I Hate The New York Times has written the definitive analysis of David Brooks.
David Brooks is an idiot. His writing is terrible, and his “ideas” (insofar as he has any) are horrible. But analyzing the badness of David Brooks is a tricky proposition. There are three reasons why. First, because it’s been done before. Unlike such previous targets of my blog as Pamela Paul, Neil Ganzlinger and Philip Galanes whose writings are simply ignored by most readers with normal-range cognitive abilities, Brooks is often actively denounced by serious thinkers. His work, while no more thoughtful, logical or well-informed than that of the average Styles-section celebrity profile hack, nonetheless draws many times more commentary and debate simply because it appears in the Opinion section. However copious his lies, evasions and self-serving half-truths, political bloggers debunk them as soon as they appear.
Despite his cushy spot on the back page of the “A” section, David Brooks isn’t just interested in slamming Obama’s foreign policy and defending the Bush tax cuts. Brooks is just as eager to torment his readers with vague, knee-jerk reactions to movies, technology, sexuality, fashion trends, and philosophy. Indeed, that’s the second reason why the Brooks oeuvre is so hard to take. It encapsulates everything that’s bad about bad NYT writing: Pop-culture references that don’t make sense, high-culture references deployed to no purpose, sexism disguised as high-mindedness, fear of sex, ambivalent fascination with technology, unthinking science worship, and ignorance of history, all encased in a veneer of moderation and likeableness.
But some people must like his forays into film review and cultural satire. And indeed, some people do — just look at his Facebook page or the sales figures for his dumbass books. The veneer of likeableness is working. In fact, that’s the third reason that Brooks is so difficult to write about. The reasons why he’s horrible are indistinguishable from the reasons why he’s admired and praised. He’s the go-to conservative for liberals who want to feel open-minded, the guy they can “respect” for his apparent intelligence and moderation.
Indeed, the real question here isn’t “why is David Brooks such a smug, shallow writer?” That’s no mystery, there are plenty of smug, shallow writers out there. The real question here is “why do so many totebaggers love David Brooks so much?”
I doubt the answer to this is as simple as the answer to the age-old question “why do white people love Wayne Brady so much?”, but it’s the same type of question.
Zifnab
David Brooks is my conservative friend.
driftglass
At this point it is simply impossible for Our Mr. Brooks not to know that he is lying.
And that we obviously know he is lying.
And that he knows that we know that he knows.
And so on.
Exciting!
http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2011/07/greatest-fraud-in-american-journalism.html
beltane
Two words will suffice to answer this question: Bourgeois Vulgarity.
David Brooks epitomises the intellectual laziness smug narcissism of the American upper-middle class. He is the standard-bearer for the middle-brow mediocrity of the New York Times’ regular readership, the Panglosses who lap up the unintentionally offensive lifestyle sections, the same people who thought David Broder was a sensible man.
My relatives mostly belong to the totebagger set, and I can tell you that in their own way they are just as delusional as the teabaggers, though far less hateful and angry.
hilts
The real question here is “why do so many totebaggers love David Brooks so much?”
Because they can’t resist someone who delivers wisdom like this:
h/t http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/jan-june11/davidbrooks_03-08.html
Maureen Dowd is just as much of an idiot as David Brooks and her writing is criminally awful.
me
Because he makes Tim Pawlenty look like Michelle Bachmann? (WRT how threatening they appear only)
driftglass
David Brooks does invaluable service as the inoffensively mediocre voice of our decadent, collapsing American Empire. He our Peter Keating come to life, and makes a fabulous living by telling a small clique of very wealthy, deeply-cocooned, Davos-people about the imaginary world they want to believe is outside of their global castle.
But it is nearing midnight at their little costume party.
And the Red Death is already inside the walls.
biff diggerence
“why is David Brooks such a smug, shallow writer?”
I’ll defer to Mr. Brooks’ stereotyping for a response:
He’s a born and bred Main Line Fop.
cmorenc
It’s Ross Douthat’s job on the NYT Op-Ed pages to make David Brooks look open-minded, smart, and libertarian (in moderation, of course) by comparison. Douthat must be succeeding, because both seem to have kept their positions on the NYT editorial pages for awhile now.
Brian R.
Is David Brooks gonna have to choke a bitch?
DougJ in Damascus
Ding ding ding, we have a winner.
Joel
Brooks is the blue pill for people who don’t want to believe in Republicans.
