David Brooks unintentionally spills the beans on Republicans
Hey Folks,
Yeah, at the polls Republicans are winners, and Democrats are losers – just ask David Brooks, conservative dullard of the New York Times – and he’ll tell you why – and he won’t even blush. He’s so deluded by his right-wing rhetoric that he’s blind to the inhumanity, callousness, and “Un-American”/”Un-Christian” nature of his position.
Simply put, Brooks explains the Democrats’ historical problem as losing the support of late 60’s ethnic middle-class and lower-middle-class whites who were, as HE says, “anti-Negro” and “anti-youth.”
According to Brooks, Democrats “repelled” these voters by opposing police brutality, challenging Archie Bunker type biases, advocating peace rather than war (the Viet Nam war), questioning authority, seeking a just society, and working to overcome poverty. The Republicans wisely avoided such nonsense.
According to Brooks the “problem” continues through today and was apparent in the Alito hearings. By his analysis “police brutality,” what he calls the “hawk-dove divide,” race, and – saints preserve us - deportment are the issues explaining Republican “superiority.”
Evil Democrats at the hearings worried about innocent Americans being harassed; worried about Gestapo tactics and star-chamber justice; they were concerned by the threat of overzealous counter- terrorists trampling our constitutional rights. Republicans didn’t care about that. According to Brooks, they were more concerned with cracking heads - to make an omelette you have to break a few heads!
Pretending, then, that there was no way to fight terrorism without abuses - those feared by Democrats and benignly ignored by Republicans, Brooks writes:
“If forced to choose, most Americans side with the party that errs on the side of the cops, not the criminals.” Again, Republicans wisely avoided any "nuance" over whether cops might be able to do their jobs while also behaving responsibly. Nope. To make an omelette, you gotta break a few heads!
He goes even farther-out trying to equate concern over the degree, nature, and effect of the “anti-terrorist” police action with the “hawk-dove” issue. He again assumes a mutually-exclusive choice:
“ If forced to choose, most Americans want a party that will fight aggressively against the terrorists, not the National Security Agency.” As if those concerned with maintaining our rights are unconcerned about our safety or with fighting terrorists.
The most outrageous sophistry, however is his comment on race:
“Then there were the old accusations of bigotry. Kennedy misleadingly and maliciously asserted that Alito had never written a decision on behalf of a black American. But those wild accusations don’t carry weight any more. Rich liberals have been calling white ethnics bigots for 40 years.”
Right! If “rich liberals” accuse Republican bigots of bigotry, it CAN’T be true (never mind the facts or what poor liberals say). Moreover, he brazenly makes this assertion after claiming earlier that Democrats weren’t “anti-Negro” enough to compete with Republicans.
Then there’s deportment and “demeanor”:
“Finally, and most important, there is the question of demeanor [MOST important???]. Alito is a paragon of the old-fashioned working-class ethic [does Alito remind you of any “old-fashioned working-class” person you’ve ever known?]. In a culture of self-aggrandizement, Alito is modest [hiding his true colors]. In a culture of self-exposure, Alito is reticent [hiding his true colors]. In a culture of made-for-TV sentimentalism, Alito refuses to emote [cold blooded, Alito has delegated “emoting” to his wife]. In a culture that celebrates the rebel, or the fashionable pseudorebel, Alito respects tradition, order and authority” [yep, keep the rabble in its place – walk softly and carry a big stick].
Well, there you have it – straight from the horse’s orifice. Democrats are losers because they aren’t enough like Republicans.
In his naiveté Brooks lays out what Republicans truly DO represent, and it’s not a pretty picture. Unfortunately, if he is correct in his analysis of the electorate, how many W-supporters will see themselves in that picture?
If the American people are as stupid as Brooks claims they are, Mencken was way too easy on us.
