TPMCafe
« NOT IN BROOKLYN ANYMORE | Home | Remedy For Complacency: Eavesdropping On What Rightwingers Are Telling Each Other »

A 'Sad' Reckoning That Isn't

user-pic

In 1994 I wrote that the left activist and sage Jim Chapin considered New York's then-new mayor Rudy Giuliani a "progressive conservative" like Teddy Roosevelt.

David Brooks, who worshipped Giuliani, picked up the phrase, and now he's claiming that it would have fit John McCain, too, if only McCain had "escaped the straightjacket of a party that is ailing and a conservatism that is behind the times." That he didn't escape makes his campaign "unspeakably sad."

Hello? The hero of Hanoi, imprisoned by his Republican base and his chosen running mate? What's unspeakably sad is how long ago McCain's leadership and Brooks' judgment went wrong -- a surprise only to journalists who still fall for Brooks as they once did for McCain.

McCain and Brooks do have flashes of genuine decency, but these are shards of public personna that have never really cohered.

Credit McCain, adoptive father of a Bangladeshi daughter, for refusing to play the race card by tying Barack Obama to Jeremiah Wright. But read Michael Tomasky's review-essay,"Who is John McCain?" in the June 12 New York Review of Books to see what a cynic and screw-up McCain has been all along.

(The one weakness, or unanticipated irony, in the review is that Tomasky excoriates McCain for fudging his much-touted support of public campaign finance. On that, he would soon be outdone by Obama.)

In 2000, more than a few liberals cast shy, admiring glances at McCain's challenge to George W. Bush in the primaries. He charged that a global capitalist "iron triangle" of big money, bad lobbyists, and undemocratic legislation was debasing his party and his country. He electrified Americans who didn't want patriotism left to Pat Buchanan and Oliver North. But soon his insurgency was smeared and destroyed by the Bush machine in a campaign so ugly it only ennobled its victim.

Whatever credibility I accorded McCain at that time evaporated four years later, as I watched him praise Bush to the skies and then bear-hug him on a stage in Nevada, endorsing his re-election. Bush was a shill for the "iron triangle" and a war everyone knew by then had been sold fraudulently and run abominably. I went cold on McCain at that moment. I didn't have to wait to learn, a couple of months ago, that he has enlisted the very Bush operatives who smeared him in 2000 to smear Obama in 2008.

David Brooks did have to wait. Credit him for... I'll think of something, most likely his entertaining apercus about consumer society and sonorous invocations of republican virtue.

But undoubtedly my appreciation is clouded a bit by his likening George Bush to Teddy Roosevelt; his conflation of national greatness with a national-security state, as in his supple but relentless shilling for the Iraq War and its neo-conservative academic justifiers; his perverse obsessions with Ivy League undergraduates, whose weaknesses he has indulged and even flattered; his announcement that while "American pop culture may look trashy," the country's "social fabric is in the middle of an amazing moment of improvement and repair;" his wheedling defenses of Scooter Libby and Karl Rove; his cruelty toward "Chicken Little" Ted Kennedy (whom he also called "to the left of Bashr Al Assad") and toward John Kerry (with his "core of sculpted marshmallow") and toward "net roots scion" Ned Lamont (with his "vicious, Sunni-Shiite style of politics"); his arguments for indexing Social Security; his fingering of the foibles of lower-income people whose homes are being foreclosed; and, most recently, his virtual coronation of Palin after her debate with Joe Biden.

Now Brooks wants us to be "unspeakably sad" for McCain (and, perhaps, for himself), and for an honorable conservatism that might have been, and for a Republican Party of "Americanized Burkeans" which he yearned for and kept trying to herald, mainly by lampooning hapless liberals.

Look, David, I'm a civic-republican at heart, just like you (and like John McCain, I'm sure, somewhere). But I'll save my sadness for whatever the left-liberal Democrats and the neo-liberal Obama get wrong. If you really care about the country, don't save your viciousness for them. Get rid of it now.


