Smooth as Silk -- Another Good Brooks Piece

Op-Ed Columnist


The Experience EconomyBy DAVID BROOKS

Published: February 14, 2011

...“The Great Stagnation,” has become the most debated nonfiction book so far this year. Cowen’s core point is that up until sometime around 1974, the American economy was able to experience awesome growth by harvesting low-hanging fruit. There was cheap land to be exploited. There was the tremendous increase in education levels during the postwar world. There were technological revolutions occasioned by the spread of electricity, plastics and the car.

But that low-hanging fruit is exhausted, Cowen continues, and since 1974, the United States has experienced slower growth, slower increases in median income, slower job creation, slower productivity gains, slower life-expectancy improvements and slower rates of technological change.

Cowen’s data on these slowdowns are compelling and have withstood the scrutiny of the online reviewers. He argues that our society, for the moment, has hit a technological plateau.

But his evidence can also be used to tell a related story. It could be that the nature of technological change isn’t causing the slowdown but a shift in values. It could be that in an industrial economy people develop a materialist mind-set and believe that improving their income is the same thing as improving their quality of life. But in an affluent information-driven world, people embrace the postmaterialist mind-set. They realize they can improve their quality of life without actually producing more wealth.

For example, imagine a man we’ll call Sam, who was born in 1900 and died in 1974. Sam entered a world of iceboxes, horse-drawn buggies and, commonly, outhouses. He died in a world of air-conditioning, Chevy Camaros and Moon landings. His life was defined by dramatic material changes, and Sam worked feverishly hard to build a company that sold brake systems. Sam wasn’t the most refined person, but he understood that if he wanted to create a secure life for his family he had to create wealth.

Sam’s grandson, Jared, was born in 1978. Jared wasn’t really drawn to the brake-systems business, which was withering in America. He works at a company that organizes conferences. He brings together fascinating speakers for lifelong learning. He writes a blog on modern art and takes his family on vacations that are more daring and exciting than any Sam experienced.

Jared lives a much more intellectually diverse life than Sam. He loves Facebook, YouTube, Wikipedia and his iPhone apps. But many of these things are produced outside the conventional monetized economy. Most of the products are produced by people working for free. They cost nothing to consume.

They don’t even create many jobs. As Cowen notes in his book, the automobile industry produced millions of jobs, but Facebook employs about 2,000, Twitter 300 and eBay about 17,000. It takes only 14,000 employees to make and sell iPods, but that device also eliminates jobs for those people who make and distribute CDs, potentially leading to net job losses.

In other words, as Cowen makes clear, many of this era’s technological breakthroughs produce enormous happiness gains, but surprisingly little additional economic activity.

Jared’s other priorities also produce high quality-of-life gains without huge material and productivity improvements. He practically defines himself by what university he went to. Universities now have nicer dorms, gyms and dining facilities. These improvements have not led to huge increases in educational output.

Jared is very health conscious and part of a generation that has spent much more on health care. This may help Jared lead a vibrant life in retirement. But these investments have had surprisingly little effect on productivity or even longevity.

For Sam, income and living standards were synonymous. But for Jared, wealth and living standards have diverged. He is more interested in the latter than the former. This means that Jared has some rich and meaningful experiences, but it has also led to problems. Every few months, new gizmos come out. Jared feels his life is getting better. Because he doesn’t fully grasp the increasingly important distinction between wealth and standard of living, he has the impression that he is also getting richer. As a result, he lives beyond his means. As Cowen notes, many of our recent difficulties stem from the fact that many Americans think they are richer than they are.

Jared is also providing much less opportunity for those down the income scale than his grandfather did. Sam was more hardhearted, yet his feverish materialism created more jobs.

Jared worries about that. He also worries that the Chinese and others have a material drive that he and his cohort lacks. But he’s not changing. For the past few decades, Americans have devoted more of their energies to postmaterial arenas and less and less, for better and worse, to the sheer production of wealth.

During these years, commencement speakers have urged students to seek meaning and not money. Many people, it turns out, were listening.

David Brooks: Op-Ed Columnist - An Economy of Grinds - NYTimes.com

(c) 2010 F. Bruce Abel

David Brooks writes pieces that are often hard to categorize, but I read everything he writes.  This one deserves note and reading over and over again.  It covers an interesting class view that fits with my own.

Knowing Brooks's Republican political-history, this piece is not of small import.  David Brooks is slowly feeling his way into a world-view that is anti-establishment, anti-corporate.  Far from where he was during the Bush years.  Click on and start at the beginning.

Op-Ed Columnist - An Economy of Grinds - NYTimes.com: "Since the princes are nicer and more impressive, it is easy to be seduced into the belief that they also are more trustworthy. This is false. During the last few years, for example, the princes at Citigroup, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers behaved with incredible stupidity while the hedge fund loners often behaved with impressive restraint."

Op-Ed Columnist - A Little Economic Realism - NYTimes.com

(c) 2010 F. Bruce Abel

David Brooks weighs in on the opposite side of Paul Krugman.  Keynes 1; Friedman 1.

This is important and importantly bad.  1930's here we come.

But his logic about corporate enterpreneurs is flawless.

Op-Ed Columnist - A Little Economic Realism - NYTimes.com: "You can’t read models, but you do talk to entrepreneurs in Racine and Yakima. Higher deficits will make them more insecure and more risk-averse, not less. They’re afraid of a fiscal crisis. They’re afraid of future tax increases. They don’t believe government-stimulated growth is real and lasting. Maybe they are wrong to feel this way, but they do. And they are the ones who invest and hire, not the theorists."