- Uke Man
The Brooks op-ed piece:
Democrats’ transition to minority views separates them from Alito
Friday, January 13, 2006
DAVID BROOKS
If he’d been born a little earlier, Samuel Alito probably would have been a Democrat. In the 1950s, the middle-class and lower-middle-class whites in places such as Trenton, N.J., where Alito grew up, were the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.
But by the late 1960s, cultural politics replaced New Deal politics, and liberal Democrats did their best to repel Northern white ethnic voters. Big-city liberals launched crusades against police brutality, portraying working-class cops as thuggish storm troopers for the establishment. In the media, educated liberals portrayed urban ethnics as uncultured, uneducated Archie Bunkers.
The liberals were doves; the ethnics were hawks. The liberals had "Question Authority" bumper stickers; the ethnics had been taught in school to respect authority. The liberals thought an unjust society caused poverty; the ethnics believed in working their way out of poverty.
Alito emerged from his middleclass neighborhood about that time, made it to Princeton University and found "very privileged people behaving irresponsibly."
Alito wanted to learn; the richer liberals wanted to strike. He wanted to join ROTC; the liberal Princetonians expelled it from campus. He was orderly and respectful; they were disorderly and disrespectful. The experience was so searing that he mentioned it in the opening of his confirmation hearing 37 years later.
In 1971, Fred Dutton, an important Democratic strategist, acknowledged the rift between educated liberals and the white working class. In a short book, Changing Sources of Power, Dutton argued that white workers had "tended, in fact, to become a major redoubt of traditional Americanism and of the anti-Negro, anti-youth vote."
The New Deal coalition, including Catholics and white ethnics, was dying, he argued, and should be replaced by a "loose peace coalition" of young people, educated suburbanites, feminists and blacks.
That plan wasn’t stupid, but it didn’t work. The party has been in a downward spiral ever since. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lost the white working class by 23 percentage points. He lost among his fellow Catholics. He lost the election.
After every defeat, Democrats vow to reconnect with middle-class whites. But if there is one lesson of the Alito hearings, it is that the Democratic Party continues to repel those voters just as vigorously as ever. The Democrats have amply shown why they remain the party of gown, but not of town.
First, there was the old subject of police brutality. If you listened to the questions of Sen. Jeff Sessions, RAla., you heard a man exercised by the terror drug dealers can inflict on a neighborhood. If you listened to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., you heard a man exercised by the terror law enforcement officials can inflict on a neighborhood. Kennedy railed against "Gestapo-like" tactics. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., accused Alito of rendering decisions in a "light most favorable to law enforcement."
If forced to choose, most Americans side with the party that errs on the side of the cops, not the criminals.
Then there was the old hawk-dove divide. If you listened to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., you heard a man alarmed by the threats posed by anti-American terrorists. If you listened to Leahy or Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., you heard men alarmed by the threats posed by American counterterrorists. The Democratic questions implied that American counterterrorists are guilty until proved innocent, that a police state is being born.
If forced to choose, most Americans want a party that will fight aggressively against the terrorists, not the National Security Agency.
Then there were the old accusations of bigotry. Kennedy misleadingly and maliciously asserted that Alito had never written a decision on behalf of a black American. But those wild accusations don’t carry weight any more. Rich liberals have been calling white ethnics bigots for 40 years.
Finally, and most important, there is the question of demeanor. Alito is a paragon of the old-fashioned working-class ethic. In a culture of self-aggrandizement, Alito is modest. In a culture of self-exposure, Alito is reticent. In a culture of made-for-TV sentimentalism, Alito refuses to emote. In a culture that celebrates the rebel, or the fashionable pseudorebel, Alito respects tradition, order and authority.
What sort of party doesn’t admire these virtues in a judge?
The big story of American politics, which was underlined by every hour of the Alito hearings, is that sometime between 1932 and 1968, the DNA of the Democratic Party fundamentally changed. In 1932, the Democrats had working-class DNA. Today, the Democrats have a different DNA, the DNA of a minority party.