12 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Only two David Brooks posts today at TPM Cafe! (But the day is still young.)

I have come to the conclusion that there are only three kinds of Americans: (i) those who read and obsess about David Brooks columns so that they can endorse what he says; (ii) those who read and obsess about David Brooks columns so that they can object to what he says; and (iii) me. It's a lonely feeling.

How did this guy get so far inside the OODA loop of so many New York and DC liberals? What is the secret of his power? What am I missing? Why is every one of his columns either a celebrated event or notorious event?

user-pic

That's: iii you and me.

user-pic

Don't worry, Dan, you're not alone. There are a few other people who need to be informed -- apparently repeatedly -- that not only does Brooks appear twice a week in the Times; his column is syndicated in scores of other newspapers around the country; he is heard nationally every Friday on NPR's "All Things Considered," opposite E.J. Dionne; he is seen and heard nationally every Friday evening on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer (opposite Mark Shields); and that is only the beginning.

The point -- and I should think that this would be hard to miss -- is that editors and producers who serve predominantly liberal audiences value Brooks as an intelligent conservative whom they think their audiences will like. So he is heard or read every week by millions of people, some of them wavering liberals, centrists, and others who turn to these news organizations for information and commentary

Brooks, in my view, insinuating a lot of false, balf-baked, and fractured thinking into a lot of intelligent people's minds, at a time when things are already confusing enough. If your question is WHY so many editors and producers (and other journalists I know) have such a high regard for him, my answer is that it has something to do with some important, characteristic fault lines and foibles in American poltical thinking which I try to trace out and debunk whenever I think a Brooks commentary exemplifies or plays on them.

user-pic

Sure, I've heard Brooks many times on All Things Considered and seen him on the News Hour. He has that talent of being able to present his views and discuss the views of others in an urbane and civilized manner, which makes him perfect for those sorts of bland, chit-chatty panels. But I'm not sure how much influence he actually has. He is seen more as an observer of pop political and social culture than a contributor to serious and substantive debates about national policy. According to Media Matters, these are the top 10 syndicated columnists in the country (total circulation and total # of newspapers shown):


George F. Will
21,288,002
328

David S. Broder
15,124,554
218

Kathleen Parker
15,046,158
282

Ellen Goodman
13,930,416
239

Cal Thomas
13,888,268
306

Leonard Pitts Jr.
13,788,002
186

Charles Krauthammer
11,982,885
110

Thomas L. Friedman
11,759,074
122

Maureen Dowd
9,649,065
100

David Brooks
8,781,951
90


So yes, Brooks is in the top ten. But he is at the bottom of that list. He is not nearly as widely read as Will, Broder or Cal Thomas. He is not even as widely read as the nitwit Maureen Dowd. Why all the fuss?

user-pic

Again, Dan, I think you have to try to understand that Brooks' actual readers (not the circulation numbers of the newspapers, but the readers who actually go to his column) are not quite the same as, say, Krauthammer's, who are mostly the converted -- as MJ explains in a post a few down from mine today, Krauthammer's readers are most likely his fellow war-monger.) Brooks' readers are more malleable and "thoughtful" liberal centrists, as well as conservatives. I think that he beguiles (i.e., fools) a lot more people than Krauthammer fools, or than Dowd enertains, or than Broder puts pleasantly to sleep.....

user-pic

Here's what I don't understand. If Brooks doesn't "beguile" you, why do you believe he beguile others amongst the 5%, or so, of the population who pays him any attention.

It seems to me probable that those who plumb the depths of USA media far enough that they are reading Brooks, or listening to him on those shows upon which he appears, are probably amongst the most well informed of the population; and, thus, have well developed BS meters.

