David Brooks's editorial in the NY Times yesterday was a major concession to the "reality-based community."

In it he said that conservatives who have been winning the "war of ideas" for the last fifty years are now a mess. He goes on to list six reasons for this: all of them are based on the fact that conservatism has become entrenched in society and that it is no longer a dynamic movement. And what hasn't conservatism been able to address? "[C]onservative Republicans have lost touch with their base," says Brooks. "To win, Republicans depend on white rural and suburban working-class voters making $30,000 to $50,000 a year. Conservative Republicans offer almost no policies that directly benefit these people." I have to give it to him, he is, at least, an intellectual willing to change his opinion when presented with new evidence.

He goes on to say, "technological change has really changed the economy, introducing new stratifications. Inequality is rising. Wage stagnation is a problem. Social mobility is lagging, and globalization hurts hard-working people. Global warming is real (conservatives secretly know this). The health care system is ridiculous. Welfare reform is unfinished." A conservative conceeding that health care is inadequate and global warming is real?! I nearly fell out of my chair. Brooks goes on to laud his former research assistant and (I assume) protege Reihan Salam for writing a piece in the latest online edition of Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard entitled "The Party of Sam's Club." I think its required reading for those of us who want to critique conservatism at its root.

What these guys argue is very illuminating in terms of understanding exactly what is at stake in the battle of ideas between "conservatism" and "liberalism." In the first place, they acknowledge that only eleven percent of voters are dedicated to all the tenants of orthodox conservatism: "the core of the GOP's support turns out to be drawn from 'Enterprisers,' affluent, optimistic, and staunchly conservative on economic and social issues alike." Translation: white men who probably came from middle-class origins (read: Tom DeLay, Ken Lay, Rupert Murdoch) and have acheived immense wealth and power by making up and promulgating their own rules in the political sphere. (Remember, these guys used to be the only ones able to participate in the political process. The conservative's nostalgia for the robber baron era isn't just based on the "giants of industry," the Horatio Alger heroes that "made America great," but also on the fact that at the end of the 19th century only white men could vote, or at least have significant influence in politics.) They believe in social (and perhaps racial and sexual) stratification: an aristocracy masquerading as meritocracy. Whatever their peculiar creed, they believe that Providence has proved their superiority, and they chafe at the idea that their power (personal, political, economic) is checked by those not in their category.

Unfortunately, due to a century of "progress" (that they undoubtedly would like to undo) the political landscape has changed. As Douthat & Salam point out, apart from this group, "the most reliable GOP voters are Social Conservatives (13 percent of registered voters) and Pro-Government Conservatives (10 percent of voters). Both groups are predominantly female (Enterprisers are overwhelmingly male); both are critical of big business; and both advocate more government involvement to alleviate the economic risks faced by a growing number of families. They tend to be hostile to expanding free trade, Social Security reform, and guest-worker proposals--which is to say the Bush second term agenda." That is to say, they are mothers wondering how to take care of their families (in the "traditional," heterosexual, racial, and ethnic sense of family).

What interests me here is the two gendered concepts of "conservatism." The masculine drive to dominate, organize, and control is contrasted with the feminine impulse to seek protection and community building. The women are conservative for social (and perhaps religious) reasons, but their views of the economy are...what? Liberal? Actually, no, not exactly, because, let us remember, the golden child of conservative economic policies, Adam Smith, advocated the liberalizing of economic relations--that is removing them from other spheres of social life. Profit is an end in itself and not tied conceptually or practically to morality, ethics, or religion (to name a few related fields). But these women! It's as if they are making a conservative argument that there are moral and ethical claims that can be made on the government, which is the regulator, after all, of the economy.

Then these "new wave" conservatives wrote something that really knocked me out of my chair: "If you expect government to step in when the going gets tough, you have an obligation to make a contribution." Whoa! Are you saying sometimes taxes are good? That they pay for necessary social services and infrastructure? Perhaps they have indeed discovered the moral core of conservatism. Or maybe they have merely seen the truth of social justice that liberals have always been advocating.

Robert Kaplan, a war reporter for the Atlantic Monthly, writes in an opinion piece for the New York Times that, "the distinctions between war and relief, between domestic and foreign deployments, are breaking down." Is it just me, or does that sound scary? Why is the government unable to coordinate relief efforts without the use of deadly force? And yes, Kaplan insists that these "ops" be military: "So, how can the Pentagon become better at emergency relief without impeding its ability to fight wars? First, it must continue to train primarily for combat. Combat provides a vital esprit de corps, and the skills that are honed in preparation for combat are also the most valuable tools for disaster relief" (emphasis added).

Wow. The only way to motivate Americans to save people is to psyche them up to kill people. He then goes on to blithely state that, "Finally, just as civilian nongovernmental groups are often needlessly antagonistic toward the American military, our troops are sometimes guilty of having a gruff attitude toward the civilian workers." Is that because they're trained to kill, and "do-gooder" NGOs are trained to save? (BTW, the Village Voice is reporting the military's "gruff attitude" has made the Human Rights Watch's newsletter.)

There's a reason the Founders made the military subject to a civilian supreme commander (the POTUS), and only gave the Congress power to declare war. If the military can intervene any time "disaster" strikes (or say, a strike creates disaster for the oligarchs) then say goodbye to the rule of law.

According to a story published in this morning's New York Metro, "President Bush, stirring debate on the worrisome possibility of a bird flu pandemic, suggested yesterday that federal troops might be dispatched to enforce quarantines in areas where the killer virus might emerge. Bush asserted aggressive action could be needed to prevent a potentially crippling U.S. outbreak of an avian flu strain. Citing worries that state and local authorities might be unable to contain and deal with such an outbreak, Bush asked Congress to give him the authority to call in the military."

It looks like the upside of Katrina for Bush is the ability to declare martial law as easily as a state of emergency. For those readers with Carl Schmitt, this is the hallmark of an absolute sovereign: the ability to declare when civil government must be suspended. It was, if I'm not mistaken, a clause in the Weimar constitution giving the Chancellor power to declare such a state of emergency that Hitler used to get rid of the republic after the "communists" burned down the Reichstag.

Over the past five-plus years, I've done my fair share of ranting at the teeming hordes of knuckle-dragging merkin "patriots." But nothing, NOTHING, I've said or written quite compares to Daily Kos contributor Hunter's volley today.

Oh, it's on, baby!

The Wall St. Journal's Op-Ed section ran this delightful story on how superior the corporate response was to the government's response.

...full of shit, apparently. Some good fact checking over at Salon.com. The whole Social Security plan is a flat-out scam. If the Democrats keep throwing punches (which will be increasingly likely if Dean moves into the DNC chair position as expected), then there may be enough political hay created over this issue alone to shift the balance in the next election. More weaker Republicans and stronger Democrats are up in the next Senatorial cycle, anyway, so that bodes well.

That is, of course, if the Dems don't blow their chance making nice-nice.