David Brooks' personality split

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/opinion/27brooks.html?_r=1&ref=davidbrooks

If you follow this link, unless they've fixed the mistake, Bob Herbert's photo appears under this article which states it's written by Davd Brooks. It's really strange since Brooks is drifting into his young liberal, Democrat personality, wearing an old green jacket with a Hubert Humphrey button on it. I don't know if the Bob Herbert picture is a mistake or an omen leading Brooks to wholeness.

Brooks seems to be relating how he would think about the Democrat Party if he hadn't turned into a center-right something or other. But he's actually revealing how he thinks today, not imagining what he would think still as a Democrat. These are Brooks' real thoughts --

For example, everybody now hates the bank bailouts and the stress tests. But, the fact is, these are some of the most successful programs in recent memory. They stabilized the financial system without costing much money. The auto bailout was criticized at the time, but it’s looking pretty good now that General Motors is recovering.

-- but he's using a literary trick to hide them behind his young Democrat self. I have to say, I find this weird and a little disingenuous. Why can't Brooks just admit he's a modern liberal and be done with it? For instance, instead of having his younger self write --

We’ll point to high unemployment and propose spending programs too small to make much difference. The Republicans will blast us for bankrupting the country with ineffective programs, and the voters are so distrustful of government these days that they’ll side with the Republicans on that one, too.

--why not just admit he think the Democrats should spend a lot of money -- enough to make a difference, however much that is.

Instead of pretending it's another voice, why not embrace this --

It occurs to me that the Obama administration has done a number of (widely neglected) things that scramble the conventional categories and that are good policy besides. The administration has championed some potentially revolutionary education reforms. It has significantly increased investments in basic research. It has promoted energy innovation and helped entrepreneurs find new battery technologies. It has invested in infrastructure — not only roads and bridges, but also information-age infrastructure like the broadband spectrum.

These accomplishments aren’t big government versus small government; they’re using government to help set a context for private sector risk-taking and community initiative. They cut through the culture war that is now brewing between the Obama administration and the business community. They also address the core anxiety now afflicting the public. It’s not only short-term unemployment that bothers people. What really scares people is the sense that we’re frittering away our wealth. Americans fear we’re a nation in decline.

-- and declare his love affair with Obama is real? It's okay, really it is. If Brooks believes that the government interventions have been insufficient, and that braver, bolder initiatives are needed, then he should embrace it, own it, shout it to the heavens.

I'm beginning to think Brooks is coming apart -- he needs to find integrity, to accept his inner-Democrat and find peace. What good purpose does it serve to pretend a center-right position, when his heart is with the modern liberal crowd?

Government is setting a context for risk-taking and community initiatives -- yes, David, I hear the siren call -- follow your passion -- break free -- be the statist you are in your heart of hearts.

Update on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 at 12:35AM by M. Farmer

They corrected the picture of Bob Herbert below Brooks' article, but it was there before -- kinda funny.