Other than, of course, his choir who read him to reinforce their existing points of view.

user-pic

I wish it were true that people who are smart enough to read Brooks have BS meters, but even several journalists I know are quite taken with (and by) Brooks. As these supposedly sophisticated observers of publc life are fooled by him (just as they were fooled by McCain), many of their readers are, too.

Your question really takes us back to the ancient sophists, public orators and teachers whom the conservative historian Russell Kirk described as both realistic and sardonic, able to pass off as righteous persuasion what is really supple trickery or intimidation.

Sophists were “impelled by their passions and low interests, their illusions, even at the moment they claimed to speak as practical logicians and champions of common sense. For fees, the Sophists taught the young men of Athens… the way to material success, especially through public speaking before the assembly or in cases at law.”

Brooks has certain convictions -- at his core, a neo-conservative conviction that elitist, naive liberals are a great danger to the American republic in this dark, cruel world, while quite often the steely strength of war-makers like Cheney and McCain is needed. There is a response to this -- it came eloquently from other ancient Greeks, as it has more recently from the likes of Ghandi, King, and Mandela, whose strategies smart people like Brooks really, truly don't comprehend.

A lot flows from this in Brooks writing -- the ways he weaves both considerable charm and fine-spun resentment, along with great affectations of intellectual acuity, to drape his core convictions in nice appearances that both stimulate and flatter his readers. Yes, many intelligent people are fooled. Intelligence alone isn't enough. A pretty deep and sometimes vulnerable integrity is required, too.

user-pic

I agree Jim, Brooks doesn't belch out the usual party line like most of his fellow right leaning columnists. He isn't an ideologue like Kristol or Krauthammer, maybe that's because of his mellow Canadian roots. I enjoy listening to the Brooks-Shields and Brooks-Dionne discussions as both sides bring out partisan views on issues but are more centrist in their conclusions. They have discussions not shouting matches.

We've all been taken in by Brooks, when you think he's a rational conservative Republican he goes off the cliff like his support for the Iraq War. He lost all credibility with me for a long time because of that issue and his preposterous defense of that War.

TPM is an East Coast blog and daily-must-reading for most TPM posters is probably the NY Times and WashPo. For those of us in other parts of the US or the world, life doesn't revolve around those two newspapers so the views of Brooks, Dowd etc are less important.

user-pic

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I certainly agree that "Intelligence alone isn't enough", and note that intelligence is not a quality I addressed. I had asked about the BS meters of "the most well informed."

It seems to me that journalists, and particularly TV talking hairdos passed off as journalists, nor even the most renowned pundits are not necessarily amongst the most well informed amongst us.

I suppose there were some young men of Athens who, listening to the sophists, were thinking "what utter crap."

But, then again, I don't read the NYT. I prefer TPM.

Regards.

user-pic

I'll wager that the 'unspeakable sadness' that Brooks felt is the same one Poppy Bush felt when he broke down in that speech about Jeb and Dubya.

If you lie with dogs, Brooks, waking up with 'unspeakable sadness' is the least of your problems.

user-pic

"Here's what I don't understand. If Brooks doesn't "beguile" you, why do you believe he beguile others amongst the 5%, or so, of the population who pays him any attention."

It's because they just know some liberals somewhere read "Bobos in Paradise" and laughed until they fell out of their chairs. And Brooks does have a higher profile than some hoary, humorless old leftist who couldn't do much to unsettle anyone's sense of self satisfaction or their street cred on University Drive.

It's simply maddening, getting dissed like that. And out in public, too.

user-pic

I this time around McCain is playing out more of an "irony triangle".

-- ARG

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »



Book Club Calendar


This Week

Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream, Leonard Zeskind

Next Week

Henry Waxman, The Waxman Report: How Congress Really Works

July 13-17

Justin Fox, The Myth of the Rational Market: A History of Risk, Reward, and Delusion on Wall Street

July 27-31

Plenty Enough Suck To Go Around, Cheryl Wagner

« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Book Club Archive



Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Kyle Krahel-Frolander



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address