Tax Cuts, Terrorism, and the Real Meat of Politics
From: David Brooks
To: Joe KleinPosted Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2002, at 3:49 PM ETWho are these people?
Note: The first entry was sent last night.
Joe,
OK. I'll say it. The tax cut was venal. Venal, venal venal. I actually wrote a New York Times op-ed piece making this point when it passed. What offended me was not the idea of tax cuts. I'm for tax cuts that will invigorate the economy. But this one was so mindless. "It's your money," Bush kept telling people. It would have been much better to can the tax cut and use the money for Social Security reform. I completely agree.
But I've talked myself around to the proposition that corporatist Bush has been transformed by 9/11 into patriotic-challenge Bush. Please don't talk me out of it. We'll see tonight how true that is.
I hear good things about the speech. I gather there will be a mention of Iraq and Iran. The entire Cabinet agreed that the war on terror would not be complete while Saddam is in power. That puts anything on the domestic agenda to shame. I hope Bush will dispel the Carville-esque notion that foreign policy crises are just interruptions for domestic and economic policy, which is the real meat of politics. At this moment, that's nonsense. By the way, where do you stand on the Iraq issue?
As for campaign-finance reform. I'm afraid I'm with you. The money sloshing around Washington is a big problem, but McCain-Feingold is not much of a solution. The real power lobbyists have over politicians is the power of information. Lobbyists are mature, well-informed operators who know their issue and know how Congress works. Congressional staffs are dominated by 27-year-olds making $34,000 a year who are struggling to keep the dykes from bursting. Knowledge is power, and plugging the soft money loophole won't change that.
Let me set you up with a topic for tomorrow. Since you are among our leading experts on the Clinton mind, let me ask you, what good is intelligence? Mark Lilla just published a book on all the stupid judgments geniuses have made over the years. Along comes Bush, who lags Clinton by a good 25 IQ points, and he is a much better president—simply in terms of running an efficient White House, making quick and sure decisions on the fly, and winning the approval of the populace. I don't mean to ask you about the character question, but rather what mental facility would you look for if you could choose the next national leader?
Tax Cuts, Terrorism, and the Real Meat of Politics
From: David Brooks
To: Joe KleinPosted Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2002, at 3:49 PM ETWednesday Notes From the Fray Editor:
The main topic in the Fray is the State of the Union speech. REW-OEM explains here why he was tempted to join the 84% but ended up in the 16%, and asks "Why is it not possible to respect and applaud President Bush's positively spun and well transformed public demeanor, acknowledge his strength and steadfastness in difficult times, and yet still question the will and wisdom of his plans for our future?" More questions: Anita tries to answer Joe Klein's "how do you convince people that a certain selflessness is good for the soul…?" John-Paul Spiro read "bourgeois democratic nations…don't breed poisonous ideological groups" and wants to ask "What do you call Timothy McVeigh?" Why does Peter Lahey feel like a character from Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Click here to find out.
Reader Comments From The Fray:
What Brooks calls idealism could itself be called, and often has been, imperialism or the spread of global capitalism or an arrogant disrespect for the sovereignty of other nations. To define the "spreading" of any cultural force or view (democracy, capitalism, or hmmm say Christianity) by force as "idealistic" seems on the face of it absurdly ethnocentric and arrogant. One must, like Hegel, be willing to assert that one's culture represents the historical pinnacle and telos of human endeavor--in which case, every other country, including Great Britain (with their nasty socialist ways!) would have to be invaded and made to conform to the US Constitution in the name of American idealism. To suggest, as Brooks does, that bourgeois democracy represents the best that can be aspired to--well, that's a dim thought, made no brighter by being pasted with the shiny label of "idealism."
--J
(To find or answer this post, click here .)
Monday Notes From The Fray Editor:
Always check your quotations or the Fray will get you. All together now: "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness." (We'll miss out the "starving hysterical naked" bit.) Other phrases that caught readers attention were "by any means necessary" (in regard to questioning suspects) and "congenital DNA" (What other kind is there, asked one poster.) Urquhart says Klein "gets points for use of the word 'dudgeon,' which I've never seen outside of a Wodehouse novel." And there are plenty of discussions on Enron and the economy.
