Brooks earns himself the "w" word for today's column
David Brooks is a major wanker. (Oh! The deadliest insult we blogofascists can hurl!) His idiotic column today gets so many things wrong. (No link because the NYT thinks you should have to PAY for opinion on the Web. As I’ve said before: Who are they kidding?) There is an excellent take-down of the column here at DailyKos (which excerpts a lot of it). Atrios chimes in here and here.
I’ll just take a look at this once sentence: “What's happening to Lieberman can only be described as a liberal inquisition.” Oh my! How dare someone run against an incumbent! The sheer audacity of using the political process to advance ones interests! Get me my smelling salts! Brooks is a shill for promulgating the idea that every time a liberal fights for something, it’s somehow sinister, hateful, or uncouth. Since when is running against someone in a primary “a liberal inquisition”, especially when Lamont has publicly pledged to support Lieberman if he wins the primary?
Liberals and moderates have legitimate beefs with Lieberman: he supports an occupation that is unpopular with the country at large, and very unpopular with Democrats. He is constantly cozying up to a president who is very unpopular with the country at large and positively loathed by Democrats. And now he’s shocked and offended that someone has the audacity to challenge him. And Brooks (who I am sure has nothing but Dems’ best interest at heart) is shocked and offended on Lieberman’s behalf. Are Brooks and his fellow Republican meme-spewers offended at the primary challenges to Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island? Or to Akaka in Hawaii? No? Could it be because these challenges are coming from the right? (Making them “conservative inquisitions”, I suppose.) Nah, the Republicans would never stoop to such a blatant double standard. They are so essentially decent in their treatment of their opponents, never calling their patriotism into question.
Digby weighs in on the Lieberman-Lamont issue in an excellent post:
P.S.: I really liked Bobos in Paradise, because I recognized much of what he was satirizing in myself, my friends, and my family. But there’s a lot of evidence that Brooks twisted, exaggerated, and lied about things to sharpen the consumer culture divide he depicts between Red and Blue America. This article argues that it is precisely in this area of mass consumer culture (Starbucks, WalMart, Movies, TV, NASCAR, etc.) that the “Two Americas” are most alike, or rapidly converging. This is the opposite of Brooks’ central thesis. I think one should look at race, religion, gender, income, profession, and education if one wants to study divisions within America. Because let’s face it, regardless of our political affiliations, a lot of us get our door hinges and garden hoses at Home Depot. Still, when reading Bobos in Paradise, I was often howling with the laughter of recognition. So I’m not ready to completely throw Brooks out. He should just stick to what he knows and stop being such a Republican shill.
I’ll just take a look at this once sentence: “What's happening to Lieberman can only be described as a liberal inquisition.” Oh my! How dare someone run against an incumbent! The sheer audacity of using the political process to advance ones interests! Get me my smelling salts! Brooks is a shill for promulgating the idea that every time a liberal fights for something, it’s somehow sinister, hateful, or uncouth. Since when is running against someone in a primary “a liberal inquisition”, especially when Lamont has publicly pledged to support Lieberman if he wins the primary?
Liberals and moderates have legitimate beefs with Lieberman: he supports an occupation that is unpopular with the country at large, and very unpopular with Democrats. He is constantly cozying up to a president who is very unpopular with the country at large and positively loathed by Democrats. And now he’s shocked and offended that someone has the audacity to challenge him. And Brooks (who I am sure has nothing but Dems’ best interest at heart) is shocked and offended on Lieberman’s behalf. Are Brooks and his fellow Republican meme-spewers offended at the primary challenges to Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island? Or to Akaka in Hawaii? No? Could it be because these challenges are coming from the right? (Making them “conservative inquisitions”, I suppose.) Nah, the Republicans would never stoop to such a blatant double standard. They are so essentially decent in their treatment of their opponents, never calling their patriotism into question.
Digby weighs in on the Lieberman-Lamont issue in an excellent post:
But why the fuck should we buckle under to a nationally known Blue State Democrat who votes for conservative right wing judges, supports the war, lectures about morals, compromises on basic human decency for rape victims and uses liberals as his favorite whipping boys and girls? Is it so surprising that the liberals of Connecticut have finally reached their limits?Overall, what’s annoying the crap out of the progosphere is that Lieberman and those in the DC Democratic establishment have this enormous sense of entitlement to power. They think they shouldn’t have to answer to Connecticut voters (to say nothing of Democratic activists). They seem to think they know what’s best for the party, despite the fact that Republicans currently control all three branches of the federal government. If beltway Dems are so much smarter and politer and savvier than the Democratic bloggers and activists, then they should have no trouble beating us in the CT Democratic primary. But they don’t think they should even have to run. They think it should be handed to them. (Which is maybe why they lose to Republicans so much.) Sorry, no. Some of us still believe in the quaint notion that you actually have to win an election to be entitled to your office.
P.S.: I really liked Bobos in Paradise, because I recognized much of what he was satirizing in myself, my friends, and my family. But there’s a lot of evidence that Brooks twisted, exaggerated, and lied about things to sharpen the consumer culture divide he depicts between Red and Blue America. This article argues that it is precisely in this area of mass consumer culture (Starbucks, WalMart, Movies, TV, NASCAR, etc.) that the “Two Americas” are most alike, or rapidly converging. This is the opposite of Brooks’ central thesis. I think one should look at race, religion, gender, income, profession, and education if one wants to study divisions within America. Because let’s face it, regardless of our political affiliations, a lot of us get our door hinges and garden hoses at Home Depot. Still, when reading Bobos in Paradise, I was often howling with the laughter of recognition. So I’m not ready to completely throw Brooks out. He should just stick to what he knows and stop being such a Republican shill.
Comments
Akaka needs all the support we can give him.