A frequent commenter here who goes by the name of Zorro pointed me to an article, "The Tea Party Teens", written by David Brooks in the New York Times that outlines the possibility of this movement becoming center stage. The tea party movement has only just begun that article posits. It's an interesting perspective and I suppose Brooks has a point, especially considering how this country started with a ban of dissenters opposing a then powerful empire.
Brooks points out the movements of the 60's and 70's that changed the landscape of America. The main difference here as I see it is that the civil rights movement and the feminist movement had to do with human rights. The frightening thing about the tea party movement with Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann as spokespersons is the hate, divisiveness, and violent aggression that is exhibited at their rallies, not to mention the racist background and rhetoric of the tea party founders, If this movement can transform America it will indicate that we have not really evolved and the history of oppression can readily re-emerge.
Fear, real or imagined, has a way of bringing up deeply seated biases and prejudices. If this movement indeed has the potential of becoming center stage, I understand even greater now the message of Jews: "never again." I see the tea party as an ominous movement, not because of its passion but because of its racist divisive message coached in constitutional rights such as the right to bear arms and speak freely. I also find it correlative that such a movement emerged with the election of the first African American president. Vigilant we must be!
Another thing that is important to mention is that Brooks is an intellectual and conservative. While I appreciate much of what he writes, the fact that he uses Rasmussen in his article as proof of his ideas for a central point which includes the all-important independent voters, did not sit well with me. Rasmussen, the hired pollster for the Bush administration, is known to be bias. Its polls are ALWAYS favorable to the issues on the right even when all others are left by large margins. This seems to indicate prodding via questioning to evoke a desired response.
The problem also with intellectual types is that they take themselves too seriously and hence tend to find reasons to support their opinions as opposed to doing the exact opposite, finding reasons to negate them. With the latter reality is more readily revealed. I am not particularly disparaging Brooks, rather making a general statement. I do, however, find his last statement a bit ironic considering all that came beforehand. Perhaps, he is indicating that he has actually taken the opposite view to arrive at his reasoning. This is understood. But I do wonder about Brooks' motive.
Showing posts with label David Brooks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Brooks. Show all posts
Friday, January 8, 2010
Friday, October 9, 2009
Being for the Public Option VII
David Brooks, conservative columnist for the New York Times, is one who I have followed for many years. While I do not always agree with Brooks, he is typically thoughtful and fair. Here is the opening of his very thoughtful Op-Ed piece today.
The longer the health care debate goes on, the more I become convinced that the American system needs fundamental reform. We need to transition away from a fee-for-service system to one that directs incentives toward better care, not more procedures. We need to move away from the employer-based system, which is eroding year by year. We need to move toward a more transparent system, in which people see the consequences of their choices.For those who espouse freedom, why not this choice?
I’ve also become convinced that the approach championed by Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, is the best vehicle for this sort of change. The Wyden approach —first introduced in a bill with Robert F. Bennett, Republican of Utah, and now pared down to an amendment to the current bills—would combine choice with universal coverage.
People with insurance could stay with their existing health plans. But if they didn’t like the plans their employer offered, they could take the money their employer spends, add whatever they wanted to throw in, and shop for a better option on a regulated exchange. People without insurance would get subsidies to shop at the exchanges.
Americans would have real choices. The vigorous exchanges would reward providers and insurers that are efficient, creative and innovative.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Being David Brooks V
"Private debt got us in this spending not federal debt."
David Brooks made this point on "Meet the Press." Generally, he made some really good points. I just wonder if he failed to realize that the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are totaling some $915.1 billion dollars for what some believe are not wars of necessity. The point, however, is well taken when considering the some $815 billion dollars that largely went to Wall Street banks and AIG.
David Brooks made this point on "Meet the Press." Generally, he made some really good points. I just wonder if he failed to realize that the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are totaling some $915.1 billion dollars for what some believe are not wars of necessity. The point, however, is well taken when considering the some $815 billion dollars that largely went to Wall Street banks and AIG.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Being David Brooks IV
In a recent comment here John O'Leary pointed me to an excellent article written by conservative columnist, David Brooks. Brooks is often very thoughtful and I have written more than a few posts on him. Many times I am in agreement with him and other times I am not. This is a time that I am in complete agreement. The article concludes with this spot on statement:
What are your thoughts?
