Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Promised Land( Op-Ed By DAVID BROOKS)
New York Times ^ | November 29, 2003 | David Brooks

Posted on 11/29/2003 11:26:31 AM PST by luckydevi

The Promised Land By DAVID BROOKS

Published: November 29, 2003

The history of American conservatism is an exodus tale. It begins in the wilderness, in the early 1950's, with Russell Kirk, Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley Jr. writing tracts for small bands of true believers.

Conservatives crashed into the walls of power during the Goldwater debacle of 1964, and then breached those walls with Reagan's triumph 16 years later. But even with Reagan in the Oval Office, Republicans were not the majority party. Democrats controlled the House, and few Reaganites actually knew how to run a government.

In 1994, with the Gingrich revolution, the conservatives strode closer to the center of power. But even then, they were not quite there. For the rule of exodus tales is that the chiefs who lead in the wilderness and storm the citadels do not get to govern once their troops have occupied the city. Renegades are too combative to govern well.

It was only this week that we can truly say the exodus story is over, with the success of the Medicare reform bill. This week the G.O.P. behaved as a majority party in full. The Republicans used the powers of government to entrench their own dominance. They used their control of the federal budget to create a new entitlement, to woo new allies and service a key constituency group, the elderly.

From now on, as Tony Blankley observed in The Washington Times, if you work at an interest group and you want to know what's going on with your legislation, you have to go to the Republicans. The Democrats don't even know the state of play.

If you are the AARP, seeking a benefit, you have to go to the Republicans. If you are a centrist Democrat like John Breaux or Max Baucus seeking to pass legislation, you have to work with the Republicans.

Under the leadership of Bush, Frist, Hastert and DeLay, the Republicans have built a fully mature establishment of activist groups, think tanks and lobbyists, which is amazingly aloof from the older Washington establishment (not to mention the media establishment). Republicans now speak in that calm, and to their opponents infuriating, manner of those who believe they were born to rule.

The Democrats, meanwhile, behave just as the Republicans did when they were stuck in the minority. They complain about their outrageous mistreatment by the majority. They are right to complain. The treatment is outrageous. But the complaints only communicate weakness.

Democrats indulge in the joys of opposition. They get to sputter about fiscal irresponsibility, just as the green-eyeshade Republicans used to, as the majority party uses the power of the purse to buy votes. They get to make wild charges. They get to propose solutions that ignore inconvenient realities. They never have to betray their principles to get something done, and so they savor their own righteousness.

Minority parties are pure but defeated; governing parties are impure but victorious. The Republicans are now in the habit of winning, and are on permanent offense on all fronts. They offer tax cuts to stimulate the economy and please business. They nominate conservative judges to advance conservative social reform and satisfy religious conservatives. They fight a war on terror. They have even come to occupy the Democratic holy of the holies, the welfare state. In exchange for massive new spending, they demand competitive reforms.

The only drawback is that now, as the governing party, they have to betray some of the principles that first animated them. This week we saw dozens of conservatives, who once believed in limited government, vote for a new spending program that will cost over $2 trillion over the next 20 years.

In the past three years, federal education spending has increased by 65 percent. Unemployment benefit payments are up by 85 percent.

Many conservatives are dismayed over what has happened to their movement as it has grown fat and happy in the Promised Land. A significant rift has opened up between the conservative think tankers and journalists, who are loyal to ideas, and the K Street establishmentarians, who are loyal to groups.

The good news for Democrats is that the K Street establishment will slowly win this struggle. The majority will ossify. It will lose touch with its principles and eventually crumble under the weight of its own spoils. The bad news for Democrats is that, as Republicans can tell you, the ossification process is maddeningly slow. After the New Deal, it took 60 years.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: davidbrooks; kstreet
.
1 posted on 11/29/2003 11:26:32 AM PST by luckydevi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: luckydevi
"Be A Democrat - Oppose, Obstruct, Object!"
2 posted on 11/29/2003 11:34:47 AM PST by Tacis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: luckydevi
I love the conclusion
3 posted on 11/29/2003 11:45:33 AM PST by thoughtomator (Real Americans have no reason to hyphenate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: luckydevi
"They fight a war on terror."

