David Brooks, Defender of the Establishment

David Brooks, the New York Times columnist who carries the label “conservative” - he’s not actually a conservative, he just carries the label - decided it was time to snuggle up to his liberal friends again and attack average, every day conservatives across America. In a recent column, Brooks failed to understand that we, average, mainstream, hard-working conservatives sent conservative representatives to Congress to upset the apple carts of cozy, “business as usual” Establishment Republicans. Establishment Republicans, lap dogs of the DC elite, such as Mr. Brooks do not like that one bit, and they- and he- are willing to burn down the Republican Party (figuratively speaking, lest Mr. Brooks consider me to be a radical) in order to burn representatives who are more conservative than himself.
 
Brooks’ column earlier this month wherein he spewed fire and brimstone, directed at conservative Republicans- at least for the erudite Upper East Side crowd it was a display of brutal testosterone (the kind of testosterone that has been diluted by years of estrogen treatments taken in combination with wine and muscle relaxers).
 
The term RINO- Republican in Name Only- was invented for a man like Brooks. Described as a “conservative” by the progressive national media- sometimes centrist, sometimes sorta-conservative, and almost always confused elitist- Brooks has been a columnist for the New York Times since 2003. Over the past twelve-plus years, he is no more conservative today than he was then- perhaps less so.
 
When one writes for a famed liberal rag, the fish wrap known as the “Gray Lady” that “everyone” in national politics reads, the shortest route to pats on the back is to pick the low-hanging fruit. Knock Rush Limbaugh here, call Glenn Beck a name there, and whenever you get the chance tell Katie Couric how tough it is being a conservative writing for the liberal establishment.
 
I gave up on Brooks years ago. It was not difficult to ascertain that Brooks was as conservative as a fourth-generation welfare recipient. Like most of the elite in this country, he has not the foggiest notion of the thoughts of average, every day Americans. Maybe he never called Beck names; I was not willing to waste ten minutes of my time to find out.
 
So what has so vexed David Brooks? We are left to infer that the demise of that great manager of the House, John Boehner, was a factor, as was the sudden parachute jump made by the Entitled One, Kevin McCarthy. Throw in a revulsion, by some conservatives, at the thought of Paul “Open Borders” Ryan as our next Speaker and suddenly DC is filled with rabid, delirious cavemen who will shut down the government before breakfast and bring down the Republic by dinner.
 
It is fascinating to learn what an accomplished “bomb thrower” Brooks himself happens to be. Republicans who are more conservative than he is “did not believe in government;” are “ill educated;” and believe that “compromise is corruption.” Severe stuff from a man who always complains about the rhetoric of conservatives of whom he disapproves.
 
For Brooks to have his brand of “conservatism” shine brightly, he must redefine the term. No longer is it about limited government, belief in God and living morally, the pursuit of liberty, adherence to the Constitution, and such practical attributes such as a strong national defense and a commitment to the law. Instead, Brooks sees conservatism as “intellectual humility, a belief in steady, incremental change, a preference for reform rather than revolution, a respect for hierarchy, precedence, balance and order, and a tone of voice that is prudent, measured and responsible.”
 
He forgot to include washing our hands before dinner and ensuring that we put our underwear in the hamper as our mothers taught us.
 
Brooks’ money line comes near the end of his tortured, inside-the-Beltway logic:  “People who don’t accept democracy will be bad at conversation. They won’t respect tradition, institutions or precedent. These figures are masters at destruction but incompetent at construction.”
 
So what are the biggest sins of people like Rush Limbaugh and Ted Cruz, whom he names specifically? They will not respect the tradition created by Progressives, who built this behemoth we call our federal government. They will not respect traditions that rose up to replace the old-fashioned beliefs of limited government and individualism perpetuated by the Framers of the Constitution and the philosophers the Framers studied. Limbaugh and Cruz will not respect the precedent established by FDR’s Supreme Court justices or the Warren Court.
 
These are the days of the $18 trillion debt, moral collapse, open borders, and an imperial presidency that FDR only day-dreamed about. These times cannot be met with backroom deals, followed by half-hearted debates on the floors of the House and Senate, followed by the sharing of a few stiff drinks together down at the local DC bar. Enemies of Liberty must be treated like enemies of Locke, Montesquieu, Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Mason, and Henry. They must be exposed publicly; we must educate the public about the ways of Liberty and the woes of servitude to the federal government; we must make the enemies of limited government and the Constitution defend their positions instead of the other way around; and perhaps most important, we must wean our citizens off of federal dependency.
 
We have had many years of Brooks-approved compliant Republican leadership in DC; look what it got us.
 
No, David Brooks, we need more Rush Limbaughs and Ted Cruzes and fewer John Boehners and Mitch McConnells. We need more brave, vocal, serious leaders who understand that the government needs to be cut back drastically in order to save the Republic rather than the tea and wine crowd who will be the last to feel the impact when the economy finally does implode.
 
We have enough lap dog “conservatives.” Let Brooks cry a river for the Establishment. It’s what he does best.