Unfortunately The NYT is annoying with their NYT select thing but here is the link anyway. If you get the paper version, or can abscond with it from a co-workers desk, it is David Brooks Party no.3. Brooks is one of those people that I rarely agree with, but almost always find what he has to say interesting. Today I mostly agree with what he has to say about politics in America. He has struck a cord with present political reality. I also found it interesting. I don’t necessarily agree with all the proper noun choices he made. But the idea, and that’s the thing really, is remarkably astute and important. I do plan to write more on this topic later; but I shall leave at this for now.
Problem is: Lieberman & McCain should abscond; they don’t have the fortitude and determination required of a strong leadership needed in today’s society enmeshed in fighting against ideals that threaten to trample upon the altars of Democracy and freedom. Why can’t the left see this seemingly obvious point?
I should read the Brooks column before passing judgment. But I also generally trust Somerby and agree with his analysis on issues. And when he comments on David Brooks, he makes Brooks sound like…well…just exactly what you’d expect him to sound like.
Here’s an excerpt from Somerby at the above link:
“People want civility, not venom, Brooks says. But uh-oh! Even as he tells us this, he emits vast poison of his own, name-calling those with whom he disagrees in the most venomous manner.
Could you possibly write a less civil column? A column driven more by venom? In paragraph 2, Brooks establishes moral equivalence between “scandal-tainted Tom DeLay� and�you guessed it�Ned Lamont. No, Lamont isn’t tainted by any known scandal�but he had “the net roots exulting before him and Al Sharpton smiling just behind� when he won his race Tuesday night. As a result, Brooks name-calls Lamont and his supporters in the most egregious ways. What does he tell us about these people? Brooks sheds his deep desire for civility as he name-calls and slimes:
In paragraph 3, we learn that Lamont supporters engage in “the Sunni-Shiite style of politics.â€? ”
Somerby lists more of Brooks’ insults.
But, yes, that sounds exactly like I expect the sanctimonious David Brooks to sound like. Should I spend the dollar on the hard copy and actually read his full column in the NY Times?
Mouse, that’s up to you. Brooks can be a prat some times, but he is a very smart prat and his opinions generally have a lot of thought behind them.
In this case I think he has bee a little mischaracterized. I don’t think his purpose is to denigrate Lamont as much Howler suggests. Consider he lambasts his own party and the dems for what he descries as Sunni-Shiite politics. And you know what, as much as I hate to admit it, he is right. We are stuck in a very volatile vitriolic violent age. Things are treated black and white with us against us I bite my thumb in your general direction sort of way. There is constant fear mongering and paranoia. What does it say when half the country, myself included, can’t trust a word our leader tells us? The options seem to be more of the same or for someone to strike out on a new path. I may not agree with the Proper Nouns, as I said. But I agree with the need for a new path. If we are going to fight and win against terrorism we need a new path–a path that does not now exist because it is yet to be discovered. And we need smart wise measured intelligent humble people to help us all find it.
As for spending a dollar, as a consultation prize, the crossword today seems pretty good, they alone tend to be worth the price of admission to the paper.
Seriously, how can we compare our current political milieu with past milieus? I think there is some truth to the idea that political tensions have increased. And there are always groups of people — political junkies, some here and many elsewhere– who follow these events more closely and are more closely moved by them. I think in the history of American politics, there were many races in the past that were just as personal and tough and insulting as any modern races.
But was the Lieberman-Lamont race similar to Sunni-Shia levels of conflict? I mean seriously, how can Brooks even make what appears to me to be a totally assinine statement like that? Yes, some people were very emotionally charged by the race. But it just isn’t so that it was that kind of level of acrimony. (Yes, for some, but clearly not for all. But isn’t that the case in most political races?)
But I agree– albeit without having read Brooks’s column– I agree with Somerby: Brooks calls for more civility all the while dishing out venomous insults. That says something about Brooks’s character in my opinion.
And I don’t like NY Times crosswords. I completed a Monday crossword once and maybe a Wednesday’s one once. I mean why humiliate myself further, knowing I’ll never complete a Sunday’s? ;-)
I agree that there’s bitterness and divisiveness. But I don’t know if it is all that different from America’s political past.
But at the risk of exacerbating, in my own little way, and covering in Reader’s Digest form some recent history, I will say that one party is clearly more at fault than another. And it’s summed up by the phrase “politics of personal destruction.”
Republicans have been on a slash and burn crusade since Clinton to have their way with the American political system. Even conservatives who generally support Republicans would know this to be true if they’re honest with themselves.
Incredible. How do you say the bitterness and divisiveness isn’t as bad when two steps later, you say its all the republicans’ fault? Along with the extremely dishonest, “Even conservatives who generally support Republicans would know this to be true if they’re honest with themselves.”
I know its true that the administration is screwing up in numerous ways and take the wrong direction on others. I can list if you like.
But they are the major ones at fault for the ‘politics of personal destruction’? Sorry. I see BOTH parties are equally responsible for that. Because pretty much any example you can bring up of a right-wing tar & feather, I can do the same for a left-wing one.