If there is to be a movement to restore economic values, it will have to cut across the current taxonomies. Its goal will be to make the U.S. again a producer economy, not a consumer economy. It will champion a return to financial self-restraint, large and small.The beauty for me here is the personal accountability and responsibility for each and every one of us. The article requires us of us to each look at ourselves and made hard decisions, real ones. Turnarounds are not easy but turnaround we must on various levels and in various places. We each must begin to hold each other accountable right where we are in our homes, places of worship, neighborhoods, schools, universities, and work environments. This is the cultural change that is needed. Change is never easy, but many times it is most important. This is such a time.
It will have to take on what you might call the lobbyist ethos — the righteous conviction held by everybody from AARP to the agribusinesses that their groups are entitled to every possible appropriation, regardless of the larger public cost. It will have to take on the self-indulgent popular demand for low taxes and high spending.
A crusade for economic self-restraint would have to rearrange the current alliances and embrace policies like energy taxes and spending cuts that are now deemed politically impossible. But this sort of moral revival is what the country actually needs.
What are your thoughts?
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Being David Brooks III
Conservative columnist, David Brooks, whom I have followed for years and whose columns I often appreciate, wrote a thoughtful piece on Bernanke and the Fed that is worth considering, "Wise Muddling Through." I have written of Brooks here before.
Brooks writes:
First, it is very difficult to speak about another's moral intuition, especially when that one was over Goldman Sachs and when he and Geithner, who was over the NY Fed, have such cozy relationships with Wall Street bank executives.
Morality is shown by consistent actions and decisions. Paulson insisted that Merrill Lynch and Bank of America merge, giving the latter a pretty hefty bailout. BofA would probably be insolvent without it, as well as Goldman Sachs.
Second, it was their lack of complete oversight of these banks over many years that led to the crisis, not just merely allowing Lehman to fail, but allowing AIG to essentially become a Hedge Fund that insured Goldman Sachs, becoming too big too fail.
While Brooks is appreciated, I am with Jack Bogle, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Arianna Huffington and Eliot Spitzer. Their words and actions have mattered most in this economic crisis.
Brooks writes:
Their decision not to bail out Lehman Brothers was based on a complete misreading of the economic psychology. Paulson was sick of doing bailouts. He seems to have had some sort of intuitive moral sense that it was time for some bank to pay for its mistakes. Bernanke and Geithner went along, and none of them anticipated the meltdown that followed.As I see it, there are two things wrong here:
But this is not a story of failure. It’s a story of effective muddling through. Bernanke & Co. never really got control of events. But they did avert disaster and committed only a few big blunders. In the real world, that counts as a job well done.
First, it is very difficult to speak about another's moral intuition, especially when that one was over Goldman Sachs and when he and Geithner, who was over the NY Fed, have such cozy relationships with Wall Street bank executives.
Morality is shown by consistent actions and decisions. Paulson insisted that Merrill Lynch and Bank of America merge, giving the latter a pretty hefty bailout. BofA would probably be insolvent without it, as well as Goldman Sachs.
Second, it was their lack of complete oversight of these banks over many years that led to the crisis, not just merely allowing Lehman to fail, but allowing AIG to essentially become a Hedge Fund that insured Goldman Sachs, becoming too big too fail.
While Brooks is appreciated, I am with Jack Bogle, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Arianna Huffington and Eliot Spitzer. Their words and actions have mattered most in this economic crisis.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Being David Brooks II
In considering health care reform, David Brooks of the New York Times makes some very relevant points in his article, "Lombardi Politics." He smartly outlines the dilemma of the executive and legislative branches and two kinds of pragmatism, "legislative pragmatism — writing bills that can pass" and " policy pragmatism — creating programs that work."
What was interesting immediately was the definition that both are pragmatic. When one usually thinks of programs they are either pragmatic or ideological within both the legislative and executive branches. (They could also have elements of both.) But here when considering both a Democratic president and Congress, Brooks defines both as pragmatic. Are Democrats seen as pragmatic and Republicans more ideological?
Brooks makes an excellent point which has more to do with politics than programs in that the stimulus bill, cap and trade bill, and now the health care bill all have to be negotiated so that a bill that could actually work becomes so convoluted by politics that by the time it passes it has no effect or even increases the problems that the bill itself sought to alleviate. He cites the European Union's cap and trade bill as increasing emissions after it was passed as opposed to decreasing them. In relation to health care Brooks writes,
What was interesting immediately was the definition that both are pragmatic. When one usually thinks of programs they are either pragmatic or ideological within both the legislative and executive branches. (They could also have elements of both.) But here when considering both a Democratic president and Congress, Brooks defines both as pragmatic. Are Democrats seen as pragmatic and Republicans more ideological?
