In the best of times "conservative thinker" tended to be an oxymoron and we sure as shit aren't living in the best of times. Nonetheless, I read today's latest from Bobo with cringing dismay as his never ending quest to miss the point reached its apotheosis: to sum up -- it is incorrect to compare present times to the Great Depression because then people loved government and now they fear it. Also too they now fuck too much and fail to marry those whom they fuck. It is also incorrect to compare the present moment to the Progressive Era because then we needed government to rein in irresponsible businesses. Now that that has all been taken care of, we really need government to stop people from fucking too much and failing to marry those whom they fuck. (Well you do a better summary in a paragraph.)
Alright David, let me spell it out for you. We compare the present moment to the Great Depression because current economic conditions, including high levels of joblessness (albeit not nearly as severe as those experienced in the early 1930s) and the attendant lack of aggregate demand have created a self-reinforcing tendency toward economic sluggishness that seems to have no end in sight. The present moment is not completely analogous to the Great Depression because government programs put into effect to combat the Depression and some fairly aggressive actions by both the Bush and Obama administrations prevented a complete meltdown of the financial system, thereby ameliorating some of the ill effects of the currrent downturn. The present moment is also reasonably analogous to the Progressive Era in that we too live in age plagued by grotesque speculation and galling inequality -- one crying out for government response.
Brooks does posit an analogy to our times and the Progressive Era, and I must say, it is a head scratcher:
Then, as now, we are seeing great concentrations of wealth, especially at the top. Then, as now, the professional class of lawyers, teachers and journalists seems to feel as if it has the upper hand in its status war against the business class of executives and financiers.
What the hell does this mean? Do teachers really feel that they have the upper hand in the status war against business executives and financiers? On the one hand, one can make a salary in the high 40 thousands and eventually collect a pension -- every plutocrat's dream -- on the other there are stock options, bonuses, golden parachutes, and the magic of carried interest. Clearly teachers are winning this batte in a rout.
As to why Brooks thinks lawyers are aligned with teachers as opposed to business executives and financiers is beyond me. Does Brooks really not understand what large law firms do and how much money the people who run them make? And for whom they work? As for journalists, it seems to me that they spend a lot more time criticizing teachers than they do our business elite.
As always with Brooks our problems are never the result of the failed free market ideology he has long embraced nor of the business elites whose side he invariably takes -- no, we (the unwashed masses) suffer because we deserve to suffer -- because we are morally deficient. If we would only embrace the good old fashioned Victorian ideals of chastity and self-abnegation (again, only an ideal for the masses, not the rich and powerful), the economy would no doubt turn around on a dime. If only we were worthy.
