David Brooks is an embarassment to the rest of us from Wayne.

By the way, I highly recommend a similar debunking of the Red/Blue state dichotomy in this month's Harper's. And don't forget the 10-color map!

I agree with Mike, with the exception that I find Brooks pretty interesting for a conservative. Facts or no facts, the "Patio Man" article always sounded right to me, and you can't say that it was flattering my, uh, conservative biases.

I had noticed his rather open relationship with the facts some years ago. The BOBOS book is all about Wayne and how it's changed over the years. Unfortunately, he either didn't remember stuff or was making it up. One detail that has always stuck out in my mind was the way he lionized Wayne for being Bobo enough to support an independent bookstore, which sprang up as an alternative to the local megastores. Malarkey! My mothers says she took refuge in that bookstore while waiting for the bus when pregnant with me! And it has been practically driven out of business by the comparatively recent arrival of Borders and B&N, clinging to life only because of the stubborn patronage of some decidedly unhip diehards.

I run hot and cold on Brooks - like Emily, I find him an interesting moderate conservative writer who is much more readable than the nut jobs on either the right ( Coulter ) or the left (I won't put any names, because I suspect I would generate outrage if I compared any of the left's sacred cows to Anne Coulter, or dared to suggest they play fast and loose with facts as well).

I've really liked some of his columns. Then again, some have been pretty brutal. I tend to prefer his social commentary (where he provides a look at social issues through conservative eyes) versus his political commentary (where he often just carries the standard). Today's column is pretty blah. Nothing offensive, but nothing real smart either. Reads like a slightly conservative "Chicken Soup For the High School Student" story.

At the same time, I didn't find the critique very compelling. Some of the "facts" that were outed were flat out irrelevant (statewide illegal alien population is not the same as using illegal alien labor vs. riding mowers for lawn work), anecdotal (Scott the clerk likes Annie Hall! Point proven!), or utterly trivial (the Red Lobster charges more than $20.00! Scandal!). I particularly love the way the author tries to elevate the banal as a "gotcha," such as earnestly describing the Red Lobster meal as a "grilled center cut New York strip." Yeah, you sold me. Red Lobster rocks. Yummy.

Like Emily, I found the article to "ring true," and Scott the clerk doesn't reverse my sense of that. Having just spend a week driving around central Florida in a futile hunt for a Red Sox game, I'd say Patio Man is even more resonant for me (if I have time, I'll post on my trip).

FWIW, I agree that anyone who is fooled into thinking David Brooks isn't a conservative is probably not-too-swift. Of course, anyone who think Paul Krugman is the voice of dispassionate centrism is equally stupid. That's why the page is called "Op-Ed" and not "quiet reason."

I actually agree with Brooks, that the article is too pendantic, too literal, and too obsessed with scoring mini-points. Similar and equally immaterial critiques could be written about Krugman. If you think Patio Man is stupid, so be it. But I'm not sure that Amazon.com book sales data convinces me that Brooks is a fiend and that McAllen, Texas is actually a hotbed of FDR worship (did the author ever consider that Goodwin's sales numbers were higher there because many big cities have more bookstores, and don't need to order online? Just a thought.)

I don't think "soft, sly wedge-issue panderer" is an unfair description, but I do think it is a characterization born of ideology. In other words, "enemy writers" cover "wedge issues," but our friends are "topical." Enemy writers are "soft," but our friends are "moderate." Enemy writers are "sly," our friends are "clever." I would personally describe Brooks as a clever moderate conservative writing on topical issues. And yeah, he spins with the best of them. And yeah, he picks his facts with the best of them.

I'm still gonna keep reading him though. And i would be more interested in seeing Issenberg's competing explanation for the divide between so-called "red" and "blue" states than his catalogue of shocking "lies." The price of a gourmet meal at the Sizzler just doesn't rattle me, or change what I thought of the over-arching themes.

Emily -- was that the book store on North Wayne Avenue? I can't remember the name of it, but it was really pretty good...

