Charlie Rose

winter  11/08/2010 01:55 AM Report

What happened to the fed audit? Blackwater? Recourse after the W.Virginia mining disaster? Seems we can give up hope of the media serving as fourth estate. Like organized crime has evolved to become institutionalized crime the media has evolved to become a for your entertainment enjoyment only machine. Everybody's making a living at it, talking heads are writing books at a breakneck pace, public indignation predictably dies down and we're onto the next disaster. Of course its not the media's obligation to bring justice to the public. Well then, all those larks about the media insuring our democracy may as well get tossed out the window if they're not going to see issues through to their end. Again, fed audit? Sure I could Google it all day but who short of Paul is making sure it actually gets done ...right? Out here we're all hornets effectively in a jar and the power brokers know it, its how Goldman Sachs gets a fine that amounts to a couple days pay for them. Transparency we have alright, following through to the end with resolving recent events is so transparent as to be invisible. Good job PR industry.

zb1  09/17/2010 07:54 AM Report

I have come to think of David Brooks as the last sane and rational person on earth still claiming to be a Republican. Unfortunately he holds that position not by the sensibility of his thoughts but rather by simply being comparatively less insane then all the rest of the Republicans, conservatives or whatever you want to call these fruitcakes.

Make no mistake about it, today, more then any modern time, the Republican Party is the party of hate, exploitation, ignorance, lies, and hypocrisy. They really are the party of no ideas and bad ideas. When I see Mr. Brooks begin to show some real outrage instead of trying to explain and justify the unjustifiable perhaps then I will hold him in higher regard. The time has come for someone to stand up and call the Republican Party - TeaParty - Palinites for what they really are. Obviously, Mr. Brooks has neither the courage or the desire to do so.

I invite him to reread the Federalist Papers: he can start with the following:

It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

And btw, Charlie, why didn't you call him on it as if somehow all of this that is going on is normal? Are you really going to just sit there while nutcases do their best to throw us into a civil war?

esantoro  05/23/2010 07:07 PM Report

Brook's recounting of Michel's "Marshmallow" experiment seems to suggest the opposite of what was intended, that those who can control impulses benefit later in life. It seems to suggest that those who enter into a situation of acquisition with a strategic rather than superficial plan for personal gain will do better economically. It seems that Wall Street and government is presently filled with individuals who are very quick to extract the valuable center out of something, leaving the less valuable exterior for others, and call their behavior virtuous, "God's work."

virginias20  05/21/2010 05:28 PM Report

I hope David Brooks has the chance to go back and listen to this interview because then maybe he too will pick up on the glaring contradiction in what he says. First, he confidently declared that we know how to fix education and finally are doing it. Then, a few minutes later, he described himself as an 'epistemological moderate' and believes that we don't know as much as we think we know about things. This contradiction was so stark that it stood out in my mind and has been bothering me since I heard the interview. I agree with the latter, but submit that the former, therefore, cannot be true. The cynic in me believes that Brooks, like so many others unfortunately, is driven by ideology on matters of education. His comments are particularly ironic given the fact that, regardless of whether you agree with what the Obama administration is doing in education policy, very few things that Obama is proposing have empirical support. In other words, we do NOT know that they work. In fact, research on school turnarounds, which is relatively young, suggests that they do not work very well. Much of the business literature confirms that turning organizations around is much harder to do than first assumed, and only rarely is successful. Another example is pushing to tie teacher evaluations to student performance in order to 'better' judge teacher effectiveness. Again, here is an area where we really don't know very much and where advocates are really counting on ideology to get them to the finish line. While few people would argue that we need more effective teachers, we're not really sure just what it is that makes a teacher effective. In fact, it's so complicated that while a teacher might effective with one group of students, he or she might be totally ineffective with a different group of students, or a different age group. As for measuring teacher efficacy, we aren't very good at it. Part of this is the 'science' behind the measures, but part of this is because we don't agree about what it is that effective teachers should do. Should teachers only prepare our kids to take end of year tests? That's what has been happening under NCLB, when the federal government tied high stakes to student scores on one test. Should teachers prepare our kids to be good citizens? Good people? Creative thinkers? How will we measure that? Again, there is much we don't know about education and what works. If Brooks is still not convinced, then he can just look back at the last century of education reforms, where one group of experts after another claimed to have found the 'best way' to teach kids and run schools, only to have the bright idea fade away in the shadow of the new best idea. Hopefully Mr. Rose in the future will be able to identify such inconsistencies and push his interviewees a bit harder to clarify themselves.

SteveG2010  02/20/2010 05:58 AM Report

To George Cook,

The irony of David’s views on the “roots of the distrust” is that the show wasn’t just about politics; there was a segment where brain research was applied to politics. And David and Charlie missed the brain-hemisphere related stuff that is going on in the background because they are coming at things in a logical, left-brain, step-by-step way.

David talked about how the highly educated are more trusting of Washington, and the less educated are less trusting. There’s a brain-hemisphere difference going on there.

The American educational system trains people in left-brain problem solving and so the highly educated are more comfortable with left-brain methods. And since America is so dominated by left-brain problem solving methods, Washington comes at problems from the left-brain perspective. The less educated haven’t been as indoctrinated in the formal left-brain methods and they tend to come at the same problems more intuitively.

If you look at the list of criticisms of Washington, and distill it down, it winds up being a list of problems that the left-brain has when it tries working with things that involve right-brain skills.

How did President Obama get elected? He used intuitive right-brain problem solving skills and connected with the people. He “read” the mood of the people correctly, a right-brain skill. He and his people then got to Washington and went into logical, left-brain problem solving mode. And suddenly, the ability to “read” the mood of the people was gone; gone because that ability is not a left-brain skill.

Many of our national problems have so many interrelated parts and connections that the problems cannot be solved using logical, step-by-step, linear, left-brain methods. There is far too much going on simultaneously, and you have to solve the problems using simultaneous methods, pattern recognition and other right-brain skills.

If Charlie and David are going to do another show about this stuff they MUST include somebody who is skilled in right-brain thinking. Charlie and David are both smart guys but they are smart left-brainers and they miss too much of the big picture. They need to include a smart right-brainer in the conversation.

Now that would be an interesting show!

Steve G.

tuckercook  02/18/2010 01:21 PM Report

Charlie,

You, the Newshour, Frontline and Bill Moyers are individually and collectively a national treasure. I do not know how much it is realized, but intentionally or not, you all work together in tandem, bringing home the issues and questions of our times into a cogent amalgam of enriched viewing, which by the blessings of digital technology can be viewed over and over again, allowing your works to be reinforced.

Your recent line-up of 2010 is every bit as strong as 2009. Most recently, your February 6, 2010, interview hour with David Brooks on the first year of the Obama presidency, dysfunctional partisanship positioning and the inefficacy of representative branches of the federal government.

