Babbling Brooks

Can we finally do away with the niceties of treating New York Times columnist David Brooks as some kind of reasoned conservative centrist providing 'balance' to the liberal media and finally admit he's just a nerdy (read; inoffensive) and more articulate mouthpiece of the same alternative reality spewed at us daily by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly?

Brooks' function is to convince reasoned, intelligent readers that the current conservative worldview is in fact more complicated, nuanced and principled than the empty soundbite projectile vomit spewed nightly on Fox News or from the mouths of wide-eyed psychotics like Michele Bachmann, Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck. His goal is for us to accept any view of governance other than the truth that's finally been laid bare these last eight years; 'conservative' is an empty catchphrase that takes a corporatist/super-rich vision of America and gussies it up to sound like aw-shucks populist common sense.

Surely a man this benign -- just like that nerdy racquet ball guy from down the hall who waves hello at your co-op board meeting -- can't be one of THEM; 'See, Honey, the principled American in me just knew there had to be a cogent, calm, reasoned centrist articulator of the viewpoint given a bad name by all those screaming fundamentalist ideologues that feel like Chewbacca behind a news desk in a cheap polyester suit. What a breath of soothing air.

Take Brooks' column on the healthcare 'debate' in today's New York Times, "You Be Obama." Even the title is chosen to lull us into imagining we're all in one big high school civics class or student UN where we can bloat with pride we live in a society with the freedom to discuss all sides of 'an issue' -- finally agreeing at the end, of course, that we can agree to disagree, because gee, that's what makes democracy great.

But 'You Be Obama?' Who could argue with that? How principled and civil of Professor Brooks to show us how open minded he is by spending a few rhetorical minutes in the shoes of President Obama -- wholly imagined shoes, but it just seems so darned partisan and bitter to point that out.

The second you envelop yourself in that egalitarian, hands-across-the aisle glow, Brooks starts his spin; our current health care system is 'the insane spawn of evil geniuses from an alien power,' and not the intended result of a pro-corporate anti-tax agenda that has not only obsessed conservatives since the New Deal, but has been the subtext of Brooks' entire rotten oeuvre.

The spin continues; the healthcare problem can be tackled two ways; 'the liberal way' with government takeover, and the conservative way, where 'cost-conscious consumers make choices in the competitive marketplace.'

Sounds balanced, right? What Brooks leaves out is the 'liberal' way is the way of literally every other Western industrialized nation on the globe. The 'conservative' way is the way that America -- and America alone -- has done it for the last century, and it has been an unmitigated disaster.

Brooks goes on to use one of his classic constructions to round out the 'argument' -- The Imagined Circumstance; 'first this thing will happen, then this will happen, and then this' and of course they never do. His logic isn't about making sense or examining reality; it's about defining an America that doesn't exist.

But at least this time around we were spared Brooks' favorite rhetorical device, The Straw Man Argument. This is where he starts with a supposition like 'the problem with the typical liberal viewpoint is' and then goes on to debunk it point by point -- without, of course, ever actually speaking to a 'liberal' or citing any fact or poll that warrants his invented supposition being labeled 'typical.'

In other words, it is an invented viewpoint he positions as fact, and then shows you how naive and illogical it is so you can think, 'oh, those stupid liberals.'

It's Limbaugh logic for the educated classes.

Isn't it about time the New York Times hire a conservative columnist who deals in facts and reality instead of prognostications designed to appear 'balanced' that are really push-polls disguised as columns?

Comments

[tompoe]

Brooks is doing his best to create two Republican Parties. Problem is, both comprise the Party of Corporate Welfare, as declared by Paulson on September 19, 2008, when he demanded entitlement to Bush's going away present for his cronies. No more "pull yourselves up by the bootstraps" crap. Brooks and the rest of the members of the Party of Corporate Welfare will have to find another country to lay waste with their free market ideology nonsense. It failed miserably, and along with the fact that Americans do not tolerate corporate welfare, Brooks will soon devolve into a smirking clone of his leader, Bush.

[Kremfresch]

"Isn't it about time the New York Times hire a conservative columnist who deals in facts and reality instead of prognostications designed to appear 'balanced' that are really push-polls disguised as columns?"

uh... that would be nice, but... uh... name ONE.

