The American Spectator

Mike| 5.29.09 @ 10:32AM

Unlike some who write for The American Spectator, David Brooks is a conservative capable of seeing complexity. He isn't interested in being driven to ridiculous conclusions for the sake of being philosophically consistent. He strives to be fair. If there is value in the argument of one who is liberal, Mr. Brooks will acknowledge it. He is rightly concerned about the future of our two party system and about who will be the voice of conservatives in the future. Who do you think has the better chance of engaging independents and center left voters - Rush Limbaugh or David Brooks?

Mike | 5.29.09 @ 10:38AM

Unlike some who write for The American Spectator, David Brooks is a conservative who sees and appreciates complexity. He is fair. When he see merit in opposing arguments, he acknowledges them. He resists being driven to ridiculous positions for the sake of being philosophically consistent. He is rightly concerned about the future of the two party system and about who will be the voice of conservatives. Who do you think is better suited to engage independents and center left voters- Rush Limbaugh or David Brooks

Ben Smith| 5.29.09 @ 11:13AM

I'd like to remind Mike that David Brooks was a writer and editor for the American Spectator. The Spectator has produced more talented writers than any magazine I know. Please show a little respect for Mr. Tyrrell and the great, little magazine from Bloomington.

Murphy| 5.29.09 @ 11:53AM

Brooks is a great writer. I read every column he writes. His recent columns on cognition and emotion have been well-reasoned and considerably more complex than the simplistic reduction of them above would suggest.

Set all this aside, however.

If there were two equally qualified judges for a vacancy on the Supreme Court, but you knew one of them, when a young man, had seen one of his friends arrested on false charges, and intimidated by police who were convinced of his guilt, which judge would you choose?

Remember, you could be that friend some day; the police could be absolutely convinced of your guilt; the horrible precedent of water-boarding may have been carried over from the defense against terrorism to the defesne against some other danger to society (like domestic crime).

The reason it would be reasonable to choose the judge whose friend had been falsely accused is because life experience and empathy matter.

Listen, conservatives:

You have plenty of howling, braying hysterics in your ranks; plenty of Limbaugh's and Beck's and Coulter's. You'd be wise to make room for more modest, more curious, more moderate thinkers.

Brooksanne| 5.29.09 @ 11:54AM

Mike -- The point is that David Brooks isn't making an argument.

Once you claim that reason isn't anything, it's all emotion (or "empathy"), you kind of take yourself out of the discussion, you know?

I hope for his sake that if he ever had to appear before a judge, that the judge has more respect for ideas than he does. Because according to his take, white males don't have much of a chance otherwise.

Murphy| 5.29.09 @ 12:25PM

Brooksanne --

What you say would be a fair criticism, if it were an accurate reading of Brooks's argument.

Brooks argues, in a variety of ways, that reasoning and decision-making are inextricably bound up in emotion.

Remember that judges rarely make controversial decisions. When they do, the conflicts at stake are not between the obviously right and the obviously wrong. Rather, they are the conflicts between two things that are right but in conflict. A classic example used by Brooks, in today's Times, is between the interests of a thirteen year old girl being strip searched and the need to protect -- say -- schools from criminal activity.

Only people who don't understand the complexities of issues like this assume there is some grand objective principle to which a judge might turn. If that were the case, we wouldn't even need judges.

Keep in mind too that we call them "judges" not "knows." Judges judge, they don't simply read a rule book.

Part of this idea is captured by our sense that judges must be "wise." Wisdom is something altogether different from knowledge or the ability to read a law accurately. Wisdom considers context, history, and -- yes -- one's personal experience in deciding among competing claims.

Eliza| 5.29.09 @ 3:50PM

The devolution of David Brooks. Just another weak liberal she-male like Murphy/Jeremiah and little Mike.

Murphy| 5.29.09 @ 3:59PM

Eliza --

That's a fascinating argument. So erudite. Your wit sparkles; your logic is infallible. Such acumen, such learning, such brilliance -- and all in service of a good cause! How fortunate we are to read your writings. What a discovery! Like something scrawled over a men's urinal.

Pkane| 5.29.09 @ 4:28PM

Murphy,

"If there were two equally qualified judges for a vacancy on the Supreme Court, but you knew one of them, when a young man, had seen one of his friends arrested on false charges, and intimidated by police who were convinced of his guilt, which judge would you choose?"

It still all depends on the philosophy and values that underlie his or her world view.

First, of course we want a justice capable of empathy - we don't want a sociopath or a mental imbecile on the Supreme Court. This empathy thing in just another Obama strawman. Who doesn't want someone with empathy and compassion? Could it be...eeeeevil conservatives????

The problem is whether you have the moral grounding, perspective and judgement to not let your empathy get in the way of upholding the law.

How did your hypothetical person respond to this brush with injustice? Did he become enraged and advocate the overthrow of his government? Did he dedicated his life to upholding the law, as a means to equal justice? Did he aspire to a position of influence so he could use his power to impose his own ideals?

Thus, I would need to know a lot more about the person in your example, and my interest in a specific life experience would be be in terms of how it informs me of his values.

BD57| 5.29.09 @ 4:38PM

Mike:

Straw man argument. There are people on both sides of the political aisle who follow "philosophy" through to idiotic conclusions.

As far as Brooks is concerned - - - sorry, he's making a straw man argument as well.

Anyone arguing "emotion" has no role in philosophy, etc. is a fool - - as is anyone who argues that others truly believe emotion has no role in philosophy (which is what Brooks appears to be accusing others of doing).

When people cooperate, it is because they believe there is a benefit to them from doing so. Emotion certainly has a part to play in that evaluation.

At the same time - and this is where Brooks gets off track - others are not going to give their approval to every emotion someone might express. Call it "reason", "philosophy" or "the clash of emotions", the people you come into contact with are going to insist that you stop swinging your fist before it gets to their nose. And regardless of what your emotions are telling you about how justified you are to swing that fist, if society does not agree with you, you're going to be compelled to adjust your behavior, one way or another.

Eventually, these "clashes of emotion" become so institutionalized that society adopts a law against punching your neighbor in the nose, the essence of which is "We no longer have to go through this whole 'clash of emotion' exercise about nose punching."

What society does NOT do is say "all emotions are equally valid - your emotions telling you to punch your neighbor in the nose and your neighbor's emotions saying he doesn't want that to happen are the same - so we're staying on the sidelines."

The way Brooks is framing it, he's claiming some sort of license for emotion unhinged from any restraint whatsoever. Taken to its logical conclusion (sorry - there's that damn reason again), any judicial decision informed by emotion is correct, regardless of whether the emotions given voice are those which "the emotions" of the rest of society would agree are appropriately considered.

You want an emotional response to Brooks? He's engaging in the kind of philosophizing one would expect from someone who thinks he's the smartest person in the room (and wants to make sure everyone knows it).

It's pablum.

J.Kelley| 5.29.09 @ 5:53PM

Chief Justice Roberts said it best. If the law favors the little person, the little person wins. If the law favors the big person, the big person wins. Judges have nothing to do with making laws. The other two branches of Government have that duty. Why is this so hard to understand.

Missy| 5.29.09 @ 5:56PM

Murphy, like something 'sprawled over a men's urinal'--you.

Mike| 5.29.09 @ 6:52PM

First, my apologies for two posts of the same message.
Ben Smith: I said "some writers" not all writers. Why do you assume I was writing about Mr. Tyrrell?

Mr. Murphy writes: "Listen, conservatives:
You have plenty of howling, braying hysterics in your ranks; plenty of Limbaugh's and Beck's and Coulter's. You'd be wise to make room for more modest, more curious, more moderate thinkers."
HEAR, HEAR!!
Brooksanne: You misread Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Murphy: Perfect response to Eliza.
BD57 writes: "Straw man argument. There are people on both sides of the political aisle who follow "philosophy" through to idiotic conclusions." Obviously. I didn't think the observation needed to be made in this forum. He also writes: "The way Brooks is framing it, he's claiming some sort of license for emotion unhinged from any restraint whatsoever. " Uh, I don't think so. You have to look at all of Mr. Brooks' work, not just one column.

