Bogus Gold

Students of history are familiar with the age old means adopted by people in criticizing their rulers. In more despotic forms of government a loyal subject harms their own case if they have the temerity to suggest the monarch may intend to cause harm or do wrong. Therefore no matter how wretched a kingly state treats its subjects, the king himself is spared personal criticism. The way you voice displeasure with the king is by saying he is "ill served by his advisors."

The reasons for this are complicated, but most notable for their universality. You'll find the same kind of criticism leveraged against ancient Chinese emperors, Egyptian pharaohs, Roman emperors, and English kings. Wherever the monarch seems personally beyond reproach... where one would cast oneself as a mad man, or traitor by speaking directly against him... one voices their displeasure by speaking of the monarch's "bad advisors."

Enter David Brooks. Brooks is the elder conservative columnist for the New York Times (the younger is Ross Douthat now that Bill Kristol has been kicked to the curb, but that's not important right now). He's the preferred kind of conservative for the Times' audience because his opinions lead him to damn the GOP for its lack of moderation more often than voice displeasure with those to his left. Unlike other allegedly conservative opinionators he never came out to openly endorse Obama prior to the election. But he has been decidedly hopeful that the Obama administration would prove to be to his liking.

It seems to be slowly dawning upon Mr. Brooks that the reality of President Obama does not match up with the campaign train "Hope and Change" version. But he can't quite bring himself to challenge the semi-divine person of Barack Obama himself. He lives in New York City, for gosh sakes! Therefore he turns to the age old device used by those who have lost faith in their ruler but lack the courage to say so:

Who’s going to stop this leftward surge? Months ago, it seemed as if Obama would lead a center-left coalition. Instead, he has deferred to the Old Bulls on Capitol Hill on issue after issue.

Machiavelli said a leader should be feared as well as loved. Obama is loved by the Democratic chairmen, but he is not feared. On health care, Obama has emphasized cost control. The chairmen flouted his priorities because they don’t fear him. On cap and trade, Obama campaigned against giving away pollution offsets. The chairmen wrote their bill to do precisely that because they don’t fear him. On taxes, Obama promised that top tax rates would not go above Clinton-era levels. The chairmen flouted that promise because they don’t fear him.

Ah yes, it's not Obama who has broken his promises. It's these cursed advisors and Congressmen who fail to serve the Great Leader's wishes faithfully.

The notion that Obama merely gave voice to his desire for moderation for the sake of popularity and electability may be whispering in the back of Mr. Brooks' mind. But he dares not challenge the honor of his "sovereign" like that.

But the truth will eventually out all the same. Many people invested so much in the hope that Obama was a new kind of leader - a healer... a lightbringer.. the vanguard of a new era of politics free of the old divisions. These people are not going to be ready to whip around less than a year later and admit they were taken in by just another slick politician lying to their faces and telling them what they wanted to hear. They still want to believe.

But if Obama keeps pushing his agenda - an agenda that may be many things but "moderate" isn't one of them - it's going to be a very rough road for Obama's "advisors" ahead. Especially the ones who stand for re-election in 2010.