Tag: David Brooks

Happy Friday! We’ve all earned three martinis after this crazy week.  Join Jim and Greg as they applaud Attorney General Bill Barr for noting in clear language how liberals have given way to progressives and how the militant drive for a dependency society is a serious threat to our nation. They also welcome opinion columns from non-conservatives like Fareed Zakaria and David Brooks who are both unloading on Bernie Sanders and his socialist agenda, but they also assess whether the media freakout over Bernie is because they’re scared of his agenda or they’re just scared he would lose to President Trump. In addition, they get a lot of laughs over country music star Garth Brooks wearing the jersey of NFL legend Barry Sanders at a concert in Detroit (where Sanders played) and getting online hate because his fans thought it meant he supported Bernie Sanders. Finally, Jim and Greg welcome Hillary Clinton to the podcasting world.

My Response to David Brooks


In his Saturday column, David Brooks states, “Donald Trump says he is a nationalist, but you can’t be a nationalist if you despise half the nation.”  Nationalism is a love of your country, its laws, its political and legal system, and its traditions.  Trump loves America and all it stands for.  That is why the whole movement started with, “Make America Great Again.”  You may not like Trump’s methods or personality, but it is obvious that he has sacrificed everything he had–wealth, business, and family–to run for and be elected president.

Recently the New York Times, not known to be a Trump fan, fretted that “for the first time in memory, Democrats are seen as more out of touch with ordinary Americans than the party’s political opponents.” I think David Brooks is wrong: the truth is that half of the nation despises the USA not that Trump despises half the nation.

Member Post


David Brooks on culture and economics. Brooks completely ignores how integral coercion is to the Democratic platform. What Brooks calls materialism (redistribution) is a major component, but it is the open coercion that is more likely to bother people. Materialism involves coercion (taxation is theft), but forcing schools to allow men into women’s bathrooms and […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post


I hate it when I am forced to agree with David Brooks.  Roughly two-thirds of Americans, across four political types, fall into what the authors call “the exhausted majority.” Sixty-one percent say people they agree with need to listen and compromise more. Eighty percent say political correctness is a problem, and 82 percent say the […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Yes, Anti-Trumpism Is a Failure — And It Was Always Destined to Be One


From the moment Donald Trump descended the golden escalator, David Brooks opposed him. The New York Times columnist condemned him in the primaries, then in the general, in the transition and the presidency, with the harshness only growing over time. But in a fascinating column today, Brooks admits defeat.

Titled “The Failures of Anti-Trumpism,” Brooks confesses that the past two years of “Never Trump” derision has only made The Donald stronger. His approval rating hasn’t budged, his policies haven’t changed, and Republicans — pundits, party leadership, and base alike — support him more firmly than ever.

And the promised Mueller-fueled impeachment? It’s abandoned collusion with Vladimir Putin for collusion with Stormy Daniels.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America groan over Donald Trump Jr.’s stunningly poor judgment and apparent willingness to seek campaign assistance from a foreign government, while also lamenting the continued media hysteria over these latest revelations.  They are wary of Mitch McConnell’s decision to delay the traditional August recess, worrying that it might not be very productive and, therefore, more damaging to an already embarrassed GOP.  Finally, in a discussion of David Brooks’ controversial column about class divisions in America that features a bizarre anecdote about sandwich elitism, Jim admits that he himself is, to quote Shakespeare, “lowly taught, but highly fed.”

David Brooks and the “Conservative Intellectual Crisis”


David Brooks is the New York Times’ least hated non-dead conservative. He is the Left’s go-to respectable conservative, the kind you’re supposed to be able to bring home to meet your mom. He won’t belch at the dinner table and he knows which fork to use with the curly endive and manchego salad with raspberry coulis.

Of course Brooks is a “conservative” only in the sense that, if tomorrow the Senate voted Obama the offices of Consul, Tribune of the Plebs, Field Marshal, Maximum Lider, Imperator, and Dictator for Life, Brooks would quibble that they didn’t make him Pontifex Maximus first. This is the guy who grew all gooey and moist contemplating Obama’s pant crease, a sentiment Brooks has no doubt been choking on for at least the past four years.

David Brooks Misses Barack Obama


So, David Brooks must have woke up yesterday morning and thought about how the “pants crease” endorsement was the Stupidest Thing He Had Ever Written. He then thought, you know, I bet I can top it. So he took out his laptop and wrote a smarmy Valentine’s Day card to Barack Obama, declaring him so much more awesomely better than those brutes that the Republican Party is running.

Obama radiates an ethos of integrity, humanity, good manners and elegance that I’m beginning to miss, and that I suspect we will all miss a bit, regardless of who replaces him.

Moderates in Paradise: David Brooks


David Brooks during a commercial break on Meet The Press.David Brooks, the reflexively moderate New York Times columnist, is at it again, this time lamenting those poor, confused Iowa Christians who believe that the Bible’s injunction “Do not show partiality to the poor” means, well … not showing partiality to the poor. According to Brooks, this idea should extend to both policy and political discourse, but the parlance employed by the likes of Ted Cruz is deemed un-Christian by the pant-crease impresario.

Brooks finds evangelical support for Ted Cruz inscrutable. They are supposed to respond to the reassuring tones of Mike Huckabee or the pleasantly sleep-inducing Ben Carson. This is why Brooks — whose column is characterized by his unfunny and, apparently, unself-aware tendency to lecture Christians about how they should comport themselves — is confused by Cruz’s lead in Iowa. These Iowa Christians don’t seem to know their place anymore. Trump? Cruz? Please! It’s not like Iowa evangelicals have witnessed much undesired change during Obama’s tenure.

Brooks sees little in America that has changed in Obama’s tenure for evangelicals to complain about. Why don’t they simply roll with it now that divorce law is deemed fit for basket cases likes Oregon and Illinois while while marriage be defined once-and-for by one man in a robe? It’s a play so absurd, Harold Pinter and Harold Becket together couldn’t have conceived of it.

Member Post


David Brooks doubled down on comments he made this weekend that Ted Cruz’s rhetoric was dark and satanic in a column in the New York Times that refers to Cruz’s “pagan brutalism.” Read it for yourself. I don’t really have anything more to say. Preview Open

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.



shutterstock_216268729I’m late in coming to it — although Paul Rahe has yet to persuade me to give up the New York Times entirely, I’ve quit reading it first thing every morning — but here’s the very first paragraph of a column, entitled “Obama in Winter,” that David Brooks published on Monday:

They say failure can be a good teacher, but, so far, the Obama administration is opting out of the course. The post-midterm period has been one of the most bizarre of the Obama presidency. President Obama has racked up some impressive foreign-policy accomplishments, but, domestically and politically, things are off the rails.

As you will already have guessed, what caught my eye was the first clause of the third sentence. David apparently considers it so widely understood that the President has “racked up some impressive foreign-policy accomplishments” that he needn’t name them. My own response? What foreign policy accomplishments?

Member Post


By now, you’ve probably heard about David Brooks’s column on how we need to be more deferential to the elites, and seen some of the conservative blogs‘ response.  Anybody can make fun of the past writings of out-of-touch New York Times columnists, but only here on the Ricochet Member feed can you find their future […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.