David Brooks has struck a new low with "The Liberal Inquisition". When have any liberal thinkers/philosophers/politicians throughout history conducted an Inquisition? That method is the sole provenance of the right, of fascists, totalitarian regimes, and religious fanatics and fundamentalists.
Currently, the conservatives and religious right have taken a noble and proud tradition--liberalism--and attempted to transform it into something profane, something somehow "un-American". They have tried by every means at their disposal to destroy its true meaning. They have perfected the art of striking at the opposition's strength. And what is that strength? None other than Liberalism in its literal meaning: the freedom and liberty upon which this country was founded. And where are the political voices from the opposition, those democratic liberals who should be denouncing these people as traitors to our government and to our nation's core principles? Except for a few, those not running for office, the voices are strangely silent.
Unlike many DailyKos "youngsters", I came of age during the 60's. Liberalism was respected then. Why, there were even some strange dinosaurs back then called "liberal Republicans". Those were times of choas, trying times for our country, with the ever-present danger of nuclear war, Vietnam, the civil rights movement, campus unrest, and the assassination of three proud and courageous American liberals: JFK, RFK, and MLK,Jr.
And yet, those were some of the best years of my life. People were engaged in politics in an intense and outward way. Despite all the terrible news, there was hope in the air that better times were coming. People took to the streets with the knowledge that they would make a difference. And change did come, albeit after a great deal of national turmoil and loss of life.
Our current situation, some 40 years later, is very different and sad for people of my generation. For one thing, most all of the liberal leaders have disappeared from political life (one recent exeption is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. who plans legal action as a result of the 2004 election results in Ohio). But where are the others? For another, political discourse has been abused and debased.
So, when Joe Lieberman has to fight for his political life as a Democrat in my old state of CT, conservative pundits like David Brooks are doing a strange little dance to defend him. An unheard-of tactic, even accounting for today's political cynicism. To what end, one might ask? Is he really trying to come to the aid of Joe Lieberman, or is this an opportunity to villify American liberalism as a "secular religion" (does this guy love his oxymorons or what)? Methinks the latter, given the amount of vituperation in the article: "the highly educated" (a deficiency?),"highly affluent" (check out that top 1% again, David),"highly Caucasian" (blowing off 90% of black voters). His arguments may be totally maddening, illogical and deceptive. But he has been awarded wide readership in a highly respected forum: The New York Times. What irks most of us old-time Democrats is that he is basically a fraud, a right-wing propagandist who never met a Ken Mehlmann talking point he didn't like, someone who tortures the outer limits of logic to weave articles out of whole cloth. The plain truth is that, in today's "fair and balanced" media wars, NPR, the NewsHour, and The New York Times have been taken hostage by a fast-talking, glib conservative. So much for that other myth: the liberal media!
Some commentators on dKos suggest ignoring pundits like Mr. Brooks. Did it do Kerry any good to ignore the Swiftboating smear? Quite the contrary. I believe that the only way to combat the prevailing Rovian smear tactic machine is to go on the attack relentlessly, to debunk every phony story that comes out, to shoot holes through mendacious talking points, and---perhaps hardest of all for the younger computer generation to do---remove the fingers from the computer keys every now and then, wrap them around a placard, and take to the streets. That's when people really take notice. Those marches were the fulcrum of change in our country.
I noticed that one of your diarists suggested writing an e-mail to David Brooks about his Op-Ed piece in today's Sunday Times. I had already submitted the following Letter to the Editor, cc. to Mr. Brooks. I append it to my diary not to be redundant, but to underscore the statement that we are both making: it's always a good thing to confront the person directly with whom you disagree.
For those who can't download TimesSelect, David Brooks's Op-Ed column is at:
[http://www.pekingduck.org/]
To The Editor:
In "The Liberal Inquisition", David Brooks's defense of Sen. Lieberman is admirable, if misguided. When have "the most kind-hearted and well-intentioned of men" served as criteria for the U.S. Senate, "whether you agree with him or not"? Why does a Democratic primary challenge represent an "inquisition", a pointed reference to Spain's purging of its Jews? If Mr. Brooks wants to go that route, where was the outrage when George W. Bush leveled vitriolic and baseless attacks on Sen. John McCain during the 2000 Republican primary?
But Mr. Brooks posits a more disturbing point: "all of American liberalism has been reduced to one issue, the war". Wrong. This administration has forsaken democracy's basic liberal tenets in its lust for power and politics of fear. After the Iraqi war, we will still have to regain the lost respect of allies, address trillions of dollars of national debt, and fix an economy that has lost its competitive edge while favoring cronyism and extreme wealth over hard-working Americans. Most tellingly, it will require strong, uncompromising leadership to repair a callous disregard for human rights and to restore the rule of law and separation of powers mandated by the U.S. Constitution.