Tuesday, May 24, 2011

London Drudge is Failing Down

QUEENBOBO_SM

You know E.J., over here they call their apartments "flats" and their elevators "lifts"!

What a country!

So our Mr. Brooks spent his 800 words New York Times Op-Ed ration today write a slobbery mash note to Britain thanking them for how well Mr. Brooks believes they have put into practice the Brooksian Vision of the perfect political system:
"It is dominated by people who live in London and who have often known each other since prep school. This makes it gossipy and often incestuous. But the plusses outweigh the minuses."
And why not?

After all, the Fictional British System Mr. Brooks has invented has everything America's Greatest Conservative Public Intellectual could possibly want: an awesome class system (now a bit down on its heels, but still), spiffy uniforms, jellied eels, a Queen and Margaret Thatcher. Hell, even its home-grown Conservatives are perfect accent pieces for someone like Mr. Brooks -- not the hateful, vicious, thugs who actually run Mr. Brooks’ Movement (and about whose nature and lineage he continuously lies), but toothless, Precious Moments Figurine Conservatives -- 



-- that come in a variety of festive designer colors. Silly little fops who imitate Mr. Brooks' oeuvre in flattering miniature: perching on the mantle of the media and regurgitating little puddles of American Hippie Punching dogma on command.

Not at all like our giant ass-ache of a country that Mr. Brooks ominously warns us "Americans" not to feel "smug or superior" about.

Glenn Greenwald takes up the challenge of taking today's ritual whacks at the indestructible Bobo pinata:
...
Brooks is widely loved by establishment figures because he thinks like them, speaks for them, and tirelessly defends their interests, most especially with this democracy-hating mindset. The obvious flaw in his post-financial-crisis fantasy was that the near-economic-collapse was the direct result of the very council of oligarchical elites he yearned to empower ("the safe heads from the investment banks. . . people like [former Goldman CEO Hank] Paulson . . . [and former Goldman CEO] Robert Rubin") -- just as the architects and bipartisan cheerleaders of the Iraq War (prominently including Brooks) continue to wield Seriousness status and exert dominance over America's foreign and military policy.

But more generally, what Brooks so envies about British political culture -- a small, incestuous, aristocratic, homogenized group of trans-ideological elites harmoniously resolving their differences -- is exactly what already drives American policy and politics. And that is what establishment spokespeople like Brooks always mean when they yearn for "bipartisanship"...
The estimable Aramis of "Barkers and Rubes" also gets in some sweet licks here.

Several weeks ago, at a little meet-up at a nearby eatery, as I was getting wound up about some damn thing or other, Arvan of sexgenderbody wisely noted something that I occasionally forget (and that I am elaborately expanding and paraphrasing into my own native tongue): that America really is an empire, ruled primarily out of D.C. and New York by a small group of incredibly powerful interests who pay good money to remain thoroughly insulated from the messy, dying remnants of democracy as it thrashes around on the slaughterhouse floor. That the maddening insipidity and jaw-dropping mediocrity of imperial spokesmen like Brooks is merely a sign that they are performing their function -- protecting their paymasters from scrutiny or harm -- exceedingly well.

All passages are blocked, all bridges are guarded and the Empire has command of the air and controls all the high ground. And nothing I say, nothing Glenn Greenwald says, nothing Matt Taibbi says...nothing whatsoever is ever going to affect the slightest change in status or power or reach of people like Mr. Brooks.

Nothing.

And why?

Well, consider for a moment that many of the reforms which would dramatically change the American political system in ways that Mr. Brooks finds so laudable are well within reach right here in America and always have been. Everyone who is not a liar or a congenital imbecile knows what the problems are: our media -- the nervous system of our democracy -- is hopelessly broken and compromised, and monied interests have turned the American political system into an open, reeking whorehouse.

If you want to fix American politics, get rid of the fucking oceans of money and all the attendant corruptions that go with it. If you want to fix the media, put a public premium on individuals and institutions that tell us the truth, and a public sanction on individuals and institution that lie to us

Problem solved.

Except it isn't because the "problem", as Malone says in, "The Untouchables" is not figuring out where the booze is.

Everyone knows where the booze is.


The problem is, who wants to cross Capone?

And in a world where politics remains contentious but where partisan fights are governed by a deep respect for courtesy, comity, and honesty...

....Administrations that use national tragedies to lie us into illegal wars would be impeached and imprisoned.

...Hate Radio would be a shameful perversion like unto horse porn, enjoyed by freaks in secret in their basements at night.

...Fox News would have been nuked from orbit long ago. Just to be sure.

...and David Fucking Brooks would be scratching out a living writing seed ads for Grit Magazine.

And as Mr. Brooks knows full well, the oligarchs that he so loyally serves will never permit that world to come to pass.


(BTW, I did this Photoshop of Mr. Brooks back in January of this year. Prescient? Not at all. Read any random 3-4 Brooks columns and his inner Peeved Monarch just sorta leaps out at you.)




13 comments:

Anonymous said...

dg, of all your Photoshops, I must say Queen Brooks is my absolute favorite.

Mike.K.

clem said...

for fun, i generated a word cloud based on your posts. oddly neither "david" nor "brooks" appeared, but his middle name - "fucking" - did.

Roket said...

Oh my. The gem of the NYT is losing its luster. Quick. Someone spit on it.

Uncommoner said...

