The Rise of the Radical Republican

It occurred to me today, while reading one of David Brook's posts, that I never really explained why I picked Mr. Brooks (as opposed to any of the other NY Times columnists) to respond to each week. So, here it goes:

I chose to follow columnist David Brooks because I respect him in a way that I cannot respect pretty much any Republican politician in this era. Even though I do not always agree with Mr. Brooks, I feel like he is open to conversation and reasoning. Many of his arguments are not made with a strong, "I'm right, you're wrong" tone, but are more subtle. Often he plays devil's advocate, exposing both sides of an idea before settling on one. I understand that on the national scale, candidates do not have this luxury to weigh pros and cons. In order to get money and support from their parties, they must do some pandering; they must sound confident in their policies; and they usually won't change their minds, for risk of being labeled as inconsistent or dishonest. It still never fails to frustrate me, though, when they say something offensive or just plain stupid.

The other reason I love following David Brooks is because he is not afraid to dissociate from his party. Instead of making it easier for himself, as so many people do, and letting the party make decisions for him, he looks at his own values and holds his party (and its candidates) accountable for measuring up to them. If they don't, he has no problem distancing himself.

In fact, he did just that this week in his article: "The Republicans' Incompetence Caucus," when he argued that the Republicans have changed to the point where they have lost their founding principles. He explains, "Conservatism stands for intellectual humility,...incremental change, a preference for reform rather than revolution, a respect for hierarchy, precedence, balance and order, and a tone of voice that is prudent, measured and responsible...All of this has been overturned in dangerous parts of the Republican Party." Personally, I couldn't agree more. The Republicans, especially those in the House, have become so radicalized that they would rather shut down the government than talk reasonably about issues like funding Planned Parenthood or the Affordable Care Act.

Brooks points out that politics is "the process of making decisions amid diverse opinions. It involves conversation, calm deliberation, self-discipline, the capacity to listen to other points of view and balance valid but competing ideas and interests." Politics is meant to be a way of reconciling two different opinions in order to improve our society. Instead, Republicans have come to look at politics in general as a corrupt institution. And instead of working together with Democrats to set it right, they just sit around complaining. They would rather stall the political processes than make a compromise to get something done.

I can only hope, for Brook's sake and my own, that things change soon - preferably before the 2016 election.