[LateDave]

I could endure David Brooks if he was invariably paired with David Brock. *That* would be entertaini­ng/enlight­ening, although it would be difficult for Brock to actually present any agenda points alongside debunking Brooks in real time.

[Ppossom]

If you want to listen to a "thoughtful conservative," then consider Barack Obama.

[realpolitic]

Great column! I have never liked Brooks. He was always a supporter of Bush and his wars! He bought into the whole stupidity that democracy in Iraq would sread throughout the Middle East.

Brooks describes the "conservative way, where 'cost-conscious consumers make choices in the competitive marketplace." Yes, he is make-believe land. Under our present sysytem, 60 million have no health care insurance and hence no access to the system. Also, cost-conscious consumers have no leeway and bargaining power as he mythically maintains. When you get sick, you hope your insurer will pay for it. If not, you have not much recourse to do anything besides beg them, borrow, or steal. Brooks is living in a fantasy land constructed by most conservatives.

[ObamaSheeple]

OMG! Effing thank you! I can not stand how he is always fawned over by cable/PBS talking heads.

[lagunabeach]

Brooks used to be more interesting and pertinent to me when he was discussing politics on The Newshour with Jim Lehrer; when I started to read his column in the New York Times, it soon became obvious to me that Brooks is, as you say, another variation of the Limbaugh-Colter type.

David Brooks holds no interest to me now. If he hadn't started writing his column, I might still find him worth a listen, but his writing has shown him to be another idealogue out of touch with reality. I never read his columns in the Times anymore. I've had enough of these people to last me a lifetime.

[mountclemens]

Yes, me too. Had enough already.

Meanwhile, how do they get to continue naming themselves "conservative"? They claim they are conservative -- in the preserving sense -- about the Constitution. They want "strict constructionist" views when it comes to judges following the Constitution. BUT in fact conservatives are the main shredders of the Constitution: Just look at the Bush-Cheney imperialism of the Executive Branch and the shredding of our Constitution-given rights. (I say they are the "main" shredders. Many Democrats are co-shredders and enablers. Need examples? Sen. Baucus on health. Sen. Inouye on torture.)

The only things conservatives conserve are their own wealth and power. They continue to lie, cheat, and now "bipartisan" their way to maintaining their wealth and power, with no concern for the rest of us. They don't have a legitimate "side" in any mature discussion about democratic institutions.

They're not conservatives. They're shredders.

[rf dude]

Cultured, maybe.

Intellectual - I refer you to the Rachel Maddow episode

in which She handed Mr. Brooks his missing hind-end...
--

[blaqntelligence]

Do you have a link for that? Or can I find it on her show's website?

[fiduciaryatlarge]

Hey Tom,
in your first sentence you write liberal media. Most conservatives I know don't know that "liberal" would refer to the editorial page and not the news pages. Please don't add to their confusion. Any time someone calls the media liberal, Rush Limbaugh wins.

How David Brooks and the rest of the conservative pundits remain relevant puzzles me. Seriously, when was the last time any of them were right about something major. John Bolton said something that sounded like it was almost right about Korea. Maybe he should he should get a column, he couldn't be any worse.

[Mike Keough]

Heya, My email address is putitupmlk­@yahoo.com­. I would love to write to you. Mike

[bandithappy]

It's a wonder David Brooks can walk upright with all his different agendas tugging him this way and that.

One day he uses his intellectual resources to present a nuanced and somewhat open minded view of an issue. Then something yanks him back, and he twists himself into an intellectual pretzel to carry water, formerly for the Bush administration, now for the "conservative" party line. We sense when he's spouting this party line that his heart isn't 100% in it, because we've already seen the chinks in his thinking. The impression we're left with is not of a man with interesting views; but of a man with a desperate need to please some master.

Perhaps he has a commercial need to preserve his "brand" (if he's not the "conservative spokesman" they might have to hire another one). Perhaps his driving force is a need to suck up that supercedes his intellectual honesty.

I find many of his columns trivial. Some interesting. He ain't no William Safire.