Op-Ed Columnist - Such, Such Are His Joys - NYTimes.com

(c) 2010 F. Bruce Abel

An odd column by David Brooks, that, simply, simply, must be read:

Op-Ed Columnist - Such, Such Are His Joys - NYTimes.com: "On Wednesday, the essayist Christopher Hitchens announced that he has cancer of the esophagus and will soon begin chemotherapy. There are others who know him better than I who can reflect on his illness."

Krugman -- Goodbye Euro?

(c) 2010 F. Bruce Abel

I'm experimenting by putting the link to Krugman's piece today as an "enclosure link." Click on the title to this blog and it will get to it I think.

Then there are 50 comments to Krugman's piece. Here's the best:


Paul Dorell

Evanston, IL
April 29th, 201011:07 pm

I wonder what the wealthy eurozone nations were thinking when they joined. It seems to me that they've already implicitly agreed to bail out Greece or any other eurozone member facing sovereign default. The U.K., Switzerland, Norway and Sweden look smart now for not joining. If Germany and France don't step up to the plate, as they've implicitly agreed to do by joining the eurozone, it may well collapse. It looks to me as if the economics profession has failed badly once again.

and here's another good one. By the way the work to save ourselves ("write me a check for $700 billion"-- Paulson to Congress) was begun in the Bush Administration. I say this as a hater of the Bush Administration. But if we forget this uncomfortable fact we will lose the November election.


Marie Burns
Fort Myers, Florida

April 29th, 201011:07 pm

The European situation is a good lesson in why American Democrats have made this country the strongest in the world, and why it's a bad idea to elect Republicans. Republicans these days act just like European countries intent on maintaining their own fiefdoms and reluctant to pull together in a crisis. As much as Americans dislike Henry Paulson and his "write me a check for $700BB, & don't ask any questions" solution to the U.S. financial crisis, we at least were lucky to have a Treasury Secretary who got around to recognizing a crisis & acting to avert it. (I hate to think what would have happened if John Snow were still serving as Treasury Secretary in late 2008.) Could the Democratic Congress have done a better job of rewriting Henry's blank-check legislation? Well, yes, but at least they too had the guts to act.

It appears Europe needs to follow American Democrats' lead and learn to pull together to save the economies of Portugal, Greece, Ireland and Spain (PIGS), and thereby the economy of the entire continent -- just as we did, no thanks to Republican small-bore thinking.

Brooks -- And FP&L

(c) 2010 F. Bruce Abel

Nerdy but worth reading for what FP&L can do for us.

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: April 29, 2010

In 1860, Samuel Curtis, a Republican congressman of Iowa, sponsored a bill to create a transcontinental railroad. The debate over that public-private partnership was long and messy. Democrats said the proposal was unconstitutional. Others rightly argued that it meant huge giveaways to the rich.


Times Topics: Climate and Energy LegislationReaders' Comments
Sha
Read All Comments (32) »
But the railroad effort, backed by Abraham Lincoln, swept forward. “Nations are never stationary,” Representative James Campbell told the House. “They advance or recede. We cannot remain inactive ... without the loss of trade, of commerce, and power.”

After the legislation was approved in 1862, there were continual setbacks. The Union Pacific Railroad languished. Scandals mounted. Yet despite it all, the final spike was hammered into place at Promontory Point, Utah, in 1869, linking the nation and heralding a new burst of prosperity.

When you read that history, you’re reminded that large efforts are generally plagued by stupidity, error and corruption. But by the sheer act of stumbling forward, it’s possible, sometimes, to achieve important things.

Energy innovation is the railroad legislation of today. This country is studded with venture capitalists, scientists, corporate executives and environmental activists atremble over the great opportunities they see ahead. The energy revolution is a material project that arouses moral fervor — exactly the sort of enterprise at which Americans excel.

As with all causes of this sort, the righteousness sometimes runs ahead of the reality. When you actually look at the details of global warming legislation, you run into myriad questions. Is cap-and-trade really the most appropriate policy tool to reduce carbon emissions? Do the benefits of the most ambitious global warming bills really outweigh the costs? I strongly recommend two essays by Jim Manzi — “Conservatives, Climate Change, and the Carbon Tax” from The New Atlantis and “Dunce Cap-and-Trade” from National Review — in which he presents data suggesting they do not.

Nonetheless, the vision is certainly right. To remain the world’s pre-eminent nation, the U.S. is going to have to develop energy sources that are plentiful, clean and don’t enrich the worst people on earth. That means in the short term, the U.S. has to unleash the tens of billions of dollars of potential energy investments now being pent up by uncertainty and regulatory hurdles. To make a difference in the long term, the U.S. is going to have to invest more and differently in energy research and development.

Technology companies spend 5 percent to 15 percent of revenue on research and development. Energy companies, on the other hand, spend only one-quarter of 1 percent. The federal government spends $30 billion on health research, but only $3 billion on clean energy research.

It’s clearly going to take legislative action to catalyze private investment and to increase federal research to where it should be — about $25 billion a year, according to Mark Muro of the Brookings Institution. It’s going to take some equivalent of the Pacific Railroad Acts to kick this into gear.

