Fundraiser Day 2: Young "Social Democrat" David Brooks

Gets shoved around by Milton Friedman.

That young man will soon learn to the kiss the hand that slaps him hardest. He will learn to suck up to the powerful and bend ever adjective he can lay his hand on in the service of telling them what they want to hear.  He will ride the Conservative wave as it raises all wingnut boats and he will make a fine living punching hippies every inch of the way.

After supping on contempt for the left in small venues, he will Go Big by getting behind the worst President in modern history and help him foist upon the country the worst foreign policy disaster in modern history, He will push and push hard...all while making a fine living punching hippies every step of the way.

And when it all finally blows up leaving nothing but debt and failure and blood and ruin behind, that young man will simply shrug it all off like the old, army jacket he wore way back when. He will slip out of it, shove it to the back of his closet and none of his colleagues will ever ask him any questions about it ever again, because by sucking up to the powerful and telling them what they want to hear he has become a man to be feared. A man to be feared who can simply walk away from all that he had said and done and return -- unsullied and without breaking a sweat -- to his wonderful life of proffering opinions about all sorts of things he understands no better than he understood Iraq in every major media venue in America.

Return to making a fabulous living, doing what he has always done (from Matt Taibbi, yesterday):

Same-Sex Marriage Makes David Brooks Crazy

...

Entitled "Freedom Loses One," the article is a sarcastic broadside against . . . well, against something, though it's not clear exactly which of the many post-Sixties permissive-society hobgoblins Brooks hates is the real target here.

Ostensibly, the column purports to make a single ironic point, which is that by petitioning the Supreme Court for the right to marry, gays and lesbians were not expanding their freedoms – and thus continuing, as Brooks implies, a long and perhaps-regrettable winning streak for people's right to "follow their desires" that dates back to those hated Sixties – but rather constraining them. Brooks puts it this way:

But last week saw a setback for the forces of maximum freedom. A representative of millions of gays and lesbians went to the Supreme Court and asked the court to help put limits on their own freedom of choice. They asked for marriage.

Brooks here apparently expects his gay and lesbian readers to scratch their heads here and think, "Gosh, what does he mean by that? I thought we were seeking new freedoms with this campaign?"

What does he mean? Well, the self-appointed hetero-in-chief is here to enlighten us as to what marriage is – and he's here to tell you, it's no bowl of freedom-cherries!

Marriage is one of those institutions – along with religion and military service – that restricts freedom. Marriage is about making a commitment that binds you for decades to come. It narrows your options on how you will spend your time, money and attention.

Gee – really? Boy, those gays and lesbians are sure going to be in for a shock when they find out that being in a committed relationship involves constraints on behavior. That'll be some unpleasant new ground they'll be breaking there.

...

Punching hippies.

All the way to the bank.