Brooksianism

Re Op-Ed Columnist: Follow the Fundamentals by David Brooks in today's NY Times:

Dave is upset that the ideas of Lou Dobbs are winning the minds of Americans. He cannot figure out why ordinary Americans are not as thrilled as he is over immigration. (Perhaps he ought to read "From Sewage, Added Water for Drinking" in today's newspaper.) It troubles Dave that most Americans think that globalization and "free" markets are not good for them.

The problem with Brooksianism is that most of the benefits of immigration and globalization go to the rich (Dave's pals), whereas the costs go to ordinary Americans (Dave doesn't know any; the closest he gets to ordinary folks is brushing past them when he absolutely must perambulate on public sidewalks).

Now, in order to cope with this dichotomy and its accompanying cognitive dissonance, Dave creates a strawman which he calls "Dobbsianism" which "... rests at heart on a more existential fear — the fear that America is under assault and is fundamentally fragile. It rests on fears that the America we once knew is bleeding away." In logic, this is called the strawman fallacy; my dictionary defines it as "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted". This fallacy is basically Dave's entire argument.

I don't watch Lou Dobbs' cable TV program, but I am familiar with his views, which I largely share. In any event, Mr. Dobbs doesn't need me to speak for him, so I won't. (Actually, I think I opposed the twin evils of immigration and globalization long before he did.)

Immigration and globalization both tend to lower the wages of ordinary Americans, and also lead to social problems and higher rates of crime.

Anyone who lived during the 1950s will tell you that life in America was much better before the current onslaught of legal and illegal immigration, and before there was such a thing as the "World Trade Organization". Few, back then, had ever heard of "globalization", and life was better. Most kids had two parents (usually their biological parents), most mothers raised their own children, and most fathers could look forward to a decent retirement. There was not as much drug and alcohol abuse, there were plenty of good jobs for high school and college graduates, and our twin deficits (national debt and trade) were much smaller. The federal income tax was much more progressive. The public parks were cleaner, and nearly everyone spoke English. There was less traffic, and plenty of clean water. Health care and education were far less expensive, even in 1950s' dollars. There was no talk of privatizing or killing Social Security.

But this world was not good enough for the Republicans, who anguished over the relatively small numbers of millionaires and billionaires, and who hated paying their fare share of income taxes. Thus begat what I call Brooksianism, which is still a work in progress, and will remain so, until the last drop of blood is squeezed from the rest of us, at which point Dave and his legions of greedy SOBs will leave the US once and for all, taking with them all the loot they feasibly can carry.

In the meantime, Dave and his fellow travelers will continue to try to get us to believe that this pain is actually good for us. What a guy!