David Brooks: "What happened to American conservatism?"

[Champakian]

Jesus... walls of text.

Having the ability to cut and paste from the google doesn't make one more intelligent.

I find that it makes people stupid at incredible speeds.

You used to have to go to the library, check out a book, read, digest and then write.

 

[JohnnySavage]

People should have their own opinion. David Brooks doesn't post here so I don't care what he thinks. Actually, I don't even know who he is. He probably doesn't know who I am either though.

 

[Champakian]

Think warm soggy milk toast with pant creases as admirable as Obama's.

 

[pecksniff]

There was a time when both progressives and conservatives stayed within the boundaries of acceptability, even today, Berny Sanders and Ted Cruz are rational people, but BLM/ANTIFA and Que Anon are completely bat shit crazy in their own ways and shouldn't be listened to.

All of those are marginal as political forces. The problem Brooks is talking about is with the actual RW leadership -- the party leaders, elected officials, media outlets and think-tanks.

 

[pecksniff]

People should have their own opinion. David Brooks doesn't post here so I don't care what he thinks. Actually, I don't even know who he is. He probably doesn't know who I am either though.

David Brooks:

David "Bobo" Brooks is an author and pundit. He holds the position of token conservative on the PBS Newshour and at the New York Times. He is more or less a tamer counterpart to former columnist Bill Kristol, in that both are always spectacularly wrong, but Kristol was wrong about big, serious things (like war) while Brooks tends to be wrong about small, trivial things (like the lifestyle of the residents of Franklin County, Pennsylvania).

Brooks is an odd fit with the modern Republican Party as he often writes columns against the economic principles or imaginary scandals of the party. He is not a party loyalist, having endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 and Hillary Clinton in 2016. He does not adhere to any conservative philosophy, but rather a conservative fantasy, longing for a time when families were more traditional, cultural Christianity was uncontested, and minorities quietly knew their place. He reveres small town conservatives as long as they don't live in either the South (including the border states) or the Western US; they in turn find him ill-informed and condescending. (Not that they bother to read his column. Nor should you.)

What, exactly, is a "Bobo"?

The term "Bobo" comes from Brooks's 2000 book Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There. The word is a portmanteau of the words bourgeois and bohemian.[1] In the book, Brooks (who self identifies as a "bobo") argues that modern American culture is controlled largely by these upper-class baby boomers who mix counter-culture with consumerism. This sort of pop psychology is Brooks's stock-in-trade.

Fun detail: Bobo is also a Spanish word meaning "dumb."

From Bobos to Social Animals

Brooks unleashed further pop psychology on the public with The Social Animal, a fictional narrative about a Beltway think tank set romance which is peppered with (often misinterpreted or out-of-context) factoids from social science research.[2]

Brooks and politics

The leitmotif of Brooks's career is claiming that he has a special understanding of and appreciation for the salt-of-the-earth types who don't actually know who David Brooks is. His first major work of this variety was his 2001 Atlantic column "One Nation, Slightly Divisible"[3].The column was all about the differences between the elitist, godless, self-important blue states and the hardy, honest, respectable red states.

"Different sorts of institutions dominate life in these two places. In Red America churches are everywhere. In Blue America Thai restaurants are everywhere. In Red America they have QVC, the Pro Bowlers Tour, and hunting. In Blue America we have NPR, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and socially conscious investing. In Red America the Wal-Marts are massive, with parking lots the size of state parks. In Blue America the stores are small but the markups are big. You'll rarely see a Christmas store in Blue America, but in Red America, even in July, you'll come upon stores selling fake Christmas trees, wreath-decorated napkins, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer collectible thimbles and spoons, and little snow-covered villages."

One of the most well-known sections of the article concerned a trip Brooks took to Franklin County, Pennsylvania in search of Red America. He wanted to demonstrate the simple life enjoyed by these noble savages, so he had a mission:

"I was going to spend $20 on a restaurant meal. But although I ordered the most expensive thing on the menu—steak au jus, "slippery beef pot pie," or whatever—I always failed."

