News and Views for Tulsa's Reality-Based Community: Ideas, Politics, Letters, Art, Environment
That is really a load of hogwash. Read the Brooks entry in the Dickipedia (cited once previously on this blog,) then reread his column.
Note especially Brooks' last line:"Surely the response to the current crisis of authority is not to throw away standards of experience and prudence, but to select leaders who have those qualities but not the smug condescension that has so marked the reaction to the Palin nomination in the first place."He is actually taking to task the "smug condescension," not Palin. Recall Dickipedia's assessment of Brooks' appeal to his readers: "He is, in fact, known as the liberals’ 'favorite conservative.' This is because he speaks softly, is effeminate, and gently gratifies their self-loathing, masochistic wish to be insulted."Don't expect Brooks to change his m.o. any time soon.
Tulsan, you are incorrect. While Brooks may have derided the "smug condescension" of the reaction against Palin, he approved of "those qualities" - such as experience and prudence - which caused those voices to protest such a poor decision by McCain.The previous paragraph to the one you quoted may help clarify things for you: "Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness."
Don't kid yourself. It's all a lucrative game for Brooks. He stands for nothing at all. He'll finesse himself the next week.
Post a Comment