Reader Comments From The Fray:
Klein thinks we should be "interrogating the hell out of them by any means necessary." Does this include torture? I'd like to hear his opinion. And his reference to the nine families who lost loved ones is weak. Yes, we should remember the damage done by the terrorists. But that doesn't mean that every policy argument needs to have the approval of the relatives of the victims.
--Leonard
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
It seems to me the public's indifference about the extent of Enron's dealings with the Bush administration says more about the public than it does about our need to know. I doubt Cheney would risk the potential political damage of a court dispute if he didn't think the contents of his meeting notes were potentially more explosive. If Cheney's right, and this is just Dem hype, then prove us wrong and release the documents. Enron shareholders got screwed, in part, by a lack of corporate transparency. Cheney's claim that disclosing these documents could impair future leaders' ability to consult with corporation without fear of public scrutiny is, at best, disingenuous, at worst, more of the same opaqueness that got us in this mess.
--John Rogers
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
The Hilarious Results of Slate's "Write Like Sarah Palin" Contest
Does Your iPhone Really Need a Titanium Case?
Vice Presidents Say the Darnedest Things
The Golden Scissors Awards Are the Oscars of Black Hair
Slate's Complete Coverage of the Tiger Woods Scandal
The Awesome Spectacle of Glenn Beck's Live Performance of The Christmas Sweater
Wednesday Notes From the Fray Editor:
The main topic in the Fray is the State of the Union speech. REW-OEM explains here why he was tempted to join the 84% but ended up in the 16%, and asks "Why is it not possible to respect and applaud President Bush's positively spun and well transformed public demeanor, acknowledge his strength and steadfastness in difficult times, and yet still question the will and wisdom of his plans for our future?" More questions: Anita tries to answer Joe Klein's "how do you convince people that a certain selflessness is good for the soul…?" John-Paul Spiro read "bourgeois democratic nations…don't breed poisonous ideological groups" and wants to ask "What do you call Timothy McVeigh?" Why does Peter Lahey feel like a character from Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Click here to find out.
Reader Comments From The Fray:
What Brooks calls idealism could itself be called, and often has been, imperialism or the spread of global capitalism or an arrogant disrespect for the sovereignty of other nations. To define the "spreading" of any cultural force or view (democracy, capitalism, or hmmm say Christianity) by force as "idealistic" seems on the face of it absurdly ethnocentric and arrogant. One must, like Hegel, be willing to assert that one's culture represents the historical pinnacle and telos of human endeavor--in which case, every other country, including Great Britain (with their nasty socialist ways!) would have to be invaded and made to conform to the US Constitution in the name of American idealism. To suggest, as Brooks does, that bourgeois democracy represents the best that can be aspired to--well, that's a dim thought, made no brighter by being pasted with the shiny label of "idealism."
--J
(To find or answer this post, click here .)
Monday Notes From The Fray Editor:
Always check your quotations or the Fray will get you. All together now: "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness." (We'll miss out the "starving hysterical naked" bit.) Other phrases that caught readers attention were "by any means necessary" (in regard to questioning suspects) and "congenital DNA" (What other kind is there, asked one poster.) Urquhart says Klein "gets points for use of the word 'dudgeon,' which I've never seen outside of a Wodehouse novel." And there are plenty of discussions on Enron and the economy.
Reader Comments From The Fray:
Klein thinks we should be "interrogating the hell out of them by any means necessary." Does this include torture? I'd like to hear his opinion. And his reference to the nine families who lost loved ones is weak. Yes, we should remember the damage done by the terrorists. But that doesn't mean that every policy argument needs to have the approval of the relatives of the victims.
--Leonard
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
It seems to me the public's indifference about the extent of Enron's dealings with the Bush administration says more about the public than it does about our need to know. I doubt Cheney would risk the potential political damage of a court dispute if he didn't think the contents of his meeting notes were potentially more explosive. If Cheney's right, and this is just Dem hype, then prove us wrong and release the documents. Enron shareholders got screwed, in part, by a lack of corporate transparency. Cheney's claim that disclosing these documents could impair future leaders' ability to consult with corporation without fear of public scrutiny is, at best, disingenuous, at worst, more of the same opaqueness that got us in this mess.
--John Rogers
(To find or answer this post, click here.)