Observations On NYT Pundit David Brooks’ Ethics Quote Of The Week

G.O.P. candidates are telling a very clear class/culture/status war narrative in which common-sense Americans are being assaulted by elite progressives who let the homeless take over the streets, teach sex ed to 5-year-olds, manufacture fake news, run woke corporations, open the border and refuse to do anything about fentanyl deaths and the sorts of things that affect regular people. In other words, candidates like Lake wrap a dozen different issues into one coherent class war story. And it seems to be working.”

—-NYT columnist David Brooks, allegedly one of the token conservatives in the Times pundit stable, about what he thinks is driving the likely “red wave” in the upcoming elections.

Brooks prefaced this weird statement by writing that “[t]he Trumpified G.O.P. deserves to be a marginalized and disgraced force in American life.”

Observations:

1. There are no more questions about David Brooks, are there? He has followed in the elitist, classist footsteps of Bill Kristol (whose neocon magazine he once wrote for), George Will and the other tea and crumpets faux-conservatives who would rather support Democratic Party policies than agree with an icky vulgarian like Donald Trump, even if it means abandoning all the principles they previously claimed they revered.

2. If opposing those things, among others, are the result of being “Trumpified,” why is Brooks calling for the GOP to be marginalized? Is he saying that he approves of the homeless swarming over cities, teaching sexual topics in kindergarten, progressive propaganda in place of news, powerful corporations pushing ideology, open borders and  fentanyl deaths, or is he denying that these are real issues?

3. This is cognitive dissonance gone off the rails. These people hate Donald Trump so much that anything he supports becomes automatically wrong, and a political party that holds similar views to his must be destroyed. Brooks is a smart guy, or was once. What a cautionary tale of “Bias makes you stupid.”

4. Of course “it seems to be working”! It seems to be working because what the Democratic Party now stands for is destructive, divisive, irresponsible and bats. Only those who, like Rep. Clyburn, the controversial Ethics Hero of my previous post, value ideological purity over reality and common sense (or who just blindly follow a letter after a candidate’s name without thinking any more deeply than that.)

The rest of Brooks’ column isn’t quite so jaw-dropping, other than the fact that he states the obvious as if he has decoded the Rosetta Stone. “The Jan. 6 committee and the warnings about MAGA fascism didn’t change minds,” he writes. It’s a mystery! The first was a transparently partisan scheme to turn a one-off, one day riot into some kind of existential threat as a way to smear Republicans, and the other was an embarrassing and disgraceful display of hypocrisy. Beisdes, they changed my mind: I now know that the Democratic Party will sacrifice basic principles of responsible politics to hold power. “Democrats have a crime problem,” Brooks concludes. Gee, ya think? He doesn’t have the guts or integrity to explain that problem, which stems from demonizing police, eliminating bail, releasing criminals into society as the solution to “over-incarceration,” legalizing theft, and, yes, open borders. “The Republicans may just have a clearer narrative,” Brooks says. Wow, what incisive analysis. The Republican narrative is “Everything’s going to hell, and you can see it everywhere.” Yeah, I’d call that “clear,” and it’s no narrative—Brooks is playing word games to imply that “it isn’t what it is.” The Democratic narrative is…let’s see…the party that isn’t acting like fascists are the real fascists, abortion is the most important thing there is, and everything really is great, the public just isn’t smart enough to see it.

I see that Ann Althouse, damn her, also picked up on Brooks’ column. What is most telling over there are the comments. There are 76 of them right now, and almost none of them do anything but mock Brooks, which is the correct response. Ann’s readers are hardly right-wing Trump acolytes. Brooks is now writing his commentary only for the intellectually-isolated core Times readers, who are like the readers of a previous generation who were shocked when Nixon beat McGovern and Reagan defeated Carter.

To be fair, while the majority of the Times comment on Brooks’ piece are predictably mouth-foaming anti-Republican (Typical example: “Brooks missed one big reason: a very large number of Americans are selfish, ignorant, and/or fascist.”), there are glimmers of perception, like this one:

Yet again the comments show NYT readers have no idea what people who don’t think like them actually think. While calling them ignorant. Everyone (but you) is dumb. No irony here.

Maybe some day arrogance will get boring and curiosity will have a chance.

Why is it so hard to imagine reasonable positions besides yours exist? There are intelligent people with logical arguments using scientific data who don’t agree with you.

If I do vote for a Republicans federally (for the first time) it will largely be due to the arrogance permeating the left. The reek of fascism is wafting from the left.

Bingo.

7 thoughts on “Observations On NYT Pundit David Brooks’ Ethics Quote Of The Week

  1. 1. There are no more questions about David Brooks, are there?

    I was unaware of any questions before this. He is the classic “Country Club” conservative, giving lip service to some conservative positions but bemoaning their execution and consequences. Trump is really just a convenient excuse to allow him a “get out of hypocrisy free” card.

