On the Friday evening broadcast of The PBS News Hour with Judy Woodruff interviewing, Mark Shields and David Brooks commented on the news of the week, the horrible and the hopeful. Follow below the Orange Zest of Wisdom and Reconciliation.
The discussion turned to the Pope's encyclical on the environment. Syndicated columnist David Brooks of the New York Times Editorial Page has been a consistent, if occasiopnally Episcopal, being an acolyte of the Late Public Intellectual Conservative Catholic William F. Buckley, occasionally Jewish, by his birthright and upbringing, advocate of Values in Government over the last decade. His latest Book, "The Road to Character" is an exploration of how he continues to develop values and grow spiritually as his own personal philosophy is tested in the real world. So far, so good. His prescriptions for America invariably involve restoring a sense of religious ethical responsibility toward each other, in contradiction to many other conservative pundits who merely beat up on the left for allegedly having none. Brooks has been consistent in advocating for a return to classical American Religious Values as a solution to our intractable problems. Again, an educated, enlightened Conservative, not a word salad knuckledragger.
So, imagine my surprise when the religious leader of the major Christian Faith, the Roman Catholic Pope, comes out with an appeal to Ethical Values toward each other in economic and environmental matters to solve some intractable problems. I fully expected David Brooks to say, "Finally! A principled Christian proposal for saving the environment and the problems of the poor at the same time!"
Not so much, it turns out.
Transcript of the Segment on the Friday, June 19 PBS NewsHour, Shields and Brooks Regular Feature:
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, something we did notice this week was the pope. He essentially came out, David, with an unprecedented statement, encyclical, they call it, on the environment, very powerful statement about the human role in causing climate change, and saying the rich nations in particular have a responsibility to do something.
Is this going to change the debate? Is it going to change minds, change policy, change politicians?
DAVID BROOKS: I doubt it. I personally thought the statement was beautiful, theologically beautiful, the seamless fabric of life and how we’re all connected to each other.
It’s a part of — a beautiful expression of Catholic theology and a beautiful expression for all of us of our interconnectedness. It also reminded me the Catholic Church is actually amazingly consistent on abortion, on the death penalty, on the environment. The valuing the life is — the church is so consistent on this emphasis, but our parties are sort of inconsistent on these different issues.
So, I thought it made me feel environmental, because he connected our role in the cosmos and our role in nature in, I thought, a very beautiful way. Of course, I would have some different emphasis than he did on some of the policy stuff. The church, to my mind, demeans capitalism too much, a force which has reasonably lifted 300 million or 400 million people out of poverty.
JUDY WOODRUFF: He was tough on capitalism.
DAVID BROOKS: And so I think that he under values that.
But, nonetheless, the theology of it was beautiful. The policy, to me, was — well, it was too left-wing.
So there you have it. A beautiful, reasoned, theological statement of our place in the cosmos, and it made David Brooks feel environmental, consistent with every other position the Church has taken, and David Brooks cannot buy it because it violates his TRUE religion: Capitalism.
When, oh when, will the New York Times find a Conservative pundit who can make sense, see logic, understand when to say "YES!" and stop sucking at the teat of Wall Street long enough to speak like the public intellectual he is hired to be? Does he understand his complete contradiction, that faith in Materialism and Free Trade Capitalism IS the cause of environmental destruction AND poverty in the world? So, David Brooks, once again, you win the Faux-Intellectual Hypocrisy Award for Leading Otherwise Decent People Down the Road to Hypocritical Hell this week. Congratulations, and I am available to debate any time you are ready to accept the challenge.