The Chairmen
David Brooks offers a variety of reasons to think that we’re in for a new era of big government liberalism. I agree with most of his points, but I’m less sure about this:
Obama will try to straddle the two camps [i.e., liberals and moderates] — he seems to sympathize with both sides — but the liberals will win. Over the past decade, liberals have mounted a campaign against Robert Rubin-style economic policies, and they control the Congressional power centers. Even if he’s so inclined, it’s difficult for a president to overrule the committee chairmen of his own party. It is more difficult to do that when the president is a Washington novice and the chairmen are skilled political hands. It is most difficult when the president has no record of confronting his own party elders. It’s completely impossible when the economy is in a steep recession, and an air of economic crisis pervades the nation.
Do liberals really control the power centers? According to the DW-NOMINATE rankings, the most conservative House Democrat is Rep. Barrow of Georgia, the 235th most liberal member of the House. South Carolina’s John Spratt chairs the Budget Committee and he’s in a tie at slot 187.5 while Charlie Rangel from the Ways and Means Committee is in a eight-way tie at 94.5. On the Senate side, Kent Conrad chairs the Senate Budget Committee and he’s the 40th most liberal Senator. Max Baucus chairs the Senate Finance Commitee and he’s the 48th most liberal senator.
On that metric, at least, moderates seem firmly in control of the key “power centers.” We have very liberal members chairing some committees, but of the four chairs holding the key budgetary levers, three are clearly moderates and Rangel’s about in the middle of the caucus.
26 Responses to “The Chairmen”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 14th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Just another dubious Brooks argument that reveals his hard-right heart of darkness. Y’know, if he wrote a blog rather than a column, he could write when he was inspired or actually had something to say instead of just churning out his “moderate” B.S. every few days.
October 14th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I have absolutely no doubt that Brooks has at some point in the past called Obama the most liberal senator. I suppose now he’s a moderate at the mercy of…Pelosi’s runaway liberalism.
October 14th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I thought this post would involve somehow my old pal John J. McCloy.
October 14th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Robert Byrd — Appropriations.
October 14th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
It’s also worth pointing out that it’s not 1992.
We’re muddling through the worst financial crisis since 1929. The backbone of our economy–oil–just dropped to $80 a barrel; it was $20 a barrel in 1992. Fixed costs–especially healthcare–are dramatically higher. Infrastructure is 16 years older. We don’t have the “peace dividend” that we had in 1992, we’re actively fighting two major overseas wars, and we have a military that’s run-down. AND the national debt is slightly higher, with worse trendlines. Oh, and we have an entire American city to rebuild.
It’s moronic to look at an entirely different set of problems and suggest that failing to apply 1992’s solutions to them represents some kind of an ideological break. That really demonstrates a worldview dominated by soundbite political ideology. The issue today isn’t some ideological abstraction like the “size of government” (I swear, that’s the biggest trope since “states’ rights”). The issue is how the hell we fix these actual problems.
October 14th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Do liberals really control the power centers?
No. Next question.
It’s worth pointing out that David Brooks is an elitist fuckhead who’s job is to soft pedal Republican talking points. He tones it down by mumbling, sheepishly smiling, and looking at his shoes when he speaks, but substantively, he’s Poweline bad.
October 14th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Brooks got to sneak in the McCain bullshit talking point about “no record of confronting his own party elders.” The rest is just filler. Anyway, you don’t get to be President (beating “skilled political hands” like Hillary Clinton and all the other Democrats who ran, not to mention McCain) without some skills of your own. Mad skills. All that other crap could just as easily be an argument FOR Obama’s effectiveness: “steep recession,” “air of economic crisis.”
October 14th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Given recent news, it is also worth pointing out that Congressman Spratt (pictured) is he brother-in-law of retired CEO & empire-builder (NCNB->Nationsbank->Bank of America) Hugh McColl.
October 14th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
…”the” brother-in-law…
October 14th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Brooks is just trying to stir up conflict between moderates and liberals.
On the other hand, the remaining moderates will argue that it was excess and debt that created this economic crisis. They will argue (are arguing) that it is perfectly legitimate to increase the deficit with stimulus programs during a recession, but that these programs need to be carefully targeted and should sunset as the crisis passes. The moderates will stress that the country still faces a ruinous insolvency crisis caused by entitlement burdens.
I think a lot of moderates and liberals agree the stimulus should be “broad based” and target everyone. The proceeding Bush and Clinton years were bubbles with trickle down policies which didn’t really trickle down. Noble laureate Krugman blames it on Greenspan.
It was intersting to read Brooks write – in an earlier column – that conservatives need to come up with policies to deal with the fact that productivity has risen but the spoils haven’t trickled down to mainstreet. He did at least raise the issue.
In this column he didn’t raise the issue that the government could come out pretty well as the lender of last resort if it plays its cards right. But it looks like it will show too much deference to those at the top of the trickle down pyramid.
October 14th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Why would anyone pay any attention to any of the Repuke Brooks manages to vomit up onto the pages of the NY Times? This guy is like a big empty space – can I put a chair there instead?
And his bunkmate Krystol is apparently back on the crack – he’s nuttier than John McCain – who has his 5 years as a POW for an excuse.
October 14th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Looking at the list of congressmen ranked from the most liberal to the most conservative – the most conservative member of the house is some guy called Flake. Huh.
October 14th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I imagine Brooks just isn’t paying much attention to the actual workings of the Democrats. Charlie Rangel, for instance, has a reputation for being very liberal, though he really isn’t. And of course, there are a few liberals with real power, such as Barney Frank, now chairing Financial Services.
October 14th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
When did we ever have “big government?” Was it under Johnson…?
I’m almost 1/2 serious (almost). Love of “big government programs” is trotted as a defining characteristic of liberals and/or Democrats. But honestly, apart from having enough meat inspectors and adequate numbers of teachers, I can’t say I know what this means.
I imagine myself a liberal, and am registered as a Democrat. I could care less about the “size” of government. To me, it’s all about whether the government is going to be helpful to its citizens or not. I’d just as soon slash the defense department. And what I’d like to see us do to advance the progressive agenda is not to dramatically increase the number of people working for the government, but to pass some laws and implement some regulations, and make sure they are suitably enforced.
Methinks this is a myth, like tax-loving liberals.
Matthew, quit it. Quarrel with the assumptions!
October 15th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Forget the budget committees — they’ll be involved for about a month, in March, when they write the budget resolution. Then it’s off to Rangel (Stark), Dingell, and Baucus on health care, Dingell and Barbara Boxer on the environment, and Rangel and Baucus on taxes. Tossing out the budget committee chairment leaves you somewhat more liberal than the caucus as a whole, but not by much. You’ve got significant numbers of blue dogs on Dingell’s committee and lots of moderates on Baucus’s. Unfortunately they’re going to be gumming up the works next year as surely as ever.
March 1st, 2009 at 7:01 pm
cialis
Great site. Good info
March 11th, 2009 at 4:53 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 12th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:34 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:30 am
Great site. Good info
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:25 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:31 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:20 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra