Krugman and Brooks
This summer – except when distracted by children and a trip to see their maternal grandparents – I have been working more or less flat-out on a book. Ask me right now about the fine points of the McConnell plan and I will sigh and plead ignorance. If I really have to study up on it, I will. Ask me, however, about the rise of Achaemenid Persia, Sparta’s handling of Polycrates of Samos and of Hippias of Athens, the background to the battle of Marathon, and Xerxes’ march to Doriscus – and I can tell you a lot. I have spent more time in the company of Herodotus in the last two months than I have spent awake in the company of my wife.
But every so often I have taken a break – even if only for a few minutes – and that is what I did after finishing something yesterday afternoon. I started with Arts and Sciences Daily, as I often do. Then, I read a review of a book by my late friend Patrick Leigh Fermor’s literary executor Colin Thubron. And somehow – I do not remember how – I came across a piece posted back in April by Jonathan Chait on the website of The New Republic. Entitled Why Do Paul Krugman and David Brooks Hate Each Other?, it is a riot.
Before you start reading it, however, let me issue a warning. Like most liberals, Chait lives in a bubble. Without a thought regarding the objections that might be made, he can write of Barack Obama’s “technocratic meliorism” and of Paul Ryan’s “Randian determination to liberate hero-capitalists from social obligation.” But, to give him credit, Chait is smart enough to be able to understand the absurdity of David Brooks’ notion that if Obama were only to invite Ryan to lunch, the two could settle the budget question over a corned beef sandwich.
But here is what is really interesting. One of the unwritten laws of journalism is that columnists at The New York Times do not attack one another. If they really, really disagree, they have to be oblique, and Chait caught both Krugman and Brooks hurling barbs purportedly at others that were, in fact, aimed at one another. Here is Krugman, in his column, lambasting Brooks:
Last week, President Obama offered a spirited defense of his party’s values — in effect, of the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society. Immediately thereafter, as always happens when Democrats take a stand, the civility police came out in force. The president, we were told, was being too partisan; he needs to treat his opponents with respect; he should have lunch with them, and work out a consensus.
That’s a bad idea. Equally important, it’s an undemocratic idea.
And here is Brooks, in a column, aimed purportedly at Donald Trump, but responding, in fact, to Krugman:
Very few people have the luxury of being freely obnoxious. Most people have to watch what they say for fear of offending their bosses and colleagues. Others resist saying anything that might make them unpopular.
But, in every society, there are a few rare souls who rise above subservience, insecurity and concern. Each morning they take their own abrasive urges out for parade. They are so impressed by their achievements, so often reminded of their own obvious rightness, that every stray thought and synaptic ripple comes bursting out of their mouth fortified by impregnable certitude. When they have achieved this status they have entered the realm of Upper Blowhardia.
As Chait points out, this really cannot be about Trump. The Donald works for himself. He has no boss, and he has no colleagues. Krugman has both. In this connection, Chait points to a Weekly Standard cover associated with a story written by Brooks back in 2002. Krugman is, he plausibly suggests, the fellow holding The New York Times. “The main problem here,” Chait observes, “is the mismatch. Krugman and Brooks are two Jewish-American baby boomers who grew up in New York, but their intellectual style could not differ more sharply. Krugman is an acclaimed economist who thinks in rigorously empirical terms. Brooks is a journalist who tends to view policy questions through hazy philosophical prisms. On top of that, there's ideology. Brooks views Krugman as making himself a hero to the liberal choir, while he (Brooks) fearlessly challenges both sides. Krugman sees Brooks as residing comfortably within the cozy embrace of the conventional wisdom, whereas he (Krugman) risks being cast as a partisan or a radical by arbiters of respectability like Brooks for following the logic through to its conclusions.” I quote this last passage because it seems to me that Brooks and Krugman, as represented by Chait, understand one another tolerably well – better, in fact, than Chait himself understands either one of them and better than either understands himself.
I know Krugman and Brooks only from reading them, but that is, I suspect, in this case enough. When I read the former, I nearly always find myself thinking of a kid I knew in third grade. Every time the teacher left the room, he was up in front of the class, clowning around. He wanted attention; he desperately craved applause; and he was willing to abase himself in their pursuit. Krugman is a man of great intelligence and considerable ability as an economist, and he has been honored as few men could ever hope to be. But, out of partisan instincts and a degrading desire to be fiercely loved and admired, he is willing to sacrifice the genuine respect that he earned for his acumen. Once upon a time, he really did think “in rigorously empirical terms.” Now he writes simply and solely as a partisan. When he agreed to write for the Times, he checked at the door the thoughtfulness that once distinguished him.
When I read Brooks – who is no less intelligent and would be pleasant company, I am sure – I am frequently driven to hold my head in my hands. He very much wants to fit in, and when Pinch Sulzberger hired him, for once in his life he knew what he was about. Brooks is what passes as a respectable conservative in left-liberal circles. He is weak and accommodating; above all else, he does not want to rock the boat – and he can be relied upon to urge those who admired his writing when he worked at National Review and The Weekly Standard to surrender to democracy’s soft despotic drift. Lean back, he seems to say. Relax and go with the flow.
Brooks is profoundly uncomfortable with evangelical Christians and with the great unwashed who live between the two coasts. He has evidenced a visceral dislike for Sarah Palin and those like her. He was thrilled and he made no bones about it when Barack Obama appointed a cabinet made up of individuals just like David Brooks – educated at elite schools, graced with the right crease in their pants, unsullied by sordid experience as businessmen, and blessedly free from religious beliefs he regards as primitive.
Brooks has a boss and colleagues, and he will never write a column likely to be thought by them “obnoxious.” He really does have disdain for the “few rare souls who rise above subservience, insecurity and concern,” and he is prepared to believe that all that is really going on is that they are taking “their own abrasive urges out for parade.” In this posture, there is something obviously self-serving. For, if Brooks sticks to it – if, when the chips are down, he is always ready to come to the defense of the Barack Obamas of the world – he will keep his comfortable perch, he will be liked (if not respected) by those like him, and he will fit right in. If, however, he were to rock the boat; if he were to conclude that the administrative entitlements state is economically and morally bankrupt and things cannot go on much longer in the way they have gone; if he were to jettison what he so accurately describes as “subservience, insecurity, and concern,” it would cost him. It would cost him a lot.
- Comment (24)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jul '10
Re: Krugman and Brooks
I would prefer Herodotus' company over this lot as well.
Feb '11
Re: Krugman and Brooks
Let's face it, Heroditus wrote far more interesting and insightful works than either Krugman or Brooks have ever written or are likely ever to write.
Mar '11
Re: Krugman and Brooks
Dumb and dumber might be a better headline.
Jul '11
Re: Krugman and Brooks
That was quite insightful and downright funny.
May '11
Re: Krugman and Brooks
Wonderful post. This is ricochet at its best. Thank you. Let's have an intervention podcast for Mr. Brooks.
Aug '10
Re: Krugman and Brooks
Dr. Rahe ; I have observed Mr Brooks a couple of times in a very relaxed setting, unmolested by the din of civilization, the demands of deadlines, and many other distractions. He looks profoundly unhappy. Maybe it was an affectation of gravitas, but he was in a place where almost everyone else was usually smiling. I had read the bobo books, warily glanced at some columns, and listened to his speech to the assemblage ( anecdotal insider views of culture from his perch) and was genuinely anticipating something from the man with Safire's mantle. Boy was I underwhelmed. Krugman is another story, thoroughly unattractive with liberal tripe seems to denote his milieu. Reading the NYT between the lines always scares me as I realize how much they hate me. I'm with you though for the first stop on the internet, the late Denis Dutton's Arts and Letters Daily is the greatest. Thanks for the blow by blow from the boychiks of blowhardia.
Re: Krugman and Brooks
There might be another way to make my point about Brooks. He may not be political at all. On cultural matters, he is genuinely interesting. When it comes to political conflict, he is simply averse. He wants it to go away. In a sense he is more interested in style than in policy. No-Drama Obama appeals to his tastes; Big-Drama Palin -- with this he is deeply uncomfortable. Krugman is wrong to attack civility, right to recognize the inevitability of conflict, and incapable of ever rising above it. Brooks wants a species of civility that will paper over conflict. He is comfortable with the status quo and the direction of its drift because doing anything about it would be . . . painful.
Re: Krugman and Brooks
It seems to me that it would be a crime to not have at least one episode of a Rahe-VDH "On the Classics" podcast.
Sep '10
Re: Krugman and Brooks
Troy Senik: It seems to me that it would be a crime to not have at least one episode of a Rahe-VDH "On the Classics" podcast. · Jul 20 at 11:53am
I agree. And I should point out, in the interest of equal time, that according to my copy of The Landmark Herodotus, on 2.66 - 2.67.1, domestic cats in Egypt are mourned and enbalmed, presumably after they have passed away. And:
"All those who live in a household where a cat has died a natural death shave their eyebrows. For the death of a dog, however, they shave their entire body and head."
The millenium long battle for a seat at the table continues as I fight the good fight.
Jul '11
Re: Krugman and Brooks
For the past several years, when I think of Zarathustra's speech in Prologue 5 and I form a mental image of the Last Man I think of David Brooks.
Re: Krugman and Brooks
Troy Senik: It seems to me that it would be a crime to not have at least one episode of a Rahe-VDH "On the Classics" podcast. · Jul 20 at 11:53am
Victor has a novel on Sparta about to come out.
Dec '10
Re: Krugman and Brooks
Really? In terms of financial success and popular following, it seems that those willing to make bold, boat-rocking assessments often get far bigger rewards than the anodyne and oleaginous.
Brooks is on a glide path to being eulogized as, "He was liked, but not well liked."
Jul '11
Re: Krugman and Brooks
Stuart Creque
Really? In terms of financial success and popular following, it seems that those willing to make bold, boat-rocking assessments often get far bigger rewards than the anodyne and oleaginous.
Brooks is on a glide path to being eulogized as, "He was liked, but not well liked." · Jul 20 at 1:22pm
At the very least it would cost him his six-figure job at the Times. His audience (affluent liberals) would abandon him. What would he do then? Probably find a job at a university teaching journalism.
Jul '10
Re: Krugman and Brooks
I used to catch Brooks on NewsHour when he was first making it as a TV commentator opposite that awful man with the wobbly jowls and chins. I was struck by his neediness and desire to be accepted and, please God, even liked. He has spent so many hours bloviating now that a professional mask hides that gnawing insecurity, as does the deep, calming voice which, unless I'm very much mistaken, narrated a recent documentary about wildlife.
Oct '10
Re: Krugman and Brooks
Why do people keep saying Paul Ryan is an Objectivist? He manifestly is not. He's the protege of Jack Kemp, for heavens sake! Nothing he's come up with has ever been close to Objectivism.
Re: Krugman and Brooks
Well, of course, I'll get in trouble for this, but I really like David Brooks. I especially like -- no, actually, love -- his books on the social and geographical movement within America. They were great, celebratory books. Patriotic.
He's not as conservative as I am -- though for the editorial page of the NYTimes he's practically a John Bircher -- and it's infuriating when he takes the right to task for things he would never take the left to task for, or, as recently, when he suggests that Republicans should fold up their tents and agree to Obama's insane tax increases. But I like to think of him as a lost sheep -- lost from this flock. He's a gentleman and a nice guy -- which you can't say for Krugman. And one day he'll come back to us.
Or at least that's my hope.
Re: Krugman and Brooks
Rob Long: Well, of course, I'll get in trouble for this, but I really like David Brooks. I especially like -- no, actually, love -- his books on the social and geographical movement within America. They were great, celebratory books. Patriotic.
He's not as conservative as I am -- though for the editorial page of the NYTimes he's practically a John Bircher -- and it's infuriating when he takes the right to task for things he would never take the left to task for, or, as recently, when he suggests that Republicans should fold up their tents and agree to Obama's insane tax increases. But I like to think of him as a lost sheep -- lost from this flock. He's a gentleman and a nice guy -- which you can't say for Krugman. And one day he'll come back to us.
Or at least that's my hope. · Jul 20 at 5:23pm
Do you think that he is uncomfortable doing what he does and being where he is? Think what it would cost him to "come back to us."
Re: Krugman and Brooks
I'm not sure. I don't know him well enough to say. But having him on the editorial page of the NYTimes is an improvement over not having him at all. I don't agree with him on taxes, or the debt ceiling debate, but I sometimes think we're harder on folks who are 60% on our side than we are on folks who are 0% on our side.
May '10
Re: Krugman and Brooks
Because a circular firing squad is never a good thing. Say what you want about the Washington Post but their conservatives are conservative (Charles Krauthammer, the venerable George Will, Jennifer Rubin).
The Times only hires guys like Brooks and Frum because they willing to bash the GOP reliably.
Nov '10
Re: Krugman and Brooks
Troy Senik: It seems to me that it would be a crime to not have at least one episode of a Rahe-VDH "On the Classics" podcast. · Jul 20 at 11:53am
One of the best ideas I've heard on Ricochet. Please do it!