TNR BLOGS

November 20, 2008 | 11:23 AM
November 20, 2008 | 10:57 AM
November 20, 2008 | 10:48 AM

November 20, 2008 | 12:03 PM
November 20, 2008 | 10:45 AM
November 19, 2008 | 11:20 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

November 20, 2008 | 11:06 AM
November 19, 2008 | 3:17 PM
November 19, 2008 | 2:17 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
19.02.2008
Brooks vs. Brooks

David Brooks on Barack Obama when Hillary Clinton was the frontrunner:

I’ve been poring over press clippings from Obama’s past, looking for inconsistencies and flip-flops. There are virtually none.... Obama does not ratchet up hostilities; he restrains them. He does not lash out at perceived enemies, but is aloof from them. In the course of this struggle to discover who he is, Obama clearly learned from the strain of pessimistic optimism that stretches back from Martin Luther King Jr. to Abraham Lincoln. -- "The Obama-Clinton Issue," December 18, 2007

Barack Obama has won the Iowa caucuses. You’d have to have a heart of stone not to feel moved by this.... This is a huge moment. It’s one of those times when a movement that seemed ethereal and idealistic became a reality and took on political substance.... Obama has achieved something remarkable.... Obama is changing the tone of American liberalism, and maybe American politics, too.-- "The Two Earthquakes," January 4, 2008

Both [Barack Obama and John McCain] offer a politics that is grand and inspiring.... The key word in any Obama speech is “you.” Other politicians talk about what they will do if elected. Obama talks about what you can do if you join together. Like a community organizer on a national scale, he is trying to move people beyond their cynicism, make them believe in themselves, mobilize their common energies. -- "McCain and Obama," January 8, 2008

And then Monday, something equally astonishing happened. A throng of Kennedys came to the Bender Arena at American University in Washington to endorse Obama. Caroline Kennedy evoked her father. Senator Edward Kennedy’s slightly hunched form carried with it the recent history of the Democratic Party.... The Kennedys and Obama hit the same contrasts again and again in their speeches: the high road versus the low road; inspiration versus calculation; future versus the past; and most of all, service versus selfishness.-- "The Kennedy Mystique," January 29, 2008

Brooks on Obama now that Obama is the frontrunner:

Barack Obama vowed to abide by the public finance campaign-spending rules in the general election if his opponent did. But now he’s waffling on his promise. Why does he need to check with his campaign staff members when deciding whether to keep his word? Obama says he is practicing a new kind of politics, but why has his PAC sloshed $698,000 to the campaigns of the superdelegates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics? Is giving Robert Byrd’s campaign $10,000 the kind of change we can believe in? If he values independent thinking, why is his the most predictable liberal vote in the Senate? A People for the American Way computer program would cast the same votes for cheaper. And should we be worried about Obama’s mountainous self-confidence? -- "When the Magic Fades," February 19, 2008

--Christopher Orr

Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:07 PM with 33 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

huntlib said:

Thanks for pointing this out. My only response is...

Fuck Republicans.

February 19, 2008 12:42 PM

boneill said:

That whole cloumn- referring to Obama as the Pope of Hope- read like Brooks punched Maureen Dowd in the stomach and had her vomit on his computer, then sent it to the editor.

February 19, 2008 12:43 PM

huntlib said:

Why do we even need Republican columnists?

For a lot less money, we could just get a computer program to just print McCain's talking points.

February 19, 2008 12:45 PM

ejbenjamin said:

Funny how you're only an independent thinker if you vote the way Brooks likes from time to time.

February 19, 2008 12:53 PM

roidubouloi said:

David Brooks is an utter moron, a drei kop.  It is not possible that he is really Jewish because no Jew could possibly be as stupid as he is -- not to mention transparently partisan at every word.  The only thing he is good for is his frequent advice to Democrats and the left as to what they should do.  His advice is an absolutely reliable guide as to what Democrats and the left should not do.

