Falsehoods

David Brooks lies through his teeth today, claiming that not adopting Paul Ryan's plan to defund Medicare is depriving our young men of jobs. Using the false language of blind American optimism in service of the wealthy, as conservative interests have done since the late 19th century, Brooks of course completely ignores all the other ways we could fund both Medicare and job creation, including eliminating the Bush tax cuts.

I guess Brooks is further embracing the Republican vision of recreating the Gilded Age--give men terrible, pointless, and low-paying jobs and then abandon them to homelessness and early death after they are no longer productive to the plutocrats who rightfully rule the country.

Shorter David Brooks: This Nation Needs the Alien and Sedition Acts

David Brooks longs for the Federalist Party and closes with the same kind of elitist fear of the people that helped doom that party after 1800:

The breakthrough, if there is one, will come from the least directly democratic parts of the government, from the Senate or some commission of Establishment bigwigs. It will be enacted when voters realize we need to build arrangements to protect ourselves from our own weaknesses. It will all depend on reviving the republican virtues upon which the country was founded. 

I mean, if the Washington elite were all that mattered, David Brooks would even more Very Serious than he already is!

I Knew David Brooks Was Square, But This is Ridiculous

Wow.

Can I go on record as saying that I think Dennis Miller is funny … and P.J. O’Rourke and Chris Buckley and Andrew Ferguson and Matt Labash. Plus I see that the director of “Airplane!” and “The Naked Gun” is conservative, movies that include at least two of the 10 funniest scenes in recent Hollywood history. Overall, I think conservatives are at least as funny as Al Gore, and I say that with all due respect and affection for Gore.

Dennis Miller is funny? OK then. And clearly his stint on Monday Night Football was a highlight in the history of American broadcasting!!!

Of course, conservatives are not as funny as liberals. They may be more evil and thus more effective at winning elections. But funny, no. I mean, unless you think the Half-Hour Comedy Hour was comedy gold!

The best part is his discussion of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert later in the discussion:

I also wonder if you think there’s a jump-the-shark danger here for Stewart and Colbert. After all when comedians stop being jesters they are notorious for jumping all the way over and becoming preachers, with no middle ground.

Which of course doesn't describe Dennis Miller at all. 

As for the Al Gore comparison, that's useless even for Brooks. I mean, I might argue that liberals are at least as shallow as Jonah Goldberg, but that obviously wouldn't be true, even if I could find one or two who might be. Of course, they would be pot-smoking college students and not millionaire columnists, but there's conservatives for you.

David Brooks, Duke, and the Rich

A lot of people have linked to David Brooks' prime piece of wankery, talking about how he rooted for Duke in last week's NCAA Championship game because as rich people, they deserve to win.

Unlike 90 percent of America, I was rooting for Duke last night. This was widely cast as a class conflict — the upper crust Dukies against the humble Midwestern farm boys. If this had been a movie, Butler’s last second heave would have gone in instead of clanging off the rim, and the country would still be weeping with joy.

But this is why life is not a movie. The rich are not always spoiled. Their success does not always derive from privilege. The Duke players — to the extent that they are paragons of privilege, which I dispute — won through hard work on defense.

Yes. I was going to say that for the first time in human history, rich people work longer hours than middle class or poor people. How do you construct a rich versus poor narrative when the rich are more industrious? 

Oh, where to start...

It's hardly surprising that Brooks is a Duke fan and alum (though he seems to have only taught there). Every thing about the man screams Dukie--wealthy, white, privileged, self-centered, condescending to the rest of the world, elitist, etc.

Only a man like this could claim and in fact believe that the rich work harder than the poor. Brooks might as well be working for the New York Times in 1890 rather than 1910 with his gospel of wealth mentality.

Only a man who has never worked in a sewer, as a logger, as a vegetable picker, as a janitor, or as a maid could claim that the rich work harder. Yes, some rich people put in long hours at the office. But that's irrelevant for making a claim over whether the rich or poor work harder--they do so because they want to and because they can. Meanwhile, the poor, who work very hard when they can find a job, work long hours because they have to feed their families and because they will be fired if they don't. And unlike David Brooks, who if he did so little work for the Times that they would fire him, they can't go get another job teaching at Duke University.

Shorter Brooks: Americans Really Approve of the Bush Administration. Democrats Will Destroy Themselves If They Repudiate His Policies

Yes, this is actually what David Brooks argues today. He says the Democrats are doomed if they win the presidency because the American people will be really upset if we withdraw from Iraq (?!!?!) and support the domestic policies that are also supported by the majority of the population.

Of course, what he doesn't mention is that reallocating tax dollars from the war to domestic programs would pay for them.

But then, Brooks' problem is that he projects his own desires onto the American people. Since he would be upset to see big domestic programs and no wars, he assumes everyone else would too.

Oh Times Select. Come back to me forsaken lover.

David Brooks Shows He Knows Nothing About Music

I generally ignore the idiocy of David Brooks's nonsensical, conservative political ranting. However, apparently not satisfied to show his idiocy in politics and class culture alone, he has branched out. In dealing with the question of "what's wrong with America?", Brooks has a new answer:

Indie music.

