David Brooks' Magical Mystery Tour of Barack Obama

On Face the Nation yesterday, the right-wing pundit David Brooks offered his sage advice to the John McCain campaign: "In the short term they have to try to define him [Barack Obama] as someone who thinks he's above everyone else. And in truth, he's a kind of elusive guy. I've been studying Obama for a long time, I have no idea who they are." Later in the interview Brooks added: "the thing about Obama is the guy's written two autobiographies, but it's still hard to find out who he was."

Although David Brooks claims to have been "studying Obama for a long time," I would suggest that in the future he uses a far more rigorous, less partisan, and more objective methodology.

It might be a good idea for Brooks to turn his awe-inspiring analytical skills to "studying" John McCain who is far more perplexing and mysterious than Barack Obama given his constantly shifting stands on virtually all of the key issues.

Brooks should ask: Who is John McCain?

Is he the "maverick" who stakes out positions independent of Republican orthodoxy or is he the party apparatchik who votes with the Bush Administration 95 percent of the time?

Is McCain the guy who opposed Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy and giant corporations or the one who is now calling for making those same regressive tax breaks permanent?

Is McCain the candidate who called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance" or the candidate who grovels at their feet seeking their imprimatur for his current presidential bid?

Is McCain the politician who sought to deal with immigration in a comprehensive way or the one who is now pandering to nativist anti-immigrant fears?

Is McCain the guy who voted against a national holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1983 or the guy who commemorated the 40th anniversary of King's death with a campaign stop at the Lorraine Motel?

Barack Obama, given the record-setting length of the 2007-2008 Democratic primary season and the fact that he is the first African-American candidate to make it this far, has been one of the most scrutinized and analyzed presidential candidates in American history. He has two best-selling books that are remarkable for their honesty and candor about his own life. His story is uniquely American. More so than McCain, Obama pulled himself up by his own bootstraps coming from a single-parent bi-racial household that utilized social services like food stamps to make ends meet. Early in his life, Obama decided to dedicate himself to a life in public service. Along the way he married Michelle and had two daughters.

Where is this mysterious "void" in Barack Obama's background that David Brooks and other right-wing commentators keep wringing their hands about?

Brooks and other Republican media mouthpieces want to repeat over and over again the Big Lie that Obama is "elusive" and an "unknown entity" to make it easier for John McCain and his minions to define Obama in their terms. This tactic serves two purposes: it raises doubts about Obama and distracts the public from McCain's hypocrisy and inconsistencies.

On Face the Nation, Brooks also expressed his puzzlement about the idea that "we're the ones we've been waiting for?" According to the CBS transcript, Brooks asks: "Why have been [sic] -- we been waiting if we're the ones we've been waiting for?"

Let me answer this garbled question for you David.

It all depends on who you include in the word "we." You have been a water-carrier for the myths and illusions of the Bush-Cheney-Rove era. You are not part of the "We." Obama is trying to cut through the official lies and propaganda that you continue to perpetuate. Remember all those nice words you wrote about the "Ownership Society" at the time when Bush was trying to privatize Social Security? I haven't heard a peep out of you about the "Foreclosure Society."

Brooks' pop-sociology about Obama reminds me of the kind of "analysis" one finds in the waiting room of a dentist's office where there's nothing else to read but outdated issues of Readers Digest.

(I'd like to acknowledge Dr. Stan Oden's contributions to this one.)

Comments

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

I see Brooks making the rounds today on CSPAN, maybe someone can ask him whether he's going to retract all that gibberish about the "ownership society."

[SharonWantsToTalk]

I was literally squirming in my chair while fuming at Brooks comments. Not only did I scream the same reference you make about "we" comment at the TV, I also sarcastically told David that he found the fervor around Barack "creepy" because he's been programmed up the ass of the neocons for so long he's forgotten how to have an original thought let alone be inspired. Then I told David HE was creepy. My husband hates Sunday morns when I yell at the TV.

[WIpatriot]

LOL, I used to have the same "Sunday moring" problem, Sharon. I quit watching.

[GiggidyGeshmoygen]

'Brooks should ask: Who is John McCain?'

==========­==========­==========­===

don't you think that brooks knows full well EXACTLY who john mccain is? of course he does --

this is just another example of the highly successful rove strategy to frame this campaign as a question of whether you are FOR or AGAINST Obama

[cincyr]

I don't think Brooks actually read "Dreams from My Father". He just read the following book review: http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/8313f184-c6c4-4ce4-96f4-2fb997550bc1

To quote the review:

"Objectively speaking, it’s an interesting saga. For a young guy, Obama had a wealth of unusual experiences. What we don’t ever get from the book is a sense of the author. While ostensibly the book is the story of his life and he is indeed present in every scene, he’s seldom more than a witness. It’s always someone else doing the talking, someone else acting, someone else stirring deep thoughts in the author.

