David Brooks' dumbest column since his bogus Red State/Blue State analysis

[Karmadillo]

This is so lame, so superficial, so blatantly false, it's easy to imagine Judy Woodruff and Bill Schneider discussing its "brilliance" at length on today's Inside Politics. The always "fair and balanced" Note over at ABC News certainly thought it was well worth reading. Will the "affluent teachers" and "decorators" of the Democrats overcome the "simple, straight talking men and women of faith" of the Republicans? Will the disorganized disciples of "self-expression" defeat the "organized and calm" defenders of "loyalty and formality"? Let David Brooks guide you through the minefields of thought and then YOU decide!

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/opinion/15BROO.html

<edit>

The percentage of voters with college degrees has doubled in the past 30 years. As the educated class has grown, it has segmented. The economy has produced a large class of affluent knowledge workers — teachers, lawyers, architects, academics, journalists, therapists, decorators and so on — who live and vote differently than their equally well-educated but more business-oriented peers.

Political scientists now find it useful to distinguish between professionals and managers. Professionals, mostly these knowledge workers, tend to vote for Democrats. Over the last four presidential elections professionals have supported the Democratic candidate by an average of 52 percent to 40, according to Ruy Teixeira and John Judis, authors of "The Emerging Democratic Majority."

<edit>

Knowledge-class types are more likely to value leaders who possess what may be called university skills: the ability to read and digest large amounts of information and discuss their way through to a nuanced solution. Democratic administrations tend to value self-expression over self-discipline. Democratic candidates — from Clinton to Kerry — often run late.

Managers are more likely to value leaders whom they see as simple, straight-talking men and women of faith. They prize leaders who are good at managing people, not just ideas. They are more likely to distrust those who seem overly intellectual or narcissistically self-reflective.

Republican administrations tend to be tightly organized and calm, in a corporate sort of way, and place a higher value on loyalty and formality. George Bush says he doesn't read the papers. That's a direct assault on the knowledge class and something no Democrat would say.

more...

[joeybee12]

1. How can a man who has NO thought process even have a job?

I'm referring to Brooks, but I could easily be referring to Dumbo!

[KittyWampus]

2. Agreed, Dumb Really Does Describe Brooks Well

It's not even fun deconstructing his articles they're are so bad.

David Brock mentioned him when explaining how Far Right writers gain prominence.

and it's just a pity that the NYTimes has him on their pages.

The Times has tried so HARD to keep a veneer of Liberalness in the past. But in the last several years it seems they're not even bothering.

[tom_paine]

3. Many Busheviks with little talent have used the Party-Loyal Sub-Media

to swaddle them in the "Emperor's New Clothes".

Eventually, a with so much that the Busheviks do, this BIG LIE (that these hacks have talent) sometimes winds up fooling Real Human Beings, not just Busheviks.

[Joanne98]

4. Is he saying..........

the "simple, straight talking men and women of faith"
Republican voters are simpletons. NO Who'd have thunk.......

[Redleg]

5. Brooks is an ignorant ass- he doesn't know squat about management

The metaphor of Republicans as "managers" is problematic. Brooks says Republicans "prize leaders who are good at managing people, not just ideas." This is fallacious and simplistic.

As a management professor, I know that the most conservative of my students tend to favor more authoritarian or directive leaderships styles while the most liberal prefer styles involving aspects of workplace democracy and concern for employee welfare. Authoritarian leaders don't really care about their subordinates- they only care that their own objectives are accomplished. Authoritarian leaders are only effective under certain circumstances and in many situations will be less effective than leaders who support "empowement" in employees.

The Republican preference for authoritarian leaders reflects their blindness of how to truly motivate people to do their best.

[Cyrano]

6. Every time I read a David Brooks column

I end up thinking that he's either the most naive son-of-a-bitch ever born, or a clever/evil bastard trying to soft-pedal right-wing crap to make it more palatable to the ignorant. Either way, I don't know why the NYT wastes the ink and paper.

Then again, I don't know how they let William Safire spew out his transparent lunatic right puke on their op-ed page. Balance doesn't mean giving someone the license to incessantly sell ultra-right propaganda.

[jayavarman]

7. Seemed like a well written interesting editorial to me.

Seemed like he was writing it pretty straight- Id didn't seem like he was privileging one side over the over . . . but maybe I'm missing something

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Redleg]

10. It's not about whether he favors them over us- it's his stupid metaphors

and simplistic hypotheses that cause offense to us thoughtful, open-minded liberals. Brooks is a pseudo-intellectual hack.

[Bridget Burke]

12. He's just making stuff up.....

"Political scientists now find it useful"--so, which ones does he cite?

Many of his "Professionals" also need "Management" skills to survive. Even "decorators" (wink wink, nudge nudge) usually run businesses. And how many "Managers" are just simple, faithful sons of the soil? Bush would appear to fit into the Manager class since his expensive education failed to take--but his business history shows a severe lack of Management skills.

