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.