How casual, just fighting this little old war on terror for the political gain. Guess 9/11 and the terrorists had nothing to do with it.

This guy has sold his soul to write for the NY Times. Very sad.
4 posted on 11/29/2003 11:45:37 AM PST by jocon307 (The Dems don't get it, the American people do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: luckydevi
Power corrupts !
5 posted on 11/29/2003 11:48:23 AM PST by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
An astute article.
6 posted on 11/29/2003 12:05:05 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: luckydevi
I don't get it. How does Brooks type while having anal sex with his homosexual lover?? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
7 posted on 11/29/2003 12:10:59 PM PST by Doc Savage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers; Common Tator
An astute article.

Yes, very astute. But this is something that Common Tator has been saying for over a year now.

FR is so far ahead of the curve it's scary sometimes.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

8 posted on 11/29/2003 12:13:43 PM PST by section9 (Major Kusanagi says, "Click on my pic and read my blog, or eat lead!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: luckydevi
Good article, shows awareness that conservatives and Republicans are becoming two separate groups with occasional overlap.

Brooks does fail to see that the GOP has given in to eventual fiscal collapse when the boomers' retirement IOU's come in, just as the Democrats gave in fifteen years ago.

9 posted on 11/29/2003 12:16:01 PM PST by Charlotte Corday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
An astute article.

No, an apology for socialism. A real Republican working majority would devise a health care plan that relied on choice and market economics -- and they wouldn't be afraid to push it through, over the protests of the media. Instead, they've surrendered to the media's liberalism and given us LBJ-style "reform" There's nothing "astute" in claiming this is a victory for conservatism. It's a defeat for real governance by Republicans and another victory for socialism

10 posted on 11/29/2003 12:17:36 PM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jocon307
This guy has sold his soul to write for the NY Times. Very sad.

Sorry, but he was a fake "conservative" even before he joined the Times. That's why they hired him!

11 posted on 11/29/2003 12:18:44 PM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: luckydevi
They nominate conservative judges to advance conservative social reform

Excuse me. He seems to be confusing his parties. It's the dims who place judges who legislate from the bench.

12 posted on 11/29/2003 12:19:19 PM PST by Holly_P
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage
You're thinking David Brock.
13 posted on 11/29/2003 12:22:48 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: churchillbuff
There's nothing "astute" in claiming this is a victory for conservatism

He has chronicled the rise of the Republican Party and has identified that if you now want to play ball in Washington, you do so in the court of the Republicans.

He acknowledges the price that was paid.

The only drawback is that now, as the governing party, they have to betray some of the principles that first animated them.
Now you and I and 95% of the posters to this board will argue that the price is too high and that more work is needed to roll back government.

But none of that makes the article less true.

15 posted on 11/29/2003 12:40:21 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: luckydevi
" .....it took 60 years."

60 years sounds pretty good to me. I'll take 60 years.

16 posted on 11/29/2003 1:17:25 PM PST by Reo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Now you and I and 95% of the posters to this board will argue that the price is too high and that more work is needed to roll back government.

Both sides of the political spectrum live in a make believe world. The left thinks that if they just get the right people to run a socilistic government, or the right country to try it, or just the right amount of Socialism, it will work and produce utopia. Of course it will not.

The equally naieve people on the right think that if they just elect the right people the march to socialism will be stopped and the return to individual freedoms will prevail. What a CROCK.

What part of, This is a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people escapes the right? The answer is all of it.

The right constantly cries for principled leaders as if that were a good thing. What is a principled leader? He or she is a person who will do what their principles dictate no matter what the public want. Of course that is the definition of a dictatorship. The most principled men to govern in the last century were Hitler and Stalin. They did not listen to the public. They did what their principles told them to do.

You of course want a principled leader with whom you agree. That is how Hilters come to power. They always sound good until they get in power. Early on people agree with their principled leaders principles. Then the public learns to hate the implementation of those principles. Too late the public figures out they have no power under a principled leader. Remember he is guided by his principles not public opinion.

What is required to take this nation back to its basic form of government, is a change in the views of voters.