I resonant with David's views on the roots of distrust of the American public in its government, in partisan politics and his espoused need for an alternative to the composition of today's republican and democratic parties.

Reinforcing the azimuth of that interview vis a vis "the case of caution" and the President's people not understanding the mood of the American public. This week, Frontline rebroadcast the "Warning" about the role Brooksely Born, Paul Simon of the Newshour had "William Black" and his role as a historian and reformer of banking laws and enforcement, since the Savings a Loan crash of the 1980s. Here is a message that I've sent, with changes to Frontline, the Newshour and you. I have plans to send it to Charlie Rose and David Brooks, too.

Each of your programs has its own quality, its own approach to current events, newsmakers and commemorators. Each is distinct, yet re-enforcing of each other, as never before. Because of that, these are some of the very best years of PBS and you role in it.

Here is my posting, I have submitted to the Newshour, Frontline and Bill Moyer's with some changes:

- - - - - - -

My God: is not THE COMPLETE LACK OF WALL STREET DERIVATIVE-FRAUD INDICTMENTS one of the deepest roots of the nation's lack of faith in the efficacy of the federal government?

What homeowner would agree that we not police fraud among home contactors? Nonetheless, that is what Allen Greenspan believed throughout his professional life in public service. This week Frontline rebroadcast is presentation of the "Warning," out of which we now know that a decent and honorable woman, Brooksley Born, Esquire, Chair of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, tried to avert a political-economic disaster greater in its perniciousness than the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, albeit suffering the same lack of success as our nation's counter-terrorism agencies had on that day. Indeed, the roots of both failures are inherently the same. If those who do not believe in the efficiency of government, under any circumstances, are put in charge - what else should we expect but legislative grid lock, disorder and chaos in which white collar conspiratorial crime is able to robe itself in legitimacy?

Pause and consider for a moment the observations of former regulator William Back as compared to what a young Allen Greenspan, wrote 47 years ago, in 1963, when he was then 31 years old, for he espoused:

“Protection of the consumer against 'dishonest and unscrupulous business practices’ has become a cardinal ingredient of welfare statism. Left to their own devices, it is alleged, businessmen would attempt to sell unsafe goods and drugs, fraudulent securities, and shoddy buildings. Thus, it is argued, regulatory agencies are indispensable, if the consumer is to be protected from the ‘greed’ of the businessman.

But it is precisely the ‘greed’ of the businessman or, more appropriately, his profit-seeking, which is the unexcelled protector of the consumer.

What collectivists refuse to recognize is that it is in the self-interest of every businessman to have a reputations for honest dealings and quality product. Since the market-value of a going business is measured by its money-making potential, reputation or ‘good will’ is as much an asset as its physical plant and equipment. . .The market value of a brokerage firm is even more closely tied [than a food or drug firm] to its good-will assets. Securities worth hundreds of millions of dollars are traded every day over the telephone. THE SLIGHTEST DOUBT AS TO THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF A BROKER’S WORD OR COMMITMENT WOULD PUT HIM OUT OF BUSINESS OVERNIGHT.”

(See PBS Newshour, "Former Regulator Talks Fraud and the Big Bank Getaway with Paul Simon," air date February 17, 2010 and Ayn Rand, contributing editor, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," The Assault on Integrity, by Allen Greenspan, Signet Books, NY, 1967, uppercase emphasis added).

As Britain's Edmund Burke knew about human nature over 200 years ago: pure individual libertarianism is anarchism. Hardened conservatives recognize that "regulation" is simply another name for the state's right to exercise prudent police power. That white collar businessmen are not tempted by the notion of making a "quick killing" by duping innocent, uninformed investors - while no one is looking - should be of no surprise to anyone with normal intelligence and common sense. Who could have supposed the nation's top economist was, indeed, such a fool, and that his injudicious opinion would be shared so ferociously by Washington and Wall Street elites, who have so deluded themselves at civilization's expense.

My gravitas has not changed since September, 2008. It will not until derivatives are regulated and hedge funds such as Long Term Capital Management (LTCM), who can stealthily leverage $5 billion into $1 trillion in debt are stopped from operating with the unfettered sanction of the federal government. They say there are five lobbyists from the financial services industry for every congressman in Washington. They appear to they have coerced key political operatives in the Congress and Treasury Department, have they infiltrated the halls of the Department of Justice, too?

In the past year, Bill Moyers and Charlie Rose both interviewed Sam Tanenhaus, author of "The Death of Conservatism," on September 18, 2009 (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09182009/profile2.html) and October 29, 2009, (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10691), respectively.

One look around finds that within the Democratic Party there are those, who have liberal leanings, but nevertheless have a conservative disposition, and there are those in the Republican Party, who have conservative leanings, but nonetheless have a liberal disposition. But, the intense partisanship of Washington officialdom foils any chance of their working together in a productive manner. A house so divided is bound to fall.

As a PBS viewer of fifty-years, I divine that PBS has an opportunity to bring together the resources of the PBS Newshours, Bill Moyers, Frontline and Charlie Rose (if he is willing), and an amalgam of the best thinkers in the tradition of Edmund Burke and, in that context, discuss the makings of a third party, in the fashion of traditional conservatives. For it is clear, the far-right and the far-left are two sides of the same passionate radicalism bent on the application of individual freedoms with no sense of the communal powers of collaboration, needed to balance societal conservation and innovation, for both inclinations must learn to work hand-in-hand and bring forth the best prescriptions and promises inherent in the eternal nature of our transmutable society.

May I suggest David Brooks moderate and Charlie Rose produce four to six hour seminar-like series along these lines. (I would be honored to propose the names of some prospective panelists). Everyone on my mind has been on the Charlie Rose Show or the Bill Moyer's Journal at one time or more over the past two-years.

If this is too political for the public broadcasting corporation, maybe it could be done on-line via access to a video server of a non-partisan Internet Service Provider. Our country is in real trouble and it is a time for the conservers of what is best in American society to step forward and save the nation from yet another systemic failure, from which we shall be unable to recover.

George Cook

SteveG2010  02/18/2010 10:54 AM Report

I use a brain-function based art method as a metaphor to help me understand our public policy failures. David, Charlie and others might also find the metaphor useful.

In art classes that use a Betty Edwards (Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain) approach in teaching people how to draw the incoming students are given the task of drawing a self-portrait. The beginning students generally use common abstract symbols for the facial features, symbols that we learn to use in childhood; football-shaped eyes, saucer-shaped ears and triangle noses. Those self-portraits lack realism because they are a left-brain abstract representation of the real world. The parts of the face aren’t drawn in their proper relationship to each other; proportions and shading are off and there are lots of small details missing because the students automatically default to using the left-hemisphere of the brain even though the right-hemisphere of the brain is better suited to the drawing task.

