|
On its surface, David Brooks' column "The More Things Change..." has plausibility and balance. On reflection, however, it has neither.
Brooks submits that a Democratic candidate for president in the last generation has generally been a man who "leads with his judgment," while Republican candidates have been "straight-talking men of faith." But how plausible is this implicit claim that Republicans have been men of better character?
Just to give one example, Brooks' conception requires us to think of Ronald Reagan as being a person of higher moral character and greater honesty than Jimmy Carter. How plausible is that? Reagan, our first divorced president ever, was a capable politician who was misunderestimated by the Democrats and did not hesitate to assure the voters in 1984 that (Mondale to the contrary) he would not raise their taxes -- and then go on to do it after winning their votes. Jimmy Carter was a man whose simple faith and lifelong loving marriage were made an object of ridicule by Republicans when he was in office and who has since continued to be a beloved world figure on the basis of his moral uprightness and courage.
Mr. Brooks, you were right the first time. It is partisanship -- Republican partisanship -- that accounts for our division. If the opponent has the more credible religious faith, it is clear from the record the Republicans will find in themselves enough sophisticated cynicism to ridicule it.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
