The American Spectator

Chris| 11.11.08 @ 5:01PM

I read Brooks' column. The so-called GOP reformers sound just like the liberals. Brooks writes: "The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. The Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety. They tend to take global warming seriously." The country is moving right. The GOP should move left.

Chris| 11.11.08 @ 5:02PM

That should have been left with a question mark.

Alenda Lux| 11.11.08 @ 5:35PM

It's not that the "reformers" are liberals. It's that they just happen to be all the people who opposed Palin. Other than that, there's not a whole lot they necessarily agree on that would take them uniformly in one direction away from the traditionalists

http://alendalux.blogspot.com/2008/11/misdiagnosing-problem.html

Mary| 11.11.08 @ 5:48PM

Talk about anile: Lascia fare, per carita!

This devolution -can't help but think of Lewis' Abolition of Man- advanced under the banner of "economic anxiety" would/could never stand against a draconian reordering of the current relationship between doctor and patient, to that of bureaucrat, doctor, patient.

I'll be quite honest, I've never understood how we've been able to keep a straight face when pretending that conservatism has been in some kind of real ascendancy since Hoover.

Reagan ran on abolishing the Dept. of Education, but he never did. In fact he added something to the dept of energy, didn't he? I can't remember if it was cabinet position or what.

But the DofE failure was not his fault. It was not something he could have ever accomplished. And it was only 4 years old, wasn't it? Isn't the DofE Carter's gift to the teachers union for their support?

We need a deeper bench or maybe we're dead and we just don't know it?

Captain America| 11.11.08 @ 7:28PM

You're right, Chris, the real line of demarcation is between the so-called "wizards of smart" the esteemed scribes (Brooks, Noonan, Will, and their ilk) vis-a-vis the grassroots conservatives.

Moreover, anyone who the NY Times and PBS consider to be conservative by their standards is problematic.

Ran| 11.11.08 @ 7:49PM

Tar pit? Great. Pass the feathers.

One does not "reform" Liberty, one can only compromise it. Better, one enhances Liberty's popularity by spreading the word, engaging the electorate and direct involvement in campaigns. Liberty - and it's ideological home, Conservatism, don't need "reform" or Brooks or any more Bush's or McCains... they need us to get involved.

Brooks & Co. are going the way of the NY Times, that masthead of maste-, um, reformation. They're all in panic mode, grasping for bailouts and any lifeline around... their brand is the one sinking. Ditto the entire Reform movement. Been there, done that, it cost us plenty.

Frankly, I'll be surprised it the "Compassionate" way hasn't cost us the Constitution one year hence. I'm signing on with the Traditionalists, warts and all this mission. We may yet steer our ship from the rocks.

That will mean more than blog commenting and whining: Organizing, engaging, volunteering. Hey - Obama wants us all to volunteer to make this a "changed" society... Well, there's an idea.

P.S. RSM thanks, nil illigitimi carborundum.

David Brooks| 11.11.08 @ 8:56PM

Come on, guys, brown-nosing pukes like Chris Matthews is my livelihood! That whole "bobo" thing never caught on like I thought it would! You want me out begging on the street or something?

Thomas Aquinas| 11.11.08 @ 9:40PM

Brooks should have stayed in the clothing business with his brother.

james23| 11.12.08 @ 9:06AM

Funny, the Rinos have renamed themselves "Reformers." Kind of like Libs renaming themselves "progressives."

Bob| 11.12.08 @ 9:07AM

Hey, guys, denial is not a strategy. Brooks is absolutely right. You are living in the past. The electorate is changing and the traditional groups that represented 51% victories is now about 44%. You have more young voters who are 66% Democrats, Hispanics who are 65% Democrats, Blacks who are 95% Democrats. These are the growing segments of the elctorate. The Republican party is old and dying and almost totally white. In addition, Crist, Daniels, and Schwartzeneggar won and govern by going to the center. The argument about going back to "conservative principles" does not make any numerical sense.

Did any of you take math in school? As Sarah said to Biden in her debate, "Hey Joe, always looking back". That's exactly what all of you reactionary clones are doing.

Bob| 11.12.08 @ 9:17AM

James23 - actually social conservatives are the new RINO's...

Thomas| 11.12.08 @ 9:27AM

Per "Ran":

"One does not reform liberty; one can only compromise it".

Well said! If the Republican Party ever again fields a candidate who is actually intelligent enough to understand the importance of liberty, they'll get my vote. However, as long as it continues to field candidates like Bush, McCain, Romney, Guilliani or, worse yet, anyone who is deemed acceptable by the utterly unprincipled David Brooks, my vote (and my money) will continue to be withheld. A socialist by any other name is still a socialist.

Bob| 11.12.08 @ 9:34AM

Thomas - do you know the definition of "liberty"?

Here it is:

1: the quality or state of being free:
a: the power to do as one pleases
b: freedom from physical restraint
c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e: the power of choice

Neither the Republican or Democrat party represents true liberty. In fact, they both limit freedoms in their own way. Social conservatives limit liberty even more than the party itself. If you are really interested in true liberty, you should join the Libertarian party.

Ran| 11.12.08 @ 7:40PM

Bob,
If you want to understand Liberty - capital 'L' - read De Tocqueville. [Borzoi editions, not the emasculated newer crap.] Liberty first requires self-government; self-imposed moral limitations. It isn't at all about absence of limitations. It's an annoying fact for many Libertarians. It's just wacko to post-modern dope-smoking free-love "progressives."

As said above, one does not "reform" Liberty, one can only compromise it.

You're right about the parties - they both suck, and so does the Libertarian Party.