Obama Pushes Back On David Brooks

One of the most depressing parts of this Sunday morning's political fare was the sad sight of Tom Brokaw flying halfway around the world just so he could dully recite Friday's David Brooks column from the New York Times at a Barack Obama who must have been wondering if the National Broadcasting Company bought all their airtime at wholesale prices or something that it could be so wasted. Many commenters and emailers had the same head-cradled-in-hands-moaning sensation at the sight of it, and today, you can all say that you have been of the same mind of this site's founder, who emailed me soon after, stating her own incredulous disbelief.

Brokaw read more or less the entire column, panning the Berlin speech on the air, and Obama basically scoffed, citing the fact that there are nine good reviews of his Berlin speech to every negative one. He goes on to point out numerous examples in the speech that undercut Brooks' central thesis, insofar as he can be said to have one.

Really, when you read the piece, you hardly worry about Obama. You worry about Brooks! That Brooks is no longer impressed with Obama seems to be, by and large, a function of his own boredom. But, even if we take him at his word (and in fairness, it's completely understandable to be bored by Obama), one worries that Brooks is replacing "being rapt with Obama's rhetoric" with blank-headed cynicism:

Much of the rest of the speech fed the illusion that we could solve our problems if only people mystically come together. We should help Israelis and Palestinians unite. We should unite to prevent genocide in Darfur. We should unite so the Iranians won't develop nukes. Or as Obama put it: "The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."

As Obama goes on to point out, Brooks is a McCain supporter. Here's Brooks providing his best version of McCain's campaign slogan: "Don't hope for a better life!"

Worse, Brooks goes on to make some terrifyingly myopic conclusions about history:

The great illusion of the 1990s was that we were entering an era of global convergence in which politics and power didn't matter. What Obama offered in Berlin flowed right out of this mind-set. This was the end of history on acid.

Since then, autocracies have arisen, the competition for resources has grown fiercer, Russia has clamped down, Iran is on the march. It will take politics and power to address these challenges, the two factors that dare not speak their name in Obama's lofty peroration.

Of course, the autocracies that have arisen, the resources which have dwindled, the clampdown in Russia and the rise of Iran are just four of the malign things that happened on the watch of President Bush, as a result of his "my mandate is to project blunt American power into the world forever and ever" doctrine One of the reasons Obama went to Europe was to signal that this great delusion of the 2000s was nearing an end.

That's why so many people cheered!

Comments

[Pinky2]

Shorter Obama response: Mr. Brokaw/Brooks, here's your sign.

[JaneaneTheAcerbicGoblin]

It is very true (as others have said here) that the MSM despises Obama. The MSM wholeheartedly supported Bush (they ARE the 23 percenters, and proud of it), and hate the idea of an articulate, intelligent, and charismatic man is going to win the next election.

Obama gave an amazing speech in Berlin to a crowd of over 200,000! What does the media talk about? Oh, his flag pin is on backwards (snark, snark).

Brooks and his bitch Brokaw seem to forget that the reason America's reputation is in the tank is because of BUSH, not Obama. Russia and China's ascendance are because of Bush's "I'm right and you're wrong, you worthless pieces of s***" philosophy. That hasn't worked.

[thepeoplechoose]

What Brooks and other conservative pundits fail to mention is the totality of the lie that is being told the American public and the world. Bush and republican policies have dramatically altered the ability of the U.S. to influence global politics and global economic policy. So while Brooks favors power politics and economic clout, we have far less of both than we had in 2000. Brooks can cheerlead all he wants but the Bush policy failures haven't translated into any real world ability to accomplish conservative goals or any other goals for that matter.

What this means is voters and taxpayers have a presidency that has charted a course that has no hope of accomplishing anything and is facing a strong global headwind because our foes and even our allies don't like the course. This is vintage Bush all the way. He just does as he damn pleases no matter how many people voice uncertainty or dislike for his plans.

Bush doesn't get it that the U.S. isn't operating in a global political or financial vacuum. Obama does. Obama understands that our weak economic situation is because of the spend, spend, spend policy of the Bush administration. The doubling of the U.S. debt under Bush is going to undermine U.S. direction well into this century.

[marysandra]

Mr. Brokaw must have been jet lagged, or really, really needs to retire..No matter what you thought his personal politics might have been, can anyone imagine Tim Russert wasting an hour with Obama in this fashion? God, I really miss him...if this is the best the venerable Meet the Press can do...its time to retire it. It can never be anyone else's show anyway, and this last sunday sure proves it.

[barackobama4prez]

I challenge O's camp to challenge Mc's camp that the surge is NOT working. I think we've seen enough death in July to conclude as much.