Joel
Most people I know who read Brooks don’t read fashion, or anything else on NYT other than front page FWIW. They do listen to NPR though.
Han's Solo
Wow, this must be beat up on Bobo day. Steve Bennen is on the same track:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_07/predictions_that_didnt_turn_ou030804.php
biff diggerence
What?
$350.00 Pinots aren’t available at Appleby’s?
aimai
Brooks and Friedman supply the same thing to their readers: a sanitized view into the sewer that is free market/right wing thought. If the NYT published articles by bona fide teabaggers/natalists/red staters the hospitals would be swamped with people being rushed in on stretchers due to crippling belly laughs. Instead the actual beliefs and goals of the right wing are offered to us cleaned, scrubbed, and at a slight distance. Friedman’s shtick is to venture abroad to lecture stay at home liberals about how well capitalism works overseas. Brooks’ shtick is to venture into the ethnographic wilds of, variously, heartleand america or science and sociology to bring back encouraging tales proving that we live in the best of all possible worlds and they couldn’t get any better. For another, more “youthful” version of this see Megan McCardle. All three give people with a certain amount of higher education an occasional whiff of references to respected authorities/academic types to make their moronic observations seem like a quickie ed course in some academic topic. Nostalgie de la grad seminar on foreign affairs, american politics, and the economy with the added benefit of being one hundred percent detached from facts and reality.
aimai
Chris
He fills a niche, that’s all.
Several niches, in fact. Liberals in desperate need of a “good,” “serious” conservative to go to. Independents, moderates and other idiots who like to feel that they’re above it all. Conservatives with intellectual pretensions. All those people who’re turned off by the rabid insanity of more rabid GOP activists, but just can’t bring themselves to hold their nose and vote with the DFHs no matter what.
Yeah, there’s a market out there for people like him. He responds to the demand, that’s all.
ABL
is bobo gonna have to choke a bitch?
ABL
(or what brian r said.)
Villago Delenda Est
ABL, see comments 9 and 10.
You’re late to the party. Refreshing fizzy beverages on you!
cyntax
Wait, why isn’t it this simple?
Sly
David Brooks is that soft voice whispering in their ear of Upper West Side liberals, telling them that its OK to send their kids to a $30,000 a year private school so they can avoid contact with “those other kids” in the city system.
He helps them justify their unearned status and cloistered lifestyle. Ditto Friedman.
JGabriel
Excellent. I only have one quibble.
betoma @ ihatenyt:
I don’t know any liberals who can stomach Brooks. They/We all think he’s an idiot and an Orwellianly bad writer.
.
gogol's wife
You can never say anything new on this blog. I was going to say I only love Wayne Brady in that sketch with Dave Chappelle that I learned about here, but I’ve been beat to it by several people. Sigh.
Nicole
I like Wayne Brady because, during the height of Who’s Line Is It Anyway, a friend sent him a fan letter telling him how much her five-year-old daughter liked him and that she wanted to invite him to her upcoming birthday party. A few weeks later, an enormous stuffed toy arrived in the mail for the little girl.
Bobo would likely have sent a “discounted” copy of his book.
But now the image of Bobo at a five-year-old’s party is going to make me laugh all day.
J
Not sure what there is to object to in an ‘ambivalent fascination with technology’ but otherwise spot on. Think Beltane @3 nails it.
JGabriel
@cmorenc:
Huh. I always thought it was Douthat’s job to make intelligent people recoil with revulsion and think, “Eww… ick.”
Perhaps that’s what you meant by “make David Brooks look open-minded”.
.
Svensker
Who is Wayne Brady?
I googled. Guess I don’t get out much.
David Brooks & Tommy Friedman are two smug assholic and dumb peas in a pod. Lots of other things to hate about the Times, like Douthat and Dowd, but Brooks and Friedman, in their faux intellectualism, faux thoughtfulness and very real narcissism, symbolize everything that’s wrong with that rag.
cmorenc
@aimai:
Why do we have “Friedman Units” but no “Bobo Units”?
DonkeyKong
Reading Bobo is like spraying fracking discharge on trees rather than pumping it right into the ground water. You die slow inside and don’t really realize it’s happening.
arguingwithsignposts
says all you need to know about Brooks:
jl
Just some short comments. No time to get links. Anyone asks, I can try to find some later.
