David Brooks is Dead Wrong About Barack Obama

Let's get something out of the way quickly: Sen. Barack Obama is not the most credentialed presidential candidate the Democratic Party has ever sent to the general election. He has made many judgment missteps along the way, and he has only himself to blame for it. The candidate at times can also appear weak, arrogant, aloof, lacking in substance and yes, elitist. But let's not confuse all this, as New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote on Tuesday, with Obama being "not in it;" of his being psycho-socially detached from virtually everything professionally noteworthy in his life.

What Brooks fails to understand in his oversimplified Freudian assessment of Obama's psyche is something truly monumental, heretofore not seen in American politics: the very likelihood that Sen. Barack Obama will make history as the first black president of The United States of America. Given that black men were still being lynched and beaten just 45 or so years ago simply for being black, this accomplishment not only is historic and electric, but it carries with it an unfathomable amount of pressure and stress. Yes, Barack Obama is an agent of change. He is a light, a force, a movement. He is not merely a candidate, and anyone who views him that way is terribly myopic. An Obama victory can and will forever change not just America's political landscape, but it's socio-economic one as well. There is great purpose to Obama's candidacy, much more beyond simple politics. His victory would end America's first 233 year phase and usher in a new one. When Brooks writes that Obama "lives apart," he is grossly minimizing the significance of Obama the man, the candidate, the movement.

Brooks downplays the race factor and writes that Americans more so "are wary and uncertain" of Obama. He's right about that in one sense, but not in his intended meaning. Yes, Americans are wary and uncertain... the same way they are wary and uncertain when they see a black man walking towards them on a dark street, or when they are alone in an elevator with a young black man, or when LA cops see them driving in a white neighborhood late at night. I'm not sure what bugs the shit out of me more, white people's racism towards blacks or elite whites like Brooks minimizing it. The fact is, the black man walking down the street, getting in the elevator, or driving in Beverly Hills could very well be, like Obama, a Harvard educated lawyer. But to the "wary and uncertain" whites, it doesn't matter. And this is precisely where Brooks gets it all wrong.

Brooks summarily tears apart Obama's entire career as if it's truly meaningless. That Obama's a self-made success with infinitely more impressive credentials than, say, George Bush, gets lost on Brooks. His job as a conservative pundit is not to speak the truth about Republicans, but to distort the truth about Democrats. But the truth is, Obama is the American Dream personified. Of mixed-race heritage and from a poor, broken home, he made his way into the finest academic institutions in the country, and became the first ever black editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. He spent years as a community organizer, 12 years as a law professor, 6 years as a State Senator, 3 as a U.S. Senator, and stands the best chance of anyone in history of becoming the first black president. Yet Brooks' column conjures up the image of some emotionless, spiritless, disconnected automaton who somehow managed to accomplished this greatness without ever having any real, intimate relationships or intellectual curiosity. That he somehow robotically drifted his way to being some sort of comatose-like wonder, having fooled everyone and touched no one. Give us a break, Brooks. Your shameless partisanship precedes you. You're a Rove in sheep's clothing.

What Sen. Barack Obama stands for, what his candidacy means, transcends politics and in many ways is a larger than life phenomenon. It signals the beginning of a new dawn in American life. It's unfortunate that David Brooks cannot, or will not, see that.

Comments

[dugan45]

Brooks speaks, only pundits listen. I know of no one out here in the heartland who finds Brooks' opinions credible, even if he does appear on PBS.

[dualdiagnosis]

So Obama's just a symbol. Got it.

America needs more than a symbolic presidency.

[realpolitic]

Brooks is a fraud. He tries to come off as thoughtful, wonkish, an intellectual. Really he is Sean Hannity with a pen. Brooks deals in caricatures as Hannity does, only Brooks may use a few prettier words to dress up his caricatures.

It is shameful that Brooks has always backed a Bush who was given everything he ever had and disdains learning, intellectualism, and expertise. Yet he ridicules an Obama who coming from a single parent home worked his way to Harvard law becoming editor of the law review. Brooks can not fathom that Obama may at times be somewhat guarded as a black man wading through a white person's world. Brooks critique and false narrative justifies Obama's caution.

Particularly false is Brooks' critique of Obama as a law professor. I read in the Times that Obama was one of the student's favorite professors and university Deans equally impressed. It is easy to see how Obama would be a student favorite in that he is thoughtful, approachable, and engaging. Perhaps Obama did not attend the lunches where faculty members intellectually challenged one another. He was also a state senator and had other responsibilities.

Brook's critique tells more of Brooks than Obama. Brooks can justify any lie or distortion by a Bush or a McCain, but any human quality in Obama is almost unforgivable. When Obama opted out of public financing of his campaign, Brooks declared him as "just another politician." Brooks guards his precious innocence with a childish relish.