I think that the Republicans have a done a lot to damage the quality of debate in this country, I don’t think anyone with a grain of honest and intellectual credibility could argue with that. However, at the very least Democrats have done nothing to stop this decline. If they have done nothing, thereby enabling or if they have stooped to the level of Republicans therefore enabling, they have enabled the decline and have responsibility for it as well. But the fact is, right now, arguing how we got mired in this hole is not as important as finding the way out. And debate was better in the past. It was never great or some mythical idyllic golden age, but it was better. Before the other side was seen as people too. I’m not so sure that is the case right now. But it doesn’t matter.
Think of it this way. There are two cars driving down the road. Both get flat tires at the same time and pull over to the side of the road. One pair of people gets out and immediately starts arguing and bickering about how the heck they got the flat tire and woe to me this is horrific. And on and on. The other pair. Get out, identify the flat tire. Go to the trunk, pull out the jack and spare, work together to get the spare on hop back in the car start driving, and then start a sane discussion of how to avoid a flat in the future and where best to find a gas station to make permanent repairs. Which group dealt with the problem more effectively? Right now is not the time to argue about fault. Now is the time to fix the problem. Stopping the problem for recurring is a later step.
Lojo - the ‘recent’ “politics of personal destruction” goes back to Bork … prior to that, most of the time, it seemed to be sorta gentlemanly … the Bork hearings changed that, radically …
Sadly, the Republican side found the need to reciprocate in kind, and it has gone downhill pretty much sonsistently since then …
No matter how much righties in the 90’s thought Clinton was a scumbag personally and near-pathological in his lying, they were never inflicted with anything approaching the BDS that has infested leftist fever swamps since the 2000 election.
Mad Max - when you finish giggling like Mozart in the film Amadeus, consider looking up the meaning of the word “recent”, please …
You can find party politicians going off on each other throughout the history of party politics … Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, Tories, Liberals, all the way back to the Roman Senate and beyond … factional isn’t anything new …
August 10th, 2006 at 9:30:30 am
Problem is: Lieberman & McCain should abscond; they don’t have the fortitude and determination required of a strong leadership needed in today’s society enmeshed in fighting against ideals that threaten to trample upon the altars of Democracy and freedom. Why can’t the left see this seemingly obvious point?
August 10th, 2006 at 10:12:16 am
Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler writes on the David Brooks column as well: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081006.shtml
I should read the Brooks column before passing judgment. But I also generally trust Somerby and agree with his analysis on issues. And when he comments on David Brooks, he makes Brooks sound like…well…just exactly what you’d expect him to sound like.
Here’s an excerpt from Somerby at the above link:
“People want civility, not venom, Brooks says. But uh-oh! Even as he tells us this, he emits vast poison of his own, name-calling those with whom he disagrees in the most venomous manner.
Could you possibly write a less civil column? A column driven more by venom? In paragraph 2, Brooks establishes moral equivalence between “scandal-tainted Tom DeLay� and�you guessed it�Ned Lamont. No, Lamont isn’t tainted by any known scandal�but he had “the net roots exulting before him and Al Sharpton smiling just behind� when he won his race Tuesday night. As a result, Brooks name-calls Lamont and his supporters in the most egregious ways. What does he tell us about these people? Brooks sheds his deep desire for civility as he name-calls and slimes:
In paragraph 3, we learn that Lamont supporters engage in “the Sunni-Shiite style of politics.â€? ”
Somerby lists more of Brooks’ insults.
But, yes, that sounds exactly like I expect the sanctimonious David Brooks to sound like. Should I spend the dollar on the hard copy and actually read his full column in the NY Times?
August 10th, 2006 at 10:36:33 am
Mouse, that’s up to you. Brooks can be a prat some times, but he is a very smart prat and his opinions generally have a lot of thought behind them.
In this case I think he has bee a little mischaracterized. I don’t think his purpose is to denigrate Lamont as much Howler suggests. Consider he lambasts his own party and the dems for what he descries as Sunni-Shiite politics. And you know what, as much as I hate to admit it, he is right. We are stuck in a very volatile vitriolic violent age. Things are treated black and white with us against us I bite my thumb in your general direction sort of way. There is constant fear mongering and paranoia. What does it say when half the country, myself included, can’t trust a word our leader tells us? The options seem to be more of the same or for someone to strike out on a new path. I may not agree with the Proper Nouns, as I said. But I agree with the need for a new path. If we are going to fight and win against terrorism we need a new path–a path that does not now exist because it is yet to be discovered. And we need smart wise measured intelligent humble people to help us all find it.
As for spending a dollar, as a consultation prize, the crossword today seems pretty good, they alone tend to be worth the price of admission to the paper.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:42:49 am
You misspelled “should.”
August 10th, 2006 at 10:57:40 am
Thanks, ’tis fixed now. That should teach me to trust that my spell check is on…
August 10th, 2006 at 11:08:14 am
dcl,
Seriously, how can we compare our current political milieu with past milieus? I think there is some truth to the idea that political tensions have increased. And there are always groups of people — political junkies, some here and many elsewhere– who follow these events more closely and are more closely moved by them. I think in the history of American politics, there were many races in the past that were just as personal and tough and insulting as any modern races.
