The worthless douchebag is back to slagging “populists” again:
[V]oters aren’t as stupid as the populists imagine.
People who think voters are stupid? Those are elitists like you, Brooks, you despicable swine. As author of “National Greatness” and the gutless vermin who called Sarah Palin a “fatal cancer to the Republican Party,” you are quite clearly the problem and not the solution.
Grab a nice hot cup of STFU, Brooks. Nothing is more amazing than the fact Pinch Sulzberger wastes the money it takes to employ America’s worst op-ed columnist. And that’s really saying something, when you realize that Pinch also employs Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich.
The only purpose you serve is as a bipartisan rallying point. If liberals and conservatives agree on nothing else, all least we can all agree on this: David Brooks is a worthless douchebag.
Shouldn’t every day be David Brooks Fisking Day?
Shouldn’t every day be David Brooks Fisking Day?
That was a great column, actually. He’s completely right, which is why you just took the smallest possible quote from the essay out of context and ignored the rest. When Populism ruled the Democratic party during the days of William Jennings Bryan, they lost to the Republicans over and over again. But they won with friggin’ Wilson! Twice!
And another thing: Combining Populism with that other deeply unpopular political philosophy, Libertarianism, just makes things even worse. A nation where libertarian populism actually won outside of Bob Barr’s district would possibly be a better nation. Unfortunately, that’s not the one we live in.
Okay, I’m done.
That was a great column, actually. He’s completely right, which is why you just took the smallest possible quote from the essay out of context and ignored the rest. When Populism ruled the Democratic party during the days of William Jennings Bryan, they lost to the Republicans over and over again. But they won with friggin’ Wilson! Twice!
And another thing: Combining Populism with that other deeply unpopular political philosophy, Libertarianism, just makes things even worse. A nation where libertarian populism actually won outside of Bob Barr’s district would possibly be a better nation. Unfortunately, that’s not the one we live in.
Okay, I’m done.
That was a great column, actually. He’s completely right, which is why you just took the smallest possible quote from the essay out of context and ignored the rest. When Populism ruled the Democratic party during the days of William Jennings Bryan, they lost to the Republicans over and over again. But they won with friggin’ Wilson! Twice!
And another thing: Combining Populism with that other deeply unpopular political philosophy, Libertarianism, just makes things even worse. A nation where libertarian populism actually won outside of Bob Barr’s district would possibly be a better nation. Unfortunately, that’s not the one we live in.
Okay, I’m done.
I mean this with all the due respect in the world; Stacey McCain is the only person on the planet that skewers David Brooks better than I do. And it’s because he cares.
*tear*
For that, ‘He on the internets like whom I most strive to be’, thank you.
Russ
I mean this with all the due respect in the world; Stacey McCain is the only person on the planet that skewers David Brooks better than I do. And it’s because he cares.
*tear*
For that, ‘He on the internets like whom I most strive to be’, thank you.
Russ
Uh-oh, your Brooks Derangement Syndrome continues to worsen.
This isn’t “fisking,” it’s name calling. It’s character bashing, plain and simple.
Did you even read the article?
Brooks makes good points: That both populist narratives — businessmen as evil / bureaucrats as evil — are fundamentally lacking; that neither truly soothes the anxieties or represents the dreams of the American people; that class warfare and kulturkampf are equally hollow.
If he “slags” anything, it’s liberals’ foolish and unthinking hostility toward capital, trade, and finance:
–“[A] vibrant capitalist economy … maximize[s] opportunity for poor boys.”
–“[N]o institution is more likely to channel opportunity to new groups and new people than vigorous financial markets.”
–“If they continue their random attacks on enterprise and capital, they will only increase the pervasive feeling of uncertainty, which is now the single biggest factor in holding back investment, job creation and growth.”
Sure, Brooks takes a few jabs at the cultural sectarianism of Palinism, but what sticks is his critique of liberal class warfare and his unapologetic defense of markets.
I expect more from you, Stacy.
Phil
Uh-oh, your Brooks Derangement Syndrome continues to worsen.
This isn’t “fisking,” it’s name calling. It’s character bashing, plain and simple.
Did you even read the article?
Brooks makes good points: That both populist narratives — businessmen as evil / bureaucrats as evil — are fundamentally lacking; that neither truly soothes the anxieties or represents the dreams of the American people; that class warfare and kulturkampf are equally hollow.
If he “slags” anything, it’s liberals’ foolish and unthinking hostility toward capital, trade, and finance:
–“[A] vibrant capitalist economy … maximize[s] opportunity for poor boys.”
–“[N]o institution is more likely to channel opportunity to new groups and new people than vigorous financial markets.”
–“If they continue their random attacks on enterprise and capital, they will only increase the pervasive feeling of uncertainty, which is now the single biggest factor in holding back investment, job creation and growth.”
Sure, Brooks takes a few jabs at the cultural sectarianism of Palinism, but what sticks is his critique of liberal class warfare and his unapologetic defense of markets.
I expect more from you, Stacy.
Phil
“Stacey McCain is the only person on the planet that skewers David Brooks better than I do”
Really? Really!?
‘David Brooks is a worthless douchebag.’
OMG OWNED!!!
Christ. Well, Stacy, you know you’ve made it big when the groupies madly applaud even your emptiest, most insight-free post. Congrats. You’ve worked hard for this mindless fellatio.
“Stacey McCain is the only person on the planet that skewers David Brooks better than I do”
Really? Really!?
‘David Brooks is a worthless douchebag.’
OMG OWNED!!!
Christ. Well, Stacy, you know you’ve made it big when the groupies madly applaud even your emptiest, most insight-free post. Congrats. You’ve worked hard for this mindless fellatio.
And before I get the troll treatment, let me be clear: I dig your blog. Your shoe leather work is A-grade. The MA-Sen reportage? Great. You have a sharp mind and a sharper pen. Which is why it’s a pity to see you resort to ad hom juvenilia.
And before I get the troll treatment, let me be clear: I dig your blog. Your shoe leather work is A-grade. The MA-Sen reportage? Great. You have a sharp mind and a sharper pen. Which is why it’s a pity to see you resort to ad hom juvenilia.
Hey Phil, after you take your lips off of Brooks’ cock, THEN you can wax stupid about how I’m somehow a Stacey “groupie”.
You got something to say to me tough guy, say it like a man you fucking pussy.
Hey Phil, after you take your lips off of Brooks’ cock, THEN you can wax stupid about how I’m somehow a Stacey “groupie”.
You got something to say to me tough guy, say it like a man you fucking pussy.
Hey Phil, after you take your lips off of Brooks’ cock, THEN you can wax stupid about how I’m somehow a Stacey “groupie”.
You got something to say to me tough guy, say it like a man you fucking pussy.
Philip,
I agree with you, but content-light slags on David Brooks are like Stacy’s thing. The less he actually quotes, the better the column is!
Philip,
I agree with you, but content-light slags on David Brooks are like Stacy’s thing. The less he actually quotes, the better the column is!
Your courage is trumped only by your wit! “Fucking pussy?” One for the Brooks, er, books.
See, I don’t much like Brooks, but I’ll give the man a fair hearing. I’ll give anyone a fair hearing. Even you. That’s how broad, kind, and liberal a spirit I possess. Imagine.
Tah tah,
The Tough Guy.
Your courage is trumped only by your wit! “Fucking pussy?” One for the Brooks, er, books.
See, I don’t much like Brooks, but I’ll give the man a fair hearing. I’ll give anyone a fair hearing. Even you. That’s how broad, kind, and liberal a spirit I possess. Imagine.
Tah tah,
The Tough Guy.
Still the big man. Brooks’ has fellated Obama and spat on Conservatives for a decade you moron. He doesn’t deserve the benefit of any doubt. He lost that privilege years ago.
