Mr. Brooks has his head up his ass again, as he attempts to give unsolicited advice to Democrats. He's not all wrong, as he says:
"The Democratic Gingrichians are different. They feel that Social Security is to Bush what health care reform was to Clinton - the big overreach that will allow the opposing party to deliver a devastating blow to the president, and maybe even regain control of Congress.
Their core belief is that Republicans have won of late because they have been ruthless and disciplined while Democrats have been responsible and wimpy."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/opinion/18brooks.html?hp
As everyone knows, the last sentence particularly is undeniably true. But Brooks goes on to counsel Democrats to continue on this "wimpy" road:
"The truth is that Democrats probably need a leader who will make liberals feel uncomfortable, the way Clinton did, not someone who will make them feel righteous and good."
Yes, just what we need. A leader to tell us our beliefs are wrong and that we must compromise and acquiesce in the destruction of our most cherished programs and beliefs. Yet Brooks proceeds to lecture us further:
"There is an essential asymmetry in American politics today. There are three conservatives in this country for every two liberals. A Republican can be quite conservative - like Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush - and still win the White House. But only one Democratic presidential candidate has won over 50 percent of the vote in the past 40 years (Jimmy Carter got 50.1 percent in 1976).
That means Republicans can rely on their core instincts and still win, while Democrats cannot."
Aside from the fact that use of the term "liberal" is not reflective of reality because it has become a perjorative and because "liberal" does not necessarily mean "populist," the answer is not to abandon "core instincts," but to convince the people that they should be followed. That is what Ronald Reagan and the right did in the 1970s, and Gingrich in the 1980s and 90s did, when they were facing an even more daunting task.
What we need is more "Gingrich Democrats," not to mention our version of a Newt Gingrich. We need to be bold, not timid. And we need to assert our core beliefs, like the protection of social security, not run from them. The last thing we need is morons like Brooks (as well as the Safires and the Wills) arrogantly lecturing us.