David Brooks writes for The New York Times.
dabrooks@nytimes.com
Yeah, at the polls Republicans are winners, and Democrats are losers – just ask David Brooks, conservative dullard of the New York Times – and he’ll tell you why – and he won’t even blush. He’s so deluded by his right-wing rhetoric that he’s blind to the inhumanity, callousness, and “Un-American”/”Un-Christian” nature of his position.
Simply put, Brooks explains the Democrats’ historical problem as losing the support of late 60’s ethnic middle-class and lower-middle-class whites who were, as HE says, “anti-Negro” and “anti-youth.”
According to Brooks, Democrats “repelled” these voters by opposing police brutality, challenging Archie Bunker type biases, advocating peace rather than war (the Viet Nam war), questioning authority, seeking a just society, and working to overcome poverty. The Republicans wisely avoided such nonsense.
According to Brooks the “problem” continues through today and was apparent in the Alito hearings. By his analysis “police brutality,” what he calls the “hawk-dove divide,” race, and – saints preserve us - deportment are the issues explaining Republican “superiority.”
Evil Democrats at the hearings worried about innocent Americans being harassed; worried about Gestapo tactics and star-chamber justice; they were concerned by the threat of overzealous counter- terrorists trampling our constitutional rights. Republicans didn’t care about that. According to Brooks, they were more concerned with cracking heads - to make an omelette you have to break a few heads!
Pretending, then, that there was no way to fight terrorism without abuses - those feared by Democrats and benignly ignored by Republicans, Brooks writes:
“If forced to choose, most Americans side with the party that errs on the side of the cops, not the criminals.” Again, Republicans wisely avoided any "nuance" over whether cops might be able to do their jobs while also behaving responsibly. Nope. To make an omelette, you gotta break a few heads!
He goes even farther-out trying to equate concern over the degree, nature, and effect of the “anti-terrorist” police action with the “hawk-dove” issue. He again assumes a mutually-exclusive choice:
“ If forced to choose, most Americans want a party that will fight aggressively against the terrorists, not the National Security Agency.” As if those concerned with maintaining our rights are unconcerned about our safety or with fighting terrorists.
The most outrageous sophistry, however is his comment on race:
“Then there were the old accusations of bigotry. Kennedy misleadingly and maliciously asserted that Alito had never written a decision on behalf of a black American. But those wild accusations don’t carry weight any more. Rich liberals have been calling white ethnics bigots for 40 years.”
Right! If “rich liberals” accuse Republican bigots of bigotry, it CAN’T be true (never mind the facts or what poor liberals say). Moreover, he brazenly makes this assertion after claiming earlier that Democrats weren’t “anti-Negro” enough to compete with Republicans.
Then there’s deportment and “demeanor”:
“Finally, and most important, there is the question of demeanor [MOST important???]. Alito is a paragon of the old-fashioned working-class ethic [does Alito remind you of any “old-fashioned working-class” person you’ve ever known?]. In a culture of self-aggrandizement, Alito is modest [hiding his true colors]. In a culture of self-exposure, Alito is reticent [hiding his true colors]. In a culture of made-for-TV sentimentalism, Alito refuses to emote [cold blooded, Alito has delegated “emoting” to his wife]. In a culture that celebrates the rebel, or the fashionable pseudorebel, Alito respects tradition, order and authority” [yep, keep the rabble in its place – walk softly and carry a big stick].
Well, there you have it – straight from the horse’s orifice. Democrats are losers because they aren’t enough like Republicans.
In his naiveté Brooks lays out what Republicans truly DO represent, and it’s not a pretty picture. Unfortunately, if he is correct in his analysis of the electorate, how many W-supporters will see themselves in that picture?
If the American people are as stupid as Brooks claims they are, Mencken was way too easy on us.
- Uke Man
The Brooks op-ed piece:
Democrats’ transition to minority views separates them from Alito
Friday, January 13, 2006
DAVID BROOKS
If he’d been born a little earlier, Samuel Alito probably would have been a Democrat. In the 1950s, the middle-class and lower-middle-class whites in places such as Trenton, N.J., where Alito grew up, were the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.