Brooks makes an excellent point which has more to do with politics than programs in that the stimulus bill, cap and trade bill, and now the health care bill all have to be negotiated so that a bill that could actually work becomes so convoluted by politics that by the time it passes it has no effect or even increases the problems that the bill itself sought to alleviate. He cites the European Union's cap and trade bill as increasing emissions after it was passed as opposed to decreasing them. In relation to health care Brooks writes,
On health care too, the complicated job of getting a bill that can pass is taking priority over the complicated task of creating a program that can work. Dozens of different ideas are being added, watered down or merged together in order to cobble together a majority. But will the logrolling produce a sustainable health system that controls costs and actually hangs together?Brooks does not offer a solution, but he does give us much to think about. In considering a solution I wonder if getting big business out of campaign financing would be a great start. Bills then would not be laden with such pork and the probability of passing one that will actually make a difference will be far greater, not to mention that the power element associated with members of Congress will be lessened and servant leadership more possible.
The great paradox of the age is that Barack Obama, the most riveting of recent presidents, is leading us into an era of Congressional dominance. And Congressional governance is a haven for special interest pleading and venal logrolling.
When the executive branch is dominant you often get coherent proposals that may not pass. When Congress is dominant, as now, you get politically viable mishmashes that don’t necessarily make sense.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Being David Brooks
While I sometimes appreciate New York Times columnist David Brooks’ opinions, I think he misses some very important points in a recent article, "In Praise of Dullness". Based on a study, "Which C.E.O. Characterisitcs and Abilities Matter?", by Steven Kaplan, Mark Klebanov and Morten Sorensen, Brooks suggests that listening and communication are overrated and that never has/shall the twine mix successfully, as one is about execution and the other merely about charm and ideas. He distinguishes between the politicians and the business leaders with regards to execution. By the way, not once while reading the article did I picture women business leaders. Hmm? I wonder why?
There need not be a separation between ideas and execution and there also need not be not be a specific model from which every CEO is hewed. Personalities matter and there are as many diverse personalities in this position as there are people. In fact, person is the root of personalities. While the core characteristics of any venture, government or business, is execution, ideas on how it is done is what allows for execution, even when the CEO ultimately makes the decision on how things are done. Listening and communication are essential in our time especially.
Brooks seems to be writing about CEO's that had not been a part of the information age by and large. It was a different era. While the basics of business have not change i.e., "execution and organizational skills, attention to detail, persistence, efficiency, analytic thoroughness and the ability to work long hours" the way in which these things are done within a global market, if not more than the necessary communication with others globally, has changed. It's a global market and a CEO better be listening and communicating, not only to his teams but to others outside of them and these team members better be listening to each other and the general public. Business has never been done in a vacuum.
Brooks' opinion also does not take into account small business owners who are the backbone of this economy who rely on communication with their staff and clients and where listening is paramount. These also build community in ways that big business does not and where perhaps a lack of communication and listening on some levels is not as paramount. (Maybe the lack of such has been the downfall of community in some sense. Or, perhaps it is being somewhat redefined.) But it is not an either/or situation—to listen or not in this age. It is the only solution. The past environment may have lend itself to a more centralized power structure where all people thought alike and a diversity of input was not as welcoming. But this is an altogether new global technological age and how we communicate and listen is more important than ever.
It's funny. Brooks says that "business and politics do not blend well. Business leaders tend to perform poorly in Washington, while political leader possess precisely those talents – charisma, charm, personal skills - that are of such limited value when it comes to corporate execution." Hmm? I wonder about the correlation between Mr. Cheney and Halliburton here, Washington and corporate executives. This solitary image utterly defies what Brooks has written. Cheney was a CEO, Vice-President, horrid listener by all accounts, and lacked communication skills. He left the country in a big mess. According to Brooks' standard an opposite Washington type would be a more hard-line non-communicative dictatorial type like the former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But just look at where his leadership in Iraq left us before the thoughtful more communicative current Defense Secretary Dr. Robert Gates. According to Brooks' standard an opposite Washington type would be a more hard-line non-communicative dictatorial type like the former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield. But just look at where his leadership in Iraq left us before the thoughtful more communicative current Secretary of Defense Dr. Robert Gates.