    2. If opposing those things, among others, are the result of being “Trumpified,” why is Brooks calling for the GOP to be marginalized?

    This is a good question, and suggests he really doesn’t have much in common with the GOP regardless of its “Trumpification.” Again, it looks to me like Trump is just an easy way to defend his rejection of the GOP, something he probably would’ve done even if Jeb! was the party figurehead. Perhaps he would approve if Larry Hogan were the party standard-bearer, but then, the GOP would truly be a rump party in that case.

    3. This is cognitive dissonance gone off the rails.

    Indeed. Trump has established a rent-free condominium in the heads of Brooks, Kinzinger, Cheney et. al., as well as every single Democrat in America. No matter how hard they try to evict him, they always seem to fail, and Brooks no less than the rest.

    4. Of course “it seems to be working”!

    Truly. Doh! What baffles me is using the word “assaulted” to describe the reality of Democratic party governance — “…homeless take over the streets, teach sex ed to 5-year-olds, manufacture fake news, run woke corporations, open the border and refuse to do anything about fentanyl deaths and the sorts of things that affect regular people” — because Trump is literally the definition of cognitive dissonance.

    I mean, does Brooks actually read what he wrote? Is it his position that these things are actually defensible and should not be controversial?

    “The Jan. 6 committee and the warnings about MAGA fascism didn’t change minds,” he writes. It’s a mystery!

    Again, doh! How is it that Brooks and his fellow-travellers find it surprising that a transparently partisan and lawlessly assembled “committee” that has unabashedly told anyone who will listen (which turns out to be only the news media and Democrats who already hate Tump and the GOP) how evil Trump and the GOP are hasn’t garnered the rapt attention of normal non-Democratic America?

    As you say, it’s a mystery!

    Finally, is anyone but me sick to death of the words “facism” and “facist?” Please find a synonym somewhere, for the love of God. It doesn’t mean what they think it means.

  2. Looks like at least one GOP stalwart is himself sowing some “class dissention” within the party. On Wednesday, former VP Mike Pence said, “As Russia continues its unconscionable war of aggression to Ukraine, I believe that conservatives must make it clear that Putin must stop and Putin will pay… There can be no room in the conservative movement for apologists to Putin. There is only room in this movement for champions of freedom.”
    Well, Mike, pardon me if I am just a bit more concerned with championing the freedom of American citizens, right here in the beleaguered US than the internecine struggles of eastern Europe. Sure, “Putin bad,” I agree, and we all get it, but don’t tell me I’m not welcome in the “conservative movement” unless I’m ready to jump in with both feet and support war with Russia over Ukraine. We need to get our own house in order first (including our woke but weakened military) before we can effectively protect ourselves, much less anyone else.
    I have concluded that Pence, Romney, McCarthy et al in the “leadership” of the legacy GOP are completely comfortable returning to the long pointless wars and “managed decline” politics of the pre-Trump days. The proof will come definitively if the GOP retakes Congress and there isn’t an immediate tsunami of serious legislating on long-neglected issues, accompanied by well-supported investigations, impeachments and prosecutions of those who are currently making a mockery of our Constitution, our laws and the nation itself. Many of the self-proclaimed DC conservatives don’t seem interested in conserving a damned thing beyond their status in DC; indeed, I often wonder if we are wasting our time with mere conservatism, unless and until we do a whole lot of restoration of Constitutional governance before we can realistically return to conserving. I predict a big revolt within the party if a new GOP-dominated Congress fails to act purposefully and effectively to stem the Leftist tide. My expectations are, alas, not high.

    • Pence is and has always been an empty suit. He was a weak but safe choice for Trump by bringing in the religious right voters, but I haven’t seen a VP with fewer prospects for a POTUS run since Dan Quayle. What he says is unimportant; the news media reports it just to, as you say, divide the GOP.

      He still reminds me of “The Man From Glad.”

  3. Brooks prefaced this weird statement by writing that “[t]he Trumpified G.O.P. deserves to be a marginalized and disgraced force in American life.”

    Brooks may just discover this “Trumpified” G.O.P actually represents the majority in this country, and it is he and his radical leftist minority that has been marginalized. We’re likely to get a better picture of who’s marginalized on November 8th.

  4. … tea and crumpets faux-conservatives who would rather support Democratic Party policies than agree with an icky vulgarian like Donald Trump, even if it means abandoning all the principles they previously claimed they revered… I now know that the Democratic Party will sacrifice basic principles of responsible politics to hold power.

    “The time has come for all good men to rise above principle” – attributed to Huey Long.

    Yet again the comments show NYT readers have no idea what people who don’t think like them actually think… Why is it so hard to imagine reasonable positions besides yours exist? There are intelligent people with logical arguments using scientific data who don’t agree with you. [quoting a quotation]

    “Just because I don’t care doesn’t mean I don’t understand” – Homer Simpson.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.