When we, as a nation, are confronted by a national problem we start out by sketching out an abstract representation of the problem at hand; we automatically default to using left-brain, symbolic simplifications of the interrelated parts of the problem. The relationships between the parts, the proportions and shading are off and things are not sketched out realistically.

That pattern of defaulting to a left-brain approach in problem solving is quite common in our society because we are a society dominated by left-brain thinking. Those left-brain methods are extremely useful and powerful but there are some problems that are more efficiently solved by using the equally powerful right-brain methods or whole-brain methods. And the common thread through most of our public policy failures is the lack of right-brain thinking and problem solving. Conservatives, moderates, liberals and the media are all using left-brain problem-solving methods on our national problems and it’s not working.

David mentioned the policy failures in Iraq and Russia and how we didn’t take the unconscious feelings of the Iraqis and the Russians into account. That means that we weren’t using the right-brain problem-solving skill of empathy and right-brain methods were not included in the “solutions”.

“Our government is out of touch with the American people.” That’s another way of saying that the government lacks right-brain skills.

“The people in Washington need to learn to work together.” That’s means that Washington needs to use right-brain social skills.

“The Obama administration misread what was most important to the American people.” In other words, the administration used right-brain skills poorly or they relied on logic.

The left-hemisphere of the brain is the side that works in a linear, step-by-step, logical, sequential way. But the problems we face have many interrelated things going on simultaneously and the left-brain is ill equipped to deal with the simultaneous.

Perhaps when David completes his book the people in charge of this nation will take some of that brain research stuff and use it within a sensible public policy. But to apply that knowledge in the simultaneous fashion that will be required for success we will need to use right-brain thinking and right-brain problem-solving methods. So I think that David’s book should include something about a right-brain way to apply the research.

Charlie should do the same sort of thing. He is a very even-handed, fair-minded guy but everything seems to get biased by the logical, left-brainer point of view, even the shows on the brain. There is a built in prejudice in our society, and in science, against right-brain thinking and it often shows up in the left-brain interpretations of the scientific research presented on Charlie’s show. Charlie should try to get some right-brainers to weigh in on things.

ShalomFreedman  02/14/2010 03:13 AM Report

It is always possible to learn new and interesting things from David Brooks. And perhaps his advice to President Obama in regard to winning back the heart and soul of Independent voters is correct.

But there were a couple of questions I thought should have been asked and were not. The first one was the Sarah Palin question. When asked about Republican candidates neither Charlie Rose nor David Brooks mentioned the number- one - candidate at this point. Secondly, there was not a word about the foreign policy of the President, including his having spoken much and done nothing about an increasingly threatening Iran. The Iranians threaten and bluster, mock the U.S. and the West, go ahead with their nuclear- weapons program, lie and cheat and lie and threaten again and again. Is the President just going to wait for China in order to be able to impose weak ineffective, sanctions, and thus let Iran continue unimpeded to the Radical Islamic Terror Nuclear Option?

dkantz  02/12/2010 08:38 PM Report

Thanks, especially for the end of your conversation regarding 30+ years of consciousness research (The IONS was founded 36 years ago). Updates coming into the field of knowledge about consciousness will inevitably result in revisions to the stories that inform and guide each culture (likely including, for example, the “Hamiltonian” view). I look forward to reading Brooks’ book and, well… to learning more… (pssst, will L.McTaggart’s connection of intention to the Zero Point Field be pivotal?).

Your conversation reflects today’s clash between Obama’s presidency and the Tea Party. Brooks said 20% of the nation literally cheers the Tea Party. However, later he said:

“…It's like 60% of the country, and it's not just this hard core group – It's a hunger for a new system of politics, a hunger for a belief that Washington can work...” And, on the flip side, Brooks intoned approvingly “the White House now is … calm, they're not panicked, … The sort of moral culture of loyalty and discussion that he's created is still very healthy.”

In the comments posted before this one of mine, there are expressions of support for Obama’s qualities and yet despair for the attacks on his character. There are also typical Tea Party angry diatribes that personally deprecate Obama such as Obama’s reliance on teleprompters, and yet also his departure from cues provided by teleprompters. This is a matched pair from among a plethora of slurs that appear constrained only by the writers’ acrimony fed from stereotypes about Obama’s race, education, previous experiences, home city, his authorship of books, etc. nevermind, in the particular case of teleprompters, that he’s been the most comprehensively informed, inclusive and articulate president we can recall (limited, however, to those issues he decided to discuss). Such disconnected thinking out here in the country underscores Brooks’ opinion that: “I think our problems are entirely governmental and not social” which, Charlie Rose noted, is well aligned with Tom (Friedman)’s view.

As previously noted, Brooks says 60% of us hunger for a “new system of politics.” Per Tom Atlee (co-intelligence.org), “Politics is how a society reflects on its circumstances, solves its problems, envisions possible futures, makes decisions and takes action on its own behalf or in support of what it cares about.” What is preventing that from happening? Why is our “freedom of speech” so crowded with disrespectful, fearful, angry, irresponsible messages of fantasy victimhoods? (Could this in any way connect to Brooks’ example of “teaching how to take turns” being a key accomplishment of most successful motherhoods)? But, once we’ve heard every relevant speech, no matter how distasteful, we must nurture the wisdom to set aside (a nice way of saying reject) those disrespectful, irresponsible, poorly and narrowly informed portions of the politics that have been heard – especially if their unchecked effect is to drown out careful, thoughtful, comprehensively informed politics. Otherwise, “freedom of speech” is rendered meaningless.

There should have been major presidential efforts to correct the pork barrel politics that emerged from Congress in 2009 – the campaign promise of glaring TV cameras might have been instrumental. Yet another of the roles of our president is to be the “Explainer-in-Chief;” however, there were no sustained challenges to sensational, narrow minded sound bites that dominated the news this past summer/fall/winter.

Here are 4 examples:

… “socialist elites” (balance concern for an expansion of government with concern for enactment of regulations that prevent the tendency of moneyed interests to privatize rewards and socialize risks)

… “death panels” (an over simplified fabrication regarding counseling at the end of life which, as a matter of fact, is the most expensive several months in the medical history of most Americans),

… “tax and spend as usual” (this has been on going for 50 years. But, TARP and the “stimulus” are major new initiatives yet neither the implications of collapse of the American and perhaps the global economy nor of the continuance of “too big to fail, again” are yet to be discussed. How could politics be restructured to reduce the 50 year record of government waste?)

… “hundreds of millions for Nebraska, Arkansas and Louisiana to secure their senator’s votes” (what other options does the Constitution allow in the face of 1-party rule when a super majority in required?).

Each of these, are far from simple, yet the Tea Party/Republican mischaracterizations were allowed to stand largely unchallenged. The lack of effective interpretations that face policy realities may explain why the Republican side senses "We're riding a wind, we are not going to change." The Obama Administration did not do and has yet to do the principled policy making nor the necessary explaining required to nurture well informed and responsible bi-partisan politics.

esantoro  02/12/2010 08:20 PM Report

I was just now perusing the transcript of this interview. Charlie mentions "power in America." I don't believe I had ever heard those three words in that order come from Charlie. Wouldn't that be a nice Charlie Rose series: "How Power Works in America."

