« Does the simulation have an evil or indifferent designer? | Main | The Pixar Touch »
David Brooks, in a nutshell?
Wunderkind Ben Casnocha summarizes a talk:
David Brooks, columnist, New York Times:
- "I'll be brief because many of you are academics, and you're not here to hear me talk, you're here to hear yourselves talk."
- He likes Edmund Burke.
- People learn when there's an emotional connection.
- All factions of conservative movement united around distrust of government - this ain't enough.
- Obama's perceptiveness / self-awareness / stability is striking.
- McCain's morality is based on honor, not morality. #1 trait is aloofness - somewhat detached personality.
- Conservatism shouldn't have permanent policies (like tax cuts): don't get moral about a situational policy issue.
- Conservatism is about not knowing much; modest about what we can know/do.
- Conservatism is philosophy first, policy second. Liberalism is policy first, philosophy later.
- Conservatism values social mobility more than equality.
- Top issues in the election: bipartisanship, immigration, healthcare.
- People aren't solely self-interested economic rational creatures. If this were the case, why would 30% of students drop out of high school even though it's econ ruinous to do so?
- What's the point of being a democrat if you can't play the class card?
- Bush seems 40 IQ points smarter in private than in public.
I agree with many of these, although I am not sure that conservatism puts philosophy first. Does it not put experience first? Also, I think the main issue in the election is George W. Bush.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 15, 2008 at 04:15 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
I don''t know whether it's a cultural thing but I disagree that liberals value outright equality over social mobility - or that conservatives care much for social mobility. The chief insight of liberalism in my part of the world is that great inequality makes social mobility de facto impossible.
Posted by: Finnsense at May 15, 2008 5:04:28 AM
If the current administration count as conservative then the certainly put philosophy (read ideology) above experience (read empiricism).
Liberals (at least the ones i know) value experience above philosophy. Putting policy first is just a way of saying "let's do what works"
It's a strange world when i agree with Brooks. Maybe things are different from how they used to be.
Posted by: Boris at May 15, 2008 5:57:52 AM
Somehow I think that the War in Iraq will be slightly more important than immigration in this election.
Posted by: at May 15, 2008 6:22:20 AM
Well, sounds great, but I wonder if this definition is not too vague so as not to exclude anyone. Except for the part on equality, I wouldn't find much to object to, and I am a Social Democrat.
I got a similar feeling reading Andrew Sullivan's (excellent) book on Conservatism. I'm not into Reagan, but the philosophical bits sound great.
Posted by: NPTO at May 15, 2008 8:21:31 AM
..."people aren't solely self-interested..." well...when you drop out, you do make more...for at least a couple years; and if people go to college, you're making more than them at least until they get out of college. That's more of a time-frame issue than a self-interest issue. I thought the same about the conservative/liberal distinction--the two seem backward, as the caricature is: liberal-'intentions at any cost', conservative-'results at any cost.'
Posted by: shawn at May 15, 2008 8:30:46 AM
Two legs bad, four legs good.
Posted by: dichotomies for simple minds at May 15, 2008 8:46:13 AM
Two legs bad, four legs good.
Posted by: dichotomies for simple minds at May 15, 2008 8:46:42 AM
I'm trying to see how the last eight years demonstrate a Conservative distrust of government, but I'll admit that I'm failing. Beyond the widespread domestic surveillance and creation of a huge new bureaucracy for fighting terrorism, it's not too clear how the medicare drug benefit or NCLB or the massive (and largely corrupt) spending of the Republican congress reflect a distrust of government.
I would not be surprised if Bush was much more intelligent than he acts on TV. He apparently took his accent and vocabulary far downmarket early in his political career.
Posted by: albatross at May 15, 2008 8:58:21 AM
Bismarckian National Greatness Conservatism ist totgeschlagen worden. Brooks just doesn't know it yet.
Posted by: bjk at May 15, 2008 9:12:16 AM
Having legislatures decide how women should use their wombs doesn't sound like 'mistrust of government' either.
Posted by: yoyo at May 15, 2008 9:31:13 AM
Why should kids go to school and get a job when the liberals will pay them to do nothing?
Why were unemployment, taxes and interest rates so high and the inner cities crumbling until Ronald Reagan came along?
Why do conservatives emphasize common sense while liberals push ideology?
Why do liberals believe sending more money to Washington is a good thing?
