Sometimes, reading David Brooks is like banging my head against a wall. In today’s New York Times, Brooks has an Op-Ed titled “That Other Obama.” The essay is his response to President Obama’s attack on Paul Ryan’s budget. In classic Brooks style, he first stakes out what he believes is a moderate position; in this case, he mentions how he respects Obama’s intellect, and that the Ryan budget has some serious weaknesses. He actually lists several important criticisms of the bill, such as huge cuts to discretionary spending, children’s health care and scientific research, as well as tax cuts so skewed in favor of the rich it boggles the mind. But again, classic Brooks, he goes on to make a few really weak criticisms of Obama which he tries to pass off as in some way scandalous or shocking. Let’s take a look at some of the best, er, worst ones.
Brooks says that Obama “unleashed every 1980s liberal cliché in the book” when he says Republicans are “trickle down, Trojan horse-bearing social Darwinists.” David, let’s be frank here. When the Republican party bases its entire economic plan on low taxes for the rich, has argued that “starving the beast” of government is the best way to tame spending, and does not support policies that will expand opportunity across class and gender, it’s absolutely fair to criticize them using harsh, political language. Yes, I know, social Darwinism is in part based on racist assumptions. But it was also based on the idea that people who cannot succeed on their own do not deserve to succeed. This view seems widely held in the Republican Party. If being called names hurts your feelings that badly, get out of politics.
One of the most inadvertently funny lines in the essay is when Brooks writes “Then Obama exaggerated the differences between his budget and the Ryan budget.” This line is its own separate paragraph, presumably to increase the shock factor. Brooks must have thought he was really throwing a zinger there. Was he expecting his readers to say, “Oh, no, a politician is playing politics”? I fail to see how a President playing up differences with his opponents in an election season is cause for much alarm.
He saves the best for last, when he chastises the President’s comments about the Medicare section of the bill. He bemoans how Obama talked about the plan as if it were an “alien monster from the lunatic fringe.” I guess I see his point, but only in that the ideas in the Ryan budget are no longer on the fringe. Some of the proposals are certainly lunatic. The whole problem with the government allowing people to choose traditional Medicare and private plans is that over time, as more healthy people choose not to get coverage or pick a cheaper plan, the pool of Medicare recipients will become older and sicker. Medicare, and insurance in general, work by socializing risk. When you have an insurance program that only covers sick people, you can’t expect good things to happen. Sure, it’s possible that Ryan’s plan might cut costs. But if that’s the only way we measure success in government, then we really do live in a heartless society. There are proposals to overhaul Medicare and the social safety net in a manner at least approaching seriousness; the Ryan proposal is most certainly not one of them.
David, I agree, politicians should stop saying nasty things to each other. But I’m much more concerned with the programs and policies politicians actually vote for. I’d rather have a president with a sharp tongue and a dedication to the poorest among us than a president who speaks kindly to everyone but eviscerates the safety net.