Jim -- pick up this month's Harper's -- Thomas Frank's piece is a much better critique of the whole over-arching idea. Although I wouldn't discount what Brooks does with the facts. The thing is, he's selling stereotypes -- what Blue Staters are like, vs. what Red Staters are like. It's a compelling stereotype (which may be why it "rings true" for so many of us), but like all stereotypes it's grossly oversimplifying.

Brooks seems to be largely arguing about taste and authenticity. Reds and Blues have different tastes, and by and large his evidence for that is going to be anecdotal. But he goes beyond that -- he's making the case that Reds are somehow more authentic than Blues. Thus does the stereotype about tastes -- Reds don't eat no fancy meals -- becomes politicized -- Reds are the "common men," and therefore their political agenda (i.e., the GOP's) is more "American" than fussy latte liberalism.

So, in the end, it actually does matter if you can get a fancy meal in Franklin County. Which is more than just a "gotcha."

Mike -

You touch on an interesting point - perhaps my ambivalence is rooted in my disagreement over the authenticity angle.

I haven't read Patio Man in a while, but I don't recall walking away from it thinking that the Red State people came off as American and the Blue State people came off as unamerican. I recall walking away with an impression of one theory as to how and why the notion of what is "American" or "authentic" is so markedly different between those two broad stereotypes.

In other words, to the extent I have Red State roots, I recognized a lot of the sterotypes, and actually thought they were pretty on-target and not all negative (though some were, of course). And as a current Blue Stater, I thought they were pretty on-target too, and not all negative (though some were, of course).

A common and stereotypical observation about New York Citiers (who egotistically like to call themselves "New Yorkers," even though they have little in common with many of their upstate comrades) is that they think they have something really great going on, and how sad it would be to live in Podunk, Ohio, and assume everyone must really envy what a wonderful life they have. And, of course, the good people of Podunk, Ohio think much the same thing in reverse, and for different reasons. The reason why is pretty obviously a different set of core values - not "better," "worse," or "more American," just different.

Perhaps I've transformed Brooks' thesis in my head, in which case I apologize. But the thing I took away from Patio Man was not "Blue State Democrats are fussy whiners, and Red State Republicans are the REAL Americans."

What I took away was a little insight into why certain messages just don't take hold in the Red States (much to the *shock* of die-hard liberals, who can't imagine how those tractor-driving hicks could ignore such key issues), just like some issues don't take hold in the Blue States (much to the *shock* of die-hard conservatives, who can't imagine how those fussy latte-sippers could ignore such key issues).

Look, the fact is, only about 17 states matter in this year's Presidential election. The other 33 are pretty much already going to vote in a very specific direction. My vote, for example, doesn't matter - New Jersey is voting for Kerry unless he kills some babies sometime soon. And maybe a LOT of babies. There is a reason for this - there are broad cultural values loosely tied to broad geographic regions. Brooks is addressing that, which I don't think is valueless (or a web of sly lies).

O.K., so my interest was piqued enough to go grab and re-read Patio Man.

I just don't see the authenticity angle. Yes, he is purporting to describe a sterotype. But I don't see that stereotype as being lionized, and certainly not at the expense of "city folk." At one point he describes it as "American life," but only to contrast it with people who would otherwise characterize it as a "retreat from American life." Could be just me.

The bookstore is called The Readers' Forum.

I agree with Jimpy that I don't see Brooks making an argument that Red-staters are more authentic (at least not effectively). Maybe his rhetoric just can't pierce the carapace of my elitist Blue-statism, but I read his articles as purely descriptive. I read them and think, "Oh, those poor Sprinkler City people, doomed to live their futile lives in a hideous place that is devoid of the qualities I love in our country." We've discussed this before, but I really think you could read Patio Man as dismissively stereotypical rather than lionizing. The fact that we are even talking about it lends credence to the suggestion that Brooks is moderate.

Maybe we see so few moderates these days that we can't identify them when we see them.

I agree with virtually everything my darling fiancee is saying here about Mr. Brooks (also Jimpy). But she wasn't feeling quite so sympathetic toward him four months ago:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/bradamant/67111.html

Which is not to say Emily isn't right that Brooks, whatever his politics, is often an elitist, Lucky magazine–hating twerp.