The best vehicle now is the American Power Act, drawn up by John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. The bill, like all politically plausible bills these days, is larded with special-interest provisions and public giveaways to defuse opposition and win votes. But it does perform a few essential tasks. To boost innovation, it raises the price on carbon and devotes some of that money (though not nearly enough) to research and development.

In addition, it establishes a predictable price for carbon. Lew Hay, the chief executive of the power provider FPL Group, e-mailed me on Thursday to say that if he can get that certainty on the carbon price and if there can be a renewable energy standard to create a market for carbon-free energy, his company could boost investments right away:

“Regarding wind energy investment at our NextEra Energy Resources subsidiary, we think we might invest about $1.5 billion to $2 billion more per year. Regarding solar, we think NextEra Energy Resources might invest $500 million or more per year outside of Florida and that our Florida Power & Light subsidiary might invest about $1 billion a year inside Florida.” Last but not least, he wrote, a new law would be a “huge factor” in deciding whether to move forward with new nuclear units.

Similarly, David Crane, the C.E.O. of NRG Energy, wrote that with a new law, his company could double the number of clean energy projects, from 17 to 36; it could triple the megawatts of clean generating capacity it is planning to add; it could produce three times as much nuclear power and 40 times as much coal with carbon capture and sequestration.

You get the sense that this country is straining against the leash, eager for a new wave of energy development. There will be excess, stupidity and greed along the way. But it would be simply amazing if, through some set of narrow political gamesmanship, Washington continued to stand in the way of all this.

Rubin -- Were You a Humble Hound?

(c) 2010 F. Bruce Abel

Robert Rubin, you appear to be a Humble Hound who was too humble. Herein David Brooks's excellent piece today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/opinion/09brooks.html?hp

Two Columns and Hope

(c) 2010 F. Bruce Abel

Two columns give me great hope today: Brooks and Krugman. Both in the NYT.

Op-Ed Columnist
Health Reform Myths
comments (5)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 11, 2010
Health reform is back from the dead. Many Democrats have realized that their electoral prospects will be better if they can point to a real accomplishment. Polling on reform — which was never as negative as portrayed — shows signs of improving. And I’ve been really impressed by the passion and energy of this guy Barack Obama. Where was he last year?
Times Topics: Health Care Reform
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (5) »
But reform still has to run a gantlet of misinformation and outright lies. So let me address three big myths about the proposed reform, myths that are believed by many people who consider themselves well-informed, but who have actually fallen for deceptive spin.
The first of these myths, which has been all over the airwaves lately, is the claim that President Obama is proposing a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy, the share of G.D.P. currently spent on health.

Well, if having the government regulate and subsidize health insurance is a “takeover,” that takeover happened long ago. Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs already pay for almost half of American health care, while private insurance pays for barely more than a third (the rest is mostly out-of-pocket expenses). And the great bulk of that private insurance is provided via employee plans, which are both subsidized with tax exemptions and tightly regulated.
The only part of health care in which there isn’t already a lot of federal intervention is the market in which individuals who can’t get employment-based coverage buy their own insurance. And that market, in case you hadn’t noticed, is a disaster — no coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions, coverage dropped when you get sick, and huge premium increases in the middle of an economic crisis. It’s this sector, plus the plight of Americans with no insurance at all, that reform aims to fix. What’s wrong with that?

The second myth is that the proposed reform does nothing to control costs. To support this claim, critics point to reports by the Medicare actuary, who predicts that total national health spending would be slightly higher in 2019 with reform than without it.
Even if this prediction were correct, it points to a pretty good bargain. The actuary’s assessment of the Senate bill, for example, finds that it would raise total health care spending by less than 1 percent, while extending coverage to 34 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured. That’s a large expansion in coverage at an essentially trivial cost.
And it gets better as we go further into the future: the Congressional Budget Office has just concluded, in a new report, that the arithmetic of reform will look better in its second decade than it did in its first.
Furthermore, there’s good reason to believe that all such estimates are too pessimistic. There are many cost-saving efforts in the proposed reform, but nobody knows how well any one of these efforts will work. And as a result, official estimates don’t give the plan much credit for any of them. What the actuary and the budget office do is a bit like looking at an oil company’s prospecting efforts, concluding that any individual test hole it drills will probably come up dry, and predicting as a consequence that the company won’t find any oil at all — when the odds are, in fact, that some of the test holes will pan out, and produce big payoffs. Realistically, health reform is likely to do much better at controlling costs than any of the official projections suggest.


Which brings me to the third myth: that health reform is fiscally irresponsible. How can people say this given Congressional Budget Office predictions — which, as I’ve already argued, are probably too pessimistic — that reform would actually reduce the deficit? Critics argue that we should ignore what’s actually in the legislation; when cost control actually starts to bite on Medicare, they insist, Congress will back down.
But this isn’t an argument against Obamacare, it’s a declaration that we can’t control Medicare costs no matter what. And it also flies in the face of history: contrary to legend, past efforts to limit Medicare spending have in fact “stuck,” rather than being withdrawn in the face of political pressure.
So what’s the reality of the proposed reform? Compared with the Platonic ideal of reform, Obamacare comes up short. If the votes were there, I would much prefer to see Medicare for all.
For a real piece of passable legislation, however, it looks very good. It wouldn’t transform our health care system; in fact, Americans whose jobs come with health coverage would see little effect. But it would make a huge difference to the less fortunate among us, even as it would do more to control costs than anything we’ve done before.
This is a reasonable, responsible plan. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Is Coakley a Canary?

