October 26, 2004

David Brooks has Gone Completely Mad

Posted by Brian

This isn’t exactly a news story, but David Brooks’s latest column is bizarre even by his distinctive standards. Is it meant to be biography? Autobiography? Fantasy? The mind boggles. Here’s the most charitable explanation I can come up with. “I’m a conservative columnist and it’s a week until election day. So I should like write an argument for voting for the conservative. But I can’t think of a !@#$%^& reason for doing so, or at least one that passes the giggle test. So I’ll just doodle on the page for 760 words and hope my reputation isn’t too tattered when this is all over.”

Posted on October 26, 2004 05:23 AM UTC
Comments

How unfunny is it? The idea could have been done better by Art Buchwald, that’s how unfunny it is.

Posted by Delicious Pundit · October 26, 2004 05:42 AM

I sincerely hope this was an attempt to insult some friend of his.

To consider otherwise turns me melancholy.

Posted by talboito · October 26, 2004 05:48 AM

References to the private polling are like the neutron bombs of political discourse - quiet but devastating.

I’m praying that Brooks actually meant to sneak a “silent-but-deadly” fart reference past the OpEd page editors.

Posted by DonBoy · October 26, 2004 06:03 AM

Dead accurate assessment.

How dead? I couldn’t finish it.

But I did find this interesting sentence before I quit it:

He alone can captivate a gathering, while men hang eagerly on his words and women undress him with their eyes.

Brooks apparently learned female sexuality from dime novels. I suspect he once beat off furiously to Harold Robbins. Maybe still does.

In summary: Wholly wretched—the misshappen thing should have been condemned to a condom.

Posted by koreyel · October 26, 2004 06:11 AM

I’m inclined to believe that this is the first instance of troll using the mass media to go searching for victims.

Posted by Glenn Bridgman · October 26, 2004 06:13 AM

I actually think it’s kind of funny, though I really do wonder if this is the best he can do with the NYT Op-Ed real estate.

Posted by Mark · October 26, 2004 06:21 AM

on the contrary, I think this is his way of letting us know he is sane

cause you know the arguments from the punditocracy and talking point morons are going to get more and more hysterical (and by post election standards totally insane) as we run up to election day.

Posted by Shai · October 26, 2004 06:24 AM

He’s just phoning it in. And when someone’s bad when he’s on form, that doesn’t make for a satisfying read.

Posted by nick · October 26, 2004 07:03 AM

who’s Art Buchwald?

Posted by d mason · October 26, 2004 07:03 AM

The guy needs a career change. He’s dipping his toes into the shallow pool of supermarket paperback literature.

The pundit should allow a forgiving smile to play upon his lips before riposting, “Yes, I can see why you would have thought that, but the campaigns’ private polling suggests otherwise.” References to the private polling are like the neutron bombs of political discourse - quiet but devastating.

One expects a candle-lit assignation, a provocative description of lingerie, and a vague evocation of some sort of climax.

Posted by bad Jim · October 26, 2004 08:06 AM

What have you got against Art Buchwald?

Posted by chris · October 26, 2004 08:18 AM

Is it true that “during the cold war, only 38 percent of voters knew that the Soviet Union was not a member of NATO”?

It’s not working. Why can’t we have a constitutional monarchy like Kuwait or Jordan instead of all this nonsense? King Abdullah looks like a decent and smart guy.

Posted by abb1 · October 26, 2004 10:04 AM

abb1 says: […] King Abdullah […]

I like his tvtome page better:

“King Abdullah is a huge Star Trek fan and often enters forums under an alias to have a good discussion “

Posted by Shai · October 26, 2004 10:31 AM

I’ve read many a more sensible and entertaining Maureen Dowd column, and that’s a fancy way of saying it sucked. ass.

Posted by belle waring · October 26, 2004 11:49 AM

You actually bother reading Brooks’s bloviations? You have too much time on your hands. And, quite frankly, the NYTimes has too much allocation of newsprint, if it publishes his columns.

Posted by raj · October 26, 2004 12:23 PM

Art Buchwald was actually sometimes funny.