But by the late 1960s, cultural politics replaced New Deal politics, and liberal Democrats did their best to repel Northern white ethnic voters. Big-city liberals launched crusades against police brutality, portraying working-class cops as thuggish storm troopers for the establishment. In the media, educated liberals portrayed urban ethnics as uncultured, uneducated Archie Bunkers.
The liberals were doves; the ethnics were hawks. The liberals had "Question Authority" bumper stickers; the ethnics had been taught in school to respect authority. The liberals thought an unjust society caused poverty; the ethnics believed in working their way out of poverty.
Alito emerged from his middleclass neighborhood about that time, made it to Princeton University and found "very privileged people behaving irresponsibly."
Alito wanted to learn; the richer liberals wanted to strike. He wanted to join ROTC; the liberal Princetonians expelled it from campus. He was orderly and respectful; they were disorderly and disrespectful. The experience was so searing that he mentioned it in the opening of his confirmation hearing 37 years later.
In 1971, Fred Dutton, an important Democratic strategist, acknowledged the rift between educated liberals and the white working class. In a short book, Changing Sources of Power, Dutton argued that white workers had "tended, in fact, to become a major redoubt of traditional Americanism and of the anti-Negro, anti-youth vote."
The New Deal coalition, including Catholics and white ethnics, was dying, he argued, and should be replaced by a "loose peace coalition" of young people, educated suburbanites, feminists and blacks.
That plan wasn’t stupid, but it didn’t work. The party has been in a downward spiral ever since. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lost the white working class by 23 percentage points. He lost among his fellow Catholics. He lost the election.
After every defeat, Democrats vow to reconnect with middle-class whites. But if there is one lesson of the Alito hearings, it is that the Democratic Party continues to repel those voters just as vigorously as ever. The Democrats have amply shown why they remain the party of gown, but not of town.
First, there was the old subject of police brutality. If you listened to the questions of Sen. Jeff Sessions, RAla., you heard a man exercised by the terror drug dealers can inflict on a neighborhood. If you listened to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., you heard a man exercised by the terror law enforcement officials can inflict on a neighborhood. Kennedy railed against "Gestapo-like" tactics. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., accused Alito of rendering decisions in a "light most favorable to law enforcement."
If forced to choose, most Americans side with the party that errs on the side of the cops, not the criminals.
Then there was the old hawk-dove divide. If you listened to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., you heard a man alarmed by the threats posed by anti-American terrorists. If you listened to Leahy or Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., you heard men alarmed by the threats posed by American counterterrorists. The Democratic questions implied that American counterterrorists are guilty until proved innocent, that a police state is being born.
If forced to choose, most Americans want a party that will fight aggressively against the terrorists, not the National Security Agency.
Then there were the old accusations of bigotry. Kennedy misleadingly and maliciously asserted that Alito had never written a decision on behalf of a black American. But those wild accusations don’t carry weight any more. Rich liberals have been calling white ethnics bigots for 40 years.
Finally, and most important, there is the question of demeanor. Alito is a paragon of the old-fashioned working-class ethic. In a culture of self-aggrandizement, Alito is modest. In a culture of self-exposure, Alito is reticent. In a culture of made-for-TV sentimentalism, Alito refuses to emote. In a culture that celebrates the rebel, or the fashionable pseudorebel, Alito respects tradition, order and authority.
What sort of party doesn’t admire these virtues in a judge?
The big story of American politics, which was underlined by every hour of the Alito hearings, is that sometime between 1932 and 1968, the DNA of the Democratic Party fundamentally changed. In 1932, the Democrats had working-class DNA. Today, the Democrats have a different DNA, the DNA of a minority party.
David Brooks writes for The New York Times.
dabrooks@nytimes.com
1 Comments:
Hi Tom,
You did a superb job analyzing the Brooks piece. Too bad YOU don't write for the New York Times. Keep up the excellent work!! Sondra
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home