Smitty| 5.29.09 @ 6:58PM

Little Mike, Murphy/Jeremiah is a serial F-bomb thrower on this blog; nothing erudite or clever about the little liberal b!tch. Get a life, loser

Mike| 5.29.09 @ 7:31PM

Smitty
Need a little help with grammar? You seem fuzzy on subject-verb agreement. Who threw the F-bomb? Don't recall seeing it. I have a life, thanks. I'm worried about you, however.

Smitty| 5.29.09 @ 8:42PM

Don't worry about me, little Mike. Murphy/Jeremiah is the same libtroll; guess you haven't trolled here long or you would have known that. Too inside baseball for you, I guess. Obviously, you don't have much of a life or you wouldn't be here wasting our time with your inane, petulant tantrums. Buzz off, bozo.

Mike| 5.29.09 @ 9:05PM

Smitty,
I do worry about you. However, I must admit that a fool's paradise is a paradise nonetheless. Enjoy your bliss and God bless you.

Smitty| 5.29.09 @ 9:46PM

Buzz off, loser. You sound like Jeremiah, azzwipe.

Not Mike| 5.30.09 @ 1:29PM

Mike,

Go away. Go away and be with your friends on the side that keeps changing philosophy and standards to fit the moment and their agenda. Go away and argue with your friends who are truly filled with hatred for those and their opinions that do not fit into their ever expanding and contracting world, depending on what the mood, agenda, and item (free bee) from the government.

Do worry about hysterics on your side and there are plenty of them on that side. Also you may want to recruit "moderates" to the left side.

Smitty| 5.30.09 @ 3:28PM

Hear hear!! Buzz off, little Mike/Jeremiah.

Spicy Joker| 5.30.09 @ 10:24PM

Does anyone care about what David Brooks and his 10 liberal readers think?

Liza| 5.30.09 @ 10:44PM

Nope, sure don't.

Murphy| 5.31.09 @ 11:30AM

Spicy and Liza --

Studies have shown that people more and more turn to the internet not for information or debate, but to have their opinions confirmed.

This is a terrible thing for our country, and reading someone like Brooks might help you hone your own opinions so that you're capable of writing something more interesting than what appears above.

Spicy -- I assure you that op-ed writers at the Times have more than "10 liberal readers." In fact, he's one of the most read commentators in the country.

Smitty| 5.31.09 @ 1:14PM

What studies, where? Perhaps the studies that you've just made up. Murph/Jeremiah, I assure you that the NYTimes is dead in the water, finished, kaput. Ain't Capitalism grand, little Commie?

Spicy Joker| 5.31.09 @ 2:43PM

David Brooks is one of the most read commentators in the country, but the number of people who read newspapers is shrinking as the population is growing. I guarantee you he has no more than 1% name recognition.

Murphy| 5.31.09 @ 2:44PM

Smitty --

Do you seek out political opinions different from your own? Do you listen or read sources of news with pronounced biases different from your own? Or, do you confine your news and opinion consumption to sources that generally reinforce your own world view?

When was the last time you spent a week, say, listening to NPR instead of Fox News? Or, reading the Times editorial page instead of the American Spectator?

Perhaps you have done this, and I'd commend you for it.

I read the Economist, the National Review, the Weekly Standard, and occasionally the WSJ. I religiously read George F Will and David Brooks and Charles Krauthammer, the three best conservative columnists (in my opinion).

I don't spend all my time reading the Times or the New Yorker (the best magazine in the country), and I never so much as GLANCE at the Huffington Post or the Daily Whatever.

