Brooks endorses Obama?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ledroit, Oct 1, 2008.

  1. ledroit

    ledroit New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    854
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    "What we need in this situation is authority. Not heavy-handed government regulation, but the steady and powerful hand of some public institutions that can guard against the corrupting influences of sloppy money and then prevent destructive contagions when the credit dries up."

    This is David Brooks, conservative GOP columnist in the NYT, giving what to me sounds like a rock solid endorsement of Barak Obama for president of the US. He can't come right out and say it, but what he criticizes in his own party would go double for McCain. McCain is erratic, reactive, emotional, blinded by his private "beliefs." Does not play well with others, can't think for very long.

    Brooks goes on:
    "I’ve spoken with several House Republicans over the past few days and most admirably believe in free-market principles. What’s sad is that they still think it’s 1984. They still think the biggest threat comes from socialism and Walter Mondale liberalism. They seem not to have noticed how global capital flows have transformed our political economy."

    You can't even count the ways in which McCain hasn't noticed how the world, the US, global economies & relationships have been transformed. Palin? She is so busy trying not to blink she doesn't really have time to notice the world. Plus she has to keep her hair, her posture, her glasses, smile, and clothes looking good. That is her ticket, and you just don't have time to do everything, do you.

    Is that "authority"? Is self-absorption what people really need and want in a crisis? Hmmm. I don't see any way to read this editorial except as a solid, though very implicit, endorsement of Barak Obama for President of the US. He has an old-fashioned kind of authority, the steady hand.
     
  2. D_Chaumbrelayne_Copprehead

    D_Chaumbrelayne_Copprehead Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    8,978
    Likes Received:
    11
    David Brooks is one of the smartest guys out there. I agree with him MAYBE half of the time, but he's always interesting. And far less priggish than folks like George Will!
     
  3. Qua

    Qua
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,507
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    153
    Gender:
    Male
    David Brooks is one of the best, most even handed and intelligent conservative columnists out there, IMO. There's a reason why he's been successful as a NYT columnist. He manages to engage liberals and conservatives alike, rather than most right wing writers, who are all about straight partisanship and providing dinner party talking points to Republicans.
     
  4. OSUGradstud-ent

    OSUGradstud-ent New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Brooks is thoughtful, and never shrill ..... both pretty rare these days. My read on this is that McCain is sinking fast; he has bungled the response to the financial crisis (and, YES, it IS a crisis). October will be filled with minefields for both campaigns, but the stars are aligning in a way which could quite possibly result in an Obama landslide.
     
  5. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,581
    Likes Received:
    872
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    Based on the quote....Brooks is a functional idiot.

    In this one sentence he says we DON'T need regulation- and then uses the DEFINITION of regulation to explain what we DO need.


    THis is exactly like saying, " We don't need expensive TIRES; What we need are soft squishy air filled rubber torii between our wheels and the pavement."

    It's this kind of basic inability to think logically about what they are even saying that is at the root of conservative thinking about economics.


    The thing about Free Markets.... is when modeled mathematically, they always result in periodic crashes and depressions.

    ALWAYS.

    So get this thru your heads.... This shit coming down is the NATURAL result of Free Markets...

    Yes- it will clear out all the "bad" businesses- AND some of the good, too.

    But it does so by creating periods of utter misery and poverty.

    Take PREDATION away from a deer population, and their numbers will BOOM until they EXCEED the food supply... and then they will ALL STARVE.

    Some lucky deer usually survive to re-build the population...

    BUT NOT ALWAYS--- Lots of species in this scenario go extinct.

    Regulation, acts as the Check on an economy's ability to destroy itself thru excess success.


    The idea that Free markets should just be allowed to "work" is, logically, exactly like saying we should do absolutely NOTHING about the Plague.


    Eventually- the survivors will be the ones more resistant to the plague!

    Yeah! who gives a fiuk about the 30% of the human population that dies horribly?
     
  6. Qua

    Qua
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,507
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    153
    Gender:
    Male
    I'd avoid that analogy, as it could easily be turned into an argument FOR free markets without any alteration.
     
  7. tripod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    5,249
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    459
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Statesville N.C.
    This is classic David Brooks repackaging liberal ideas and slanting them towards the free market. He still is a highly respectable pundit and journalist though.

    Fucking beautiful mate... really well said and concise!!!!! :biggrin1:
     
  8. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,581
    Likes Received:
    872
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    Well, it HAS been. I heard an investment this morning on TV saying how GOOD it would be for the "market" to have a depression.

    Totally ignoring that what may be good for the market means oppressive suffering for PEOPLE.


    We HAVE to convince these idiots that the Market is there to SERVE the people- NOT itself.

    We regualte the market the same way we issue hunting licences to regulate the deer population.

