Brooks, Where's the Big Idea?

David Brooks' column has at least been hitting on a theme most conservatives aren't willing to embrace - that our problems (energy, healthcare, transportation, human capitol, financial structure) are too big and complicated to leave to the ordinary GOP "hands-off" "laissez-faire" "government is the problem" approach. Reform in these areas requires - and can only be accomplished - by government. This is a pretty big admission for conservatives - and wipes out a chunk of their philosophy. (I doubt many would still argue these problems will solve themselves)

So, the next question is - how should the government proceed. This is where Brooks sells us short in the name of historic conservatism. He looks at Disraeli and TR as models, but surprisingly extrapolates from their tenure a notion that we should "tread softly" into the future - careful not to disturb our American Ideals. I think all Americans are in favor of maintaining our ideals (and we probably agree on most of what they are) and framing it as 'us vs. them' only serves the local political climate - not the broader discussion. Set aside the fact that Disraeli (from what little I know) and TR (from which I know a little more) seemed pretty radical (remember TR left the GOP to form the Bull Moose Party ... and he was HUGE on the environment and busting up the trusts and robber barons) ... even if Brooks is right that they were modest change agents, I would argue that these problems are so big that we need Radical change agents. Not the radicalism that destroys American values (who does that?), but radical big thinking ... only large-scale change will solve these problems (energy in particular) and we need to start with big ideas so that whatever we are left with after the politics and beaurocracy whittle it down will be suitable. Only if Brooks' reforms could be implemented whole-scale should we talk about modest change, because if we start with modest proposals we'll end up with lackluster results.

Update: Noam over at TNR has a similar take - and of course mentions the New Deal which I forgot.