On March 14th, 2010 I posted a blog entry (http://blog.chuckdietrick.com/2010/03/14/babbling-brooks.aspx)  titled, "Babbling Brooks," in which I described "Conservative" columnist and author, David Brooks', penchant for tearing down the Right in order to gain credibility and praise from the Left.

Well, the leader of the Faux Enlightened is at it again.  One can only imagine how many people he's impressed on the Manhattan cocktail circuit with his latest missive, "The Mother of All No-Brainers," where he not-so-shockingly tries to pejoratively paint the GOP as ideological in its fight with the Dems over the debt ceiling.

The guy that stands for everything that's wrong with compromise simply doesn't understand principle, particularly when said principle is rooted in historical fact.

Ideology, properly focused, is often a damn good thing.  Would Brooks begrudge the people who have fought bravely and tirelessly for racial, gender, and sexual preference equality?  They were and continue to be ideological.  Was there something wrong with their desire to right gross injustice and want it done quickly and in-total?  Should they have been berated into accepting something damaging to their and the country's best interests?

GOP intransigence on out-of-control government spending is an ideological battle worth fighting, and every bit as important as those previously mentioned.  The little matter of our republic's viability hangs in the balance.  If the Republican leadership is smart, they will embrace, rather than run from the appellation (as it applies to fiscal conservatism).

Brooks writes (regarding the GOP), "The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms."

Sweet terms?  Reigning in spending by a fraction of what is actually appropriate/necessary?  Believing, counter to all historical evidence, that revenue will be raised by increasing taxes on the investing and job producing classes?  Not supporting legislative and/or constitutional amendment provisions to lessen future government's ability to spend us into oblivion?

Brooks lambastes the Republicans for not agreeing, as part of the debt negotiation, to rollback various tax advantages targeted at large corporations.  Sure, that's populist red meat and  sounds swell and oh so enlightened for a "conservative", but of course, if fails to appreciate the nuance of such a concession.  I, and I believe the vast majority of fiscal conservatives, would enthusiastically sacrifice every special tax provision/deduction for corporations and individuals alike if it were done as part of a sweeping tax reform package.  Such necessary reform will become exceedingly more difficult though if the Republicans push all of their chips to the center of the table as part of the debt debate.

I have no evidence (hmm, maybe I'm a Democrat after all), but Mr. Brooks must have had some issues in his formative years.  His constant desire to seek approval and flattery hints of a void shaped during adolescence. 

The modern day King Lear is weaving his own Shakespearean tragedy.  He's descending into madness (i.e. journalistic irrelevance) by soliciting flattery from his three "daughters"—the Left, the media, and the GOP.  Like Lear, he's gotten it from the first two, but been spurned by the third.

Hopefully, the current version will have a slightly different ending.  Cordelia (i.e. the GOP), as in the original, will fight the power grabbing of her two sisters (the Left and the media); however, she will not die for her convictions in the end, but rather gloriously ascend to the throne in 2012 and bestow her prosperity-inducing policies on the kingdom.

The rich, the poor, and everybody in between will flourish.

Long live Cordelia!