Senator Sanders's call for a more robust social safety net, investment in physical, medical and educational infrastructure and a return to the progressive, moderately redistributive tax code of the Eisenhower era constitute "class warfare."
Anyone with a realistic understanding of economics should be able to understand that the true engine of economic growth is mass purchasing power and that systems such as our current one that lead to shifts of wealth away from the masses to the few, inevitably stagnate. Sanders's call for such upward shifts in wealth to be reversed through government action--the only way they can be reversed--is neither crazed nor feverish, but entirely rational. The fact that you perceive his plans as crazy is a marker not of their irrationality, but of your own indoctrination.
Anyone with a realistic understanding of economics should be able to understand that the true engine of economic growth is mass purchasing power and that systems such as our current one that lead to shifts of wealth away from the masses to the few, inevitably stagnate. Sanders's call for such upward shifts in wealth to be reversed through government action--the only way they can be reversed--is neither crazed nor feverish, but entirely rational. The fact that you perceive his plans as crazy is a marker not of their irrationality, but of your own indoctrination.
46
To hear a conservative call the left's economic policies "naive" is pretty rich; more tax cuts and trickle down to cure what ails us, anyone?
45
Where's your evidence that this view, that "... in this view, government is more competent at steering companies toward their own best interests than the companies are themselves" is incorrect? I would adjust the phraseology by replacing "their own best interests" with "society's best interests" as self-promotion and win-at-all-cost competition is primitive and unhealthy for a moral society - just take a good look at the Republican presidential field and what their polling leaders believe. Dems see government as providing the only available solution to the problems that me-first capitalism and a placement of absolute trust in free markets produce. Clinton is charting a perfect tack through these shark-infested waters.
15
There you go again, dragging out that old conservative dish rag that government is the problem. Yeah right, reality just doesn't enter your mind. The middle class has been hammered, the rich have gotten richer and why on earth would we raise the minimum wage? It will just cost jobs. Well maybe we should lower the minimum and make more jobs? Don't know where people would live on that money. Perhaps they could build a cardboard shelter in your front lawn and plant a vegetable garden with donated seeds. Do you eat turnips?
21
The problem with this country during an election is that focusing on the future seems to require amnesia with respect to what's occurred in the past 10 years or so. As with Obama's 2008 win, the hope that fuels the passion which results in getting people to the polls is always premised on "moving forward", and not making the proper amends for the mistakes of the past.
No potential voter wants to hear about the $2 Trillion we've squandered on Middle East wars, or the $1 Trillion that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy that's sitting in investment accounts somewhere. In terms of pain of its ordinary citizens, no one wants to hear about the millions of jobs lost or the houses in this country still on the edge of foreclosure. The $2 Trillion in wealth drained by the 2008 crash is also something that people don't want to remember.
Voters in this election will be faced with a three-way choice between listening to Hillary's wonky new policy proposals that involve "naïve" government interference, the politics of anger that have emerged in the wake of the wars and economic meltdown, or the Bush continuance of the status quo of the elite, in some form.
None of the above three choices will address the effects of the past mistakes comprehensively, let alone what's still at stake. "Looking forward" rules the day during an American election, when what's needed is a candidate with "gravitas." At least Hillary shows the most promise with respect to that quality.
No potential voter wants to hear about the $2 Trillion we've squandered on Middle East wars, or the $1 Trillion that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy that's sitting in investment accounts somewhere. In terms of pain of its ordinary citizens, no one wants to hear about the millions of jobs lost or the houses in this country still on the edge of foreclosure. The $2 Trillion in wealth drained by the 2008 crash is also something that people don't want to remember.
Voters in this election will be faced with a three-way choice between listening to Hillary's wonky new policy proposals that involve "naïve" government interference, the politics of anger that have emerged in the wake of the wars and economic meltdown, or the Bush continuance of the status quo of the elite, in some form.
None of the above three choices will address the effects of the past mistakes comprehensively, let alone what's still at stake. "Looking forward" rules the day during an American election, when what's needed is a candidate with "gravitas." At least Hillary shows the most promise with respect to that quality.
4
No, sir. Nobody believes that "government is more competent at steering companies toward their own best interests than the companies are themselves." Nobody is that stupid. However, everybody knows that corporations are completely incompetent when it comes to the *common interest*. The mantra of the paleo-freemarketeers is: "The only obligation of a business is to make money for its owners."
Otherwise put, it's the old troglodyte saying: "What's wrong with making a buck?" (pronounced with a guttural intonation.) Everything is wrong with making a buck at the expense of everything else, in the interest of the few and at the detriment of all the others.
Examples? Oh, let's just look around. Even from your perch you can see it: it's called "environment." Nothing is created, nothing is destructed, everything is transformed ("Panta Rhei" - Heraclitus). I want to have a say in how the transformation takes place for the common good and I can only do it through my government. Got it now?
Otherwise put, it's the old troglodyte saying: "What's wrong with making a buck?" (pronounced with a guttural intonation.) Everything is wrong with making a buck at the expense of everything else, in the interest of the few and at the detriment of all the others.
Examples? Oh, let's just look around. Even from your perch you can see it: it's called "environment." Nothing is created, nothing is destructed, everything is transformed ("Panta Rhei" - Heraclitus). I want to have a say in how the transformation takes place for the common good and I can only do it through my government. Got it now?
15
For a lot of Americans whose wages have either stagnated or, in fact over time, effectively decreased during the past 16 years, "ain't nothing's changed." I perceive Hillary's prescriptions as stale. I find Brook's commentary equally so.
7
Mr. Brooks continues to set up dichotomies that dictate the decision one must make. He says of Sec. Clinton's economic ideas: "...in this view, government is more competent at steering companies toward their own best interests than the companies are themselves," or the overview, "It’s less a negative assault on the elites and more an optimistic faith in the power of planning. The private sector is not evil or power hungry, just kind of dumb."
To examine the first, government and business interests aren't always the same. Government is capable of making decisions about what is in the best long-term interest of the nation. It is why we hold elections. It is the bedrock of our republic.
As to the second, the private sector is not monolithic. There are good and bad actors both within and across industries. Think coal versus wind, for example. Think public versus private education.
Government's job is to get rid of the bad actors to level the playing field, to determine what's in the nation's best long-term interest, and provide services private sector cannot or should not be expected to provide.
In Mr. Brook's utopian market economy, what happens is always right and in the best long-term interest of us all. Some get hurt, but it is the small sacrifice to the market gods.
The nation has seen thirty years of market economics. More and more, the people are deciding there is little to recommend it.
To examine the first, government and business interests aren't always the same. Government is capable of making decisions about what is in the best long-term interest of the nation. It is why we hold elections. It is the bedrock of our republic.
As to the second, the private sector is not monolithic. There are good and bad actors both within and across industries. Think coal versus wind, for example. Think public versus private education.
Government's job is to get rid of the bad actors to level the playing field, to determine what's in the nation's best long-term interest, and provide services private sector cannot or should not be expected to provide.
In Mr. Brook's utopian market economy, what happens is always right and in the best long-term interest of us all. Some get hurt, but it is the small sacrifice to the market gods.
The nation has seen thirty years of market economics. More and more, the people are deciding there is little to recommend it.
259
"In Mr. Brook's utopian market economy, what happens is always right and in the best long-term interest of us all. Some get hurt, but it is the small sacrifice to the market gods." Yes, he is positively Panglossian in his faith in the market.
Raising the minimum wage would not cost 100,000 jobs. That's a strange Republican fantasy where they, for the first time, seem to care about low income Americans.
Clinton seems to only want to put band aids on the return to Robber Barron America. Sanders seems to recognize that the economy works best when it's working at the lower levels.
Clinton seems to only want to put band aids on the return to Robber Barron America. Sanders seems to recognize that the economy works best when it's working at the lower levels.
5
Hillary is focused on higher wages for the middle class. "They don't want a lecture (Jeb), they want a raise". The likes of Jeb and Scott Walker are so antithetical to what is decent in this country.