I'd pay to see that one.

gibbons7  02/12/2010 05:46 PM Report

Listening to David Brooks is always pure pleasure. He is so interesting that it is an experience of intense focus. The President is also a pleasure, and he is fortunate to have conversation at any time with Mr. Brooks. The President and our country both, will benefit from David Brooks unagressive, graceful, wisdom.

doodahdaze  02/12/2010 11:24 AM Report

Here's food for thought, MOST children are born to people who cannot control their 'impulses'. Which suggests they are raised, how?

So licking the cookie and putting it back is considered 'intelligence' by the elitists. ... Just another reason to start 'weeding'.

doodahdaze  02/12/2010 10:25 AM Report

I'm trying to be a good Hamiltonian now. In my own unedjewmuhcated way. I think if Obama is serious about leading America out of the shit that the (our?) domestic elitists (i.e. The Financial Industry and they're residual scum) and the foreign terrorists, that (at least) openly let their intentions be known, have undercut all the hard work and sacrifice that these so-called Tea-Party activists that have strived so hard to better the world by passing on their help to the next generations. All out war on these enemys of the one real true God, should be addressed with nothing less than the wrath of God. Wipe the slate clean, and let the good seed flourish. The garden is being choked by too many weeds now. God wants us to start 'weeding'. Start with the domestic weeds and we'll finish with the foreign weeds. Amen.

doodahdaze  02/12/2010 09:46 AM Report

"A saner Ross Perot" - LOL

charlizecourriers  02/11/2010 05:23 PM Report

If the Audacious Amateur were a 'white man' or a 'red man' or a 'yellow man' or a 'brown man' with the record he has compiled in the last year, he would be laughed out of office. Let the laughter begin!

PeterStoopack  02/11/2010 02:33 PM Report

The elephant in the living room: Obama's race. Many white people view him as an articulate black man (much more articulate than they are)who is now President of the United States. This is repugnant to many whites. They simply can not accept this. These same people felt more comfortable with the inarticulate Bush.

It is imperative that President Obama, David Brooks, Charlie Rose and others acknowledge and confront the extent of this racism.

Obama was confronted immediately with an economic crisis. Both parties agreed that swift action was necessary. I uderstand that many people have lost their jobs or are afraid they will, but the degree of hatred directed at the president leads me to believe that race is a major issue.

I am a white male.

esantoro  02/11/2010 02:01 PM Report

It's nice to have the blog back and discussion of the interviews. REMant's citation of the passage from Tocqueville is priceless. I enjoy Brooks' commentary and insight,but he usually seems to run up against cognitive limits that preclude him from completing the circle. Rose, too. It is in moments of Brooks' lapses and the questioning of them that one can begin to decipher just how the Rabbit Hole is constructed. Tocqueville nails how our democratic technique functions as social control.

Lately, Rose seems to be getting a little game back, but no matter how much these two are excited about recent scientific discoveries in how the brain works, workings that literature and mythology have known intuitively for thousands of years, they will be reluctant to understand that their peculiar assimilation of the details nonetheless speciously helps support a subtle democratic-dictatorial technique, which allows Americans always to arrive in the same place when the need for social and political change is a foregone conclusion.

klm  02/11/2010 11:04 AM Report

I also found the absence of the role of the media in this discussion enough of an issues to dismiss the entire discussion as meaningless. Mr. Brooks, and Mr. Rose, discuss the current state of Obama's Presidency as though his work has been accurately presented by the media and as accurately understood by the American people. This is sadly not the case as the truth is heavily obscured in inaccurate and untruthful reporting and editorial commentary.

robdverity  02/11/2010 07:15 AM Report

The missing trust is well earned, as our so-called democracy has been sold to the highest bidder via lobbyists purchasing of the venal whores in Congress - and the Executive - making us a Plutocracy. A culture that tolerates purchased legislation that permits scamming the populous for the benefit of the top one per cent should be both ashamed as well as distrustful. Obama was purchased during his campaign (by Summers and Rubin et al) and the financial wise-guys are avoiding any restitution or meaningful investigations / reforms as a result.

Brooks is thoughtful, but misses the point re class disenchantment. We've every reason to be resentful - to the point of anarchy. The big bank CEOs are not harmless children. They did major damage. Bonuses hell, they deserve real jail time.

NoleBuddy  02/11/2010 02:44 AM Report

I feel you've given up too much without challenging David's comments. Yes; he certainly has his points, but your politics are showing. The TEA party has been reported as being financed by millionaires.

speaktruth  02/10/2010 11:09 PM Report

As much as I like and respect both Charlie Rose and David Brooks, I feel I must point out the "elephant" in the interview. Your subject on current politics, the gridlock, the Obama Administration and even on the brain and human behavior was a fascinating topic. I agree with most of what was said, however, as long as you avoid the "elephant in the room", you as serious journalists with integrity are part of the problem you were discussing. The missing piece in your discussion of why people are not trusting government and how this is contributing to gridlock is the failure of honest journalists like you to call attention to how talk radio entertainers like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Boortz, etc. are making money off of scaring the public about government. People don't always have time or take time to keep up with issues as you and I do - but they do listen to the radio while in their cars. These demagogues then fill in the blanks for them and tell them what to think. This would not be so bad if other views were presented or most especially if facts about the issues were presented. Since this has been going on day in and day out for many years their propaganda is beginning to contribute to complete lack of trust in government and now gridlock at solving problems. David, you really should understand this with the knowledge you presented about the brain and human behavior. I think most serious journalists have been cowed down by the fear that they will be seen as opposed to free speech if they say anything. But you are supposed to be obligated to point out when half truths and lies are told and to try to present all views and especially to get the facts presented when they are omitted. Maybe you think if you just bury your head in the sand, you won't have to deal with it. Don't forget about 1930's Germany. Please let me warn you! Our country that we love is going down the tubes if you don't wake up and speak out. I believe it may already be too late - this has gone on for so long that even though this is America and WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT, a lack of trust has been so deeply imbeded that WE can no longer work together to solve our problems. God help us if honest journalists like you don't wake up!