(c) 2010 F. Bruce Abel

Today's the day in Massachusetts, for the Democratic party, for the health care bill, for the Commonwealth, and for the nation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/us/politics/19coakley.html?hpw

Coakley is the canary in the coal mine.

Are you happy with Obama?

Well, Brooks is on the case today with an answer.

The Pragmatic Leviathan


By DAVID BROOKS
Published: January 18, 2010
When I was in college, I was assigned “Leviathan,” by Thomas Hobbes. On the cover was an image from the first edition of the book, published in 1651. It shows the British nation as a large man. The people make up the muscles and flesh. Then at the top, there is the king, who is the head and the mind.
Skip to next paragraph

David Brooks
Go to Columnist Page »

The Conversation
David Brooks and Gail Collins talk between columns. All Conversations »
Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »
When the Pilgrims left Britain to come to America, they left behind that metaphor as well. For these settlers, and the immigrants who have come since, the American nation is not a body with the government as the brain. Instead, America has been defined by its vast landscape and the sprawling energy of its entrepreneurs, scientists and community-builders.
In times of crisis, Americans rally around their government, but most of the time they have treated it as a supporting actor in national life. Americans are an unusual people, with less deference to central authority and an unparalleled faith in themselves. They seem to want a government that is helpful but not imperious, strong but subordinate.
Over the years, American voters have reacted against any party that threatens that basic sense of proportion. They have reacted against a liberalism that sought an enlarged and corrosive government and a conservatism that threatened to dismantle the government’s supportive role.
A year ago, the country rallied behind a new president who promised to end the pendulumlike swings, who seemed likely to restore equilibrium with his moderate temper and pragmatic mind.
In many ways, Barack Obama has lived up to his promise. He has created a thoughtful, pragmatic administration marked by a culture of honest and vigorous debate. When Obama makes a decision, you can be sure that he has heard and accounted for every opposing argument. If he senses an important viewpoint is not represented at a meeting, he will stop the proceedings and demand that it gets included.
If the evidence leads him in directions he finds uncomfortable, he will still follow the evidence. He is beholden to no ideological camp, and there is no group in his political base that he has not angered at some point in his first year.
But his has become a voracious pragmatism. Driven by circumstances and self-confidence, the president has made himself the star performer in the national drama. He has been ubiquitous, appearing everywhere, trying to overhaul most sectors of national life: finance, health, energy, automobiles and transportation, housing, and education, among others.
He is no ideologue, but over the past year he has come to seem like the sovereign on the cover of “Leviathan” — the brain of the nation to which all the cells in the body and the nervous system must report and defer.
Americans, with their deep, vestigial sense of proportion, have reacted. The crucial movement came between April and June, when the president’s approval rating among independents fell by 15 percentage points and the percentage of independents who regarded him as liberal or very liberal rose by 18 points. Since then, the public has rejected any effort to centralize authority or increase the role of government.
Trust in government has fallen. The share of Americans who say the country is on the wrong track has risen. The share who call themselves conservative has risen. The share who believe government is “doing too many things better left to business” has risen.
The country is now split on Obama, because he is temperate, thoughtful and pragmatic, but his policies are almost all unpopular. If you aggregate the last seven polls on health care reform, 41 percent support it and 51 percent oppose.
Many Democrats, as always, are caught in their insular liberal information loop. They think the polls are bad simply because the economy is bad. They tell each other health care is unpopular because the people aren’t sophisticated enough to understand it. Some believe they can still pass health care even if their candidate, Martha Coakley, loses the Senate race in Massachusetts on Tuesday.
That, of course, would be political suicide. It would be the act of a party so arrogant, elitist and contemptuous of popular wisdom that it would not deserve to govern. Marie Antoinette would applaud, but voters would rage.
The American people are not always right, but their basic sense of equilibrium is worthy of the profoundest respect. President Obama has shown himself to be a fine administrator, but he erred in trying to make himself the irreplaceable man in nearly ever sphere of public life. He erred in not sensing that even a pragmatic government could seem imperious and alarming.
If I were President Obama, I would spend the next year showing how government can serve a humble, helpful and supportive role to the central institutions of American life. Even in blue states like Massachusetts, voters want a government that is energetic but limited — a servant, not a leviathan.
RecommendNext Article in Opinion (1 of 30) » A version of this article appeared in print on January 19, 2010, on page A31 of the New York edition.

Brooks -- Health Care

(c) 2009 F. Bruce Abel

This is timely and seriously thought-out. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html?_r=1&hp

Brooks on The Rush Limbaugh Effect

(c) 2009 F. Bruce Abel


An important piece:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/opinion/02brooks.html?_r=1

Brooks -- A New View of Afghanistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/opinion/25brooks.html

Comments on Brooks on Kristol

And oh the comments on Brooks's paean to Irving Kristol, obviously his favorite mentor.
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/opinion/22brooks.html

Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Opinion
World
U.S.
N.Y. / Region
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
Opinion
Arts
Style
Travel
Jobs
Real Estate
Autos
Editorials
Columnists
Contributors
Letters
The Public Editor
Global Opinion
Three Cheers for IrvingBack to Article »
By DAVID BROOKS
Irving Kristol thrust himself into every ideologically charged battle of his age, but he was able to pick a side without losing his clarity.
Comments are no longer being accepted.