Then and only then will our public servants do what you want. Bush is doing the public will right now.. he is doing what the voters want. You don't like it because you are in the minority. If you were able to change public opinion so your views were in the majority every President would do your will.

But the right keeps looking for that principled leader. If you ever find one, he won't get any more votes than Barry Goldwater... and his very failed campaign will grant a huge victory to the other side. That will likely foster another great society.

Rule 1... Get the Voters on your side first

Rule 2... You'r job is done

Rule 3.. Don't get the voters on your side, your side loses

That is all there is to politics in the USA.
17 posted on 11/29/2003 4:28:39 PM PST by Common Tator (I support Billybob. www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator; section9
I am glad Chris pinged you to this thread. You two write such clear analysis that I often think, "Of course...(now why didn't I think of that?)"

I can't argue with your latest missive, but will add that the foundation has been laid.

This article shows the steady progress...Heritage Foundation, the utter triumph of Friedman economics, the emerging ascension of conservative media, and now peopling the "permanent" government with "our" folks.

The last hurdle is academia, and David Horowitz is working on that.

18 posted on 11/29/2003 5:27:29 PM PST by eddie willers (Molly Ivins...the love child of Noam Chomsky and Minnie Pearl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: luckydevi
"Republicans now speak in that calm, and to their opponents infuriating manner of those who believe they were born to rule." This statement reveals a major problem in Washington. If they are rulers, they are no longer public servants, and we are subjects rather than citizens. I wonder what the founding fathers would make of this arrogance on the part of politicians supposedly representing us?
19 posted on 11/29/2003 6:38:13 PM PST by Re-electNobody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Re-electNobody
"Republicans now speak in that calm, and to their opponents infuriating manner of those who believe they were born to rule." This statement reveals a major problem in Washington. If they are rulers, they are no longer public servants, and we are subjects rather than citizens. I wonder what the founding fathers would make of this arrogance on the part of politicians supposedly representing us?

Good point. Factions and parties aspire to become "the Establishment," but this hardly matters to the public, even if they share the expressed ideology of the party or movement. The electorate only wants good, effective and honest officials. We certainly will try to vote out any entrenched, smug, or arrogant establishment, but if the new group shows signs of developing the same faults, the worst thing we can do is to let them take us for granted. Make any party, faction or establishment earn your vote or suffer the consequences of not getting it. Don't give your vote away too easily.

I can certainly admire the conservatives of the 1960s and 1970s setting out to change American politics. Once a movement has changed things and made a place for itself in the political system it's harder to get enthusiastic about it. All other things being equal I'll certainly vote for the more conservative candidate, but "we are the establishment now" doesn't resonate with those of us who never wanted to be part of a governing elite and aren't so crazy about political or journalistic careers. It has to be about something more than rank, office holding and hegemonic position for those of us outside the Beltway to get very interested about politics.

20 posted on 11/29/2003 7:19:36 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: x
"we are the establishment now" doesn't resonate with those of us who never wanted to be part of a governing elite and aren't so crazy about political or journalistic careers
Journalism is "the establishment" in America.

21 posted on 11/29/2003 7:31:04 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (The everyday blessings of God are great--they just don't make "good copy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
I don't agree, the voter places Republicans in office because they want the country to move right. It never happens. What a bust the Republican Revolution was. Newt saw to that. Conservatives get discouraged and stop going to the polls. Christian conservaties did not even turn out at the polls for Bush because he is a globalist.

The reason the majority of Americans don't vote, is because both parties are heading the same way. Ask a few non-voters, they will all tell you the same thing.

Remember the Reagan landslide? People that had never voted, or had not voted in years, took to the polls. Only to suffer disappointment in Newt's neutering of the revolution.

After that, still hoping, conservatives got President Read My Lips. A reed that bent anyway the wind was blowing and coined the phrase "New World Order", that sent Christians scurrying for their copies of "Late Great Planet Earth".

The majority of Americans are conservatives sitting it out because government only continues to grow and move left no matter which party they vote for.

