First-rate profile of my buddy David Brooks in New York Magazine: A Reasonable Man.
Best lines: His moderate conservatism—a synthesis of conservative giant Edmund Burke and Ur-centralizer Alexander Hamilton that has earned him the label of “liberals’ favorite conservative”—may be anomalous, but it allows him a kind of freedom that other, more partisan pundits lack. He’s a party of one, without followers. This is Brooks’s central paradox: He’s both the essential columnist of the moment, better than anyone at crystallizing the questions we face—ones for which there are often no good answers—and also, somehow, totally out of step.
3 comments:
Always a big fan of the dialectic. From the article: "In columns, Brooks pits one ideology against another—fiscal hawkishness versus federal dynamism, democratic evangelism versus imperial modesty, social safety nets versus innovation incentives—and watches them slug it out on the page."
I think this is the reason I'm such a fan of Hitchens and Sullivan- both are more interested in honestly engaging and debating the opposing side than being an ideologically-driven pundit.
It's a shame the Republican Party has become populated by Tea Partiers instead of people like Brooks.
Maybe because I just get bored with the same old stuff, or maybe its because I believe that, wherever truth lies, its not with the mainstream. Or, perhaps I think that the world is way too complicated for bromide analysis.
So, I'm constantly in search for the off-kilter view. And, yes, agree or disagree, Brooks, Sullivan and Hitchens are not taking their opinion on the party's talking points. Sullivan's by-line -- just to emphasize the point -- is "Of no party or clique."
Yes, it is a shame that the dialectic does not get more air play, both in school and out. Also, it seems to me that not long ago the operative word was 'issue,' not 'party.' It's a shame parties have become religion.
On the plus side, I like the enthusiasm of the Tea Partiers. At least they care about democracy.
Post a Comment