The media calls David Brooks a conservative—which he once was. Today he qualified to co-host with Rachel Maddow hate America TV show. Though he started working for such publications as the National Review and the Wall Street Journal, the bourbon at his new employer, the NY Times has made him an apologist for totalitarian government. Do not be fooled when the media calls him a conservative. He is as conservative as Bill Kristol and Don Lemon.
“David Brooks had a rich pedigree on the conservative side of the ledger. He worked at the National Review, Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Weekly Standard. I ran into Bill Kristol and Brooks in 2003. Kristol crowed about how Brooks had just accepted a position at the New York Times. I congratulated him and stated, “It will be interesting to see whether you change them, or they change you.” We just got final confirmation.
Brooks has a lengthy piece in the Atlantic entitled What Happened to American Conservatism? speaking to the history of his political perspective.” During World War II he would be called a quisling.
Posted by Bruce Bialosky, Flashreport, 3/13/22
David Brooks had a rich pedigree on the conservative side of the ledger. He worked at the National Review, Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Weekly Standard. I ran into Bill Kristol and Brooks in 2003. Kristol crowed about how Brooks had just accepted a position at the New York Times. I congratulated him and stated, “It will be interesting to see whether you change them, or they change you.” We just got final confirmation.
Brooks has a lengthy piece in the Atlantic entitled What Happened to American Conservatism? speaking to the history of his political perspective.
The fact this was published in the Atlantic tells one about everything you would expect regarding what he wrote. The publication was founded in 1857 and was originally the Atlantic Monthly. Times change and so has the publication. Current editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg has completed the transformation to a far-left rag that gives authors plenty of space to pontificate on their left-wing theories.
Brooks has authored some enlightened books on our society, but that was before his transformation. He wrote with great clarity then, but this lengthy piece was frequently muddled. It took some inner strength to get through the entire piece (which was semi-autobiographical) as he wrote about his transformation from a socialist to calling himself a conservative and to his current position.
Brooks wrote “What passes for ‘conservatism’ now however is nearly the opposite of Burkean conservatism I encountered then. Today, what passes for the worldview of the ‘the right’ is a set of resentful animosities, a partisan attachment to Donald Trump or Tucker Carlson, a sort of mental brutalism. The rich philosophical perspective that dazzled me then has been reduced to Fox News and voter suppression.”
Here is where I divorce myself from Brooks. That statement and the rest of his commentary is puffery. I have devoted my public existence to public policy. Tangible results. That radiates from my Jewish training of being more concerned about what people do than what they say. Who was not offended by the stupidity of many things emitted from President Trump’s mouth? But what he did was far more important.
Mr. Brooks, would you rather have Trump’s lawful enforcement of our immigration laws along our southern border or President Biden’s lawless trafficking of illegal aliens throughout our country in the dark of night and then lying about it? Would you rather have Mr. Trump’s policies that brought us to energy independence or Biden’s ridiculous policies that forced a two million barrel a day reduction of oil production and a public pleading for the Saudis to increase their oil production after soaring energy prices crushed the family budgets of average Americans.
Brooks objects to the changes of conservatism, but never does a deep dive into a policy issue. He even does a bumper shot. Along with his separation from conservatives today is his divorce from his Jewish heritage that people’s actions are more important than their intangible platitudes.
Near the end this fifteen-page piece Brooks gets to the heart of his grievances after pontificating for pages and showing how intellectually capable he is by delivering a sure sign of his shift political – vague commentary. He hates Donald Trump. He makes the staggering statement that conservatives (which he views as any supporter of Trump) “need to treat half the country, metropolitan America as a moral cancer.” Really, Mr. Brooks — did you skip where Hillary made her famous statement about “a basket of deplorables” which has not been disavowed by the Democrats?
Would you rather live in the exurbs or rural America today or with the rampant lawlessness and acceptance of homelessness strewn across our major cities?
Brooks’ crescendo is this statement: “I’m content to plant myself instead on the rightward edge of the leftward tendency – in the more promising soil of the moderate wing of the Democratic Party.” When I started the Republican Jewish Coalition in Los Angeles I was often asked if we held our meetings in a phone booth. Mr. Brooks can certainly, absolutely, definitively hold his meeting of the moderate wing of the Democrats in a Mini Cooper.
It is certainly conceivable for anyone to change their political position. There is the famous statement attributed to many historic people in many versions: “If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain.” Mr. Brooks may have changed his perspective over his life. To claim that the entire philosophical movement of conservatism has melted in front of him is audacious and egotistical. To deny how “moderate” Democrats have been run over by Leftists in their party is incredulous for such a knowledgeable individual.
There is no doubt we have a full and complete answer from 19 years ago. The Left changed Brooks, but he has not made a dent in them.
.
