Skip to main content

Today's missile - er, missive - from David Brooks has left me so near speechlessness that I'm having trouble writing this diary, but here goes:

Brooks' Sunday sermon posits the extremely revisionist idea that the conservative movement will be - nay, has already been - saved by none other than - George W. Bush!

 

Almost single-handedly, Bush reconnected with the positive and idealistic instincts of middle-class Americans. He did it by recasting conservatism more significantly than anyone had since Ronald Reagan. He rejected the prejudice that the private sector is good and the public sector is bad, and he tried to use government to encourage responsible citizenship and community service. He sought to mobilize government so the children of prisoners can build their lives, so parents can get data to measure their school's performance, so millions of AIDS victims in Africa can live another day, so people around the world can dream of freedom.

Funny - I thought he mostly scared American voters right out of their socks and used government to line the pockets of the previously-rich. I musta been living somewhere else...

 

"Government should help people improve their lives, not run their lives," Bush said. This is not the Government-Is-the-Problem philosophy of the mid-'90s, but the philosophy of a governing majority party in a country where people look to government to play a positive but not overbearing role in their lives.

I guess that's why he's tried so hard to make sure his base -"the haves, and the have-mores"- doesn't feel too much of that overbearing government; it has also worked well for the people of New Orleans.

 

In part because of Bush's shift, the G.O.P. has become the party of the middle class. Bush beat Kerry among whites earning between $30,000 and $75,000 a year by 22 percentage points.

Too bad they're vanishing like the buffalo, thanks to declining real income, vanishing employee benefits, a bursting housing-market bubble and eroding purchasing power. And I guess the black middle class - you know, the ones who gave Bush a 2% approval rating? - are just too stubborn to know a good thing when they see it.

 

This is not to say that Bush's approach to government is fully coherent. The tragedy of the Bush administration is that it never matched its unorthodox governing philosophy with an unorthodox political strategy or an unorthodox management style.

The first sentence of this paragraph may be the understatement of the century. The tragedy of the Bush Adminstration is that our country and our planet have been forced to live through it, and that, if we're lucky enough to survive the rest of it, we'll be repairing the damage done for decades to come.

In the face of such monumental denial, this is the only reply I could think of send the Times. I doubt they'll be publishing it.

Subj: Drug Use By Your Staff

To the Editor:

Wow! Whatever David Brooks is smoking, I want some! Can you get it for me? Anything that can make someone see "The Savior of the Right" at the helm of our present administration must be wonderful indeed; to most of the world it looks like a corrupt corporate kleptocracy led by a group of war criminals!

Memo to David, when his feet are back on the ground: take a clear-eyed look at your hero's actions, not his words.

Originally posted to sidnora on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 06:38 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Mind Meld (4.00)
    I opened up the Week in Review Section, read that column, and went rushing upstairs to my computer to diary on this.  My title would have been "David Brooks: I'll Smoke What's He's Smoking."

    The only possible explanation, other than drug use, for this column, is that Mr. Brooks has suffered a complete psychotic break.  I'm serious. Drug use is a much more felicitous explanation, so I hope that's what it is.

    "Mommy, did people know that Bush was stupid when they voted for him?"

    by litigatormom on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 06:52:29 AM PDT

    •  I think (none)
      I once wrote a diary called "What is John Tierney Smoking?"  I even had a cool poll, "What color is the sky in John Tierney's world?"
      The top two choices were:
      • You can't see the sky with your head stuck in your ass.
      • Whatever the RNC says the color is today.

      Secrecy is the illness, information is the cure.

      by Unstable Isotope on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 07:00:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Synchronicity (4.00)
        That's so funny, I diaried Tierney's column yesterday (what is it with me, masochism?), and ended up comparing his stance on teaching intelligent design with a hypothetical "green sky theory". Heh.

        -8.25,-8.36 As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it? - William Marcy Tweed

        by sidnora on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 07:04:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I once wrote... (none)
        a blog entry called "What the Fuck is Tierney Talking about" .

        And I seem to recall writing one a while back with the title "David Brookes Eats the Brown Acid" or something to that effect.

        These two chowderheads are a big reason why Times Select will never make any money... one Frank Rich piece per week don't cut it (I don't care how many MoDos and Krugmans they got)

        •  I don't see them as (none)
          Tweedledee and Tweedledum;  Brooks & Tierney start out in different places. Brooks sees himself as the thoughtful conservative intellectual, Tierney more of a libertarian gunslinger. What they have in common is how far from reality each of them can drift in the space of one short column.

          Brooks truly puzzles me; every couple of months or so he'll do a piece that almost makes sense, or at least starts out from a premise I can grant, but then he'll turn around and let loose something like today's.

          And Tierney seems just plain nuts to me.

          I ended my diary on Tierney yesterday, "I never thought I'd say this: I miss William Safire." And I mean it. I never agreed with him, he drove me nuts sometimes, but at least I could imagine him walking the same planet as the rest of us.

          To think I was glad when he retired! But I've even caught myself feeling nostalgic for Nixon a couple times in the last few years.

