Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
DISAGREEMENTS.
"In Berlin," says David Brooks, "Obama made exactly one point with which it was possible to disagree. In the best paragraph of the speech, Obama called on Germans to send more troops to Afghanistan." What's odd about that take is that Obama, in the paragraphs immediately following that one, made a series of points with which I'm pretty sure David Brooks, and many of his colleagues, disagree.
Within the space of a few lines, Obama calls "a world without nuclear weapons," demands that we " reject the Cold War mind-set of the past, and resolve to work with Russia," calls on Americans to " act with the same seriousness of purpose as has [Germany], and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere," demands that we "reject torture," and asks whether we'll "welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don't look like us or worship like we do."
Which is to say, I don't think David Brooks and I read, or heard, the same speech. The conservative movement and presidential administration with which Brooks is associated disagrees with all of those ideas. More than that, they've enshrined those disagreements into policy. Now, disagreeing with the Bush administration and its supporters may seem like picking an easy fight to Brooks -- it may not be a "brave" disagreement to condemn torture -- but for both America and the world, it's the relevant disagreement. These may sound like consensus positions, but the reality of American policy is that they're not.
COMMENTS (6)
All of which is to say, I don't think David Brooks and I read, or heard, the same speech. I wasn't thrilled by the rhetoric, but there was plenty within it that I recognized to be controversial within the very movement Brooks represents.
Brooks-watching is an entertaining game this year. He is simultaneously disgusted with the Republican Party and reflexively loyal to it. This causes him to feel simultaneously drawn to Obama's politics and celebrity (Brooks often covers politics like a gossip columnist) and shameful for selling out the home team.
He seems to have settled on a compromise: Obama's so cool that even the best of us (me, Brooks) can get caught up in the excitement, but don't be fooled, Obama's foolsold, something other than he appears.
Your observations don't fit neatly into the narrative, so he glides over them until he can get to the "Disney" shot.
Posted by: Jeff | July 25, 2008 1:53 PM
The thing that struck me the most about that piece was that Brooks has made a career out of fabricating differences between this and that and then constructing straw arguments about those differences. To the extent that Obama functions (or hopes to function, or says he'll function) as a bipartisan, unifying figure, that's a problem for Brooks. Not so much in the details (I imagine he'll continue just making stuff up) but in that a country that's looking for bipartisanship and cooperation is a country in which David Brooks is an outsider. I wonder if at some level Brooks's hostility has something to do just plain alienation from the togetherness vibe. That's what he seemed to be writing about in this case.
Posted by: Melinda | July 25, 2008 2:48 PM
Well, you know, Chuck Todd said on MSNBC that John McCain could have given the same speech -- so apparently there are no disagreements between the two candidates on foreign policy issues.
It's a small world after all.
Posted by: leo | July 25, 2008 2:56 PM
I wonder if at some level Brooks's hostility has something to do just plain alienation from the togetherness vibe. That's what he seemed to be writing about in this case.
You nailed it. He likes to toss out Vampire Weekend references and his heart makes him long for the togetherness vibe.
But his head and pocketbook tell him life is a bunch of hard choices. Columnists seem to like to lecture everyone about the difficult Hobson choices we must make. There are no easy answers!
Posted by: Peter K. | July 25, 2008 3:13 PM
reject the Cold War mind-set of the past
Boy I wish that meant closing military bases around the world.
Posted by: floccina | July 25, 2008 4:56 PM
Remember, this is the same David Brooks who a few weeks ago was arguing that Obama is a Machiavellian shyster pol, hard as nails and with an agenda behind every word he says...now he's a vapid airy Disnifier, who refused to take on real issues.
Of course, in each of the columns, he also leaked a little of the opposite view, just to cover. But really, taking Brooks seriously (expect as an exercise in watching someone tie himself in rhetorical knots) is getting almost boring. I do admit, however, that he's still more interesting to read than Kristol ... after briefly looking at the K's most recent column, I could only marvel, "they're paying him for this drivel"? (random points, drifting focus, incoherent flow...I've had better essays, often, from freshmen).
Posted by: PQuincy | July 28, 2008 9:29 PM