"would cost roughly 500,000 jobs." is oversimplifying what the CBO report said. It provided a range and this was the upper bound. Zero was the lower bound.
17
Thank you, Kathryn of Boston, for a corrective on the CBO job loss number that should prompt readers to proceed with caution as they consider other material presented by Mr. Brooks. To recall the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts."
The term paleoliberal suggests an extreme liberal position, neo implies someone who has recently come to this position. But digging slightly deeper, the German sociologist Alexander Rustow coined the term neoliberal to describe liberatarian sorts like Ludwig Von Mises or Frederick Hayek. And some use the term paleoliberal to describe what have been recently called neoconservatives. So, it would appear that the term could apply equally to anyone who lives at either the extreme right or left of the political spectrum. And since Hillary Clinton - and her husband - have made careers by positioning themselves just slightly right or left of some triangulated center it would hardly apply to them. Paleoliberal is one of those words - like Gore Vidal's use of crypto-nazi to describe William Buckley - that appeals to whatever prejudices the reader has towards a political figure. Its a nifty way of appearing unprejudiced in ones views, like substituting the term urban for African-American. It implies gentility where none really exists.
3
Semi liberal, medium liberal or super liberal president. There will be little progress for the working people of this country unless we get out and vote for a Democratic congress.
19
Hillary Clinton economic policy 2015?
I can think of a lot of far more interesting questions to ask. The internet is invented and we are told it empowers the individual beyond previous modes of existence. But here we are 2015 and apparently the two major political parties in the U.S. still exist and we have a Clinton representing one party and the other party is frankly ludicrous with its choices for President. There seems to have been little intellectual change by internet.
We hear back and forth arguments in American society concerning social mobility--that there is either a massive inequality and a 1% exists or the internet has opened up a vast frontier for individual opportunity--but if a 1% exists apparently the internet has not been that freeing of the individual (what power to the individual?) and if social mobility has been increased by internet then why are the wealthiest individuals in society so bland, which is to say when was the last time you heard any real argumentation or intellectual discussion between wealthy individuals when supposedly American society is a competitive society?
Apparently for all internet, all progress, change, same old political parties and upper structure of society (the wealthy) is somehow composed of people who seem strangely similar...One in fact would think if America is truly the land of opportunity, individuality and there are many roads to wealth, two or three political parties could not possibly contain the wealth of ideas...
I can think of a lot of far more interesting questions to ask. The internet is invented and we are told it empowers the individual beyond previous modes of existence. But here we are 2015 and apparently the two major political parties in the U.S. still exist and we have a Clinton representing one party and the other party is frankly ludicrous with its choices for President. There seems to have been little intellectual change by internet.
We hear back and forth arguments in American society concerning social mobility--that there is either a massive inequality and a 1% exists or the internet has opened up a vast frontier for individual opportunity--but if a 1% exists apparently the internet has not been that freeing of the individual (what power to the individual?) and if social mobility has been increased by internet then why are the wealthiest individuals in society so bland, which is to say when was the last time you heard any real argumentation or intellectual discussion between wealthy individuals when supposedly American society is a competitive society?
Apparently for all internet, all progress, change, same old political parties and upper structure of society (the wealthy) is somehow composed of people who seem strangely similar...One in fact would think if America is truly the land of opportunity, individuality and there are many roads to wealth, two or three political parties could not possibly contain the wealth of ideas...
1
I find it interesting that to get a pass card from a courtesan like D Brooks one has to kneel and grovel to power and money. What is wrong with Bernie Sanders message. He correctly states that if one takes the cap on social security taxes off(about $110000 now) social security is fixed forever. Take away inversions, corporate taxes cannot escape taxation. These are two issues Bernie has been pounding on. Brooks sarcastically makes fun of the idea, that the most important sector, finance, is too complex to manage. Clearly 98 and Long Term Capital and 2008, Lehman, AIG, Bear Sterns et al give proof of this allegation. Tell us something we don't know Brooks, that you are a shill for the .1%.
21
Ironically, paleoliberalism combines "paleo," meaning "old," with "liberalism," which connotes a dissatisfaction with "the way we've always done things." Liberalism identifies more with science than with religion, providing an impetus to examine conditions today in hopes of collectively improving them tomorrow.
So, the term "paleo" seems better suited to those who declare that liberal ideas and prescriptions are the reasons that this country is faltering economically and (yes, David) spiritually. How much better this country was before the advent of minimum wage laws and other economic statutes that discouraged the rich from preying on the poor. Why, just one look at Jacob Riis's photos in "How the Other Half Lives" should convince anyone that the poor can live happy lives in a steamer trunk with a bathroom down the hall.
I read recently that the bonuses paid by Wall Street in 2014 were about equal to twice the total wages paid to minimum wage earners. I hope that's not true, but would it surprise any reader to learn that it was? The image it conjures for me is a party of fat cats in the middle of a restaurant lighting cigars with $100 bills as the wait staff eats scraps from their plates.
Liberalism organized unions, allowing workers to participate in the success of business. In the last 30 years, the "paleos" have attacked and destroyed unions, and now one of that group's finest, Scott Walker, has announced his candidacy for President.
How paleo can we go?
So, the term "paleo" seems better suited to those who declare that liberal ideas and prescriptions are the reasons that this country is faltering economically and (yes, David) spiritually. How much better this country was before the advent of minimum wage laws and other economic statutes that discouraged the rich from preying on the poor. Why, just one look at Jacob Riis's photos in "How the Other Half Lives" should convince anyone that the poor can live happy lives in a steamer trunk with a bathroom down the hall.
I read recently that the bonuses paid by Wall Street in 2014 were about equal to twice the total wages paid to minimum wage earners. I hope that's not true, but would it surprise any reader to learn that it was? The image it conjures for me is a party of fat cats in the middle of a restaurant lighting cigars with $100 bills as the wait staff eats scraps from their plates.
Liberalism organized unions, allowing workers to participate in the success of business. In the last 30 years, the "paleos" have attacked and destroyed unions, and now one of that group's finest, Scott Walker, has announced his candidacy for President.
How paleo can we go?
296
A word on Scott Walker, if I may. From the Washington Post, "The Wisconsin governor submitted a budget proposal that included language that would have changed the century old mission statement of the University of Wisconsin system....known as the Wisconsin idea embedded in the state code.....by removing the words that commanded the University to "search for truth' and "improve the human condition" and replacing them with "meet the state's workforce needs". This change was slipped into the budget, but was noticed, causing an uproar and was removed, though the budget slashing cuts were passed. Gov. Walker claimed the word changes were a drafting error, which is meaningless doubletalk, the actual meaning being, oops, we thought we could hide that wording change without it being noticed.
Gov, Scott Walker is the embodiment of a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is the bland puppet of the brothers Koch who sees the citizens of Wiconson and, if elected, the citizens of the United States as cogs on the assembly line of U.S. corporations and he means to act on that. The fact that the beloved mission statement of the Wisconsin University system remains unchanged is grand, but the Koch puppets running for president carry on, undeterred in their plans to neuter government and worker's rights (ha!) with low wages, longer hours and no power over their circumstances.
Gov, Scott Walker is the embodiment of a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is the bland puppet of the brothers Koch who sees the citizens of Wiconson and, if elected, the citizens of the United States as cogs on the assembly line of U.S. corporations and he means to act on that. The fact that the beloved mission statement of the Wisconsin University system remains unchanged is grand, but the Koch puppets running for president carry on, undeterred in their plans to neuter government and worker's rights (ha!) with low wages, longer hours and no power over their circumstances.
1
Brooks attempts to discredit Sanders as some shrill, hippy dippy "Occupy" candidate. However, the content and genuineness of his positions resonates with so many hard working who are stuck, and being taken advantage of by corporate oligarchs, shows that Sanders is more mainstream than not.
24
We start with the immediate dismissal by Brooks of Bernie Sanders' proposals with the hyperbolic statements "crazy" and "class warfare" within the FIRST paragraph.