Chris, I just hope the couch in your new place is comfortable....

You guys are generous to a fault. Which is part of why I think you're great. But in my mind, with guys like this, you can moderate yourself into oblivion. Some people deserve to be opposed on partisan principles, and despite his occasionally deployed "evenhandedness," the fact seems obvious to me, Bobos and lobsters aside, Brooks is a water-carrier for the right.* He was when he was at the Journal and the Weekly Standard, and he still is now that he's at the Times (and will be for the next 30 years or so, probably).

[Jimps, I think your Krugman comparison is right on tone, wrong on substance; yes, Krugman's a strident voice against the political and social shenanigans of this administration, but even he is suprised to find himself in that position. After all, he's a Princeton economist and he says his politics are much more centrist than you'd think; he's just gawping in disbelief at what these guys are getting away with. Also, I think a rigoruous analysis would show that, while politically charged conclusions may be evident in both men's writing, Paul hammers the facts much harder over time. Your comment above is spot on, but pull the thread and I don't think they're substantively equivalent.]

Here's a selection from Brooks' take on Richard Clarke's recent testimony. It's an interesting trick, I think, where Brooks gets to have his cake (stick it to Clarke) and eat it too (hover above the fray).

"It should be said that Clarke used to be capable of the sort of balanced analysis contained in these reports. Indeed, he was a major source for them. But that was the old Richard Clarke. That was the Richard Clarke who could weigh the pros and cons of the Clinton and Bush terror strategies. That was the Clarke who expressed frustration at the glacial pace of the pre-9/11 antiterror policy process, but who also, in 2001, sent out e-mail praising the White House for alerting agencies to a possible attack, and who praised the Bush team for "vigorously" pursuing the Clinton strategy while deciding to quintuple the C.I.A.'s anti-Qaeda budget.

But that wonky Richard Clarke doesn't become a prime-time media sensation or sell hundreds of thousands of books. Because in this country, we speak only one language when it comes to public affairs, the language of partisan warfare. So out goes Mr. Wonk. Clarke turns himself into an anti-Bush attack machine, and we get a case study of how serious bipartisan concern gets turned into a week of civil war.

Compared with the commission reports, Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies," is as subtle as an episode of the Power Rangers. See Dick Clarke courageously take control of the government in the middle of the terror attacks! See him heroically lead a teleconference! Behold his White House conversations! Everything he says is farsighted and brave! Everything the Bushies say is incorrect. And he remembers it all perfectly!"

After this, he says Clarke deserves "blame for his shrill partisanship" and the media deserves blame for "seething at one another about one man" rather than "talking about the bipartisan failures and systematic shortcomings of our terror policy." That was last week, but he's not talking about those shortcomings this week. No, this week it's college admissions. Which is fine, but I don't see how it doesn't undercut his noble posture. His picture sure looks respectable on the Op-Ed page there. But the man's got mud on him from the elbows down.

And, with plenty of respect for everyone's opinion (honest), the fact that we're even talking about it lends credence, in my book, to how well he plays this game.

*I told him this in an email actually and got a very pleasant response from his bot.

Yeah, you picked a good one to go after. This would be a good example of one of the columns I'm quite "cold" on. As I said above - he's clearly at his worst when he talks politics.

I've pretty much gotten to the point that I don't bother reading him when he starts discussing the Wadministration - I can get the short version by just reading the White House Press Conference transcript. Or rather, I could, if the White House bothered to hold press conferences.

I'm glad his bot is polite, though. I hate bitter bots.

Mmmm...bitter bots...weren't those some kind of magical candy in Harry Potter! They changed in chocolate frogs in your mouth or something...

OK, so I read his piece in Sunday's paper -- and I reverse myself. He does not think that Red Staters are more authentic -- in fact they have a "tenuous grip on reality." Nevertheless they "represent the American dream," or something like that. I kind of lost his thread near the end.

Oh, and today's piece was pretty funny. In a "plague on both your houses" kind of way.