In 2004, Philadelphia Magazine writer Sasha Issenberg followed up on several of Brooks's columns, including "One Nation, Slightly Divisible." He actually went to Franklin County, where he quickly discovered that Brooks was completely full of shit after dropping more than 20 dollars on several meals. Issenberg later talked to Brooks about this and the many, many other misrepresentations Issenberg found in his columns. Brooks didn't see anything wrong with it.[4]

"One Nation, Slightly Divisible" is perhaps one of Brooks's most reviled columns to date. It fell flat with many liberals, who thought (with good reason) that it was cliche-ridden and intellectually insulting. It's possible that Brooks intended it an olive branch to conservatives; however, they hated it too, viewing it (again, with good reason) as condescending and snobbish.

At the New York Times

Apparently, the one group of people who actually liked Brooks's work were the New York City elite, because he managed to land a slot at the New York Times in 2003. His performance there is best expressed in bullet-point form:

Brooks, who self-describes as a "third-wave feminist," believes that women shouldn't work,[5] but if they insist on working, they should have kids first and wait to enter the work force until they are over 40.[6]
Brooks was positive that McCain's support for the Iraq War wouldn't hurt him.[7]
Brooks loved George W. Bush. Why? Because "[his] foreign policy doctrine transcended the War on Terror,"[8] he "thinks in long durations" and is "assertiveness on stilts."[9]
Brooks thought Obama was in trouble because "he doesn't seem like the kind of guy who can go into an Applebee's salad bar and people think he fits in naturally there," probably because Applebee's restaurants don't have salad bars.[10]
Brooks alleged that the term "neoconservative" was an anti-Semitic slur,[11] apparently unaware that the term in its modern usage was popularized by Irving Kristol.[12]
More recently, Brooks argued that the real reason Haiti is poor is because of voodoo.[13]

 

[The_Trouvere]

Brooks voted for Obama. Twice.

So did I.

 

[Champakian]

David Brooks:

This post has been reported for it is a violation of board rules
and of copyright law, that latter of which threatens the board.

 

[Champakian]

So did I.

So did a plurality of Americans (a slim majority of voters).

You are not special in that regard.

In the other, however...,

 

[Rightguide]

David Brooks, pseudo-conservative, ie a Cino.

 

[pecksniff]

This post has been reported for it is a violation of board rules
and of copyright law, that latter of which threatens the board.

RationalWiki is a "copyleft" source like Wikipedia. No limits on C&P.

 

[pecksniff]

David Brooks, pseudo-conservative, ie a Cino.

So who's a real one? Not Trump or the Trumpers, that's a completely different species of animal.

 

[The_Trouvere]

You might consider the conservative inclinations of a lot of minorities
who are religious, family oriented and fully engaged in business...

That is true of most Orientals, some Hispanics, and few blacks.

Blacks are more likely to attend church regularly than are whites. Nevertheless, they have high rates of illegitimacy and crime.

 

[The_Trouvere]

David Brooks, pseudo-conservative, ie a Cino.

There are different kinds of conservatives. Economic conservatives and social conservatives are two kinds. Each has further divisions. Each considers themselves the only true conservatives.

While campaigning Republican politicians pose as social conservatives. If they are elected they behave like economic conservatives and pursue policies that make the rich richer.

I am somewhat of a Burkean conservative. I am pessimistic about human nature and human potential. I believe that there is often wisdom in tradition. Nevertheless, I think that Edmund Burke idolized the political situation that existed in France before the French Revolution. The French aristocrats were the richest class. They did little that was useful to the rest of the French population. They were virtually tax exempt.

Like other political thinkers, including Karl Marx, Burke should be read for insight, rather than doctrine.

 

[pecksniff]

There are different kinds of conservatives. Economic conservatives and social conservatives are two kinds.

The difference is, economic conservatives are not always wrong, and social conservatives are not always evil.

 

[Rightguide]

There are different kinds of conservatives. Economic conservatives and social conservatives are two kinds. Each has further divisions. Each considers themselves the only true conservatives.

