On Brooks And Nihilism
In one of the links I included below, there is a video of David Brooks in which he complains about the GOP’s “nihilism” reflected in Jindal’s response. This is the same charge he leveled against opponents of the bill that created the TARP, so we should approach this assessment very skeptically, as it is far from clear that the cheerleaders for the scam rescue plan have been right on the merits of that particular program. Not only were there serious, principled critiques of the TARP from across the spectrum, but, just as many of the critics claimed at the time the bill was being hastily debated, the new Treasury Secretary had to acknowledge that the plan to buy toxic assets was basically unworkable and the former Secretary gave up even attempting to follow through on that part of the plan within weeks of passage of the bill.
While I am inclined in this instance to agree with Brooks’ criticism of the GOP’s utterly intellectually bankrupt and unimaginative agenda, there has to be a distinction between valid criticism of deeply flawed policies, which several members of the House GOP correctly made about the TARP, and the vacuous, feckless sloganeering that the GOP leadership wishes to substitute for policy argument in response to the new administration’s plans. It can’t always be “nihilism” to oppose government power-grabs and enormous amounts of spending and borrowing, but then the charge of nihilism is an odd one to make in any case. If the problems Republicans have are inflexibility and reflexive adherence to an ideological tenet, the problem is not that they believe in nothing or wish to lay waste to things, which is what nihilism would actually mean, but that they have invested far, far too much in one position. They believe in something (getting rid of earmarks!), and the only thing they want to destroy is earmarks, but this is not nihilism. It is not nihilistic to be obsessed with earmarks and “wasteful spending,” just incredibly stupid and futile.
This touches on something Jim Antle was saying earlier in an unrelated post on Brooks:
This is just mindless babble, centrism without substance, “responsibility” as a pose.
That is largely what most of the pro-TARP arguments in the fall were. If the instincts of the “nihilists” drive them to say no to almost every proposal, Brooks’ instincts lead him to embrace almost everything that the government says needs to be done in a crisis. There is not necessarily any more critical thinking going on among “responsible” people than among the “nihilists,” and perhaps there is much less, because the label “nihilist” has been broadened to include anyone who dissents from the “centrist” consensus regardless of what they are saying and have thereby defined themselves as “irresponsible.”
P.S. This reminds me that one of the refrains we heard again and again from “responsible” pro-TARP people in the fall was, “We just need to pass this, and we’ll work out the details later.” Well, it passed, and so have five months, and there are still no details forthcoming because of the fundamental flaws with the original “plan.” It’s almost as if careful deliberation and critical thinking might be useful in crafting extremely important legislation.
…the label “nihilist†has been broadened to include anyone who dissents from the “centrist†consensus regardless of what they are saying and have thereby defined themselves as “irresponsible.â€
I don’t think that Brooks is aiming for precision or clarity when he uses the term “nihilist.” He’s using it the same way some people call their opponents “socialists” or “fascists.” It’s just an insult designed to convey a) that Brooks is more intellectual than the average pundit; b) that he believes certain people are happy to fiddle while Rome burns.
And, as long as we’re misapplying Nietzschean concepts, maybe Brooks should ponder the will to power. He might consider why he so often supports the government’s wars and power grabs, and is so eager to accuse more cautious people of not caring about their country and/or the world.
I think you are defining nehilism too narrowly. In the political sense, being agnostic on the major issues of the day is a form of nihilism. That the Republicans have an opinion on earmarks or whatever doesn’t change that they have no actual governing agenda and don’t believe any agenda to be worth discussing. An unwillingess to confront humanity and its challenges seems to be a mark of nihilism.
I suppose the outcomes might end up being the same, but I’d draw a distinction between garden-variety lack of imagination (which is what seemed to be on display in Jindal’s speech) and genuine nihilism, which, I think, would produce a position more along the lines of, “We can’t hope to change anything anyway, so why bother?” or, “It’s high time this rotten system came crashing down! Let’s enjoy the show!”
That said, I do see your point. In this particular instance Brooks may be right to accuse the GOP, maybe not of nihilism, but at least of extreme negligence. But I’m resistant to hearing that message from Brooks, since he’s in the habit of cheer-leading for dubious Big Ideas and accusing more cautious or thoughtful people of lacking imagination or compassion.
Come to think of it, I can’t think of anything much more nihilistic than insisting on using words in ways that have absolutely no content whatsoever.
Re: M.Z. Forrest’s point.
The best possible reading of Brooks is that he is saying that the GOP has neglected to come up with a relevant policy agenda, but this sort of neglect is still not nihilism. Besides, he seems to use the charge of nihilism as a shorthand for saying “these people are idiots.” It is purely pejorative and dismissive, and no more meaningful than shouting “isolationist!” at critics of wars and empire. I think Charlie’s first comment is correct.
You might reasonably accuse the GOP leadership of a sort of monomania or obsessive behavior, but it seems to me that this is an extreme that is very nearly the opposite of nihilism. That is, I think they are not deliberately ignoring the main problems, but seem to believe that their single-minded opposition to “wasteful spending” will set things right. This makes them wrong, but not nihilistic. The spending freeze proposal that the leadership is considering might prove that they are delusional, but that is a different problem.
Dang. A lot of otherwise fine words and thoughts, lost in attempting to ascribe meaning to the output of David Brooks.