Just how disconnected is the media establishment from the plight of the average American?
Just how disconnected is the media establishment from the plight of the average American?
23
We have had more than 3 decades of privatization, deregulation, and demonization of government, and now people are relatively poorer, less socially mobile, less financially secure, and living in an infrastructural wasteland. We can't get the mercury out of the air, the climate continues to worsen, home ownership has become a pipe dream for ordinary people, the financial sector continues to drain the life away from the 99%, and we have turned our back on the concept of public education. THAT is what your party has given us in place of "faith in government", Mr. Brooks. The modern conservative movement is a hodgepodge of Birchers, anarchists, survivalists, libertarian cranks, xenophobes and warmongers, and yet you all wonder why Donald Trump is so popular in early days. A little faith in a government not gutted by politicians enslaved to Grover Norquist's pre-teen vision of unlimited cookies and absent parents would truly be a breath of fresh air at this point, not to mention a way out of a civic madhouse your own complacently helped build.
693
As so often is the case, the comments--like Jack Mahoney's and Lillibet's--are more interesting, more insightful, than is David Brooks' column itself. This will always be so until writers like Brooks begin to take more seriously the critique of our economic system offered by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and others. Glib dismissal only serves to reinforce the thinking of fellow conservatives.
2
Well said.
Nicely done. Now, give the commenter with the cute multicolor dog a column! Let them throw in a Dog Column once in a while.
Let me get this right: Hillary Clinton has clearly ejected the populist/socialist/radical positions that Bernie Sanders represents,and d that is a good thing, or you would have laughed her out of the race.
In place of those positions, she has adopted a number of liberal ideas like a high minimum wage, and some odd ideas about green energy that are bound to fail and represent unworkable big government intrusion into the marketplace. For this she is to be congratulated?
Geez, thanks Mr. Brooks. I think I'll stick with Bernie.
In place of those positions, she has adopted a number of liberal ideas like a high minimum wage, and some odd ideas about green energy that are bound to fail and represent unworkable big government intrusion into the marketplace. For this she is to be congratulated?
Geez, thanks Mr. Brooks. I think I'll stick with Bernie.
7
Dear Mr. Brooks,
I think, for once, you've written a column with which I can almost agree; Hilary Clinton is no FDR. But she's a "Neopaleoliberal"? If there is such an appellation for liberal leanings then, I assume, everyone from the "Thundering Herd of Fifteen", those endorsed by your folks, the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE, must be "Neanderthalconservatives" as they are DEFINITELY supporting the 1%'s interests over the rest of us.
Mr. Bush, excuse me, Jeb, as he styles himself, thinks Americans need to work "longer hours". When the people who do the employing, you know, the wealthy, won't allow even a 40 hour work week, just how is this to be accomplished?
Then we have the "Union Buster", Mr. Walker, who's strings which attach him to the Koch Brothers should be better hidden as they manipulate his every utterance.
And there's Mr. Trump who, at the very least, speaks plainly what the GOP/TP/K.A. really believes and what the other 14 really can't stand to be heralded in public.
What I do know when talking with conservatives is their absolute, almost panicky "fear" of Ms. Clinton. They rail about Benghazi, Bill Clinton and anything else associated with Ms. Clinton with the reality being that the GOP/TP/K.A. would implode if they not only lost to a black man twice but lose to a woman for their third strike!
"Neopaleoliberal"? I think that would make a nice bumper sticker, don't you think?
I think, for once, you've written a column with which I can almost agree; Hilary Clinton is no FDR. But she's a "Neopaleoliberal"? If there is such an appellation for liberal leanings then, I assume, everyone from the "Thundering Herd of Fifteen", those endorsed by your folks, the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE, must be "Neanderthalconservatives" as they are DEFINITELY supporting the 1%'s interests over the rest of us.
Mr. Bush, excuse me, Jeb, as he styles himself, thinks Americans need to work "longer hours". When the people who do the employing, you know, the wealthy, won't allow even a 40 hour work week, just how is this to be accomplished?
Then we have the "Union Buster", Mr. Walker, who's strings which attach him to the Koch Brothers should be better hidden as they manipulate his every utterance.
And there's Mr. Trump who, at the very least, speaks plainly what the GOP/TP/K.A. really believes and what the other 14 really can't stand to be heralded in public.
What I do know when talking with conservatives is their absolute, almost panicky "fear" of Ms. Clinton. They rail about Benghazi, Bill Clinton and anything else associated with Ms. Clinton with the reality being that the GOP/TP/K.A. would implode if they not only lost to a black man twice but lose to a woman for their third strike!
"Neopaleoliberal"? I think that would make a nice bumper sticker, don't you think?
8
In describing ' neopaleoliberalism ', Brooks leaves out that Clinton wants to limit CEO pay, in alignment with major hedge funders:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/12/us-ceo-pay-clearbridge-idUSKCN...
along with deep-sixing the carried interest tax preference.
Aligning with hedge fund leaders on CEO welfare reform won't need a Federal Simplicity Enforcement Agency, and is meaningful mainstream policy - of course, we also eagerly await a minimal financial transactions user fee on Wall Street's gambling, same as the user fee kids pay at the corner store for a pack of gum, or a can of soda :)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/12/us-ceo-pay-clearbridge-idUSKCN...
along with deep-sixing the carried interest tax preference.
Aligning with hedge fund leaders on CEO welfare reform won't need a Federal Simplicity Enforcement Agency, and is meaningful mainstream policy - of course, we also eagerly await a minimal financial transactions user fee on Wall Street's gambling, same as the user fee kids pay at the corner store for a pack of gum, or a can of soda :)
14
If you are going to "reform the welfare" of CEO's then you need to demand the same be done with every athlete and Hollywood actor, pop singers, etc.. because my CEO contributes to society far more than Eminem and Lebron.
After 35 years of Reaganomics and New Democrat deregulation of Wall Street, Mr. Brooks continues to possess an unbridled faith in the power of free markets to bring wealth to the masses. Left unsaid in his screed is what has occurred over the past decades:
1) Savings and Loan scandal
2) dot-com bubble
3) financial melt-down of 2008
Brooks is so trapped within his own muddled ideology as to not even realize his admission that ending the carried interest tax break would indeed be a massive tax hike for many wealthy people.
Ms. Clinton is a politician and is seeking the most powerful job on the planet. She needs to steer a course where she can attract votes not just from liberals, but from people in the middle, along with the 40% of voters who identify themselves as independents.
Call her liberal or paleoliberal or whatever linguistic invention you desire; the goal is to get elected and to bring-forth ideas which will do something for the vast majority of people who are struggling and worrying about their future.
1) Savings and Loan scandal
2) dot-com bubble
3) financial melt-down of 2008
Brooks is so trapped within his own muddled ideology as to not even realize his admission that ending the carried interest tax break would indeed be a massive tax hike for many wealthy people.
Ms. Clinton is a politician and is seeking the most powerful job on the planet. She needs to steer a course where she can attract votes not just from liberals, but from people in the middle, along with the 40% of voters who identify themselves as independents.
Call her liberal or paleoliberal or whatever linguistic invention you desire; the goal is to get elected and to bring-forth ideas which will do something for the vast majority of people who are struggling and worrying about their future.
138
Kevin,
You can call her a "liberal" if you choose, but I think you are being unfair to true Liberals. Hillary's goal is to be elected President and she will say whatever is thought necessary to accomplish that goal. You above all people will not love a second Clinton Presidency! Remember what happened when the second Mrs. Peron was President of Argentina for a short while after her husband died in office?
You can call her a "liberal" if you choose, but I think you are being unfair to true Liberals. Hillary's goal is to be elected President and she will say whatever is thought necessary to accomplish that goal. You above all people will not love a second Clinton Presidency! Remember what happened when the second Mrs. Peron was President of Argentina for a short while after her husband died in office?
On the other hand, finding oneself "trapped within his own muddled ideology" pays conservative pundits and columnists very, very, well, doesn't it?
