What can I say? I do not see how anyone sane can disagree. Shame on the "New York Times" for having given him a sinecure-platform for so long. Shame on Yale for giving him yet another sinecure...
Re DeLong's take on John Warner's indictment of David Brooks (and the institutions that enable him) is so right.
But I'd say there was more to it than Brooks merely sucking. He's done active harm to public discourse for decades, and he is one of the most important "genteel" thinkers whose willingness to accept every GOP move of the moment as the expression of some fundamental law of nature, human or other wise, directly helped turn the American right into its current state.
The Atlantic? Yale? Marriages made in hell says I. David Brooks is the embodiment of everything both institutions treasure most: Sophistry. Sanctimony. Credentialism. God-Bless-Those-Who've-Got-Their-Ownism. Will they be headhunting Thomas Friedman next, d'ya think? Nah, he's too old now. If Charlie Kirk hadn't gone too early to his reward, he might well have wound up on both institutions' rising star recruitment lists.
Thank you for marshaling the facts that support my gut feeling that Brooks is as insincere as they come. I’ve been aware for years that, as a PBS Newsroom contributor, he always knew which side of his toast was buttered.
I seem to remember somebody once observing how David Brooks made life easy on west coast bloggers. Twice per week, all one had to do was get up at 7, read Brooks' new column, dash off a few paragraphs as to how stupid it was, and be done for the day well before everybody else logged on.
I rely on a moderate, balanced opinion to understand why Incitatus the horse was named to the Senate. It's well worth the NYT or WaPo subscription price to get that kind of sage insight.
Seriously, buy a subscription to Reuters for the news and let's stop relying on 800 word pseudo intellectuals.
> **Kent**: 'I rely on a moderate, balanced opinion to understand why Incitatus the horse was named to the Senate. It's well worth the NYT or WaPo subscription price to get that kind of sage insight. Seriously, buy a subscription to Reuters for the news and let's stop relying on 800 word pseudo intellectuals...
Briefly: yes. Brooks is not in the business of trying to make me smarter. As near as I can see, he has never been in the business of trying to make anybody smarter. Rather, he strikes me as someone who has always been in the business of trying to make his readers a little bit dumber in order to preserve whatever hierarchies of privilege, wealth, and power he is currently attached to. And my confidence in this is reinforced by all of the commenters who seem to agree. So thanks: Tom Levenson, Mark Field, Marcia Diederich, Marc Sobel, William Timberman, Jim Jaffe, Kent, Don Quixote's Reckless Son, Mike, Lee Gross, Stephen Schwindt, Loren Ibsen, Paul Stone.
Also interesting, in a different way, are Everett Brown's "Anyone who writes 'sucks', especially in the title of an article, does not deserve my attention. I thought the author was a respectable economist who would never use such crude, simplistic language to criticize someone (even if warranted), but I am shocked and disappointed", Bruce's multiple comments starting with "David Brooks may not be a great pundit, but he hardly deserves a profane diatribe like this. Has Brad DeLong lost his mind? Has he become a crazy, angry guy who lives on the internet? All we can say for sure is that DeLong's main area of real expertise is economic history. He should stick to it". And Bowman (very smart guy) Cutter's "Brooks just,doesn’t deserve,this,kind of,profanity laced rant". And Sean McCann's "If someone sucks that bad, shouldn’t there be more evidence that’s not from 20 years ago?"
To start with: Brown and Bruce, especially Bruce, seem to be confused with respect to which words were written by me and which ones were written by John Warner—a reading comprehension problem, if they are writing in good faith.
At another level, Brown and Bruce seem to believe that John Warner's use of barracks-language here is automatically disqualifying, which presupposes a view on the appropriate use (and mention!) of barracks-language in our modern age of context-collapse and reduced patriarchy that I would like to see them set out. In my view, Warner uses profanity (a) most visibly in titles when he wants to mark something as nonsense or contemptible, and (b) periodically in the bodies of pieces where he’s leaning into pronounced frustration. To that extent, he does indeed view his weblog as a barracks-bull-session—which is his right and his privilege. And dismissing him is indeed Bruce's and Brown's right, but does not make me think particularly highly of their intelligence. Plus there is the extra can of worms that is the use-mention distinction.
Bowman Cutter takes the more nuanced position that David Brooks does not deserve the treatment he gets at Warner's hands here. And Sean McCann says that the statute of limitation on David Brooks's shameful attempt to bully Sasha Issenberg has run—reminding me of the line in Christopher Marlowe's "Jew of Malta": “Friar Bernadine: Thou hast committed--- Barabbas: "Fornication: but that was in another country;/And besides, the wench is dead.”
But neither of them points to any way in which David Brooks has tried to make them smarter.
Brooks is obviously a great hustler and self-promoter, articulate enough to bedazzle News hour watchers. I don't know whether he claims wisdom or profundity, but those seeking it could better look elsewhere.
David Brooks may not be a great pundit, but he hardly deserves a profane diatribe like this. Has Brad DeLong lost his mind? Has he become a crazy, angry guy who lives on the internet? All we can say for sure is that DeLong's main area of real expertise is economic history. He should stick to it.
You are, alas, wrong. Brooks is not just not a great pundit. He's an actively terrible one, intellectually dishonest throughout his career. My only disagreement with Warner and hence DeLong is that Brooks has indeed had much more impact than the quality of his work should have earned--and that influence has been consistently malign, bad for the country and the world. Much more here: https://inversesquare.wordpress.com/?s=david+brooks ... the first index page of many (too many!) responses to Brooksian wisdom over the years.
My comment was less about Brooks and more about DeLong. Don't you think he's just a little bit nutty? Don't you think he should spend more time teaching classes and doing research, and less time ranting on the internet?
As a California taxpayer I'm delighted that a person with Delong's platform does his work AND weighs in on current events, particularly when there's a useful historical perspective that helps my understanding.
No, DeLong is not nutty. And no, I don't think you or I should tell him how to spend his time. (If you followed his stuff at all, BTW, you'd know that he's a prolific, engaged, and continuously innovative teacher. If you read his written work you might ask what have you yourself done lately to advance the understanding of human material circumstances, given that Brad has done so much. I've asked myself that, actually, which is why I keep trying to write my own stuff to advance the cause against the terribly corrosive effects of dishonest faux intellectuals like Brooks.
Sadly, I haven't done much lately to elevate the human race. I don't even have my own blog. Good luck with your online efforts to combat the forces of darkness.
I liked Slouching Toward Utopia (though it could have been 100 pages shorter). I still find it hard to believe that the same writer behaves like an internet troll when he goes online.
When I was an undergraduate at Berkeley, we hated self-important profs who used the classroom as a forum for political speeches. I hope DeLong isn't like that. California taxpayers deserve better.
“Embedded in Brooks’s complaint that the supposedly dominant liberal culture won’t listen to conservative ideas is the fallacy that all ideas, opinions, and traditions deserve equal consideration” Mike Lofgren
Anyone who writes "sucks", especially in the title of an article, does not deserve my attention. I thought the author was a respectable economist who would never use such crude, simplistic language to criticize someone (even if warranted), but I am shocked and disappointed.
I thought so too until I learned that the right uses "civility" to make their horrible fucking crimes palatable to the incurious. See "arresting the bad people in Minnesota" as a current example.
Having heard him talk about 8 years ago and read The Road to Character, I respect Brooks period! As for Minnesota. I have two thoughts. First, see above. Second, Brooks currently strikes me as someone who is slow to render judgment before hearing/reading factual positions and argument. That has not yet occurred. It, accordingly, is premature to characterize Brooks as sucking in my opinion.
Re DeLong's take on John Warner's indictment of David Brooks (and the institutions that enable him) is so right.
But I'd say there was more to it than Brooks merely sucking. He's done active harm to public discourse for decades, and he is one of the most important "genteel" thinkers whose willingness to accept every GOP move of the moment as the expression of some fundamental law of nature, human or other wise, directly helped turn the American right into its current state.
Brooks, like Douthat, has always served to put a polite, quasi-reasonable face on fascism. They are the gateway drugs to the hardcore stuff.
The Atlantic? Yale? Marriages made in hell says I. David Brooks is the embodiment of everything both institutions treasure most: Sophistry. Sanctimony. Credentialism. God-Bless-Those-Who've-Got-Their-Ownism. Will they be headhunting Thomas Friedman next, d'ya think? Nah, he's too old now. If Charlie Kirk hadn't gone too early to his reward, he might well have wound up on both institutions' rising star recruitment lists.
