David Brooks' Barack Obama Bromance: Inside The Unlikely Situation

The New Republic:

These days, the center-right Brooks frequently seems more sympathetic toward Obama than the liberal Paul Krugman. He has written columns praising Obama's Afghanistan policy, education proposals, and economic team. Even on broad areas of disagreement--deficit spending, the sprawling stimulus bill, health care reform--Brooks tends to treat Obama and his administration with respect. "My overall view," Brooks told me, "is ninety-five percent of the decisions they make are good and intelligent. Whether I agree with them specifically, I think they're very serious and very good at what they do." It is an odd situation to say the least: David Brooks, prominent conservative, has become the most visible journalistic ally of arguably the most liberal president of his lifetime.

Read the whole story: The New Republic

Comments

[Davidicus]

12:53 PM on 09/01/2009

You know, I like David Brooks, even though I'm one of those liberal bleeding hearts that he's wary of. But I have always been attracted to his ideas, or rather, to the presentation of his ideas, even if I didn't agree with them wholeheartedly. He's got brains, and he recognizes that the President has brains, and he's not going to be swayed by the ideologues, but by the arguments. THAT makes for an honest and thought-provoking columnist, whether conservative or liberal. And as long as the discussion can be nuanced, we can reach common ground and move forward. Which is why the White House is fawning all over him. Krugman's role is different -- he's the egghead bean-counter (and a very good one at that) who lets the White House know when the beans are going bad, or need boiling, or may be gaseous... but Brooks is the philosopher, the stoic, and the watchman. Just my opinion.

[momcat4obama]

01:07 AM on 09/02/2009

another thing i really liked about him was while Bush was still in office, Brooks mentioned that he was tired of being talked down to by Bush; that he (Brooks) was feeling condescended to by Bush. I'd had the exact same feeling everytime Bush gave a press conference - it was like he was saying "trust me, I know what's best for you. Now go away and don't bother me."

[tokenconservative]

12:09 PM on 09/01/2009

Brooks is an old style Irve Kristol necon - liberal on social policy and hawkish on foreign policy with on lip concern given to fiscal policy. Basically, he and Obama are lockstep except for a few microcosmic foreign policy differences. To say he's center-right is laughable.

[janpradder]

11:14 AM on 09/01/2009

Huh? If this is Bromance, I suggest a divorce. I never see Brooks as supportive of Obama. See "The Obama Slide", Brooks op-ed in today's NY Times. He sees Obama as a failure, particularly if he continues to be a major liberal.

[momcat4obama]

01:04 AM on 09/02/2009

watch NPR's "The News Hour" on Friday nights. David Brooks and Mark Shields discuss the week's news with Jim Leher (sp). Very often Brooks points out that he is impressed with this or approves of that when he talks about the Obama Whitehouse. Plus, if you remember, he is the one who referred to Sarah Palin as a "cancer" on the Republican party.

[fictioneer]

11:10 AM on 09/01/2009

Because trivializing it and making it into a sort of Brody Jenner version of itself is the only good thing to do?

[truthyguy]

10:33 AM on 09/01/2009

I noticed some time ago what I thought was a strange (for Brooks) admiration of a democrat. Almost a respect for ideas. It 1st was apparent to me in an article in which Brooks told of asking Obama a question about the writings and philosophy of what most would consider an obscure scholar. Brooks asked the question when Obama was literally on his way out the Senate door. It was probably meant to be a "gotcha" question. Brooks was amazed by Obama knowing the scholar, having read his work and most of all understanding it. From that point on Brook's articles were reserved in their criticism of Obama's reasoning on issues. I think Brooks was intimidated by Obama's intellect and continues to be.

[Bademus]

10:44 AM on 09/01/2009

Good point, I don't think he's intimidated though, I think he is impressed. I think it garnered respect for Obama. If he was intimidated he would probably be less respectful.

[truthyguy]

03:18 PM on 09/01/2009

you are probably correct

[momcat4obama]

01:09 AM on 09/02/2009

that's my feeling too, that he is impressed - like the article said - to finally have an intellictual in the White House, who does not treat others as if they are beneath him.

[Beachchick]

09:29 AM on 09/01/2009

David Brooks is one of the few conservatives I respect. I certainly don't agree with him most of the time but he has written pieces that have caused me to reflect and rethink a position. David Frum is another conservative I respect. I will probably never agree with Frum on policy positions, but he is thoughtful and makes reasoned arguments.

[Hobay]

07:50 AM on 09/01/2009

So David Brooks wants his soul back now? First Chris Matthews, then Shep Smith, now David Brooks.

[momcat4obama]

01:10 AM on 09/02/2009

HUH?

[Steven Duke]

02:40 AM on 09/01/2009

Brooks is what a moderate Republican would be if there were any left and Obama is a conservative if not another corporatist Democrat.

Put Single payer Healthcare on his desk and see if he veto's it, of course it will never make it that far which provides both sides all the necessary political cover. As well as the continuing spectacle that serves the Media Industrial Complex so well.

[TJCole]

11:20 PM on 08/31/2009

Obama is no liberal and far from a progressive so why should Brooks love him..he's perfect to lead the sheep to slaughter and divide and make the Democrats look like indecisive wimps...

[H321]

12:23 AM on 09/01/2009

Democrats don't need any help in looking indecisive and wimpy.

[alice09]

10:47 PM on 08/31/2009

I do appreciate your honesty David.
I passionately wish you would speak up loudly about the destructive idiocy that your party is pursuing such as death panels, nazism, dog whistle speech to provoke vioent crazies and so on.
Most intelligent conservatives are just lying low and silently while this disgraceful behavior plays out. For the good of the nation, say something and say it loud and clear.
Risk it for your country's sake.

[H321]

09:27 PM on 08/31/2009

Well Brooks should think about switching parties. Republicans see him as a RINO and a fraud and his centrist beliefs should fit well into the not-really Liberal Democratic Party.

[clueless JD]

09:08 PM on 08/31/2009

David Brooks is one of the last Republicans defined by conservative values instead of "hating Democrats". George Will is the other.

[Mustang Sally]

11:13 AM on 09/01/2009

Right on first part, wrong on Will.

[alieninvader]

11:43 AM on 09/01/2009

That might have described Will at one time, but he drank the partisan kool-aid somewhere along the line.

[NANANACHMAN]

08:53 PM on 08/31/2009

In the near future David Brooks and Thomas Friedman will be agreeing on almost everything...................................Tikun H`Olam

[mybostonjack]

07:21 PM on 08/31/2009

I'm not surprised. David Brooks is a thinking republican and will argue on policy not character. It's unfortunate the wing nuts... Palin, Huckabee, Sanford, Jindal, Rush, fixed noise have taken over the party.

[changeself]

04:50 PM on 08/31/2009

unlikely?

only to philosophical novices

if you can call burke a philosopher,

which is a loooooooooooooon stretch.

just goes to show there is NO "philosophical" line

between GOP and DNC.