More on Brooks' new political typology










I've received a few responses and emails re my earlier post on David Brooks' argument in favor of a new political-ideological realignemnt of "populist-nationlists" vs. "progressive globalists," including by my online pal Jim Henley. Let me just emphasize that I wasn't trying to dismiss the notion that such political-ideological sentiments exist and that a few public figures share these views. I suppose that Pat Buchanan IS a populist-nationalist and that one could make an argument that "Clintonism" represents a form of progressive globalism. My point was that Brooks is trying to suggest that all the politicians and pundits who have been opposed to the Democracy Project in Iraq and elsewhere are "populist nationalists," that they are basically anti-cosmopolitan/xenophpbic/racists AND "realists" on foreign policy. That's a lot of B-S. Just take the leading figure in the Republican party who is a strong opponent of the war in Iraq,Chuck Hagel or for that matter, Al Gore. It seems to me that they are "progressive globalists" who make the annual pilgramige to Davos. In fact, most of the anti-Iraq war realists that I know are mainstream Republicans and Democrats. I'm neither, although I would probably vote for Democrat Jim Webbor Republican Chuck Hagel as candidates for presidents.

Comments

Anonymous said…
What Brooks is trying to do, it seems, is to paint a common sense point of view (ex. Those who do not want to invade and occupy Muslim Mesopotamia or those who do not want to invade countries that do not pose a meaningful threat to us or our allies) as some sort of fringe view - as if invading Iraq is a natural state of affairs, a given - something you are expected to do, like pick up the trash or pave roads.

So he wants to expand the tiny Buchanan Box to fit Noam Chomsky , Chuck Hegal, Tony Zinni, and James Webb. Buchanan is politically problematic so you can understand why Brooks wishes to do this - But even Pat Buchanan is probably not "Pat Buchanan." So it's a bit of strech, to try to put all those middle of the road people, vets, and leftists in the Buchanan Box. Buchanan represents a small fraction of votes - even with his favorable public personality and his communication skills, he was only able to get votes here and there. So you see why Brooks wants that to be the opposition -
6:07 PM
Anonymous said…
BTW - the picture of Brooks is hilarious - why that is, is hard to say. Sometimes on the NewsHour, after Brooks speaks, you can see the thought bubble over M. Shields head saying "BS."
6:20 PM
Dennis Dale said…
Chuck Hegel? I thought the neocons were the Hegelians.
8:18 PM
Anonymous said…
LOL - Small spelling error - dis not mean to lump in the Hegalians with the Hegelians - But if there is a connection maybe the author of The Last Man can make the connection.
8:46 PM
Leon Hadar said…
One of the main problems with Brooks' thesis is that Bush has been responsible for igniting the post-9/11 nationalism and using it as a way of mobilizing support for his global crusades and attacks on "multilateralism," Europe, etc. In fact, "Davos" -- Wall Street, high-tech types, multinational corporations, etc -- have opposed his nationalist-unilateralist policies, including Iraq, so it's kind of ironic that now Brooks and Company are promoting themselves as "globalists." It's the Bush H. W. Bush's realists and Clinton's internationalist who could be placed in that category.
9:04 PM
Anonymous said…
Professor - It gets very confusing - just look at your last comment and you can see why the public is so confused and can be so easily be convinced to vote for one thing while they think they are voting for another.

Bush has unleashed nationalist/nativist forces and then he plays good cop (in Brooks view) to his own bad cop (in Brooks parlance) by supporting Brooksian globalism on immigration issues, trade (except for those polical steel tariffs, which were only done to maintain power so he could undermine the spirit of those policies thru other policies)
12:27 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pundits who screw-up: No big deal...

Image
Matt Barganier desconstructs Andrew Sullivan's mea sorta culpa on Iraq in Time magazine (Sullivan seen above in a thoughtful pose on Bill Maher's "Real Time"). There have been many of those in recent weeks (including by WFB and Fukuyama ). In an commentary published last year, Oops! I helped start a War which was about one of the earlier apologizing-war-aplogists, I pointed out to the contrast between the way the losers who operate in the market (including financial analysts) are punished and the reality in which the losers in the political game (including foreign policy analysts) rarely get punished: Imagine: for a few years you were investing the money you had saved for your daughter's college education in one of those moderately conservative plans that provided some increase in the value of the investment without exposing it to major risks. But then your financial planner – let's call him Ken P. – got in touch with you and came up with a really great ide...
Read more

When will Israel attack Iran?

Image
I'm not an "Intelligence analyst" and I don't play one on television. But I urge you to study the following items: 1. Seymour Hersh new piece in The New Yorker, "The Next Act: Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?" 2. Tony Karon's "Israel's Domestic Political Games Raises the Danger of a U.S.-Iran War." 3. Aluf Benn's "Olmert's Drums of War" in Haaretz . 4. Bush:I would understand if Israel chose to attack Iran. 5. Michael Oren's op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on November 16 which is only accessible to subscribers. So here are a few interesting quotes: Much like 1967, Israel faces a Middle Eastern leader who has repeatedly sworn to wipe it off the map, and to that end is assiduously trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Like Nasser, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can cripple Israel economically by keeping it in a state of alert, driving away foreign investment and tourism. In the absence of interna...
Read more