That was perhaps the first thing I thought as I read this from David Brooks (emphasis mine -- ed.):
A distinct Obama governing style emerged, which was half Harvard Economics Department and half Boss Daley. The administration is staffed by smart pragmatists who are optimistic about the government's ability to devise comprehensive plans. Their proposals were processed by congressional old bulls who made sure the legislation served Democratic interest groups.
"Smart pragmatists who are optimistic about the government's ability to devise comprehensive plans." This, friends, is a contradiction in terms. If these people were "smart," they would have figured out long ago that government doesn't have the ability to devise comprehensive plans, at least comprehensive plans that WORK. How exactly did LBJ's War On Poverty work out, again? I seem to recall that about $5 trillion of taxpayer money has been spent since 1964 and still poverty is an ongoing issue. (Yes, I know we have the richest, fattest poor people in the world, but really that's not the point.) I find it amusing that David Brooks is still defending these people as being something like "smart pragmatists." One might say that he's bitterly (and stubbornly) clinging to that contention...
|