As I have mentioned several times before, David Brooks loves his dichotomies. His approach to almost every column is to reduce a problem down to two categories and then let those two categories duke it out until the one he agrees with emerges victorious. So, for Mr. Brooks, it used to be that there were two kinds of conservatives. One was your basic rapacious capitalist who exemplified the American spirit with his risk-taking derring-do. He just wanted the government out of his hair so he could exploit workers and befoul our rivers and streams. The other kind of conservative was a Norman Rockwell family man who liked things pretty much the way they were and didn’t want any radicals upsetting the family structure or having sex out of wedlock or experimenting with new-age religion and agnosticism.
But nowhere in this picture is the kind of conservative who would rather lynch a black man than let him look at his daughter or register to vote. There are no paranoid John Birchers or Tea Partiers screeching about fluoridation or birth certificates. Lunatic preachers who blame our country’s misfortunes on gay sex and secularism are lacking. There’s no resentment about integrated schools or busing or welfare queens and their Cadillacs. No one is freaking out about all the Mexicans who have overtaken the soccer field at the local park. If Mr. Brooks’ Burkean archetype is uncomfortable with women’s liberation, he isn’t calling anyone who uses birth control a ‘slut.’
And neither does Brooks include any warmongers who insist that we fight one land war in Asia after another, regardless of the meager bang for the buck we seem to gain from them.
There’s been a realignment in this country that has been going on since long before David Brooks joined the National Review in 1984. Pretty much every intolerant asshole in the country has moved to the Republican Party, if they weren’t already there. The only exceptions are a few holier-than-thou progressives who can’t enjoy one moment of life if even one person is going hungry.
With that lone exception, all the prudes and bigots and tsk-tskers and money-grubbers and polluters and religious freaks and misogynists and fraudsters and warmongers have aligned with the conservative movement.
Yankee Republicanism is dead. All we have is the reactionary right aligned with a bunch a greedheads. You won’t find an inch of daylight between Pat Robertson and Mitt Romney or Mitt Romney and Paul Wolfowitz or Grover Norquist and Mitt Romney. We have the worst of all worlds.
You missed the best part. Who ever runs the official Slate Twitter account Tweeted their approval of Bobo’s column a little bit ago.
OT, but So I usually leave politics at the door with my more conservative co-workers, but one of them I consider a friend if not a good one and for that reason, I try to never talk politics with her. but she posted the following to FB this weekend and I was just made aware of it:
Like I said, I tend to dust if off my shoulder, but when this was brought to my attention, I admit, it pissed me off to no end and I had to respond, so this is what I wrote on my FB page, and made sure it can be seen by all my friends (I usually filter who sees my more political stuff and this person is one who I filter so that she doesn’t see my political post):
Too much???
No, not at all.
I like it. I found that on the few occasions where I replied with a very tempered response, usually to correct lies, I am unfriended with 30 seconds. LOL
David Brooks has both limited range and repertoire.
I see I wasn’t the only one to notice the reactionary omission. It was an interesting trick by Mr. Brooks, but a trick that really only elides the truth of the matter.
Brooks Schmooks, o/t did anyone else notice that in both Obama’s speeches this morning he went out of his way to invoke his Christianity and the moral tones that all religions aspire to? I couldn’t help but think that even the Evangelicals who listened to those speeches have choked and wondered if it was time for them to move Left. Both speeches, back to back, were powerful stuff.
I see new polling that Ohio Rep’s still think Obama is Muslim, say there were WMD’s in Iraq, and don’t know if Obama was born in the USA. Sigh.
Those would be Fox watchers, plentiful in rural counties.
Not to mention, in some non-rural areas as well.
There are a considerable number of them – enough that you run into them, often several at a time – in even the bluest cities.
MY SIL, conservative Christian, was outraged. . . . You cannot get through to these people that I am able to discern. According to her, it’s an American and Christian principle to slander Islam, and he’s trying to take away our First Amendment Rights. . . .
Send your SIL the youtube of Obama’s speech to UN. Even hardcore may be set on their haunches.
I generally agree, but I have met a number of asshole atheists online who are democrats. Of course when I meet an atheist in person they are as reasonable as anyone could expect, but hey internet fuckwads eh?
Not nearly as many asshole atheists as asshole Christians.
I never heard of atheists burning anyone at the stake because they didn’t agree with them.
Nope. They can be every bit as missionary as a Mormon or Baptist though.
That is true and annoying. I rather suspect they aren’t sure about their atheism so they must convince everyone to agree with them.
Not nearly as many tall atheists as tall Christians, either. Or short. Or generous. Or cheap.
Outnumbered by maybe 10 or 20 to one, there just aren’t going to be as many atheist anythings.