1
You and your facts...Brooks and other Republicans know in their bones that Reganomics MUST work. If wealth isn't trickling down to the masses, it cannot possibly be a flaw in their economic theory. It must mean that working class people are lazy and lack moral fiber.
1
David, while I find much of what Hillary is proposing sleep inducing, I find your usual condescension vis-a-vis a role for government hair raising.
David, corporate America has demonstrated itself as constitutionally incapable of putting the national interest front and center - and if this nation is not to descend into, first, oligarchy, and later, violent revolution, it is the national interest that must be made to trump all other interests. Consequently, I find your faith in the private sector beyond epistemologically naive. It find it the faith of a well-connected, handsomely compensated apologist who has never been held accountable for previous errors, and thus has no real skin in the game.
A government of the people - and an easily distracted, largely uninformed people at that - is apt to make mistakes when attempting to reign in a spirit of avarice that makes the few wealthier than King Midas but the many as poor as church mice; but pray tell, David, what is the realistic alternative - especially in this post-World Financial Crisis era?
Would the current European economic crisis even be happening had Goldman Sachs not helped a previous Greek regime to cook their books?
David, corporate America has demonstrated itself as constitutionally incapable of putting the national interest front and center - and if this nation is not to descend into, first, oligarchy, and later, violent revolution, it is the national interest that must be made to trump all other interests. Consequently, I find your faith in the private sector beyond epistemologically naive. It find it the faith of a well-connected, handsomely compensated apologist who has never been held accountable for previous errors, and thus has no real skin in the game.
A government of the people - and an easily distracted, largely uninformed people at that - is apt to make mistakes when attempting to reign in a spirit of avarice that makes the few wealthier than King Midas but the many as poor as church mice; but pray tell, David, what is the realistic alternative - especially in this post-World Financial Crisis era?
Would the current European economic crisis even be happening had Goldman Sachs not helped a previous Greek regime to cook their books?
244
Excellent analysis. The subtitle of Brooks column should be "The Old New Conservatism". Still trying to sell an unregulated private sector as our economic panacea - only now without actually referring to it openly.
looking at your picture, seems you could use a little "hair raising".
1
"The main narrative of the Sanders camp is that the economic game is rigged against ordinary people. The top 1 percent controls the fundamental economic conditions."
To David this is dogma. To those of us who are not part of the 1% or its allies, it's fact.
To David this is dogma. To those of us who are not part of the 1% or its allies, it's fact.
454
I noticed he just skips by this and doesn't even try to address the issue.
I have to disagree with David again. "The private sector is not evil or power hungry, just kind of dumb." is not true. The private sector holds much of the power in this country and they know it, aided and abetted by the judicial system and legislatures at local, state and federal levels. As to Hillary's speech, I heard something quite different, namely the benefits of equal opportunity for all to the economy and the use of government policy to ensure there is equal opportunity. On the Republican side, their actions in the federal legislature and state legislatures and across the country(not their campaign rhetoric) has shown a continued diminishment of equal opportunity for all and tilting the playing field in the direction of business. If government policy can be written to incentivize corporations and businesses towards more profit sharing with their lower level employees rather than management, stockholders, lobbyists, lawyers and political PACS, I am all for it even as a stockholder. That will increase consumption and help the economy.
72
While I agree with your comment, the sentence you quote was not Mr. Brooks' philosophy. It was his one-sentence summary of Hillary's speech.
David's repeated use of the term "planning" seems designed to invoke fears of communist-style 5-year plans, which is not the agenda she is promoting.
David's repeated use of the term "planning" seems designed to invoke fears of communist-style 5-year plans, which is not the agenda she is promoting.
Yet the Judiciary just saved Obamacare once again. Obamacare that was supposed to give all the uninsured access to healthcare and lower the cost for the rest of us. Be honest. None of that happened. It is, on the other hand, a giant weight on the economy. But you're still hoping government can save you.
1
@glad, your statement shows that you didn't understand the objective or the language of the ACA in the first place or were misled by your source of information. It was never meant to give "all" insurance and had little to bend the cost curve of health care. However, it did work for our employer provided health insurance in that the annual premium increases we saw from the late 1990's to 2008 slowed considerably since the ACA was implemented and further, our local hospitals have reported a 40% decline in uninsured individuals using ER services. Perhaps it is different in Texas (compared to my state, Texas is liberal)
What Clinton did was make populist sounds in an attempt to counter the soaring popularity of Bernie Sanders. But her sounds are merely hot air because they do not address the real problems with our economy -- the exportation of jobs to third world countries with slave labor conditions, and Guilded-Age income inequality on the part of the American rich.
And you know what? I don't think the public is going to fall for it. If Sanders can get his message to the people, Clinton and the Republicans, who are even worse than she is, are dead meat. Because on issues of policy, Sanders is spot on with 75% of the American public, and firmly in the tradition of FDR and the New Deal progressivism that led to the happiest, most prosperous time in American history.
And that prospect has to terrify any modern Republican. They have based their power on fooling the people, and they know it, and know that a real Democrat, as opposed to the feckless Republicrats we have been afflicted with since Jimmy Carter, would chew them up and spit them out.
And you know what? I don't think the public is going to fall for it. If Sanders can get his message to the people, Clinton and the Republicans, who are even worse than she is, are dead meat. Because on issues of policy, Sanders is spot on with 75% of the American public, and firmly in the tradition of FDR and the New Deal progressivism that led to the happiest, most prosperous time in American history.
And that prospect has to terrify any modern Republican. They have based their power on fooling the people, and they know it, and know that a real Democrat, as opposed to the feckless Republicrats we have been afflicted with since Jimmy Carter, would chew them up and spit them out.
52
That "happiest, most prosperous time" included and was sparked by WW2. The tens of millions dead missed the happy part.
I don't particularly like Ms. Clinton. But she is smart and as tough as nails.
Mr. Sanders is an example of "there's no fool like an old fool".
I like him but he is, like me, an old fool.
Hell, I still like Ike.
I don't particularly like Ms. Clinton. But she is smart and as tough as nails.
Mr. Sanders is an example of "there's no fool like an old fool".
I like him but he is, like me, an old fool.
Hell, I still like Ike.
5
In Bernie Sanders' Vermont, they tried single payer but discovered they couldn't raise taxes enough to pay for it. In Vermont. Yet, you believe 75% of the people are with Sanders.
2
Josh,
The group-think of the NY Times comment boards may lead you to believe that country is in favor of Bernie Sanders. In fact, the Republicans would love to have him as their opponent.
The group-think of the NY Times comment boards may lead you to believe that country is in favor of Bernie Sanders. In fact, the Republicans would love to have him as their opponent.
I don't know, maybe Hillary Clinton spoke a different speech from the one in the transcript I just read, but what I read did not seem closely related to the characterization in this column. One of the pegs of the speech I read was fairness in the economy, and that seemed to me another version of how the current structures and customs in our economy are stacked against too many people. The section on reforms and too-complex businesses seemed to me to be focused on the financial sector and to be talking about not re-making the same mistakes that fueled the crash in 2008, it did not seem to me to be some nanny-state idea of bossing around companies in the manufacturing sector, for instance, which was the impression I was left with from the column. I don't have Humphrey, McGovern, or Dukakis speeches to compare Clinton's speech to, but Hillary Clinton has never reminded me of any of these losing Democratic candidates more generally. So this column is interesting reading to me as an example of how commentary can be spun around a speech, and I am certainly appreciative that current technology and op-ed practices make it easy for readers to read the text as well as the commentary so that we can see for ourselves how they relate to each other from our own point of view -- that's the most helpful thing I think this column can do for us.
133
Yes, the CBO did write that a minimum wage increase could eliminate some lower paying jobs. If we have no minimum wage could we create millions of jobs that no one would want? If we compare Minnesota that did raise the minimum wage to Wisconsin that did not raised the minimum wage, Minnesota far out performed Wisconsin in job creation. Of course this is not the only thing that is driving Minnesota economic growth. Scott Walker cut education funding, Dayton invested in education. Scott Walker refused millions in Medicaid expansion, Dayton did not. Most people reading this already know these things. When you invest in people in the US, like those old timey liberals suggest, good things happen.