And, of course, I come here, where I like to read Klein, Lord, and a few others, and where I suffer through posts by people like you -- hoping against hope I'll someday find someone who writes posts worth arguing with. (Sorry, you don't qualify a) because your boring; b) because you don't even know how to write a creative insult; c) because you don't have anything fresh or original to say).

Murphy| 5.31.09 @ 3:08PM

And by the way, Smitty: if you're committed to renouncing newspapers entirely, you're going to miss out on a few things, like studies done by social scientists. I realize of course that you do not regret this, since by "science" what must really be meant is "liberal lies."

Smitty| 5.31.09 @ 5:15PM

No, dummy; by Murphy/Jeremiah what is really meant is "liberal lies." By the way, I read from many sources--I don't need that defunct rag NYSlimes to elucidate me. Your idea of 'science' is the dumpster dumb theory of 'Global Warming', when it's been proven that the last ten years have followed a cooling trend. You're all about phony baloney statistics you've made up to fit your Fascist liberal world view and Junk Science. You're the troglodyte here. Good riddance to the piece of garbage NYT--it's not fit for toilet paper. You gonna F-Bomb me now, Mr. Enlightened?

Murphy| 5.31.09 @ 5:21PM

OK, Smitty. You say you "read from many sources."

What are they?

Where do you get your news? Where else do you go for opinion? Do you ever read liberal columns, or listen to left-leaning news sources like NPR?

Smitty| 5.31.09 @ 6:36PM

Who are you, the reading monitor? Screw you and your arrogance, you little foul mouthed pipsqueak. I've read voraciously throughout my life, I don't need you to critique the choices and quality of my information sources.

I love to read books (including the Classics), periodicals and magazines (AmSpec!) mostly. I listen to Rush some, Fox some, too. I used to be a subscriber to the LATimes, but they pissed me off long ago, I also used to watch CNN and MSNBC, but I was offended by their disgusting, over the top rhetoric, so I don't anymore. I love the History Channel, NatGeo, Biography, Nature, etc. I have a plethora of sources from which I glean information and knowledge. I also have a life, Jeremiah, including my kids, Church, pets, gardening, lifting weights and running and a social life, too. I don't blog 24/7--I'd die of boredom and big a$$dom if I did.

I love life and have better things to do than engage irritating little dweebs like you. There are too many fun things to do outside to be cooped up inside the house. Forget it. I suggest you go outside and get some air, too; it might improve your mood.

Murphy| 5.31.09 @ 9:37PM

Smitty --

I'm not trying to be the reading police either. I just asked where you get your news and if you go out of your way to seek out opinions different from your own.

The History channel, and the National Geographic, while wonderful sources of information, are not journalistic, for the most part. And I'm glad you go to church and have pets; it keeps in touch with the Almighty above and the creation below. But what about the affairs of men in our own time?

The question -- to put it generously -- was whether people seek out news sources that challenge their worldview. This is of vital importance to our Republic.

I don't say you should watch MSNBC, for God's sake. I'd shut that off, and Fox too.

There are great print sources of news that cover the political spectrum while still being of great quality, and I can tell you with certainty that many hundreds of thousands of conservatives listen to and enjoy and benefit from NPR.

But don't take any time away from the Classics. Not on my account, at any rate.

Smitty| 6.1.09 @ 1:03AM

Murph/Jeremiah, only a moron would equate Fox to MSNBC. The leg tingler, mouth breathers and knuckle draggers all reside at MSNBC. I read plenty about the affairs of men (nice sexism!) in our own time, Jeremiah, but unlike you I have a life to live as well. My children take up a lot of my life, it takes time, love and effort to teach them how to be good pro-life Conservatives! Even though you're a snot nosed liberal, I've gotten quite fond of you over the last 6 or 7 months. Half the time I think you're laughing when you post your nonsense. I love everybody--the quality of a person's character is what matters to me; I hope you feel the same. Remember to get outside and enjoy the beautiful world that God has given us; and always be grateful--I am.

biniki| 9.1.09 @ 10:13PM

bikini
bikini swimwear