163 Readers' Comments
All Comments
Editors' Selections
Readers' Recommendations
Replies
Oldest
Newest
of 7Next
1.
George Neal
Steilacoom, WA
September 22nd, 2009
6:53 am
Nice job! It's always a pleasure to read of someone who has a bias, but is non-ideological and pragmatic. Thansk for so many insights into people I rarely read about!
Recommended by 43 Readers
2.
soso
Canada
September 22nd, 2009
6:53 am
Finally, the shackles locking the minds of decent conservatives is off.
Recommended by 10 Readers
3.
RoughAcres
New York
September 22nd, 2009
6:53 am
wow... first President Obama on David Letterman, and now this.Nice listening to/about people who THINK for a change.Thanks.
Recommended by 27 Readers
4.
Barbara
NY
September 22nd, 2009
6:53 am
A nice tribute, but it breaks what you state was Kristol's practice. Where's the scrutiny and the skepticism?
Recommended by 19 Readers
5.
Matthew
Portland, OR
September 22nd, 2009
6:53 am
It is a pity Irving Kristol's ability to rationally analyze and compromise wasn't passed on to many of his political heirs.
Recommended by 120 Readers
6.
Tim Connor
Wheaton, IL
September 22nd, 2009
6:53 am
It is particularly fitting that David Brooks would defend the man who made the following statement:"Among the core social scientists around The Public Interest there were no economists…. This explains my own rather cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit and other monetary or fiscal problems. The task, as I saw it, was to create a new majority, which evidently would mean a conservative majority, which came to mean, in turn, a Republican majority – so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government…"David Brooks is the greatest modern practicioner of using apparent earnestness to mask systematic misrepresentation to justify the often inexcusable behavior of his patrons and benefactors --who happen to be the same powerful interests served by Iring Kristol.I have news for you David. We are held accountable for our actions. And you cannot be forgiven if you do not repent.
Recommended by 413 Readers
7.
Ortrud Radbod
Antwerp, Belgium
September 22nd, 2009
6:53 am
Irving Kristol was a reactionary right wing revanchist. Don't sugar coat him, Brooks. Don't even try.
Recommended by 306 Readers
8.
Richard Bowes
Manhattan
September 22nd, 2009
6:53 am
For what it's worth Edmund Burke was Anglo Irish.
Recommended by 15 Readers
9.
MNW
Connecticut
September 22nd, 2009
6:53 am
Somehow I think Irving Kristol would approve of the following comment from an enlightened Norwegian.A Real Socialist StateAs a Norwegian, looking at the U.S. health care debate from the outside, I cannot help but laugh sometimes. It seems like the word “socialism” has become a swear word. In Norway, we just re-elected a “socialist” government. That does not mean that we live in a communist state. We have full-fledged capitalism over here, and we are just about the richest country in the world, per capita. But we have chosen to let the state supply world class health care to all inhabitants.To allow private insurance companies to let private profit maximizing decisions get in between a patient and a doctor is close to unethical for us. In Norway, you get the same care no matter if you are a homeless drunk or the C.E.O. of one of the biggest companies. And that’s how it should be. They say that the measure of a country’s success lies in how it treats its most unfortunate citizens.— Gjert MyrestrandYour hero would approve of your climbing aboard, Mr. Brooks. Have a nice day.
Recommended by 438 Readers
10.
mickster
Seattle, WA
September 22nd, 2009
6:53 am
There seems to a confusion on the right. Buckley is dead, Kristol is dead. How to separate out the kooks from the conservatives.We now have Rush, Oreilly, Beck, Hannity as radio/tv talking heads angling for very large amounts of money 50million+ dollars. Competing to be most outrageous. I can say something every more farout and outragreous than you. Vieing for market share and massive dollars for just running one's mouth that pleases the right wing in its current ephemeral form changing moment by moment, hour by hour. The race amongst the pundits seems to be who say the most outrageous thinkg about obama. The audience is open, wide open let the bidding start with the clain that obama want's to destroy this country. Yes start fro here. Its important to note that nothing can be said about obama that will unbelievable to the right wing true believers.
Recommended by 107 Readers
11.
Southernlight
Australia
September 22nd, 2009
6:53 am
RIP Mr. Kristol. Our world loses its light yet again....Thanks for the column Mr. Brooks. It was inspiring.
Recommended by 25 Readers
12.
Jim
New York
September 22nd, 2009
7:34 am
If Mr. Kristol was indeed able to see the flaws in his belief systemn and was therefore not an idealogical purist what happened to his followers? Somewhere along the line they must have been asleep during his lectures on the values of improving the human condition. That is unless you count improving the Human condition of a priviliged few at the expense of the many.
Recommended by 123 Readers
13.
Basil Marasco, Jr.
Rochester, NY
September 22nd, 2009
7:34 am
