12 Replies to “Paul Ryan/David Brooks debate”

1. Obstreperous Infidel says:

   December 2, 2010 at 8:37 am

   Is this even fair? Thanks for the heads up, Jeff.

2. Crawford says:

   December 2, 2010 at 8:38 am

   As if Brooks will admit he’s been clubbed like a baby seal.

3. Jeff G. says:

   December 2, 2010 at 9:02 am

   Brooks is essentially making the case that Obama is not a radical. He’s merely a liberal who the actual left doesn’t believe goes far enough.

   Forget everything you see, and everything Kurtz unearthed.

   Be a pragmatist. Compromise with the lefties. Otherwise you “squander the moment.”

4. sdferr says:

   December 2, 2010 at 9:04 am

   Just looked in and take it I’ve missed Ryan’s argument?

5. Jeff G. says:

   December 2, 2010 at 9:08 am

   He’s on again.

6. sdferr says:

   December 2, 2010 at 9:19 am

   David Brooks appeals to me to trust him: he knows these people, they’re decent. I find this impossible to do, since my judgment of Brooks’ judgment is that he has been too easily deceived by Barack Obama, directly participating in that deception even.

7. bh says:

   December 2, 2010 at 9:25 am

   Thanks for the heads up on this.

   Brooks has a fundamentally different viewpoint than we do. It seems really unlikely to me that we’re actually in the same group of political thought.

   Maybe he’s not a squishy RINO, perhaps he’s a staunch Brooksian. Sort of like Andrew Sullivan and his party of one.

8. sdferr says:

   December 2, 2010 at 9:31 am

   Just for the ready access while we wait for the archive of the debate to post, links to Ryan/Arthur Brooks’ article published in WSJ , David Brooks’ response article published in the NYT, and Arthur Brooks follow up to David Brooks’ piece published at AEI.

9. JHoward says:

   December 2, 2010 at 10:20 am

   So we’re debating theft now. Calling it progressivism.

   Great times we live in, great times.

10. Pablo says:

    December 2, 2010 at 10:48 am

    Brooks is essentially making the case that Obama is not a radical. He’s merely a liberal who the actual left doesn’t believe goes far enough.

    Obviously, you don’t have the opportunity to stroll down that hall and chat with Matt Bai. If you did you’d probably know that Obama is basically a Blue Dog.

11. Ernst Schreiber says:

    December 2, 2010 at 11:03 am

    Brooks has a fundamentally different viewpoint than we do. It seems really unlikely to me that we’re actually in the same group of political thought.

    He’s part of the Ruling Party/technocratic elitists know best crowd. His attitude is early progressive era noblesse oblige. And you’d damn well better be grateful, because its guys like him standing between you and the raging mob eschaton immanetizers that comprise the modern left.

12. sdferr says:

    December 2, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    So, is there a sense in which — to sharpen the issue through personalization here — David Brooks is making the claim that Arthur Brooks and Paul Ryan have not got the character fit to the task of governance as he sees it, insofar as D. Brooks makes the claim that their vision of the purpose of government (or should I say politics?) is too cramped, too crabbed, too narrow, and therefore fails to recognize how to inculcate a greater character, a better, nobler character in the people — citizens — under its tutelage? Mind, I know D. Brooks doesn’t make this charge directly. But mightn’t we infer it by implication in any event?

Comments are closed.