Posted by Jed Lewison on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 5:33 PM Pacific

When Brooks screws you, Krugman will defend you

A lot of people were understandably excited by David Brooks' seemingly gushing column heaping praise upon Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama.

Without taking anything away from the magnitude of Ted Kennedy's endorsement and the meaning it will have -- not just for Barack Obama but also for the nation -- allow me to offer you a reminder.

You trust David Brooks at your peril. Assuming that Obama gets the nomination -- which I think is more likely than not -- Brooks will screw you so hard you won't know what hit you. When he does, Paul Krugman will be there for you. Bob Herbert will be there for you. They'll both have your back.

Brooks, on the other hand, will be sticking a knife in it. Consider the caveat Brooks threw up at the end of his column:

It’s not clear how far this altered public mood will carry Obama in this election.

Translation?

At the right time, David Brooks will declare his dalliance with Obama over. I'll explain what I think he'll say down below.

::

If you've read any of my posts here or elsewhere, you know that I'm a John Edwards supporters, and that I continue to have concerns about Barack Obama.

This is not the time to highlight those concerns; as I have also stated, I think Barack Obama is qualified to be President from day one. I think he is a brilliant man. He's a great speaker but he's much more than a great speaker.

The Clintons have sought to reduce Barack Obama to nothing more than a shell of a human being, marked only by his race. They've tried to boil his essence down to the color of his skin.

The Clintons' strategy is to argue that the only reason Obama is a candidate is because he's black, and that there is nothing else about him that qualifies him to be President.

That's why President Clinton called Obama's Iraq story a "fairy tale"; it was part of the concerted campaign to demolish the substantive rationales for Obama's candidacy.

Doubt me? Listen to Clinton on the Charlie Rose show in December:

::

Now, I want you to keep that in mind while you read David Brooks' explanation for why Barack Obama's candidacy is generating renewed interest:

Something fundamental has shifted in the Democratic Party.

Last week there was the widespread revulsion at the Clintons’ toxic attempts to ghettoize Barack Obama.

At best, Brooks is offering a different type of reductionism. Instead of explaining the rise of Obama as a consequence of his skin color, Brooks explains the rise of Obama as a consequence of revulsion at the Clintons.

Of course, he uses explicitly racial language to explain that revulsion.

Like all good propaganda artists, Brooks never really specifies exactly who the Clintons' "toxic attempts" revolted, but it's pretty clear he's talking about white liberals.

The hidden subtext? White liberals are supporting Barack Obama because they are rejecting racism -- not because they support Barack Obama.

Ironically, David Brooks is making the same argument about Barack Obama that are the Clintons.

He's just wrapping it up in faint praise.

::

I started off this post saying that David Brooks will at some point turn on Barack Obama. I promised to venture a guess as to what he'll say.

Here goes:

I think that if (perhaps when), Obama gets the nomination, David Brooks will explain the victory as a rejection of Clintonism.

Over the course the campaign, he'll lament that Democrats nominated someone purely on the basis of opposition to Clintonism.

He'll focus on what he says are the cultural flaws of Obama. He'll claim that Obama is elitist, and can't relate to "working" people. He'll probably even mention arugula and belgian endive.

::

Now, it should be obvious just how wrong I think those arguments would be.

It is ludicrous it is to reduce Barack Obama's essence down to his race, or to a mere expression revulsion at the Clintons.

I'll spend just a few words describing some of the reasons why.

As I've said, Obama's not just inspirational, he's also brilliant. He is an incredible communicator, and I don't mean that he is a good speaker, although he is.

His communication skills come from an understanding the media and his extraordinary ability to synthesize different ideological approaches. He's got a great sense of timing.

He's built a phenomenal campaign team.

He has improved on the campaign trail; he knows how to fight without appearing nasty.

He knows how to deal with Republicans, and in Illinois, he managed to get difficult and important legislation passed.

He has extraordinary poise and I would trust him to lead the country through a crisis.

He's not my first choice; I won't dwell on reasons why in this post. (For a hint, read this article and this oped by his top economic adviser.)

John Edwards is and will remain my first choice.

This much, however, is true: Barack Obama is every bit as qualified to be President as Hillary Clinton or John Edwards.

David Brooks' did not directly acknowledge this fact; the closest he came was to note that Ted Kennedy was vouching for Barack Obama's fitness for office.

::

I'm writing this because I'm disturbed at the visceral distaste so many Obama supporters have developed for Krugman.

I understand that feeling, in the midst of a primary. But please, remember that when the primary is over, if Obama gets the nod, Krugman will be there for him, and David Brooks won't.