Brooks and his ilk also like to pretend that there is some big separation between government and big business when in reality they have been in bed for years. Can you say Halliburton—now KBR? (It's the same business different name.) There need not be a disconnection between ideas and execution, government and business in this regard. In fact, government allowed big business to prosper. It was a union of sorts. Without such there would have been no roads and highways, for example, which enabled Ford, Firestone and Edison to prosper in their business ventures of cars, wheels and street lights. But we have to demand of our public officials on all levels, local and national and be active citizens in our government. We need to hold them accountable. The big problem is self-interest in government and big business.
Opining the death of CEOs' control as he sees it, as if they have not been culpable in the current mess and not in need of imposed regulation as they seem unable to regulate themselves, Brooks writes: "We now have an administration freely interposing itself in the management culture of industry after industry. It won’t be the regulations that will be costly, but the revolution in values. When Washington is a profit center, C.E.O.’s are forced to adopt the traits of politicians. That is the insidious way that other nations have lost their competitive edge." Does this not sound like there have been no culpability with the likes of CEOs in finance and the auto industry? This statement is utterly asinine from this perspective.
Brooks makes this statement: "People in the literary, academic and media worlds rarely understand business." Tell that to Arianna Huffington! "It is nearly impossible to think of a novel that accurately portrays business success," he continues. Can you say Ayn Rand? Hmm? Two women? The problem with David Brooks here is that his views are narrow; he also apparently cannot possibly conceive of women in his neat dull scenario. Brooks seems to be trying to hold on to a crumbling all white male CEO image that he has become accustomed to writing about rooted in political ideology that limits both perspective and reality. Tom Peters' book In Search of Excellence lists as many diverse CEO personalities as there are successes. And that was over 25 years ago!
There need not be a separation between ideas and execution and there also need not be not be a specific model from which every CEO is hewed. Personalities matter and there are as many diverse personalities in this position as there are people. In fact, person is the root of personalities. While the core characteristics of any venture, government or business, is execution, ideas on how it is done is what allows for execution, even when the CEO ultimately makes the decision on how things are done. Listening and communication are essential in our time especially.
Brooks seems to be writing about CEO's that had not been a part of the information age by and large. It was a different era. While the basics of business have not change i.e., "execution and organizational skills, attention to detail, persistence, efficiency, analytic thoroughness and the ability to work long hours" the way in which these things are done within a global market, if not more than the necessary communication with others globally, has changed. It's a global market and a CEO better be listening and communicating, not only to his teams but to others outside of them and these team members better be listening to each other and the general public. Business has never been done in a vacuum.
Brooks' opinion also does not take into account small business owners who are the backbone of this economy who rely on communication with their staff and clients and where listening is paramount. These also build community in ways that big business does not and where perhaps a lack of communication and listening on some levels is not as paramount. (Maybe the lack of such has been the downfall of community in some sense. Or, perhaps it is being somewhat redefined.) But it is not an either/or situation—to listen or not in this age. It is the only solution. The past environment may have lend itself to a more centralized power structure where all people thought alike and a diversity of input was not as welcoming. But this is an altogether new global technological age and how we communicate and listen is more important than ever.
It's funny. Brooks says that "business and politics do not blend well. Business leaders tend to perform poorly in Washington, while political leader possess precisely those talents – charisma, charm, personal skills - that are of such limited value when it comes to corporate execution." Hmm? I wonder about the correlation between Mr. Cheney and Halliburton here, Washington and corporate executives. This solitary image utterly defies what Brooks has written. Cheney was a CEO, Vice-President, horrid listener by all accounts, and lacked communication skills. He left the country in a big mess. According to Brooks' standard an opposite Washington type would be a more hard-line non-communicative dictatorial type like the former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But just look at where his leadership in Iraq left us before the thoughtful more communicative current Defense Secretary Dr. Robert Gates. According to Brooks' standard an opposite Washington type would be a more hard-line non-communicative dictatorial type like the former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield. But just look at where his leadership in Iraq left us before the thoughtful more communicative current Secretary of Defense Dr. Robert Gates.
Brooks and his ilk also like to pretend that there is some big separation between government and big business when in reality they have been in bed for years. Can you say Halliburton—now KBR? (It's the same business different name.) There need not be a disconnection between ideas and execution, government and business in this regard. In fact, government allowed big business to prosper. It was a union of sorts. Without such there would have been no roads and highways, for example, which enabled Ford, Firestone and Edison to prosper in their business ventures of cars, wheels and street lights. But we have to demand of our public officials on all levels, local and national and be active citizens in our government. We need to hold them accountable. The big problem is self-interest in government and big business.