Yes, indie is to blame for America's fragmentation. Brooks whines, chafes, and shakes his fists at the numerous musical niches he doesn't understand. Apparently, according to Brooks, all these sub-categories of indie music are not only getting away from the blues-based rock of the Rolling Stones in the 1960s or of Springsteen; this division of musical categories is also both emblematic of and increasing the "fragmentation" of America. That's right, folks - if you like Arcade Fire more than Arctic Monkeys, Dntel more than Sufjan Stevens, well, you're part of the problem politically, too. And the worst part of all this, according to Brooks, is (brace yourself), "It’s considered inappropriate or even immoral for white musicians to appropriate African-American styles. And there’s the rise of the mass educated class. "

Suffice to say, there are numerous holes and sheer, blindingly stupid aspects of Brooks's argument. Rolling Stone (in a rare case of actual cleverness) points out several problems here ("Niche music for upper-middle-class elites is nothing new — anybody remember the Cambridge folk scene in the Fifties? It spurred a boom that produced one of those guys that Brooks might like: Bob Dylan," and "if anything, most indie rockers don’t try to make black music (i.e., hip-hop) these days because they still have bad memories of 311 from the Nineties.")
However, the idiocy goes well beyond this.

First of all, "indie rockers" haven't quit drawing on "black music". Akron's own Black Keys are extremely influenced by Junior Kimbrough, and both Pat Carney and Dan Auerbach are on record as citing the Wu-Tang Clan's influence on their dirty, raw sound. Beck has always enjoyed playing with hip-hop beats and syncopation, and Midnite Vultures was a straight reinterpretation of 70s funk and 70s and 80s soul (and I personally wouldn't call Beck "indie" here, but if Brooks is going to say "nobody uses black music anymore", I'm bringing him in).

Then, of course, there's Brooks' complete ignorance of musical history. He whines about rock becoming too fragmented, ignoring that rock itself is one fragment of an extremely diverse musical tradition in the U.S. and throughout the world, as well as ignoring the fact that other music forms were also fragmented within themselves, sometimes for decades (certainly blues, bluegrass, country, jazz, and classical music have all seen this diversification or, as Brooks prefers, "fragmentation"). Indeed, despite his professed love for "black music", funk, gospel, and hip-hop appear nowhere in Brooks' lament. It comes as no shock to me that Brooks equates "black music" to one type of music (blues) that influenced the music he likes (rock). But, again, these movements are still being mined by "indie rock" - Brooks either just doesn't care or simply is too ignroant to see it.

Then there is his assumption that good music is good because it can rock out in arenas of 25,000 people (like Springsteen and the Stones). This is just ridiculous. Good music doesn't need to be able to play in arenas to be good - it needs to be interesting, have something to offer musically and/or lyrically, and it should last. If Arcade Fire, or Sufjan Stevens, or Belle & Sebastian, or whomever are still listened to (or even around) in 20 years, still playing to crowds of 5000 or less, that won't mean they "failed". If people still listen to them, and they still have something to say, through their own music or through followers, then good.

Finally, there is what Brooks doesn't say. By totally ignoring music forms like hip-hop, classical, he isn't just ignoring the fact that the musical universe has already been fragmented for centuries; he's basically removing enormous sectors of American society from the picture here. The problem with fragmentation and the political direction of the U.S. is those college-educated white kids making music and listening to music. African-Americans who listen to hip-hop or R&B? Sorry - you don't matter. 50-somethings who love Enya? Nope - you're not part of the equation. Nor are those who listen to classical, country, bluegrass, or anything else - it's just these damn white kids with their indie music that are screwing it all up and fragmenting everything! The rest? They simply don't appear to matter to anything.

Overall, the stupidity is stunning, but I guess only David Brooks could see the diversification of musical styles in one small part of the musical universe as part of the death-knell of America's culture and political being.

Save Me!!!!

I am horrified to know that TimesSelect is going away. Clearly the greatest invention of the twenty-first century, TimesSelect forced me to not read Thomas Friedman, David Brooks, or Maureen Dowd. Now I won't be able to help myself. When I first started this blog, I swear 1/2 of my posts slammed the latest moronic David Brooks column. I guess we'll be seeing that all over again. Sigh.

I Had Almost Forgotten About David Brooks

Thanks to the wonders of TimesSelect, I had almost forgotten about the hackery of David Brooks. I caught him debating Mark Shields on Jim Lehrer last night. Brooks pulled out the ol' Harry Reid is playing partisan politics with Iraq card. I'm amazed that Republicans are brazen enough to say this since the entire war has been a partisian political project from day one.

Well, actually, I am not amazed that they would do it, because nothing they do amazes me at this point. Maybe this is a sign of desperation and they are going into their tattered old bag of dirty tricks to find something that will work. Not this time though.

Mark Shields called Brooks out:

And if somebody's feelings are hurt -- you know, I mean everyone has made a big thing out of John Warner making a big speech and Dick Lugar making a big speech, respected members, and George Voinovich. You know, Jack Kennedy said, "The easy part is making the speeches. The tough part is making the decisions and making the votes."

And, you know, there's a great test in Washington. You know, "I'm outraged, I'm upset." What are you going to do about it? What are you going to do about it? And what are they going to do about it? What are these people going to do about it?

I mean, I'm sorry that Harry Reid didn't somehow hold Arlen Specter's hand, and Arlen Specter is upset. He talked to the New York Times about being hurt and taking umbrage. That's fine. But this is a big, big issue. And we have to be grown-ups at this point.

The so-called moderate Republicans are real good at the speeches. Not so great at actually standing up to their president.

The hypocrisy of Brooks' argument is a sign with flashing neon lights and sirens going off. Because what would the Republicans do in the same situation? Do you think they would not press their partisian advantage and try to connnect Democrats with their unpopular president? Of course they would. Absurd.

This theme has dominated political rhetoric since the all-night session on Iraq this week. Yglesias takes down the Washington Post for their stupid editorial criticizing Reid while Rob Farley points out that war is always political.