The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : David Brooks, Wrong Again

Text Size

David Brooks, Wrong Again

By Robert Stacy McCain on 11.10.08 @ 1:38PM

Brooks was less optimistic about the Republican Party, following their losses on Tuesday.
"World of pain," Brooks said. "A generation of pain. 1964, it was so much better than now. In '64, they had a coherent belief system. They lost, they didn't persuade the American people about it, but they understood where they wanted to take the country.
"Now it's just a circular firing squad, with everybody attacking each other, and no coherent belief system, no leaders. You've got half the party waiting for Sarah Palin to come and rescue them. The other half is waiting for Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor, to come rescue them. But no set of beliefs. Really a decayed conservative infrastructure. It's just a world of pain." . . .
Brooks was not convinced that Sarah Palin could be taken seriously as the GOP's next Ronald Reagan.
"Well, the 'hell, no' group is rallying around her," he said. "And this past week, I don't think, has been particularly flattering to her, the McCain people - and the whole thing has been a complete disaster. They've attacked her for her lack of human capital and for being a diva.
"I'm not sure it's all fair, but one would not say she has spent her life preparing for an intellectual revolution to lead the party out of the wilderness. Let's put it that way."
Brooks declared himself a part of the "yes, but" wing. "You know, this is where the American people are," he said. "And, fundamentally, the conservative movement failed (and I've been in it my entire life) because it hasn't addressed the problems of today, the rise of China and Russia, the rise of inequality, energy, health care. It's great to worry about Reagan. I loved Reagan, but those days are over."

To begin with, I've talked to more than a few veterans of the '64 Goldwater debacle (including William Middendorf) and it was certainly not clear to the AuH20 crew in the wake of that drubbing what a wonderful future lay ahead for conservatism. And Brooks has been one of the chief marksmen of the "circular firing squad" ever since he conjured up "National Greatness," a complete repudiation of the limited-government ideas that motivated conservatives from Goldwater to Reagan to Gingrich. And David Brooks most certainly has not been in the conservative movement his "entire life," having made his bones as a precocious college liberal by mocking Bill Buckley and contradicting Milton Friedman.

View all comments (17) | Leave a comment

Doctor Right| 11.10.08 @ 2:00PM

As far as offering advice to Conservatives is concerned, I put about as much stock in David Brooks as I do In Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews.

Can we please put Brooks on a list of people to ignore?

He's inconsequential to the task ahead.

Captain America| 11.10.08 @ 2:10PM

RSM:

Does anyone take Brooks seriously any more?

Clue: Brooks is the PBS and NY Times version of a conservative, as they define him.

Tom Paine| 11.10.08 @ 2:19PM

William F Buckley, who (like Friedman) would have been deeply alarmed about the growing anti-intellectualism in the movement he began, was impressed by Brooks and brought him into the conservative tent -- after Brooks made fun of him.

Quick question: is Kristol the NY Times definition of a conservative as well?

jstacey| 11.10.08 @ 2:23PM

The curious 'arc' of David Brooks remains a great mystery of this campaign. Long after the embarrassing Couric interview, following the VP debate, he wrote a glowing piece about Palin. But then, he declared her a "..fatal cancer on the Republican party.." Huh? Can such a path of erratic behavior be explained?

Why he continues on as a respected journalist is strange, and inexplicable.

Bullpup| 11.10.08 @ 2:41PM

David Brooks: Vichy Conservative

the-gunslinger| 11.10.08 @ 2:46PM

It's absurd to suggest that Conservatism has failed. It has not been tried in a generation. It is absurd to suggest that Conservatives are in disarray. Conservatives are firm, clear and united in their philosophy.

That Brooks would equate the current Republican Party, (run by RINOS, "moderates" and appeasers) with Conservatism is either evidence of his stupidity or his duplicity.

Either way...put him on ignore. And let the purges begin!