Opining the death of CEOs' control as he sees it, as if they have not been culpable in the current mess and not in need of imposed regulation as they seem unable to regulate themselves, Brooks writes: "We now have an administration freely interposing itself in the management culture of industry after industry. It won’t be the regulations that will be costly, but the revolution in values. When Washington is a profit center, C.E.O.’s are forced to adopt the traits of politicians. That is the insidious way that other nations have lost their competitive edge." Does this not sound like there have been no culpability with the likes of CEOs in finance and the auto industry? This statement is utterly asinine from this perspective.
Brooks makes this statement: "People in the literary, academic and media worlds rarely understand business." Tell that to Arianna Huffington! "It is nearly impossible to think of a novel that accurately portrays business success," he continues. Can you say Ayn Rand? Hmm? Two women? The problem with David Brooks here is that his views are narrow; he also apparently cannot possibly conceive of women in his neat dull scenario. Brooks seems to be trying to hold on to a crumbling all white male CEO image that he has become accustomed to writing about rooted in political ideology that limits both perspective and reality. Tom Peters' book In Search of Excellence lists as many diverse CEO personalities as there are successes. And that was over 25 years ago!
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Being Bobby Jindal II
Here is conservative New York Times columinist, David Brooks, calling Jindal's response "nihislisim," "insane," "stale," "a disaster," and "unfortunate."
Could anyone have summed up this response more accurate?
Could anyone have summed up this response more accurate?
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Being Non-Partisan
President-elect Obama's dinner at conservative George Will's house yesterday evening, where the guest were other conservative writers including the New York Times columnist David Brooks, Weekly Standard's William Kristol, and Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post, indicates that he is compeletly not interested in partisan politics. It also indicates that President-elect Obama is confident in his ability to lead all of the people.
Some might say that this dinner was just a gesture. But gestures matter! This one as well as a great many others will go a long way in fostering the proper mindset necessary to move us forward together as a nation. It will also bring the far Right and far Left together, bringing a more centrist politics. We want the same thing, both the Right and Left, even if idealogically we differ. We want a better America for all Americans and to be a responsible member of the world community.
America, this is our time!
Some might say that this dinner was just a gesture. But gestures matter! This one as well as a great many others will go a long way in fostering the proper mindset necessary to move us forward together as a nation. It will also bring the far Right and far Left together, bringing a more centrist politics. We want the same thing, both the Right and Left, even if idealogically we differ. We want a better America for all Americans and to be a responsible member of the world community.
America, this is our time!
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Being Seduced
The Great Seduction
The people who created this country built a moral structure around money. (Well, in some ways they did; benefiting from an economic system of free labor in both the North and South that reduced people to property was in no way moral. Yet, we progress onward to that "more perfect union.") The Puritan legacy inhibited luxury and self-indulgence. Benjamin Franklin spread a practical gospel that emphasized hard work, temperance, and frugality. Millions of parents, preachers, newspaper editors, and teachers expounded the message. The result was quite remarkable.
The United Stats has been an affluent nation since its founding. But the country was, by and large, not corrupted by wealth. For centuries, it reminded industrious, ambitious, and frugal.
Over the past 30 years, much of that has been shredded. The social norms and institutions that encouraged frugality and spend what you earn have been undermined. The institutions that encourage debt and living for the moment have been strengthened. The country's moral guardians are forever looking for decadence out of Hollywood and reality the most rampant decadence today is financial decadence, the trampling of decent norms about how to use and harness money.
David Brooks
The New York Times
June 10, 2008
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this piece. What do you think? Can we turn things around? How might we do so?
The people who created this country built a moral structure around money. (Well, in some ways they did; benefiting from an economic system of free labor in both the North and South that reduced people to property was in no way moral. Yet, we progress onward to that "more perfect union.") The Puritan legacy inhibited luxury and self-indulgence. Benjamin Franklin spread a practical gospel that emphasized hard work, temperance, and frugality. Millions of parents, preachers, newspaper editors, and teachers expounded the message. The result was quite remarkable.
The United Stats has been an affluent nation since its founding. But the country was, by and large, not corrupted by wealth. For centuries, it reminded industrious, ambitious, and frugal.
Over the past 30 years, much of that has been shredded. The social norms and institutions that encouraged frugality and spend what you earn have been undermined. The institutions that encourage debt and living for the moment have been strengthened. The country's moral guardians are forever looking for decadence out of Hollywood and reality the most rampant decadence today is financial decadence, the trampling of decent norms about how to use and harness money.
David Brooks
The New York Times
June 10, 2008
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this piece. What do you think? Can we turn things around? How might we do so?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)