Conservatives believe in freedom, property rights, and the rule of law while liberals believe in coercion and one-size-fits-all.
Conservatives view equality as a nice fantasy while liberals use it as a steamroller.
Posted by: jorod at May 15, 2008 9:49:10 AM
While obviously somewhat facile in some respects, Brooks does describe reasonably accurately a certain type of conservatism that does indeed have a few advocates even here in the United States. But it doesn't have much (any?) relationship to conservatism as it currently exists as a political movement in the United States.
Posted by: LarryM at May 15, 2008 10:29:00 AM
Brooks avoids the two big conservative elephants in the room that are dragging down the party. First, the vast majority of conservatives backed the president's pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. National greatness, we will go it alone (or with a "coalition of the willing"), the French are wimps, etc. is now pinned on the neocons, but until things started going wrong, this was all popular conservative rhetoric. This support has eroded somewhat, but the president remains above 60% approval among Republicans, most of whom are self described conservatives. Second, he doesn't mention the importance of conservative religion. The religious right has been an important base for the party, with considerable influence over judicial appointments and social policy towards gay rights, etc. To not mention these is to avoid the problems that are dragging the party down.
Posted by: liberalarts at May 15, 2008 10:46:35 AM
Kids dropping out of high school cannot visualize their economic futures, only their present. The frontal lobe is not completely functional yet, and it is here were we find the ability to posit our actions into the future.
Mr. Brooks has a man-crush on Obama. Warms my heart. :)
Posted by: Al at May 15, 2008 11:34:09 AM
1. "all factions of conservative movement united around distrust of government - this ain't enough."
Warning anecdotal evidence: I served on a long term, multiple defendant federal racketeering trial in the mid 90's. All of the self-identified conservatives explicitly trusted the government, up to saying we should vote guilty on the basis of the fact that the charges were presented by the government. I have found traces of this philosophy in every conservative I have ever met. As a disclaimer, most progressives seem to trust the "promise and potential" of government, while most conservatives I have met trusted the "power" of government law enforcement. Interesting dichotomies.
Certainly backed up with the present conservative SCOTUS "seemingly endless" deferment of trust for executive power and police power.
2. "Conservatism is about not knowing much; modest about what we can know/do."
Perhaps I misunderstand this, but don't conservatives, particularly the Burke/Kirk strains prefer systems where moral and legal imperatives are set prior, for instance fundamental religious authority? For instance, teaching religious philosophy (like creationism) or as Florida has done, declaring that History is a "fixed" fact, not open to interpretation?
I'm thinking here of Havel's sarcastic statement: “Why bother with the never ending, genuinely hopeless search for truth when a truth can be had so readily, all at once, in the form of an ideology or doctrine? Suddenly it is all so simple. Think of all the difficult questions which are answered in advance!”
I was under the impression, that in most conservative circles, that the preferred approach was indeed a form of a priori doctrinaire? Again, not that progressives, indeed many factions, do not also have this failing. But I was raised in a conservative environment, and it seems that the actual "conservative" movement has always been in oppositional to change? Knowledge or otherwise?
Posted by: Lawrence at May 15, 2008 11:40:16 AM
Conservatives are interested in necessary conditions (peace and security, property rights, etc) and liberals in sufficient conditions (healthcare and welfare, education, etc).
Posted by: bjk at May 15, 2008 12:08:51 PM
Sadly the bit about high school drop-outs shows he doesn't understand what economic rationality is. It only means you do what you believe to be in your best interest based on the information that you have (and that you believe). It does not mean you don't make mistakes.
Posted by: Noah Yetter at May 15, 2008 12:40:45 PM
''Bush seems 40 IQ points smarter in private than in public.''
Say What? is 'seems' a weasel word?
Were Bush 40 IQ points smarter in private he would find it to his advantage to appear 40 IQ points smarter in public.
Posted by: Joel at May 15, 2008 2:14:07 PM
The turn against the GOP is not just the Iraq war, it's the larger war. Basically most Americans are just sick and tired of living in a security state. Everyday travel is a hassle, everyone knows the TSA is a ridiculous farce but most people are scared to speak out against it; most people, even if they don't admit it, realize Guantamano is a horrendous besmirchment of everything the USA is supposed to stand for; people are just sick and tired of the "war on terror", bad government, and seeing America's name dragged through the mud by incompetents.