Mr Brooks, I've often wondered if the purpose of becoming as well-educated as you are is to be able to know the difference, for example, between what is "creative" and what is "destructive", or at least what is "creative in most cases" and likewise destructive.I now suspect that the purpose of SOME students' education is to develop a talent for fusing antonyms together in order to debilitate the real meaning of each and so leave a debate muddled beyond usefulness or benefit.Does the concept of "destructive creativity" lend itself to mathematical evaluation? Can an example of it be proven to be clearly more destructive than creative? Or vice versa? Or is it just a beguiling little phrase that comes in handy when suggesting that the American middle class--between the post-war boom, the benefits of the New Deal, and organized labor--had just gotten too secure? That a "job for life" was the flawed element of our market economy and that the education gotten between the ages of 5 and 18 should never have been considered sufficient?Pray tell, what is "destructive creativity"? Why not devote an entire column to it, complete with history (if any), definitions (preferably free of ambiguities), and examples. Above all, I'd like to know how to avoid the "destructive" part of it.
Recommended by 89 Readers
14.
Thomas W.
Germany
September 22nd, 2009
7:34 am
Are the 'conservative predispositions of the people' the predispositions of those in constant terror that the majority will find out that the majority has been taken for a ride, and who, as a result, cannot quite bring themselves to believe in democracy, while at the same time praising democracy and trying hard to bring it to other failed states?If Irving Kristol indeed favored the insurance view on governmental activity in labor markets, health and life insurance and retirement benefits, then he was a very innovative and progressive thinker indeed - discovering what Bismarck knew and what the german conservatives knew after WWII, and what the founders of the state of Israel knew.I sincerely doubt that the final analysis is in on whether it was The Grand Inquisitor or his counterpart who understood better what it means and takes to not be a schmuck.
Recommended by 21 Readers
15.
vballboy
Highland NY
September 22nd, 2009
7:34 am
I wish you condolence for losing an admired intellectual leader of neoconservatism.That said, while fiscal restraint in government spending appears a primal focus of modern neoconservatives, I am still baffled at how supposed neoconservatives quietly let the Bush Administration commit America to years of spending for an unnecessary Iraq War and GWOT. This long term, some would even say endless, commitment requires spending hundreds of billions every year which does not sit well with me in the greater context of fiscal conservatism.How is spending on near-endless war morally or ethically acceptable whereas spending on certain other political ideologies considered heinous? The spend-thrift logic is not clear on this...
Recommended by 191 Readers
16.
AT Lardner
Granada, Spain
September 22nd, 2009
7:34 am
"Don’t fall for fantastical notions that have nothing to do with the way people really are"...hmmm, I am grateful that Irving Kristol knew (and, we are to surmise) David Brooks knows "the way people really are". Obviously a clear indicator of "detached attachment"...
Recommended by 23 Readers
17.
jcoyle
paris
September 22nd, 2009
7:34 am
As one who has learned much from Irving Kristol's writing, I would tend to sum up David Brooks's three sources of Kristol's excellence--ethnic, philosophical and moral--as a particular ability to see and absorb wisdom. Perhaps this is another way of stating his self-description as having detached attachment. Reinhold Niebuhr had a similar talent, the ability to distance himself from the world around him, seeing it more whole and clear, as if he were an historian writing about the distant past. All this leaves me wondering why many of Kristol's closest collaborators and followers in neo-conservatism--I think especially of Norman Podhoretz and Irving's son, Bill--seem not to have absorbed this distancing capacity and constant sense of the brokenness of humanity.Joseph S. CoyleParis
Recommended by 52 Readers
18.
OETKB
Reading, Ma
September 22nd, 2009
7:34 am
As John McEnroe is inclined to say, "You can't be serious." We see none of his disciples having the inclination to take the general public into consideration on any policy as you intimate. By your reckoning his son, William, should be trumpeting Medicare For All. From a purely business point of view it would serve the cause of open markets by providing more capital. Forget the 45,000 who die each year needlessly from lack of insurance or the over the top bankruptcies because people become seriously ill. Neocons start wars, deepen poverty, despoil the environment and take no responsibility for their actions. Even after abundant evidence their cloistered ideas don't work, it is somebody else's fault, and there is no adjustments in their thinking. Yes an influential political philosopher has died but let's not use his passing to idolize unsubstantiated ideology over critical thinking. May he rest in peace.
Recommended by 292 Readers
19.
audreygoodman
Cherry Hill, NJ
September 22nd, 2009
7:34 am
Three cheers to you, for emulating this giant in your own thought and writing. No matter how negative or positive you are about a government policy or economic plan, you can stand somewhat detached and point out its imperfections.This long-time liberal can agree with Irving on several things--that no policy or law can really change the way people think or feel, and that any system of economics or politics will have some overlooked or unintended negative consequences.Accepting the imperfections in human efforts as well as human beings is a big step in becoming mature. I'd hope that we could start getting there and stop yelling at each other sooner rather than later, but know I have to be patient about that too.
