The Times has an extensive reader's comment feature that is appended to many articles, that often extends the topic in ways unanticipated by the writer, not unlike what can happen here on good days. I happen to respect Brooks, often disagreeing with him, yet respecting his openness. For those who missed it, in a recent article he excoriated the House Republicans for refusing to accept a debt ceiling deal that would have dramatically cut expenses balanced by a small increase in revenue, concluding that if they fail to accept this deal (which they did) the public will assume that they are not fit to govern, "and they will be right."
The majority of the readers of the Times, based on the comments, took his article not on face value, but as an example of the clueless mentality of Republicans. Learning to generalize from the Times comment section is a bit of an art form, one that I know since I frequently comment there. You need to look at the number of recs in the context of when they were posted. In this case, since they don't have polls, the content of the comments must be generalized:
A-We don't buy romanticizing poverty, and condemn you for trying
B-Good article, but you are still a Rethug at heart
C-Great article, as you have clearly defined an important social dynamic
I'm must say, that my comment was in the C group, but the Times readers went for A, by a good three to one ratio. Maybe my response has something to do with my first language being Yiddish (well sort of) and that the word has a special meaning...then and now. Its connotation, beyond the English synonym "homey" has personal and lexicographic meaning. Exploring the word helps explains why so many Jews are wedded to the Democratic party, even though it is not as supportive to Israel as Republicans, and may not serve their own self interests if they are wealthy.
Yiddish is a language that was generally spoken by those who lived in fear of the outside world, and every phrase and nuance is part of the expression of such a reality. Haimish, its root from the German Heim, or Home, reflects not so much hominess, casualness, as it does acceptance, of feeling safe among friends. The very word is a shibboleth, a code among those of like backgrounds.
Then why would Brooks, a successful media figure feel this among the workers in Africa. Those readers for whom the Yiddish word has no emotional loading, can't feel the connection, and can only see a Republican who is insensitive to those who can't take exotic trips. Yes, maybe that's true; but I also understand what it means to have first heard this word from someone lived the ghetto existance, of fear, exclusion and its relief only in settings that they called Haimish.
For me the concept of a "Haimish Line," has multiple meanings both personal and intellectual. I understand those who feel nothing but anger at Brooks, and you can find expressions of this in the comments after the article. For me I take Brooks observations at face value, as it goes beyond the partisan wars and touches on commonalities. It provided a framework for one of the core issues of my own life, finding my own place on this Haimish Line. My comment is #2, only because I read the column right after it was posted on the net, not based no popularity or quality.
And this I have to share, that my sister only three years older, found her refuge above this line, by never being in her own virtual ghetto, a gap opened with her brother that grows to this day. We know it, we can talk about it, we regret it, but can't do anything about it.
Brooks represents a throwback to a Republican party that in 1988 could nominate someone who ridiculed supply side principles as "Voodoo economics", but now does not have a single candidate who would deviate from this article of faith. He is attempting to do something that has become all to rare, to follow his principles wherever they may lead him. Over the years I have disagreed with his values, and certainly his conclusions, but I've never doubted his personal integrity.
And that's saying quite a bit.
Comments are closed on this story.