Posted by: vanya at May 15, 2008 2:32:31 PM
Come on Tyler.
You've argued that you think the presidency is primarily about foreign policy. Perhaps, but to say this election is all about George W. Bush is a little bit partisan, facile, and silly, no? Please don't become a Krugman.
It's true that that the next president can potentially (further) damage the country with an over-reaching, hegemonic foreign policy. The next president could also just as easily destroy the American social contract with a promise of all-you-can-eat lifetime healthcare.
The first role of the government is to do no harm. That is the essence of conservatism in my book.
Posted by: John at May 15, 2008 3:08:49 PM
And I thought they were about willful ignorance of any contrary evidence.
Posted by: Lord at May 15, 2008 3:25:28 PM
I don't think this election is going to be about Bush at all. Someone write that down and we'll check back later. Here's my reasoning.
People want to get the Bush/Clintons behind them (e.g., Obama?). They don't even want to think about the errors made, not even to criticize them. The fact is that the wars were popular back when we had the bloodlust of 9/11. People won't want to admit to themselves that they contributed to the errors, not even to muster up self-righteous indignation against a lame duck president. The left will try pin the tail on conservatism, but they won't get that the people are just so over it. It's done. I know I'm Bush-bashed out. But then I've done it more than the average Joe (more than the average Democrat congressman for that matter). Is the feeling universal? Just a hunch.
Posted by: Andrew at May 15, 2008 3:32:50 PM
"Somehow I think that the War in Iraq will be slightly more important than immigration in this election."
I must respectfully disagree with this statement. To many people, a war taking place overseas is very remote and really does not have any effect on their day to day lives. Sure, I have a few friends who have served in Iraq, but they all made it back OK. That is about the extent that the war has affected me, personally, in a tangible way. In contrast, just about every single day I personally witness tension about immigration policies - people fighting with a non-English speaker in a service job, reading ranting, racist Nazi-esqe comments on news sites every time any time a non-American party is involved, etc. Maybe this varies depending on where you live, but where I come from (D.C. area) there is a lot of underlying tension surrounding this immigration issue, and whoever is the next president is going to have to do something about it soon, before people start picking up the pitchforks and really start causing problems. These things affect people HERE, every day - the war (although a serious, grave issue), is just a news story.
Posted by: 12345 at May 15, 2008 4:32:49 PM
john...what Tyler says is the president's primary role, and what people think is the president's role are two different things (to oversimplify). Therefore, it's no contradiction for Tyler to think those two things simultaneously--what he thinks is important and what the median voter thinks (and therefore the election will be about).
Posted by: shawn at May 15, 2008 5:03:44 PM
When I was young, my dad had one of those fatherly quotes that just seems to stick with you...regardless of truth value.
"Liberals see solutions; conservatives realize there are tradeoffs."
Posted by: 1-2 at May 15, 2008 5:03:50 PM
Ah, 12345, I guess it all depends on whom you hang out with. My dad, for example, has me thinking that he's racist out of his... errr, passion over the issue. And my mom isn't much better: a seemingly less racist but just as insensitive. And hey, both conservatives and liberals express have that same general fear, but it's just two sides of the same coin: that is, immigration and free trade, respectively. There are a lot of anti-Wal-Mart, anti-China/India, anti-immigration people out there, and they're very passionate.
But ultimately, the presidency in the post-WWII era has generally been decided by the economy's performance under the incumbent party and by unpopular wars. Just graph GDP growth with incumbent votes to see what I mean. The economy (bad) and the war (unpopular) serve as two strikes against the Republicans. Unless being a black or female candidate is a big strike against the Democrats (IMO these days, the latter and especially the former likely won't hurt much and may even help!), then I can almost assuredly tell you that we're gonna have four years of blue.
Posted by: Daniel Reeves at May 15, 2008 5:15:38 PM
"30% of students drop out of high school"? Where does that number come from?
Posted by: josh at May 15, 2008 5:56:55 PM
Liberals appeal to need and greed.
The drop-out rate in the Chicago public schools is 50%. Public school monopoly at work...
Posted by: jorod at May 15, 2008 10:59:41 PM
"Everyday travel is a hassle, everyone knows the TSA is a ridiculous farce but most people are scared to speak out against it."
So vote Democrat, because they will make this better. LOL. They're the ones who unionized the TSA.
Posted by: Aaron at May 16, 2008 6:53:48 AM
