I will be marking my 13th Bloggeversary in four days. Which means I am two weeks from the 13th anniversary of my first post about Mr. David Brooks of The New York Times:
Ah BoBo. Go to bed, little man, and don’t be afraid. I’m sure the Shining Path Evangelicals you stooge for won’t kill you ‘til last.And so today I am going to take it easy and yield the floor to Mr. Osita Nwanevu, a staff writer at Slate:
If Brooks really was there, he surely knows that the prevailing mood was not, simply, "gratitude" for being American; anger wasn't reserved merely for "centralized authority" in general. There was anger about racism, difference & what he calls "negative privilege" were referenced— Osita Nwanevu (@OsitaNwanevu) March 27, 2018
It is deeply strange to see revisionism happening in real time. As I said yesterday about MLK, it can be a sign that a movement is succeeding. But we should be clear that the Parkland teens have actually *leaned into* identity politics and that Brooks is trying to erase this.— Osita Nwanevu (@OsitaNwanevu) March 27, 2018
Mr. Nwaneru, for future reference, real-time revisionism and the erasure of inconvenient facts is literally David Brooks' entire schtick. It's why the Beltway media is so scrupulous about enforcing the Beltway Iron Rule of David Brooks.
In today's example, Mr. Brooks is not writing about the actual march as it actually happened. He is writing about an imaginary march which his wealthy, cosseted patrons wish had happened.
Behold, a Tip Jar!
3 comments:
So this feels like David Brooks trying to save face.
You see this happen now and then with Sensible, Serious conservative pundits when some WACKY CRAZY EXTREME LIBERAL idea suddenly becomes mainstream. Gun control measures really aren't that controversial but they've still always been easy to fob off as liberal orthodoxy not worthy of engagement. As those ideas get more media play, that's no longer an option, so that pundit must find a way to pretend that the liberal position was his own position all along. Easiest way to do that? Invent some orthodox leftist band of gun-grabbers (probably Oberlin students) and recast the liberal idea as a pragmatic centrist position that you can embrace.
Really, this column with its extremely weird take on events that Brooks clearly didn't follow is just his effort to reconcile a popular liberal notion with his own fundamentally conservative politics. I'm a little more interested in how he reconciles this column with his long-held belief that the Youngs are narcissistic monsters, but give it a month - gotta figure that's as long as he can go without whinging about college students. And The Road to Character even gave a hint as to how he might go about transitioning back into his declinist narrative - by taking the reluctant optimism and do-gooderism of youth activists and using that as proof of their narcissism (since after all, only a narcissist thinks he can change the world). Wait for it - it'll happen as soon as the media furor dies down.
Today's Fun Facts:
1. There are more guns than people in the United States.
2. That gives us a better guns/people ratio than anywhere else except, say, Yemen.
3. 75% of Americans, however, do not own EVEN one gun.
4. Of the 25% who do own guns, JUST 3% OWN HALF OF ALL THE GUNS.
5. It is estimated that from 1 to 4% of the population are psychopaths/sociopaths/ASPD who can, of course, buy as many guns as they want, including AR-15 assault rifles (aka the "Child Killer").
https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-people-are-psychopaths-sociopaths.
But none of this is any problem because 2nd AMENDMENT!
If I was DFB, I probably wouldn't want to call attention to a bunch of kids as they stomp me and my lame politics into the dirt either.
-Doug in Oakland
Post a Comment