David Brooks has really given us a whopper today:

Edwards talks about poverty in economic terms. He vows to bring jobs back to poor areas and restrict trade to protect industries. He suggests that if we could take money from the rich and special interests, there'd be more for the underprivileged.

This kind of talk is descended from Marxist theory, which holds that we live in the thrall of economic conditions. What the poor primarily need is more money, the theory goes.

The core assumption is that economic forces determine culture and shape behavior. As William Julius Wilson wrote in "The Truly Disadvantaged," "If ghetto underclass minorities have limited aspirations, a hedonistic orientation toward life or lack of plans for the future, such outlooks ultimately are the result of restricted opportunities and feelings of resignation originating from bitter personal experiences and a bleak future."

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that liberals have it backward. In reality, culture shapes economics. A person's behavior determines his or her economic destiny. If people live in an environment that fosters industriousness, sobriety, fidelity, punctuality and dependability, they will thrive. But the Great Society welfare system encouraged or enabled bad behavior, and popular culture glamorizes irresponsibility.

What makes this whole argument so absolutely, so mind-bendingly, soooo painfully hypocritical and obtuse...is that conservatives (as well as business tycoons of every political stripe) have spent the last 30 years struggling to prove the theory that a single, enlightened economic system can solve the problems of humanity: Free-Market Globalization. Deregulation and the free-flow of capital across boarders would smash tyranny, end despotism, save the third world, end starvation, and introduce tribal African society to the wonders of instant-messaging. Everyone's orgasms would be bigger and warmer. Democracy, it was argued, would be the natural result of wider, more bustling markets. Why else extol the internet, the IMF and the WTO as the new holy trinity come to save mankind? However, now that this appears to have been a gaudy mirage, I guess it's time to cast blame on the poor for not being industrious, sober, faithful, punctual and dependable. On the demise of Globalization, John Ralston Saul has written in the cover article of this month's Harper's:

True believers will tell you that [Globalization] could have worked, if only there had been less nepotism, weaker unions, or less corruption. But real economic policies in the real world don't require perfect conditions. Perfect conditions don't exist in the real world. Western growth over two centuries has come in spite of our own shifting flaws.

No, It didn't work. Nationalism, as we all can see, is resurgent worldwide. Having recognized that the power of international business was largely illusory (or at least secondary to that of government), petty and vindictive governments are beginning to cast around looking for ways to flex their power. Witness France and Germany using the U.N. to assert their pre-war objections and thereby their independence from American oligarchy. Witness the bumbling re-constitution of the Taliban in Northern Pakistan, or the impotence of the puppet Aristide in the face of popular contempt. Or how about our own behavior?

Insofar as a possible war with Iraq was concerned, [Colin Powell] declared, "we will act even if others are not prepared to join us." So the United States would act unilaterally – that is, nationally. [Ibid]

Apparently, the new solution to problems like poverty resides less in our ability to incorporate the downtrodden into our economic systems than in our ability to persuade through brute force. Brute force fueled by nationalistic sectarianism.