David Brooks goes Teabagging

David Brooks, the New York Times' house Republican, can be maddeningly obtuse, as when he writes poorly-researched hit pieces against conservatives.

But today's post is a gem. Brooks correctly identifies the Tea Party concerns (i.e. that infinitely expanding government and infinitely expanding debt are neither desirable nor sustainable), and while not explicitly aligning himself with that view, he gives it a sympathetic reading.

In America as in Europe, Republicans argue, the welfare state is failing to provide either security or dynamism. The safety net is so expensive it won’t be there for future generations. Meanwhile, the current model shifts resources away from the innovative sectors of the economy and into the bloated state-supported ones, like health care and education. Successive presidents have layered on regulations and loopholes, creating a form of state capitalism in which big businesses thrive because they have political connections and small businesses struggle.

The welfare model favors security over risk, comfort over effort, stability over innovation. Money that could go to schools and innovation must now go to pensions and health care. This model, which once offered insurance from the disasters inherent in capitalism, has now become a giant machine for redistributing money from the future to the elderly.

[...]

This is what this election is about: Is the 20th-century model obsolete, or does it just need rebalancing? Is Obama oblivious to this historical moment or are Republicans overly radical, risky and impractical?

Republicans and Democrats have different perceptions about how much change is needed. I suspect the likely collapse of the European project will profoundly influence which perception the country buys this November.

By the way, Brooks doesn't use the term "Tea Party" at all in the column, but ascribes these Tea Party views to Republicans in general. We've come a long way, baby.