"The communitarian crush on Rick Santorum" - The New Republic
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-stump/99294/the-communitarian-crush-rick-santorum
: David Brooks is back at it today, taking a second straight column to praise Rick Santorum for alone among the Republican candidates drawing attention to the woes of the working class and for drawing links between the strengths of their communities and values and our economic future. It is a more nuanced piece than Brooks' previous one, and notes that Santorum falls short when it comes to reckoning with the policy implications of a values-based economic outlook:
Santorum doesn’t yet see that once you start thinking about how to foster an economic system that would nurture our virtues, you wind up with an agenda far more drastic and transformational.
If you believe in the dignity of labor, it makes sense to support an infrastructure program that allows more people to practice the habits of industry. If you believe in personal responsibility, you have to force Americans to receive only as much government as they are willing to pay for. If you believe in the centrality of family, you have to have a government that both encourages marriage and also supplies wage subsidies to men to make them marriageable.
If you believe social trust is the precondition for a healthy society, you have to have a simplified tax code that inspires trust instead of degrading it. If you believe that firm attachments and stable relationships build human capital, you had better offer early education for children in disorganized neighborhoods. If you want capitalists thinking for the long term and getting the most out of their workers, you have to encourage companies to be more deeply rooted in local communities rather than just free-floating instruments of capital markets.
But of course these sorts of approaches are utterly at odds with current doctrine in the party whose nomination Santorum is seeking. I agree with Brooks that there is value in Santorum's mere acknowledgment that our society is no longer the land of Horatio Alger that Mitt Romney makes it out to be; indeed, I was one of the first to identify this aspect of Santorum's appeal. But I would caution against overstating Santorum's commitment to this message, as I think that Brooks, even with the above caveat, comes close to doing. The truth is, even someone as conservative as Santorum has let himself be ratcheted rightward to be considered acceptable in the GOP of 2012. He is in favor of slashing the already-low tax rates on capital gains and dividends, and he rails against the threat of European social democracy with as much fervor as any of the other candidates, a rhetorical stance that would make hard indeed to come out for wage subsidies or early education for children in "disorganized neighborhoods" or "encouraging" companies to be more "deeply rooted in local communities." Brooks notes that Santorum has in recent years come around to supporting community-building government programs like Americorps, but he must not have been at the Santorum event I was at on Friday in Marshalltown, Iowa, where Santorum told a young man who got up to advocate for Americorps and Habitat for Humanity that he just didn't see how we could afford to fund such efforts. "Is it the role of the federal government to do this?" he told the young man. "There are going to be programs like Americorps where we just don't have the resources." The young man,who appeared generally inclined to support Santorum, seemed slightly stunned by the answer. "Programs like these, you cut them and you'll be building more prisons. You can't find a more family-friendly organization than Habitat for Humanity," he said. In other words, he was arguing for the programs on Santorum's own terms, almost as if channeling Brooks. But Santorum ignored him and moved on.
Some interesting comments:
- Brooks: "If you believe social trust is the precondition for a healthy society, you have to have a simplified tax code that inspires trust instead of degrading it."
When he thinks of building social trust, the first thing he thinks of is making life slightly easier for tax accountants? How does one hit the 'send' button after typing something like that and not then jump off a bridge out of embarrassment?
- My reaction when I read Brooks's column this morning was that his lofty ideals don't come even remotely close either to Santorum's history in the Senate or to his policy positions in the campaign. This is vintage Brooks: creating an association between lofty ideals and a favored politician by putting both in the same column when in fact they have no association in reality. Since Brooks has become the brain expert, he uses the association technique often. I suppose that if it's okay for Republicans to create their own reality it's okay for columnists to do the same.
Also, Brooks uses vague language. Here's one sentence: "If you want capitalists thinking for the long term and getting the most out of their workers, you have to encourage companies to be more deeply rooted in local communities rather than just free-floating instruments of capital markets." What on earth does that mean? Again, it's vintage Brooks. What would Strunk and White think about the use of such vague language. They would identify it for what it is, which is the language of the deceiver, the language of the propogandist.
- "But Santorum ignored him and moved on." Because Santorum is a holier than thou narcissistic little shit of a man. He longs for an America of the 1950's and pretends we can go back to that age but is utterly clueless as to reasons and conditions that existed then (strong unions, very large manufacturing base)
- A couple of friends say I am being unfair to Brooks by comparing him to a propagandist by selecting one sentence out of an entire column. Fair enough. But I didn't even select the most egregious example but rather a sentence that has no meaning at all. Here's another: "If you believe in personal responsibility, you have to force Americans to receive only as much government as they are willing to pay for." "Force"? At the end of a gun? No, not even Brooks. He must be referring to the balanced budget amendment (what else?). Why not say that Brooks and Santorum believe only those who support the balanced budget amendment believe in "personal responsibility". Brooks relies on an uncritical (i.e., not close) reading of his columns, the same as does the propagandist.
- Forget Santorum's bigotry, his misogyny, his attacks on birth control and peoples' private sex lives which apparently he thinks it is the business of the state to regulate. This is "values" apparently.
From Brooks' piece, this is the absolute piece de resistance and I would like an apology from Mr. Brooks for even thinking of it let alone publishing in the NYT:
"If you believe in the centrality of family, you have to have a government that both encourages marriage and also supplies wage subsidies to men to make them marriageable."
EXCUSE ME?
- Oh by the way. If Hillary or some other "communist" says "It Takes A Village" we are attacked but now we got the family thing; oh give me a break please. And since when does Catholic doctrine OF ANY KIND have any business in an AMERICAN election?
This is not 15th century Spain thank goodness. It is the job of the supposedly independent press to remind our politicians of this.
No comments:
Post a Comment