I read David Brooks’s book about the bourgeois bohemians and occasionally watch his commentary on the News Hour, and he seemed to be an articulate, moderate conservative with keen perception of societal trends. Then they gave him a column in the NY Times…
First he says that “neoconservative” is code for “Jewish,” which means that in his mind, one cannot be against the Bush administration’s policies without being anti-Semitic. This is of course risible. Plus, many Americans hate Bush so much that if they read in the NY Times that neoconservatives are Jewish, they probably really will become anti-Semitic.
Then today, he spends an entire column talking about how John Kerry sometimes takes positions that upset traditional Democratic constituencies like the teachers’ union and blacks. One might expect that Brooks, a conservative, is preparing to praise Kerry for his independence and maybe even compare him favorably with Bush. But no! He winds up by saying that even though Kerry takes these controversial positions, he never follows through on them, so not only does Kerry habitually offend Democrats, he’s also too gutless to actually carry out these controversial proposals. One is reminded of the old Woody Allen line about a restaurant having bad food, and such small portions, too.
No links to his columns, because you need to register to see them. I doubt anyone who hasn’t been following his column will be interested in this thread anyway.
Perhaps this is how a conservative columnist survives in a liberal paper. Or maybe Brooks is overcompensating for Krugman’s unrepentant liberalism. Either way, I’ve lost whatever respect I had for David Brooks.
I haven’t read the column, though I am registered at the NYT, however I strongly disapprove of anyone believing in ‘code words’. I am also a non-believer in most conspiracy theories.
But that’s just me.
Seems to me that Brooks is being groomed to take over the Right-Wing-Uriah-Heep role from Bill Safire once that old bastard keels over with the inevitable massive coronary.
No, he’s not claiming Bush is Jewish. What he’s claiming is that, when Pat Buchananand some other paleo-conservative critics of the Neocon movement (mostly) talk about the neocons, they portray them in such a way as that neocons seem to be all Jewish (by stressing names of Jewish neocons, like Wolfowitz, and Cohen) and part of some closely knit organized group that wants to benefit Israel at the expense of the United States.
This isn’t particularly new. Back in the first Gulf War, Buchanan said
and that even though the people pushing for war with Iraq were people like A.M. Rosenthal, Richard Perk, Charles Krauthaumer, and Henry Kissinger,
[/quote]
the fighting would be done by kids with names like McAllister,
Murphy, Gonzales and Leroy Brown.
[/quote]
Now obviously, there are and can be legitimate criticisms of neoconservativism and neocon foreign policy. But there are people not making those criticisms…instead claiming neocons are virtually secret Israeli agents.
I don’t get it. Why is this an invalid criticism? Assuming Brooks’ facts are straight, it seems entirely reasonable to me to point out when a candidate’s rhetoric doesn’t match his record.
Are we supposed to applaud Bush because he said he’d limit government growth and not care that he actually didn’t?
It’s not necessarily invalid, it’s just silly. Only a liberal would be bothered by the history Brooks cites, but Brooks isn’t a liberal. He’s only pretending to be, as a rhetorical device. The whole thing comes down to, “If you favor liberalism, and I don’t, then this candidate may not be quite as liberal as you might like, although his actions, in the end, are pretty much standard-issue liberal.” Brooks has to contort himself rhetorically to turn Kerry’s history into a liability. Evidently Kerry is too benign for Brooks to just say, “Kerry is in favor of x, and I think he’s wrong because of y.”
Am I the only one who thinks the Times has been sliding into the crapper for about the last couple of years?
Sure looks like Brooks doesn’t yet realize he’s not at Scaife’s American Spectator anymore, huh? My theory is that the Times keeps him and Safire around mainly to make the hard right look foolish - same reason the Boston Globe keeps Jeff Jacoby on the payroll.
