First, Sam's dad is a very prominent academic. And I mean very with a capital VERY ... so let me tread lightly. For my money, if David Brooks has written something, I almost always think that it's worth 10 minutes of my time. As far as his politcs go, he is to the right of me, but I will always read his columns ... people don't have to be Keith Olbermann for me to like them.
But I can't believe that Brooks is your idol. My dad said this about him the other day: "All his columns are the same. They go right...then left...then right...then left...then RIGHT!!!" Picture my dad moving his hands back and forth and shouting on that last one. You should do another post on why he's your idol.
Hell, I read the Drudge Report.
Back to Brooks, and why...
1. He places a premium on ideas -- In his columns, I can see the internal discourse that is happening. While I may end up a partisan, I do not go there unreflectively. A lot of my thoughts and feelings are developed through dialogue, and that to me, is a good thing. I go to him to satisfy that philosopher in me, and I am happy about that.
For instance, you can look at this column "The Class War Before Palin," and you can see how while he values the intellectual inquiry more than the output.
On a non-partisan issue, I thought his post on China, "Harmony and the Dream," was one of the most insightful pieces on China that I have ever read.
2. He does take stands -- I mean ... read "Hoping It's Biden." or "Why Experience Matters". for instance, he writes:
I would have more sympathy for this view [of the everyman in public office] if I hadn’t just lived through the last eight years. For if the Bush administration was anything, it was the anti-establishment attitude put into executive practice.
3. You don't know where he's going ... and he's insightful without being preachy - Contrary to Sam's dad's views, I don't think he is so predictable. He can do 1) and 2) and do it in an accesible way for everyone. He makes me laugh and think at the same time. See "Suprise Me Most":
The candidates probably won’t take this kind of advice. But remember: Weirdness wins. Surprise me most.
I have no problem with people being centrists. These are hard issues that people are calling, and there is an internal dialogue that needs to be asked for a thorough examination. For me, he is the intellectual conscience of democratic liberty. If you want to follow what I think you can check me out on del.icio.us.
Or to say another way, I think of David Brooks on my shoulder whispering, "Yeah you all can vote, but you have to really think to earn it ... let me help."
That's worth 10 minutes for me. I mean, who's better?
11 comments:
Okay, so I don't hate Brooks enough not to read him. He does make me think. And I'll retreat a little from my first comment. You're not wrong for liking him. I'll chalk it up to different tastes.
Here's why I don't think he's great, and I'll admit that it's just my opinion:
--I find his analyses of the human psyche to be a sort of pseudo-science. It's not convincing to me, it doesn't seem to have any utility, and he over-generalizes.
--He may not always be predictable, but I so often see his ideology shining through. He claims to weigh both sides, he may even want to, but I don't think he really does. Here's an example of where he totally fails to understand the left:
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/04/27/opinion/27brooks.html
He seems to celebrate a return to Harry Truman in that column. For progressives like me, the era of Harry Truman evokes images of segregation. That's his answer to multiculturalism?
Who would I rather read? I'd rather read people whose analysis I believe is more honest and forthright that Brooks. I'd rather read Frank Rich, or James Fallows on the Atlantic blog. I often agree with those guys, I admit it. But they're really smart and insightful, and they don't pretend to be anything that they're not. Too often people who attempt to be objective waste time obscuring what they really think or paying respect to opinions they know are wrong.
I also read Brooks, and sometimes even George Will, even Michelle Malkin (but she's just crazy). It's good to get different perspectives.
Thanks for posting. This was way too much time at work for me.
Perhaps it is different styles, but your understanding of the Truman presidency is different than mine. The era of Truman was segregationist, but I don't think he was -- I believe quite the opposite, see To Secure These Rights.
And I think that you are missing the point of the Brooks column that you posted. The thesis isn't about multiculturalism is dead and we are going to start going back to black and white bathrooms, it's that the multiculturalism isn't what is churning political capital anymore. It's a utilitarian political observation, To be frank, I think he's right and our guy a) gets it, and b) is benefiting from it.