And look at what a pathetic mess the NY Times has become.  Brooks.  Kristol.  And an op-ed today by a conservative advising conservatives to stick with John McCain because he's a real conservatie.  Airing right-wing policy proposals is one thing.  But giving your op-ed page to help the Republicans resolve their internal differences.  Liberal media my ass.

February 19, 2008 12:53 PM

timteeter said:

The change in tone is easy to understand.  Now that Obama is a) likely to be the nominee and b) leads McCain in most polls, Brooks must come to the rescue of the "great man" (Brooks's words) McCain.

Look for more of the same in the future.  An anti-Obama backlash is coming.  The only thing exceptional in Brooks's pivot is the unseemly speed of his 180 turn.  He's probably a little dizzy just now.

Of course, the real test will come when the anti-anti-Obama backlash sets in sometime about, oh, April or May.

February 19, 2008 12:55 PM

jacobt1 said:

"Thanks for pointing this out. My only response is...Fuck Republicans"

Obama’s uniter not a divider. Mission accomplished

February 19, 2008 1:00 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Calm down, folks. This is the mildest of mild criticisms, and we all know Brooks loves McCain. If Obama's candidacy can't handle this, he's not fit to be POTUS.

We're entering an economic sh*tstorm and we should give EVERY candidate's economic plan as much scrutiny as we possibly can.

February 19, 2008 1:03 PM

jacobt1 said:

Huntlib,

Why do we even need TNR columnists?

For a lot less money, we could just get a computer program to just print Obama's talking points.

February 19, 2008 1:04 PM

rozenson said:

A friend of mine at Amherst College heard him speak there. Apparently, he was criticizing Obama for being too "partisan" on the immigration bill. Huh? I Can anyone tell me what that possibly means?

February 19, 2008 1:08 PM

epicciuto said:

And his lack of acknowledgment of the turn is pretty striking.

And roidubouloi, alas, I can provide you with several prominent counterexamples to the myth of Jewish intellectual superiority. Come to one of my family's weddings. They are on parade.

February 19, 2008 1:15 PM

virginiacentrist said:

The source of his change of mind is obvious:

McCain is now the GOP nominee.

Brooks is conservative, but he isn't a Republican hack. He's a "play nice/suck up the media" Republican who values folks like McCain. He's probably on board with  McCain now.

February 19, 2008 1:17 PM

jacobt1 said:

roidubouloi,

"David Brooks is an utter moron, a drei kop.  It is not possible that he is really Jewish because no Jew could possibly be as stupid as he is -- not to mention transparently partisan at every word."

There are so many stupid partisan Jews and not Jews on the Left and on the Right.

Just read TNR to get a sense what does it mean to be transparently partisan at every word.

I  love to watch Obama supporters reaction to a mildly critical article.

Intolerance to any criticism is just appalling.

February 19, 2008 1:19 PM

virginiacentrist said:

jacobt -

I too wish there were more white/high school educated/working class/elderly/low information voter written blogs that favored Hillary Clinton.

Unfortunately, that demographic doesn't use the internet as often as the professional class/creative class affluent liberals.

February 19, 2008 1:20 PM

emigdio said:

boneill,

You nailed it. And you made me laugh, too.

Hysterical!

If the kind of stuff we're seein' now is the best the Republican Attack Machine can do all I can say is it's some pretty thin gruel.

February 19, 2008 1:21 PM

Androscoggin said:

Who do other people think would be good conservative columnists for the Times? I'm on board with all the criticisms of the Kristol choice in particular. Brooks isn't bad, for the most part, though this flip on Obama is very strange (he could easily have raised the same issue about Obama's voting record earlier, and didn't).

