TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 4:05 PM
July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

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

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
20.06.2008
Is David Brooks A Flighty Hollywood Starlet?

Here's David Brooks today:

Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes. [Emphasis added.]

Here's David Brooks this past winter:

Obama is an inner-directed man in a profession filled with insecure outer-directed ones. He was forged by the process of discovering his own identity from the scattered facts of his childhood, a process that is described in finely observed detail in “Dreams From My Father.” Once he completed that process, he has been astonishingly constant.

[snip]

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. This is a worldview that detests anger as a motivating force, that distrusts easy dichotomies between the parties of good and evil, believing instead that the crucial dichotomy runs between the good and bad within each individual.

I don't think Johansson was the only one feeling the fierce urgency of now.

--Jason Zengerle 

Posted: Friday, June 20, 2008 10:14 AM with 24 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!

Typical said:

Between Krugman and Brooks the NYT Opinion pages are very strange this cycle.

June 20, 2008 10:25 AM

aeromonas said:

I'm feeling the fierce urgency of now too.  I hope I can find a toilet in time.

June 20, 2008 10:34 AM

aeromonas said:

Hey, and why don't you get that artist who did that Hillary/Barack mashup a few months back do one of David Brooks and Scarlet Johannson?  That I'd like to see...okay, maybe just a picture of Johannson.  That'd be fine too.  Like, maybe a still from "Match Point" with her in a wet shirt before/after she shagged Jude Law in the rain.  I'd like that.

June 20, 2008 10:43 AM

basman said:

That's a lot of words from Brooks. But Obama is cool and aloof in MCluhan's sense of cool. He radiates cerebral rather than emotional energy. That's not good or bad. It's just the way he is. JFK had that quality too.

June 20, 2008 11:08 AM

aeromonas said:

Oh, wait, not Jude Law, Ryan Rhys-Johnson or whatever the hell that lucky SOB's name is.  I mean, does it really matter?  Like...you know...SCARLETT JOHANSSON.

June 20, 2008 11:11 AM

boneill said:

Brooks is right though.  Look at how Obama kept hinting at the Lewinsky affiar and kept calling out Bill for his shady deals and at one point called Hillary a "nut-busting bitch."  The guy would do ANYTHING to get elected.

OK, maybe those things didn't happen in the real physical world in which we live, but Brooks is right to say that Obama would do anything for votes.  If he didn't make stuff up, how could he employ his sub-Dowdian "Fast Eddie" trope?  And our culture would have been less enriched.

By the way, I fully second aeromonas' proposition.   Or that picture where she's wearing this short cheerleader skirt and knee-high socks.  Great googly moogly.

June 20, 2008 11:13 AM

basman said:

p.s. I just read the whole Brooks piece and not just these snippets. Save for the biographical psychologizing, I agree with Brooks on Obama's calculated ruthlessness and unquenchable ambition, the under the bus throwing hand in the velvet glove--and as Brooks says, not wholly bad things, either though cause for some ambivalence.

June 20, 2008 11:17 AM

drdannyu said:

Well, opinions about Obama notwithstanding, how does Brooks explain his naked Vanity Fair cover with Tom Ford and Kiera Knightley?

June 20, 2008 11:21 AM

lymon1 said:

Does anyone outside of Chicagoland even know who "Fast Eddie" is?  For what it's worth, even I don't think Obama is as "Chicago bad" as Fast Eddie, he definitely helped elect some of the most corrupt and pathetic pols you could imagine, but he was never one of them.  

June 20, 2008 11:29 AM

ironyroad said:

Or a picture of Keira Knightly in "Atonement" climbing out of the ornamental pool in her slip.  I mean, I know it's nothing to do with Garth Brooks and Obama or whatever you guys are discussing, but . . .  anyway, just a suggestion.

June 20, 2008 11:35 AM

basman said:

Fast Eddie wasn't so bad, neither in the book nor in the movie ,which was better than the book. The George C. Scott character, I can't remember his name, he was bad. Eddie's motto: "play it fast and loose": not exactly apt for Obama.

June 20, 2008 11:41 AM

perkowitz said:

I like the way some Obama critics segue effortlessly from the "naive obambi" thing to the "ruthless chicago pol" thing without even pausing for breath. some people are too busy talking to ever listen to what they say.