[barackobam]

Part of this is the Geo Bush phenomenon that if you make mistakes the American people wiill love you because you demonstrate you are not perfect. That is why they, the media, are giving McCain a pass. The media spent years pointing out Bush's gaffes and the Republicans rallied around him. McCain is doing the same thing making mistakes on purpose to rile up his base against the media and thus Democrats who are incorrectly believed to control the "media".

[nukemind]

I wonder if Brooks is opposed to affirmative action? I mean he was clearly put on the NY Times staff to be the token neocon so he must support it in some form one would think.

[Djackson56]

Keep in mind that Brooks is far from the #1 neocon at the times these days. Can anyone say, William Kristol??

[gjoh]

Brokaw is no Tim Russert.

Meet the Press has just joined the ranks of the Bush/McCain/RNC propaganda rags like Fixed News.

Tune out, there is nothing to see (or hear) here anymore.

[NJmikeV]

Ah the audacity of pundritry. We've been warned about this:

And where we are met with cynicism and doubt and fear and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of the American people in three simple words -- yes, we can. - Barack Obama

[rabrophy]

Brooks is a pompus little toad who has been wrong about everything for as long as I can remember.

[hardlyhikin]

Amen.
I've often thought of his columns: "How trivial. Yeah, okay, so what, how does that add to the discussion?"

[barackobam]

I hope BHO ca survive all of this.

[barackobama4prez]

He will.

[MalamuteMan]

There are precious few people with a prominent voice in the media today that can offer commentary without inserting their own obvious bias.

Will we ever see another Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite?

[ViperVera]

It is amazing to me that conservatives like Mr. Brooks can watch Senator Obama's stirring and remarkably well-received speech in Germany Thursday, and instead of feeling moved, hopeful and a little proud to be an American, he found "saccharine", "treacle", and "lofty peroration". Brooks says "optimism without reality isn't eloquence. It's Disney" when what we have been living for the past 7 years is M. Night Shyamalon.
It's a shame that those like Mr. Brooks see things in such curdled, bitter and negative ways. Fortunately, I think, the vast majority of Americans are willing to buy into Mr. Obama's more positive, progressive message and the November election will bear this out.
That's when I will remind Mr. Brooks (and those of his ilk) of a slogan they coined in the 60's, "America, Love it or Leave It."

[Troubledgoodangel]

I don't know about the speech in Germany. I was not watching. What scandalized me, was the way Sen. Obama was treated by President Sarcozy! Did anyone watch how the French President ushered Obama to the podium? There was a paternalistic attitude in the extreme visible in the body language of Sarcozy, as if he was lecturing a boy, as he was his father! "You go there, please, there"! Is this how we will be treated by the European Union if Sen. Obama is elected? I was disturbed for the sake of America! America is a great nation not in need of French patronizing! If President Sarcozy, who is a friend of Sen. Obama, does this, what will happen if Sen. Obama meets ruthless psychological manipulators like for instance Ahmadinejad? Did anyone hear what President Sarcozy whispered to Sen. Obama's ear as they parted? He said "Good luck to you." This is also a patronizing treatment often afforded to an immature boy, not a great president of a great nation! You say "good luck" to a student before entering the examination room! The body language may be trivial for some, but for me it is a harbinger of the things to come!

[GunneraGirl]

i think what you saw was more a function of Sarkozy's desire to glom onto 'celebrity' than just pure patronization. If you see what I'm trying to say. did you see the photo of the two together as they parted? Obama had his hand outstretched for a farwell handshake, while Sarkozy was headin' in toward Obama with his fist for a 'fist bump'!

Sarkozy's just like a great big overexcited sheep dog bounding around; he's not formal and reserved as were many of his predecesso­rs...that'­s part of it too.

[MalamuteMan]

How about a new slogan, “America, love it or CHANGE IT!"

[barackobam]

the media "bias" in my favor is so ridiculous. The reality is is that most of the stories are negative.

[Promise]

David Brooks and Tom Brokaw are both mediocre men. Brokaw got his big break in broadcasting because he looked pleasant and non threatening---not too ethnic, at a time when that was selling. Then he just played safe and bland and rose up the ladder into what he now believes is the sacred shrine of revered elder journalists. He's a nobody. Brooks had some brains but his columns are not worthy of the attention people give them. How he got where he is, I don't know, but there are many columnists who far surpass him in intelligence.

[republicratfascists]

You're being far too kind to Brooks. He's the worst kind of psuedo-intellectual faux populist condescending know it all ruling class plutocrat operative.

[GunneraGirl]

bet that felt good.

is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that brokaw and Dubya look like they were separated at birth?

[GunneraGirl]

bet that felt good.

but you what the truly weird thing is? I could swear that it was David Brooks who after the 2004 Convention speech, wrote in his column something to the effect that 'we've just seen the next president of the united states, the first black president, and that if we don't make him president we're making a big mistake'. and went on to say he would be a Bobby Kennedy figure etc.

Also, is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that brokaw and Dubya look like they were separated at birth?