          -8.25,-8.36 As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it? - William Marcy Tweed

          by sidnora on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 08:26:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  You read the edited version. (4.00)
    Through diligent work on my part, I've actually managed to obtain Brooks' handwritten original draft of this column:

    Uh, OK let's see, Almost single-handedly, Bush uh, uh reconnected with the, let's see, need a positive thought here. . . wait, got it! positive and idealistic instincts of rich?  no, what are those other people called?  oh, yeah middle-class Americans. He did it by recasting conservatism or whatever more significantly than anyone gotta get Reagan in here somewhere had since Ronald Reagan. He rejected the prejudice that the private sector is good and the public sector is bad hmm, better come back to the that later, probably no one will buy it, and he tried to use government to encourage responsible citizenship and community service well, he did do community service after that drug arrest, anyway. He sought to mobilize government so the children of prisoners prisoners?  don't want to mention Abu Ghraib can build their lives, so parents can get, er, data to measure their school's performance, so better check those talking points. . . Africa?  they must be kidding.  well, here goes nothing millions of AIDS victims in Africa can live another day, so people around the world can dream of freedom well, they can dream, right?.

    George W. Bush -- It's mourning in America.

    by LarryInNYC on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 07:14:57 AM PDT

  •  Schitzoid (4.00)
    I realize that the nature of the columnist is to shift one's view on things a little each week. But how do we reconcile his performance here with his appearance on This Week with Boy George, where his new meme was: "Forget about Bush." Several times he returned to this mantra, arguing that Bush is not going to run again, and so he's not relevant.

    To which the natural response is: he's still president for three years! He IS relevant. He IS responsible for the deficit and the idiotic war and the degradation of our international reputation. Republicans might want us to forget about him, but that Brooks meme is not going anywhere.

    •  MarkC (none)
      Whenever a right wing nut like Brooks or Kristol goes off the reservation occasionally, they must follow it with a penance column praising Dear Leader to the ends of the Earth. Fortunately in Bush World this is not flip flopping when it's done by Republicans.

      There is nothing more stimulating than a case where everything goes against you. -- Sherlock Holmes

      by Carnacki on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 07:33:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He said this (none)
      on today's show? (I never watch the Sunday shows.) If so, he really may be schizo.

      -8.25,-8.36 As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it? - William Marcy Tweed

      by sidnora on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 07:37:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It was a little twilight zone (none)
        The whole segment was weird, in that "waiting for Fitzmas" sort of fidgetty way.

        It was impressive that of the four panelists Brooks was the only one who wasn't critical of Bush, but even he wasn't defending him so much as saying: "Look over there!"

        George Will actually was the most critical, and they spent some time on his new column where he basically says any Republican who votes to confirm Miers will lose their credentials with conservatives, and specifically will never get his support for nomination for president.

        (I never watch those shows either, just happened to this a.m.)

        •  OK (none)
          at least it makes some more sense in that context. I suppose that when you're surrounded by rats leaving a sinking ship, saying "It's irrelevant" is supportive by comparison.

          It has also crossed my mind that he sees the Times piece as a (premature) eulogy for Bush. It's all over, might as well say "goodnight" now, while people might still listen.

          -8.25,-8.36 As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it? - William Marcy Tweed

          by sidnora on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 08:32:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Savior of the Right=Irrelevant (none)
      When I read Brooks's column, I thought he was smoking crack.  Now, its clear that he's OFF his meds -- he forgot his anti-psychotics.  Bush is the savior of the right, but the utter corruption of his administration is irrelevant.  WTF?

      The one interesting, albeit disturbing, thing that Brooks said on This Week is he's heard that Bush is so "defiant" that even if Miers were to go to him and ask him to withdraw her name, he would refuse.  

      Meaning, Dubya is off his meds too -- or back on the sauce.

      "Mommy, did people know that Bush was stupid when they voted for him?"

      by litigatormom on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 10:48:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I heard that story about (none)
        Bush as well, elsewhere. In fact, I heard that she'd like to withdraw - and at this point, who could blame her?

        I didn't see the TV performance, but I think the only way Brooks' bizarre statements can be made to fit on the same page would be to interpret the Times column as a eulogy; go back and take a look, if you can stand it, and notice that all Bush's "accomplishments" are referred to in the past tense.
        Otherwise, yeah - he's gone batshit.

        -8.25,-8.36 As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it? - William Marcy Tweed

        by sidnora on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 03:23:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is beyond just smoking (none)
    Brooks must have ingested everything in the medicine cabinet and behind the bar to be that delusional. This must be the Greedy Oppressive Pricks new propaganda offensive. Convince the middle class that GWB is their savior
  •  Brooks is a fool (none)
    There are so many laugh lines in that editorial that I lost count.  I would not ascribe any "idealistic instincts" to white middle-class Bush voters beyond materialism.  And an "unorthodox governing philosophy?"  Bush's entire administration is composed of college roomates,in-laws, wealthy political contributors, and think-tank rejects.  That's not "unorthodox," that's a blueprint to destoy our country.

    This is nothing more than a paean to a retard better placed in the Middle Ages when courtiers competed to win the favor of some boy king.

  •  Don't Blame His Behavior On Drug Abuse (none)
    It gives drug abuse a bad name.
  •  The man has no audience, no message (none)
    Last week:  "Red America is fed up with Bush."

    This week: "Bush is great for the white middle class." "He's restored trust in th the public sctor."

    He's a GOP hack writing apologia that drunkenly lacks any week-to-week coherence, the Rethug spin machine is too battered to provide him with decent talking points, and now he's buried behind a firewall.

    Say goodnight, David.

    P.S.
    I do love the reference to Bush's presidency being a thing of the past. Bush "reconnected," he "sought," his administration "never matched." This is David's way of saying that Bush is finished. Thanks for acknowledging that fact.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site