Thursday, June 15, 2006
If we had an American version of the Soviet-era Pravda, David Brooks, would be working for it. Ooops...we actually have an American-style Pravda, it's the Wall Street Journal editorial page,and come to think about it, Brooks once worked for them, issuing -- just like he is doing now -- the most recent neocon Line of the Day. The author of that cliche ridden pop-sociology Bobos in Paradise, he was selected by the New York Times to replace the retiring "conservative" columnist and "Dick" Nixon's Monica Lewinsky (sorry for this image),Bill Safire (he now occassionally brings him from the dead through op-ed seance), at a time when the neocons were the rising stars in the NYC/DC's Zeitgeist. Brooks was supposed to be the counterpoint on the political right to the "liberal" Tom Friedman. Until now, the only "debate" between the two seemed to focus on who could prove more effective in promoting the Global Democracy project. Brooks hasn't lost his faith in Republicans' will and power to deliver the Wilsonian goods, while Friedman has been rooting for the more "competent" "liberal hawks" in the Democratic party, you know, Peter Beinart and those other Truman buffs. Well, now it seems that the Punch and Judy Show starring Friedman vs. Brooks is about to become An Affair to Remember. In his column today,Changing Bedfellows, Brooks explains that, well, forget about liberals vs. conservatives, American political wars in the coming years are going to be between "populist nationalism" (the Bad Guys) and "progressive globalism" (the Good Guys). And guess on whose side Brooks is? The column is just another pop-sociology Baloney. The Bad Guys (with the exception of Lou Dobbs) all happen to be against the Iraq War, and the Good Guys supported it. But otherwise, James Webb (a Bad Guy) is against racial quotas which Bad Guy Al Sharpton supports and in favor of gay rights just like Good Guy Rudy Giuliani, which Bad Guy James Dobson opposes. In fact, it seems to me that if anyone is responsible for the rise of "populist nationalism" it's George W. Bush But in any case, the column suggests that Friedman and Brooks are going to be in the same ideological camp. So isn't it time for the Times to fire one of these two guys and hire a "populist nationalist" columnist?