512
Mark, with all due respect, Dayton is just an old timey liberal who also doesn't get it. He wanted to spend millions on free Pre-K, when the research shows it would be better spent during the early grades to help kids falling behind. He gave egregious salary raises to his lietuenant commissioners when ever his own party and the public polls said, NO! His policies are precisely the ones that got Wisconsin in so much fiscal trouble that Walker's needed fixes are almost greco-draconian. Liberal largesse doesn't solve problems. It creates more of them.
2
Not to speak for Mark (he does that well enough for himself, as evidenced by his comments here), but I heard Hilary get back to what John Kennedy truly meant in 1963, when he said, in part, "...that a rising tide lifts all boats"--meaning that overall improvement in economic conditions (not tax cuts, not special interest pay-offs) helps All those who participate (who then have opportunities to participate) in our economy. I can easily imagine political strategists on the Right sitting and cringing, realizing that the best they can do to counter Ms Clinton's 'paleoliberlaism' is to trot out Reganomics and the Laffer Curve. Personally, I find the sound of someone speaking to The National Interest far more attractive than someone speaking to The Private Interest.
2
Mark, data is so refreshing. Thank you for your comments. I only hope that the Dems can use these datum to great affect in the race for the WH.
1
David Brooks overlooks the reality of the American political landscape. He faults Hillary Clinton for not being centrist/conservative enough to suit his political ideology.
Look at your own party, David. Who there even approaches those standards? Your Greed Oligarchs & Plutocrats are being steered by the Koch Brothers. The leading voice of your party is Donald Trump. You toss around words like "Neopaleoliberal" and "epistemologically naive" while your party ooh's and ash's at the proudly uneducated Scott Walker. Jeb! thinks the working class needs to work more hours, not get paid living wages. There are no serious candidates - just Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorino, Rick Perry, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Ben Carson, Rick Santorum, or the rest of the GOP candidates. Yet, you see fit to complain that Hillary Clinton is naive. Really, David? Really?
Of course, your underlying theme here is really an attack on Bernie Sanders. By saying that Hillary's move to the left is naive, you are implying that Sanders is not a valid candidate, that his views are dismissible, and that you somehow know what's best for this country, despite years of promoting ideologies that have been proven wrong.
This country is in a hole. Republican and Centrist Democrats have put us there, courtesy of the banks, Wall Street, and .01%ers who have been writing our regulatory and economic policies. We aren't going to get out of that hole listening to your naive rhetoric.
Look at your own party, David. Who there even approaches those standards? Your Greed Oligarchs & Plutocrats are being steered by the Koch Brothers. The leading voice of your party is Donald Trump. You toss around words like "Neopaleoliberal" and "epistemologically naive" while your party ooh's and ash's at the proudly uneducated Scott Walker. Jeb! thinks the working class needs to work more hours, not get paid living wages. There are no serious candidates - just Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorino, Rick Perry, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Ben Carson, Rick Santorum, or the rest of the GOP candidates. Yet, you see fit to complain that Hillary Clinton is naive. Really, David? Really?
Of course, your underlying theme here is really an attack on Bernie Sanders. By saying that Hillary's move to the left is naive, you are implying that Sanders is not a valid candidate, that his views are dismissible, and that you somehow know what's best for this country, despite years of promoting ideologies that have been proven wrong.
This country is in a hole. Republican and Centrist Democrats have put us there, courtesy of the banks, Wall Street, and .01%ers who have been writing our regulatory and economic policies. We aren't going to get out of that hole listening to your naive rhetoric.
601
David Brooks would rather be called anything BUT naive; he's neither. He's a flack for the GOP, no matter what the GOP position is.
What he wants to hide is that the Republicans, once reasonable (think Eisenhower) or creepy but even progressive (Nixon) have hurtled wholesale to the intersection of crazy and Nazi to please an ever-more insular and insane base.
That intersection is crazy because it has made no economic sense for 35 years of "trickle down." The other term is because of its comments such as "Let them die!" (for sick, uninsured people at a 2012 presidential debate) and somehow getting rid of 47% of Americans as "takers" at no cost to the taxpayer, which reveals a mindset that makes the 6 million Jews and Gypsies exterminated during the Final Solution look tiny.
What he wants to hide is that the Republicans, once reasonable (think Eisenhower) or creepy but even progressive (Nixon) have hurtled wholesale to the intersection of crazy and Nazi to please an ever-more insular and insane base.
That intersection is crazy because it has made no economic sense for 35 years of "trickle down." The other term is because of its comments such as "Let them die!" (for sick, uninsured people at a 2012 presidential debate) and somehow getting rid of 47% of Americans as "takers" at no cost to the taxpayer, which reveals a mindset that makes the 6 million Jews and Gypsies exterminated during the Final Solution look tiny.
7
So, if Scott Walker had completed another semester with classes in basket weaving, gender studies and music, he would have been an acceptable candidate?
How about Cruz then? A top of his class Ivy League educated (and not the affirmative action kind) senator.
How about Cruz then? A top of his class Ivy League educated (and not the affirmative action kind) senator.
1
Hillary's only going to get us partially out, but if she's the nominee it's going to be very important to vote for her. The alternatives are too scary to think about. That said, it would be nice if the NY Times and other major news outlets would give Bernie Sanders the respect and exposure he deserves. Go Bernie!
3
"Clinton’s unchastened faith in the power of government planning is not shared by most voters".
It's only Tuesday and the "Can't of the Week Award" is already won! Mr Brooks, most voters are disgusted by our current political class. You choose to blindly support a party that will do all it can to gain power and yet claims to believe that the Government cannot be a power for good, and believes in less government? Your one-handed applause for Mrs Clinton is as genuine as your commitment to the moral paths your more sentimental columns claim to adhere to. In the end you may call it class warfare, but those who believe in social justice cannot give up and agree with your thinly veiled commitment to protect the interests of the powerful at any cost to those at the bottom.
It's only Tuesday and the "Can't of the Week Award" is already won! Mr Brooks, most voters are disgusted by our current political class. You choose to blindly support a party that will do all it can to gain power and yet claims to believe that the Government cannot be a power for good, and believes in less government? Your one-handed applause for Mrs Clinton is as genuine as your commitment to the moral paths your more sentimental columns claim to adhere to. In the end you may call it class warfare, but those who believe in social justice cannot give up and agree with your thinly veiled commitment to protect the interests of the powerful at any cost to those at the bottom.
227
"This neopaleoliberalism is built less on going after Wall Street and the rich and more on a tremendous faith in government to manage the economy more intelligently than the private sector."
That isn't hard, or require faith. The private sector does not "manage the economy" at all. No one in the private sector is engaged in managing the economy. The economy, left to itself, is a free-for-all, a brawl. a riot. It is those who think that the general good will automatically emerge from that brawl, that the magical "invisible hand" will guide, who show the naivety, the "tremendous faith."
Whether specific programs and policies in fact produce the intended benefits is one question, whether they are worth their cost is another question, who will benefit and who pay the cost is a third. Politicians should spend their time considering such cost/benefit analysis realistically.
No one can govern or manage the economy completely. That's true. But with intelligence we can certainly do a lot more than nothing.
That isn't hard, or require faith. The private sector does not "manage the economy" at all. No one in the private sector is engaged in managing the economy. The economy, left to itself, is a free-for-all, a brawl. a riot. It is those who think that the general good will automatically emerge from that brawl, that the magical "invisible hand" will guide, who show the naivety, the "tremendous faith."
Whether specific programs and policies in fact produce the intended benefits is one question, whether they are worth their cost is another question, who will benefit and who pay the cost is a third. Politicians should spend their time considering such cost/benefit analysis realistically.
No one can govern or manage the economy completely. That's true. But with intelligence we can certainly do a lot more than nothing.
