David Brooks: "Incoherence on Stilts"

[EVAY]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/opinion/01brooks.html?hp

In re: the public response to the BP oil spill:

"......


In times of crisis, you get a public reaction that is incoherence on stilts. On the one hand, most people know that the government is not in the oil business. They don't want it in the oil business. They know there is nothing a man in Washington can do to plug a hole a mile down in the gulf.

On the other hand, they demand the president "take control". They demand that he hold press conferences, show leadership, announce that the buck stops here and do something. They want him to emote and perform the proper theatrical gesture so they can see their emotions on the public stage.

They want to hold him responsible for things they know he doesn't control. Their reaction is a mixture of disgust, anger, longing and need. It may not make sense. But it doesn't make sense that the country wants spending cuts and doesn't want cuts, wants change and doesn't want change.

..."


I think that Brooks, as he often does, has the pulse of the nation right.

[Wild Cobra]

On the other hand, they demand the president "take control". They demand that he hold press conferences, show leadership, announce that the buck stops here and do something.


They want to hold him responsible for things they know he doesn't control. Their reaction is a mixture of disgust, anger, longing and need.
Only the people who want a nanny state to take care of us have such feelings in my opinion.

[Nbadan]

The wing-nut pundits are hammering this home...these are free-market, deregulate-now globalist...wishing that the Fed would step in and take control, or 'rescue' private industry from itself...again....


..it makes no sense...

[Nbadan]

....you want less-government and de-regulation, you get things like the Gulf oil spill...of course, all they want to talk about is ANWR...yeah, oh yeah, and now wing-nuts give a fuck about New Orleans....and the Louisiana economy...GMAFB...

[EVAY]

Only the people who want a nanny state to take care of us have such feelings in my opinion.

Well, the thing that blows me away about the people who are demanding that the government 'do something', is that the position is irrational, because the government CANNOT FIX THIS THING.

The Government DOES NOT KNOW HOW to fix this thing.

If the government got involved, it would just add yet another delay to the process, so why are people demanding that the government take this over?

And if the government did take it over, they would be accused of socialism or nationalism or some kind of anti-americanism.

Brooks hit the nail on the head, I think.

[angrydude]

The wing-nut pundits are hammering this home...these are free-market, deregulate-now globalist...wishing that the Fed would step in and take control, or 'rescue' private industry from itself...again....


..it makes no sense...

yes it does. You are just (purposefully, because you can't be that stupid) confusing limited government with anarchy.

one of the government's jobs IS to provide public goods. Helping resolve man made natural disasters would be an example of that.

[Nbadan]

yes it does. You are just (purposefully, because you can't be that stupid) confusing limited government with anarchy.

Every mess we find ourselves in today, from financial collapse to massive oil spill is because of Bush-era deregulation...

[boutons_deux]

"resolve man made natural disasters would be an example of that"

That's the cheap way, with the costs de/non-regulation and responsible, prudent low-risk operations off their corporate books.

The corps pocket the profits inflated by risky operations, and the public foots the bill when it blows up (Wall St bail out paid for by taxpayers with 15M unemployed, etc).

Of course, BP will give us a payback by selling us gasoline at discount to pay us back for their fuckups and crimes, much like Wall St gave the taxpayers a return on bailing them out of their bad casino bets.