Brooks' column today -- praising Democrats for ignoring radical anti-war bloggers and instead embracing "Centrism" -- is a perfect showcase for both of these dishonest tactics. His column is devoted to the argument that the Democratic Party hates its blogger and anti-war activist base, is committed to hawkish military policies, and that it is doing the Right Thing in this regard because Most Americans want a hawkish military policy. That is "centrism."
Thus, ignoring bloggers' demands for greater confrontation with Bush and remaining in the "center" (i.e., adhering to Brooks' political beliefs) is the only way Democrats can win elections (Brooks, of course, cares deeply about the health of the Democratic Party and wants only what is best for it). This is his argument:
In the beginning of August, liberal bloggers met at the YearlyKos convention while centrist Democrats met at the Democratic Leadership Council's National Conversation. Almost every Democratic presidential candidate attended YearlyKos, and none visited the D.L.C.
At the time, that seemed a sign that the left was gaining the upper hand in its perpetual struggle with the center over the soul of the Democratic Party. But now it's clear that was only cosmetic.
Now it's evident that if you want to understand the future of the Democratic Party you can learn almost nothing from the bloggers, billionaires and activists on the left who make up the "netroots." You can learn most of what you need to know by paying attention to two different groups -- high school educated women in the Midwest, and the old Clinton establishment in Washington.
So the real Heart and Soul of the Democratic Party is not bloggers, but those "high school educated women in the Midwest" whom Brooks condescendingly idealizes. And there is, of course, no overlap between those two groups. Bloggers are rabid elitists freaks from the coasts, while "high school educated women in the Midwest" are the saintly salt of the American earth who don't know what blogs are.
And how do we learn what the true political beliefs are of the all-important "high school educated women in the Midwest"? Do we consult polls or the outcome of elections? No, there is no need for any of that. We can just ask David Brooks, because he profoundly understands them, and they always think as he does. Like David Broder and the rest of the Beltway class, David Brooks speaks for Them. Thus, Democrats can only win elections if they adopt the views of David Brooks, because those are the views which are adored in the Heartland.
To "prove" this claim, Brooks all but declares Hillary Clinton the nominee of the Democratic Party, and then points to her winning foreign policy views which, he claims, repudiate the anti-war radicalism of the Leftist bloggers and instead embraces the ongoing Middle East hawkishness which "most Americans" want:
On "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," Clinton could have vowed to vacate Iraq. Instead, she delivered hawkish mini-speeches that few Republicans would object to. She listed a series of threats and interests in the region and made it clear that she'd be willing to keep U.S. troops there to handle them.
The fact is, many Democratic politicians privately detest the netroots' self-righteousness and bullying. They also know their party has a historic opportunity to pick up disaffected Republicans and moderates, so long as they don't blow it by drifting into cuckoo land. They also know that a Democratic president is going to face challenges from Iran and elsewhere that are going to require hard-line, hawkish responses.
Finally, these Democrats understand their victory formula is not brain surgery. You have to be moderate on social issues, activist but not statist on domestic issues and hawkish on foreign policy. This time they're not going to self-destructively deviate from that.
So what "most Americans" want is hawkishness on Iraq and Iran and the Middle East generally. In other words, they all embrace Bill Kristol and Dick Cheney's foreign policy views. What a coincidence! As always, what the "high school educated women in the Midwest" all believe happens to be exactly what David Brooks wants! By contrast, anyone who rejects those views resides in "cuckoo land."
Thus, Democrats can win elections only by repudiating those rabid anti-war bloggers who hold Fringe Views (such as favoring an end to the Iraq War and opposition to a war with Iran) and instead vow to remain in the Middle East more or less forever, ruling the region militarily. Because that's what "high school educated women in the Midwest" women want.
Of course, Brooks' entire column is factually false. That's why he does not cite any polling data, because it shows the exact opposite of everything he says. Most Americans want and have long wanted compelled withdrawal from Iraq. Overwhelming majorities oppose military action against Iran and favor negotiations. As indicated, large and increasing numbers believe that we are far too militarized and are excessively interfering around the world, including in the prized Middle East. And the defining views of the Radical Heartland-hating bloggers are, in virtually every case, shared by most Americans.
And while Brooks is certainly right that Democrats generally have been following his advice and that of David Broder and Fred Hiatt -- that, particularly with foreign policy, the smart thing for Democrats to do is to support, and certainly not disrupt or impede, the Cheney/Kristol foreign policy in the name of "centrism" -- it is somewhat hard to argue that this is smart politics in light of this:
A new Gallup Poll finds Congress' approval rating the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing . . .
That 18% job approval rating matches the low recorded in March 1992, when a check-bouncing scandal was one of several scandals besetting Congress.
And how do Democrats view the behavior of their own party as they follow Brooks' "centrism" advice?
Frustration with Congress spans the political spectrum. There are only minor (but not statistically meaningful) differences in the approval ratings Democrats (21%), Republicans (18%), and independents (17%) give to Congress. Typically, partisans view Congress much more positively when their party is in control of the institution, so the fact that Democrats' ratings are not materially better than Republicans' is notable.
Only in the twisted, fact-free, self-loving world of the Beltway Pundit is a political approach which produces these disastrous results "smart" and "successful." But they are so convinced that what they believe is always what Real Americans in the Heartland believe -- they so endlessly equate their own views with "centrism" -- that they will never accept that their orthodoxies are unpopular, even when facts prove conclusively that they are. That is why the gap between the Beltway and America continues to grow rapidly.
What the Beltway Establishment believes more than it believes anything else is that the U.S. should continue to intervene in other countries, dominate the Middle East, and rule the world by superior military force. Thus, no matter how many Americans come to reject that mindset, affirming that mentality will remain a prerequisite for Seriousness and for being approved of by the Beltway class. Any politician, Democratic or Republican, who rejects these basic orthodoxies, no matter how unpopular the orthodoxies become, will be relegated to "cuckoo land."
The real goal of the Beltway class is to eliminate all real differences, all meaningful debate, on these central questions. The Beltway class demands bipartisan agreement on the most important issues. Along with the belief that crimes committed by the revered Beltway elite should never be investigated and especially not prosecuted, they venerate this harmony above all else.
And even when the American citizenry rebels against this bipartisan consensus -- as it plainly has done with regard to Iraq specifically and generally concerning our imperial behavior in the world -- the Beltway class, led by the likes of David Brooks, will simply take to lying, falsely claiming that "most Americans," the good pure Heartland, really do agree with them and that Democrats therefore must continue to embrace these shared Beltway pieties if they have any hope of winning. And because David Brooks and David Broder and the like rule the Beltway opinion-making world, Democrats listen and follow.
Thus, this is what we hear: The Democratic controlled Congress has reached new depths of unpopularity, but what they are doing is politically smart. Most Americans really want us to stay in Iraq. Bloggers are espousing views that most Americans hate. Views held by most Americans are the province of the "radical angry Left." Democrats can only win elections by supporting the popular President's policies, avoiding any real differences, and scorning their own base. The only hope Democrats have is to adhere to prevailing Beltway orthodoxy.
That is the only real point of what David Brooks and most of his pundit comrades say and do over and over and over. And as their assertions become more and more transparently false, they just increasingly invoke misleading and deceitful tactics in order to maintain them.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/25/brooks/index.htmlBut hey, at least Hillary has a new fan in David Brooks.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
