Yes, David Brooks’ attack on [score]Ted Cruz[/score] tells us that he hates conservatism and that he’s not worth much as a writer. But we already knew that.
David Brooks’ attack on Ted Cruz is in his regular New York Times column. The fact that he has a regular column in that rag tells you all you need to know about David Brooks’ being an utterly fake conservative. In his column he is desperate to get the establishment to not settle on Ted Cruz as the alternative to Donald Trump.
It’s 2 a.m. The bar is closing. Republicans have had a series of strong and nasty Trump cocktails. Suddenly Ted Cruz is beginning to look kind of attractive. At least he’s sort of predictable, and he doesn’t talk about his sexual organs in presidential debates!
Well, Republicans, have your standards really fallen so low so fast? Are you really that desperate?
He goes on to insult Cruz according to his mannerisms and the “disastrous government shutdown.” I don’t know if Ted Cruz will beat the Democrat candidate if he gets the nomination, but neither does David Brooks. According to what David Brooks “knew,” Donald Trump should have never happened. Yet he’s winning both with Republicans, often, and with non-Republicans.
Furthermore, I question whether the Democrat turnout will be enough to give the party victory over any Republican candidate. I suspect that people are still energized and angry enough over Obamacare to do in 2016 what they did in 2014.
Speaking of anger about Obamacare, that “disastrous government shutdown” was only disastrous because it failed to shut down the government. Congress went along with Cruz not because of his hypnotic powers, but because their own constituents were demanding it. After all, Brooks himself claims that no one likes Cruz in Congress. One senator simply doesn’t have the power to orchestrate anything in the House of Representatives.
Being publicly associated with the so-called government shutdown is precisely what made Cruz so popular and fueled his eventual run.
Naturally, David Brooks has always hated him.
David Brooks’ attack on Ted Cruz basically leads to a plea for the establishment to obstruct Trump enough to get a brokered convention where they choose the nominee. The votes for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz will simply be wiped out to “save” the Republican Party. The rest of Brooks’ column is devoted to claiming that Reagan’s anti-government ideology is outdated and that the free market is too cruel to be unregulated.
Trump’s statism is a good thing, according to Brooks.
He offers to use government on behalf of the American working class, but in negative and defensive ways: to build walls, to close trade, to ban outside groups, to smash enemies. According to him, America’s problems aren’t caused by deep structural shifts. They’re caused by morons and parasites. The Great Leader will take them down.
In response, the Republicans should use big government to take care of everyone (while supporting amnesty of illegals, wars everywhere, and managed trade agreement).
It has to find a third alternative: limited but energetic use of government to expand mobility and widen openness and opportunity. That is what Kasich, Rubio, [score]Paul Ryan[/score] and others are stumbling toward.
And they all are so popular and so trusted by the American people because of it.
As a conservative, I hate Donald Trump’s statist views. I wish more people realized they cannot work. But Trump is trusted for one reason: he’s not associated with the sub-culture of condescending control-freaks that is the home of David Brooks, [score]Marco Rubio[/score], John Kasich, and Paul Ryan.
They are the morons and parasites that cause America’s problems.
This isn’t going to go away. A brokered convention isn’t going to do anything but increase the anger and frustration.