The Clinton dynasty will have been defeated; Brooks will return back to the right-wing trenches and launch attack after attack on Obama and the political left.

There's a flip-side to this, of course.

Those of us who don't support Obama should remember that David Brooks' arguments for or against an Obama candidacy are fundamentally attempts to manipulate the political left.

We shouldn't listen to what he says either.

I've certainly fallen into the trap in the past, and I will seek to avoid it in the future.

::

I want to conclude by linking to a few articles written in the past by Brooks and also by his colleagues, Herbert and Krugman.

First, let's look at three columns about Ronald Reagan, Republicans, and race -- written long before Reagan became an issue in this primary.

11/9/07 - Brooks: History and Calumny
11/13/07 - Herbert: Righting Reagan's Wrongs?
11/19/07 - Krugman: Republicans and Race

These three articles should illustrate to you the fundamental divide between the left -- Herbert and Krugman -- and the right -- Brooks.

::

Now look at four recent articles about the Presidential campaign:

Herbert: Questions for the Clintons
In this article, Herbert confronts the Clintons divisiveness head-on. Rather than spinning a grand narrative to support a conservative vision of America (as Brooks did), Herbert takes a fact-based approach.

Krugman: Lessons of 1992
Krugman explores the failures of the Clinton presidency, concluding that while the government was effectively run, it was a second-rate presidency in the sense that it was not transformative, a point which he explicitly concedes to Barack Obama.

Brooks: The Identity Trap
In this article, Brooks presents identity politics as a trap from which Democrats (specifically Hillary Clinton) cannot escape. In other words, Democrats are destined to be divided.

Brooks: Faith vs. the Faithless
In this article, Brooks explores the divisions amongst conservatives on religion. He sees Romney as being a potentially unifying force. In other words, Republicans can all get along. Of course, after Nevada I never once saw Brooks note that one-quarter of GOP caucus goers were Mormon, and 95% voted for Romney. But when a sizeable but smaller share of Democrats affiliated with some group or another vote for a certain candidate, it somehow shows the sky is falling? Puhlease.

::

Short version of this post:

David Brooks is a right-wing hack. He always has been and he always will be.

Even as he praises Obama, he's setting up a narrative to explain Obama's fall from grace.

Even though Paul Krugman is being tough on Obama, when Brooks goes south on us, Krugman will be there to defend Obama -- and, more importantly, us.

When Brooks screws you, Krugman will defend you

A lot of people were understandably excited by David Brooks' seemingly gushing column heaping praise upon Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama.

Without taking anything away from the magnitude of Ted Kennedy's endorsement and the meaning it will have -- not just for Barack Obama but also for the nation -- allow me to offer you a reminder.

You trust David Brooks at your peril. Assuming that Obama gets the nomination -- which I think is more likely than not -- Brooks will screw you so hard you won't know what hit you. When he does, Paul Krugman will be there for you. Bob Herbert will be there for you. They'll both have your back.

Brooks, on the other hand, will be sticking a knife in it. Consider the caveat Brooks threw up at the end of his column:

It’s not clear how far this altered public mood will carry Obama in this election.

Translation?

At the right time, David Brooks will declare his dalliance with Obama over. I'll explain what I think he'll say down below.

::

If you've read any of my posts here or elsewhere, you know that I'm a John Edwards supporters, and that I continue to have concerns about Barack Obama.

This is not the time to highlight those concerns; as I have also stated, I think Barack Obama is qualified to be President from day one. I think he is a brilliant man. He's a great speaker but he's much more than a great speaker.

The Clintons have sought to reduce Barack Obama to nothing more than a shell of a human being, marked only by his race. They've tried to boil his essence down to the color of his skin.

The Clintons' strategy is to argue that the only reason Obama is a candidate is because he's black, and that there is nothing else about him that qualifies him to be President.

That's why President Clinton called Obama's Iraq story a "fairy tale"; it was part of the concerted campaign to demolish the substantive rationales for Obama's candidacy.

Doubt me? Listen to Clinton on the Charlie Rose show in December:

::

Now, I want you to keep that in mind while you read David Brooks' explanation for why Barack Obama's candidacy is generating renewed interest:

Something fundamental has shifted in the Democratic Party.

Last week there was the widespread revulsion at the Clintons’ toxic attempts to ghettoize Barack Obama.

At best, Brooks is offering a different type of reductionism. Instead of explaining the rise of Obama as a consequence of his skin color, Brooks explains the rise of Obama as a consequence of revulsion at the Clintons.

Of course, he uses explicitly racial language to explain that revulsion.

Like all good propaganda artists, Brooks never really specifies exactly who the Clintons' "toxic attempts" revolted, but it's pretty clear he's talking about white liberals.