I never heard of atheists burning anyone at the stake because they didn’t agree with them.
You’ve never heard of Mao or Pol Pot?
Or late-18th century France?
Atheists burnt believers in 18th Century France? No, I never heard that. But I did hear about Catholics burning Protestants and vice versa. Also, in Germany and England Protestants burning the wrong brand Protestants.
Drowned them actually.
If it hadn’t been for the persecutions, I would probably be a Channel Islander instead of a midwestern US resident. My 4X great grandfather, a Huguenot, fled to the US to escape the Catholics and wound up in eastern Ohio at the beginning of the 19th century.
Geez, I could have been a wealthy man ~ I coulda been a contender.
And now religious zealots again threaten your freedom.
I was all set to move back to Guernsey before the massive ice melt began. Now, I’m not too sure island and/or coastal living is a good idea for the long term.
Well we are pretty far above sea level in Illinois and Indiana, although my suburb may become beach front if the level of Lake Michigan rises with the sea levels.
809 feet above SL for me. All I have to worry about is all those Republicans with guns migrating in when their houses go underwater.
Mao burnt heretics at the stake?
The online atheist community in general is not a good place to be. May I recommend a good atheist community full of feminists, liberals, and anti-racists? They tried starting a movement called “Atheism Plus” in order to combat the sexism in the community, and to tackle issues such as inequality, racism, and in general progressive values, but the asshole atheists drove some of them to the point of quitting blogging with their harassment:
Free Thought Blogs
I’ll second that recommendation. A number of those foundres are long time friends of mine, and good folks all.
I’m not an atheist, it’s just that some of my other interests online just bring me into contact with a number of others who happen to be atheists.
To the extent that anyone is attempting to fight the rampant misogyny on the internet, that’s fantastic.
And let me add, that it is certainly not confined to atheists! That kind of libertarianesque Kim du Toit shit spews from many throats.
As always, Boo, I appreciate that you read Brooks so that I don’t have to.
I respect them a lot more than so-called Democrats that don’t give a shit that people are hungry as long as they get their campaign contribution and their wife gets a corporate sinecure.
I think that was snark by Boo
It wasn’t really snark.
There are some really aggressive assholes in the progressive movement. But I’d rather deal with an asshole who is an asshole because they’re concerned about the hungry than any of the assholes who show up at Republican rallies.
So the latest GOP talking points is that the polls area skewed, so they will definitely NOT be happy with this.
Race Stabilizes in Obama’s Favor
And that lead is skewed because Obama polls so poorly in the Deep South – the lead that counts for electoral purposes is much higher.
Wow, umm awkward!
Mitt Romney tries to lead a chant. Big mistake.
Mitt Romney Stops Supporters from Chanting `Ryan’ to Ensure They Say His Name Too
How utterly bizarre! Guess Ryan cannot in any way at any time outshine the top of the ticket.
NO ONE is allowed to outshine Mitt… EVER.
Recently there was a story (I wish I could remember where) from an interview with one of Mitt’s sons about how hyper-competitive Mitt is. They get together as a family and compete in stupid races, games, etc (think The Brady Bunch family get-together) and one time this son’s wife was beating Mitt in the final sprint of some ridiculous “event.” Mitt couldn’t stand it and he tripped her. Of course this is just Mitt The Joker – so, so very funny – nervous laughs all around.
When everyone was speculating who he’d pick as VP, Ryan, Rubio, and even Christie were WAY down my list for Mitt because he just can’t let anyone outshine him EVER. I figured he’d go with Governor Ultrasound because he’s such a dud of a personality.
Just look at Mitt’s terrified family – or anyone close to him. Don’t let the plastered-on smiles fool you. He’s got some kind of leverage over all of them. Do you really think they like getting together on the family compound, all wearing matching clothes and letting him win at everything, subjecting themselves to his cruel sense of humor? They know what he’s like when he’s not the Superstar. They know their place – props in his portrait of success. Stockholm syndrome maybe?
What a pathetic man. And he can’t understand why the public is creeped out by him.
You may be thinking of this story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-summer-vacation-full-of-competitive-sports-and-f
amily-meetings/2012/06/30/gJQAsDFDEW_story.html
Portrait of a control freak, eh?
Yep. I’m somewhat amazed that they don’t have a competition involving professionally trained dressage horses.
Mitt doesn’t ride well enough to win. So no.
The same thing happened to McCain with Palin. McGrumpy got all huffy about it, also. Thing is, McCain had a power base all his own so he could campaign on his own. Romney has to leech off Ryan.
Win, lose or draw, these are good times. And I’ve been thru enough bad ones that I’m going to enjoy this. I paid my dues watching Nixon and Reagan win the first time.