You possess a half-wits “courage” with a third-rate intellect, like Brooks. You two were meant for each other so continue on with your “fair hearing”.
Loser.
Still the big man. Brooks’ has fellated Obama and spat on Conservatives for a decade you moron. He doesn’t deserve the benefit of any doubt. He lost that privilege years ago.
You possess a half-wits “courage” with a third-rate intellect, like Brooks. You two were meant for each other so continue on with your “fair hearing”.
Loser.
Still the big man. Brooks’ has fellated Obama and spat on Conservatives for a decade you moron. He doesn’t deserve the benefit of any doubt. He lost that privilege years ago.
You possess a half-wits “courage” with a third-rate intellect, like Brooks. You two were meant for each other so continue on with your “fair hearing”.
Loser.
It’s easy to see why politicians would be drawn to the populist pose. First, it makes everything so simple. The economic crisis was caused by a complex web of factors, including global imbalances caused by the rise of China. But with the populist narrative, you can just blame Goldman Sachs.
Second, it absolves voters of responsibility for their problems. Over the past few years, many investment bankers behaved like idiots, but so did average Americans, racking up unprecedented levels of personal debt. With the populist narrative, you can accuse the former and absolve the latter.
Third, populism is popular with the ruling class. Ever since I started covering politics, the Democratic ruling class has been driven by one fantasy: that voters will get so furious at people with M.B.A.’s that they will hand power to people with Ph.D.’s. The Republican ruling class has been driven by the fantasy that voters will get so furious at people with Ph.D.’s that they will hand power to people with M.B.A.’s. Members of the ruling class love populism because they think it will help their section of the elite gain power.
So it’s easy to see the seductiveness of populism. Nonetheless, it nearly always fails. The history of populism, going back to William Jennings Bryan, is generally a history of defeat.
That’s because voters aren’t as stupid as the populists imagine. Voters are capable of holding two ideas in their heads at one time: First, that the rich and the powerful do rig the game in their own favor; and second, that simply bashing the rich and the powerful will still not solve the country’s problems.
Political populists never get that second point. They can’t seem to grasp that a politics based on punishing the elites won’t produce a better-educated work force, more investment, more innovation or any of the other things required for progress and growth.
In fact, this country was built by anti-populists. It was built by people like Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln who rejected the idea that the national economy is fundamentally divided along class lines. They rejected the zero-sum mentality that is at the heart of populism, the belief that economics is a struggle over finite spoils. Instead, they believed in a united national economy — one interlocking system of labor, trade and investment.
Hamilton championed capital markets and Lincoln championed banks, not because they loved traders and bankers. They did it because they knew a vibrant capitalist economy would maximize opportunity for poor boys like themselves. They were willing to tolerate the excesses of traders because they understood that no institution is more likely to channel opportunity to new groups and new people than vigorous financial markets.
In their view, government’s role was not to side with one faction or to wage class war. It was to rouse the energy and industry of people at all levels. It was to enhance competition and make it fair — to make sure that no group, high or low, is able to erect barriers that would deprive Americans of an open field and a fair chance. Theirs was a philosophy that celebrated development, mobility and work, wherever those things might be generated.
The populists have an Us versus Them mentality. If they continue their random attacks on enterprise and capital, they will only increase the pervasive feeling of uncertainty, which is now the single biggest factor in holding back investment, job creation and growth. They will end up discrediting good policies (the Obama bank reforms are quite sensible) because they will persuade the country that the government is in the hands of reckless Huey Longs.
They will have traded dynamic optimism, which always wins, for combative divisiveness, which always loses.
It’s easy to see why politicians would be drawn to the populist pose. First, it makes everything so simple. The economic crisis was caused by a complex web of factors, including global imbalances caused by the rise of China. But with the populist narrative, you can just blame Goldman Sachs.
Second, it absolves voters of responsibility for their problems. Over the past few years, many investment bankers behaved like idiots, but so did average Americans, racking up unprecedented levels of personal debt. With the populist narrative, you can accuse the former and absolve the latter.
