We all know that David Brooks is one of those “very serious people” (I owe Paul Krugman for the phrase.) who believe in Centrism. That is a very pretty word that indicates that if we all play nice we will live wonderful lives. We will also have to give up social security, medicare and a host of other programs because unlike the 1%, we less significant people are the ones supposed to compromise and be nice.
I’m not nice. I believe in conflict. I believe that until we make politicians suffer and lose office over their willingness to compromise on social security that the program will be in danger from the “centrists.”
The centrists believe in politicians governing without the influence of the unlettered masses – that would be us. You, when your social security benefits are taken away from you (the ones you’ve already paid for) that is shared sacrifice when the rich get tax cuts that is a spur to the economy and a reward for the “productive” classes.
You see, centrism is a fancy word for elitists and a top down ethos of enlightened philosopher kings keeping the craven, greedy masses (yeah, that would be you) in line.
It’s a precious belief in the virtue of oligarchies. It’s royalism without the royal family just the next enlightened figure to ignore popular opinion and do what is “necessary.”
This is contemptuous of democracy and the hard working, honest American people.
And this is what passes for intelligent comment at the New York Times.
James Pilant
Related articles
- ‘The Ranks of the Poor’ Are Not to Blame (esquire.com)
- What Our Greatest Psychologists Say About Psychology and Society (psychologytoday.com)
- Here Are Some Thoughts I Had For America! This Week In Pundit Pontifications (huffingtonpost.com)
- David Brooks Is Sad That Obama Didn’t Buy Him A Pony (huffingtonpost.com)
- David Brooks gets it all wrong on Obama’s tax plan (salon.com)
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.