This is probably the most illustrative, and predictive of his point:
"Second, the Democrats have come to understand that they need to pay less attention to minorities and more to the white working class if they ever want to become the majority party again. Third, the intellectual energy on the left is now with the economists. People who write about inequality are more vibrant than people who write about discrimination."
Where has Obama spent his time? With white working class voters. Why is he winning ... economy.
This was over 2.5 years ago. And is he wrong? I think not.
I take his evoking of Truman to mean that single issue democrats (or those cast to be) are not the next stage of the party's development ... we could use a return to the broader, populist message that Truman took on the road (er, tracks) 60 years ago.
I think our guy is doing it, and for that I am glad. So in sum, I don't think he misunderstands the left at all.
I might be out of my league here, but I don't like Brooks because, for the most part I find him to be intellectually dishonest. Eric Boehlert summed it up nicely in his Media Matters column on October 14, where he notes that in a speech at Le Cirque, he thought Palin a "fatal cancer to the Republican Party." Reminds me of George Will defending Palin's ignorance of the Bush doctrine on This Week --saying that he didn't know exactly what the doctrine was. What I would like from the Times is a conservative Krugman. An intellectually honest conservative giving me another, fair, view of possible policy effects and real data. I guess Brooks is better than Kristol, but that's not saying much.
Don't follow your Le Cirque line. I thought Brooks' point was that Palin is intellectually incurious, and that is the cancer of the Buckley-inspired ideological conservative movement that he reveres.
I don't think he's just dropping the football like Will.
I don't go to most columnists for data most of the time. I go to them for commentary, perspective, and argument. Data here is an instrument, but not the point IMHO.
I do like Krugman though for reasons you point out and I think he is a very different animal than the others.
I guess I don't feel I get any insight from Brooks. I get to read about the wonderful conservatives of yesteryear that I never got to experience first hand. My memory of Reagan was Iran-Contra, which I guess, didn't tarnish his reputation. I never really understood why Bush I was so bad, and I didn't understand why people called him a wimp. He was the head of the CIA and did a good (would Brooks say prudent) job of sending our troops into battle. Maybe because my first adult thoughts of Republicans vs. Democrats was in 1992-93 government class. Gingrich vs. Clinton. Higher taxes and a balanced budget passed with no Republican votes. (Where are these great conservatives now?)
My points are this--what insight is Brooks giving you? You mention the white working class theory. Okay, but many others (What's the matter with Kansas) were picking up on that theme too. And didn't Kerry get 90% of the African American vote? Seems it would be hard for Obama to do worse than that, even without focusing on it.
I'll hit the Times archive for the past couple months here and see if I can make a point with supporting data:
Why Experience Matters (Sept 15):
Discussion of press narrative about elites vs. populists and Sarah Palin's qualifications.
No statements by him about Palin's qualifications, maybe he has no opinions because he didn't get to ask her any questions. But you would think he would mention that.
He's on PBS after the VP debate (Oct 2):
DAVID BROOKS, Columnist, New York Times: I'm sort of amazed, to be honest. It was a very spirited, very energetic, almost relentlessly energetic, fast-paced debate.
And to be honest, I knew Joe Biden was capable of it. I wasn't sure of Sarah Palin. I thought she was every bit his equal.
I thought she was fluid, confident. She struck her theme, just the regular, old mom.
But she handled the foreign policy issues. She did fine with Iraq. She did fine with Iran. She certainly hit energy often enough.
I suspect Republicans are going to be quite pleased, not that she won the debate, but she held her own with Joe Biden.
I was not amazed in the slightest. I watched her read a teleprompter at the Republican Convention, and she preached to the choir the way that most orators can. Seemed to do the same thing in the debate.
The Palin Rebound (Oct 3):
Republicans were nervous about Palin, but she gave a great performance at the debate that excited Republicans about her.
Um, okay, and this what does this tell me. Seems like day after polls showed people thought she was less qualified.
Le Cirque (Oct 9):
Palin is intellectually incurious, and this will hurt the Republicans, because it is a bad thing.
Notes that she is absolutely not ready to be president because she lacks experience.