Brooks says
“ The number of Americans on the permanent disability rolls, meanwhile, has steadily increased. Ten years ago, 5 million Americans collected a federal disability benefit. Now 8.2 million do. That costs taxpayers $115 billion a year, or about $1,500 per household. “
Disability claims are increasing. But Brooks ignores the causality going in the direction he does not like. According to Brooks lazy men go on disability and this hurts productivity. Well, to the extent that eligibility requirements have been lowered there might be some truth to this.
But Brooks ignores evidence that disability claims are a response to changes in aggregate demand, and that people choose disability because they have a hard time finding a job, or cannot afford adequate medical care to allow them to work at a job on the going wage. But this part of the story is inconsistent with Brooks decision to be the anti Krugman in the NY Times column page.
“ Part of the problem has to do with structural changes in the economy. Sectors like government, health care and leisure have been growing, generating jobs for college grads. Sectors like manufacturing, agriculture and energy have been getting more productive, but they have not been generating more jobs. Instead, companies are using machines or foreign workers. “
Brooks completely ignores the role of the high dollar policy and federal tax incentives that reduced manufacturing in the U.S. Past Democratic administrations share responsibility for the high dollar policy, particularly Clinton, so this is a nice centrist bipartisan issue he could raise. But maybe it would involve criticizing the decisions of our betters (for, according to Brooks, while my manic energy is needed to drive the US economy, I am also supposed to be very very humble, unless one of his major previous themes is now inoperative.
Edit: forgot to say that mentioning this aspect of the problem might cause problems for Brooks when he travels in the circles of the Very Serious.
” Health care spending, which mostly provides comfort to those beyond working years, is expanding. ”
This is misleading. There is a body of research that shows that most health care goes towards investment in human capital until sometime between 40 and 50, then most is devoted to consumption of increased comfort, rather than improving health. By ignoring the dual role of health care, Brooks slips in some standard propaganda that health care is like a big screen TV, nice if you can afford it, but any policies that help people get it lead to over consumption that is unproductive.
“ There are basically two ways to cut back on the government health care spending. From the top, a body of experts can be empowered to make rationing decisions. This is the approach favored by President Obama and in use in many countries around the world. “
NO NO NO NO NO! That is NOT the Obama proposals. Look, you have a pot of money to spend on health. If you want to get the highest level of health services out of that pot, you do research to find out what treatments are most effective, and then you institute policies to make sure the most effective treatments are used FIRST. You identify treatments for which there is little evidence of effectiveness and you decide that people should pay for them out of pocket or a private supplementary insurance, rather than the basic health care plan the government requires that you have.
The whole idea is to AVOID the need for rationing wherever possible. It is as simple as teaching your kid, if you want to put a nail into a wall, use a hammer, don’t use a handle of a screwdriver, even if it means you have to maybe take two seconds to put the screwdriver down and go find the hammer.
So, here, Brooks simple does not know what he is talking about. Truly truly clueless, or intentionally misleading.
Very poor and disappointing performance, even for him.
agrippa
I do not really see the problem here. If you do not like Brooks, do not read Brooks.
Is he an evil purveyor of vile lies and needs to be exposed?
Or, is he, simply, mediocre?
Well, mediocrity is a commonplace.
I have no difficulty with people who do not appreciate Brooks.
Napoleon
jl
Sorry for typos and rough grammar. Cole’s obviously communist big government run edit function timed out before I finished cleaning it up.
Gotta go. I;m in the office today and my day gig looks kind of difficult and long today, so am going to claim my disability. Got a minor strain on of my wrists, and can’t figure out where it came from. It’s damn unsolvable medical mystery is what it is, and I got no energy to try to work through it.
The Tragically Flip
Not reading Brooks != Brooks has no impact on your life
Brooks is part of a political movement that is busy reinstating feudalism. There are worse actors in this play, but Brooks has enough scenes in it to matter.
Comrade Luke
As much as I totally agree with the sentiments here – so much so that I just discontinued my NYT Sunday subscription – the key thing to remember is that Brooks, Friedman & Douthat are only doing what they’re being rewarded for via their (I assume) enormous paychecks.
As in most cases, it’s more the fault of their bosses for rewarding the behavior than the behavior itself. Which leads to the question: WTF is with the Times?
I don’t think any of this is going to change. I’d be less surprised to see Peggy Noonan show up on the editorial page than either of these other clowns leaving.