Posted by bob mcmanus · October 26, 2004 01:36 PM

When I was a little kid, Art Buchwald and Erma Bombeck were my favorite things in the whole newspaper.

I wonder if there are little kids now who love David Brooks?

Posted by J. Ellenberg · October 26, 2004 02:55 PM

Indeed. I rarely read Brooks (the glosses from blogs seem to be enough), but the Nietzsche reference peaked my interest. Much to my chagrin, not only was the Nietzsche reference completely gratuitous, but it was whole column about how other people understand polling better than he does. Therefore, polls are worthless. And he gets paid for this? B-list bloggers do a better job.

Posted by Josh Canel · October 26, 2004 03:05 PM

Concatenate a quote in regard to King Fraudulla:

From tvtome—

“King Abdullah is a huge Star Trek fan and often enters forums under an alias to have a good discussion. He had one role in Star Trek: Voyager, but had no lines due to the fact that he wasn’t a member of the screen actors guild… and his shock at discovering he was on a tv set and not a ship.

Would you rather be ruled by a stupid king or a stupid public?

Which is worse: a brute or a mob?

Or even better—how about the best of all possible worlds: a brute with a democratic mob behind him, and behind them, a secret council of plutocrats pulling everyone’s strings?

Now that’s what I call “social entropy in action.”

Posted by koreyel · October 26, 2004 03:34 PM

I think it’s a fine column. Especially considering the alternatives for partisans this week. For example, Dionne’s column in the WaPost, combining “insights” from polling data with “arguments” for his chosen position. It isn’t persuasive in the least, and doesn’t even attempt to make me smile.

Posted by Thomas · October 26, 2004 03:49 PM

I don’t normallly read Brooks but I perceive his caricature of presidential election pundits as quite accurate.
There are a bunch of people talking like this in Ireland at the moment. Are there none in America?

Posted by stephan · October 26, 2004 04:14 PM

…and his shock at discovering he was on a tv set and not a ship

Nah, this is a malicious smear. The king is smart and merciful and gentle. His kingdom is peaceful and prosperous, his subjects are happy.

And it’s utterly disgusting that they didn’t allow him to have any lines in that show - what harm would that do? Wasn’t a member of the guild. Bastards.

Posted by abb1 · October 26, 2004 04:20 PM

Your charitable explanation is right on. What’s a conservative of some intelligence and some principles to do with a guy like Bush? Best not to talk about it.

Speaking of Art Buchwald, is Mark Russel still alive?

Posted by Brian · October 26, 2004 04:22 PM

Or even better—how about the best of all possible worlds: a brute with a democratic mob behind him, and behind them, a secret council of plutocrats pulling everyone’s strings?

That was the most concise summary of the Republican Party’s 2004 election platform I’ve seen so far.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch · October 26, 2004 05:06 PM

Apologia Brooks: Wise men know that Bobo knows nothing.

Posted by Bragan · October 26, 2004 06:14 PM

Brooks is wrong from the very first sentence:

Deep at the end of every election campaign, after all the issues have been beaten to death, when only the blowhards are still thundering, attention turns to the outcome. Who is going to win this thing already?

Attention is obsessively focused on the outcome from the get go. If he is going to write drivel, he can at least make it jibe with reality.

Posted by blah · October 26, 2004 06:47 PM

Wasn’t a member of the guild. Bastards.

As you know, no two members of SAG can share the same name. (PDF, §15) Apparently, there’s already a SAG member named King Abdullah of Jordan, so he would have had to change his name to “King Abdullah J. O’Jordan” in order to get the screen credit.

Posted by HP · October 26, 2004 07:03 PM

When Nixon nominated the unimpressive Judge Harrold Carswell to fill a seat on the Supreme Court, Senator Hruska offered the following ringing endorsement: “Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters, and stuff like that there.”

So give the guy a chance. We can’t have all Krugmans, and, er, Krugmans, and Krugmans.

Posted by Michael Otsuka · October 26, 2004 07:48 PM

Mildly reminiscent of Stephen Potter…….”But not in the South!”

Posted by serial catowner · October 27, 2004 06:58 PM
Followups

This discussion has been closed. Thanks to everyone who contributed.