Nice discussion. Would make for a great Times column. Might piss off Republicans if you write it down. So he doesn't write the column. Instead, just recycles the Buckley quote to rip on east coast elites in ...
THe Class War Before Palin:
The Republican Party has driven away people who live in cities, in highly educated regions and on the coasts. This expulsion has had many causes. But the big one is this: Republican political tacticians decided to mobilize their coalition with a form of social class warfare.
"Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. Her convention and debate performances were impressive."
To the first part: Duh.
To the second:
Why does he say she is smart? Has he had an interview? Seen her SATs? She is smart but non-inquisitive? Why is she courageous? No facts presented.
The Post-Lehman World (Sept 18)
A thesis free article on financial regulation that throws around blame and includes gems like this:
"In the first place, the idea that our problems stem from light regulation and could be solved by more regulation doesn’t fit all the facts. The current financial crisis is centered around highly regulated investment banks, while lightly regulated hedge funds are not doing so badly."
So commercial banks are doing fine? The insurers are good too? So hedge funds aren't facing record redemptions in the month, only to get greater in October? 'Highly regulated' investment banks? Like the 30-1 Bear and Lehman?
Friedman gives me insight. Sometimes he is very wrong, but I feel like often I learn about the world. Krugman is a columnist nonpareil. Loads of insight, data, intellectual honesty and quantity.
Brooks I lump with MoDo, Rich, Herbert. They tell me what the "freak show" is thinking and saying. Good to understand the paradigm, I guess. But doesn't seem to help much.
Your points about the political approach of the Dems are well-taken. It does appear that Brooks was right on some of this. I think of that senator, Webb, from Virginia, right? So, like there often is, there was something to take away from that column.
I'll try to articulate my problem with that column a little bit more. There was no acknowledgement that multiculturalism ever had a useful place in American society, or that in some ways it continues to be useful today. Multiculturalism, first and foremost, is and was about changing the scope of education to include perspectives that were traditionally excluded. I don't think of it as a political approach, but if we are talking about an approach to include constituencies that were disenfranchised in the 50's and 60's (Brooks' reference), I'm okay with that.
So to me, what stuck out in the column was Brooks' disdain for multiculturalism, period. So his column comes off as a backhanded way of attacking multiculturalism while making some comments about the Dems new approach. Or not even backhanded--"tribalism"? I think that's misunderstanding multiculturalism. Feminists' hypocrisy? I'm not sure what he's referring to exactly. Civil rights groups being stale, I do know about that, just not sure that I associate it with multiculturalism.
I think there are a lot of ways to characterize the change that Brooks refers to. He takes the idea that an effective political message today is about sacrifice for the common good, and turns it into an attack on multiculturalism. Again, that's how it comes off to me.
Andy, who I am guessing if Fisher, if not then apologies to someone else.
I guess we look for different things in columns. I do think that I can acquire new knowledge from people like Krugman, Leavitt, etc.. That is important. No doubt.
I just think that you are missing some of the right brained aspects of reading columns. Voice, perspective, argument texture, interrelatedness to other areas of study and sometimes those have study.
For instance, in the Why Experience Matters, this passage interested me:
"How is prudence acquired? Through experience. The prudent leader possesses a repertoire of events, through personal involvement or the study of history, and can apply those models to current circumstances to judge what is important and what is not, who can be persuaded and who can’t, what has worked and what hasn’t."
This is very closely aligned with a more data-laden from Malcom Gladwell about the new notion of genius. Is more about persistence and cooperation than individual intellectual excellence -- 10,000 hours to mastery is a key rallying cry in this talk. (worth a few minutes in its own right)
http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2007/gladwell
For me that linkage, to something I deeply believe, helped shape and articulate my views about Palin.
She is smart. She is an excellent politician and I give that label with high regard. However, she doesn't exert that prudence/persistence/cooperative insight that is proving to be useful in any art, be it mathematics, tennis, or medicine.
The Brooks piece helped me bridge this idea to politics in a clearer fashion.