June 20, 2008 11:41 AM

Mozier said:

Brooks, the conservative that liberals think is not conservative, is simply coming home to roost for the general. One might say that his early embrace of Obama was purely  post-partisan posturing, evidenced by

his ruthless (and, I think, ill-founded) criticism of late.  Brooks is sort of like McCain, in many ways:  It's hard to tell if he was formerly a man of principle or if he's been an opportunist all along.

June 20, 2008 11:55 AM

henson1d said:

"great googly moogly" Isn't that what Grady used to say on Sanford and Son?

June 20, 2008 12:30 PM

timteeter said:

Barack Obama chooses not to accept public financing because a) he can raise three times as much money IN SMALL DONATIONS,  and b) because he can raise a hell of a lot more than his opponent, whose popular support is such that he can't get decent financing any other way.  He is accused of hypocrisy.  David Brooks in today's Times is upset.

John McCain decides that offshore drilling is in our national interest,  contrary to his earlier position, in a naked pander (cf. the "gax tax holiday").  This is something that will do probably nothing for our national energy crisis either now or in the foreseeable future.  McCain is accused of dishonesty.  Paul Krugman in today's Times is upset.

I really don't see a difficult choice here.

June 20, 2008 12:53 PM

basman said:

...I really don't see a difficult choice here..

Yeah, which hypocrite you guys gonna' vote for?

June 20, 2008 1:12 PM

arsonplus said:

Somehow I can't help but think that if Obama had forgone a 400 million dollar advantage the same folks calling him a hypocrite now would be screaming something to the effect of: "See, we told you morons he was Obambi!"

tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../moveon_to_close_its_527.php

June 20, 2008 1:35 PM

tec619 said:

Is this a case of new facts, new conclusion? Or is David Brooks a a gaping asshole? I choose the latter. (And at least I'm consistent. i never llike him.)

Another thing, in the almost 21 years the liberal Mark Shields has appeared on the PBS's NewsHour broadcast, none of his pro-defense/nmuscular foreign policy, conservative foils, could boast of military service on their résumés.  

But the lefty Shields is a Teufel Hunden (nick name for a U.S. Marine ; translation: devil dog) as is the morderator, Jim Lehrer.  Nope, not one conservative. Not WSJ pussy Paul Gigot, or any of his mangina subs. Not Rich Lowry ( loves Reagan but let some else fight the Evil Empire), William Kristol (Vietnam is for suckers, McClean, VA is for know-nothing coward pundits) or Ramesh Ponnuru (see Lowry).  William Safire was an army jornalist, but all conservative know that a job for cowards. (If it applied to Al Gore, then it should applie to Bill Safire.)  

Strange.

June 20, 2008 4:04 PM

austinexpat said:

lymon, all fans of the criminally under-praised Aussie hard rockers Rose Tattoo are also well-acquainted with Fast Eddie.

June 20, 2008 5:04 PM

dbhuff said:

And did anyone really expect a goody two shoes to come out of CHICAGO!?! That whole meme before about BHO not being tough enough never flew with me. On the other hand, I think the 'throwing under the bus metaphor isn't exactly fair, Wright threw himself under the bus, Obama merely didn't pull him back out of traffic. And while the public campaign financing pledge was set before the money machine was working, in fact this is still troublesome, but not enough to change my vote. And points out to the skeptics that Obama can change his position when the 'facts on the ground' change...  As for the Johannson comment, that's pure BS, when you see 75000 people turn out for a primary contender rally, they weren't all starlets...

June 20, 2008 5:12 PM

Hungarian Great Bela Tarr said:

I'm shocked, infuriated, and, yes, disappointed, that a politician would have "unquenchable ambition." I refuse to vote for any candidate whose ambition isn't fully quenchable.

The misogynist in me likes the way that Brooks is implying that Scarlett Johansson a bimbo. On the other hand, I'm not sure that Johansson really has a "set."

June 20, 2008 9:04 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

How about a montage thing of the gaping asshole, Scarlett and Fast Eddie?

(Hungarian, you just slayed).

June 21, 2008 11:33 AM

three putt said:

basman:  George C. Scott was Burt.

June 22, 2008 11:27 PM

The Plank said:

I was already in favor of a Biden pick, so I'm an easy mark, but I found David Brooks's case

August 22, 2008 10:35 AM