David Brooks, Self-Doubt and Self-Confidence

David Brooks lectures us this morning on the need to have a balance between self-doubt and self-confidence.

"Western democratic systems were based on a balance between self-doubt and self-confidence. They worked because there were structures that protected the voters from themselves and the rulers from themselves. Once people lost a sense of their own weakness, the self-doubt went away and the chastening structures were overwhelmed."

"In Europe, workers across the Continent want great lifestyles without long work hours. They want dynamic capitalism but also personal security. European welfare states go broke trying to deliver these impossibilities."

The problem of course is that these are not impossibilities. Like the United States, Europe's economies increase their productivity every year. Higher productivity growth means that people can enjoy higher living standards. There is absolutely nothing impossible about having dynamic capitalism along with security and shorter work hours. In fact, the latter is arguably the purpose of the former. In the European welfare states the economies were structured in a way that led more of the gains from this growth to be broadly shared as opposed to the United States, where the economy was structured to distribute most of the gains to those at the top.

And the European welfare states were not going broke. Until the crisis the most generous welfare states in northern Europe were either running budget surpluses or relatively small sustainable deficits. (Yes, these are surpluses -- positive is larger.) Unlike the United States these countries also had trade surpluses or small deficits.

In short, the underlying claim of Brooks' eloquent homily on self-doubt and self-confidence is not true. If Brooks had a bit more self-doubt perhaps he would have bothered to look at the data or consult someone who knew the data before devoting valuable space on the NYT oped page to making a point that is not valid.

Factotum
written by Robert, May 18, 2012 5:38

There is an obvious question about the Greek mess that no one seems to ask. Where did the money go? The workers don't seem to have gotten it. Some of it probably evaporated as happens with any market crash. Is it not the case that a lot of Greeks and Europeans walked off with millions? Why isn't someone trying to get it back?

Brooks and the Facts in N. Europe
written by Bart, May 18, 2012 7:19

Perhaps his research assistant is on sabbatical.

Greek self-doubt.
written by David, May 18, 2012 7:21

No doubt, David Brooks is the type of rhetorician that Socrates warned us of. Alternatively put," be wary of conservatives in centrist's clothing."

Robert asks: " Why isn't someone trying to get it back?" But they are! German lenders have sent in the protection racket (ecb and imf) to extract tribute. But in the end, isn't it always the workers who pay for the greed and ineptitude and corruption of the elite?

easy act to follow
written by WKJ, May 18, 2012 7:36

Having Brooks, Douhat, Friedman, & Mulligan published in the NYT makes Krugman look even smarter.

Seriously? Brooks wrote this line--
written by Kat, May 18, 2012 8:21

Leaders today do not believe their job is to restrain popular will. Their job is to flatter and satisfy it.
I think he meant: (Certain)Pundits today do not believe their job is to restrain elite will. Their job is to flatter and satisfy it.

Really?
written by Jeffrey Stewart, May 18, 2012 8:56

Who knew that western democracies were based on "self doubt and self confidence"?

Brooks dreams up a false premise from which he derives spurious conclusions in the service of right wing ideology.

Steady, prestigious, well paid work if you can get it.

lying or dumb?
written by Benjamin Kupersmit, May 18, 2012 10:55

as soon as I read the column, i knew that sentence would be the laughing stock/ghoulish focus of the FEP today.

I doubt Brooks even understands he is "lying" when he says something like this...it's not even hard to think of germany, sweden, norway, etc. etc. if you try for a second...he doesn't even read PK, much less you other FEPs...and can't be bludgenoed into doing so apparently...

what is going on with these people?

It would seem
written by Paul, May 18, 2012 3:09

that Brook's premise is an over-generalization of the supposed virtues of the American system (separation of powers, judicial review etc.) European democracy with the exception of the older democracies like the UK and France are based majority rule pure and simple (Germany is compromise between what the conservative US occupiers wanted and the valiant resistance of German social democrats). In fact, most of the countries adhering most closely to the American model (i.e. the Western Hemisphere with exception of Canada) have traveled a fairly rough road in terms of attaining democratic norms, while the experience of Europe shows majority-rule (i.e. unicameral multiparty parliaments elected proportionally), as opposed to giving reified self-doubt, seems to work pretty well.

...
written by Procopius, May 19, 2012 11:14

"...devoting valuable space on the NYT oped page to making a point that is not valid."

I think I see your mistake here. The fact that this space is devoted to printing Brooks is ample evidence that its owners do not consider it valuable.

David Brooks, Self-Doubt and Self-Confidence

About Beat the Press