We get no understanding of how the self-described pot-head high school student that Obama was transformed himself into such a successful young man. By the time Obama was commissioned to write “Dreams From My Father,” he had graduated Harvard Law School magna cum laude and been the first black managing editor of the school’s Law Review. These are both magnificent accomplishments, yet accomplishments that he neither mentions in the book nor explains how he made them happen."

[Unsui]

"It all depends on who you include in the word "we." You have been a water-carrier for the myths and illusions of the Bush-Cheney-Rove era. You are not part of the "We."
I love it. I hope Brooks reads this post.

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

Believe me, ExxonMobil would have no problem paying a little more in taxes since they've increased their obscene profits every quarter breaking its previous records -- I think the rich can afford to pay more in taxes -- and Bush ran up nearly 5 trillion more on the national debt because of his disastrous tax and spend policy (tax workers spend on programs for the rich like the mortgage bail out and Bear Sterns etc.) -- McCain offers what? Brooks is a slightly more intellectual and lower paid Sean Hannity.

[valleygent]

Mr. Brooks, Barack Obama is a UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. Surely, a greater over achiever than what you have been able to put together in a life time...who the heck are you, Mr. Brooks? That is the more salient question.

[DoTheMath]

Brooks loses all perpective when it comes to McCain. For example, lately his mantra is that McCain's campaign is not serving him well. He is aware of how sleazy McCain's recent behavior has been, but he is somehow able to compartmentalize all the sleazy behavior, making it the responsibility of "the campaign" rather than McCain. And stranger yet, he has a kind of selective amnesia that allows him to forget or ignore the fact that McCain is responsible for his own campaign.

[wendynyc]

We need objective reporting in the media - if Brooks cannot handle the job - he needs to be replaced -
We are fed up with out of touch reporters that are stuck in time and pushing their personal agendas down out throats.

[soapington]

Thank you for this, Mr. Palermo. There is no mystery over "who Obama is." His life is an open book - two open books in fact - and he is quite possibly the most carefully examined candidate in the history of US electoral history. If David Brooks doesn't know him by now, the fault lies with Mr. Brooks, and not with Senator Obama.

David Brooks is the smiling face of modern conservatism. He likes to present himself to his readers and viewers as a fair and open-minded sort of fellow, a bright young man with an attractive line in historical­ly-grounde­d optimism. But really, who is David Brooks?

David Brooks is a party hack who wraps up Republican talking points in all the intellectual respectability that a regular op-ed gig at the NYT can give him. "Who really is Barack Obama?" is a question that has been heard on the lips of every good and faithful servant of the Republican Party for several weeks. Brooks should be ashamed of trotting out this tired little show-pony when it should have been melted down for glue long ago.

[Lindy222]

Here's why I think some of Obama's political opponents think there's a "gap" in his life story -- they can't find any of the racial stereotypes they think ought to be there. Not that they haven't tried to pin any number of stereotypes on him -- smooth, jive-talking hustler doing drugs in the 'hood, lazy layabout looking for a free ride, angry black man who hates whitey -- and they can't find it.

Now, the Rovians have decided Obama's an uppity black man who doesn't know his place, who thinks he's "the One." And the conservatives like Brooks, who are disinclined to go that far, are left with -- a "gap." Because surely there's some racial stuff in there somewhere. Isn't there? He is black, right?

[rosal]

Why should we be surprised at one talking head, talking the spin of the week? This guy abandoned his principles a long time ago. He was a cheerleader for the war, the president and Co. and their policies. Somebody with a conscience would see what this administration has created and would repent. Supporting the status quo, is that how this people show their love for the country?
As anything that is related to the GOP, just follow the money. Loyalties abound in that magical place.

[Verified]

What a wonderful blog post.

Indeed, Brooks' circle, like so much of the DC punditocracy is so far removed from everyday US society that it's no wonder when he is faced with someone from Obama's background, he senses a void. Obama's life and sensibility is completely off Brooks' radar screen. Brooks apparently missed the part in The Audacity of Hope where Obama talks about the good ol' rich boys club - wealthy, "best schools", private jets - you get the idea. It's an elite group which likely give Brooks giddy tingles whenever he thinks about it..

[SENCvoter]

Brooks also said that McCain deserves the presidency because, while "[h]e will never seem as young and forward-leaning as his opponent, [ ] he did have his values formed in an age that people now look back to with respect" (NYTimes 7/18). Excuse me? Does that mean that people who were born before and after know nothing about values? Or that the values formed before and after McCain's age of coming are less respectable? But, but, but, aren't human values eternal and universal? Who knows, we may, years from now, look at our time and say, "these people had courage to vote for the first African-American president" at a time when dissent, the foundation of democracy, was frowned upon? Brooks makes a very dangerous argument here. He implies that, if you were not born at the right time, maybe into the right family, maybe in the right environment, you may never know what values are. I am just simply outraged.

[rshrink]

Thank you Joseph. I think you have appropriately and thoroughly nailed this hypocrite. No wonder he is for Bush and McCain. He is fond of mythology and wants to be the savior of the wealthy and currently powerful. This group, no doubt, fears having their privileges taken away and having to actually compete with the rest of society. How horrible that would be for them.