    To keep the entire system healthy and balanced.
     
  9. Qua

    Qua
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,507
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    153
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree, just pointing out that one might see the wolves as competitive businesses, not the government. I immediately drew parallels to Communist bloc starvation.

    Outside of investors and economists who can't land a job at a good college...I don't think anyone really thinks total economic anarchy is the answer. What is absolutely essential is greater transparency on the part of financial institutions. I may have more free market tendancies, but no one can deny that it must be done. As you state, a free market is a volatile one. A command economy is an inefficient one. Obviously a reasonable compromise must be made between the two...particularly in key industries such as finance

    The auto industry, for example, has all kinds of regulations and standards in place. Cuz people die in car crashes. Everything must be announced, tested, retested, approved, denied, retried, etc etc etc. If a flaw gets through the company gets fucked in the ass with suits and fines. Guess because no one appears to die when a market crashes the financial institutions don't need to get fucked the same way.

    Well, I mean, they fucked themselves in the end. It's just amazing that these groups have such little long-term oversight and great volatility that they can go under in a matter of months, or even weeks/days after long histories of survival. Everyone's been predicting GM's demise for decades, particularly in the past few years, yet it merely continues a slow slide towards inevitable major structural change. The nature of underregulated markets is such that companies wholly based in them can seemingly go under on a whim taking people's livelihoods with them...one would think that would be impetus for oversight.
     
    #9 Qua, Oct 1, 2008
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2008
  10. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,581
    Likes Received:
    872
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    I think a logical analysis of free market principles is a good idea.

    I am all for a responsible free market.

    But Republicans keep imagining that a free market is "unregulated" and unrestrained.
    Current conservative free market theory is STUPID and unworkable.

    Here is why...


    True Freedom REQUIRES checks and balances.

    -just like our government is supposed to have.

    The underlying logical principle of personal freedom is that YOUR freedom to swing your foot ENDS just shy of my ass.

    ALL law in a free society is meant to ensure that people adhere to this principle. That one persons freedom does not encroach upon another's.

    We allow people the maximal personal freedom that is conducive to OTHER's maximal freedom.

    The direct logical implication of this is that NO ONE ACTS IN ISOLATION.
    That ALL actions must be evaluated in regard to their IMPACT on others.

    That is the foundation of a society.
    If something I do DAMAGES my neighbor- I am liable.


    Republicans have taken the idea of free markets and totally misunderstood the word "free".

    They Think it means "unrestrained".


    But as the above analysis proves, Unrestrained freedom ALWAYS results in encroachment by some on the freedom of others.


    Thus- TRUE repsonsible free markets MUST be regulated.
    The greed of some, that would harm others or the system itself, checked, by law and oversight.


    Moreover-
    EVERY other nation on earth understands this. The most SUCCESSFUL economies are the ones that balance free trade with government oversight and regulations.


    I want a free market that is held in dynamic balance by INTELLIGENT control.


    Otherwise, a mindless market doesn't give a damn who gets hurt.
     
  11. AllHazzardi

    AllHazzardi Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    339
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Palm Springs, California
    You know, completely editing out your comments makes it read like Brooks is saying that a large number of Republicans believe in free market, but are mentally in the wrong time period.

    I don't see any relevance to McCain in these comments.

    Why? Take your own description of McCain: Erratic, reactive, emotional, Strong in his beliefs, doesn't play well with others.

    While McCain is a Republican, all of those traits set him somewhere off the spectrum of "Republican". Well, except the belief part.



    To say "spoken to several Republicans"- and thus forming an opinion on all of them, applies to McCain(a known outlier) is somewhat like; To use an extreme example: saying a study done on Inner City African-Americans strongly applies to Barack Obama. Likewise a more fitting and less extreme example: to say information based on talking to "several Democrats"- and thus forming an opinion on all of them, applies to Obama(a comparitive outlier).

    That is to say, sure, they fit in the expanded general categories of "Republican" and "Democrat". But information based on "a few" doesn't apply too well to known outliers within their respective categories.

    Likewise I see no mention of Obama in the entirety. Don't you think you're reaching a bit far to say he's giving a "solid yet implicit" endorsement?
     
    #11 AllHazzardi, Oct 1, 2008
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2008
  12. D_Chaumbrelayne_Copprehead

    D_Chaumbrelayne_Copprehead Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    8,978
    Likes Received:
    11
    I believe the esteemed gentleman from OSU may well be correct. The best electoral vote prediction site out there is FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right. From that, it looks like Obama will win all the states that John Kerry did, plus ... most likely ... Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, and very possibly Virginia, too.

    PLUS ... in recent days, some of the state-by-state polling shows Obama starting to pull away in places like Florida .. Michican ... Pennsylvania ... all states that have been close 'til now.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted