Transformational Liberalism?

Today in Hot Air, Allahpundit discusses Laura Ingraham's woodshed session with NYTimes' faux conservative columnist David Brooks who finds that

The only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it.

Point one: is Brooks obtusely stupid or is he just kidding about the Pelosi-crats' fitness to govern?? As in bankrupting the USA forever?? To the contrary, I'd say Brooks is unfit to wield a pen. On the other hand, this is the kind of mindless condescension typical of New York Times' writers who never venture beyond Manhattan while voicing expert opinions on the real America they will never know.

Point two: by whose lights is every single thing the Republicans try to do always "scary." (Queue Jim Cramer's "Oooooo" ghost sound.) Either Brooks and everyone else on his NYC cocktail circuit is a wuss. Or they're just doing this as part of their usual elitist preening?

Referring to the video in the Hot Air link, Allahpundit tosses to us the following notion:

You’ll hear [Brooks] say here that he thinks Obama’s not hard left but “a more pragmatic type of liberal.” But in the 2009 column linked above, he acknowledged that moderates were wrong about O and that his “actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice.” Which is it?

Answer: neither. "Transformational liberalism" is yet another fine example of a Marxist weasel word (like "progressive"). Transformational liberalism = communism. Period.

Any other questions? Good. Then let's take back our language and American cultural hegemony along with it by refusing to use phony, misleading, elite terms like "transformational liberalism."