A Domestic Agenda

David Brooks's Republican-Panic-Meter is off the charts this week. In the past year, Brooks regularly checks to see the Republican party still has a pulse and determines whether or not a crash cart is needed. Code Blue!

Brooks applies the paddles by fishing around for a new domestic agenda for the Republican Party.

Second, a human capital agenda leads to policies that cut across left and right. At the very least, it means preserving low income-tax rates, which cause people to work harder and develop their capacities. It means creating high-quality preschools for children from disorganized single-parent homes. It means giving parents more school choice so they can take advantage of the information they now have about failing schools thanks to No Child Left Behind.

It means increasing child tax credits to reduce economic stress on young families. It means encouraging marriage, the best educational institution we have. It means a national service program, so young people can experience the world.

I'm not sure how you can increase human capital, while keeping the income tax cuts. Universal pre-school alone is a big ticket item. His list, while rather skimpy and under-funded, isn't bad. Ideas?

Comments

[jen]

How about lifting the burden on tons of Americans by setting up a national service program that allows them to retire their educational debt? (Or at least refinance it!)

How about a national program to provide paid 3-month maternity leave, modeled along the lines of unemployment insurance?

And I think every military spouse in this country should get their very own purple heart and breakfast in bed, delivered by W himself. (Or perhaps Cheney. OK, maybe that would be too scary first thing in the morning.)

[Sam]

Why should we take this man seriously?

[laura]

For better or worse, Brooks has prime real estate in a prime newspaper. He's read by people who make things happen. He's the only guy on that page who even mentions things like universal pre-school. I may not give a crap about the low taxes or the pulse rate of the Republican party, but I do care a lot about working families and child tax credits and schools and all that. If the blogosphere can nudge him to talk more about these issues, it can only be good for us.

[Sam]

But he will not be an agent of the kinds of changes you are thinking about. When push comes to shove, he will stick with tax cuts and snark at "tax and spend" Democrats. He is ultimately a Republican guy who does not really give rat's ass for working families.

[laura]

But at least he's talking about these issues. Who else is there in the Times? Dowd? No, she's too busy speculating about the manliness of George Bush. It's nice that Kristoff cares about prostitutes in East Timor or somewhere, but can we please talk about something closer to home? I link to Brooks, because I'm interested in talking about domestic policy, too. It's also useful on a blog to use an article as a jumping off point for a conversation.

[Amy P]

Brooks is a funny critter. Despite being a Republican, I think he's really not at his best writing about Republicans, since he just doesn't have the life experience to allow him to write intelligently about non-Bobos. By the way, his chapter in "Why I Turned Right" is entitled "Confessions of a Greenwich Village Conservative," and opens "In 1965 my parents took me to a "Be-In."" The crowd of thousands of hippies sets a garbage can on fire and the attendees start pitching wallets into the flames. "I was wide-eyed at the amazingness of what was going on. But then, with my sharp five-year-old's eyes, I spotted a five-dollar bill floating out of the pyre. I broke from the circle of onlookers, snatched the bill as it floated from the fire, and shoved in into my pocket. It was my first move to the right."

[curious monolith]

That quote Amy P supplies says it all. And besides: "Marriage is the best educational institution we have"???

[laura]

heh, curious. I thought I would just let that one go and see what people had to say.

I always thought of Brooks as Dem-Curious, but maybe not.