I don't really like any of the Times' columnists. They're all parodies of themselves. Dowd is flippant; Krugman is an angry hack (though I hear he's a good economist); Herbert is predictable; Kristol is Kristol; Freidman (like Kristol) has a record of making really bad predictions. Maybe I'm being a bit unfair, since churning out regular, interesting columns must be extremely challenging. But it's not a great lineup. You'd think the Times could do better. I don't really read anyone on the "real" left (i.e., to the left of TNR), so take this with a grain of salt, but wouldn't someone like Eric Alterman or Juan Williams be better than their current lefties? I know Beinart or Hitchens would be vastly more interesting than Friedman, and that George Will is dramatically better than Kristol. (Obviously I don't know if any of these people would take the job -- this is more of a rambling thought exercise.)

February 19, 2008 1:27 PM

rozenson said:

"For a lot less money, we could just get a computer program to just print Obama's talking points."

OK, cut the crap. Even if a majority of the writers favor Obama, the do NOT repeat his talking points (Marty excepted). The only guy who's come close to repeating talking points is Wieseltier -- and he's no Obama fan.

February 19, 2008 1:30 PM

fougasseu said:

The capo  anoints the maverick yesterday, which mean the bagman, Mercer Reynolds, III, will now collect the checks (money problems are officially over), which means Scowcroft will handle foreign policy from behind the curtain, which means Rob Portman will come on board to make sure the Crony Capitalism continues unabated, which means we have officially kicked off the campaign for Bush's third term, which means the Bush apparatchiks throughout the government are at McCain's service. Expect Orange Alerts and other colorful displays of fear-mongering. All of that work positioning himself as a maverick,  and the result?  John McCain goes to work for the Bush family . The Clinton machine vs. the Bush machine? Again? Let's try something new.

February 19, 2008 1:31 PM

boneill said:

I don't mind the Repub columnists- and, for a few months, Brooks was suprisingly readable- but the level of idiocy is just unbearable.  And it isn't just the righties, either- Krugman is awful, Mo Dowd is terrible, Hebert is nice but boring.   That is the most valuable editiorial space in the world and it is populated witha  pack of drooling idiots.

February 19, 2008 1:33 PM

boneill said:

I don't mind criticism of Obama, if it is valid, but a) Brooks' column didn't have any valid points, and, much more offensive to me, it was fucking unreadable gibberish.  The only thing worse than Brooks putting on his intellectual cap is him trying to be funny and clever.  

And genocide, I suppose.  That's worse too.

February 19, 2008 1:36 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Andros - "Who do other people think would be good conservative columnists for the Times?"

In order of overall quality

1. Anne Applebaum

2. Christopher Caldwell

3. Christopher Hitchens

4. Charles Krauthammer

Next tier:

5. Niall Ferguson

6. Clive Crook

7. Martin Wolf

Niche types

8. Victor Hanson

9. Max Boot

10. Matt Labash (Weekly Standard, reports on odd birds like ROger Stone, Trump, Murdoch et al)

11. Reuel Marc Gerecht

February 19, 2008 1:40 PM

roidubouloi said:

epicciuto:  Take it as an expression of my mortal embarrassment at even so tenuous a connection to David Brooks.

jacobt1:  The thing that is unique about Brooks is that both his ignorance and his dishonesty are always so clearly on display.  For example, when he ventures to talk about economics, his pieces are almost parody.  Does he think he knows something about this subject?  Is there no one at the Times to tell him that he doesn't?  Once I wrote to him to suggest that he have Krugman proof his stuff so that he doesn't continue to embarrass himself.  His dishonesty is also so obvious as to be almost a self-parody.  Plainly, when he was praising Obama, it was not an expression of any opinion he actually holds, that you could agree with or not.  It was a transparent means of bashing Hillary.  Brooks is often trying some sort of misdirection in his writing, but he is such a thorough dunce that it is always obvious.  Does he think that no one notices what he is doing?  The only reason that the Brooks isn't recognized as a dope by all literate people, of the left or the right, is that his stuff appears in the NY Times.  And therein lies the problem,  

February 19, 2008 1:53 PM

jacobt1 said:

rozenson,

Are you that blind to insist that Brooks repeat McCain's talking points. while TNR writers don’t repeat Obama’s talking point?

