David Brooks misreads the “center”
David Brooks laments the rise of the “libertarian/Goldwater-esque” streak of the Republican Party and the re-emergence of what he describes as the “government war,” the “stale” debate over “big government-versus-small government.”
To each his own, I guess.
But what I find interesting is Brooks’ historical narrative of where this libertarian streak comes from. The story begins with Obama. By his reading, there was a glimmer of hope for centrists like Brooks, with Obama and his band of “brilliant pragmatists.” But the financial crisis and Obama’s attempt to push too many big-projects too fast, soured the countries’ centrist mood. And now, “politics is more polarized than ever.”
I think this story misses the mark on two counts. First, the story doesn’t start in the right place. As David Boaz and I have shown, this libertarian streak began with Bush. As early as 2004, polls detected the dissatisfaction of small-government libertarians towards the Bush administration’s more big-government policies. This libertarian-inspired anger has been growing and gathering since. Libertarians have led the way.
Second, I don’t think calling this sort of politics “polarized” accurately captures it. Brooks writes, “The Democrats have become the government party and the Republicans are the small government party.” True, this libertarian streak is mad at Obama and the Democrats. But it’s not really a polarized, red-team, blue-team thing. Polls show that these libertarian-inspired voters are just as mad at Republicans. If Republicans are indeed the small government party, they certainly haven’t sold many voters.
Perhaps in recent history, libertarians occupy the “center” of American politics–though certainly drawn on a different map than Brooks imagines.
