He comes close to a good point without actually making it — Limbaugh’s millions of listers are scattered over 50 states and hundreds of districts. It’s very difficult for him to affect a single election, no matter how much noise he makes, because most voters aren’t listening to him.
But it would have been a much better article if it had mentioned MoveOn.org or some comparable liberal group.
3rd way? No, this article just comes off as bashing the GOP as being too stupid to know better.

I like David Brooks as well, and appreciate his good exchanges with his counterpart E.J. Dionne on NPR and PBS.
I came from a part of Ohio that is radically Republican, and even Mennonites there (many of them, anyhow) are automatic Republican voters. I was Republican for years.
I’m Independent by registration in Michigan now, and frankly the Republican Party has lost me. They still have politicians I vote for- here in GR, Vern Ehlers, a worthy successor to Paul Henry. But by and large I find their platform more at odds with my understanding and application of the kingdom of God in Jesus to real life and society.
And for the life of me I don’t know why we Christians are sucked into a kind of vulgar, defamatory speaking of human beings. We can and should speak in strong opposition at times, but we should always do so in a measured, and respectful way. I must say that it seems to me that Ted Kennedy was a model that many of my fellow Christians could learn much from. One we could all learn from, in spite of where he failed and was wrong.

Chris B,
Brooks who made this assessment, is a Republican himself.

While I think there is a lot of wisdom in what Brooks has to say here, this comes to mind.
Scot, in saying that “genuine Republicans” and “real Democrats” are not shrill and extreme, are you not flirting with the “true Scotsman” fallacy? Who gets to define whether Rush Limbaugh, Joe Wilson and Sarah Palin are “genuine Republicans” or whether Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich are “real Democrats”?
Seems like Brooks’ point is not that these elements in his party are not “genuine Republicans”, but that their influence is both overrated and out of proportion to their numbers.
Maybe there is a similar issue in defining who would be a “genuine Evangelical” in our other thread …

AHH, thanks for that. Maybe I shouldn’t have used “genuine,” but I’m supporting Brooks’ contention that the overrated are not where the party really is.

I fail to see why they don’t have real power. As I listen to the health care debate (shouting match?), it seems like these talk show hosts have completely controlled what is being discussed, they have united their party to make sure that there will not be any public health insurance for millions of Americans, they have motivated their party to not compromise on any issue.
That seems like power to me.

Brian-
“I fail to see why they don’t have real power. As I listen to the health care debate (shouting match?), it seems like these talk show hosts have completely controlled what is being discussed…”
They would respond that they are simply countering the talking points of the other side (including the “mainstream media”).
Also, they would say Brooks may be a Republican, but he is not a conservative.
Finally,
“they have united their party to make sure that there will not be any public health insurance for millions of Americans…”
Their party is not in power. The concern about certain health insurance proposals went well beyond their range of influence.

He’s one of the few high-profile journalists who actually understands and portrays evangelicalism correctly, too.
(or at least the way most Jesus Creed readers *think* evangelicalism should be understood and portrayed)
The Economist also does a great job. Weeklies like Time and Newsweek and most reporting by the NYT, CNN… not so much. However…
I do think the Falwells’ and Robertsons’ and Dobsons’ out there do speak for many and possibly even the majority of self-identified “evangelicals”… just like the O’Reilly’s and Limbaugh’s quite possibly speak for the majority of self-identified Republicans (especially as the party and its supporters shrink in numbers).

George Will seems to think there are basic tenets of the Republican Party (fiscal conservatism being one of them, I recall) which have long since been abandoned. Maybe he is a purist of some sort with a certain political ideology he holds as being really Republican.
But Rick, you make a good point here. The media of the talk shows, etc., does seem to have undue influence. The political right seems to hold an advantage in that, seeing themselves as a countering influence to the “liberal media.”
It’s surely partly me, and it’s perhaps partly the Republican Party, but I certainly don’t feel at home with them anymore (nor really with the Democratic Party either, for that matter).

“Also, they would say Brooks may be a Republican, but he is not a conservative.”
It’s that mentality that’s led the GOP to become the regional party it’s morphed into over the last few years. It’s a vicious cycle: Party gets smaller. More extreme voices become more dominant. Party gets even smaller.
The left-wing version of Limbaugh is Michael Moore. Both are reactionaries more interested in stirring up controversy than providing thoughtful commentary. The difference is that Republicans are voting on health care exactly as Limbaugh would. The Democrats are not, on the other hand, crafting the health care plan Michael Moore would prefer.

Brooks always makes good sense to me. Limbaugh, Beck, and the other side on MSNBC are entertainers acting like people like Brooks. I never, ever watch or listen to the former, but always read or listen to the latter.

totally agree with kyle j #10… republican politicians are far more captive to their extremist constituents right now than democrats are
(though… pelosi doesn’t vote too differently from how michael moore would)

I have tremendous respect for David Brooks. And, to counter what someone else said, I’d argue he’s a conservative first, and a Republican second. In other words, he doesn’t skew reality to favor Republicans. Rather, he evaluates them (and Democrats, for that matter) according to principles of conservative economic theory. Most of all, Brooks is highly suspect of high and mighty technocrats forcing through norms on the greater society.
Now, I would probably be considered slightly left of center by most, but on this kind of point I completely agree with Brooks. Yes, we need ideals (which the Democrats can be good on), but we need to marry that with pragmatism and a realistic view of human behavior. Otherwise, we’re merely pulling the wool over our own eyes and hoping to avoid the inevitable. And that’s not idealism, that’s tomfoolery.

Ted,
Conservative bashing is a favorite of some in the GOP.
And anyone who thinks Ted Kennedy is an example of proper political dialogue either hasn’t been paying attention or isn’t a credible judge. You don’t have to go back too many years to find him saying some absolutely vile, and demonstrably false, things about political opponents and judicial appointments.