At Least One Wise Man Is Still Searching for Truth

 

DavidBrooksDavid Brooks, the long-time, so-called conservative columnist of the New York Times —  a man who has invited much condemnation from the extreme right — is undergoing a transformation. This transformation is documented in some detail by Danny Funt in the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR). Brooks, it seems, always aspired to write about politics and public policy. He did not start out a conservative. He arrived there after graduating from the University of Chicago where he was exposed to the likes of Milton Friedman and others. Yet, it was not until he left a wire service job on the police beat in Chicago to become an intern for William F. Buckley that he became a version of a conservative. Brooks does have bona fides. Nine years at the Wall Street Journal, including as an Op-ed editor. Senior editor of The Weekly Standard followed, along with many articles published in The Atlantic, and finally his position at the New York Times, beginning in 2003 to fill William Safire’s shoes.

Brooks has arrived exactly where he set out to be. But all is not well. He has been overtaken by a sense of futility and inanity with the political reporter’s beat. This frustration came after a flirtation and a book he wrote, The Social Animal, which sought to find a deeper purpose for life by probing the social and physical sciences only to find unsatisfying answers. He has come to realize that there must be more… a deeper meaning or purpose for life. Now this is a journey we might find interesting and, per Danny Funt, it is happening before our very eyes.

Brooks has come under fire for his support of gay marriage and other progressive positions. He has been a regular visitor to the Obama White House and they no doubt have worked hard to channel their message to and through him. But despite his interaction with the Plouffe/Jarrett/Axelrod media managers, Brooks still holds some appeal to the average conservative, the ones who remain willing to flex a bit to arrive at a compromise with the Left but who never yield the argument, or the pursuit of the virtuous, the right, and the true. His flexing does not mean his positions are less well held. They are in fact very well reasoned, even if I often disagree.

Brooks has recently been attacked for taking a strong position against radical conservatives who seek to destroy — in the name of saving — the very institutions they hold dear. He explained his brand of conservatism as:

By traditional definitions, conservatism stands for intellectual humility, a belief in steady, incremental change, a preference for reform rather than revolution, a respect for hierarchy, precedence, balance and order, and a tone of voice that is prudent, measured and responsible. Conservatives of this disposition can be dull, but they know how to nurture and run institutions. They also see the nation as one organic whole. Citizens may fall into different classes and political factions, but they are still joined by chains of affection that command ultimate loyalty and love.

After reading him for over a decade, my take is that Brooks can best be described as a economic conservative with a heart but also unafraid to condemn behavior which perpetrates suffering and poverty. He assigns much of the blame of poverty and social malaise to weakness and bad choices: drug abuse or even casual marijuana use (which he condemns as vacuous), indiscriminate and profligate sex, the breakdown of family and male responsibility, and self-perpetuating social programs that encourage bad behavior. These views, along with his position as one of the New York Times’ resident conservatives, expose Brooks to withering fire from all sides. I became so frustrated with his dalliances with the current president and his convolutions that I stopped reading him. (Okay I peek once and a while, but don’t tell).

But even the most casual Brooks reader should sense that something happened to David Brooks. He won’t say exactly what. He just leaves hints. He indicates he moved closer to a religious philosophy. Being raised Jewish and reading his newest book, The Road to Character, we might surmise it is Christianity, but there is no way of telling with the reclusive Brooks. He writes almost as if in a vacuum. And that makes this transformation which Funt delves into in depth even more interesting, but still not completely understood.

Here are a few tidbits:

  • As noted above, Brooks — who often got high as a teenager — discourages even mild drug use as not “uplifting.”
  • He sees casual sex as spiritually degrading.
  • He is tuned into current culture and knows the lyrics to rap songs.
  • He believes the keys to life are in reading the Great Authors – Plato, Aristotle, Locke … even more than the Bible. Funt notes Brooks admires Edmund Burke’s conservatism which honor’s tradition, modulated change, and reliance on permanence in political matters.
  • He embraces the kind of environment found at the University of Chicago where engaging in unencumbered discourse to find answers, defending civilized life, and resisting barbarism is still de rigueur – without micro-aggression’s or trigger warnings.

This man is clearly complicated, searching, and reflective. No quick solutions, no rants, nor harsh branding of others by him. Yet, his transformation to find meaning is leading him to make more and more moral judgements.

Here is one quote from Funt’s CJR article when Brooks was asked about the Penn State child molestation scandal and it is worth considering,

“We have lost our clear sense of what evil is, what sin is,” Brooks said. “And so, when people see things like that, they don’t have categories to put it into. They vaguely know it’s wrong, but they’ve been raised in a morality that says, ‘If it feels all right for you, it’s probably okay.'”

This statement was shocking coming from David Brooks, the conservative who has been drifting about. It signaled he is grasping to fix himself and deliver to society some truth. It is a path into something very judgmental, right versus wrong. It reads — if I might say so — like something someone might post on Ricochet.

Now despite the hints, this does not indicate a conversion of faith or a religious awakening. Rather Brooks feels compelled to argue on behalf of a “secular priesthood of intellectuals” charged with forging society in a moral foundation or at least a discourse. It is very William F. Buckley, but without the Catholicism. One of Brooks’ best friends, Yuval Levin of the National Review, provides a trenchant explanation, “I personally don’t know how those ideas are understood outside a religious context.” Indeed.

The Road to Character is Brooks attempt to arrive at Burke’s permanence. We get the feeling it is an unfinished journey. So if you haven’t read the book or don’t plan to, take a shot at the CJR article that places this in a greater context of a man’s search for truth.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 107 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Ario IronStar Inactive
    Ario IronStar
    @ArioIronStar

    Credit to David Brooks if indeed, as your post suggests, he is still struggling with the big questions of meaning and seeking greater understanding and growth.

    However, as a columnist he is primarily a political commentator.  This emphasis on character is ironic, as it was his inexcusably bad judgment of Obama’s character by which he Dowded himself in the eyes of thoughtful conservatives.  The judgment was inexcusable because of the mountain of evidence present indicting Obama as a narrow-minded ideologue with no operational (as opposed to electoral) governing  skills or propensity toward consideration.

    Brooks may be on the path to redeeming himself as a thinker to be taken seriously, but it will be a long path compromised by a necessary self-censorship keeping him on his perch at the Times.

    • #1
  2. Ball Diamond Ball Member
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    James Madison: Brooks still holds some appeal to the average conservative, the ones who remain willing to flex a bit to arrive at a compromise with the left but who never yield the argument, or the pursuit of the virtuous, the right, and the true.

    Well then let Saint Brooks run for office, and the crease in Obama’s pants can be his running mate.

    • #2
  3. Ball Diamond Ball Member
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    David Brooks has the sorry task of resurrecting David Brooks as a “conservative” until November 2016.  Expect to see lots of such nail-biting and hand-wringing.  He has a quota to deliver, and “James Madison” will be in it.

    • #3
  4. James Madison Member
    James Madison
    @JamesMadison

    BDB,

    Your presumptions indicate a bias that is unfounded. You really should broaden your reading. It would be time well spent. Reading something and thinking about it is not agreement.

    • #4
  5. Koolie Inactive
    Koolie
    @Koolie

    “he can best be described as a economic conservative with a heart”

    Why do I rush to hide my wallet every time I read about a public policy advocate “with a heart”?

    • #5
  6. Freesmith Member
    Freesmith
    @

    As someone who read and enjoyed both “On Paradise Drive” and “Bobos in Paradise” I will tell you without hesitation that “The Road to Character” is an utterly boring book.

    Brooks has a refined intellect and a fluid prose style – although it falters repeatedly in “TRTC” – but in essence he is a species we all know so well, a Bush Republican.

    • #6
  7. Koolie Inactive
    Koolie
    @Koolie

    “Rather Brooks feels compelled to argue on behalf a “secular priesthood of intellectuals” charged with forging society…”

    Aren’t they grand, the likes of Brooks and their “secular priesthood of intellectuals”? What would we do without them?

    • #7
  8. Susan the Buju Contributor
    Susan the Buju
    @SusanQuinn

    I’m glad to hear that David Brooks may be re-thinking some of his positions. And given my sense of him (from a distance) over the years, I can’t imagine that any “conversion” he makes will be anything but thoughtful, private and gradual, especially since no matter what he does, he’ll get blasted from all sides. I wish him well, if in fact he is exploring and re-assessing. Thanks for the post.

    • #8
  9. James Madison Member
    James Madison
    @JamesMadison

    Freesmith,

    I am not even sure he is a Bush Republican. I agree, TRTC was not that stirring. But what is perhaps more interesting is his “road to Damascus” as described in the CJR. The realization that morality is more important than policy might prove to be an interesting journey to observe.

    • #9
  10. James Madison Member
    James Madison
    @JamesMadison

    S the B,

    Yes. This could be instructional to see another evolve. As a human with very few answers myself, I wonder where it will lead.

    • #10
  11. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Most intelligent people I know share some of the positions of both parties. It would be ridiculous to think that we could divide 360 million people into two never-overlapping opinion groups. I have found that usually people are arguing over where the line should be, not whether or not the line should exist at all.

    I am an ardent believer in the necessity of a free and unfettered press and right to free speech. But I draw the line at people’s freedom to say whatever they want to my kids or anyone else’s kids. I hold fast to my conviction that the right of parents to direct their children’s education is paramount. The parent has the last word.

    The English teachers I know are incensed when parents object to reading material given in schools. Yet those same teachers wouldn’t, for example, give Playboy magazine to six-year-olds. Despite what they say, they do believe there are good reasons to restrict that freedom.

    We are seldom talking about absolutes. We are usually talking about where the line should be.

    Commentators like David Brooks are invaluable in that both sides are likely to read his work. Both sides feel respected by him. That’s a good thing because we do have to work together and understand each other’s viewpoint.

    • #11
  12. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    I’m not sure why you think what he encountered in Chicago was Milton Friedman. Is he in economics? I was pretty impressed by some of his insights concerning American society & the future–bobos in paradise, primarily–but I do not see anything to do with Friedman. It seems far closer to political philosophy.

    He strikes me as a pretty good observer of America, but I am unsure as to whether his judgment concerning moderation or trimming is sound right now. I think he is right that there is an intellectual & moral hatred on the right. I don’t know what to do about it. I think he is right that some things in the way American conservative activists think about political change need to change, but I’m just about clueless as to how. I do not see that his efforts have been successful.

    I think something like his effort is about the only thing that can speak to educated Americans who look to the future or think they more or less will spell out the future of America. But again, I do not know what success he can boast-

    • #12
  13. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    A lot of self-identified conservatives have managed to destroy the meaning of the word. Everyone is conservative in some way.

    Remember when many Democrats were touting themselves as being “socially liberal and fiscally conservative”?

    We have had enough socialism for so long that it isn’t even questioned by the likes of Brooks. Conservatism of going back a decade or two on entitlement spending doesn’t count.

    We have conservative Jeb Bush saying, ““To me — and I’m here at this great Catholic institution and this is what my church teaches me — it is completely un-American to require people living in the shadows.”

    I’m not going to argue who is or isn’t “conservative” any more.

    I’ll argue instead about who are most susceptible to advancing leftist socialist causes that are ruining our country. Who wants central planning believing in top-down solutions and being more impressed with a leader who dresses well, or speaks well (especially a black guy! how impressive!) than ideas.

    One of Brooks’ most emblamatic blind-spots is how absolutely malicious leftists are and how everything they do in the public sphere is meant to undermine our great country. This type is easily fooled by appeals to the heart. They are easily manipulated into feeling guilt and compassion for the less fortunate, and they, like liberals, feel a need to bolster their status as do-gooders using other people’s resources.

    Ultimately I don’t care what is happening to David Brooks.

    • #13
  14. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    I believe Jeb! is utterly correct that it is un-American to have people living in the shadow. I suspect you might want to add that, furthermore, it is by definition & by essence un-American to have anyone but Americans in their political processes decide who is American.

    But I do not think that opposing the terrible ideas the GOP puts forward on immigration requires denying that Americans have an almost unique resistance to thinking of foreigners among them as mere foreigners. It is the correlative of the almost uniquely American requirement–& promise–of Americanization.

    • #14
  15. Susan the Buju Contributor
    Susan the Buju
    @SusanQuinn

    Koolie: “he can best be described as a economic conservative with a heart” Why do I rush to hide my wallet every time I read about a public policy advocate “with a heart”?

    For those of us who are religious, I think we’ve become disenchanted with the word “heart”; it’s been so abused by the left (including words like compassion). Rather than throwing out the words “heart” or “compassion,” I think that we are called to find the balance between compassion and wisdom. I’m always accusing the left of relying too much on “compassion” and ignoring “wisdom.” Let’s not make the opposite mistake.

    • #15
  16. James Madison Member
    James Madison
    @JamesMadison

    S the B,

    Wow. You are on to something in terms of balancing compassion and wisdom. Balance between the moral foundations of caring, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity is how we all function. How we balance these determines how we innately process and then rationalize what we feel.

    When someone above says they don’t care about David Brooks, they are responding intuitively and then searching for a rationale to back them up. We all do it. Liberals tend to weight caring and fairness more heavily. Conservatives tend to balance all the moral foundations about evenly. Libertarians have a different weighting. How they all balance is determined by their innate weighting of moral foundations. And this weighting is mostly acquired or learned and partially impacted by who we are.

    More on this later. But you are on to something.

    • #16
  17. James Madison Member
    James Madison
    @JamesMadison

    Titus,

    Brooks was exposed and discussed issues with Milton Friedman when at Chicago. But, I understand what you are saying. Brooks work is different from economics. My thumbnail of Brooks is that he is generally a libertarian or individualist on matters of economics – free market. However, he is not pure and my interpretations are gleaned from his editorials.

    Thanks for your thoughts! I value them.

    • #17
  18. Vald the Misspeller Inactive
    Vald the Misspeller
    @ValdtheMisspeller

    Titus Techera:I believe Jeb! is utterly correct that it is un-American to have people living in the shadow. I suspect you might want to add that, furthermore, it is by definition & by essence un-American to have anyone but Americans in their political processes decide who is American.

    But I do not think that opposing the terrible ideas the GOP puts forward on immigration requires denying that Americans have an almost unique resistance to thinking of foreigners among them as mere foreigners. It is the correlative of the almost uniquely American requirement–& promise–of Americanization.

    What shadows? I’ve seen them standing in the shade — at Home Depot, waiting for someone to drive by and hire them for the day.

    • #18
  19. Susan the Buju Contributor
    Susan the Buju
    @SusanQuinn

    James Madison: Wow. You are on to something in terms of balancing compassion and wisdom.

    Ah-hah! Another Jon Haidt fan! I’ll look forward to your follow-on comments!

    • #19
  20. James Madison Member
    James Madison
    @JamesMadison

    S the B,

    Right on!

    Haidt is important in strategy and I teach strategy. Also, Brooks teaches strategy. Hmmm.

    • #20
  21. Yeah...ok. Inactive
    Yeah...ok.
    @Yeahok

    Titus Techera:I believe Jeb! is utterly correct that it is un-American to have people living in the shadow.

    Yo Titus, you seem a pretty sharp dude.

    Would you see any value to compare and or contrast living on an Indian reservation or in the shadows? Which is more or less un-american?

    • #21
  22. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Vald the Misspeller:

    Titus Techera:I believe Jeb! is utterly correct that it is un-American to have people living in the shadow. I suspect you might want to add that, furthermore, it is by definition & by essence un-American to have anyone but Americans in their political processes decide who is American.

    But I do not think that opposing the terrible ideas the GOP puts forward on immigration requires denying that Americans have an almost unique resistance to thinking of foreigners among them as mere foreigners. It is the correlative of the almost uniquely American requirement–& promise–of Americanization.

    What shadows? I’ve seen them standing in the shade — at Home Depot, waiting for someone to drive by and hire them for the day.

    That’s good.

    It does not seem than anyone can persuade the American electorate to make illegal aliens disappear by deportation or by legalization. But if that becomes the choice, I think even we agree, America will choose or live with the choice for legalization.

    Americans in some rather populous states cannot seem to summon the outrage to change drivers licenses or in-state tuition for illegal aliens! Americans in some cities cannot seem to be anti-sanctuary. Or even anti-welfare for illegal aliens. That’s lots of people…

    So the shadows have to do with the fact that Americans cannot bring themselves to deportation of millions but cannot think about the aliens in some other meaningful way.

    • #22
  23. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Yeah…ok.:

    Titus Techera:I believe Jeb! is utterly correct that it is un-American to have people living in the shadow.

    Yo Titus, you seem a pretty sharp dude.

    Would you see any value to compare and or contrast living on an Indian reservation or in the shadows? Which is more or less un-american?

    Certainly. & let us not forget–not comparing prosperity or peace, but the American way of live–about the Amish. Or what are scientifically called inner cities by cowards; the more outrageous people used to call them ghettos–see, it’s like the Jews with pogroms! But whatever you call them, what they are is not the American way of life.

    It’s true that there is always something accidental about political crisis & issues that really annoy people when others that are similar are ignored. Human beings need to be organized politically to have any kind of reasoning…

    • #23
  24. Carey J. Inactive
    Carey J.
    @CareyJ

    Koolie:“he can best be described as a economic conservative with a heart”

    Why do I rush to hide my wallet every time I read about a public policy advocate “with a heart”?

    Because they inevitably try to lift your wallet. “Compassionate conservative” and “economic conservative with a heart” are euphemisms for what Ayn Rand accurately described as “looters” and “moochers”.

    • #24
  25. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Carey J.:

    Koolie:“he can best be described as a economic conservative with a heart”

    Why do I rush to hide my wallet every time I read about a public policy advocate “with a heart”?

    Because they inevitably try to lift your wallet. “Compassionate conservative” and “economic conservative with a heart” are euphemisms for what Ayn Rand accurately described as “looters” and “moochers”.