163
"Neopaleoliberalism"
That's it, we're going back to Federalists and Anti-Federalists. I can't take it anymore.
That's it, we're going back to Federalists and Anti-Federalists. I can't take it anymore.
42
Bring back the Whigs! We already have the return of the Know-Nothings in the person of Donald Trump.
17
Hillary will never say anything that she can't explain away because it's Bernie-or-Liz-extreme. Unlike either of them, she really DOES need to think about the general election and the prospect of scaring all the straights out there.
But David romanticizes her. To Team Clinton, she was always the COO, keeping the Billster as in line as was possible, and with his eye on the ball at all times. This is why if she wins, I'm not about to consider that matched set of seppuku knives on sale in Times Square. She'll never be within galaxies as dangerous as Barack Obama, and she'll never be the one who pushes for something big that threatens a loss of political capital. She won't be one to arrogate power that a president doesn't actually possess to impose policy preferences on an unwilling Congress, states and people.
And she won't need to. If she wins, this Republican Congress will fall all over itself supporting her (so long as what she wants is reasonable), just to establish that the problem between 2009-2017 wasn't THEM, it was THAT guy.
But I agree with David that she has an absolute faith in the power of government to do better than individuals or corporations at anything -- so long as it's run by Democrats. She's been a PART of government just about her entire adult life. She has no other PERSPECTIVE on Life, the Universe and Everything. She should have gotten out more.
So she'll talk a lot, and likely not really accomplish a lot. And only if she wins, which is a HUGE "if".
But David romanticizes her. To Team Clinton, she was always the COO, keeping the Billster as in line as was possible, and with his eye on the ball at all times. This is why if she wins, I'm not about to consider that matched set of seppuku knives on sale in Times Square. She'll never be within galaxies as dangerous as Barack Obama, and she'll never be the one who pushes for something big that threatens a loss of political capital. She won't be one to arrogate power that a president doesn't actually possess to impose policy preferences on an unwilling Congress, states and people.
And she won't need to. If she wins, this Republican Congress will fall all over itself supporting her (so long as what she wants is reasonable), just to establish that the problem between 2009-2017 wasn't THEM, it was THAT guy.
But I agree with David that she has an absolute faith in the power of government to do better than individuals or corporations at anything -- so long as it's run by Democrats. She's been a PART of government just about her entire adult life. She has no other PERSPECTIVE on Life, the Universe and Everything. She should have gotten out more.
So she'll talk a lot, and likely not really accomplish a lot. And only if she wins, which is a HUGE "if".
10
She'll win, just look at the windbags on the Republican side. They offer no vision, no hope, just fear.
4
"As dangerous as Barack Obama"
So here we are, what 7 years in, the right wing has been screaming about the apocalypse the entire time, but things keep improving - peace and prosperity. I keep hearing about Obama's feckless tyranny, whatever the hell that means, but only see evidence of a principled, effective leader who maintains and respects the machinery of our government.
And once again, if Obama actually HAD arrogated extrapresidential power, he would be impeached by both GOP controlled houses of Congress.
Ipso facto you are full of it.
So here we are, what 7 years in, the right wing has been screaming about the apocalypse the entire time, but things keep improving - peace and prosperity. I keep hearing about Obama's feckless tyranny, whatever the hell that means, but only see evidence of a principled, effective leader who maintains and respects the machinery of our government.
And once again, if Obama actually HAD arrogated extrapresidential power, he would be impeached by both GOP controlled houses of Congress.
Ipso facto you are full of it.
8
In 2008 the campaign of Hillary Clinton made a series of amazing blunders in its early stages, and it was not until late in the process – too late – that she regained her footing. Clearly, a lesson was learned, and Mrs. Clinton is not about to repeat any mistakes. She may make new mistakes down the road, but not old ones.
The first major speech on economic issues in the Clinton campaign was a good one. Many of us who would prefer that the Democrats nominate someone other than Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders still want Mrs. Clinton to do well in demonstrating that, compared to the Republicans, she is a grown-up voice of sanity.
Putting aside the neopaleoliberalism trendy nonsense David Brooks seems to find fascinating, Hillary Clinton displayed a progressive alternative to the radical conservatism of the Republican candidates, and Mrs. Clinton’s approach is one with which a majority of Americans are comfortable.
As far as the notion that “government planning” is something from which we should run in horror according to Mr. Brooks, one looks forward to hearing the shoot-from-the-hip, no-rules-are-good-rules Republicans make that argument on the campaign trail in defense of the benevolent corporations. People who actually work for a living know better.
The first major speech on economic issues in the Clinton campaign was a good one. Many of us who would prefer that the Democrats nominate someone other than Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders still want Mrs. Clinton to do well in demonstrating that, compared to the Republicans, she is a grown-up voice of sanity.
Putting aside the neopaleoliberalism trendy nonsense David Brooks seems to find fascinating, Hillary Clinton displayed a progressive alternative to the radical conservatism of the Republican candidates, and Mrs. Clinton’s approach is one with which a majority of Americans are comfortable.
As far as the notion that “government planning” is something from which we should run in horror according to Mr. Brooks, one looks forward to hearing the shoot-from-the-hip, no-rules-are-good-rules Republicans make that argument on the campaign trail in defense of the benevolent corporations. People who actually work for a living know better.
75
Staying with the it's not a bug it's a feature analysis Brooks boldly states, "She carefully avoided the more radical policy ideas embraced by the left, such as a blanket tax on the rich. She dodged the trade issue. She endorsed a minimum wage hike but didn’t commit, as many progressives do, to a $15an-hour rate." Sounds like The Medium is the Massage of Marshall McLuhan must be rising again on Amazon.com.
Haven't we all seen this before? Tacking, triangulating and the Third Way are still alive just re-branded as Hillary Clinton 2.9.1 is being released.
Haven't we all seen this before? Tacking, triangulating and the Third Way are still alive just re-branded as Hillary Clinton 2.9.1 is being released.
16
but its just like Christmas! you never know which Hilary you will get, its so exciting to see which version she will roll out.
David may have vanilla-fudged things here. First, Hillary is "way to the left" of Bill, but then she's offering "a coherent response to today's economic conditions." Blend the vanilla praise and the fudge about being "way to the left" and you get this Hillary is coherent in responding to current economic conditions because she is farther left than Bill or Obama.
But she's"epistemologically naive." The modifier can be positive (or neutral) using the Greek word for knowing/undesstanding, or negative as in "over-intellectualized". But can an over-intellectualized naivete make a coherent stance? In this context, the descriptor is ambiguous, unclear -- fudging the praise for Hillary and making her coherent intellectuality somehow naive. Yep, this is vanilla fudge, too sweet, loaded with fat, and plain unhealthy, so I ain't buyin' it. Nor the implication that a big fat Bush gut is more reliable than a reasoning mind at solving problems. Been there, tried that, paid the price. Bill, Hillary, and Obana... "wonky"? That I'll buy anytime.
But she's"epistemologically naive." The modifier can be positive (or neutral) using the Greek word for knowing/undesstanding, or negative as in "over-intellectualized". But can an over-intellectualized naivete make a coherent stance? In this context, the descriptor is ambiguous, unclear -- fudging the praise for Hillary and making her coherent intellectuality somehow naive. Yep, this is vanilla fudge, too sweet, loaded with fat, and plain unhealthy, so I ain't buyin' it. Nor the implication that a big fat Bush gut is more reliable than a reasoning mind at solving problems. Been there, tried that, paid the price. Bill, Hillary, and Obana... "wonky"? That I'll buy anytime.
94
Ummm, what's that now?
3
If she ends up the nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for the utterly calculating and inauthentic Ms. Clinton. However, as a minimum wage earner myself, I am proud to be sending Bernie Sanders $10 every other week.
He scares the heck out of the oligarchs, plutocrats, and their apologists like Mr. Brooks. If Bernie Sanders shakes things up in Iowa, watch out.
