David Brooks gives us an example today. He entitles his piece "Revolt of the Nihilists" and thus presents us with a false dilemma. You are either with us (for the bailout) or against us. And if you're against "us", it is because you're a nihilist.

Not because you may have serious and deep problems with the structure of the bailout and the role government plays. Not because you feel the bill doesn't even attempt to address the root causes of the problem. And certainly not because you find it to be Constitutionally beyond the powers granted the federal government to engage in such a bailout.

No, it's because you're a nihilist.

And let us recognize above all the 228 who voted no -- the authors of this revolt of the nihilists. They showed the world how much they detest their own leaders and the collected expertise of the Treasury and Fed. They did the momentarily popular thing, and if the country slides into a deep recession, they will have the time and leisure to watch public opinion shift against them.

The hidden premise Brooks (and the administration and Paulson, etc) attempts to assert here (because he certainly can't prove it) is that the bailout is not only the right thing to do but it is the moral thing to do.

However it is an implication for which he provides little credible evidence to support his premise.

And while that is bad enough, Brooks then really stretches credulity:

House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame. It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party. Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support. Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds.

You have to immediately question the assumption of "Republicans leading the way". First, it is clear that if Democrats had wanted the bill to pass, they didn't need a single Republican vote to do so. And did you know that the House Financial Services Committee - which had a major hand in writing the bill under Barney Frank's leadership - had 1/3 of the Democrats on that committee vote against their own bill. Interestingly the bill needed 12 votes to pass, and 12 of the Democrats on that committee said "no".

But Republicans "led the way"?

So why is Brooks so upset at Republicans and why is he throwing around words he really doesn't appear to understand?

The Congressional plan was nobody's darling, but it was an effort to assert some authority. It was an effort to alter the psychology of the markets. People don't trust the banks; the bankers don't trust each other. It was an effort to address the crisis of authority in Washington. At least it might have stabilized the situation so fundamental reforms of the world's financial architecture could be undertaken later.

But the 228 House members who voted no have exacerbated the global psychological free fall, and now we have a crisis of political authority on top of the crisis of financial authority.

Ah, interesting. The plan, although it sucked, had an important "psychological" component to it. Although a dog of a bill, it was an effort to alter "psychology of the markets".

But when Republicans such as Phil Gramm said we were talking ourselves into a recession and John McCain mentioned that the fundamentals of our economy were sound (something Obama recently claimed as well), those were portrayed as outrageous lies - not attempts to "alter the psychology of the markets." Those who spoke such stupid things were "out of touch".

But when David Brooks (and others) claim that voting for an abysmal bill which just about everyone agrees is equivalent to throwing 700 billion taxpayer dollars down a rat hole, that's an important "psychological aid" to propping up the markets, correct?

And, naturally, only nihilists would be against it.

Of course one man's nihilist is another man's freedom fighter I guess.

All-in-all, a sloppy and dishonest "analysis" by Brooks. But it is a part of an ongoing attempt to frame the financial mess as a result of Republican rule, or misrule. The majority of the MSM are choosing to ignore the real history of what got us into this mess in order to help fashion the final nail they think will forever seal the McCain campaign's coffin by simply linking him to other Republicans. They smell blood in the water and the figurative feeding frenzy has begun.

There's certainly no doubt that Republicans share some of the blame, but their primary problem in all of this is they forgot to act like Republicans. In the case of the Democrats, the problems we now face we face because they did act like Democrats. Which should cause you more concern?

And why isn't David Brooks writing about that?

[Crossposted at QandO]