A quick pop of my head back in here to say that I, too, found the Red v. Blue article quite interesting and echoed to some extent what my father’s been saying for years. He’s from that world, and it’s worthwhile to listen. (Every now and then.)

David Brooks is from Wayne and went to the same high school as me and Mike, which means nothing, really, but puts me in a good position to say that his book "Bobos in Paradise" is a load of bullsh*t. Don't bother reading it even if you like him.

Still, I find him really interesting as a social observer. He has written two articles in particular that encapsulate demographic trends that no one else has yet mentioned or noticed. (These would be Patio Man, about people for whom the old suburbs aren't suburban enough, and Red States vs. Blue States, which describes the difference between big- and small-headroom people.) The things that he says in these articles, which often make him sound kind of liberal, are fascinating to me and often very convincing. I think he is a perspicacious and funny observer of the lifestyles we Americans choose to pursue.

I have no idea why they have him writing about politics!

Liberal anger circa 2003 is not even in the same category as the frothing inanities and caustic mendacity of people like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Tom Delay, et al, et al, et al, et al. I've been reading both Conason's and Franken's books (and Franken's much easier to read, what with all the funny) and, while they are focussed and aggressive, they are -- fundamentally and meticulously -- based on unrefuted, clear, provable, quoted FACTS about what the players in this administration have done. It's not hype and it's not "shrill" to be pissed off when the facts show hypocrisy out the gazot.

So, after reading his article, I had to conclude that Brooks is just another crossover "con" artist in a good suit, plying even-handed credentials to provide cover and comfort to the same right-winger farm club that brought us the likes of Andrew Sullivan, David Horowitz, and George Will. It seems patently obvious that he was brought on to "balance" Krugman's fairly relentless arguments. And this, of course, is interesting, since it's Krugman himself who is the moderate/ conservative they brought on to dissect the New Economy; when the shit hit the fan, he started calling spades spades and, lo and behold, here comes Brooks tch-tching the Liberal Hater.

What a scam. If Brooks is your "middle ground," then he's doing his job and you haven't noticed the ground shifting beneath you.

Brooks has balls -- I'll give him that -- for hanging the "hater" label on liberals. Even in this age of visceral reactions to Bush (who gets away with actually doing most of the things that conservatives tried to hang on Clinton), it's hard to compete with the phalanx of Foxites and Neocon Blondes.

I saw his column on these "Presidency Wars" (a non-starter of a meme, I'm hoping, if only for it's ungainliness) and it seemed to me to be more about fostering conservative indignance than elucidating anything about the state of political discourse. The quotes he uses to bolster his argument are thin gruel and most of it seemed to be based on this construct, a mythic liberal "hater" -- a sort of Deanified version of that previous neocon bogeyman the "Superpredator" -- who's out there making W's job impossible.

It is not being ill-informed that is making liberals enraged, it is being INFORMED about all the cold-blooded hijinks -- state of the union fibs, international treaties shredded, push back on 9.11 investigations, deficit codswallop, etc. ad infinitum. And, while ten years of explosive conservative vitriol have finally pushed enough liberals to shout back a little, the causes underlying their/our/my anger (and the solutions that actually accompany it) seem squarely built within a constructive framework: that is, the current administration, using a thick haze of obfuscation and outright lies, is pointedly breaking down the New Deal and Great Society contract between government and the citizenry, most of us are suffering while corporations and the vastly wealthy make out like bandits, and the damage that is being caused has to stop before it gets projected any farther into the future. We would like people like Grover Norquist to stop drowning government in the bathtub, please. (If you need his actual quote on this, I'll provide it.) It's about fighting to protect more people under the safety of social institutions, not going Micheal Savage on your ass.

(more)

David Brooks stands out as a self-identified conservative writer, I think, because he almost always avoids moral arguments. Instead, he builds his case using social and (egad) structural analyses. This is not a guy who's trying to be a voice of the people, or to present an insider's perspective, the way Safire does."I'd feel a lot more confident if I could find somebody who really understood the forces that are reshaping the American electorate," he said in a previous column--that's not exactly a pounding-the-table guy. It's why I'll read him regularly. I'm not entirely encouraged by his Lonely Campus Voices column, though -- it was the first one that he seemed to pull straight out of his freezer. That issue is a longstanding conservative bugaboo. I'm going to stop enjoying seeing his column if his topics become predictable. If that happens, I hope the Times schedules him for the same day as Maureen Dowd--then I can skip them at the same time.

Though I don’t read the Times on a daily basis, it is indeed nice in theory to see some proposition of balance. Of course, being on the left side of the dial myself, I haven’t really seen the Old Gray Lady as left for some time.

As for the unbridled bile scattered over American politics like a protein shake in a blender with the lid left off, I see it as very American. (Whatever you do, do better than the other guy and the last guy. Cf. Neil Young: “It’s better to burn out than it is to rust.”) I can only hope that I live long enough to see the cycle swing back around to a more mature society.

That said, my impression of Howard Dean is that he doesn’t quite boil down to the soundbite you selected. In the first place, the theme I took away from the one speech of his I saw in any length* was that of shared responsibility. We are all responsible for each other. Things like Social Security exist because through it, we all contribute to the common welfare. This would contradict my inference from your statements, that Dean is as divisive as the next.
Second, I don’t think it is that far out of line to suggest that the 2004 election is a referendum on the political process in a way. Will voter turnout continue to drop as it has since 1960 (source; I didn't examine the rest of this report, FWIW) or will it pick up? Will this election be decided by the Supreme Court, or by the voters? (Whatever one's political stripes, it seems self-evident that a decision by the Supremes is not terribly democratic.) Dean doesn't want to just win, he wants also to win with a clear popular and electoral margin, and a popular margin based on eligible voters, not just actual ones. My extrapolations, in some cases.

* And I figure that in primary season, one speech is substantially similar to the rest.

Laura in DC:
Feel free to excerpt away.

Just to clarify: "Stacey's Mom" is by Fountains of Wayne, which is named for a garden-variety gnome and fountain store in Wayne, NJ, which has been featured on the "Sopranos". Wayne, PA, is the former home of Mr. Brooks, Ms. Owens, and myself. There are only two connections (other than having the same name, of course) that I know of between the two Waynes:

1) Some very clueless movers once tried to deliver a chair to us but kept getting lost. It took several phone calls for us to realize they were in Wayne, NJ.

2) The guys from the band Fountains of Wayne were roomates in college with my brother in law, who of course is married to my sister, who also grew up in Wayne, PA.

We now return to our political discussion.

TK, that is an excellent analysis. Do you mind if I post an excerpt of it on my blog?

Here, here, Colin. Well said!

Conservative voices:

Although Jim might not believe this, I too miss reading credible conservative voices. That's why I try to read the FT and the economist. My problem is that conservative voices in the US have atrophied.

On the talk radio level, it's just vitrol and bile. It's very scary -- you could do a voice analysis (leave out the content) which would show that these guys are just haters. I have little tolerance for that, and their demagoguery scares me (as does their cavalier disregard for fact) so I skip them.

I'm more dissapointed with elite conservative voices, such as the Weekly Standard and the National Review, etc. They're pretty much giving the President a free pass on most of what he does, and even apologizing for it when it's bad policy from a conservative standpoint.

Although I don't hold the FT's values, they've been very good about holding this administration to a consistent conservative standard, and finding it wanting from that direction as well. Think about fiscal policy -- if a Democrat was acting this way in the white house, conservatives would be screaming bloody murder. Now compare the reactions of the US press to that of the foreign conservative press. Most of Ashcrofts behavior would have been strongly objected to by Ashcroft himself if he wasn't the one doing it. Etc.

To be fair, the liberal media also fell down on the job with Clinton, but they at least criticized him some. Any administration needs friendly criticism to keep it honest.

For what it's worth, I loved "Patio Man", and even linked to it here in Ish. I thought it summed up well a substantial trend in America.

Emily -

Thanks for the link. Enjoyed reading Red v. Blue. With family in a number of Red States, it has always amazed me at how little people seem to want to know about their own country (but how quick they are to judge their "opposite color").

I'm not surprised "Bobos in Paradise" is unimpressive - I find that kind of topic has a hard time surviving book-length (although I admit I bought Al Franken's book, for no other reason than to try to further insult Fox and their sad little vanity lawsuit).

Also - thanks for the birth triva. I can't believe he is from Wayne! I'm seeing Wayne everywhere these days (the "Stacey's Mom" video is on 24 hours a day).

Matt -

You know, the funny thing is, I'd forgotten Safire when writing my original post. He is my regular "see his name and skip the column" guy. Maybe that is why I'm pleased to see someone like Brooks out there.

Trip -

Should have made the initial post clearer - the Dean soundbite was Brooks', not mine (the quote is two paragraphs long). FWIW though, I took it more as a comment on the state of political discourse, rather than Dean in general. I don't see Dean as any more divisive than others, but I do find it weird that there is some notion that, unless we vote Democratic, we are undermining the very idea of democracy. But I agree - just a soundbite for crowd - hardly Dean's mission statement.

On the other hand, I confess to not paying much attention to the Dems yet. I figure that, by the time my primary rolls around, the crowd should be a little thinner. I can't be bothered to study up on all however-many-there-ares at this point, since I suspect there will be a "big three" left by the time the country cares about my little opinion . . . .

Colin, it's interesting what you say about R v. B, because when I first read it in the Atlantic, which was still at the time ostensibly a liberal magazine--its tranformation into a creepy instrument of rich Republicans and the Rand Corporation was not yet entirely apparent--I thought that he was being if not liberal per se (since this article is more about lifestyle than politics), then at least quite condescending towards the Red state people and therefore aligning himself with the Blue. (God that sentence was long. Sorry.) I think he treats both sides with equal suspicion, and that our impression of the article is being colored by the different contexts in which we encountered him...

(digby, cont'd)

It just seems like common sense that if you've been hit over the head for 15 solid years by the same people that you are fucking fool if you don't put up your dukes and hit back at some point. Contrary to the lies and myths of the GOP, Democrats are not actually pacifists. We may be slow to boil, but we are perfectly capable of fighting when we are pushed too hard. And we have been pushed way beyond any civilized limits.

This isn't really about Bush hatred. The man is just a figurehead, unworthy of much more than amused derision for his obvious lack of command and intellect. Democratic anger is about an arrogant and merciless political movement that simply does not respond to ordinary notions of civility or compromise. They have misrepresented themselves to the American public. Their tactics are ruthless and immoral and they are governing in a radical and undemocratic fashion.

Our passion and our anger is directed at a machine that is not observing traditional standards of decency and through long and difficult experience we have learned that they cannot be stopped simply by "setting a good example." Anybody who hasn't yet grasped that is either willfully blind or intellectually stunted.

Oh yes. And thank you Arthur for giving another column to a Republican shill. How very Fair and Balanced of you. But, take my word for it. You can't buy their love and you can't appease them no matter how whorish you become. Until you completely turn the Gray Lady into the Washington Times you are the enemy. Just a little word to the wise.

Here's a comment on Brooks that seemed on point, which I'll quote in its entirety.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2003_09_28_digbysblog_archive.html#106497049478065245

This hectoring about the Democrats' "bad manners" is getting ridiculous. They are basically saying:

The Republicans played the lowest form of dirty politics in order to gain complete institutional power in Washington. Democrats are very angry about these tactics and they are fighting back.

This is a terrible way to conduct our politics and the Democrats should stop it right now.

... while the Republicans consolidate the power they attained by continuing to use dirty tactics.

Everything will be allright if the Democrats do the right thing and let the Republicans do whatever they want.

It's too bad nobody said much about this when the Republicans were systematically trying to destroy the Clintons and anybody who ever crossed their path, but that's spilled milk and everybody should get over it.

Surely, if Democrats just set a good example now, they won't ever do it again.

While I am so very impressed with the logic of this argument, I can't endorse it right now because I'm afraid that "setting a good example" isn't really going to get the job done, you know what I mean?

I just have the niggling feeling that certain types of bullying pricks on this earth aren't really open to the finer ideas of "civil discourse." Particularly those who pay and listen to people who spend upwards of, say, 40 hours a week working themselves into a complete frenzy of loathing against the "enemy" (who, by the way, is me.)

Something tells me that it would be a tiny bit naive of me to believe that these modern Republicans, who have shown they will go to any lengths to smear and destroy their political oppposition, are going to be chastened by my fine example of turning the other cheek to their merciless onslaught of invective toward me and everything I believe. In fact, it's been my experince that they find that attitude is an invitation to laugh uproariously while they rhetorically deliver a gratuitous kick in the teeth. Ask Max Cleland about that.

(more)

You fuckin' rock, Colin.

Full props. DB

Side note. Not that any of my soapboxin' will or should change anyone's opinion, but over the years I've come to trust Joe Conason for telling the truth, being angry but smart, and ultimately having a big heart. He doesn't buy Brooks' act either (from Salon):

"Rip van Brooks awakens to this cruel, cruel world
Elevated to the New York Times Op-Ed page from the dank, Murdochian stable of the Weekly Standard, David Brooks seems eager to cleanse himself of old habits and nasty associations, while affecting an air of wistful, evenhanded semidetachment. (Eventually, these ostentatiously hygienic columns will annoy some of his old comrades.) In today's offering, he laments the increasing meanness of presidential politics, particularly as reflected in the "hate" expressed toward George W. Bush by certain liberals.

Brooks is concerned that several left-leaning books, none of which he seems to have read, are appearing on bestseller lists. To him, a single confessional article in the New Republic suggests that everyone on the left simply despises the president for reasons that have nothing to do with dishonesty, incompetence and horrific policy. He frets that "the hatreds have left the animating ideas far behind and now romp about on their own." He detects in the haters a "threat to democracy."

His handwringing is hokum. After a decade of continuous Clinton-bashing, much of which appeared in a magazine he edited, has Brooks just now noticed the substitution of vitriol for debate? Has he just awakened, like some right-wing Rip van Winkle? Has he failed to notice the tactics used by the Bush administration, that repository of honor and integrity, against critics like Joe Wilson?

No. More likely, what troubles Brooks is that liberals are finally answering his movement's attacks on their patriotism, character, morality and honor. It doesn't seem to have occurred to him that sooner or later, unrelenting viciousness would provoke an angry response. ...

Expressions of hatred toward the president are deplorable, of course, no matter how obscure. It was also deplorable when right-wing propagandists were spewing pus at the last elected president, his wife, mother, daughter, brother, friends, associates, employees, as well as his cat and dog. Nobody on the right seemed too worried about that. ..."

His "experimental cafeteria" argument at the end belies the tone and subtext of the article -- in fact, it wraps us all up in a flag, obscuring both genuine disagreements and authentic points of commonality. A nice move, particularly for Blue State conservatives who want to feel they really understand the noble Red Stater, and still enjoy their headroom and dry cleaning.

There's a place for this kind of story, to be sure. But you can get if from someone who didn't learn their moves at the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard (those paragons of even-handednesss).

Sorry, guys. I think you may be falling for his sweet, moderate-sounding tones.

Now, let's go get cappucinos and make fun of the tourists.

Well, I only skimmed the Red and Blue article (but it was a close skim), and -- even though I hold all your opinions in high esteem and am willing to revisit and revise my own jerking knee -- it seems to me to be yet more cloaked pandering to a conservative sense of self-importance.

"Smart-ass, sneering Blue Americans" failing to see the deep truth of the Common ("Red") Man, while gorging on headroom and dry cleaning. "Liberal-arts majors... with liberal-arts jobs get(ting) passive-aggressive pleasure from demonstrating how modest and environmentally sensitive their living containers are." Brooks confesses, "I sometimes think that Franklin County takes its unpretentiousness a little too far." Whose "intellectual superiority" is he really after?

His act would play a lot more authentically if it weren't steeped in such a patronizing "let's see what's really going on here" tone. (And I don't even want to read to closely between his lines when he says, almost apologetically, that "only" 31 percent of minority members in Blue states agree that AIDS is God's punishment for gays.)

I can't shake this feeling that he's cobbled together some stereotypes and a handful of facts (as in his Presidency Wars column) to push an agenda. I've been a "Blue Stater" all my life, but the awe and alienness he displays on his trip to Franklin county doesn't sound like real life; it sounds like a set up. The spin is subtly critical throughout (there was even a "sour piece in the New York Times") as though all the trappings of his Blue home are tainted, tragically egotistical and out of touch. The line he supposedly "investigates" is not nearly so clear or morally charged as he implies. If he weren't so disdaining of his Red study subjects, he might see them -- and his own neighbors -- as actual people. I saw a lot of these differences sitting around with family and friends in Tennessee this summer, but it would never have occurred to me to think they lacked intelligence (as he seems to imply people in Franklin county do; or maybe they're just simple folk). And I don't think my Manhattan friends lack humility or earnestnesss either. Brooks works very hard to draw his line, and it curves ever so conveniently throughout his narrative.

(more)

O.K., well, I don't know if this qualifies as a 'rule of three' situation, funny coincidence, or what, but I'm about to go interview a film production company for a project I'm working on, and I asked my production coordinator if it was confirmed.

She said, "oh yes, I confirmed it this morning. I had to, since they are coming all the way from Wayne, PA."

I guess I gotta hire them now, right?

NS wrote that "conservative voices in the US have atrophied." Apparently one reason is that they're on drugs. OK, so its alleged, and its only Rush, and if he's got a drug problem that's sad and he needs help, and I'm not making the "discourse" any better by pointing out that he's having a Bill Bennet moment, on top of getting fired from ESPN (what was he doing there, anyway?) for saying that Eagles QB Donovan McNabb was getting more credit than he deserved because he's black.

However, my inner Nelson Muntz can't help it: "Ha, ha."