speaktruth  02/10/2010 11:09 PM Report

As much as I like and respect both Charlie Rose and David Brooks, I feel I must point out the "elephant" in the interview. Your subject on current politics, the gridlock, the Obama Administration and even on the brain and human behavior was a fascinating topic. I agree with most of what was said, however, as long as you avoid the "elephant in the room", you as serious journalists with integrity are part of the problem you were discussing. The missing piece in your discussion of why people are not trusting government and how this is contributing to gridlock is the failure of honest journalists like you to call attention to how talk radio entertainers like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Boortz, etc. are making money off of scaring the public about government. People don't always have time or take time to keep up with issues as you and I do - but they do listen to the radio while in their cars. These demagogues then fill in the blanks for them and tell them what to think. This would not be so bad if other views were presented or most especially if facts about the issues were presented. Since this has been going on day in and day out for many years their propaganda is beginning to contribute to complete lack of trust in government and now gridlock at solving problems. David, you really should understand this with the knowledge you presented about the brain and human behavior. I think most serious journalists have been cowed down by the fear that they will be seen as opposed to free speech if they say anything. But you are supposed to be obligated to point out when half truths and lies are told and to try to present all views and especially to get the facts presented when they are omitted. Maybe you think if you just bury your head in the sand, you won't have to deal with it. Don't forget about 1930's Germany. Please let me warn you! Our country that we love is going down the tubes if you don't wake up and speak out. I believe it may already be too late - this has gone on for so long that even though this is America and WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT, a lack of trust has been so deeply imbeded that WE can no longer work together to solve our problems. God help us if honest journalists like you don't wake up!

speaktruth  02/10/2010 11:09 PM Report

As much as I like and respect both Charlie Rose and David Brooks, I feel I must point out the "elephant" in the interview. Your subject on current politics, the gridlock, the Obama Administration and even on the brain and human behavior was a fascinating topic. I agree with most of what was said, however, as long as you avoid the "elephant in the room", you as serious journalists with integrity are part of the problem you were discussing. The missing piece in your discussion of why people are not trusting government and how this is contributing to gridlock is the failure of honest journalists like you to call attention to how talk radio entertainers like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Boortz, etc. are making money off of scaring the public about government. People don't always have time or take time to keep up with issues as you and I do - but they do listen to the radio while in their cars. These demagogues then fill in the blanks for them and tell them what to think. This would not be so bad if other views were presented or most especially if facts about the issues were presented. Since this has been going on day in and day out for many years their propaganda is beginning to contribute to complete lack of trust in government and now gridlock at solving problems. David, you really should understand this with the knowledge you presented about the brain and human behavior. I think most serious journalists have been cowed down by the fear that they will be seen as opposed to free speech if they say anything. But you are supposed to be obligated to point out when half truths and lies are told and to try to present all views and especially to get the facts presented when they are omitted. Maybe you think if you just bury your head in the sand, you won't have to deal with it. Don't forget about 1930's Germany. Please let me warn you! Our country that we love is going down the tubes if you don't wake up and speak out. I believe it may already be too late - this has gone on for so long that even though this is America and WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT, a lack of trust has been so deeply imbeded that WE can no longer work together to solve our problems. God help us if honest journalists like you don't wake up!

JohnKellum  02/10/2010 09:30 PM Report

Charlie Rose suggested to David Brooks that President Obama is a pragmatic (nonideological?) leader. One would only think that if one lived in the greater New York area and all ones friends and social acquaintances were Eastern elistists. In actual fact, Mr Obama has never escaped his Community Organizer background. Like many of those with an entitlment bent, he has never heard of a government program he didn't like. His agenda for exponential government intrusion is considered alien to those not living on the two coasts. Charlie Rose should refrain from putting words in his guests mouths, even if they are Eastern liberals.

SolarUpNote  02/10/2010 08:15 PM Report

It's very frustrating to hear reasonable people in the media (like David Brooks), taking the tea party folks seriously.

Why do the tea partiers believe that Obama is a socialist, and the government is out to get them? Because they're being lied-to by Republican politicians, Fox News, conservative radio, etc. It's that simple.

It's also frustrating to hear Mr. Brooks say that Americans are against health care. People are against it because they're being told that the government is going to take over the health care system. I'd be against it too if I believed that nonsense.

So who's fault is it that health care reform is on the ropes?

If you listen to the pundits -- even reasonable ones like David Brooks -- it's because Obama isn't brilliant enough to overcome the Republican's industrial lying complex.

I just wish the reasonable-wing media would have the guts to lay the blame where it truly belongs.

EPatrickMosman  02/10/2010 05:42 PM Report

Mr.Brook's adulation of and praise for President Obama's leadership abilities, capabilities, effectiveness and reaching out to Republicans is more of a pipe dream rather than a factual analysis of his role, or lack thereof,on Obamacare and other problem areas. After allowing Reid and Pelosi to prepare an almost 3,000 page bill increasing taxes and cutting services and taking over one -sixth of the US economy while ignoring any Republican input he decides to call for a publicized meeting using the bill as the starting point and labeling the Republicans as the party of 'no'. Unlike the Brookses and Roses the American people overwhelming reject this subterfuge.

This continuing effort to paint Obama as the smartest, most capable individual in the USA is as phony as was his build-up by the media during the campaign.

Had the media spent as much time investigating Barack H Obama's background as a mini-me Al Sharpton community organizer, his relationships with Reverend Wright, Rezko, his communist grandparents, "Frank" the communist role model, and Ayers,the unrepentant terrorist, as they did on Governor Palin, they would have been found him to be only a glib, smooth talking operator on a par with Ponzi scheme promoters, boiler room stock salesman and the run-of-the mill grifters who pry on the both the greedy and the innocent. Mr. Rose you might recall that in October 2008 you sat down with Tom Brokaw and both of you wise old pundits admitted that after Obama had been campaigning for two years they still know nothing about him as illustrated by the following exchange about candidate Obama between Tom Brokaw and yourself in October 2008 after Obama had been campaigning for two years.

ROSE: I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is.

BROKAW: No, I don't, either.

ROSE: I don't know how he really sees where China is.

BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE: I don't really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

BROKAW: Yeah, it's an interesting question.

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.

BROKAW: Two of them! I don't know what books he's read.

ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

BROKAW: There's a lot about him we don't know.

Mr. Obama's past was and still is written in invisible ink, no high school records, no college records, no SAT scores, no university records, no GPAs from any school, no written dissertations, the proverbial "pig in a poke". Mr. Obama's written record are two 'memoirs' one rather poorly written and the second more scholarly that some question the authorship. Rolling over for a political person is par for the course for the political media. America bought the 'pig in a poke' and found not a rock but a marxist/socialist wanna-be diktator.

Even today the the media ignores Obama's, the supposed Constitutional scholar, a pass when he declares the US Constitution as the source of the Declaration of Independence's "All men are created equal" or mispronounces 'corpsman 'as corpseman twice while reading from a teleprompter.

Under Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution the President swears to "Preserve. protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". Under Section 2 the President "Shall be the Commander in Chief" of the U.S.military. Article II of the US Constitution clearly codifies the duties and responsibilities of the President and Executive branch of government. The President and executive branch have no constitutional authority to own, mange, dismantle or sell, a legally constituted corporation or to deny owners and debtors of their legal rights in such an entity. There is no constitutional requirement for the federal government to provide social engineering services, particularly to 'save failing states' that went on profligate spending sprees or to 'create employment', a job for the private sector, or 'investment in human capital.