Recommended by 32 Readers
20.
Mike
ct
September 22nd, 2009
7:34 am
He wa an influential thinker who will be missed by many. My condolences to his family.
Recommended by 11 Readers
21.
Mark
ny
September 22nd, 2009
7:34 am
Kristol was an avid supporter of the invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was the worst foreign policy debacle in US history. Yet, somehow Mr. Brooks fails to mention this fact. We may forgive some mistakes but we cannot forgive one that has cost the lives of so many Americans and Iraqis and cost trillions of dollars. For this alone Irving Kristol was an abject failure, unworthy of the eulogy that Brooks gives him here.This country has to start dealing with facts.
Recommended by 348 Readers
22.
Jeff-for-progress
Washington, DC
September 22nd, 2009
9:45 am
Brooks is rapidly becoming the Dr. Joyce Brothers of American conservatism. It reminds me of the scene in Mel Brooks movie "High Anxiety," where before a conference of psychologists, Brooks (the Mel one), is the Director of the "Institute for the Very, Very Nervous," thanks Brothers, for giving them all "a very nice living." What one sees in Kristol's career is a pattern of economic opportunism. Which Brooks who has followed on the conservative gravy train has tried to paint here as a Profile in Courage.His disingenuous analysis also seems to be particularly self-serving, especially when he says: "So while others were marching to barricades, picking out bits of the truth that confirmed their own prejudices, editing contrary evidence and working themselves up a righteous lather, Kristol would adopt an attitude of smiling forbearance. He was able to pick a side without losing his clarity."Which reminds me of Brooks most recent previous column where he picks out a bit of truth about teabaggers getting lunch from Family Reunion people on the Mall and listening to soul music and coming to the conclusion that race had little to no relation to the opposition to Obama. I suppose Brooks identifies with the supposed Kristol forbearance in holding on to his economically lucrative views, without losing his clarity, from where his next paycheck was coming from. Hint: racism is seldom a black and white thing, but usually is triggered by a disproportionate amount of imappropriate passion given to an issue where the offender is the racial target. Yes, this sort of thing happens with blacks as well, as several episodes of inappropriate response that have occurred with Al Sharpton protests. But, Brooks, supposes that somehow his is the "neutral" point of view. Fat chance.Finally, E.J. Dionne in The Washington Post while acknowledging Kristol's sense of bonhomie, as Brooks does, noted that in a 1968 New Republic article ("Why I Support Hubert Humphrey") that he opposed Richard Nixon, for precisely the same reasons that the current crop of conservatives have become so ideologically distempered:"(T)o my mind, the election has already narrowed itself down to the choice between Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon as President of the United States. These are the only two candidates who make a nationwide, "majority appeal" to the American electorate. In these pages, I need not explain why the prospect of electing Mr. Nixon depresses me. Suffice it to say that he appeals to the wrong majority to govern the United States in these times--a majority whose dominant temper will be sullenly resentful of the social changes we have been experiencing and impulsively reactionary toward the crises we shall inevitably be enduring."It would seem that Barack Obama represents the type of moderate liberalism that Hubert Humphrey did and that the current state of mean spirited racially tinged conservatism is reflective of "the wrong majority" sullenly resentful of the changes we have been seeing." However, this time Kristol had switched his allegiance since 1972 to the sullen resentful side of a wrong majority, and persisted in clear-eyed fashion, and to to oppose the right majority, which he once persuasively argued for. This hardly calls for three cheers, although Kristol's opposition to Joe McCarthy and his previous support for Hubert Humphrey might, in the spirit of not speaking ill of the dead, elicit one cheer. The other two cheers in the title, appears to me, David cheering for himself.
Recommended by 82 Readers
23.
Martin
Apopka, Florida
September 22nd, 2009
9:46 am
Hardly three cheers for Irving. As the literal father of William Kristol and philosophical father of the tragic neoconservative movement, the legacy of Irving Kristol one of death and destruction, corruption and war crimes. As an American Jew, I cannot be proud of any sort of link with this man.
Recommended by 166 Readers
24.
qualquan
Evanston
September 22nd, 2009
9:46 am
It is no surprise Brooks loved fellow Neocon Irvine Kristol. They both readily sacrificed America's interest in championing the horribly expensive budget and economy busting Iraq war based on transparent lies.
Recommended by 112 Readers
25.
roberto
toscana
September 22nd, 2009
9:46 am
quite a man! so what has gone wrong with his followers, the neo-con? could it be that the man was all and that his neo-con ideals were, shall we say, flawed and destined to be "manipulated" and leave a questionable legacy(!)salutiroberto
Recommended by 13 Readers
of 7Next
Log In