I predict that this Republican victory is as hollow as the economic bubble that just deflated and that it will take a quarter of the time, or less, for the positions between the two parties to switch back again because the voters are not getting the honest change in direction they voted for.
22 posted on 11/29/2003 7:54:43 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: luckydevi
Do you perform an extact title search to see if an article is already posted like the one linked below?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1030570/posts

I forgive you, but your honor makes you duty bound to report yourself to the Admin Moderator by clicking on the "report abuse" command and making a full and complete confession, at which time you may again partake of the sacraments at FreeRepublic.com.
23 posted on 11/29/2003 8:33:50 PM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer, identify your enemies, then expose and/or annihilate them, preferably both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers; Common Tator; economists.com
Thank you for the complement, although true kudos should go to Common Tator for his unfailing realism about the true nature of American politics. Much of what I have observed about the Bush Administration and the Democratic Party's response to it has been explained in the most simple, yet compelling, terms by CT's posts.

What is happening is simple. So simple that Rush Limbaugh even sees it, yet doesn't like it. Remember when we won the Congress back in 1994? I remember Rush's radio show in the wake of Gingrich's acension. Rush was all filled with hope, optimism, and a sense of gleeful triumph. We were now going to be able to impose our diktat in Washington! Why, by God, we'd be able to use dynamic scoring as opposed to steady state scoring to write up budgets!

Today, Limbaugh is excoriating the Bush Administration because it is not restraining government spending in the middle of a war, and in the advent of an election cycle.

What an absolute crock of horshsh#t. It is manure now, just as it was in 1995. Not the overspending part. Rush is right about that. Nope, it's the political part about which he has a tin ear. Just as he did in 1995.

Rush didn't know it at the time. Clinton bided his time, figuring that Gingrich would either overreach or do something that would kill his popularity. Gingrich did both when the government shut down at the end of 1995. Clinton knew that the media, who hated Gingrich, would help him peddle the proposition that everything was the Republican's fault. Gingrich, like other members of the Stupid Party, believed that Americans would respond to a reasonable attempt by Gingrich to restrain government spending by agreeing with a government shutdown as a reasonable thing to do.

There is a reason why Gingrich is not Speaker today.

Gingrich, like a lot of other Republican true believers, made the mistake of believeing his own bulljohnson. Clinton's victory in the budget shutdown confrontation occured because he knew that Americans would perceive Gingrich to be the obstructionist, and that Clinton would be perceived as that lovable rogue who was trying to solve the People's Problems. This has nothing to do with substance. No matter how correct Gingrich was on substance, the folks in the precincts didn't care about how right the Republicans were on the budget. What they saw was that Gingrich was standing athwart the People's Business, yelling "stop"!

It was in those days that I learned to respect Bill Clinton as a politician.

Republicans had the majority, but were still throwing sand in the gears like they were in the minority. The infamous Daily News front page of Gingrich as a whining baby was far off the mark in reality, but in political terms, it resonated with the public.

But then things changed. The hard school of impeachment gave Republicans a chance to promote a new generation of leaders from the state governorships, men like Tommy Thompson, Spencer Abraham, and a scion of the Bush family, George W. Bush of Texas.

Bush was elected. Times have changed. With one exception, Republicans have held the two chambers since 1994.They are in a valuable strategic position to control the country politically for the next thirty years.

1. Republicans enjoy a commanding lead among white males.

2. Republicans are at parity with women. The gender gap has vanished.

3. With the sole exception of the black vote, Republicans are conducting a "long, hard slog" through the Democrats ethnic base.

We are becoming the natural majority party. People like Bush, Rove, and Frist understand that. People like Cal Thomas or Pat Buchanan don't want to accept the implications of majority status. When the people give you a majority, they expect you to do things for them. Productive things. They don't expect you to take free lunches away from little school chilluns, or turn the aged out on the street with not a prescription drug to be had. They don't care about State's Rights, or what Ayn Rand was trying to get across in John Galt's speech, or how we should return to the Original Intent of the Framers.

They care about the potholes being filled, the stray dogs being taken to the pound, and Grandma getting a new prescription drug benefit from President Bush, who seems to be such a nice man with a lovely wife.

They don't give a rat's a$$ about Tom Tancredo's position on immigration, nor do they care about how true conservatives are to our belief system, and they'd rather not discuss abortion.

