I'm thinking of starting a blog exclusively dedicated to refuting the writings of
conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks. After all, I'm essentially guaranteed at least one blog post every time he writes a piece.
His column today is a prime example of why he drives conservatives crazy. Regarding the House Republicans who -- on principle -- voted "no" on the bailout yesterday, he writes,
"House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame. It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party. Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support. Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds."
It's one thing to disagree with their vote, but quite another to question their motives and accuse them of being on a mission to destroy the GOP.
Speaking of House Republicans, Brooks goes on to add,
"Now they have once again confused talk radio with reality. If this economy slides, they will go down in history as the Smoot-Hawleys of the 21st century.
Of course, this is a ridiculous analogy. By signing Smoot-Hawley, President Herbert Hoover dramatically increased tariff rates. This protectionism -- along with tax hikes -- helped prolong The Great Depression. It was Republican protectionism and liberalism -- not free market conservatism -- that prolonged the crisis.
The House Republicans who opposed the bailout on principle are Free Marketers who would be the first to oppose a bill such as Smoot-Hawley -- based on philosophical reasons. Comparing the House Republicans to Smoot-Hawley is especially insulting -- especially coming from someone who ought to know better.