I’ve — we’ve — been hard on David Brooks of late, but I think today’s column is quite good, particularly the first half. He writes:

In November 2008, William A. Galston and Elaine C. Kamarck wrote a report called “Change You Can Believe In Needs a Government You Can Trust.” Galston and Kamarck, who served in senior positions in the Clinton administration, threw up some warning flags for the incoming Obama administration.
Despite the Democratic triumph that month, they noted, public distrust of government remains intensely high. Historically, it has been nearly impossible to pass major domestic reforms in the face of that kind of distrust. Therefore, they counseled, the new administration should move cautiously to rebuild trust before beginning a transformational agenda.
The Obama administration interpreted the political climate in an entirely different way. As John F. Harris and Carol E. Lee wrote in a smart piece in Politico on Wednesday, the administration interpreted the 2008 election as a rejection of not only George W. Bush-style conservatism, but also Bill Clinton-style moderation. The country was ready for a New Deal-size change. It had a leader in Barack Obama who could uniquely inspire a national transformation.
As happens every four years, hubris defeated caution, and the administration began its big-bang approach.
As always, it backfired. Instead of building trust in government, the Democrats have magnified distrust. The country already believed Washington is out of touch with its core concerns. So while most families were concerned about jobs, Democrats in Washington spent nine months arguing about health care. The country was already tired of self-serving back-room deals, so the Democrats negotiated a series of dirty deals with the pharmaceutical industry, the unions and certain senators. Americans already felt Washington doesn’t understand their fears and insecurities. So at the moment when economic insecurity was at its peak, the Democrats in Washington added another layer of insecurity by threatening to change everything at once.
Instead of building a new majority, the Democrats have set off a distrust insurrection (which is not the same as a conservative insurrection). Republicans are enraged. Independents are furious. Democrats are disheartened. Health care reform is brutally unpopular. Even voters in Massachusetts decided it was time to send a message.

I think this is largely right. Republicans expected, and GOP strategists were terrified, that Obama’s first efforts were going to be authentically bipartisan. A real overture to the GOP on the stimulus would have split congressional Republicans and, arguably, saved his presidency because Republicans would have essentially “bought” into it.

But Nancy Pelosi and Reid were greedy and Obama was eager to buy them off with a crazy partisan stimulus bill. That unified the Republicans around an anti-Obama strategy. Worse — from Obama’s pespective — it showed Republicans they could oppose Obama without paying a political price. Over time, it proved that the GOP could actually gain from opposing Obama, in part because GOP opposition forced the Democrats to become ever more ridiculous in their pursuit of an Eternal Fix to Healthcare (remember Obama’s promise to be the last president — ever! — to address health care?).

I think if Obama had followed Gingrich’s advice and split health care up into a bunch of little bills, he would be in much better shape. Small successes would have accumulated and gained support from Republicans and earned trust from voters.

If all of this is right and if — huge if here — a Republican wins in 2012, I think all of these lessons apply. A big, sweeping agenda isn’t what voters are looking for (even it is what I’d like). They want competence, seriousness, and responsibility — oh, and lots of jobs and economic growth. Of course, that may change before 2012.