President deserves an F for failing to carry out his Constitutional duties while making every effort to create the USSA as Norman Thomas , the long time Socialist party Presidential

candidate predicted:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under

the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist

program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without

knowing how it happened."

Attempting to hide the true economic and political nature of government run and mandated care by not calling it by its true name is the way to avoid serious discussion of the consequences predicted by Mr.Thomas.

charlizecourriers  02/10/2010 05:15 PM Report

Obama could very easily have passed 'health care' if he had only taken the time to show the people of America what each provision of his bill was, what it would cost and how he proposed to pay for each provision. The fact that he didn't attempt to do this showed the people of America his plan was going to be an "inside job" brought to us by the sophocracy,a one party elite backed by big media.A fair minded person would now come to the conclusion that Obama is actually a poorly educated lawyer. He lost his first case and is scorned by millions of voters. He might get another chance but I doubt it given his rap-pap demeanor on the electronic stage. The teleprompter hubris he emits is offensive to all the non-believers in Rosemania. Goodbye Barry!

REMant  02/10/2010 03:53 PM Report

I liked nearly nothing of this, at times found it offensive, and it confirms the opinion coming from his appearances elsewhere that Brooks is far too much at home at THE Times, with the likes of Krugman and the other neo-Nazis there, and losing his sense of direction. Neo-Nazis, not because they have shaved heads, tattoos and sexual perversions, as they, themselves, like to portray such, but because they are Hamiltonian mercantilists and Walpolean Court Whigs all, as was Burke, and Keynes. In other language, national socialists all, and, yes, Rockefeller and co were described in the same terms in the 1950's. I might add that the establishment of police was of a piece with the ascension of Court Whiggery with the Hanoverians and with it the first riots against it. None of which were irrational, indeed quite the opposite, if the work of E P Thompson and others are to be believed, in what can only be called the real irony of the commons. Likewise it appears the Reaganites have been closet Whigs and no real republicans at all. But I have described this position at length here and elsewhere, and no amount of abstraction and sweet-talking can obscure the basic fact that it is based on behavioral modification to produce deferred gratification far more greedy, and neurotic as Weber showed, than any savage intemperance. The "marshmallow" experiment illustrates the rationale well. But there is a classic first-hand account from economist and Brown University president Francis Wayland, which I'll include in its entirety in the hope someone will read and profit from it ;-) (from American Baptist Magazine, October 1831, pp. 296-301):

"CASE OF CONVICTION

Mr. Editor,

I offer for the perusal of your readers, the simple narration of a trifling incident which has in a few days occurred in my own family. Although of but little importance to any one but those immediately concerned, I think it may be made to illustrate religious truths, and, if so, it will be valuable to all. It may be even specially useful from the part of its being of such a nature, as almost every parent is frequently called to witness.

My youngest child is an infant about 15 months old, with about the intelligence common to children of that age. It has for some months been evident, that he was more than usually self willed, but the several attempts to subdue him, had been thus far relinquished, from the fear that he did not fully understand what was said to him. It so happened, however, that I had never been brought into collision with him myself, until the incident occurred which I am about to relate. Still I had seen enough to convince me of the necessity of subduing his temper, and resolved to seize upon the first favorable opportunity which presented, for settling the question of authority between us.

On Friday last before breakfast, on my taking him from his nurse, he began to cry violently. I determined to hold him in my arms until he ceased. As he had a piece of bread in his hand, I took it away, intending to give it to him again after he became quiet. In a few minutes he ceased, but when I offered him the bread he threw it away, although he was very hungry. He had, in fact, taken no nourishment except a cup of milk since 5 o'clock on the preceding afternoon. I considered this a fit opportunity for attempting to subdue his temper, and resolved to embrace it. I thought it necessary to change his disposition, so that he would receive the bread from me, and also be so reconciled to me that he would voluntarily come to me. The task I found more difficult than I had expected.

I put him into a room by himself, and desired that no one should speak to him, or give him any food or drink whatever. This was about 8 o'clock in the morning. I visited him every hour or two during the day, and spoke to him in the kindest tones, offering him the bread and putting out my arms to take him. But throughout the whole day he remained inflexibly obstinate. He did not yield a hair's breadth. I put a cup of water to his mouth, and he drank it greedily, but would not touch it with his hands. If a crumb was dropped on the floor he would eat it, but if I offered him the piece of bread, he would push it away from him. When I told him to come to me, he would turn away and cry bitterly. He went to bed supperless. It was now twenty-four hours since he had eaten any thing.

He woke the next morning in the same state. He would take nothing that I offered him, and shunned all my offers of kindness. He was now truly an object of pity. He had fasted thirty-six hours. His eyes were wan and sunken. His breath hot and feverish, and his voice feeble and wailing. Yet he remained obstinate. He continued thus, till 10 o'clock, A.M. when hunger overcame him and he took from me a piece of bread, to which I added a cup of milk, and hoped that the labor was at last accomplished.

In this however I had not rightly judged. He ate his bread greedily, but when I offered to take him, he still refused as pertinaciously as ever. I therefore ceased feeding him, and recommenced my course of discipline.

He was again left alone in his crib, and I visited him as before, at intervals. About one o'clock, Saturday, I found that he began to view his condition in its true light. The tones of his voice in weeping were graver and less passionate, and had more the appearance of one bemoaning himself. Yet when I went to him, he still remained obstinate. You could clearly see in him the abortive efforts of the will. Frequently he would raise his hands an inch or two, and then suddenly put them down again. He would look at me, and then hiding his face in the bedclothes weep most sorrowfully. During all this time I was addressing him, whenever I came into the room, with invariable kindness. But my kindness met with no suitable return. All I required of him was, that he should come to me. This he would not do, and he began now to see that it had become a serious business. Hence his distress increased. He would not submit, and he found that there was no help without it. It was truly surprising to behold how much agony so young a being could inflict upon himself.

About three o'clock I visited him again. He continued in the state I have described. I was going away, and had opened the door, when I thought that he looked somewhat softened, and returning, put out my hands, again requesting him to come to me. To my joy, and I hope gratitude, he rose up and put forth his hands immediately. The agony was over. He was completely subdued. He repeatedly kissed me, and would do so whenever I commanded. He would kiss any one when I directed him, so full of love was he to all the family. Indeed, so entirely and instantaneously were his feelings towards me changed, that he preferred me now to any of the family. As he had never done before, he moaned after me when he saw that I was going away.

Since this event several slight revivals of his former temper have occurred, but they have all been easily subdued. His disposition is, as it never has been before, mild and obedient. He is kind and affectionate, and evidently much happier than he was, when he was determined to have his own way. I hope and pray that it may prove that an effect has been produced on him for life.

