The New Republic seems intent to argue against the David Brooks article, from the Sunday Times. While the TNR criticism does well to point to some assumptions that damage the primary thrust of Brooks' article --why do middle class folks vote for tax cuts that we "know" slant unfairly to the rich-- there are points in the article that should not be so quickly dismissed. Namely, the sociological points.
To wit- it would be instructive to note Brooks' findings on the world view of the middle class.
1) While the TNR blog points out that Bush is not explicitly pitching the tax cut as a boon to the rich, let's consider the popular view of the propsed tax amendments. That view is that taxes will be lowered- in some cases deleted. The lower taxes will have some effect on middle and low class tax; and the rich will see an even greater effect. It is my assumption that no matter how Bush sells this- his plan will be seen as friendly to the rich.
2) Now, the Brooks article. The question posed is: why do we not grow infuriated at the "obviously unfair" tax cut- or, as Brooks asks, why do we vote as if we're the upper class that benefits from upper-friendly tax cuts? The body of Brooks' answer deals with the sociological question: Why do we admire, rather than feel cheated by, the richest class? Or, as a former Democratic nominee may ask, after exposing the gross inequity of a tilted tax plan, "why didn't they listen?"
Brooks' answer: because the Democrats asking these questions aren't seeing the same world as do most Americans. I say, if the Democrats can realize that they are speaking nonsense to most folks when they frame arguments on class, the Democrats may learn, finally, HOW to communicate to the bulk of U.S. voters. Such communication has been mastered by the likes of Rove, for good or ill, in that Rove and friends use a vocabulary that conforms to the world view of voters.
Democrats need to find that vocabulary if their plans are to have a chance.