Brooks on Jindal
D. Brooks for me is hot/cold–when he’s on he’s on, when he’s off he’s off. Here he is dead-on. I’m sure the Limbaugh/Happy Meal Cons won’t love this, but they need to move from denial to some kind of reality. Listening to what David has to say here would be a good start.
Apparently John Huntsman, (R) Gov of Utah (of Utah!!!) is waking up and smelling some coffee on this one.
Update I: Check out this Larison post for some (slight) disagreement. Daniel’s point is that the Republicans believe in something (just something pretty small bore and mono-explanatory in this case) hence they are not nihilists. Obviously he’s got a point. (And being against earmarks isn’t all bad, just in this case basically by itself laughable).
But to defend Brooks for a second, I took nihlist more in The Big Lebowski tradition of “We are Nihilists, we Believe in Nothin’ Lebowski.” Obviously they are driven by something (in that case, greed/money) but put on this front which is ludicrous and hence deserve to be mocked.
If we want to get really semiotic here, Brooks’ exact words were “it’s a form of nihilism.” It being a policy of tax cuts, earmarks reform, and charges that federal gov’t is the problem relative to what he refers to us as “this moment in history.” There must I guess then be other forms of nihilism and what I take him to mean is that such a meagre response (and to be clear, Brooks says he opposed the stimulus package as drafted, so he’s not totally against corruption charges nor for the idea that bigger government is always better) would presumably in Brooks’ mind lead to absolute disaster and hence a kind of nothingness, certainly for the GOP and perhaps even (I’m extending here) for the country as a whole. It would lead to a kind of implosion into an abyss and hence has a kind of nihilistic turn–even if not formally nihilistic as understood say as a philosophical worldview.