Who has two thumbs and doesn't deserve a column? This guy! Public Domain image courtesy of Wikipedia, here.
I'm thinking of adding a new tag to this blog, viz., "David Brooks Doesn't Deserve a Column." God knows I've written enough about David Brooks.
Some might think that petty, or call me jealous. I suppose would be fair critiques. It is a cheap shot, and I am a little jealous that someone who pretty much just vomits out 500-odd words of bullshit gets a job at The Times. I do that all the time, and the best I get is a position with the Oberlin Communications Dept. (for which, of course, I'm very grateful).
I'm not going to talk about the most recent column, which was not only wrongheaded but obnoxiously written (repetition is fine when it serves a purpose, but all that "green jacket" shit was just a patently transparent, and ineffective, framing device that did little except add column inches to what was essentially a two-paragraph and inane collection of faux-centrist talking points).
I'm going, instead, to give you this gem from a bit back:
When historians look back on this period, they will see it as another progressive era. It is not a liberal era–when government intervenes to seize wealth and power and distribute to the have-nots…. It’s a progressive era, based on the faith in government experts and their ability to use social science analysis to manage complex systems.
Eric, over at The Edge of the American West (which I believe is written by a group of professors at some college or other) has this to say in response.
So to be clear, according to Brooks, the progressive era, which saw Congress and the state legislatures adopt constitutional amendments for the direct election of senators, an income tax, and the enfranchisement of women, wasn’t a time when government redistributed wealth and power to the have-nots. This seems obviously wrong in a way that would earn an undergraduate an F.
Eric, more charitable than I, goes on to say something almost nice about Brooks, which is sweet.
Intrigued? Go, read.
|