To Sam,
I get what you are saying about feeling a backhanded point to multiculturalism. It is a bit paternalistic.
However, as I have gotten older I am reading more from the perspective of "what can I learn from this person?" rather than "why doesn't this hang together as a theory?" or "what can I pick apart in his argument?
I write about this in an earlier post "The Attack on Ivy-ish Education"
http://michaelwma.blogspot.com/2007/11/attack-on-ivy-ish-education.html
In my facebook status I was saying I was feeling Yes We Can-y today ... and there is a quote from Obama's SC victory speech that highlights I think gets at how I saw Brooks was right.
" So understand this, South Carolina. The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It's not about rich vs. poor, young vs. old. And it is not about black vs. white.
This election is about the past vs. the future. It's about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today or whether we reach for a politics of common sense and innovation, a politics of shared sacrifice and shared prosperity."
I think the point is that multiculturalism is going to be a subordinate, but important, building block to unity. That is the core populist message from this campaign. That is how I got something from Brooks.
Sure, he can be wrong about stuff, but I try to look more at how he can be right ... I am doing that for everyone these days.
I think that's a good way to approach anything. Look for the good, the right. It's Obama's way.
And so, again, this may just be personal preference. But when I read a good point, used to make a backhanded swipe at something I think is really important, it's just too hard to appreciate. It feels intellectually dishonest. And more significantly, the important point that he was making loses its grounding.
One more thing I just thought of, regarding this statement of yours:
However, as I have gotten older I am reading more from the perspective of "what can I learn from this person?" rather than "why doesn't this hang together as a theory?" or "what can I pick apart in his argument?
I also read the blog post you suggested. So, I think there is something to what you're saying here. We are really trained to pick things apart, and it's not very useful in the real world. Yet, it's a way of sounding smart. I get it. My brother just pointed it out to me last month, actually.
But here's the thing. Would you say that I should look for the good in Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, etc.? To me, those guys are blowhards who are unwilling to consider any perspective other than a far-right agenda. I throw Kristol in there, too, though he's a tempered down version. I pay attention to them only to know what arguments they're making, so I can refute them.
On the other hand, I think that there is something to your argument when we're discussing concepts such as the WTO, charters, vouchers, a withdrawal timeline in Iraq, etc. It doesn't do any of us much service to just dismiss those issues as bullshit. There are a lot of intellectually honest people on both sides of those issues.
Brooks? Sometimes I think he's a sneaky version of Kristol. So when I try to deconstruct his column on multiculturalism, I don't think I'm falling into the Ivy trap. On the other hand, his column on experience was fairly interesting. I admit, I always read him thinking, "Okay, where is he trying to fit into a right wing perspective?" Sometimes I don't see it, and it may not be there. And in those cases I take something away.
Someone on this thread has more time than the others...
I read Brooks with a more open mind today. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/opinion/21brooks.html?ref=opinion
I had three reactions:
1) I still don't really like his style of trying to say what everyone else is thinking. How can he know? But then, he took some poll numbers and made some seemingly reasonable conclusions. I guess I can't fault him there. But then again, these archetypes we set up often end up to be less telling than we think they are.
2) His conclusion: even if Dems win, let's not make big changes, let's be fiscally conservative. Big surprise, right? That seems like my dad's assessment...he goes along, goes along, goes along, and then makes a conclusion in line with his ideology.
3) Even though it's an ideological argument, it's a good one. (Except that I really don't think the national debt is the most important issue for patio man.) Maybe it's politically pragmatic. But my less analytical side says, f--- patio man. People are losing their homes, schools are falling apart, the unemployment rate is rising, we're destroying the environment, people don't have health care, there is a gang problem in the cities spreading to the suburbs, etc. Patio man may not recognize it, but some radical changes are needed and they're going to catch up with him, whether he likes it or not. In our short-term oriented democracy, though, I guess it's hard to act on these issues.
So I guess that last thought says a lot about how I read Brooks. I really don't care as much about patio man as people who are seriously struggling and the stratification of our society. Politicians, though, have to care about patio man at least as much as everyone else, I guess.
Post a Comment