[GordonDR]

WHAT "intellectual resources"? There is a difference between cleverness (or verbal agility) and intelligence. Brooks is not intelligent; for that matter, neither is Antonin Scalia. They are clever, and they have mastered certain rhetorical devices. Neither of them furnishes deep analysis or original thought. On any given issue, they know from the outset where they want to arrive; what they do is weave verbal carpet runners to get them (and you, they hope) from here to there.

[momcat4obama]

I have to say I have always enjoyed reading and listening to David Brooks. I do find him to be more moderate than most conservatives. And he is always respectful even when he disagrees with you. During the campaign he referred to Sarah Palin as a cancer on the Republican party- at that point, I would have voted for him! And another poster is correct - Brooks makes no bones about the fact that he does like Obama - he may not agree with his policies, but he respects him.

[Mike Keough]

Do you think that being on that show with Jim Lerner and Mark Shields has anything to do with his being civil?

[dougster]

This discussion plays right into the hands of creatures like Brooks, and those who inhabit Fox News. There can be no ideological victory of the Far Right (or the Far Left) unless the middle is eliminated. In Brooks' world, a moderate position cannot exist, otherwise it invalidates his entire raison d'etre. Stop with the labels, and discuss and endorse policy that shift towards the center. Take the air out of the blowhards that way, and that way alone.

[smpj]

Who doesn't know health care costs are out of control? Whether handled by the marketplace or the government, when everyone in the country gets into the game, costs will continue to soar unless we do what is done most everywhere else where universal care is mandated - restrict access. Ugly though it is, that will be the ultimate end game. And we have no choice because we're broke and getting broker by the minute!
What the Federal Government is on the hook for right now is a bankruptable offense unless very tough choices are made. Whoever has the political courage to tackle them will soon after find themselves hated, burned in effigy, and waiting for a certain forced exit from public service. Yet I pray there will be enough sacrificial hero's to get the job done or this suddenly shaky house of cards we call The United States will be in for a real tumble.

[Russycle]

We already restrict access. Ever heard of pre-existing conditions? The insurance co have lots of tricks to restrict access.

[smpj]

True, but today's restrictions will be peanuts compared to the ones everyone will see in the future. There is no getting around it. Once the money begins to really dry up, it will be unavoidable.

[amantell]

I'd say that Brooks' problem isn't his ideology, nor any affiliations with a political party. I've read his articles enough to get the sense that he willfully disincludes facts that might contradict an argument he's constructing when writing about politics. Brooks is educated and informed enough that he should be above such lazy behavior. Also, he makes many ill-considered forays into satire, which he's bad at. My last criticism seems to be that in his writing, he gives the impression of purposefully trying to straddle a fence in order to be inoffensive. One senses that he wants to be liked, which is why he holds back when discussing political or social issues. On the whole, I'd prefer if he'd discuss non-political topics more often, because he explores those thoughtfully and with zest.

[smpj]

I think Brooks actually likes and respects Obama and is willing to look seriously at the initiatives associated with him and his party. Brooks is no kneejerk. He sees, I think, Obama as a serious and idealistic politician with a pragmatic bent. The President is remarkably effective, though having overwhelming majorities in Congress hasn't been harmful to his cause.
But all of this chatter won't matter a whit if, when all is said and done, these actions by the Democratics don't effectively improve the state of the nation. The jury is absolutely still out and if these massive changes across the board that are being attempted turn into overreaches, there will be a Stalingrad in Obama's future.

[stevemarvin]

Amantell wrote:
" I've read his articles enough to get the sense that he willfully disincludes facts that might contradict an argument he's constructing when writing about politics. Brooks is educated and informed enough that he should be above such lazy behavior. "

I could not agree more, which makes Brooks intellectually dishonest as far as I'm concerned.
The other thing he often does is slip in, almost off-handedly, a false assertion as if it were a given truth, a universally accepted fact, rather than the totally false premise on which pseudo-logic depends.

George F. Will does this also, in almost every one of his columns. He'll say something like, "It seems unthinkable that in a country that rewards hard work ...." and then proceed to extrapolate all sorts of nonsense.

[jajenkins]

I don't think the problem is Brooks, I think the problem is that reality has a liberal bias.

[smileatfear]

You said what I was thinking. Thanks.