Josh F| 11.10.08 @ 4:11PM

Palin damaged the GOP ticket. Is there a poll out there to refute this? I know, I know ... she draws thousands to her rallies, she connects with people, blah blah blah, but so could any talentless beauty queen turned vice presidential candidate. She's the least compelling, most vaccous candidate to ever be put on a national ticket. Talk about someone to put on the "ignore" list.

ruth| 11.10.08 @ 4:29PM

Josh, you're just another liberal troll doing what you liberals do best; hate. You and your loser buddy, Brooks, can stick your words where the sun don't shine.

Jon | 11.10.08 @ 5:11PM

Josh F said: "Palin damaged the GOP ticket. Is there a poll out there to refute this?"

Yes, the exit polls, which showed that of those for whom Palin was factor in how they voted, most voted for McCain.

BTW, according to a poll by Pew, 65% of those who watched Palin's debate with Biden rated her performance as "excellent" or "good". That's almost as high as Obama's excellent/good rating in his first debate with McCain (72%), and higher than McCain's rating vs. Obama (59%).

Bob| 11.10.08 @ 7:15PM

Jon, I can see you are one of the "uneducated" people who doesn't know how to read polls. This is directly from Pew:

"Sarah Palin's impact on McCain's fortunes will no doubt be long debated, and the results of the exit polls are somewhat mixed. Fully 60% of Americans casting ballots said that Palin is not qualified to be president should it be necessary; 81% of these voters favored Obama. Yet those who cited Palin's selection as a factor in their vote -- 60% of all voters -- favored McCain by 56% to 43%."

Simple math means that 34% of the voters voted for McCain and Palin was a factor. 49% of the voters who thought that Palin was unqualified voted for Obama. Obama only got 53% of the vote which means that virtually all of the people who voted for Obama thought Palin was unqualified.

Perhaps if you finished school, you might have understood this.

ruth| 11.10.08 @ 10:21PM

Democrats did not win because of Biden and Republicans did not lose because of Palin. This was McCain's campaign and he bears responsibility for the loss. Even if you finished school, Bob, I guess you just don't understand this.

David Brooks| 11.11.08 @ 12:06AM

Guys, give me a break, bashing you for the NY Times and PBS is my bread and butter! An arse has to live!

Matthew Vadum| 11.11.08 @ 7:49AM

Brooks actually said "inequality" is on the rise?

james23| 11.11.08 @ 9:02AM

Honestly, who cares what "Cancer" Brooks thinks? He went all Andrew Sullivan on us a few weeks ago. He should move in to Andrew's Mom's basement with Andrew. Both off the deep end insane.

malm| 11.11.08 @ 9:59AM

Income inequality is a legit issue. You true blue conservatives can't imagine somebody in our nation might be overpaid. This one per cent making twenty plus of all income demands attention, but you guys can't fathom such a thought. Can you at least think that some of the super rich may actually not be working in industries that are not fully free market in nature ? I mean Congress setting compensation rates in excess of 600k and hour for their work on the tabacco settlement, is that the free market talking ?

malm| 11.11.08 @ 10:02AM

" their work " refers to trial lawyers.

Thomas| 11.11.08 @ 10:33AM

Mr. Brooks and most of the Republican hierarchy have it backwards. Conservatives do not have to convince anyone of anything. Conservatives believe and espouse the same things now, that they did in 1964. The fact that liberals, Democrats, the Republican leadership do not listen is not the fault of Conservatism.

Unlike liberals, Conservatives do not attempt to force their beliefs upon anyone. Their philosophical truths are limited and simple.

1. Government should be limited to the least that is necessary to provide for the greatest freedom for the largest number of people while protecting basic rights for all.

2. Politicians should be discouraged from making laws that are not directly related to common law crimes [murder, rape, theft, etc.]

3. People should be encouraged to fend for themselves. Not supported by the State.

4. Charity should be a personal matter, not a matter for the State.

5. All responsibility is personal, not shared. And it should be assumed at all times. No one is above the law.

It is interesting that when politicians follow these simple precepts, they are elected, overwhelmingly. It would seem, therefor, that simple enlightened self-interest would make most politicians Conservative. That they aren't is interesting. But, hardly the fault of Conservatives.