The hidden subtext? White liberals are supporting Barack Obama because they are rejecting racism -- not because they support Barack Obama.

Ironically, David Brooks is making the same argument about Barack Obama that are the Clintons.

He's just wrapping it up in faint praise.

::

I started off this post saying that David Brooks will at some point turn on Barack Obama. I promised to venture a guess as to what he'll say.

Here goes:

I think that if (perhaps when), Obama gets the nomination, David Brooks will explain the victory as a rejection of Clintonism.

Over the course the campaign, he'll lament that Democrats nominated someone purely on the basis of opposition to Clintonism.

He'll focus on what he says are the cultural flaws of Obama. He'll claim that Obama is elitist, and can't relate to "working" people. He'll probably even mention arugula and belgian endive.

::

Now, it should be obvious just how wrong I think those arguments would be.

It is ludicrous it is to reduce Barack Obama's essence down to his race, or to a mere expression revulsion at the Clintons.

I'll spend just a few words describing some of the reasons why.

As I've said, Obama's not just inspirational, he's also brilliant. He is an incredible communicator, and I don't mean that he is a good speaker, although he is.

His communication skills come from an understanding the media and his extraordinary ability to synthesize different ideological approaches. He's got a great sense of timing.

He's built a phenomenal campaign team.

He has improved on the campaign trail; he knows how to fight without appearing nasty.

He knows how to deal with Republicans, and in Illinois, he managed to get difficult and important legislation passed.

He has extraordinary poise and I would trust him to lead the country through a crisis.

He's not my first choice; I won't dwell on reasons why in this post. (For a hint, read this article and this oped by his top economic adviser.)

John Edwards is and will remain my first choice.

This much, however, is true: Barack Obama is every bit as qualified to be President as Hillary Clinton or John Edwards.

David Brooks' did not directly acknowledge this fact; the closest he came was to note that Ted Kennedy was vouching for Barack Obama's fitness for office.

::

I'm writing this because I'm disturbed at the visceral distaste so many Obama supporters have developed for Krugman.

I understand that feeling, in the midst of a primary. But please, remember that when the primary is over, if Obama gets the nod, Krugman will be there for him, and David Brooks won't.

The Clinton dynasty will have been defeated; Brooks will return back to the right-wing trenches and launch attack after attack on Obama and the political left.

There's a flip-side to this, of course.

Those of us who don't support Obama should remember that David Brooks' arguments for or against an Obama candidacy are fundamentally attempts to manipulate the political left.

We shouldn't listen to what he says either.

I've certainly fallen into the trap in the past, and I will seek to avoid it in the future.

::

I want to conclude by linking to a few articles written in the past by Brooks and also by his colleagues, Herbert and Krugman.

First, let's look at three columns about Ronald Reagan, Republicans, and race -- written long before Reagan became an issue in this primary.

11/9/07 - Brooks: History and Calumny
11/13/07 - Herbert: Righting Reagan's Wrongs?
11/19/07 - Krugman: Republicans and Race

These three articles should illustrate to you the fundamental divide between the left -- Herbert and Krugman -- and the right -- Brooks.

::

Now look at four recent articles about the Presidential campaign:

Herbert: Questions for the Clintons
In this article, Herbert confronts the Clintons divisiveness head-on. Rather than spinning a grand narrative to support a conservative vision of America (as Brooks did), Herbert takes a fact-based approach.

Krugman: Lessons of 1992
Krugman explores the failures of the Clinton presidency, concluding that while the government was effectively run, it was a second-rate presidency in the sense that it was not transformative, a point which he explicitly concedes to Barack Obama.

Brooks: The Identity Trap
In this article, Brooks presents identity politics as a trap from which Democrats (specifically Hillary Clinton) cannot escape. In other words, Democrats are destined to be divided.

Brooks: Faith vs. the Faithless
In this article, Brooks explores the divisions amongst conservatives on religion. He sees Romney as being a potentially unifying force. In other words, Republicans can all get along. Of course, after Nevada I never once saw Brooks note that one-quarter of GOP caucus goers were Mormon, and 95% voted for Romney. But when a sizeable but smaller share of Democrats affiliated with some group or another vote for a certain candidate, it somehow shows the sky is falling? Puhlease.

::

Short version of this post:

David Brooks is a right-wing hack. He always has been and he always will be.

Even as he praises Obama, he's setting up a narrative to explain Obama's fall from grace.

Even though Paul Krugman is being tough on Obama, when Brooks goes south on us, Krugman will be there to defend Obama -- and, more importantly, us.

The Jed Report Home Page

© Jed Lewison