Trouble in liberal paradise? July 21, 2009 Op-Ed Columnist Liberal Suicide March By DAVID BROOKS It was interesting to watch the Republican Party lose touch with America. You had a party led by conservative Southerners who neither understood nor sympathized with moderates or representatives from swing districts. They brought in pollsters to their party conferences to persuade their members that the country was fervently behind them. They were supported by their interest groups and cheered on by their activists and the partisan press. They spent federal money in an effort to buy support but ended up disgusting the country instead. Itâs not that interesting to watch the Democrats lose touch with America. Thatâs because the plotline is exactly the same. The party is led by insular liberals from big cities and the coasts, who neither understand nor sympathize with moderates. They have their own cherry-picking pollsters, their own media and activist cocoon, their own plans to lavishly spend borrowed money to buy votes. This ideological overreach wonât be any more successful than the last one. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Monday confirms what other polls have found. Most Americans love Barack Obama personally, but support for Democratic policies is already sliding fast. Approval of Obamaâs handling of health care, for example, has slid from 57 percent to 49 percent since April. Disapproval has risen from 29 percent to 44 percent. As recently as June, voters earning more than $50,000 preferred Obama to the Republicans on health care by a 21-point margin. Now those voters are evenly split. Most independents now disapprove of Obamaâs health care strategy. In March, only 32 percent of Americans thought Obama was an old-style, tax-and-spend liberal. Now 43 percent do. Weâre only in the early stages of the liberal suicide march, but there already have been three phases. First, there was the stimulus package. You would have thought that a stimulus package would be designed to fight unemployment and stimulate the economy during a recession. But Congressional Democrats used it as a pretext to pay for $787 billion worth of pet programs with borrowed money. Only 11 percent of the money will be spent by the end of the fiscal year â a triumph of ideology over pragmatism. Then there is the budget. Instead of allaying moderate anxieties about the deficits, the budget is expected to increase the government debt by $11 trillion between 2009 and 2019. Finally, there is health care. Every cliché Ann Coulter throws at the Democrats is gloriously fulfilled by the Democratic health care bills. The bills do almost nothing to control health care inflation. They are modeled on the Massachusetts health reform law that is currently coming apart at the seams precisely because it doesnât control costs. They do little to reward efficient providers and reform inefficient ones. The House bill adds $239 billion to the federal deficit during the first 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It would pummel small businesses with an 8 percent payroll penalty. It would jack Americaâs top tax rate above those in Italy and France. Top earners in New York and California would be giving more than 55 percent of earnings to one government entity or another. Nancy Pelosi has lower approval ratings than Dick Cheney and far lower approval ratings than Sarah Palin. And yet Democrats have allowed her policy values to carry the day â this in an era in which independents dominate the electoral landscape. Whoâs going to stop this leftward surge? Months ago, it seemed as if Obama would lead a center-left coalition. Instead, he has deferred to the Old Bulls on Capitol Hill on issue after issue. Machiavelli said a leader should be feared as well as loved. Obama is loved by the Democratic chairmen, but he is not feared. On health care, Obama has emphasized cost control. The chairmen flouted his priorities because they donât fear him. On cap and trade, Obama campaigned against giving away pollution offsets. The chairmen wrote their bill to do precisely that because they donât fear him. On taxes, Obama promised that top tax rates would not go above Clinton-era levels. The chairmen flouted that promise because they donât fear him. Last week, the administration announced a proposal to take Medicare spending decisions away from Congress and lodge the power with technocrats in the executive branch. Itâs a good idea, and it might lead to real cost savings. But thereâs no reason to think that it will be incorporated into the final law. The chairmen will never surrender power to an administration they can override. That leaves matters in the hands of the Blue Dog Democrats. These brave moderates are trying to restrain the fiscal explosion. But moderates inherently lack seniority (they are from swing districts). They are usually bought off by leadership at the end of the day. And so here we are again. Every new majority overinterprets its mandate. Weâve been here before. Weâll be here again. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/opinion/21brooks.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print
So, according to Brooks, John Mccain was just the last straw, and he and his fellow moderates were forced to vote for Obama. Is this guy on hallucinagens?
He makes no sense whatsoever. He acts like the last 30 years never happened. Did Bush become unpopular because he embraced conservative values or because he presided over wild spending, ill-defined nation building efforts and a regulatory breakdown? Wasn't McCain the candidate of choice for the "moderate" republicans? Did he lose because of pandering to the right or because he listened to idiots like Brooks and Colin Powell and never challenged Obama? It's no coincidence that the house conservatives for both the NY Times, Brooks, and Washington Post, Kathleen Parker, spend more time attacking conservatives than going after liberals.