He's created two separate classes within "the elite" but has failed to prove that they exist.

[Hamlette]

13. read between the lines, Brooks can't keep it neutral

he describes Dems as: "narcissistically self-reflective" (takes a good trait "self reflective" and makes it a bad trait by adding "narcissistically" hence the good becomes bad. Bad dems, in love with themselves.

"knowledge workers -- teachers, lawyers, architects, academics, journalists, therapists, decorators and so on --" (DECORATORS????? EWWWW. Ick. Means...Queer Eye? Those lawyers are all queer decorators! Takes a list of good professions and makes them all bad by adding, as the last one, a group that is easy to stereotype as fluff, not serious, frivilous.)

"Professionals, mostly these knowledge workers" (here he takes the term "professional" which has a positive connotation and turns it into a something less: "knowledge workers". Peons. Worker bees. Scum. Ewww. Decorators. Artsy types. God, don't put THEM in charge of our country!)

"DataQuick Information Systems recently put out a list of 100 ZIP code areas where the median home price was above $500,000. By my count, at least 90 of these places — from the Upper West Side to Santa Monica — elect liberal Democrats." (Coastal eliets. What, none of those zip codes are in the heartland? New York and California. Those are the problem areas you know.)


"Knowledge-class types are more likely to value leaders who possess what may be called university skills: the ability to read and digest large amounts of information and discuss their way through to a nuanced solution. Democratic administrations tend to value self-expression over self-discipline. Democratic candidates — from Clinton to Kerry — often run late." (UNIVERSITY SKILLS????? What? Reading and critical thinking are no longer valued skills but icky liberal dominated UNIVERSITY SILLS. Oh, and the bottom line is that they "run late." So critical thinking is a bad thing because it means you make people wait for you you elietist snob. And what is this self-expression over self-discipline? Narcissists who talk about themselves all the time vs. people who get things done! Total code speak.)


he describes Repubs as: "tightly organized and calm" "George Bush still won the overall college-educated vote" (Good, calm, steady, on time, educated class type of leaders who are organized and can get things done!)

"Managers are more likely to value leaders whom they see as simple, straight-talking men and women of faith." (Straight and honest god fearing people.)

"They prize leaders who are good at managing people, not just ideas." (Here is the real nut. By adding "not just ideas" Brooks tells you that Republicans are good at what the dems do (manage ideas) AND you get the additional benefit that they can manage people. Where did he say Dems can't manage people? He just did. Dems are one sided, Repubgs can do it all!!!)

Brooks thinks he is a social critic but he is just a political hack doing what political hacks do best: talk about (and stereotype) people instead of talking about ideas. I wish he'd stop.

[jayavarman]

15. Now that I see it broken down like that I can see where you're coming from

At first read I liked the article because it framed an interesting subject in a way I haven't thought about.

I guess my bias showed through in that I liked the line "Knowledge-class types are more likely to value leaders who possess what may be called university skills: the ability to read and digest large amounts of information and discuss their way through to a nuanced solution" . . . . Pretty much describes the way I'd like our leaders to operate. (and stands in a marked contrast to the way that our current leaders arrive at decisions)

Anyway, I do see how there are little coded nuances in the piece that reveal the author's point of view.

Still I like the editorial, give me a nuanced type any day over the more simplistic 'managerial' one.

[lanparty]

18. Bush is simple ....

But he's not straight talking!!!!

[jayavarman]

19. Word

[Cat Atomic]

8. It's code for "Democrats are ivory tower elitists and queers".

While Republicans are common sense, pragmatic straight shooters who are better at business.

What a schmuck.

The fact that someone that dense has a voice in the mainstream media says a hell of alot about the mainstream media.

[Loonman]

11. "Tightly organized and calm"

Yeah...........right!

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

17. do they get to wear uniforms, too.

man, just hum a few bars of "Tomorrow Belongs to Me" already....

[Plaid Adder]

14. Yo, Brooks: a lot of knowledge workers ARE managers.

And that's only the first problem with this argument. Democrats are less punctual than Republicans? Out of whose ass does he pull his analysis?

"Tightly organized and calm, in a corporate sort of way"? What does that even MEAN? I just read an article in Fortune about the shenanigans at the top of the Coca-Cola Corporation. That institution is about as "tightly organized and calm" as the locked ward at Bellevue. Or how abotu Enron, another model of tight organization and calm?

He's right about one thing: no Democrat would say he doesn't read the papers. That's because the ONLY politician in the country who is enough of an arrogant dimwit to say such a thing happens to be a Republican.

#@$!,

The Plaid Adder

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

16. generalizations run amok.

and I like the coded homophobia and fascist sentiment there, too.

Very good, David.

[robcon]

20. I think the article is spot on.

Brooks' analysis of the differences amnong educated Americans is correct in my experience.

[ContinentalOp]

21. Great so Democrats actually do things.

So all of the productive members of society are Democrats while the useless management types who merely "supervise" others, push paper, and spy on coworkers are all Republicans. I think I can believe that.