David Brooks is calling for a second Republican Party

[DonViejo]

A Second G.O.P.
By DAVID BROOKS

On the surface, Republicans are already doing a good job of beginning to change their party. Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana gave a speech to the Republican National Committee calling on Republicans to stop being the stupid party, to stop insulting the intelligence of the American people.

Representative Paul Ryan gave a fine speech to the National Review Institute calling for prudence instead of spasmodic protest. The new senator for Texas, Ted Cruz, gave a speech to the same gathering saying the Republicans should be focusing on the least fortunate 47 percent of Americans.

But, so far, there have been more calls for change than actual evidence of change. In his speech, for example, Jindal spanked his party for its stale clichés but then repeated the same Republican themes that have earned his party its 33 percent approval ratings: Government bad. Entrepreneurs good.

In this reinvention process, Republicans seem to have spent no time talking to people who didn’t already vote for them.

Change is hard because people don’t only think on the surface level. Deep down people have mental maps of reality — embedded sets of assumptions, narratives and terms that organize thinking. Since Barry Goldwater, the central Republican narrative has been what you might call the Encroachment Story: the core problem of American life is that voracious government has been steadily encroaching upon individuals and local communities. The core American conflict, in this view, is between Big Government and Personal Freedom.

-snip-

continue reading (no pay wall):
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/opinion/brooks-a-second-g-o-p.html?hp

[tanyev]

1. Sorry, GOP. You go to elections with the party you have--not the party you might want

or wish to have at a later time.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. LOL! Same kind of advice that Rumsfeld might give

I feel the exact same way. If people like Brooks want their "old" Republican Party back or a new "modern" Republican Party, they're going to have to get the teabagger anarchists out of their party but then I wonder how many people they'd have left afterwards. Also, for all of their new "talk", people like Jindal still busy (trying to throw) people out of hospice, denying health care for AIDS patients, eliminating income taxes, etc. Oh and Republicans like the party chair are openly talking about rigging the electoral system so that they "win" even when they lose.

The GOP thought that the teabaggers were the answer to their electoral oblivion after 2008 yet they've brought them nothing but woe since 2010.

[athena]

2. That column is typical David Brooks.

Lots of inconsistencies, along with a few outrageous statements like the following:

Americans are still skeptical of Washington. If you shove a big government program down their throats they will recoil. But many of their immediate problems flow from globalization, the turmoil of technological change and social decay, and they’re looking for a bit of help. Moreover, given all the antigovernment rhetoric, they will never trust these Republicans to reform cherished programs like Social Security and Medicare. You can’t be for entitlement reform and today’s G.O.P., because politically the two will never go together.

In other words, "Americans" are against big government and want "entitlement reform"; they're just turned off by the Republican party's extremist rhetoric. As for people's problems being caused by "globalization, the turmoil of technological change and social decay," what does that even mean? If you read carefully, he's not really proposing anything new. How is one supposed to tackle problems like income inequality and unequal access to education without using government?

I don't understand why liberals publicize anything this guy writes. He's arguably the most damaging Republican out there.

[July]

4. Completely agree with you.

Brooks is nothing more than a propagandist for the right who has fooled himself into believe he is actually an intellectual. His columns are frequently mishmashes of other people's words, pseudo-sociology, and his own irrelevant recommendations, which, amazingly, always coincide with those of conservative politicians. He plays at being dispassionate and fair-minded. It is an act.

[Cosmocat]

7. Like almost everything else with this clowns

one of their most well worn negative frames is INTELLECTUALS!

During the 90s, when I could not avoid hearing talk radio, particular Rush, there were these select evil people he demonized. One of them was the INTELLECUALS!

I remember hearing about all these wicked and america hating people and being amazed at how damaging so few could be, given I didn't know any.

But, what I learned was that most often, it was ...

Projection.

For all the babbling about INTELLECTUALS, they have a NEVER ending stream of half witted twits like Brooks, Will, Krystol, Krauthammer who sanctimoniously put forward all this high minded bullshit that makes absolutely no practical sense.

End of the day, more of that it all is - trying to pretty up trickedown economics.

[summerschild]

3. The reader comments are much better than Brooks' article.

He just offers a variation on the current Republican "whine".

[Myrina]

5. If their lips are moving, they're lying.

Don't believe what they say, believe what they do.


I could continue, but I think the gist is pretty clear ...

[LiberalFighter]

8. Why don't they just kick the teabaggers out

Tell them to form their own party.

Wait a minute. Could it be because they have the same beliefs as the teabaggers?