TreeBeard
I’m brown and I like Wayne Brady. Is that allowed?
RickyRoma
More interesting question: Why does an intelligent, interesting blogger like DougJ continue to use the ‘totebagger’ pejorative? Is he unaware of the fact that everytime he does it, he invalidates the post and sounds like a complete moron?
different church-lady
Well, all that, but also don’t forget that he’s on the Tee Vee a lot. Frequently even that public Tee Vee, right along side Mr. Rodgers.
General Stuck
deleted, wrong thread.
someguy
This is silly. There’s no need for liberalism to have a token house conservative, just to make liberals to feel open minded. That’s because there is no reason whatsoever to be open minded about conservatives, any more than there’s reason to be open minded about the opinions of any other criminally insane people. Savor the haterade, people!
jl
Just a note before I go.
Most people who have ever gone to a doc, probably know that there are first, second and third line treatments.
See, the doc says ‘Hey, I know what’s wrong, we can fix that.” And you go “Great! What do we do.”
Now very very observant people may have noticed that a conscientious doc often looks through a little book, or says “in a case like yours the best thing to try first is…” or the doc says that he or she needs to study up on the best thing to do, or another doc has it down pat, and you should go see that doc.
Have you ever noticed that kids? Looks like Brooks has not.
Anyway, making sure most effective treatments are prescribed first, as first line treatments can save a lot of money. Second line treatments, are well, used when the first line treatment fails.
Big profitable drug and medical equipment companies sometimes don’t like this a approach if they have a patented something or other to sell.
It might also be of interest to know that other countries, including the UK, have written down policies in their laws an regulations that say a person should have access to a effective life or limb or organ saving treatment even if it is very expensive. Compare that to the practice of US insurance companies.
Anyway, in order to afford this compassionate policy, you have to be very efficient in how to order the use of first, second and third line treatments for less serious conditions.
bottyguy
He has fine taste in whine
jl
I also forgot about this mess:
“Different versions of this approach are embodied in the Dutch system, the prescription drug benefit and Representative Paul Ryan’s budget.”
the Dutch system has the second highest proportion of chronically ill patients who spend under US$500 out of pocket, the US has the highest, and less than half that of Netherlands.
Spend less than $500 out of pocket
US: 31%
versus
Netherlands: 72%
highest is UK at 81%
Netherlands has the third lowest proportion that pay more than $1000.
US: 41%
Netherlands: 8%
Less than 10% in Netherlands had problems with access to care because of cost versus 54% in the US.
The Netherlands DOES NOT use the consumer driven health care approach, which is the plan to ration care by consumers having to use their own dollars out of pocket (more skin in the game) to choose the most effective care.
More evidence: In the Netherlands, 3% of the survey respondents had to wait 6 or more days to see a doctor, versus 23% in the US (which is third highest among the countries surveyed, behind Canada and Germany). Netherlands had the highest proportion of people being able to see doc on same day, 60%, compared to US which is tied with Canada for lowest at 26%.
Brooks is WRONG WRONG WRONG here in comparing Netherlands approach to Ryan plan. Essentially, the Netherlands is a single payer system (though how the public money gets into the system is quite complex, with very highly regulated private providers, regulated as or more strictly as in Swiss system)
Source for data:
2008 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of Sicker Adults
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Surveys/2008/2008-Commonwealth-Fund-International-Health-Policy-Survey-of-Sicker-Adults.aspx
jl
You can read a short summary of the Netherlands system here, and see for yourself how much it has in common with the Ryan plan.
Longer reports with more detail also available on another page, if you click around.
http://www.euro.who.int/en/home/projects/observatory/publications/health-system-profiles-hits/hit-summaries
NonyNony
@arguingwithsunspots
Dear Grod. That list of the 10 weirdest sentences from Brooks’s book is disturbing:
I don’t think Brooks’s book was written by a human being at all. Clearly this is the work of an AI that has had to piece together human emotions and expression based solely on what it’s read from the Internet.
Head Bulshytt Talker in Chief of the Temple of Libertarianism(superluminar)
You haven’t met matoko Chan, have you?
Bill Murray
I see Brooks as really more the go to conservative for sensible centrists who want to believe the DFHs are just wrong about the conservatives so that they can continue to use current conservative positions to find that golden mean of centrist thought half way between the people with principles
Aaron S. Veenstra
Totebaggers love David Brooks because he makes John Boehner look like John Bolton.