It's not every (any?) day that I learn something from David Brooks other than what the new set of Republican talking points are going to be. But it happened today.
Brooks's op-ed in the NY Times was, as usual, difficult to get through. But after a heavy dose of those-elitist-leftie-snobs-suck-the-most, he actually points out that, perhaps the person to fill the second highest position in the land should have something more than instinct to go on. But that wasn't really all that enlightening.
You see, I've been trying to understand why the Republicans are so inept at governing. They have smart people (don't groan). Yet, if you'll pardon the expression, why can't they keep the trains running on time. I thought it was just that they were greedy and/or corrupt. But, can't you still overpay contractors and hand off sweetheart deals to your business friends for projects that help the people too? (It worked for the Democrats) Anyway, I knew it had something to do with their dim view of government in general, but I still didn't have a satisfying answer for why they fail so miserably. Today, David Brooks provided it.
Sounding a little more than fatigued, he noted:
"In the current Weekly Standard, Steven Hayward argues that the nation’s founders wanted uncertified [totally uncertified, except that they were white, male, and owned property, of course] citizens to hold the highest offices in the land. They did not believe in a separate class of professional executives. They wanted rough and rooted people like Palin.
"I would have more sympathy for this view if I hadn’t just lived through the last eight years."
Turns out, the answer is embedded in the nature of the act itself. He said that governance is a "constructive act." Not having any actual experience governing, I didn't know that about it, but now it makes sense. The Republican mindset is one of destruction--starve the beast, government is the problem not the solution, etc. That is why smart people on the right can't seem to rub two sticks together when it comes to organizing and running public policy.
I think this is informative in the discussion of what "change" means to the two campaigns. The reality is both sides probably want to radically change the way government functions (if you have any doubts check out Bob Herbert's piece on McCain's health plan). The important consideration in deciding for whom to vote should be to determine which campaign is taking a constructive approach and which is likely to take a destructive view toward government. After all, you can always cure the cancer if you don't mind killing the patient.
Of course, true to form, Brooks carves out a nice little perch for himself (oh and "George Will, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum and Ross Douthat") from which to rain on Sarah Palin, but pulls up the ladder in the last line of the article to bar all you "smug condecen[dors]" out there who've been saying these things about her from the start.
anelitistsez what?
sincerely,
the Great Auk