On Friday's PBS NewsHour, the show's regular "Shields and Brooks" segment unintentionally summed up the major problem conservatives have with the show -- that there is no actual conservative panel member giving a contrasting point of view against liberal columnist Mark Shields as he and New York Times columnist David Brooks often show little disagreement when discussing the week's political news.
As the two men were both critical of Republicans over both ObamaCare repeal and the White House budget, not only did Shields at one point declare that "I can't argue with any point that David (Brooks) made," but a bit later, host Judy Woodruff observed that "both of you are saying the same thing." Shields then joked: "What? I hope not. I mean, there's no point in watching."
After Shields condemned the Paul Ryan plan for ObamaCare repeal as "truly unforgiveable" and "morally indefensible," Brooks seemed to argue in favor of universal health care using a market-based system like Switzerland, and asserted that Trump voters "get hammered" by the proposed changes.
When Shields got to speak again, he began: "I can't argue with any point that David made." The liberal columnist then turned to the Trump budget and complained:
And he has turned his back not simply on the health care -- this bill does -- but on the budget. It takes from the -- it takes from the have-nots -- it takes from the have-nots and the have-lesses and gives to the have-mores. I mean, it is absolutely a Robin Hood in reverse budget. And I just don't understand it. It really -- to use David's word -- hammers the very people who voted for him, especially in rural areas in America.
Host Woodruff turned to Brooks who seemed to agree with Shields as he began:
Yeah, I mean, there are just -- some things are mystifying. You know, why they eliminated the Appalachian regional development, the thing that -- why they severely cut the Great Lakes region's MIchigan, Wisconsin, why they had to put those specific cuts in the budget, let alone, you know, fine, Republicans are going to try to get rid of CPB -- our beloved CPB, Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- but why they put those things is mystifying.
After Brooks then shifted to theorizing that Trump is in a similar predicament as President Jimmy Carter in presiding over a party that is having internal conflict, Woodruff then described the two analysts as agreeing on the budget issue. Woodruff: "Then both of you are saying the same thing, then, Mark, about the budget?"
Shields cracked: "What? I hope not. I mean, there's no point in watching."
After Woodruff injected, "At least on this moment," the liberal pundit's analysis still did not sound contradictory to that of Brooks as Shields added:
No, but, Judy, just to add to that, David Reich's fearless congressional reporter wrote in Politico, these, they're turning their backs on Republican-endorsed programs. It was President Jerry Ford who pitched for big community development grants. It was Bob Dole who pushed and was the champion of food aid overseas. They're gong to cut that. It was Ronald Reagan who found the money for heating assistance for the poor people. I mean, it's just, it's amazing.
It's the same budget that Paul Ryan passed in 2013, but then he was negotiating with a Democratic President because he wanted to get cuts in entitlement growth toward his dream of taming the budget deficits. But now they have a Republican President and they're passing the same budget with the same cuts. And I just don't know where the pickup is.
Earlier in the week, in an appearance on PBS's Charlie Rose show, Brooks admitted that some of his views are "to the left" of congressional Republicans.
Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Friday, March 17, PBS NewsHour:
MARK SHIELDS: One figure that jumps out beyond all the questions of deductibles and everything else, 24 million Americans -- that's what the Congressional Budget Office estimates -- and Republicans just kind of recoiled. That is the number that's hung around that's going to lose coverage -- lose coverage. That just is -- that is truly unforgivable. It's morally indefensible, and I think in this case it will be politically indefensible.
JUDY WOODRUFF: But we're talking -- you're talking, Mark, about the bill as it sits in the House. In the Senate, we may see -- we're almost certain to see changes.
DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, but which direction? First, on the 24 million, it's a neat trick to do that because simply repealing Obamacare would have only taken coverage from 23 million, so somehow the replacement subtracts a million, which is an interesting trick. The Republican party just hasn't figured out where it sits on this issue. I think you could have a very good free market system sort of modeled on Switzerland where there are a lot of individual markets, people actually pay for their health care, and there's some cost and demand -- supply and demand pressures to get costs down. But you'd have to spend more to get it -- make it universal. You absolutely have to make it universal using a free market system.
But the Republican party hasn't gotten there because they don't want to make it universal because it probably would be expensive. And so some of them wanted to go sort of in that direction, but a lot -- Ted Cruz, Rand Paul -- they want to go in the other direction. And they just don't think it's the government's job to be in the field of distribution -- redistribution. And the ACA was very redistributionist. The Republican party hasn't figured it out. And what's interesting to me is that Donald Trump hasn't figured it out. He campaigned partially as a populist. And if I was a populist, I'd be handing things to my people. And what this bill does, is it takes things from the Trump voters. The middle-aged people -- 50 to 64 -- get hammered in this bill. The people just above the Medicaid threshold, the working class, they get hammered. And so what's the one piece of the bill that has been there from the beginning to end in all the versions? Is the tax cut for people making over 250 (thousand).. And so it's a weirdly anti-Trumpian bill that he's sort of gone along with because I guess the House Republicans led the way.
SHIELDS: I think -- I can't argue with any point that David made. I'd just say, it's inconceivable to me, Donald Trump changed the face of the Republican party, whatever one thinks of this election. He carried 403 counties that had voted for Barack Obama. The counties he carried, Judy, were considerably more white than the country is, and they were considerably less educated. I mean, they were struggling working class. And he has turned his back not simply on the health care -- this bill does -- but on the budget. It takes from the -- it takes from the have-nots -- it takes from the have-nots and the have-lesses and gives to the have-mores. I mean, it is absolutely a Robin Hood in reverse budget. And I just don't understand it. It really -- to use David's word -- hammers the very people who voted for him, especially in rural areas in America.
WOODRUFF: David, what about the budget proposal?
BROOKS: Yeah, I mean, there are just -- some things are mystifying. You know, why they eliminated the Appalachian regional development, the thing that -- why they severely cut the Great Lakes region's MIchigan, Wisconsin, why they had to put those specific cuts in the budget, let alone, you know, fine, Republicans are going to try to get rid of CPB -- our beloved CPB, Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- but why they put those things is mystifying. And it seems to go in direct contradiction to everything he stood for in the course of the campaign.
And there's a theory going around in political science which has some resonance from me today, which is you have moments where you got a political party knows what they believe and they're all on board. Then there's period of disruption where they're internally divided. And the argument is, Jimmy Carter was an example of this. The Democrats had shifted away from some old-style liberalism. They had't got to Bill Clinton's style. And they were internally divided. And that Donald Trump is like Jimmy Carter. He comes at a time when the Republican party does not know what it wants, and that he himself is internally divided. And you get these weird contradictions of campaigning one way and then governing in a very opposite way.
WOODRUFF: Then both of you are saying the same thing, then, Mark, about the budget?
SHIELDS: What? I hope not. I mean, there's no point in watching.
WOODRUFF: At least on this moment.
SHIELDS: No, but, Judy, just to add to that, David Reich's fearless congressional reporter wrote in Politico, these, they're turning their backs on Republican-endorsed programs. It was President Jerry Ford who pitched for big community development grants. It was Bob Dole who pushed and was the champion of food aid overseas. They're gong to cut that. It was Ronald Reagan who found the money for heating assistance for the poor people. I mean, it's just, it's amazing.
It's the same budget that Paul Ryan passed in 2013, but then he was negotiating with a Democratic President because he wanted to get cuts in entitlement growth toward his dream of taming the budget deficits. But now they have a Republican President and they're passing the same budget with the same cuts. And I just don't know where the pickup is.