While campaigning Republican politicians pose as social conservatives. If they are elected they behave like economic conservatives and pursue policies that make the rich richer.

I am somewhat of a Burkean conservative. I am pessimistic about human nature and human potential. I believe that there is often wisdom in tradition. Nevertheless, I think that Edmund Burke idolized the political situation that existed in France before the French Revolution. The French aristocrats were the richest class. They did little that was useful to the rest of the French population. They were virtually tax exempt.

Like other political thinkers, including Karl Marx, Burke should be read for insight, rather than doctrine.

In essence, what happened to American conservativism is David Brooks, Mitt Romney, Richard Burr, Paul Ryan, John Kasich, Rick Wilson, William Kristol, and a host of other pansies.

 

[pecksniff]

In essence, what happened to American conservativism is David Brooks, Mitt Romney, Richard Burr, Paul Ryan, John Kasich, Rick Wilson, William Kristol, and a host of other pansies.

Those are all men who put what they see as conservative ideological principles above party loyalty. This is a bad thing for conservatism?

 

[Rightguide]

Those are all men who put what they see as conservative ideological principles above party loyalty. This is a bad thing for conservatism?

No, these are all phony conservatives. Some are neocons who are democrats. like Willaim Kristol, and David Brooks, and others.

 

[Wrong Element]

Brooks recounts how he was converted from socialism to conservatism in his 20s.

The interesting thing about this is that so many conservatives and especially neocons of Brooks's generation had a similar experience. Bill Kristol's parents, part of the original neocon movement, were members of the capital-L Left. But most people who identify as Democrats never had that experience; they just started voting for Clinton or whatever without seeing anything on the road to Damascus.

It's almost like there's a certain personality type that needs to have something "big" to believe in, because I can see moving from the left to become a "liberal," but moving from socialism to Reaganism strikes me as being extremely weird.

Jeet Heer responds:

All true. American conservatism has never been about Edmund Fucking Burke. Its defining moment was fighting a war to maintain the right to buy and sell people, and its fiercest proponents today regard the outcome of that war as an historic tragedy.

 

[pecksniff]

No, these are all phony conservatives. Some are neocons who are democrats. like Willaim Kristol, and David Brooks, and others.

How exactly are you defining "conservative," if it excludes neocons?

Not, I hope, in any way that includes nationalist-populists like Tea Partiers or Trumpers.

And how can there not be Democratic conservatives?

 

[pecksniff]

All true. American conservatism has never been about Edmund Fucking Burke. Its defining moment was fighting a war to maintain the right to buy and sell people, and its fiercest proponents today regard the outcome of that war as an historic tragedy.

Cue RWs once again dragging in the now-irrelevant fact that the Cornfeds were Democrats. (You won't find many Democrats in the League of the South.)

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Where do little boys come into it?

One of the pashas of the North-American Man-Boy Lincoln Association was a pedophile, and most of the rest of them knew about it and said nothing.

 

[pecksniff]

One of the pashas of the North-American Man-Boy Lincoln Association was a pedophile, and most of the rest of them knew about it and said nothing.

Which one?

Of course, that no more discredits the Lincoln Project than the existence of Jeremy Thorpe discredits the Labour Party.

 

[pecksniff]

It's almost like there's a certain personality type that needs to have something "big" to believe in, because I can see moving from the left to become a "liberal," but moving from socialism to Reaganism strikes me as being extremely weird.

It was the spirit of the times. A lot of neocons started out as socialists.

 

[YDB95]

It was the spirit of the times. A lot of neocons started out as socialists.

If you think about it, there is common ground between extreme right and left on some issues. Single-sex education, for example - VERY popular among womyn-with-a-y feminists and MRAs alike. So it's not too surprising that some people make that leap.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Jesus... walls of text.

Having the ability to cut and paste from the google doesn't make one more intelligent.

When I find something on the internet that interests me I excerpt parts of it, and follow it with my own commentary. Frequently I will find something I disagree with and explain why I disagree with it. That requires independent thinking, which many on the internet seem incapable of.