Ahem, David Brooks. Were You Listening?
Prompted by the Ricochet essay assignment below, a friend just sent along these two quotations:
In the same New York Times column quoted in the Ricochet essay assignment, David Brooks today:
But there is a flaw in the vision the Republicans offered in Tampa. It is contained in its rampant hyperindividualism. Speaker after speaker celebrated the solitary and heroic individual. There was almost no talk of community and compassionate conservatism.
Paul Ryan addressing the Republican National Convention on Wednesday evening:
Our different faiths come together in the same moral creed. We believe that in every life there is goodness; for every person, there is hope. Each one of us was made for a reason, bearing the image and likeness of the Lord of Life. We have responsibilities, one to another – we do not each face the world alone. And the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves. Each of these great moral ideas is essential to democratic government – to the rule of law, to life in a humane and decent society. They are the moral creed of our country, as powerful in our time, as on the day of America’s founding. They are self-evident and unchanging, and sometimes, even presidents need reminding, that our rights come from nature and God, not from government.
- Comment (26)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jul '11
Re: Ahem, David Brooks. Were You Listening?
Apparently David Brooks can't hear the compassionate dog-whistle.
The compassionate conservative efforts at expanding Medicare under W., and which are being undone by Obama, must put an already-confused Brooks under some kind of extensive mental anguish. How to reconcile these two contradictory events?
One suspects Brooks tunes out if or when any kind of religious reference is made - by anybody on the right.
May '10
Re: Ahem, David Brooks. Were You Listening?
Last night as well, in the myriad testimonials about Mitt's community service there was a very clear theme. This was not the Ayn Rand convention -- not by a long shot. And it is distressing that Brooks cannot or will not hear any of that.
The conservative credo that government programs do not often solve the problems they are (well-) intended to solve is a real stumbling block for Brooks.
I will say that in watching the PBS coverage (which was SO much better than the Fox coverage btw) Brooks was tolerable.
And just to finish that thought -- after feeling warm and fuzzy toward public media, I turned on NPR this morning until they reported that Mitt had made a last minute diversion from swing state campaigning to visit Isaac victims in Louisiana with Governor Jindal. "Mr. Romney," they said, "will visit the storm victims before Mr. Obama has had the opportunity to pay a visit."
I promptly cursed at the station and switched over to sports radio to calm down.
Edited on September 1, 2012 at 12:43amMay '10
Re: Ahem, David Brooks. Were You Listening?
Obviously, David Brooks missed the last day of the convention. Nearly every speaker in the early part of the program talked about community and compassion. He must not have heard how Mitt Romney, reached out to members of his community whose children were sick, dying, or missing and showered more compassion on them than any government program ever has.
I'd like to ask Mr. Brooks if compassion only counts if it comes in the form of a government check delivered by an unnamed bureaucrat or if we're allowed to count it when it is delivered by a friend, or a man who would over the course of many days become a friend through shared hardship
Jun '10
Re: Ahem, David Brooks. Were You Listening?
I don't funnel my love for people through a state or federal agency. That's not love. That's just avoidance.
Jun '10
Re: Ahem, David Brooks. Were You Listening?
Do we still refer to him as "David Brooks, conservative columnist"? I can't read his stuff anymore because he has adopted the all-too-common liberal trait of ignoring the actual words and supplying his own narrative.
Mr. Brooks--examine thyself. You either don't listen or have lost the capacity to do so.
Re: Ahem, David Brooks. Were You Listening?
When you go to work for Pravada-on-the-Hudson, you sell your soul. I am confident that David Brooks' employers are pleased with what they bought.
Dec '10
Re: Ahem, David Brooks. Were You Listening?
Really? Seems like the item he sold that they bought might be kind of puny and shriveled.
Apr '12
Re: Ahem, David Brooks. Were You Listening?
Clint was brilliant! He is an entertainer, not a politician, and he didn't use a teleprompter. He made people laugh, and, dare I say it, laugh AT the President, who will NOT LIKE IT.