He scares the heck out of the oligarchs, plutocrats, and their apologists like Mr. Brooks. If Bernie Sanders shakes things up in Iowa, watch out.
449
@John
I can appreciate the level of frustration in a time when a minimum wage may not afford a great living, even in Frederick. However, you also need to be wise to what you wish for. Putting demagogues in charge of a nation, and stripping the population of its responsibility to watch out for, care, and value each other is not a pure victory. Many countries, fed up with the speed of progress, have "held their nose" and put a person in charge, only to be horrified with the mess that the "easy solution" brings.
I can say that your making $10.00 an hour is probably as unjust as some guy making $10 million warming a chair in a hedge fund, not to mention the partner of the fund making $1 billion. But the obsession we have with Wall Street overlooks basic facts, not the least of which is the fact that many are already pushing away from the siren song of hedge funds, changing their rosy future. Synthetic funds will approximate their returns and move money from the greedy and to the merely pragmatic.
If you are a minimum wage earner, you should be just as angry at the customers of your product as you are about the business owner profiting from a sliver of your wages. Why not yell at the person paying $3.00 or $12.00 for the burger you served, telling them they should pay more? Why not insist that your neighbor eschew shoes made abroad and wear domestic brands? Why not refuse to eat a tomato until its price doubled?
We obsess about the 1 percent. We are all villains.
I can appreciate the level of frustration in a time when a minimum wage may not afford a great living, even in Frederick. However, you also need to be wise to what you wish for. Putting demagogues in charge of a nation, and stripping the population of its responsibility to watch out for, care, and value each other is not a pure victory. Many countries, fed up with the speed of progress, have "held their nose" and put a person in charge, only to be horrified with the mess that the "easy solution" brings.
I can say that your making $10.00 an hour is probably as unjust as some guy making $10 million warming a chair in a hedge fund, not to mention the partner of the fund making $1 billion. But the obsession we have with Wall Street overlooks basic facts, not the least of which is the fact that many are already pushing away from the siren song of hedge funds, changing their rosy future. Synthetic funds will approximate their returns and move money from the greedy and to the merely pragmatic.
If you are a minimum wage earner, you should be just as angry at the customers of your product as you are about the business owner profiting from a sliver of your wages. Why not yell at the person paying $3.00 or $12.00 for the burger you served, telling them they should pay more? Why not insist that your neighbor eschew shoes made abroad and wear domestic brands? Why not refuse to eat a tomato until its price doubled?
We obsess about the 1 percent. We are all villains.
5
Let's talk authenticity. Do you think Scott Walker is authentic? I do. Rather have inauthentic Hillary and apparently so do you. I don't care about authentic and I don' t care if I can relate well to her. I only care if she can move us in the right direction.
2
And interestingly enough, there was an underwhelming response from a petulant media demanding to know her positions on the issues. Both Hilary and Bernie are proposing policies which would actually help the economy for the vast majority. And David trots out the tired meme of 'she is too far left'.
128
Not often do you see the phrase "epistimologically naive" in print. David, I think you're projecting. You have a blind faith in the miracles of the free market and evils of government involvement in society.
4
Get used to it. Fox will claim that whoever is the nominee will be the most liberal candidate ever.
9
What, in the name of God, is a neopaleoliberal? Is it a female version of something strong and male? Please help because Mr. Brooks does not.
83
At least, Robert, he has you writing about that, not about the clown bus!! Neopaleo, new-old, doesn't work as well as pre-post-erous, which much of this article is.
6
Brooks can't stop calling people names. It's a 'Weekly Standard' thing he has never outgrown.
If the electoral participation rates increased to at least 70%, Bernie Sanders would be a shoe-in for election. The GOP hopes that Democratic electoral participation rates remain at their pathetic lows, and the Democratic Party needs to do more to increase voting.
Bernie Sanders has the ability to increase participation rates, just as Obama did, but Hillary has not yet shown the ability to be inspirational: a necessity if electoral participation is to increase.
Bernie Sanders has the ability to increase participation rates, just as Obama did, but Hillary has not yet shown the ability to be inspirational: a necessity if electoral participation is to increase.
32
Why do you think that? The majority of the country thinks Bernie is nuts.
David, what you have failed to see is that Hillary is decidedly not energizing her base. She is trotting out a watered down agenda that we have all seen before. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is speaking plainly and honestly from a point of view that is making more and more sense to millions of Americans.
Gradual change that may, one day, improve the lot of most Americans is no longer acceptable. The rampant corruption of the corporate class is something that all of us see every day. When we’re all in fear of losing our jobs at any moment based on the whims of a person with a spreadsheet who has never met us. We've witness obvious collusion of airlines to raise fares to astronomical levels despite a major decrease in fuel prices. We've seen our modest 401K accounts crash twice in a decade. It is obvious that slow and steady is no longer a sufficient response.
We are dealing with a severely disillusioned public that will embrace a fairly radical rethinking of how we run our country. We have a myriad of examples, in Scandinavia in particular, that sensible social programs and high taxes can produce societies that are truly happy with their lives.
I predict that Bernie Sanders may just convince a very large percentage of Americans that they are indeed socialists. Between Hillary, Bernie and the Republican circus of imbeciles that are on offer I think you will be surprised at just how fed up this country is with the status quo.
Gradual change that may, one day, improve the lot of most Americans is no longer acceptable. The rampant corruption of the corporate class is something that all of us see every day. When we’re all in fear of losing our jobs at any moment based on the whims of a person with a spreadsheet who has never met us. We've witness obvious collusion of airlines to raise fares to astronomical levels despite a major decrease in fuel prices. We've seen our modest 401K accounts crash twice in a decade. It is obvious that slow and steady is no longer a sufficient response.
We are dealing with a severely disillusioned public that will embrace a fairly radical rethinking of how we run our country. We have a myriad of examples, in Scandinavia in particular, that sensible social programs and high taxes can produce societies that are truly happy with their lives.
I predict that Bernie Sanders may just convince a very large percentage of Americans that they are indeed socialists. Between Hillary, Bernie and the Republican circus of imbeciles that are on offer I think you will be surprised at just how fed up this country is with the status quo.
306
Thanks, Scott. Well put. I can be comfortable as a "Socialist" if it helps redefine "Human" in our insane situation. In the midst of all the Republican
blather, hopefully, some of Bernie Sanders' Reality might seep through the airwaves.
blather, hopefully, some of Bernie Sanders' Reality might seep through the airwaves.
5
"I predict that Bernie Sanders may just convince a very large percentage of Americans that they are indeed socialists. Between Hillary, Bernie and the Republican circus of imbeciles that are on offer I think you will be surprised at just how fed up this country is with the status quo."
And I predict that if you persist in this, JEB! will be our next president. You Bernie supporters are just as bad as the Fundamentalists on the GOP side. You are so busy shouting, you can't even listen to reality.
And I predict that if you persist in this, JEB! will be our next president. You Bernie supporters are just as bad as the Fundamentalists on the GOP side. You are so busy shouting, you can't even listen to reality.
3
I like Bernie too. But outside of Seattle and other blue spots how does her resonate. There is a reason Republicans are in the majority in most states and hold both houses of congress. I would suggest that those who put them there don't connect with Bernie's message.
1
You know Mr. Brooks is stretching when he starts making up words. So Hillary Clinton is a neopaleoliberal? What in the world is that supposed to mean?
116
I think it means going back to an old version of liberalism. The headline gives the key.
4
Making up words is Mr Brooks's m.o. Since empiricism won't support his beliefs, he employs word-play. I guess he hopes we confuse labeling with analysis.
5
Yes, Barbara, of course, but the title of the article (and the text itself) still gives us no clue as to what is actually meant. What exactly is an "old liberal"? Perhaps Hubert Humphrey or Georg McGovern (to whom Mr. Brooks perniciously compares Hillary Clinton)? Or should we go back further to FDR? And what then is "new liberalism" exactly? As said, my feeling is that Mr. Brooks is simply making up meaningless words to scare--or at least confuse--the Republican base.
