Why is David Brooks so freakin' wrong?

[BurtWorm]

Or is he?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/opinion/05brooks.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

...


Much as I admire my friends on the left for ingeniously explaining their recent defeats without really considering the possibility that maybe the substance of their ideas is the problem, I have to say that this explanation for conservative success and liberal failure is at odds with reality.

Conservatives have not triumphed because they have built a disciplined and efficient message machine. Conservatives have thrived because they are split into feuding factions that squabble incessantly. As these factions have multiplied, more people have come to call themselves conservatives because they've found one faction to agree with.

...


This feuding has meant that the meaning of conservatism is always shifting. Once, Republicans were isolationists. Now most Republicans, according to a New York Times poll, believe the U.S. should try to change dictatorships into democracies when it can. Meanwhile, 78 percent of Democrats believe the U.S. should not try to democratize authoritarian regimes.

Moreover, it's not only feuding that has been the key to conservative success - it's also what the feuding's about. When modern conservatism became aware of itself, conservatives were so far out of power it wasn't even worth thinking about policy prescriptions. They argued about the order of the universe, and how the social order should reflect the moral order. Different factions looked back to different philosophers - Burke, Aquinas, Hayek, Hamilton, Jefferson - to define what a just society should look like.

...

[Demit]

1. I'm sorry, I just can't read him anymore. I just can't.

Even for purposes of ridicule. I mean, he's just in the pantheon of all-time ridiculous thinkers. I think we should retire his number.

[BurtWorm]

3. No need to apologize.

Yours is a perfectly rational response to the sight of a David Brooks column.

[Demit]

4. Thank you. I am grateful to be excused :)

[BurtWorm]

6. Can you stomach a summary of his "points?"

He says lefties are wrong to think the reason conservatives are so powerful is that they own key media and think tanks and speak monolithically. He says it's because a) liberals have lousy ideas and b) conservatives are constantly fighting with each other, thereby creating a broad platform of "conservative" viewpoints, which, therefore, makes conservatism broadly appealing.

I think he's full of shit through and through. The reason conservatives are so powerful is that their pockets are deep and their philosophy is essentially about maintaining the powerful in positions of power.

[Beetwasher]

8. He's A Hack Who's On The Payroll and This Is A WAAY Too Obvious Attempt At

disinformation.

Brooks knows damn well that the reason the conservatives are "successful" is because they march lockstep and own the media. This is a diversion and just another way of saying "Conservatives are the rational idealogues, with great ideas and open debate, that's why everyone loves them and can identify with them, while the Liberals just suck at everything and everyone hates them because they suck".

Brooks is a whore of the highest order.

[Stephanie]

17. good summary!

i had to cancel the NYT because of Brooks' lies - why is he the darling of the Times, PBS and NPR?

[Demit]

13. I'm reading Brock's "Republican Noise Machine" right now.

Which documents everything DB attempts to discredit. But as we know from his last silly book, research isn't Brooks's thing, especially when it contradicts his new pet theory or the catchphrase he's hoping will be adopted into the lexicon.

[Stephanie]

5. David "Teeny Little Girly Hands" Brooks is the neo-con spokesmodel

Why should I read a word he has to say? It's all disinformation, spin, lies and bullshit. Liberals don't need any lessons from him in what we stand for. We stand for truth and justice. We stand for helping the disadvantaged. For human rights and dignity. For actual democracy instead of lip service.

Notice that when he says: "Now most Republicans, according to a New York Times poll, believe the U.S. should try to change dictatorships into democracies when it can." - he does not give the actual number. That's because the interventionist policies of PNAC were shepherded by his boss at the Weekly Standard, William Kristol. Now he's trying to spin as if all Republicans agree on this. That's his job.

[Zenlitened]

2. Smells like the wind is blowing from the direction of the barnyard

Brooks has just about no analytical ability, but plenty of guile, so I'd tend to be suspicious when he tells us that media machinery is unimportant.

[madinmaryland]

7. David Brooks is a right wing hack...

"Meanwhile, 78 percent of Democrats believe the U.S. should not try to democratize authoritarian regimes."

Where does he get statistics like this? Maybe because he leaves out information in his statement such as this part ". . . by military means". In which case his statement might be true.

And why does he not mention his party's fervent support of dictators in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.?

:argh:

[kenny blankenship]

9. And ugly!

he looks like a jaundiced, shaved orangutan.

[gratuitous]

10. Yeah, the maelstrom of Republican feuding and idea generation

Let's see, torture is now an acceptable Republican intelligence gathering device. Not to mention torturing intelligence so it conforms with pre-conceived political goals. "Pre-emptive" wars that empty the Treasury, squander our prestige, lower our standing and kill tens of thousands is another idea whose time has now come in the Republican party.

And for all their fightin' and feudin' ways, it seems odd that Republicans would all be endorsing the continued incumbency of such toxic politicians as John Cornyn, Tom DeLay and Dick Cheney.

David Brooks is certifiable; but as the successor to William Safire in the Loony Chair at the New Times, he's got a job for as long as he wants it.

[Ganja Ninja]

11. They vote like robots thats why they win.

How typical. Start off with a flawed premise and draw your conclusions from there.

[Stirk]

12. Oh, god- his arguments are so transparent. He claims that

'squabbling factions' are the source of the Republican Party's strength, just at the time when those factions are beginning to rip his party to pieces. That's what made the Schiavo case so politically relevant; it highlighted the severe split between the religious fundamentalists the Republicans have mobilized as a voting block, and the corporatist political machine that exploits them. Their agendas are not the same, and that fact is becoming increasingly obvious, to the detriment of the Republican Party. David Brooks is clumsily responding to that fact and making lame excuses.

Brooks is the worst kind of fool. He's a fool who thinks he's smart.

[BurtWorm]

14. He frequently does that--reacts to bad news for Repubs by pretending

it was all planned. :eyes:

[Stephanie]

18. neo-cons vs. theo-cons

and the paleo-cons are left out in the cold

[Old and In the Way]

15. David Brooks, Parade Attendent

Because someone has to clean up the elephant dung along the way....

[Coventina]

16. Who knew? He's actually "laugh out loud" funny!!

At least for me.

:shrug: