Posted by Jed Lewison on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 6:21 PM Pacific

This man is a Republican hack

Yesterday David Brooks proved his toolishness once again, taking a whack at explaining how Barack Obama fell to earth. (Brooks was using a rhetorical magic trick favored by polemicists, explaining why something has happened without ever establishing that it actually has happened.)

Bleh. Don't waste your time with Brooks -- I can't think of an occasion where he's said something worth reading that you couldn't have gotten somewhere else. Such is the nature of partisan hacks. (Some might even say that about me, I suppose.)

Brooks has sung Obama's praises, earning him undeserved respect among some (but not most) Obama supporters. Brooks' presents himself as earnest and open-minded, but unlike conservatives such as Andrew Sullivan,  Brooks' intellectual curiosity is not genuine. (Though Sullivans' initial take on Brooks was a bit more sympathetic than I would have expected. Later, he linked to Glenn Greenwald's discussion of Brooks' phoniness.)

Brooks' toolishness should come as no surprise. Back in late January, when I was still supporting John Edwards, I predicted that Obama would be on the receiving end of a Brooks attack soon after winning the nomination. Looks like I was conservative in my prediction -- Brooks jumped the gun.

Here's some of what I said back then:

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.

(snip)

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.

(I should note, that I stand by my claims in that post -- once Obama has officially won the nomination, Paul Krugman will be there for him. For now...not so much, and I'm at a loss to explain why. Perhaps ego?)