New York Times conservative columnist, master-in-chief of glib punditry, does it again in today's Op-Ed Piece: "Changing Bedfellows" ("Strange Bedfellows" would have been more accurate), but let's not quibble over semantics. He's very excited about introducing a new political construct to replace the "old" liberal vs. conservative labels. Trouble is, his new schema makes no sense. But he's very clever in a quasi-erudite way and exudes confidence in his pronouncements. That has gotten him very far, in the Times, at NPR and The NewsHour. At the end, when you stop and think about what he's written, you will scratch your head and say: "what planet is this guy living on?"
David Brooks argues: "Politics is becoming less about left versus right and more about open versus closed". True. We are living in a more closed political environment than any other in recent history. Open democracy has suffered a terrible blow the last five years. Nowhere in Brooks's schema of "populist nationalism" vs. "progressive globalism" does he address this very real problem. Instead, he falls back on glib nomenclature leading to such strange bedfellows as Kevin Phillips and Pat Buchanan as "populist-nationalists".
Populist nationalism should be retired. Throughout history, populists abound from extreme right to extreme left, and all positions in between, giving us both George Wallace and Hubert Humphrey. Nationalism has always been a force for both the greatest good and the greatest evil--- Nelson Mandela vs. Adolf Hitler. Another problem is Brooks's use of "elitists" and "values", ambiguous terms that invite political rhetoric. Attempting to marry them to contrasting ideologies muddies the waters even further.
Our political philosophy is structured in a democratic republic, based on the principles of freedom and liberty for all citizens. Mr. Brooks would be more successful if he began with that simple premise when constructing new political alignments.