Brooks -- On Irving Kristol

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/opinion/22brooks.html?hp

Comments on That Great Brooks Column

Opinion
World
U.S.
N.Y. / Region
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
Opinion
Arts
Style
Travel
Jobs
Real Estate
Autos
Editorials
Columnists
Contributors
Letters
The Public Editor
Global Opinion
modifyNavigationDisplay();

Letters
A Time for Humility, Not Hubris
Twitter
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
ShareClose
Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
MySpace
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink

Published: September 17, 2009
To the Editor:
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Fogelson-Lubliner

Re “High-Five Nation,” by David Brooks (column, Sept. 15):
Thanks to Mr. Brooks for his column. When the president addresses Congress and is engulfed by excessive applause and shouting, a moment of humble reflection might be more appropriate. Consider the track record of our political leaders over the last 40 years or so, and the challenges America faces.
Vietnam, Chile, Iraq and Afghanistan. Support for murderous military regimes in Central America. One presidential impeachment and one resignation. The financial hijacking of American culture. Countless examples of pandering, lying and slanderous political campaigns and rampant corporate corruption with no reforms in sight.
Greed remains unchecked on Wall Street, and we continue flirting with financial ruin. An alarming percentage of our children don’t finish school.
Climate-change issues loom, tens of millions can’t afford health insurance, and we waste precious time appeasing a fringe that apparently thinks catcalls, insults and half-truths are the keys to effective governance.
What has happened to the United States of America? Why do we stumble so?
Perhaps a little more humility would be good for everyone.
Steve WackerSeattle, Sept. 15, 2009
•
To the Editor:
David Brooks has it right. We’ve become a culture of me, me, me. I’ve seen social Darwinism spread from Wall Street to Main Street, killing alliances that were fostered by generations.
My father fought in World War II; he was a P.O.W. who never asked for anything for himself, just the chance to make a better world for his kids. As his generation passes, I think we owe it more than vainglory and a case of me-first.
In these troubling times, I hope we’ll worry about our neighbor first and ourselves last, and that we’ll pass forward the legacy whole generations have entrusted to us ... humility and love for our fellow man.
John Thomas EllisKentfield, Calif., Sept. 16, 2009
•
To the Editor:
While I agree wholeheartedly with most of David Brooks’s column regarding excess and a lack of humility in contemporary society, I take issue with one of his points.
Mr. Brooks states that in 1945, “humility, the sense that nobody is that different from anybody else, was a large part of the culture then.”
In fact, Jim Crow laws dominated the American South in 1945, and Major League Baseball would not be desegregated until two years later.
It’s worth remembering that every era has its ugly side.
Paula EdelsonDurham, N.C., Sept. 15, 2009
•
To the Editor:
Perhaps the most modest statement of historic achievement was the message sent to the War Office in London by Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower after he had accepted the Nazis’ surrender in Reims, France. All it said was:
“The mission of this Allied Force was fulfilled at 02.41, local time, May 7th, 1945.”
Robert HummerstoneStonington, Conn., Sept. 15, 2009
•
To the Editor:
David Brooks reminds us of something worth thinking about: the “Greatest Generation” would never have called itself “The Greatest Generation.”Ron BonnSan Diego, Sept. 15, 2009
•
To the Editor:
David Brooks’s column rings true to those of us of a certain age. In my lifetime (56 years), people smoke less, cars are better built, and women and minorities play increasingly important roles in our society. All of these are good things, of course, but the present-day immodesty in America is shameful.
When the most popular rejoinder to “thank you” is “no problem,” that national modesty to which Mr. Brooks refers seems to be more of a lost art form, reflecting a growing indifference and self-absorption.
Jon HuntOld Greenwich, Conn., Sept. 15, 2009
•
To the Editor:
Many thanks to David Brooks for his eloquent paean to humility.
He is correct: the sort of modesty expressed in the World War II-era “Command Performance” broadcast is today in very short supply.
I learned two things from his column. One, at the end of a horrendous war, our nation had the wherewithal to express modesty and gratitude instead of merely flag-waving jingoism. Two, Mr. Brooks’s public radio station is better than mine.
Anthony HatcherElon, N.C., Sept. 15, 2009
Sign in to RecommendNext Article in Opinion (14 of 27) » A version of this article appeared in print on September 17, 2009, on page A32 of the New York edition.
Sign In to E-Mail
Print


Holocaust and the Nazi Era Get E-Mail Alerts
Social Conditions and Trends Get E-Mail Alerts
Sociology Get E-Mail Alerts
Next Article in Opinion (14 of 27) »

MOST POPULAR
E-Mailed
Blogged
Searched
In Portland’s Restaurants, a Down East Banquet
Thomas L. Friedman: Have a Nice Day
Mind: When a Parent’s ‘I Love You’ Means ‘Do as I Say’
Maureen Dowd: Rapping Joe’s Knuckles
Rosh Hashana, Circa 1919
Why Did Tavern Fail?
Indian Women Find New Peace in Rail Commute
Mary Travers of Peter, Paul and Mary Dies at 72
Magazine Preview: The Holy Grail of the Unconscious
Books: One Injury, 10 Countries: A Journey in Health Care Go to Complete List »
Conservatives Draw Blood From Acorn, Favored Foe
New Objections to Baucus Health Care Proposal
Iraqi Who Threw Shoes at Bush Is Released
Mary Travers of Peter, Paul and Mary Dies at 72
High-Five Nation
Ignoring a Law on Foreign Relations
Senate Health Bill Draws Fire on Both Sides of Aisle
Fight Looming on Tax Break to Buy Houses
Rapping Joe's Knuckles
House Formally Rebukes Wilson for 'You Lie' Outburst Go to Complete List »
yale
acorn
health care
annie le
obama
september 4, 2009
china
kanye west
krugman
maureen dowd Go to Complete List »


Scenes from New York Fashion Week
Also in T Magazine »
Runway fantasy versus reality
Fashion Week designers pick their favorite places to eat




Inside NYTimes.com
N.Y. / Region »

How the Railroads Took Control of Time
Music »

The Anxiety of Being Influential
Fashion & Style »

The Summer of the Celebrity Deaths?
Opinion »
How to Improve the Baucus Plan
A Room for Debate forum on the flaws and strengths of the health care bill.


Letters: A Time for Humility, Not Hubris

Brooks -- Health Care

(c) 2009 F. Bruce Abel

Does David Brooks love Obama or what? How he has come around over the last three years, from being a devout Republican to being a supporter of the Democrats under Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/opinion/11brooks.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1252667669-QX/AqluK/NGstUpg++Yvzw

Brooks and Collins -- On Ted Kennedy

http://theconversation.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/the-prosaic-ted-kennedy/?ref=opinion

Brooks -- Health Care and Killing the Rhinos

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/opinion/24brooks.html?_r=1

Brooks -- Health Care

When he speaks on health care I listen. Remember, he supported Bush. He sees failure on what is going through Congress:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/opinion/10brooks.html

Herbert -- On Robert McNamara

McNamara dies; Herbert responds and remembers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/opinion/07herbert.html