[RI]

There is a lot of money riding on "framing" Obama as "not ready to lead."

[realpolitic]

Exactly!!

[suigeneris]

It's incredible that people like Brooks are allowed to patronize Senator Obama in a way that would never be done if he were some "average white guy" like his opponent. Can you image them talking about McCain -- who graduated near the bottom of his class -- in terms like that?

[timinhi]

I have another criticism of this article. Why is the author comparing Obama's qualifications to Bush's? Obama isn't running against Bush, he's running against McCain, who is also better qualified than Bush. It sounds as though the author is arguing that since we elected one unqualified boob for the job, then it's okay to take a chance on another one. Ostroy, you should direct your comparisons to the actual GOP candidate, who has enough chinks in his own armor to exploit. Certainly McCain has more than a few skeletons in his closet, and his POLICIES mirror Bush's. Those are good enough reasons not to vote for him, but George Bush's lack of qualification for the job is NOT a reason to vote for Obama.

[timinhi]

Editor of the Harvard Law Review, unlike at most law schools (where the position usually is awarded to the top student), is an elective office--the student body votes for candidates running for the position. While Obama met whatever the minimum requirements were for the job, consideration must also be given to the facts that every election is to a degree a popularity contest, and that the student body may simply have been making a "statement," and not electing the best qualified person for the job, which may be the case in this election as well.

[timinhi]

"Of mixed-race heritage and from a poor, broken home, he made his way into the finest academic institutions in the country, and became the first ever black editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. He spent years as a community organizer, 12 years as a law professor, 6 years as a State Senator, 3 as a U.S. Senator, and stands the best chance of anyone in history of becoming the first black president."

This description isn't particularly impressive, and it contains the falsehood that Obama came from a "poor" family which isn't really true. As a "single" student mother, Obama's mom briefly qualified for food stamps and received them. For most of Obama's youth, his mother made a good income (she held an important position with the Ford Foundation) and he was raised from age 10 by his grandparents, who were comfortably well-off. His grandmother was a highly-paid (one of the highest paid women in Hawaii for a time, according to some who knew her) bank vice president, his grandfather had a comfortable retirement income, which originally allowed the family to relocate to Hawaii from Washington State. Obama attended the most prestigeous private prep school in Hawaii (also the alma mater of Michelle Wie and Parker Mclachlin, winner of last week's PGA event in Reno). Moreover, during most of Obama's early childhood (until he returned to Hawaii from Indonesia to live with his grandparents), his mom was married, so the "broken home" description is misleading.

[sand252]

Well said allonfla.

[Lindy222]

I guess the columnist means well here. But, Obama is not simply a vessel, a light or an agent of change. He is also an enormously talented politician, a visionary and a pragmatist. Yes, he's made some mistakes for which he has no one but himself to blame, but he's also gotten an awful lot right -- which is large part of why he is where he is. Another part is that he's a fast learner. You almost never see him make the same mistake twice.

[shel3364]

ever noticed when a poll is done on racism or discrimination that the majority whites say everything is hunky-dory but the majority of blacks don't?

Who's more in a position to feel the sting of discriminationt??

[blaqntelligence]

Excellent, and honest, post. Thank you Mr. Ostroy.

[kauffmanr]

at least Obama meandered between successful ventures before entering politics. he then accomplished a few things and had excellent judgment. those accomplishments and judgments are why Illinois promoted him to Congress. He hasn't made many connections with Senators because he has only been there for 4 years. the senate is very much a old boys club. you either have to be somebody, know somebody, or have been there forever to get in. Obama's new. GOOD. the old hasn't been doing much for us lately, have they?

[eden4barack08]

Spot on. He's the only one who can say Washington's broken and needs changing, 'cause he's new there. Those who have been there for 30 years are responsible for the damage, and can't claim to suddenly want to change the same things they've caused and have been happily living with.

[MariaHopeful]

"The candidate at times can also appear weak, arrogant, aloof, lacking in substance and yes, elitist..."

I will only accept that description if it is also used when talking about Bush, McCain,Clinton(s) and every other politician. I cannot understand (or maybe I can) why there is this eagerness to attach all of these negative labels to Obama, to psycho-analyze him and to advise him. In my mind he is doing just fine. He has done things that no other politician has done in a long, long time. Obama weak? Arrogant? Aloof? Lacking in substance? Elitist? How quickly we gobble up the Rethuglicans talking points. FYI, Obama is damn near perfect as far as I am concerned. So there!

[allonfla]

I have been saying for the past year that people STILL continue to downplay his candidacy, his talents, his achievements and the frustrations of the American voters. Whether he wins or loses (WIN WIN WIN) it will take many years for the rest of the MSM and his critics to really see what happened.