Ryan McMaken: 'David Brooks: The Conservative Future Is the Same as Its Past'

Source:Mises- editor Ryan McMaken.

"Recently by Ryan McMaken: 3 Myths About Secession

The first thing you’ll notice about this piece by David Brooks about the future of the Conservative movement is how boring it is. The second thing you’ll notice is that it is just re-hashing to same old story about the conservative movement. "Here are the new young guns of the movement!" At least this time the usual obligatory references to the latest batch of young neocons was preceded by a few lines about the conservatives at The American Conservative, who aren’t so bad.

But most of the article is just the usual list of younger neocons in the Romney mould who promise to never ever upset anyone’s apple cart, and ensure that the status quo endures forever and ever until the sun burns out. Ramesh Ponnoru? He wants "family-friendly tax credits." Yep, that’ll fix things. Tyler Cowen? He’s not even a conservative, but is definitely in favor of the status quo. One of the publications Brooks mentions is in favor of "a big agenda of institutional modernization" which of course means a mild tweaking of the status quo.

"Innovation." "Reducing inequality." "Burkeans." If you just arrived here out of a time warp from 1986, you’ll definitely find all this to be very cutting edge stuff. The Conservative movement is really barreling toward grappling with the tough realities of the coming bankruptcy and default.

Brooks of course, doesn’t mention Ron Paul even once, in spite of mentioning libertarians at least twice. And when he goes through what he thinks are the important issues of our day, he doesn’t mention the words "debt," "dollar," or "inflation" once.

Looking at Brooks and the New York Times columnists, I feel like I’m reading memos going back and forth between Louis XVI and his most sycophantic courtiers. "No need to bother about those middle classes and peasants out there. We’ve got the bright new thinkers here in Versailles. Everything will be fine!" 

You can read the rest of Ryan McMaken's piece at Lew Rockwell.

Talking Points Memo: 'Debate In 100 Seconds: What Happens In Vegas'

Source:Talking Points Memo- Senator Rick Santorum, squaring off against Governor Mitt Romney, in Las Vegas. (Pun intended)

"Debate In 100 Seconds: What Happens In Vegas. CNN GOP Debate - October 18th 2011."

From Talking Points Memo

All right, now here's my version of tonight's GOP presidential debate: Rick Perry woke up and had a good debate. He's still a serious contender but still number two or three. He was very forceful, well prepared and not afraid to stand up for himself or defend himself. Or go on the attack as well. And I believe looking at the debate, Mitt Romney still believes Perry is his strongest challenger.

Mitt Romney is still in first place with a sizable lead but hasn't clinched the conference title yet. (To use a sports analogy) He hasn't sealed the deal. (To use a salesperson analogy) And hopefully thats my last analogy, for this piece. I believe the Republican Party still sees Romney as their best chance to beat President Obama in 2012. And thats what he has going for him, not because they actually like him.

Michele Bachmann is still Michele Bachmann, still swinging for the fences and not making much contact. (I know thats another sports analogy) She took some big swings on immigration. But the only thing she connected on was Herman Cain's tax reform plan. And I would probably give her a HR on that actually, her only score in the debate. She's damn right the 9 9 9 is essentially a tax hike on most tax payers, because it's a flat tax. Bachmann has yet to lay out a reason a case why she should be President of the United States, other then that she doesn't like the people she's running against and that ain't enough to get it done.

Herman Cain took some steps back tonight spending most of the night on defense. Not controlling the ball much or advancing it, defending his tax reform plan most of the night. And some strange statements on immigration and negotiating with terrorists.

Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul were pretty much there for the ride, I guess interested in what they were hearing. The person who impressed me the most tonight was Rick Santorum. Who's someone I agree with on almost nothing except with how we combat American poverty. Where we both have a strong interest in and has some solid progressive policy's there as it relates to putting people on welfare to work. But Senator Santorum is someone I have a lot of respect for because we agree on poverty. And he's very honest and straight forward on what he thinks.

But what impressed me about Senator Santorum and why I now believe he's a strong contender to be the vice presidential nominee for the Republican nominee, especially for someone like Mitt Romney who's a Northeastern Republican, who's not trusted by the Republican base, especially the Christian- Right and Tea Party, but what impressed me about Rick Santorum has most if not all what Romney doesn't have: Senator Santorum is a Congressional veteran, 16 years, he's liked by the Republican base, he's young by political standards (53) he could replace President Romney after eight years if that were to happen. Which would make him a Congressional veteran with serious executive experience as Vice President. And he has foreign policy experience ten years on the Armed Services Committee.

I believe there were two winner in tonight's debate: Mitt Romney who's still the clear frontrunner. And Rick Santorum who now looks like a serious presidential candidate who can go on the attack. As well as articulate a positive vision of his own but and economic policy would help them there. But also some who would look vice presidential to the Republican Party and could matchup with Vice President Biden. While Rick Perry, Herman Cain are still in the game and are serious challengers but need to figure out what their next play is. Because they didn't gain any momentum tonight.