However, I am not a fan of his NY Times column. I say this for two, completely unrelated, reasons. First, his columns are often quite dull. Brooks is much more interested in sociological and psychological analysis than I am. Second, his column is very different in tone and emphasis than what you get from him when he wears his TV and radio talking head hat. Today's column is a good example of this. It is an attempt to describe, as favorably as possible, the recent rightward lurch of the GOP. He cites an article by Yuval Levin in the Weekly Standard as a good example of what he sees as the GOP's realization that "the the welfare-state model is in its death throes", and the old rules just don't apply anymore. So it is not that the GOP has gone bonkers; rather, they simply have a new point of view that requires the party to change its governing approach.
What I found exasperating about Brook's column was an almost complete lack of analysis of the material he presents. Does he agree with this new GOP point of view, or not? He clearly used to think some of the positions advocated by the GOP after the financial crisis were "insane." Has he changed his mind? If so, why? You'll never found out by reading the column.
However, Brook's lack of analysis goes beyond a mere refusal to self-disclose. It is also remarkably passively uncritical. Assume, as I am willing to do, that his description of the current GOP "point of view" is accurate. Is there any reason to think that it is true, or even a reasonable approximation of reality?
What do we know in 2012 about the burdens of the welfare state that we didn't know in 2007? Nothing so far as I can tell. We have demographic problem in which fewer and fewer workers will be supporting more and more retiring baby-boomers. The places a burden on Social Security, but especially on Medicare that is quite serious unless something is done to reign in the inflation rate of medical care. Is there anything new about this? Public policy wonks have been talking about this for a couple of decades at least.
He also points to GOP concerns about lower growth rates since 1999. This is to be sure a real concern, but I am surprised that it is one that conservatives wish to highlight. The economics of the post-Clinton era is defined by large tax cuts for the wealthy, an unprecedented unwillingness to fund both wars and major entitlement expansions, and a crippling financial crisis brought on by spectacular failures of judgment and ethics in the private sector in general and by Wall Street in particular. These are all policies that the GOP either actively advanced or passively encouraged. The post-WWII era of prosperity and growth that Brooks looks back on with nostalgic affection were decades that witnessed both stronger regulation of business and much higher taxes on the wealthy. Just how does a conservative compare these two eras and conclude that what we need is less regulation of business and lower taxes on the wealthy? The ability of conservatives, as Brooks describes them, to hold both of these two clearly inconsistent positions simultaneously is as breathtaking as it is puzzling.
Finally, what in the world does the welfare state have to do with low levels of growth anyway? Consider the changes in GDP and unemployment from 2006-2011 for five countries.
What conclusions can we draw from this data? Well, of these countries the best GDP growth has been in Sweden, Denmark, and Canada. The U.S. performed somewhat worse, and Ireland brings up the rear. If we look at unemployment, again, Sweden, Denmark, and Canada have done the best. The U.S. falls behind and Ireland again sees the highest levels of unemployment.
Is there any correlation here between the size of the welfare state and economic performance? Yes, there is. However, it is exactly the opposite of the new conservative "point of view" that Brooks describes. I don't know, maybe it is me, but this seems as good a functional definition of crazy as you are likely to encounter.
No comments:
Post a Comment