Hamilton vs. Jefferson Debate Rages On

Earlier this week, David Brooks wrote in the New York Times that he would be opinionating on the 2012 Presidential contest under protest:  apparently he finds the offers of both parties wanting.

Confession*:  I am not a big David Brooks fan.  However he has an unusually clear-eyed assessment of the current situation, observing that,

• "This election is about how to avert national decline."
• "[T]he core issue is the accumulation of deeper structural problems that this recession has exposed -- unsustainable levels of debt, an inability to generate middle-class incomes, a dysfunctional political system, the steady growth of special-interest sinecures and the gradual loss of national vitality."
• "Trust in institutions is at historic lows."

Fine so far.  So what kind of platform would excite the Times' columnist?  Brooks writes,

"If there were a Hamiltonian Party, it would be offering a multifaceted reinvigoration agenda. It would grab growth ideas from all spots on the political spectrum and blend them together. Its program would be based on the essential political logic: If you want to get anything passed, you have to offer an intertwined package that smashes the Big Government vs. Small Government orthodoxies and gives everybody something they want."

Great!  If Brooks wants to make the case for a Hamilton-style, top-down third way conservatism, I am happy to be on the other side with a Jeffersonian, bottom-up conservatism.  Let the debate begin!



*P.S.  I did like Brooks' book Bobos in Paradise.  So much so that I used to give away copies to friends.