Love the post (and I think that Fox News is only ONE of the things we should be nuking from orbit, just to be sure) but I have two minor points I'd like to contend, as a proud member of the commonwealth:

Firstly, Jellied Eels are actually pretty good.

Secondly, Her Majesty is also pretty good.

Mrs. Thatcher, on the other hand, was downright insane, class systems are generally vile and Mr Brooks is a twunt.

On the other hand, there are some downright lunatic conservative types in England. Whatever happened to Robert Kilroy-Silk anyways? He's roughly the same shade as Boehner and just as obviously bigoted and evil as most of the Repugnicans these days. He's not the only one either.

bluepillnation said...

Sir Drift,

This is the first time DFB has taken a literary dump on my turf. I was hoping to do some rebuttal of my own, and was wondering if I could borrow your image?

Credit would be given, of course...

Retired Patriot said...

Drifty,

Once again, masterfully said. As for crossing Capone, in these times I think we're well on the way towards doing so. Once we figure out who will be our Eliot Ness and our Jim Malone.

RP

RockDots said...

Great post. The photoshop of Bobo works no matter which continent he's on, or which empire he's flattering.

"The problem is, who wants to cross Capone?"

Or, as another film had it, "Follow the money."

Anonymous said...

Thank you - beautifully done.

In regards to the whole democracy-hating, monarchy- loving tendencies by those on the 'soft' far right....ever noticed that especially since Bush came to power PBS has devoted a great deal of airtime to shows and documentaries that prop up various monarchs - especially the British ones?

bluepillnation said...

Now let's be clear here - In the UK there's a world of difference between the upper class as defined by the monarchy, and the upper-middle class as defined by our current political leaders.

The former are something of a tolerated anachronism, largely because they have no power beyond ceremonial duties, and occasionally they're good for a little schadenfreude-based entertainment. What's left of our hereditary landed gentry are largely too busy trying to keep themselves afloat financially to care about much else.

The latter, on the other hand, would be very much considered "new money" in traditional terms. Their families have been wealthy for up to a century - perhaps longer - but they bear a far closer resemblance to families like the Bushes, Pierces, Walkers, Rockefellers and Astors than they do the landed gentry they're gradually replacing (which is why Queen Brooksie II feels so much at home). As such, those of a rightward political bent see noblesse oblige as an anachronism in itself, and even those with a conscience seem unable to conceive of the situations people who live from paycheque to paycheque experience everyday.

I honestly think that David Cameron, much as I find him repulsive, genuinely believes he's doing good and is modernising the party he leads. But you only need to see the beliefs that many of the rest of his party still hold (supported by the embittered lower-middle class with delusions of grandeur who share said beliefs) to know that he's deluding himself.

Recently on another site I was taken to task for suggesting that Ayn Rand was as much at the heart of "libertarian" Tory policy as she is in the US. But whatever the perception, the results are the same. There is a whole class of people that simply *do not count* when it comes to the policies put forward by our Coalition government.

StringonaStick said...

Thanks for the insight, Bluepillnation; well put.

Batocchio said...

DG, if you missed it, a commenter at BJ pointed out that Brooks' idyllic Britain is Andrew Sullivan's as well. Although Sullivan isn't as ignorant about British history... (He just chooses to ignore parts of it, as he ignores the Reagan and Gingrich years here.) They both love that film Tory, Tory, Tory.

Even though the teacher wasn't very good, I'm grateful I took a class on WWI in college. I wish the "Great" War was better remembered, especially by the war-making class.

bluepillnation said...

Batocchio -

I was in the privileged position of having an excellent history teacher who, along with the facts regarding the early 20th century (and the wars that defined that time), also took the time to point out the utter senselessness of the first conflict (if one were to take as read the widely-accepted reasons that conflict was initiated as opposed to the intriguing alternative theory regarding the Berlin-Baghdad Railway), and the roots of the second conflict sowed with the Treaty Of Versailles (which fed the Dolchstosslegende).

Personally though, I think that the roots of our modern conflicts stem from a generational inferiority complex on the part of the baby-boomers. Let's be honest - how would you react to being told that your parents were the "Greatest Generation", and as such something you could never live up to? I'd like to think I could take it in my stride, but as a card-carrying member of Generation Y (in US terms) - I'll never be able to answer that in anything other than theoretical terms.

In my opinion, the pathology of Brooks and Sullivan are different again - they desperately want to believe that enlightenment is something bestowed with privilege and class, and that "enlightened" manipulation by the privileged will lead to a stable society.

Batocchio said...

Bluepillnation, all good points. You've got a post or three in all that! Brooks and Sullivan definitely shill the notion of an enlightened aristocracy that allows its table scraps to trickle down to the lower orders. How could anyone object to such a wonderful setup?

At least here in the States, I believe the term "the greatest generation" results from baby boomers (most specifically, Tom Brokaw) growing older and writing worshipful books about their parents. Meanwhile, the negative stereotype of a baby boomer over here isn't about someone feeling inferior, at least not outwardly; it's of a narcissistic, posturing sellout. (I hasten to add that while I've met boomers who fit that exactly, it certainly ain't true of them all, and the boomer DFHs (Dirty Fucking Hippies) are awesome. But then, it's ridiculous to try to give a single personality profile to an entire "generation," if there even is such a thing.) In any case, we've had a glut of pop culture focused on the 40s and 60s, some of it quite good, and some of it treacly hagiography.