The Candid Sham

David Brooks has the finest example of low and unthoughtful journalism that I've seen in some time. Unthoughtful because it reminds me of the arguments made by young wanna-be pundits in 7th grade; low because it uses its sarcastic tone to perpetuate irresponsible claims. (don't worry, I find it low when 'liberals'--Moore and Dowd come to mind--do the same thing).
But this Brooks article takes the cake. Its argument is this: Bush is candid and forthright.

Now his administration has taken to honesty like a drunken sailor. It has made a fetish of candor and forthrightness. Things are wildly out of control.

dissenters to Bush policies, such as shutting all except Iraq allies out of reconstruction contracts, are really upset at the face value of his public pronouncements.

And then he gets plain low:

Sometimes you've got to be slippery to accomplish real good. The Bush administration is thus facing an insincerity crisis. It has become addicted to candor and forthrightness. It needs an immediate back-stabbing infusion.

Perhaps Al Gore could be brought in to offer advice.

shnapp...you really got 'em good with that one Brooks.
The whole article sapps with the arrogant attitude of 'if you don't agree with me, you are utterly wrong and must be a lier.' But apart from the eggregious school boy attitude* with which Brooks writes, I think he missed a chance to do something good.

I would have really loved to see Brooks make a case for his points. For instance, is it really true that "[t]he Clinton administration pretended to fight terrorism without committing the sin of unilateralism by trying very hard." Within that point...is it true that unilateralism is harder than consensus builing? Seems I could find some beggers to differ.
Would be a good debate, anyway. But oh well, Brooks has it fgured out for us.

Primarily, I would have loved for Brooks to proove the central point of his article--that Bush is "drunk on truth serum." Now that's a two-day seminar. Good debate topics abound: what amounts to truthfulness in leadership? is a leader required to disclose conflicting viewpoints when presenting a national policy? is it 'truthful,' as Brooks seems to suggest, to say one thing publicly, but act differently behind closed doors? to what extent can rhetoric escape reality when a leader speaks publicly?

Sadly, Brooks is unwilling to launch that debate. Instead, he takes us on a ride in his world, where Clinton and Gore are forever fibbers and Bush is the honest straight talker. That rhetoric, which is precisely the line many of his peers at Weekly Standard push, is a party line rhetoric. It does not accept debate; rather, it assumes absolute rigidness.

But, what if we did debate?

How about these fine examples of candor:

~ do the words "weapons of mass destruction" mean anything to you? I've got no beef if the President really really believed that Hussein could send unmanned drones over to drop nukes on us. But at least be candid enough to express the doubts that were expressed to you.

~"This administration is committed to your effort. And with the support of Congress, we will continue to work to provide the resources school need to fund the era of reform." Bush, 1/8/03 BUT
The President's '03 budget (the first budget after signing No Child Left Behind) proposed to cut NCLB programs by $90 million overall, leaving these programs more than $7 billion short of what was authorized under the bill.

~"I want to thank the Boys & Girls Clubs across the country. The Boys & Girls Club have got a grand history of helping children understand the future is bright for them, as well as any other child in America. Boys & Girls Clubs have been safe havens. They're little beacons of light for children who might not see light. And I want to thank them for their service to the country. Part of the vision for America is that we have a mosaic of all kinds of people providing love and comfort for people who need help." Bush, 1/30/03
BUT
In his 2002 budget, Bush proposed eliminating all federal funding for the Boys and Girls Club of America. In his 2003 budget, he proposed cutting the program by 15% (from $70 million down to $60 million).
(these two examples come from the Democrats in the House Appropriations Committee)

Now- you might argue- Bush isn't lying, he just thinks the states should pay for these things, not the federal government. Well, then...be candid damnit. How often has Bush argued that program funding needs to shift to the states. That would be the candid approach, no? And as I've mentioned before, the same applies with the tax cuts. If the goal is to deplete federal funds for vast programs, let's have a conversation about that. It is, of course, an old idea- and something reasonable people can debate and reach reasonable conclusions. But instead, Bush talks about frosting on cake, while hiding the substantive details of the (yellow)cake.

By the way, note Josh Marshall's observation today:

Yesterday, President Bush said that if Halliburton's overcharged then they've gotta pay up.

"I appreciate the Pentagon looking out after the taxpayers' money," the President said. "They put the issue right out there on the table for everybody to see, and they're doing good work. We're going to watch, we're going to make sure that as we spend the money in Iraq that it's spent well and spent wisely. And their investigation will lay the facts out for everybody to see."

Yet, just a week earlier, acting on the president's orders, the Deputy Secretary of Defense signed a directive which hamstrung precisely the sort internal audits of the funds Congress just approved for work in Iraq -- just the sort of crackerjack oversight the president says he loves.

*By the way...I am still a school boy (grad school counts)... so I can still use such tones. Na na ne boo boo.