Brooks: "The Republicans are intellectually unfit to govern"

Interesting article, even though the central thesis drives me crazy (mostly because it's probably true). Most "independents" I've talked to are the types who refuse to get involved and weigh both major candidates like adults and choose the best one realizing that no one is going to agree with them 100%.

I also resent the fact that for the longest time everyone complained about Obama being too vague about his policy prescriptions (mostly people who get ALL their information from Sean Hannity), then when he tries to be more explicit prominent conservative columnists complain he's not exciting enough.

I also heartily agree with Matt Yglesias in that I would like to see Brooks elaborate more what he's talking about when he mentions off hand two weeks in a row that the Republicans have no business running the country.

David Brooks: None of us have ever lived through an election at a time when 80 percent of voters think the country is headed in the wrong direction. But now that we’re in the thick of it, a few things are clear. From voters, the demand is: Surprise Me Most. For candidates, the lesson is: Weirdness Wins.

Last winter, Barack Obama succeeded by running a weird campaign. He wasn’t just a normal politician aiming for office, he was going to cleanse the country of the baby-boom culture war mentality. In his soaring speeches, he denounced the mores of both the Clinton and Bush eras and made an argument for unity and hope over endless partisan warfare.

But over the course of the spring, Obama’s campaign got less weird . . .

Instead, Obama’s speeches became more conventional, more policy-specific and more orthodox. His Denver acceptance speech was different from his Iowa speeches. It was more traditionally anti-Republican and pro-Democratic. In the speech’s crucial contrast Obama declared: “It’s time for them to own their failure. It’s time for us to change America. You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country."

. . .

Now the campaign has become a battle between two different definitions of change. The Obama camp has become the champion of policy change — after eight years of failed Bush-McCain policies, it is time for different, Democratic ones. The McCain campaign is the champion of systemic change — after two decades of bickering and self-dealing, its time to shake up the whole system in order to get things done.

The Obama change is more responsible and specific, but it has all the weirdness of a Brookings Institution report . . .

Furthermore, the maverick theme allows McCain to talk directly about character. Obama can hint at his values when he describes his tax cuts and health care plans, but he is indirect. Most voters, especially ones who decide late, vote on character over policies.

If I were advising the candidates, I’d tell them to double down on weirdness. Obama needs to occasionally criticize his own side. If he can’t take on his own party hacks, he’ll never reclaim the mantle of systemic change. Specifically, he needs to attack the snobs who are savaging Sarah Palin’s faith and family. Many liberals claim to love working-class families, but the moment they glimpse a hunter with an uneven college record, they hop on chairs and call for disinfectant. Obama needs to attack Bill Maher for calling her a stewardess and the rest of the coastal condescenders.

If I were McCain, I’d make the divided government argument explicit. The Republicans are intellectually unfit to govern right now, but balancing with Democrats, they might be able to do some good. I’d have McCain tell the country that he looks forward to working with Congressional Democrats, that he is confident they can achieve great things together.

The candidates probably won’t take this kind of advice. But remember: Weirdness wins. Surprise me most.