I emulate David Brooks the right way - By Ezra Klein
Thank you for marshaling the facts that support my gut feeling that Brooks is as insincere as they come. I’ve been aware for years that, as a PBS Newsroom contributor, he always knew which side of his toast was buttered.
Exactly
just cancelled my subscription to the Atlantic. Too much crap among the good stuff.
I seem to remember somebody once observing how David Brooks made life easy on west coast bloggers. Twice per week, all one had to do was get up at 7, read Brooks' new column, dash off a few paragraphs as to how stupid it was, and be done for the day well before everybody else logged on.
"He could be a great guy, good tipper, kind to animals, always willing to lend an ear to someone who needs it."
But that is not the way to bet.
I rely on a moderate, balanced opinion to understand why Incitatus the horse was named to the Senate. It's well worth the NYT or WaPo subscription price to get that kind of sage insight.
Seriously, buy a subscription to Reuters for the news and let's stop relying on 800 word pseudo intellectuals.
We have interesting comments here, in response to my <https://braddelong.substack.com/p/reading-john-warner-david-brooks> putting up as a "reading" John Warner's "David Brooks Sucks" <https://biblioracle.substack.com/p/david-brooks-sucks-this-is-who-should> piece. Start with:
> **Kent**: 'I rely on a moderate, balanced opinion to understand why Incitatus the horse was named to the Senate. It's well worth the NYT or WaPo subscription price to get that kind of sage insight. Seriously, buy a subscription to Reuters for the news and let's stop relying on 800 word pseudo intellectuals...
Briefly: yes. Brooks is not in the business of trying to make me smarter. As near as I can see, he has never been in the business of trying to make anybody smarter. Rather, he strikes me as someone who has always been in the business of trying to make his readers a little bit dumber in order to preserve whatever hierarchies of privilege, wealth, and power he is currently attached to. And my confidence in this is reinforced by all of the commenters who seem to agree. So thanks: Tom Levenson, Mark Field, Marcia Diederich, Marc Sobel, William Timberman, Jim Jaffe, Kent, Don Quixote's Reckless Son, Mike, Lee Gross, Stephen Schwindt, Loren Ibsen, Paul Stone.
Also interesting, in a different way, are Everett Brown's "Anyone who writes 'sucks', especially in the title of an article, does not deserve my attention. I thought the author was a respectable economist who would never use such crude, simplistic language to criticize someone (even if warranted), but I am shocked and disappointed", Bruce's multiple comments starting with "David Brooks may not be a great pundit, but he hardly deserves a profane diatribe like this. Has Brad DeLong lost his mind? Has he become a crazy, angry guy who lives on the internet? All we can say for sure is that DeLong's main area of real expertise is economic history. He should stick to it". And Bowman (very smart guy) Cutter's "Brooks just,doesn’t deserve,this,kind of,profanity laced rant". And Sean McCann's "If someone sucks that bad, shouldn’t there be more evidence that’s not from 20 years ago?"
To start with: Brown and Bruce, especially Bruce, seem to be confused with respect to which words were written by me and which ones were written by John Warner—a reading comprehension problem, if they are writing in good faith.
At another level, Brown and Bruce seem to believe that John Warner's use of barracks-language here is automatically disqualifying, which presupposes a view on the appropriate use (and mention!) of barracks-language in our modern age of context-collapse and reduced patriarchy that I would like to see them set out. In my view, Warner uses profanity (a) most visibly in titles when he wants to mark something as nonsense or contemptible, and (b) periodically in the bodies of pieces where he’s leaning into pronounced frustration. To that extent, he does indeed view his weblog as a barracks-bull-session—which is his right and his privilege. And dismissing him is indeed Bruce's and Brown's right, but does not make me think particularly highly of their intelligence. Plus there is the extra can of worms that is the use-mention distinction.
Bowman Cutter takes the more nuanced position that David Brooks does not deserve the treatment he gets at Warner's hands here. And Sean McCann says that the statute of limitation on David Brooks's shameful attempt to bully Sasha Issenberg has run—reminding me of the line in Christopher Marlowe's "Jew of Malta": “Friar Bernadine: Thou hast committed--- Barabbas: "Fornication: but that was in another country;/And besides, the wench is dead.”