And now, Mr. Editor, let me say that I should not have taken the trouble of writing, nor given you the trouble of reading the apparently trifling detail, but for some lessons of practical improvement, which it has suggested to my own mind. If you will allow me briefly to lay them before your readers, I will make no farther demands upon your patience.

I. From this incident, which is in every respect literal fact, without any embellishment, parents may learn the intensity of the obstinacy of children. When they find their children stubborn, they need not be surprised. Let them hold out in a mild yet firm course of discipline until this obstinacy is subdued. This is real kindness. There can be no greater cruelty than to suffer a child to grow up with an unsubdued temper. Let us strive, by the grace of God, to cure the evil as early as possible. I do not make these remarks, by way of telling how much better I govern my family than other people. I believe no such thing. Far from it. God has seen fit to call me to bring up a child of unusually unyielding temper. I have related the effect of this method of treatment, in the hope that it might be an encouragement to those who may be required to undergo a similar trial.

II. But secondly, I could not avoid looking upon the whole of this little incident, as illustrative of the several steps in the ordinary progress of a sinner's conversion.

1. I remarked that my child was about 15 months old, and yet I had never been obliged thus to treat him before. The fact is, I had never before required any thing of him, which was directly contrary to his will. Hence there had never occurred any thing to test the question, whether he was disposed to consider my will or his own as of supreme authority. But as soon as a case occurred, which brought him and myself into direct and naked collision, his disposition was revealed in an instant. How unyielding that spirit of disobedience was, I have already related.

I have thought that this part of the incident illustrates the reason why so many sinners are not, and why some sinners are in a state of conviction. So long as they do not feel any thing to be immediately required of them, which is at variance with their own wishes and pursuits, they are at ease in sin. They feel no distinct opposition to the law of God, and are not in fact convinced that they are sinners. Let God grant a sinner's desires, and require of him only external service, and he would be entirely content. But let the Holy Spirit present before him the law in all its broadness, let him see that he must submit his will unreservedly and universally to the will of God, and he is at once in open rebellion. He was living without the law before, but let the commandment thus come, and his sinful disposition revives; that is, comes forth in its power, and he dies, that is, yields himself at once to its deadly influence. Thus the commandment which was unto life, that is, would have secured his happiness had he obeyed, is in consequence of his disposition found to be unto death. We see, therefore, why it is that men are not, when in a state of thoughtlessness, conscious of their enmity to God: namely, because they do not feel that his law is opposed to their will, and we see how it is, that their real character at once is revealed, when the real character of God is brought into immediate collision with their desires.

2. It will be remembered, that I offered my child food, and he would not take it. I offered to receive him to my arms, if he would renounce his hostility to me, and evince it by simply putting forth his arms to come to me. I would not force him to come, nor would I treat him with favor until he submitted. I was right and he was wrong. He might at any moment have put an end to the controversy. He was therefore inflicting all this misery voluntarily upon himself.

Here several things are to be observed.

1. The terms I offered him were perfectly kind. I was willing to pass by all that he had done, if he would only evince a right disposition. 2. I could offer no other terms. To have received him on any other terms would have been to allow that his will was to be my rule of action, and whenever he set out to have his own way, I must have obliged my whole family to have conformed in all their arrangements to his wishes. He must have been made the centre of the whole system. A whole family under the control of a child 15 months old! How unjust this would have been to all the rest, is evident. Besides, my other children and every member of my family would have been entitled to the same privilege. Hence there would have been as many supreme authorities as there were individuals, and contention to the uttermost must have ensued.

Again, suppose I had subjected all my family to this infant's caprice, and had done so whilst he remained under my roof, how could I have afflicted him with a more grievous curse? He would soon have entered a world where other and more powerful beings than he would have opposed his will, and his disposition which I had cherished must have made him miserable as long as he lived.

Or again, if all this had been done, he could not have been made happy. He did not know enough to be able to secure his own happiness. Had I let him do as he pleased, he would have burnt and scalded himself a dozen times a day, and would very soon have destroyed his life. Seeking, therefore, his good, and the good of the family, I could do nothing else than I did. Kindness to him as much as to them, taught me not to yield to him on any other terms than a change of disposition.

On the contrary, by yielding to me, my whole family has been restored to order; he is happier by far than he has ever been before, and he is acquiring a disposition which will fit him for the wide world, which, if he lives, he will enter upon.

So, to apply all this to the case of a sinner, God can offer a sinner no other terms than repentance. To yield to the sinner's will, and save him without the unconditional surrender of his will, would be to make the sinner's will the centre of the moral universe. How would you like a moral government founded on your neighbor's caprice? It would be to throw down the government of law, and make this universe a hell.

It would be unkind to the sinner himself. He does not know enough of the universe to secure his own happiness, if he were permitted to act without control. He would make a hell for himself, even if God left him entirely alone. It is, therefore, infinitely kind in God to resist him, for if he were not resisted, he would destroy the happiness of the universe and himself together. By resisting him, he only ruins himself.

To avoid all these evils, God only requires of him to surrender his own wilful and wicked opposition, and be happy. Is it not exceedingly reasonable that he should do so? Is there any thing to cause his pain but his own wilful obstinacy? Does he not inflict all his misery upon himself? In one word, the creature is trying every possible means of escape from the wrath to come, except submission, and this it obstinately and most sensitively avoids. Ought we to tell a sinner in such a state to wait, to use the means, or to submit to God, while yet he was holding out the sceptre of mercy?

3. Again. When very hungry, my child accepted of bread from my hand while yet his opposition to me was unchanged. Extreme distress produced a forced yielding, so far as to secure an immediate alleviation, but his heart was the same as ever.

Thus we fear it is with many a convicted sinner. He sees that eternal destruction is before him, and he must yield or perish. He yields as it were to force. He gives up this and that and the other external sin. He surrenders the objects on which his heart is set, rather than his heart itself. The stream is changed rather than the fountain. He gradually convinces himself that God has pardoned him, and settles down too frequently in a false hope. At other times God reveals to him again the deceitfulness of his heart with still greater clearness, and he is yet more distressed than ever. Happy are they who are thus led to surrender their whole body and soul and spirit a living sacrifice to their God and Redeemer.

4. The change, as I remarked, was instantaneous. He might have obeyed me as well twenty-four hours before. It produced an instantaneous change in his whole character.

So in the case of conversion. The sinner has only to submit himself to the righteous government of God, and accept of the Saviour's sacrifice, and the agony is over. There is no reason why he should delay. You may do it now, reader, whilst your eyes rest upon this trifling relation. The moment of your doing so, will introduce you to a new world. You will be filled with love to God. The peace that passeth understanding will be shed abroad in your heart. Your bosom will glow with love to the whole family of the redeemed on earth and in heaven. You will find that happiness can never be obtained by obeying your own will, but that it is obtained only by relinquishing it, and making God the centre of your affections, the eternal rest of your soul.

