Politics Divided.

Dear David Brooks,
Your insight is windex in the foggy mirror of politics.
Love.
Lindsay
Seriously, I am an unabashed fan of David Brooks, the New York Times Writer. If you ever are looking for a a quick read that wont have you tuning out by the third sentence- check out his editorial column. He also is an incredible author and his book Bohos in Paradise is an accurate and hilarious historical look at how the populist culture emerged.
In one recent editorial, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/opinion/26brooks.html.
David talks about the politics of pointing the finger. We all want to point the finger at economic big smoke monster, sorry random LOST reference. Democrats love to point at wall street and the vicious, ruthless, cutthroat traitors while republicans point their fingers at the law making regulators which interfere with the their idol- the market. I am not debating the merit of the argument, but just noticing that the lines through society are not as deep as rigid as their argument portrays. The Grand Canyon does not divide the rich from the poor. Even those labels seem antiquated. The reason both parties want to push us into sections and categories is not for our own good but for political gain. If there is a monster on the streets, the clark kent gets to play hero. Clearly there are political and business corruption but David Brooks says it best:

"Democratic ruling class has been driven by one fantasy: that voters will get so furious at people with M.B.A.’s that they will hand power to people with Ph.D.’s. The Republican ruling class has been driven by the fantasy that voters will get so furious at people with Ph.D.’s that they will hand power to people with M.B.A.’s. Members of the ruling class love populism because they think it will help their section of the elite gain power."

I dont think as many Americans are on the populist band wagon as the politicians would like to think. We can look at Wall street for all its snakes and corruption and understand that while they are viciously trying to make personal profit, there is a a bigger picture at work here. They also understand that some of the problems we are having started on our curbs- yes right here on main street. We racked up debt and bought houses we couldn't afford- the Wall Street errors didn't help anyone but we hurt ourselves too. I think that we have always understood that the world of vicious traders is better for the miser than one without Wall Street or as Brooks puts it:
" Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln who rejected the idea that the national economy is fundamentally divided along class lines. They rejected the zero-sum mentality that is at the heart of populism, the belief that economics is a struggle over finite spoils. Instead, they believed in a united national economy — one interlocking system of labor, trade and investment."

Any who, the populist movement has never been a successful one and I dont think it has success in its future. Some one could tell Washington.