Brilliant observations that I have not noted hearing or reading elsewhere.

The sad fact is nearly half the voters dependably vote for the latest Wall Street Dream Team from a Party that does not want to raise taxes 1 cent on the dollar on millionaires in a nation deeply in debt, and they are willing to sink the ship of state to stop it. 

Our form of government was built on the principle of separation of powers, when one branch would rather wreck the country then compromise, and voters put them in a position of power over and over, our democracy does not work. The British system where a Party gains full control after elections is a far better system. Even the low information voter knows who is in charge, and who to blame.

For America and its fractured system of government, it is a major accomplishment to have a President/CIC who will "not do (or allow) anything crazy". We had the 'crazy' for 8 years with the GOP under GWB, and they are ready to double down on the crazy if given a chance.

But it is a campaign of small ideas. The key word is Brooks' line about the governors and mayors is "significant." I'm sure that the politicians he spoke to had policy ideas, but I doubt they had any policy ideas that would have much of an impact on the status quo. If so, I haven't heard 'em.

Repealing the Bush tax cut is not a big idea. Protecting Medicare is not a big idea. A "green energy economy," insofar as that translates to more windmills and electric cars, is not a big idea.

Now I've been hearing many excuses for why the Democrats are not advocating big ideas--can't be done, wouldn't be prudent, yada yada yada. But I do not buy them. I don't hear Democrats whispering about the great big bills they would pass if only the voters would give them a new majority. If they had 'em, they would be talking about 'em. Occam's razor says that the reason Obama and the Democrats aren't promoting big ideas is because they haven't got any.

Now, if the country were on the "right track" to use Brooks' language, a lack of big ideas might be OK. We just need to stay the course.

But I don't actually know a single person who thinks the country is on the right track. Politically, economically, and institutionally, America is shedding its glory, sometimes with a loud crash but more often with a slow drip. We actually need big ideas at this moment in history, not just because of this recession but because of the long slide we've been on for years. And I haven't heard Obama or the Democrats offer anything that gives me hope of coming out of it--even if they had a filibuster proof majority in Washington.

It's all part of the mindset for most who don't believe and/or are unwilling to acknowledge that, as he stated:

As citizens, we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It's about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government.

Those pesky two little letters u-s, which represents the United States and the 'us' noting the citizens of same. 

Most do not want to acknowledge that the hard work and ongoing effort required to truly succeed requires us to be participants, not just the audience for the show.  Unfortunately, the majority chooses to watch and critique as their sole contribution and the only dues owed.  

I'm not sure I agree that 'Obama's first job is to convince us not to do anything crazy ...'. When you consider certain segments of our society, is that even a realistic possibility?

He We has have to deal with what's there, and he We can't just wish it away.

Without us willing to do what is needed there will be no positive and productive future for our US unless a real magician waves the wand that could suspend the reality of too many of us. 

It seems to me that just accepting a framework of big idea vs. small idea is a concession because it means playing on their turf, which we usually do and with bad results. And, proposing a big idea in the form of another government program is a trap, given the public's dim reaction to "big" government.

To me, removing the country from political grid lock is, for example, a big idea, one repeated during the convention. By distracting us with their conceptual frameworks, our opponents divert us from our own best strategies.

The failing of Progressives may be the lack of big ideas which involve participation with companies, finance firms and the community, but do not require large government outlays. One idea which comes to mind is a kind of bond issue sold to the general public which would allow students to refinance loans over a longer period of time. There must be precedents around somewhere in the 30's and 40's or before. No one can earn money on fixed income today, so if one could get an extra 1 % over a five or ten year period and allow students to save a point or two, why not try it. It's not even so much about the money, it's the idea that the community is pulling together in a creative way, and what's that new term----exercising "citizenship" responsibilities.

The manner in which the pundits develop and push frameworks is frustrating. Like CNN for the entire week intent in every interview to advance the Republican framing---are you better off, etc. Let's see the roof of the building just caved in, let's get some reactions---Senator, can you honestly say you are better off than you were 4 years ago?

I do think along your points of a second term, Destor, that the psychology changes, or will change. The blanket obstructionism was intended to deflate the economy and make Obama fail and that particular gig wouldn't have the same payout as it has had during the last four years. (Assuming  it still won't work).

Brooks is a lot of fun.

I mean no one should take him too seriously.

He somehow felt (at sometime anyway) that he was personally chosen to carry the conservative mantle from his mentor Buckley.

He is cute.

All the way thru his twenties I am sure folks wished to pinch his cheeks.

Every year or so he pretends to look for truth and apologize for something he wrote even though he always waters down his apologies.

His prose is different but his real position is taken from some 'what, what, what' sentiment held by aristocrats in Europe a hundred and two hundred years ago.

If W. Bush rushed into some war he had been planning a year before 9/11/01....well that was very unfortunate.

If some members of the repub party decided to bus 12,000,000 folks out of this country like Hitler giving transfer papers to millions of Jews, Brooks might write that the aristocratic Texan might have gone too far.

If the economic plutocracy were responsible for the 2nd depression, Brooks might write how depressed he was over the matter.

But Brooks would never even imagine voting for a dem.

And he personally wins by sticking with the plutocracy.

That is the body that pays him.

I do not think this pundit has broke a sweat in thirty years over anything.

And if he were in the 8th grade; I would steal his lunch money.

the end

When I hear "big idea" I reach for my ...........................................(insert favorite weapon of mass destruction.)

The big idea that Obama should implement is to not have any big ideas. Just keep R & R away from Obamacare and use the coming cliff hanger to obtain Republican agreement to fix the 971 (or whatever) Interstate bridges which are unsafe for normal vehicles which is what I drive.

We don't need a big idea . We need to implement the old idea that bridges don't fall down.

For the sake of clear understanding 'fixing bridges" should not be taken literally. It's an example of that literary  device called something like Schenectady where the part stands for the whole.

A newly elected President Romney, whose mind  works perfectly even though his mouth spouts nonsense,  would immediately start the program of bridge fixing (remember Schenectady) which he would fund by extracting the cash from the middle class-including the million new bridge builders.

Ryan Lizza: Obama Goes Vague, September 7, 2012

....  It certainly might be the right strategic move. But there’s a danger in winning this way ....