Monday, September 15, 2003
David Brooks is Really Very Subtle
The New York Times's new op-ed writer, David Brooks, brought in as a non-loopy conservative voice, continues his recent trend of painting Howard Dean as the worse possible choice for the Democrats.
Apparently the former governor of the microstate of Vermont is both a ancien regime blueblood and a shrill, partisan socialist.
On CBS last Sunday I think the word was "hyperliberal".
Now the Vermonster's campaign has been developing speed wobbles as the press starts taking thoughtful sentences out of their respective paragraphs and analyses them for conflicts with Democratic Holy Writ. Dean apparently still has to internalize the fundamental rule of politics in the soundbite age - never allow your brain to interfere with your mouth while with the press - rely on Pavlovian reflex instead. But I would hesitate to call the gun-toting, frugel s.o.b. "liberal" in the distorted American sense.
The real issue for Brooks is an inablity to understand the anger Dean represents. For many conservatives, anger is reserved for those who transgress social norms without permission; violations of etiquette and class. It wasn't the thing with the intern that enraged conservatives about Bill Clinton - it was the perception he was "astroturf" white trash in an undeserved elite position. Otherwise "anger" is deployed as a cynical tool for maintaining power and manipulating public discourse. Anger gives one a perfect excuse to shout down other voices. Tom Delay as a case in point.
Dean's rage is something else - that something great is being allowed -encouraged- to wither, through neglect, incompetence, and above all, cynicism. I believe that something might be the idea of an America that is a boon for all its citizens.
Apparently the former governor of the microstate of Vermont is both a ancien regime blueblood and a shrill, partisan socialist.
On CBS last Sunday I think the word was "hyperliberal".
Now the Vermonster's campaign has been developing speed wobbles as the press starts taking thoughtful sentences out of their respective paragraphs and analyses them for conflicts with Democratic Holy Writ. Dean apparently still has to internalize the fundamental rule of politics in the soundbite age - never allow your brain to interfere with your mouth while with the press - rely on Pavlovian reflex instead. But I would hesitate to call the gun-toting, frugel s.o.b. "liberal" in the distorted American sense.
The real issue for Brooks is an inablity to understand the anger Dean represents. For many conservatives, anger is reserved for those who transgress social norms without permission; violations of etiquette and class. It wasn't the thing with the intern that enraged conservatives about Bill Clinton - it was the perception he was "astroturf" white trash in an undeserved elite position. Otherwise "anger" is deployed as a cynical tool for maintaining power and manipulating public discourse. Anger gives one a perfect excuse to shout down other voices. Tom Delay as a case in point.
Dean's rage is something else - that something great is being allowed -encouraged- to wither, through neglect, incompetence, and above all, cynicism. I believe that something might be the idea of an America that is a boon for all its citizens.
Methinks Brooks doth protest too much. Reverse psychology is not his strong point - he might want to stick to being too clever by half.
