His article is in today's N.Y. Times, under the title, The Mother of All No Brainers I did a check on tags and I couldn't find a diary on it here, but one should be on the record.
Brooks is known as the N.Y. Times house conservative, filling a position held with distinction for many years by William Safire. I always felt that he was honest, and transcended partisanship, which was often not the opinion on this site. We now see the value of someone like him being a part of the N.Y. Times, as he is in a unique position to use his principle, which coincide with a traditional center right position, to evaluate the current Republican party.
In order to keep within fair use guidelines I will mostly paraphrase, but the column should be read in its entirety.
He starts by lauding the party, particularly the Republican controlled House for being so effective in pursuing their goals of cutting government over the last year. These first three paragraphs could have been an opening for a Republican rally, and I didn't know quite where he was going.
Then he introduces the term, "normal party" in the context of what Republicans would do if they were such a thing instead of what they have become.
A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.
The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.
This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.
At this point he shifts, and differentiates what had been the normal center right party whose values he endorse and something completely different, a member of a "movement", an entity that has been infected with a "pathology" that he simply refers to as "Republicans."
If anyone refers to David Brooks as a Republican, based on this article, they would no longer be accurate.
---------------
He sees them as more a protest movement than a political party. I would go further and call it anarchic hatred of all government. They see any compromise a a sign of weakness, and raise the bar just a bit beyond whatever was offered by the despised other side. He accuses them of ignoring a thousand impartial experts describing the calamitous effects of refusing to raise the debt ceiling.
Brooks says that they refuse to believe it, but I have my doubts. Romney, at the very least, understands that when a debtor, be it an individual or a country, seems willing to default, their obligations are immediately discounted. In the future they will have to pay more for such financing. While others running for the presidency may be deluded, Romney, now the front runner is not. I remember his exact words when he was asked at the last candidates debate, "Should we raise the debt limit." His answer:
No, not until President Obama shows leadership in reducing the spending that is causing the deficit.
There is a feedback loop between the current candidates for president and the public. They posture that increasing the debt limit would be to back down, and that they won't do it. Hearing this, the public actually believes it, and then demands that none of them fold. This was displayed in a snippet of a phone video of Newt Gingrich being asked about the debt limit increase. He said, "I think the Republican Congress will pass it." The person in the crowd said, "why don't we bring it to a head, cause a crisis?" Gingrich didn't pause, and responded, "Hey, I'm with you."
Back to Brooks:
The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.
The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.
But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol.
Brooks gets down the developing standoff on the debt limit increase and concludes that if its not passed the public will blame Republican fanaticism, and they will pay the price for their irresponsibility.
If the debt ceiling talks fail, independents voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.
And they will be right.
The sad thing is that it won't be only Republicans who pay the price; it will be our country, and and very possibly, the world.