He delivered the message loud and clear, and unmistakable. Politicians work for the people, and if they are not doing a good job, fire them. This will not be forgotten, whereas it might have been if he had made a boring, scripted speech.
Romney was brilliant in having him perform last night. People who tuned in for Clint might have stayed to hear Rubio and Romney.
Apr '12
Re: Ahem, David Brooks. Were You Listening?
tabula rasa: Do we still refer to him as "David Brooks, conservative columnist"? I can't read his stuff anymore because he has adopted the all-too-common liberal trait of ignoring the actual words and supplying his own narrative.
Mr. Brooks--examine thyself. You either don't listen or have lost the capacity to do so. · 1 hour ago
"... 'seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do listen, nor do they understand' ..." Matthew 13:13 Everything changes, yet nothing changes.
Oct '10
Re: Ahem, David Brooks. Were You Listening?
Our friend Russ Roberts responds to this type of thinking by asking this question:"Being against government help is not the same as being against any kind of help. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Is the misunderstanding deliberate and malicious or does it just reflect a lack of imagination?"
Apr '11
Re: Ahem, David Brooks. Were You Listening?
Enough with David Brooks already. He is eternally annoying.
Individualism is the whole point of the United States. Everyone pursuing their own happiness. But using voluntary, arms-length, mutually-beneficial, free-market transactions with others to achieve their own ends. Some people just can't get their arms around that concept. They refuse to believe that such a system can actually work.
Like David Brooks for one.
May '10
Re: Ahem, David Brooks. Were You Listening?
I'm very happy Republicans have Paul Ryan as a spokesman.
Jan '11
Re: Ahem, David Brooks. Were You Listening?
Russ Roberts has a way of putting things that cuts through the bull and is quite compelling. I personally think that it's an irrational fear of market outcomes. There aren't many people remaining, it seems, that believe in the spirit of charity as a replacement for the nanny state.
Jul '11
Re: Ahem, David Brooks. Were You Listening?
Very true. You should have been a speech writer.
Aug '12
Re: Ahem, David Brooks. Were You Listening?
There is nothing compassionate about leaving a country to our heirs that is both broke and broken. David Brooks, you really should stop talking now.
Jun '12
Re: Ahem, David Brooks. Were You Listening?
DocJay
Very true. You should have been a speech writer. · 39 minutes ago
That's it, isn't it? I was going to post "What the [expletive] is the deal with david Brooks? Bonobos in Paradise was so good!?" But you have already answered my question.
Edited on September 1, 2012 at 4:50amJun '10
Re: Ahem, David Brooks. Were You Listening?
Red Feline
tabula rasa: Do we still refer to him as "David Brooks, conservative columnist"? I can't read his stuff anymore because he has adopted the all-too-common liberal trait of ignoring the actual words and supplying his own narrative.
Mr. Brooks--examine thyself. You either don't listen or have lost the capacity to do so. · 1 hour ago
"... 'seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do listen, nor do they understand' ..." Matthew 13:13 Everything changes, yet nothing changes. · 1 hour ago
The good book always says it so much better. That's precisely what I meant to say.
Jeremiah also made the same point. He called his people foolish and “without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.” (Jeremiah 5:21) Take that, David Brooks.
Jul '11
Re: Ahem, David Brooks. Were You Listening?
O simple ones, learn prudence; O fools, learn sense. Proverbs 8:5
Everything worthy in life is analyzed in scripture somewhere.
Sep '10
Re: Ahem, David Brooks. Were You Listening?
As Peter might say, exactly.
May '10
Re: Ahem, David Brooks. Were You Listening?
There are a lot of comments by Paul-bots that my Michael Gerson-sympathetic-gene finds a bit off-putting. Society does need to mutually support (which does not necessarily, but not always necessarily not, involve government).
But, at some point, all Learned Pundits tend to take themselves way too seriously. I'd like to see a column from Mr. Brooks on how Obama's "community" has manifested itself in Mr. Obama's personal behavior by ever prompting him to do anything personally for someone that didn't involve a photo-op.