Stupid Shit Michael Tomasky Says.

"I tend to cut David Brooks more slack than most people I know do, and I do it for one main reason. He can write. He’s the best writer on that page, and I’d usually rather read him than others on that page I’m more likely to agree with."

 -- Michael Tomasky, writing in "The Daily Beast",  06/18/12

First, let me just say kudos to you, Michael Tomasky!  You have crafted what is is arguably the Best. Beltway. Pickup. Line. Ever.

Now just follow through with, "How about we go up to my place and talk about Reasonable Centrism" and Peggy Noonan (and/or David Gregory) will fall into your lap like an overripe persimmon.

Second, no, David Brooks is not a good writer.  As anyone who reads Mr. Brooks on a regular basis (as Mr. Tomasky infers* implies he does) knows, he is a very lazy, repetitive writer who has been trafficking in this same, sniveling, bootlicking, authoritarian-worshipping "Shut up and obey me you ignorant proles!" claptrap (relentlessly camouflaged as hand-wringing, "Both Sides Do It" Reasonable Centrist claptrap) since (as one, long-forgotten wag once put it):

"...his salad days huffing George Will's toupee glue and playing Neocon Stratego with Bloody Bill Kristol back at "The Weekly Standard".

In fact, if he would like learn how to write a David Brooks column in the privacy of his own home, down among the hundreds and hundreds of essays I have written over the last seven years deconstructing Mr. Brooks' work, Mr. Tomasky will  my award-ready, 10 Step Guide to How to Write a David Brooks Column, the first five steps of which I will vouchsafe to Mr. Tomasky absolutely free of charge:

...
In just 10 Easy Steps you'll be punditting like a pro!

1) Pick a subject. Any subject. From Tasseled Loafers to Torture, it literally does not matter.

2) Quote extensively from one person or group on the subject. It's OK to just more-or-less copy and paste in big hunks of what whatever-you-happen-to-be-reading-at-the-moment to flesh out your 800-word column. Here at the Times we call that "research"!

3) Quote from some other person or group on the same subject who appears to hold a different opinion. If no actual opposition exists, just put on your Magic Green Jacket and invent an opposing opinion.

4) Although such is not the case with today's subject, as often as possible, try to impute these fictional distinctions to the different hemispheres of the political Universe. So no matter how bigoted, reckless or just bugfuck crazy the Right behaves, you just go right ahead and blandly assert with no supporting evidence whatsoever that the Left is equally and oppositely bad in exactly the same qualities and quantities. Here at the Times we call that "seriousness"!

5) Discover in your final paragraph or two that -- amazingly! -- the precise midpoint between those two completely artificial positions on an imaginary spectrum just happens to be exactly the Right and Reasonable answer!
...

Yes, the balance of Michael Tomasky's article does scold Mr. Brooks for somehow failing to notice that the GOP has gone stark, staring mad, but the third and most important point of Mr. Tomasky's article is to be found in the cringing, deferential posture into which he automatically falls once he gets up the gumption to dare to tweak Mr. Brooks for his ludicrously dishonest bullshit.


If you ever wondered why Mr. Brooks continues to enjoy a fabulously lucrative job at the pinnacle of the American Commentariate despite being continually lazy and wrong, this should give you a very big hint:  if you want to succeed at the Reasonable Pundit game, always remember to "suck up and punch down."