David Brooks
From Dickipedia - A Wiki of Dicks
He has written two pseudo-intellectual books of junk social science, Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There, and On Paradise Drive: How We Live Now (And Always Have) in the Future Tense. Though he is a conservative, the primary reason for his success is not his popularity among conservatives, but, rather, among liberals. He is, in fact, known as the liberals’ “favorite conservative.” This is because he speaks softly, is effeminate, and gently gratifies their self-loathing, masochistic wish to be insulted.
Contents |
Success in professional life
Brooks is very interested in anthropology, psychology and sociology, and likes to apply the language and tools of these fields to his analysis of politics and pop culture. He wishes to be taken very seriously by scholars in these fields, and would be, if only he hadn’t been born extremely lazy.
Because of this condition, Brooks is unable to do any of the actual analysis and research that would ordinarily give a person credibility in these fields. Many have criticized the insular nature of academia. They claim that those who, like Brooks, were born lazy, or, to use the more politically correct term, “differently incentivized,” are discriminated against.
Brooks has been able to surmount these obstacles with surprising success. At an early age, he resolved that he would overcome his disability through a combination of dishonesty and smiling. This potent combination worked to a stunning degree, and Brooks has become one of the leaders in public influence, as well as serving as a role model to those all over the world who happened to have been born lazy and dishonest and have nice smiles.
The Brooks method
The Brooks method is to take a banal, long-existing or only partially true observation, give it a cute name and take credit for it. In other words, he’s a perfect op-ed columnist.
His obsessions include the differences between “red states” and “blue states,” America as a consumerist society, regional and intergenerational differences in America, and how an analysis, or, in Brooks’ case, an “analysis,” of these always ultimately proves the essential truth of Republicanism as Brooks chooses to define it that week.
The Brooks philosophy
Brooks’ favorite point to make is that what he calls “red staters” are somehow more authentic, honest, virtuous and American than so-called “blue staters.” His “shtick,” as Michael Kinsley once called it, is to go from his home in “blue state” Maryland deep into “red state” America, much like the Victorian explorers to Africa who would venture into Africa and report back to the Royal Geographic Society with their tales of the frightening, but noble savages.
Many have noted the seeming illogic in Brooks’ success among liberals, when the conclusions he comes back with after his forays into the heart of redness are actually insulting to his liberal fan base. But this is, in fact, not illogical. Early on, Brooks identified and has subsequently exploited an essential attribute of eastern liberalism: self-hatred. Like Brooks, much of his liberal fan base is effete, highly educated, sexually insecure, and slightly afraid of “red state” America. They are thus perversely gratified by his conclusions.
Brooks on the war
In 1997, Brooks wrote an influential article called “A Return to National Greatness,” for The Weekly Standard, the in-house newsletter for neo-con dicks. “National Greatness” is what results when unacknowledged feelings of sexual inadequacy manifest themselves as a theory of foreign policy. The ostensible theory is that the United States, at the time, no longer had the sense of large, unifying national purpose that it had during the days of the western expansion, the Cold War, and the space program. The remedy was for the government to create “a spirit of confidence and vigor that can then spill across the life of the nation."
Those behind this movement, including Weekly Standard editor and founder William Kristol, himself a second-generation dick, were the primary intellectual force behind the Iraq War, which has proven the theory to be a smashing success.
Brooks as Republican hack
It is very important to Brooks that he be seen as different from those widely seen to be Republican party hacks who support the Bush administration in almost anything they do, like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.
And it is true that he is, in fact, very different than Limbaugh. He is, for example, not as fat, smiles more, talks in a soothing voice, and isn’t known to be addicted to Oxycontin. And his hackery is better written. For instance:
“There's something about our venture into Iraq that is inspiringly, painfully, embarrassingly and quintessentially American.
No other nation would have been hopeful enough to try to evangelize for democracy across the Middle East. No other nation would have been naive enough to do it this badly. No other nation would be adaptable enough to recover from its own innocence and muddle its way to success, as I suspect we are about to do.”
This was written in May of 2004.
In 2007, he became engaged in a feud with fellow New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. In his book The Conscience of a Liberal, Krugman recounts the story of how Ronald Reagan gave a 1980 campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in the 1960’s. In his speech, Reagan mentioned his support of states’ rights, which was a clear signal of his solidarity with white southern racists.
On November 9 2007, Brooks responded with a column defending Reagan against this “slur,” writing:
“You can look back on this history in many ways. It’s callous, at least, to use the phrase ‘states’ rights’ in any context in Philadelphia. Reagan could have done something wonderful if he’d mentioned civil rights at the fair. He didn’t. And it’s obviously true that race played a role in the G.O.P.’s ascent.”
This is an example of powerful Brooksonian dick logic: if only Reagan had said something not racist, instead of racist, he would not be thought of as racist. Likewise, if only Paris Hilton would wear underwear, people would stop the “slur” that Paris Hilton doesn’t wear underwear.