But neither of them points to any way in which David Brooks has tried to make them smarter.
Brooks is obviously a great hustler and self-promoter, articulate enough to bedazzle News hour watchers. I don't know whether he claims wisdom or profundity, but those seeking it could better look elsewhere.
David Brooks may not be a great pundit, but he hardly deserves a profane diatribe like this. Has Brad DeLong lost his mind? Has he become a crazy, angry guy who lives on the internet? All we can say for sure is that DeLong's main area of real expertise is economic history. He should stick to it.
You are, alas, wrong. Brooks is not just not a great pundit. He's an actively terrible one, intellectually dishonest throughout his career. My only disagreement with Warner and hence DeLong is that Brooks has indeed had much more impact than the quality of his work should have earned--and that influence has been consistently malign, bad for the country and the world. Much more here: https://inversesquare.wordpress.com/?s=david+brooks ... the first index page of many (too many!) responses to Brooksian wisdom over the years.
My comment was less about Brooks and more about DeLong. Don't you think he's just a little bit nutty? Don't you think he should spend more time teaching classes and doing research, and less time ranting on the internet?
As a California taxpayer I'm delighted that a person with Delong's platform does his work AND weighs in on current events, particularly when there's a useful historical perspective that helps my understanding.
Plus he brings receipts to back his points.
No, DeLong is not nutty. And no, I don't think you or I should tell him how to spend his time. (If you followed his stuff at all, BTW, you'd know that he's a prolific, engaged, and continuously innovative teacher. If you read his written work you might ask what have you yourself done lately to advance the understanding of human material circumstances, given that Brad has done so much. I've asked myself that, actually, which is why I keep trying to write my own stuff to advance the cause against the terribly corrosive effects of dishonest faux intellectuals like Brooks.
But thanks for asking.
Sadly, I haven't done much lately to elevate the human race. I don't even have my own blog. Good luck with your online efforts to combat the forces of darkness.
I liked Slouching Toward Utopia (though it could have been 100 pages shorter). I still find it hard to believe that the same writer behaves like an internet troll when he goes online.
When I was an undergraduate at Berkeley, we hated self-important profs who used the classroom as a forum for political speeches. I hope DeLong isn't like that. California taxpayers deserve better.
Nice chatting.
Everybody’s a critic!
DeLong needs no defense from the likes of me, so I won’t further assault this deceased equine quadruped.
Brooks is a soft-minded armchair sociologist. The one thing to say in his defense is that he's not as bad as Ross Douthat.
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/what-makes-a-conservative
“Embedded in Brooks’s complaint that the supposedly dominant liberal culture won’t listen to conservative ideas is the fallacy that all ideas, opinions, and traditions deserve equal consideration” Mike Lofgren
I dont agree. Brooks just,doesn’t deserve,this,kind of,profanity laced rant.
Couldn't agree more...
Anyone who writes "sucks", especially in the title of an article, does not deserve my attention. I thought the author was a respectable economist who would never use such crude, simplistic language to criticize someone (even if warranted), but I am shocked and disappointed.
Are those pearls natural or cultivated?
It’s language, and it continually evolves. Most people don’t have your reaction to the word “sucks” any more.
One language change which I’m happy about, and which I participate in, is removing the “to be” from, e.g., “this needs to be cleaned”.
It makes me happy when I hear someone saying “this needs cleaned”. It’s not acceptable in written form yet, but I’m confident it will be some day.
Yes, I realize language evolves. But my opinion is that 4-letter words are still not acceptable in respectable publications/communication.
David Brooks fucking sucks. Is that better?
I thought so too until I learned that the right uses "civility" to make their horrible fucking crimes palatable to the incurious. See "arresting the bad people in Minnesota" as a current example.
Easy to write a comment like yours. I am tired of crap written by critics. Would you say that to him in person on TV?
David? Is that you?
I would.
Having heard him talk about 8 years ago and read The Road to Character, I respect Brooks period! As for Minnesota. I have two thoughts. First, see above. Second, Brooks currently strikes me as someone who is slow to render judgment before hearing/reading factual positions and argument. That has not yet occurred. It, accordingly, is premature to characterize Brooks as sucking in my opinion.