• "Well written, well researched, and the thesis put forth is well argued.... Woods has opened up an area of historical analysis that should invite further study."
    -Journal of American History

  • "During these times that challenge our freedoms there is no one more qualified to make U.S. history relevant to the fight against big government than Thomas Woods."
    -Barry Goldwater Jr.
    Former Member of Congress

  • "I strongly recommend Woods's work."
    -The Honorable Ron Paul,
    U.S. House of Representatives

  • "Written with great clarity and fluency, making the complex philosophical and theological concepts approachable."
    -Journal of American Studies

  • "A must-read."
    -Barron's

  • "An excellent reading source for anyone interested in financial markets, and much more so for anyone interested in learning about capitalism without all the misinterpretations being thrown about in the financial media."
    -Asia Times

  • "Provocative, well-written, and deserves to be read."
    -Catholic Historical Review

  • "An engaging and important contribution to scholarship on the history of American Catholicism."
    -Journal of the Historical Society

  • "Woods and [co-author Kevin] Gutzman appeal to both left and right in this constitutionalist jeremiad…. The authors' exegeses of the Constitution and court decisions, heavy on original intent arguments, are lucid and telling."
    -Publishers Weekly

  • "A marvelous read. Every chapter taught me something new and unexpected."
    -Tom Bethell, senior editor,
    The American Spectator

  • "The hottest book today is Meltdown, by my friend Tom Woods."
    -Judge Andrew Napolitano, senior judicial analyst,
    FOX News Channel

  • "Should be required reading."
    -Economic Affairs (London)

  • "Woods, one of the best classical liberal [libertarian] scholars of his generation, has once more placed us in his debt with this lucid and tightly argued book."
    -David Gordon, The Mises Review

  • "Tom Woods is one of my dearest allies in the struggle against wrong-headed and dangerous economic policy."
    -Peter Schiff

The New York Times Is a Giant Make-Work Project

Paul Krugman’s articles, one begins to suspect after a while, are intended to provide employment for Bob Murphy. Is David Brooks, the Times’s house conservative, my own personal make-work project?

Here’s a good rule of thumb. The phrase “New York Times house conservative” should never fill anyone with confidence.

The worst part of Brooks’ column “The Second GOP,” though, come when he (favorably) cites others:

As Bill Kristol pointed out at the National Review event, the G.O.P. fiercely opposed the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law but never offered an alternative. The party opposed Obamacare but never offered a replacement. John Podhoretz of Commentary added that as soon as Republicans start talking about what kind of regulations and programs government should promote, they get accused by colleagues of being Big Government conservatives.

Poor babies. Here they are just trying to be reasonable and pragmatic, and the stupid peons keep attacking them!

Moreover, given all the antigovernment rhetoric, [Americans] will never trust these Republicans to reform cherished programs like Social Security and Medicare. You can’t be for entitlement reform and today’s G.O.P., because politically the two will never go together.

Brooks lives on a planet where the GOP wants to abolish entitlement programs or at least refuses to reform them. He also thinks programs whose combined unfunded liabilities are $222 trillion can be reformed. They can’t, and no one in either party has any intention of trying.

The rest of the article is a plea for a less ideologically rigid GOP. Less ideologically rigid than the party of Mitt Romney? Who would be the nominee? Perry Como?

The existing Republican Party considers it cheeky to propose spending cuts one would need a microscope to perceive, and whose two-term president endorsed a whole sheaf of government programs after the Panic of 2008.  This supposedly antigovernment party hasn’t lost a whole lot of sleep over the war on drugs, the growing surveillance state, or the wars of the past dozen years.

It’s all this ideological rigidity, according to David Brooks, that the GOP needs to shed.

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • Anon

    It is not only NYT/Brooks that is wanting an ideologically change in GOP. GOP remains silent sometimes in order to give arise to ‘leftist hate’ to divide the country as Obama.

    Other times, GOP uses air time mainly to diss on the so-called right-wingers. This is the group progressives/leftists like GOP and Brooks want to stir up, partly to get ready for civil war/chaos and partly to make them more like establishment than they already are and to demonize them so that group does not grow.

    In order for GOP/Dem policies to go thru, they also need in part to have the will of the American people – and one such tactic is to have this immoral/childish/bullish demonizing as displayed by Brooks.

  • Anonymous

    “Perry Como”???!!! That cracked me up. But I’m shocked that a kid like you would know the name. (anybody under 50 is a kid.)
    As to Brooks et al, when it comes to real policy, these guys are tone deaf.

  • Luke Sunderland

    “The rest of the article is a plea for a less ideologically rigid GOP.
    Less ideologically rigid than the party of Mitt Romney? Who would be the
    nominee? Perry Como?”

    No, I suspect that he wants Barack Obama to be the nominee.

  • LeRoy Matthews

    Study my Letter on Diane@Philosophyinaction.com. (Search: Crazy Inbox)