According to Brooks, [the influence of] talk radio hosts [is] to blame for the Republican Party’s decline; and not, say, the Iraq War and the GOP’s Bush era Big Government agenda. I wonder if this assignment of blame has anything to do with the fact that Brooks was one of the leading cheerleaders for just the sort of “National Greatness” conservatism that’s done the GOP in?
UPDATE: Here’s Brooks in 1997: “But energetic government is good for its own sake. It raises the sights of the individual. It strengthens common bonds. It boosts national pride. It continues the great national project. It allows each generation to join the work of their parents. The quest for national greatness defines the word ‘American’ and makes it new for every generation.” Yeah, that’s a winning GOP ideology.
Oh, and David B., just how exactly did the Iraq War and John McCain, two of your favorite causes, work out for the Republicans?
In the comments, Orin insists that it’s the talk radio’s hosts’ influence, which is well beyond what it should be based on their ability to move voters, that Brooks is focusing on. But that’s my point. The Bush/McCain era GOP was listening much more to people like Brooks in promoting Big Government conservatism than to someone like Limbaugh (who seems to have sensible views on economic issues), and neocons like Brooks were among the fiercest and most influential advocates for the war in Iraq. I take it that Brooks’ views move even fewer GOP voters than Limbaugh’s, and it’s absurd for Brooks to be blaming the influence of others for the GOP’s straits, rather than looking in the mirror.