Friday, June 08, 2007Of course he dares. In today's op-ed David Brooks (behind that darned subscription wall) attempts to claim the legacy of Alexander Hamilton. Creating an amusingly facile typology of free-marketeers, Hamiltonians, liberals, and populists, Brooks subscribes to the 2nd - an emphasis on human capital & light regulation, not micromanaging the economy or ameliorating its effects.
To which I say - balderdash. That isn't Hamiltonianism. As far as I know he never spoke to "human capital" other than his opposition to slavery. Perhaps Brooks is equating internal improvements with education, but that's quite a stretch, isn't it? And why precisely would the man who said the debt was a "national blessing" be freaking out over a non-existent entitlement problem?
The most egregious claim Brooks makes is to assert that Hamilton would have resisted government regulation of the economy. Hello! Hamilton was the founder of American protectionism and internal improvements! He advocated direct subsidies to new industries. How is that not government intervention in the economy?
It's probably boring to say so, but David Brooks is a buffoon.
P.S. Amen to Susie!
Posted by Arbitrista @ 3:46 PM
Yes, but what about Paris Hilton?By Paul Curtis, at 5:39 PM
Maybe I'll write about the Brooks piece, too. Not tonight though. Tonight is all about Paris Hilton.
"This is a castle. And we haveBy Crawlspace, at 9:51 PM
many tapestries. But if you're a
Scottish lord, then I am Mickey