1
So I’m about as moderate as it gets, and yet I’d much rather elect Bernie Sanders than Clinton. Yes, Sanders is further to the left than Clinton, who is more of a moderate, but Sanders is 1000 times more honest than Clinton. Her stances have changed so much that it’s hard for me to even categorize her as a moderate, liberal or progressive since depending on what the polls say, she changes her stance. Sanders, on the other hand, has absolutely been consistent and that’s the type of change we need in this country!
143
Hillary Clinton has been advocating for early childhood education since she was a young lawyer. She has been pushing for universal healthcare for decades. Where do you get the idea that these are changed positions?
Sanders doesn't see the need to attack Clinton. The target of both Clinton and Sanders is, properly, the Republicans. As Clinton said in her speech, and Brooks skipped over, Democrats have to keep fixing the messes created by Republicans.
Sanders doesn't see the need to attack Clinton. The target of both Clinton and Sanders is, properly, the Republicans. As Clinton said in her speech, and Brooks skipped over, Democrats have to keep fixing the messes created by Republicans.
119
You say you are "as moderate as it gets", yet you would elect Bernie Sanders? He is as radical left as anyone I have seen running for POTUS in my life, and I voted for McGovern. If you are moderate, then I am living in an alternate universe.
4
Bernie Sanders is a nice guy, and yes, pretty consistent in his hard-left socialist views. But President? Are you kidding me? he has NONE of the qualities you need in a president. Hasn't the failures of Obama been enough to convince you that you need someone who is a good negotiator and can bring people together? Just antagonizing "those evil awful Republicans" is not a strategy to get policies or bills passed!
1
>
New old Liberalism is better than the same old Conservatism.
New old Liberalism is better than the same old Conservatism.
356
In other words, Hillary just told everyone what they wanted to hear but refuses to address or acknowledge the economic inequality that has decimated the poor and destroyed the middle class and the refusal of the republicans in Congress to do anything to help the American people but everything to enrich the top 1%.
I just hope for the sake of the majority of people in this country that against all odds and without Superpac money, Bernie Sanders is successful in his campaign or we will have another republican lite in the White House. Go Bernie, GO!
I just hope for the sake of the majority of people in this country that against all odds and without Superpac money, Bernie Sanders is successful in his campaign or we will have another republican lite in the White House. Go Bernie, GO!
58
But Sanders is right that the game is rigged against ordinary people. And Clinton is a snake oil salesperson. Basically she is aligning herself with the unions. She should visit Illinois and see how well that worked out.
Brooks is right to the extent that many government programs don't work as well as they could. The Dems need a plan to take the obstacles out of the way and reduce the power of Wall Street and corporations. And they need to raise taxes.
Brooks is right to the extent that many government programs don't work as well as they could. The Dems need a plan to take the obstacles out of the way and reduce the power of Wall Street and corporations. And they need to raise taxes.
31
Class conflict I thought was her theme
To join the left leaning Dem team
Does that notion make David scream?
That's Hillary's battle cry!
Oh Brooks would love to play it down
On taxing wealth would surely frown
For kowtowing he's widely known
Dislikes sharing the Pie!
To join the left leaning Dem team
Does that notion make David scream?
That's Hillary's battle cry!
Oh Brooks would love to play it down
On taxing wealth would surely frown
For kowtowing he's widely known
Dislikes sharing the Pie!
74
Larry, we're glad that you're back,
thankfully, old Brooks got you stoked.
Don't be away so long,
we all miss you when you're gone
Stay at it,
we love your verbal attacks.
thankfully, old Brooks got you stoked.
Don't be away so long,
we all miss you when you're gone
Stay at it,
we love your verbal attacks.
27
Brooks, it appears, is congenitally incapable of seeing the waste, corruption and disastrous effects of the past 40 years while we allowed banks and corporations free reign to run amok over the economic needs of the citizenry. Rampant looting by upper level executives including saddling their own corporations with massive debt to buy back stock, thereby raising stock prices with the sole goal being to increase their own compensation, no strategic corporate planning in favor of short term thinking, offshoring of jobs reducing demand for their products as former employees can no longer afford the products they create, and crashing our economy via fraud and corruption at our largest banks -- all these and more, leaving our labor participation rate at levels last seen in the 1970's, the oxymoron of "jobless recovery", and the gutting of the middle class -- all these things don't exist for David Brooks. Neoliberal economic doctrine has worked out fine for the rich, and nothing else really matters except moralizing to the great unwashed, whose collapsing standards of living are all their own fault: corporations and the "free" market can do no wrong. For Brooks, governments shouldn't have an industrial policy at all, never mind that we were strongest when our government did have a strong industrial policy. Brooks has no answers because he sees no problems: the only problem is that the poor and the dying middle class haven't quite learned to shut up yet.
664
Please provide details on this former succeddful govenment "industrial policy" that was so successful. Your golden period, which apparently existed 40 years ago, had government excitedly focusing on the notorious input-output analysis. Turned out to be an exercise in garbage manipulation.
6
Hillary thinks that way too, but she tries to hide it with her luke warm talks. She and her phony husband are the 1%. She is a white, female Obama, phony like him and her husband, trying to hide all of their money.
4
JPE, the proof is easily obtainable on your internet machine if you'willing to spend ten minutes searching "median wages over fifty years", "national debt by president", "corporate taxes", or "american worker production increases" or "corporate profits over last 50 years vs. wages".
15
"Substantively, she offered at least the first coherent response to today's economic conditions."
Such an odd statement, appearing as it does as the second to last sentence in an editorial that bashes her entire speech. Was this a "slip up" Mr. Books or just a sensible acknowledgement that free market capitalism, unencumbered by "central government regulations" nearly destroyed the world's economy. Are you also tacitly acknowledging that the Republicans economic plan remains fixated on "voodoo economics" from St. Ronnie's tax cuts for the wealthy days three and a half decades ago?
Such an odd statement, appearing as it does as the second to last sentence in an editorial that bashes her entire speech. Was this a "slip up" Mr. Books or just a sensible acknowledgement that free market capitalism, unencumbered by "central government regulations" nearly destroyed the world's economy. Are you also tacitly acknowledging that the Republicans economic plan remains fixated on "voodoo economics" from St. Ronnie's tax cuts for the wealthy days three and a half decades ago?
262
Haven't you figured out by now that David Brooks rarely knows what he means to say and rarely says what he means even when he knows it?
9
David Brooks is an odd bird. I've recently listened to him speaking several times, and find that oddly he is more coherent when speaking extemporaneously than he is in these columns, which always smack of trying way too hard. I think when he sits down to write he goes into some sort of trance state, or his imagination takes over, or he just tries too hard to be erudite. He seems to be a lot more "regular guy" in person than one would get from some of the strange columns he writes.
4
You nailed it James Landi! David Brooks, the armchair horse race analyst and parser of style over substance is a paleopostmodernist. As such he scorns "class warfare" while disparaging anyone who is (heaven forbid!) familiar income distribution charts. This is the man who finds Clinton's faith in doing something about income inequality "epistemologically naive"! And what is Brooks's epistemological certitude based on? Let's be generous and call it denial. Here's what the Congressional Budget Office *actually* said about raising the minimum wage.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/02/18/congressional-budget-office-r...
Almost at random I'll close this from the report: "CBO also found that raising the minimum wage [to $10.10] would lift 900,000 people out of poverty. Opponents claim raising the minimum wage won’t reduce poverty, but that is not the case..."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/02/18/congressional-budget-office-r...
Almost at random I'll close this from the report: "CBO also found that raising the minimum wage [to $10.10] would lift 900,000 people out of poverty. Opponents claim raising the minimum wage won’t reduce poverty, but that is not the case..."
8
Bernie Sanders has been the most honest and steadfast person to represent us....all the years he has served....I think Hillary Clinton has also spent her life in service to others...and has done a good job. But...and I realize it's a big BUT...I prefer Bernie Sanders...even though I'm a 62 year old white professional woman...go Bernie