    I expect you mean, that’s the case of the vast majority of your countrymen? Or do you believe the majority want government spending to decrease significantly?

    • #25
  26. Carey J. Inactive
    Carey J.
    @CareyJ

    James Madison:Freesmith,

    I am not even sure he is a Bush Republican. I agree, TRTC was not that stirring. But what is perhaps more interesting is his “road to Damascus” as described in the CJR. The realization that morality is more important than policy might prove to be an interesting journey to observe.

    I’m not sure he’s a Republican, period. Which, of course, would mean he’s not a Bush Republican. Of course, “Bush Republican” is sort of like “political correctness” or “social justice”. It’s not quite what most people think of as Republican. I think “Bush Republican” may qualify as an oxymoron. And a lot of “Bush Republicans” qualify as just plain morons.

    • #26
  27. Carey J. Inactive
    Carey J.
    @CareyJ

    Titus Techera:

    Carey J.:

    Koolie:“he can best be described as a economic conservative with a heart”

    Why do I rush to hide my wallet every time I read about a public policy advocate “with a heart”?

    Because they inevitably try to lift your wallet. “Compassionate conservative” and “economic conservative with a heart” are euphemisms for what Ayn Rand accurately described as “looters” and “moochers”.

    I expect you mean, that’s the case of the vast majority of your countrymen? Or do you believe the majority want government spending to decrease significantly?

    A vast swath of Americans don’t even pretend to be conservative. Their motto would be “laissez les bons temps rouler” (let the good times roll) if they knew enough French to understand it. In 2008, and again in 2012, Americans had a choice between freedom and free stuff. They voted for free stuff both times.

    • #27
  28. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Carey J.:

    Titus Techera:

    Carey J.:

    Koolie:“he can best be described as a economic conservative with a heart”

    Why do I rush to hide my wallet every time I read about a public policy advocate “with a heart”?

    Because they inevitably try to lift your wallet. “Compassionate conservative” and “economic conservative with a heart” are euphemisms for what Ayn Rand accurately described as “looters” and “moochers”.

    I expect you mean, that’s the case of the vast majority of your countrymen? Or do you believe the majority want government spending to decrease significantly?

    A vast swath of Americans don’t even pretend to be conservative. Their motto would be “laissez les bons temps rouler” (let the good times roll) if they knew enough French to understand it. In 2008 and 2012, Americans had a choice between freedom and free stuff. They voted for free stuff both times.

    There is a question then about the relation between the two kinds of Americans that to an extent seem to oppose each other as electoral coalitions. Which is or represents a majority & which a minority? Which view wins of what is owed for the commons & what is simply private? It is quite possible that a many vs. few situation arises in America–it is not impossible that a new civil war or another kind of regime change takes place. So one wonders in these latter days what it even means to be American, so far as Americans care to explain or believe-

    • #28
  29. Boss Mongo Member
    Boss Mongo
    @BossMongo

    Titus Techera:I believe Jeb! is utterly correct that it is un-American to have people living in the shadow.

    Okay, I disagree but let’s examine the premise.  Were we to actually enforce our immigration laws (I’m thinking, here, particularly about those laws that target US entities knowingly hiring non-legal persons) those huddled masses residing in that big, inky-black shadow would thin out pretty quick.

    What I find un-American is the free people of a representative republic establishing laws on the entry and egress from their country, and then all three branches of government working hard to undermine the matriculation of their intent.

    • #29
  30. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Boss Mongo:

    Titus Techera:I believe Jeb! is utterly correct that it is un-American to have people living in the shadow.

    Okay, I disagree but let’s examine the premise. Were we to actually enforce our immigration laws (I’m thinking, here, particularly about those laws that target US entities knowingly hiring non-legal persons) those huddled masses residing in that big, inky-black shadow would thin out pretty quick.

    Indeed. But what laws are enforced depends on whom you elect. Who is elected depends in a crucial way on the people. If Americans dislike your current immigration policies, surely, some democratic hysteria will follow! There was some such opposition between your political class & their electorate back in 2007, was there not?

    Maybe Americans will show they care & change their politicians. Maybe they will show they do not much care-

    What I find un-American is the free people of a representative republic establishing laws on the entry and egress from their country, and then all three branches of government working hard to undermine the matriculation of their intent.

    Indeed, but the truth about politics is that sometimes the politicians have to ignore the people, who are insane not infrequently, & sometimes the people have to ignore the politicians, who are inevitably idealistic.

    I am not sure now is either of those cases, but one cannot be too strict about the laws–one will soon want to change laws others dearly wish were left unchanged…

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.