You know why I don't go over to DU and get angry at the Current Wisdom circulating among the shahid? Because it's freaking pointless. They have no understanding of the fact that no one cares whether Prescott Bush served on the board of a bank that was a front for Fritz Thyssen's conglomerate in Germany in 1942. No one care's if Bush missed a few roll calls in the Alabama Air Guard (although I do hear that that has been debunked). No one gives a flaming rat's fingernail how much they hate Bush.

That crap doesn't put food on someone's table in Ohio or North Carolina.

Reagan understood this. That's why he hammered Mondale in 1984, who didn't get it. Clinton understood this, as well. He was able to keep his wild eyed lefties contained and pacified as he pursued and maintained his personal power. Clinton used the Democratic Activist crowd like a wet dishrag. When Bubba signed Welfare Reform in 1996, he did two things. He made a Republican proposal his own and he showed the People he was giving them what they wanted.

As a side deal, he made the True Believers his personal bi*ch, and made them like it.

Bush the Younger understands this, as well. So does Arnold. When you have the power, you are expected to do as the people wish with that power. Otherwise, it's your ass at Election Time. Bush remains popular in the middle of a war because he is doing what the people want, and no amount of rain dancing and anger from the head of the Cargo Cult, Howard Dean, can alter that salient fact.

I don't care what the dialectical materialists say. Here, the people hold their officials accountable. Republicans know this now, and are acting accordingly.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

24 posted on 11/29/2003 8:38:50 PM PST by section9 (Major Kusanagi says, "Click on my pic and read my blog, or eat lead!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: section9
You know why I don't go over to DU and get angry...Because it's freaking pointless. They have no understanding of the fact that.... No one gives a flaming rat's fingernail how much they hate Bush.

You might not go over there, but THEY should come over here and read your post for insight.

On second thought.

Let them sit there....
seething...
rubbing their naughty bits...
chanting...
"my precious...my precious..."

25 posted on 11/29/2003 9:22:44 PM PST by eddie willers (Molly Ivins...the love child of Noam Chomsky and Minnie Pearl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: section9
Hell of a post
26 posted on 11/29/2003 11:49:48 PM PST by luckydevi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
He has chronicled the rise of the Republican Party and has identified that if you now want to play ball in Washington, you do so in the court of the Republicans.

No, the theme of the article is just the opposite - - that the Republicans have decided to play on the Democrats' court - - in the sense that they're pushing Democratic-style big spending. My point is that if the Republicans were really acting like THEY'RE in charge - - instead of merely imitating the Democrats - - - then they would push through a market-oriented, voluntary choice program - and let the media and tha AARP howl. Instead, they adopted the philosophy and the policies of the AARP - ie, socialized medicine. Except for the fact that the Republicans have their names on the bill, this isn't being "in charge," this is capitulation to the other side. If you can't see the difference, then you're part of the problem.

27 posted on 11/30/2003 10:00:30 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
The Republicans in Congress have the numbers - - but not the courage -- to institute free-market policies in medicine, instead of socialized medicine. So they don't haven't exhibited the "power" that Brooks credits them with, they've exhibited fear - - kind of a Stokholm effect: They're afraid of the media, afraid of the AARP, afraid of the Democrats, so they use their numbers and their hold on committee leadership to pass a bill that those elites won't criticize too much. True power shows itself in self-confidence that allows the holder of the power to set the agenda; here, the Republicans have again let the socialists set the agenda, because the Republicans don't have the self-confidence and courage that is required to exercise real power. Bottom line: The real power still rests with the liberals in the Dem Party and the media; the Republicans have the majority in Congress, but they're using it to fearfully do the liberals' bidding. (And to provide the Republicans with some saving of face, a few Dems shed crocodile tears over a big-spending bill that, deep down, must be causing them to rejoice)
28 posted on 11/30/2003 10:07:31 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
to institute free-market policies in medicine

What exactly does that mean in concrete policy terms?

29 posted on 11/30/2003 3:01:37 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Let people choose between private health-care plans, using money from health-care savings accounts and a limited federal subsidy -- and the individual could bank the amount left over after services are paid for, which would provide an incentive to shop for the least expensive providers.
30 posted on 11/30/2003 9:56:52 PM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson