Tag: David Brooks

Posted on

Real Character

David Brooks, columnist for the New York Times, has written a book about character. He essentially defines character as a strong connection to something outside of yourself. He means “character” in a positive sense– not in the sense of “what a character!”. And not in the sense of “he is a deeply flawed character”. He means, “this man has character”. He has principles. He has strength and conviction. His life means something.

It really is an odd criteria, but it plays well with conservative tropes about duty and respect for authority and service. It honors soldiers who come back from war, having done their “duty”, and having killed for the state, or the state’s vested interests, without ever questioning the justice or rationality of its cause. It plays well with religion: character is obedience, to that something outside of yourself, God, or the church itself.

And so, among the failures of Bill Clinton, we often hear conservatives insist that his was a failure of “character”. He was dishonest as a politician. He cheated on his wife.

He was such a character!

But what if character is the opposite? What if it is precisely the man who refuses to obey authority unquestioningly, because he doesn’t have that connection with that outside thing that he thinks is smarter or more respectable or more honorable than his own conscience? What if a man with character is more like Thomas More, not because he believed in something outside of himself– the Roman Catholic Church and it’s corrupt hierarchy– but that he might be right and everyone else, who had all sworn allegiance to King Henry VIII as the new head of the church, was wrong?

Brooks’ mistake is that he assumes that the thing “outside of oneself” is transcendent.  It isn’t potentially just as flawed as the values of a person who, in his view, isn’t loyal to those principles “outside” of his own needs and wants.  But it is obvious that the values that exist “outside” of yourself are someone else’s values: patriotism, religious belief, prurience.  Brooks wants you to believe that those values aren’t the product of some other person’s wants and needs– like a king or corporate executive or general.

That’s why it’s a pity to see Rand Paul trying to go mainstream. I thought he had character, with his odd positions on the drug laws, the invasion of Iraq, and tax breaks for corporations.

Posted on

Corporations are People: Yes they are — psychos.

Corporations are people, my friend.  Mitt Romney

As Michael Kinsley observed,” a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth”. And so Mitt Romney inadvertently– and unapologetically– spoke the truth. The truth about what he believes, that is. This election is about dumping the 47% out onto the streets. It’s about getting rid of the old ball and chain. It’s about traveling light, free and easy, without being dragged down by losers and weaklings. And that’s why Ann Romney can’t understand why people don’t think her husband is the nicest guy there is.

Ann Romney thinks people would change their opinion of Mitt Romney if they only knew about the very nice things he has done for families and friends within his social and professional class. And indeed, by most accounts, Romney has been an exceptionally nice guy. But he reminds me of Ronald Reagan, of whom it was said, he would give you the shirt off your back, and then sit down at his desk in the Oval Office and sign a law that took away school lunches for two million poor children.

Nice guy.

What Romney and Ryan probably are not going to tell you is that they don’t even believe in Medicare or Social Security, or Medicaid. When you hear so-called moderate Republicans like David Brooks declare that the U.S.– unlike every other developed country– can’t afford Medicare, can’t afford Medicaid, and can’t afford Social Security, you realize that there may not be any thing as a “moderate” Republican any more.

What Brooks really means, of course, is that the rich don’t want pay taxes for anything other than ensuring our ability to kill other people, presumably to take their oil, if necessary.

If Romney wins, I suspect he will actually turn out to be a bit of a pragmatist. Confronted with a budget crisis in Massachusetts in 2003, due largely to unfunded medical costs for people who did not carry insurance, Romney hired some smart people from MIT and analyzed the problem and came to a rational conclusion. And thus Obamacare was born. If this is a model for what he would do as president it would be interesting. But even more interesting is the fact that the Tea Party wing of the party will be expecting marvelous things from Mr. Romney and he will, I’m sure, consider long and hard the costs of gratifying them balanced against the possibility of a second term.

Posted on

Oh oh oh! My Sharia!

Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it.” Newt Gingrich, quoted in NY Times, 2011-09-01

One has to grant the possibility that one day Newt Gingrich will be telling a rapt television audience, maybe on Jon Stewart, that he alone warned America about danger; he alone saw it coming. And he was mocked.

Tennessee recently pass a law making it a felony to follow Sharia law. Does that make sense on any level at all? Let’s say a man divorces his wife according to Sharia law. Will the police arrest him and force him to remarry her, and then go to court and get a regular old Christian or secular humanist divorce? It’s mind-blowing.

So, let’s get on with the mockery. Somehow, 300 million Americans will soon be living under laws that require amputations and veils and polygamy. Well, at least they might require a mahr, which is a lump sum payment due to the wife when the husband dies or divorces her.

According to Abed Awad of Rugers University, Sharia law is also:

a methodology through which a jurist engages the religious texts to ascertain divine will.

So I have a really simple solution to the threat of Sharia Law. Let’s have all the states pass laws that make it illegal to appeal to religious doctrines or texts in support of any legal or legislative proceeding. How about that?

But wait— didn’t Newt Gingrich also just say something about it being a bad thing that God was being driven out of public life? Sounds like he doesn’t really mind religious bigotry intolerance– he just wants to make sure that he’s the one carrying the torch.

And aren’t both Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann campaigning on the idea of bringing religion back into the White House? They don’t seem shy about it either. Of course, that’s the Christian religion, so that would not be intolerant or bigoted, because it is the right religion.

Is there anything in Sharia like this new policy in Arizona– in a supposedly “Christian” nation? All visitors to prisoners in state prisons will have to pay a $25 fee each visit.

This sounds familiar. Sounds like something in a Dickens’s novel. Sounds like something from an era of heartless soul-crushing cruelty.

My my my my Sharia!

David Brooks, an otherwise sensible conservative, really thinks Rick Perry has a serious shot at winning the next presidential election. Perry is opposed to Social Security, thinks Franklin Roosevelt ruined the country, ridicules science, gives state jobs to any of his major contributors who want one, and loves macho posturing and quips.

His solution to the hardship caused ranchers and farmers by the drought over Texas this year: a prayer meeting.

I suspect Perry will crumble once he encounters the relentless scrutiny of the media given a national campaign. At this stage– and it’s early– I think Romney actually has a better chance of being the nominee, and a better chance of beating Obama.

Posted on

Genuine Witchcraft: Anne Coulter

Anne Coulter’s take:

Everything you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie. Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis.

Just when decent, intelligent conservatives like David Brooks start to make sense, it is so reassuring to have demagogues like Anne Coulter around to reassure us liberals that we are indeed on the right track. We must be, for heaven’s sake, because the opposition sounds like they think there was nothing wrong with McCarthyism.

So which parts of the liberal “hegemony” on McCarthy were “lies”? The parts about the bullying, the lying about his war record, the drinking, the wild, undocumented, unproven allegations?  The smears of decent writes, actors, and politicians?

Unfortunately, there are those who pretend to be astonished and enlightened when they discover that the Soviet Union, like the U.S., really did have spies in America in the 1950’s, and, therefore, McCarthy was “right”.

Few things in life are more depressing than the fact that it needs to be pointed out to some people that what was wrong with McCarthy was not that he thought there were communists and his opponents thought that there weren’t, which wasn’t true in any case. The problem was that his approach to dealing with communism was to behave exactly how he accused them of behaving.

As many of his contemporaries observed, McCarthy was probably the best friend the communists had– he made opponents of communism look like idiots.

Finally, if Anne Coulter had even the smallest, slightest, sliver of integrity, she would at least acknowledge that even early on in his career, McCarthy smeared as communists anyone who disagreed with him over anything.  He was utterly, irredeemably self-serving.

Like Anne Coulter.

Why shouldn’t they apologize for McCarthy? They are reviving McCarthyism. Senator Peter King (Republican) of Nassau County is going to hold hearings into the radicalization of American Muslims. He claims that 80% of American mosques are run by “extremists”, and makes a number of other inflammatory accusations without offering any proof.

Posted on

I am an Important Person

They cite my favorite piece of sociological data: In 1950, thousands of teenagers were asked if they considered themselves an “important person.” Twelve percent said yes. In the late 1980s, another few thousand were asked. This time, 80 percent of girls and 77 percent of boys said yes. David Brooks, NY Times, July 18, 2010

That’s a fascinating piece of information. If it is to be taken at face value– and I’m not sure it is– our society would seem to be in big trouble. Our kids think it’s all about them.

The social workers and therapists rise as one in a chorus of outrage: but everyone is important. This is great. This is progress. Finally, we have society in which most of us have positive self-esteem.

And I think that is probably correct, if regrettable on some level. Have you ever worked with someone who had low self-esteem? It can be unpleasant. Sometimes a person with low self-esteem can be a bit paranoid and resentful and lacking in initiative– because they are afraid of screwing up. People with healthy self-esteem seem to me more willing to take initiative, trust their own judgment, and expect good results.

Brooks connects this stat to Mel Gibson–he of the infamous drunken tirades– even though Gibson is from the humble generation, the low self-esteem group. In fact, I think Brooks has it all wrong. A lot of Gibson’s fury probably derives from his low self-esteem, not from his ego. This is a man who has to demand respect from people, because, deep down, he knows he will never be able to earn it on his own merits.

And I note the adventures of Carl Friedrich Goerdeler and the Mendelsohn Statue in Leipzig (May 22, 1930–March 31, 1937).

Who was this strange, puzzling man, who advocated the destruction of Poland, the ascendancy of Hitler, .. and, most mystifyingly, the preservation of a statue of the composer Felix Mendelsohn in front of the Gewandhaus concert hall in Leipzig? He traveled around the world warning everybody about the danger of the Nazi regime, while begging foreign governments to respect Germany’s desire to regain control over their colonies, and the Sudentanland. He spent hours trying to decide which of the Hohenzollerns would occupy the throne once he had personally removed Hitler.

Posted on

Same as the Old Boss

Like a lot of people, I have been willing to cut President Obama a lot of slack. A vast network of incompetence, abuse, and secrecy can’t be turned around over night. But I am increasingly disturbed by clear signs that Obama, perhaps in the interest of finding “common ground”, is not making the changes he was elected to make.

The latest of these (see the link, above left) involve yet another case in which Obama, apparently terrified that Americans will find him inadequately ruthless, refuses to stop abuse, torture, and arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. He thinks that one of these detainees, after release, will conduct an act of terrorism and the Republicans will gleefully make the case that only assholes like Dick Cheney can stand up to the forces of darkness. Even worse: it might look like George W. Bush was right.

It’s not an isolated incident. Obama has refused to release photographs showing more prisoner abuse in Iraq. He hasn’t changed U.S. policy to Cuba, or Iran, or North Korea. He supported the amnesty for telecoms that violated your right to privacy at the behest of Homeland Security. He won’t reveal new details about who the government is spying on without warrants or how often they do it.

The photograph issue is a telling point– during the campaign, Obama argued that transparency and honesty would ultimately increase respect for America around the world. He can’t now argue that circumstances have changed. He can’t argue that he has new information that he didn’t have during the campaign. He can’t argue that there is a risk to American soldiers that did not exist during the campaign. The only thing that changed is that Obama now has the power to do what he said he would do. He promised something. He didn’t deliver.

Just another politician? It’s beginning to look like it. The style is different, yes, but so far Obama has not staked out a path that is substantively different from what we could have expected under McCain, or even Bush. What we have now are the same policies, but provided with more thoughtful, coherent explanations.

He is also trying to block investigations into the Justice Department’s procedures for authorizing torture during the Bush Administration. In other words, so you tortured a few Arabs? Big deal. We’ll just let bygones be bygones and let those evil lawyers and judges go on their merry ways while the victims of their actions lay shattered and broken in their prison cells.

Finally– his economic “reforms” leave in place most of the lousy structures and policies that created this massive economic disaster in the first place.

Is this what the majority of Americans– more than ever voted for Bush– wanted? Is this what they voted for? What is going on here? Do they have a right to feel betrayed?

Bush, with a razor thin margin of votes, took the U.S. into a disastrous war, violated the constitution, and destroyed the economy. Obama, with a substantial majority– won against a moderate Republican– seems afraid to do anything he promised the voters he would do.

The world is crying for a dramatic gesture from this government that things are different.

So far, things seem mighty same.

The story in the New York Times.

Obama prides himself on his ability to build consensus, to seek common ground, to forge compromise. Since the Republicans pride themselves on the fact that they are always so right that they don’t need to listen to anybody else (which is not to say that some Democrats believe the same thing), this is a win-win situation for conservatives. I fear that Obama’s health care proposals will be so compromised by this process that they will fail, which will allow the Republicans to proclaim that it was always a bad idea.

* Note: while some liberals can be as doctrinaire as conservatives (and conservatives love insisting they all are), it is also true that a core liberal belief is that there is some value in all points of view– precisely the kind of moral “flexibility” Conservatives say they detest. Can’t have it both ways: which is it?

More Compromises:
On Detainee Rights

“Second, Democrats learned never to go to war against the combined forces of corporate America. Today, whether it is on the stimulus, on health care or any other issue, the Obama administration and the Congressional leadership go out of their way to court corporate interests, to win corporate support and to at least divide corporate opposition.”
David Brooks, NYTimes, June 30, 2009

Yet another depressing story.

Added July 24:  It should be noted that a few days after the above comments, David Brooks complained bitterly that Obama was pursuing the radical agenda of the left wing of the Democratic party and not giving adequate respect to moderation and compromise.

Okay Brooks, which is it?