Obamamania is the opium of the masses .

February 19, 2008 1:53 PM

teplukhin2you said:

boneill - amazing, isn't it? Actually, the failure of TimesSelect gives you about as clear an indication of the *true* market worth of the OpEd pseudo-luminaries. I doubt whether anyone would pay to read Friedman, Brooks, Dowd, Krugman's OpEds.

OTOH the Times' specialty sections (Science, Health, Food, Nutrition etc) are outstanding, and definitely worth pay-per-view or a separate subscription.  If these were to morph into a set of vertical information portals with super-targeted advertising, they'd be in excellent financial shape. Ditto for Krugman-- as part of an ECONOMICS portal, maybe with the FT guys, Brad DeLong, ChicagoBoyz etc

February 19, 2008 2:01 PM

mpatrickhendri said:

George Will's columns are fantastic. The man is a brilliant writer and can carry a point with style. He's ideas are not generally my cup of tea, but you count on them being well written and thought provoking.

Kristol, on the other hand, is an angry, little drunk and partisan hack.*I should know, I'm one, too.* His "insights" in print and on Fox News are simple Republican boiler-plate. Worse still, he couldn't write for the Rock Hill High Black and Gold. He's awful and getting worse.

February 19, 2008 2:06 PM

t-lazy said:

Beyond lame. Reading Brooks always makes me feel like one of those unfortunate passengers forced to listen to Ted Striker's life story. "His Hopeness"... "The Changemaker"..."High Deacon of Unity"... those are some stingers, yow!

February 19, 2008 2:08 PM

jacobt1 said:

roidubouloi ,

"The thing that is unique about Brooks is that both his ignorance and his dishonesty are always so clearly on display"

There  is nothing unique about Brooks.

Dishonesty  of  the liberal media including TNR are  so clearly on display in their biased and dishonest coverage of this  Presidential campaign.

February 19, 2008 2:16 PM

epicciuto said:

It really is true that the NYT just wastes that space. Frank Rich is also often just a left-wing spewer, although (of course) I appreciate the recent Obama-swooning. But WaPo has Anne Applebaum and George Will, whom I think are two of the best in the business. They have a couple of second-tier, but still better than the Times such E.J. Dionne and Eugene Robinson. Novak and Broder suck, it's true. But on any given day, the WaPo has much more original, well-expressed thought than NYT.

February 19, 2008 2:19 PM

Daniel W. Drezner said:

It's just so... three hours ago to talk about how an Obama cult member gets through the day or how Barack Obama can help sustain marriages that cross party lines or how Obama is feeling the love in Japan and Europe. Right now it's all about the backlash

February 19, 2008 2:35 PM

boneill said:

Epic, you are absolutely right.  The WaPo is always interesting to read, even when you disagree with them.  Especially, actually.  The Times just kind of reached into the sewer and got the epitome of the fatuous "left/right" school of thought.  Hey, Kristol is a conservative!  Let's hire him.  FAIR AND BALANCED.

February 19, 2008 2:38 PM

novaseeker said:

Christopher Hitchens is now a conservative columnist?  What is it, then, anyone who doesn't subscribe to the DNC orthodoxies is now ipso facto a conservative?

February 19, 2008 2:43 PM

epicciuto said:

Bone: agreed. It's the equivalent of one of those mindless issue articles that just takes quotes from the opposed and the in-favor, and makes no attempt to actually evaluate an argument.

February 19, 2008 3:21 PM

CharlesFosterKane said:

I guess the thread is dead, but I'd like to add that Brooks has an annoying tendency to project his personal opinions onto the masses, as if its not his opinion he's sharing but that of "the common folk." It would be dishonest if it wasn't so transparent.

February 19, 2008 5:35 PM