Intellectual fanboy David Brooks

When he tries to talk about economics, he sounds even more like a clown than usual:

Economic change is fomenting intellectual change. When the economy was about stuff, economics resembled physics. When it's about ideas, economics comes to resemble psychology.

The economy is still about stuff, just as the economy was always about ideas. McCormick's reaper and Morse's telegraph were both ideas before they became stuff.

The Brooksian tendency toward breathlessness -- he's read yet another "important new book" about a subject he doesn't actually understand -- is balanced by his habitual petulance, as when he complains about economists being "excessively individualistic and rationalistic." He seems to be boning up on intellectual trends among economists to "get a complete view of where the debate is headed."

But "where the debate is headed" is not the same thing as where the economy is headed. Brooks prattles on like a Star Trek fanboy, a spectator getting a vicarious thrill. When you get through reading his column, you don't really know anything about his ostensible subject, Arnold Kling and Nick Schulz's new book, From Poverty to Prosperity. It may indeed be important, but Brooks' column does a piss-poor job of explaining why.

Contrast this, just for example, with Joseph Lawler's discussion of unemployment in the January issue of the American Spectator. Lawler explains that the "jobless recovery" problem is due mainly to the fact that recent changes in our economy are not cyclical, but structural, requiring the shifting of workers from one labor sector to another. In many cases, this will require that workers relocate, and policies that encourage them to stay put -- collecting unemployment in their hometown, waiting for something to come along after the local factory closes down -- actually make matters worse.

Lawler's discussion is lucid and informative, because he's actually trying to explain a real phenomenon, rather than playing the intellectual fanboy game.

Scoop Jackson is dead and . . .

. . . David Brooks is an idiot:

[President Obama's] speeches at West Point and Oslo this year are pitch-perfect explications of the liberal internationalist approach. Other Democrats talk tough in a secular way, but Obama’s speeches were thoroughly theological. He talked about the “core struggle of human nature” between love and evil. . . .
Obama has not always gotten this balance right. He misjudged the emotional moment when Iranians were marching in Tehran. But his doctrine is becoming clear. The Oslo speech was the most profound of his presidency, and maybe his life.

Tuesday's column was the most idiotic of David Brooks' week, but the week's not over yet.

Brooks seems to confuse speeches with policy, as if all Obama needs to do is begin a speech, "Fiat lux," and we will all be blinded by the brightness of a thousand suns. Brooks' paean to "the liberal internationalist approach" ignores the sequel to Woodrow Wilson's crusade to "Make the World Safe for Democracy," namely World War II, which ended with half of Europe under the Soviet heel, followed in turn by the bloody stalemate in Korea and the blundering "escalation" of Vietnam.

The fact that Brooks takes Obama at his word is no reason the rest of us should be so foolish. Nevertheless, given the actual consequences of "the liberal internationalist approach," if indeed this is what Obama is about, it shouldn't really be reassuring. Democratic Party foreign policy is not necessarily a straight line from Versailles through Yalta to the scene of helicopters rescuing Americans from the roof of the Saigon embassy, but it's a familar route nonetheless.

The Zeitgeist-sniffing Brooks shifts like the wind, yet is stubborn about exactly one thing, his refusal to acknowledge that liberals generally make a botch of whatever policy they influence. Brooks has probably been too busy admiring the crease of the president's pants-leg to notice anything else.

David Brooks and the Obama man-crush

David Brooks' Friday column was a paean to Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) -- a dream vehicle for the "Anybody But Palin" Coalition? -- but there was something obtrusive, as Ryan Cole notes at The American Spectator:

[A]s is the routine with everything Brooks' pen produces these days, an otherwise coherent piece is disrupted by the author's gratuitous displays of affection towards President Barack Obama.
After ticking off all of the qualities that might make Thune presidential material and the issues that may lead the country towards a GOP revival . . . Brooks (perhaps fearing the White House might construe this as some sort of criticism) quickly reminds readers that Obama is "the most talented political figure of the age." Really? After a year in the Oval Office, what tangible evidence is there to support this theory? Cash for Clunkers? . . .

Read the whole thing. I do not deny that Obama has political talent, most especially the oratorical power of his sonorous baritone. But Rush Limbaugh also has a great baritone voice. It takes more than political talent to be a good president, and political talent that is employed to advance bad policies is a net negative.

The reason that Obama is so effusively praised is the same reason he's a bad president: He is a liberal. It is Brooks' desire to be considered "thoughtful" by his liberal peers that causes him to engage in this ridiculous genuflections before their temple-cult idol, Obama.

Brooks is not a conservative. Being a conservative begins with the fundamental assumption that liberals are always wrong, about everything. If liberals generally admire someone, you may be sure that the object of their admiration is a deeply flawed personality (e.g., Bill Clinton). The frenzied enthusiasm for Obama (who is to liberals what Joe Jonas is to 13-year-old girls) exceeds even the worst excesses of Clintonmania, which is a sure sign that Obama will be a spectacularly bad president.

Please read "How to Think About Liberalism (If You Must)."