I’m going to quote driftglass at length here for the simple reason that I like to reward and draw attention to good writing:
Eventually even very high-powered, very highly-paid and very public political con men like Mr. David Brooks of the New York Times start to run out of road. After enough years have passed, a career’s worth of public bullshit and bad faith start to roll downhill faster than he can outrun them and no matter how many of your cronies lock arms to protect you and the scam you’re running, your past begins to nip at your heels.
Like the ghost of Jacob Marley, over the course of his professional life, Mr. Brooks has forged a vast and heavy chain of absurd claims, asinine pronouncements, outright lies and venomous slanders. He made it link by link and yard by yard. He gartered it on of his own free will and by his own free will he wore it!
And now Mr. Brooks would very much like for this ponderous and inconvenient chain which clanks along behind him to magically disappear (at no personal or professional cost to himself of course.)
Straight-up denial (I never said those things!) has worked for awhile, because there is not one living soul above Mr. Brooks who is interested in lowering the boom on him, and his aforementioned cronies have grown so dependent on the Both Siderist Big Lie he has pioneered that they dare not raise their voices even when the lies get embarrassingly ridiculous.
But flat denial is not a sustainable proposition over the long term, especially since that long and terrible chain is welded to together with names and dates and facts and figures and clearly enunciated positions and predictions. It is not merely a boo-boo or two or a misstep or two from which Mr. Brooks is trying to separate himself: he is seeking to annul thirty years of well-documented facts.
He is filing for divorce from his own past, and factual reality does not grant such requests.
I admire that kind of talent and it inspires me.
BTW Driftglass and his also very good blogging/life partner Blue Gal are struggling a little (lot) these last few years. So anyone who wants to follow their blogs or their Professional Left podcast and maybe throw a regular nickle their way won’t regret it. They are good people. Also seriously pissed off people. For good reasons. And both of them have been on these beat for a LONG time.
http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2015/04/professional-left-podcast-281.html
Yes, good writing, thanks. I’m finding Brooks fascinating, and usually I rely on your reading him, sort of in the way Joel Osteen is fascinating. Brooks is flailing around for some kind of spiritual validation as a capstone to what Driftglass expresses so well.
I started to read his column yesterday and as usual did not get past the first few paragraphs. Frankly I thought he was simply stating the blindingly obvious.
Reading it a bit further in the link, his talk of the need for honesty and trust sounds like he’s discovered AA. Good for him.
If Brooks is heading toward a place of rigorous honesty, he is long due to begin a lengthy list of amends towards all he has wronged, publicly and privately.
I’m looking forward to him beginning those amends. Unfortunately, he has not begun to make amends towards those who he has wronged publicly. A crucial character trait, humility, seems to continue to evade him. And, unfortunately, the MSM has only grown his power in the years since he began supporting controversial politicians and policies which have killed millions, some quickly through military and other means, others through the cruel denial of assistance, funding and services to those with lower incomes while demanding policies which further enrich the rich.
And, unfortunately, the MSM continues to act as enablers to Brooks’ soft-speaking but damaging rageaholism.
“He is filing for divorce from his own past.”
Who gets custody of the Irish Setter?
I used to read driftglass on a daily basis,,,until I noticed that more often than not, his blog posts are about David Brooks. Now, I don’t read David Brooks, and I really don’t need anyone doing it for me, not even CPP.
Bashing David Brooks is preaching to the choir, as no one’s mind is going to be changed about the poor bloke, and it’s starting to feel like a Palinesque sort of giving oxygen to something that should die all on its own.
I’m not inspired at all and I’m fairly certain driftglass (and bluegal) have talents that could be better used elsewhere than bashing David Brooks for the nth time.
“Bashing David Brooks is preaching to the choir, as no one’s mind is going to be changed about the poor bloke, and it’s starting to feel like a Palinesque sort of giving oxygen to something that should die all on its own.”
BREAKING! DAVID BROOKS FOUND BEATEN TO DEATH IN APPLEBEE’S SALAD BAR! FILM AT 11!
It’s the way that “bashing David Brooks” should be done.
Now find that I skip the Charles Pierce bashes David Brooks pieces. Still well written and funny, but no more meaningful than parsing the latest repetitive and meaningless dribble from any number of high profile pundits and politicians.
In defense of the project–since Brooks claims a kind of universal expertise in everything from St. Augustine to Iran policy, and since he’s wrong about virtually all of it, reading him critically, finding out exactly how he is wrong on any given issue, can be an extraordinary learning experience.
But then he’s an awful, cheap, slovenly writer, whereas when you read him through Driftglass you get those moments of really extraordinary prose.
“…can be an extraordinary learning experience.”
But this is akin to performance art, and I’ll hold up Charles Pierce as prime example in this case. To echo what Marie says, it’s well written and entertaining, but I’m not sure it’s much of a learning experience.
I put Brooks in the same category as Friedman, Krautspammer, and Schlaffeytaffy: Their target audience is the wealth class, who have little experience in the day to day life of the peasants. Reading them makes the wealthy feel better about themselves, as if they need any better feefees. Life is tough, you know!?