I will close with a very few words of address.

1. We frequently hear persons declare that they are not opposed to God, and therefore need not a change of heart. My dear friend, should God set his law before you in the full exactitude of its enactment; should he cut you off from every thing you love until you obeyed his law, and loved him with all your soul, and mind, and strength, how would it be with you? How would you love such a God, and such a government? In such a condition you will soon find yourself. Is it not true then that you must be born again?

2. To the convicted sinner I would say, that all your distress results from the conviction that you must submit your will to God, or perish. Unqualified submission, is, to an unhumbled heart, the most grievous of all things. But I pray you consider that it is just. God's throne would be iniquitous unless he required it. You cannot be happy without it. You will be happy as soon as you do it. The whole redeemed universe will rejoice to welcome you to their family. Submit yourself to God.

Not only is God just in this, he is infinitely compassionate. He gave his own Son to suffer, to render this offer possible. Now is his day of grace. He only asks you to be his dear child. His language during all your obstinate resistance to the strivings of his Spirit is, How can I give thee up, Ephraim? How can you resist so compassionate a Redeemer any longer?

3. But beware of a false peace. It is not giving up the objects of our regard, it is the surrendering of the will itself that is repentance. It is the renouncing of our own will, and placing the will of God on the throne of our hearts. Let us pray for the searchings of his Spirit, that we may not, in so important a question, be deceived.

4. The evidence of this change is found in a life conformed to the will of God. If our wills are carnal and selfish, our lives will be so too. If the will of God rules in us, our lives will exemplify the holiness of his law. We shall love his society. We shall love to please and obey him. We shall love all holy beings, and derive much of our happiness from communion with the saints.

A PLAIN MAN."

All behavioral conditioning, Pavolovian or Skinnerian, begins with deprivation. The idea is a direct outgrowth of the Baptist evangelism such as Wayland preached. It should be stressed that Wayland, being opposed to the New England Theology of Stoic rationalism, and the belief that the will follows the intellect, was considered a liberal, akin to the Anglicans of the time. It is this "bobo" hypocrisy that Mandeville made fun of in his Fable, that Bolingbroke and the majority of our own Founders deplored. Liberalism of this sort is social control in diguise. It causes the shame, the envy, the spoiling, and the fear of independent individuals, which lies equally behind T-groups and political correctness. It causes financial crises, rampant inflation, social and economic enervation, stifling bureaucracy, and unemployment. Here is Tocqueville in a pertinent excerpt (of many that could be adduced) from Democracy in America Vol 2:

"I think then that the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything which ever before existed in the world: our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. I am trying myself to choose an expression which will accurately convey the whole of the idea I have formed of it, but in vain; the old words "despotism" and "tyranny" are inappropriate: the thing itself is new; and since I cannot name it, I must attempt to define it. I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest - his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not - he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country. Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances - what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself...After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a net-work of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd...They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite; they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large that holds the end of his chain. By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master, and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience."

I don't know what the Tea Party is, or even if it is any single thing, but it is certainly not simply a phobia, their remonstrances Jeremiads, their view Janus-faced. These are in fact the progressive positions and always have been, and indeed, the view of many Nazis. This is basically the divide familiar from the culture wars of the past generation. Ppl have every reason to distrust these institutions. Considering that they are merely slaves to the passions, as Brooks appears to, is clearly a rationale for tyranny, exactly what Locke wrote against. Last week on Moyers Lawrence Lessig argued that we should prohibit free association, or, at least, its speech. Before that the so-called progressives were all for repealing the 2nd amendment. When will they get to the rest? It certainly doesn't say much for their belief in the possibility of virtue now does it? And you say the president should work to gain their trust. How? Like President Wayland? And I haven't even touched on the notion suggested that this is all a matter of rhetoric, confidence-building and the like, but, obviously, that is a matter of projection, as well.

But I think Obama was not in the beginning looking to Progressive-era technocracy, much less engaged in child-saving, rather to exercise a clear mandate to invest in long overdue structural improvements, which have been waylaid not so much by a pack of Luddites (which actually does the latter an injustice), but by a combination of vested interests and vested politicians with control of the money supply, who have played to his native Jesuitical tendencies. Much of the TARP, and Fed funds, in a supreme irony, are being spent not here, but overseas, which may account for why the stock mkt went down when the Euro appeared in trouble. As a matter of policy it makes zero sense to support prices here to fuel growth there which puts further pressure on prices here. We may as well retire the flag. And yet this is what the banking portion of mercantilism, Progressivism and Keynesianism is about. Anyone who reads The Wealth of Nations must be struck by the paradox that while Smith is praising the salutary effect of the division of labor in expanding markets, he deplores the loss of virtue of those working in factories. The latter however was the issue of mercantilism, while Smith hewed to a republican line. For him free trade meant expanding human horizons and divided labor the opportunity to specialize, not to slave away on an assembly line. The issue has never been over protection vs free trade, but rather over whether the system is founded on a republican or monarchical basis.

Don't kid yourself. We are in a war for survival. The ordinary Joe knows it and a great deal more. A plumber can make $50K/yr, and in Indiana, not NYC. Many see clearly that a lot of schooling is both worthless and intended for gate-keeping, conclusions which are anything but irrational. In addition, until recently, and directly because of the policies Brooks seems to applaud, positions on the assembly line paid better than college professors. Not anymore. The progress of those policies saw to that. If it goes on much longer the only rational move would be to join the Mafia or the Jacobins.

EdKrause  02/10/2010 03:38 PM Report

Please pardon my typos; I should have proofread before clicking 'submit'.

EdKrause  02/10/2010 03:32 PM Report

David is always thoughtful and curious... and very likable. He also tends to overreach, looking for find some grand coherent narrative or "wind" coming from the American people... I know this is partly his job, but it's infuriating. What is coming from the American is inchoate frustration. I don't believe their is a wind saying the American people don't want massive health care reform. We do, believe me David. We may "not know much" about a lot of things, but we know the health care system is broken, reduced to, even more than congress is... and there are better functioning examples all over the planet showing us how to reform.

Likewise, I don't think the tea party is anything more than the pathetically uninformed being whipped into a frenzy by Fox news and Rush Limbaugh; and as Republicans block anything and everything coming from Obama, who is sincerely working to make America's promise a reality, they somehow blame Obama for not making our country heal faster from the wounds caused by 8 years of disastrous policies under Bush/Cheney.

I believe bi-partisanship is possible, but not now. Obama must do whatever it takes, within the law, to make his agenda a reality. Like the original resistance to medicare, and civil rights in the 60's, most people will, eventually, thank him -- and history will be kind to him. Obama shouldn't pull back as a result of losing one seat in the senate. He should be bold. FDR didn't coddle Republican's, he relished in defying them and painted them as villians, which, mostly, given what the times needed, they were.