But was the Lieberman-Lamont race similar to Sunni-Shia levels of conflict? I mean seriously, how can Brooks even make what appears to me to be a totally assinine statement like that? Yes, some people were very emotionally charged by the race. But it just isn’t so that it was that kind of level of acrimony. (Yes, for some, but clearly not for all. But isn’t that the case in most political races?)
But I agree– albeit without having read Brooks’s column– I agree with Somerby: Brooks calls for more civility all the while dishing out venomous insults. That says something about Brooks’s character in my opinion.
And I don’t like NY Times crosswords. I completed a Monday crossword once and maybe a Wednesday’s one once. I mean why humiliate myself further, knowing I’ll never complete a Sunday’s? ;-)
August 10th, 2006 at 11:50:57 am
I don’t think he meant that Lieberman-Lamont race is Sunni-Shia but that politics writ large in the US is like that.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:49:55 pm
Well, even so, that seems a stretch.
I agree that there’s bitterness and divisiveness. But I don’t know if it is all that different from America’s political past.
But at the risk of exacerbating, in my own little way, and covering in Reader’s Digest form some recent history, I will say that one party is clearly more at fault than another. And it’s summed up by the phrase “politics of personal destruction.”
Republicans have been on a slash and burn crusade since Clinton to have their way with the American political system. Even conservatives who generally support Republicans would know this to be true if they’re honest with themselves.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:08:57 pm
Nun -
Incredible. How do you say the bitterness and divisiveness isn’t as bad when two steps later, you say its all the republicans’ fault? Along with the extremely dishonest, “Even conservatives who generally support Republicans would know this to be true if they’re honest with themselves.”
I know its true that the administration is screwing up in numerous ways and take the wrong direction on others. I can list if you like.
But they are the major ones at fault for the ‘politics of personal destruction’? Sorry. I see BOTH parties are equally responsible for that. Because pretty much any example you can bring up of a right-wing tar & feather, I can do the same for a left-wing one.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:45:46 pm
I think that the Republicans have a done a lot to damage the quality of debate in this country, I don’t think anyone with a grain of honest and intellectual credibility could argue with that. However, at the very least Democrats have done nothing to stop this decline. If they have done nothing, thereby enabling or if they have stooped to the level of Republicans therefore enabling, they have enabled the decline and have responsibility for it as well. But the fact is, right now, arguing how we got mired in this hole is not as important as finding the way out. And debate was better in the past. It was never great or some mythical idyllic golden age, but it was better. Before the other side was seen as people too. I’m not so sure that is the case right now. But it doesn’t matter.
Think of it this way. There are two cars driving down the road. Both get flat tires at the same time and pull over to the side of the road. One pair of people gets out and immediately starts arguing and bickering about how the heck they got the flat tire and woe to me this is horrific. And on and on. The other pair. Get out, identify the flat tire. Go to the trunk, pull out the jack and spare, work together to get the spare on hop back in the car start driving, and then start a sane discussion of how to avoid a flat in the future and where best to find a gas station to make permanent repairs. Which group dealt with the problem more effectively? Right now is not the time to argue about fault. Now is the time to fix the problem. Stopping the problem for recurring is a later step.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:48:13 pm
Lojo - the ‘recent’ “politics of personal destruction” goes back to Bork … prior to that, most of the time, it seemed to be sorta gentlemanly … the Bork hearings changed that, radically …
Sadly, the Republican side found the need to reciprocate in kind, and it has gone downhill pretty much sonsistently since then …
August 10th, 2006 at 2:25:02 pm
Alasdair-
Heh. Guess you forgot about Richard Nixon’s enemies list or that obscure Republican from Wisconsin named Joseph McCarthy.
You’d better bone up on your revisionist history.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:31:09 pm
No matter how much righties in the 90’s thought Clinton was a scumbag personally and near-pathological in his lying, they were never inflicted with anything approaching the BDS that has infested leftist fever swamps since the 2000 election.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:08:26 pm
Mad Max - when you finish giggling like Mozart in the film Amadeus, consider looking up the meaning of the word “recent”, please …
You can find party politicians going off on each other throughout the history of party politics … Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, Tories, Liberals, all the way back to the Roman Senate and beyond … factional isn’t anything new …
August 10th, 2006 at 3:16:36 pm
“Recent”
Karl Rove - worked for Nixon - works for Bush.
These assholes are all part of the Nixon lineage. Guys like Rummy and Cheney and the Bush family all have ties to the Nixon Administration.
I also like your take on “recent” and plopping down arbitrarily on Bork. How about I say “recent” and focus on Ken Starr. That’s more “recent,” right?
August 11th, 2006 at 12:24:13 am
(sigh) Let me guess - you didn’t see any of the Bork hearings, did you ? I keep forgetting how recently you no longer needed diapers …