Third, populism is popular with the ruling class. Ever since I started covering politics, the Democratic ruling class has been driven by one fantasy: that voters will get so furious at people with M.B.A.’s that they will hand power to people with Ph.D.’s. The Republican ruling class has been driven by the fantasy that voters will get so furious at people with Ph.D.’s that they will hand power to people with M.B.A.’s. Members of the ruling class love populism because they think it will help their section of the elite gain power.
So it’s easy to see the seductiveness of populism. Nonetheless, it nearly always fails. The history of populism, going back to William Jennings Bryan, is generally a history of defeat.
That’s because voters aren’t as stupid as the populists imagine. Voters are capable of holding two ideas in their heads at one time: First, that the rich and the powerful do rig the game in their own favor; and second, that simply bashing the rich and the powerful will still not solve the country’s problems.
Political populists never get that second point. They can’t seem to grasp that a politics based on punishing the elites won’t produce a better-educated work force, more investment, more innovation or any of the other things required for progress and growth.
In fact, this country was built by anti-populists. It was built by people like Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln who rejected the idea that the national economy is fundamentally divided along class lines. They rejected the zero-sum mentality that is at the heart of populism, the belief that economics is a struggle over finite spoils. Instead, they believed in a united national economy — one interlocking system of labor, trade and investment.
Hamilton championed capital markets and Lincoln championed banks, not because they loved traders and bankers. They did it because they knew a vibrant capitalist economy would maximize opportunity for poor boys like themselves. They were willing to tolerate the excesses of traders because they understood that no institution is more likely to channel opportunity to new groups and new people than vigorous financial markets.
In their view, government’s role was not to side with one faction or to wage class war. It was to rouse the energy and industry of people at all levels. It was to enhance competition and make it fair — to make sure that no group, high or low, is able to erect barriers that would deprive Americans of an open field and a fair chance. Theirs was a philosophy that celebrated development, mobility and work, wherever those things might be generated.
The populists have an Us versus Them mentality. If they continue their random attacks on enterprise and capital, they will only increase the pervasive feeling of uncertainty, which is now the single biggest factor in holding back investment, job creation and growth. They will end up discrediting good policies (the Obama bank reforms are quite sensible) because they will persuade the country that the government is in the hands of reckless Huey Longs.
They will have traded dynamic optimism, which always wins, for combative divisiveness, which always loses.
It’s easy to see why politicians would be drawn to the populist pose. First, it makes everything so simple. The economic crisis was caused by a complex web of factors, including global imbalances caused by the rise of China. But with the populist narrative, you can just blame Goldman Sachs.
Second, it absolves voters of responsibility for their problems. Over the past few years, many investment bankers behaved like idiots, but so did average Americans, racking up unprecedented levels of personal debt. With the populist narrative, you can accuse the former and absolve the latter.
Third, populism is popular with the ruling class. Ever since I started covering politics, the Democratic ruling class has been driven by one fantasy: that voters will get so furious at people with M.B.A.’s that they will hand power to people with Ph.D.’s. The Republican ruling class has been driven by the fantasy that voters will get so furious at people with Ph.D.’s that they will hand power to people with M.B.A.’s. Members of the ruling class love populism because they think it will help their section of the elite gain power.
So it’s easy to see the seductiveness of populism. Nonetheless, it nearly always fails. The history of populism, going back to William Jennings Bryan, is generally a history of defeat.
That’s because voters aren’t as stupid as the populists imagine. Voters are capable of holding two ideas in their heads at one time: First, that the rich and the powerful do rig the game in their own favor; and second, that simply bashing the rich and the powerful will still not solve the country’s problems.
Political populists never get that second point. They can’t seem to grasp that a politics based on punishing the elites won’t produce a better-educated work force, more investment, more innovation or any of the other things required for progress and growth.
In fact, this country was built by anti-populists. It was built by people like Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln who rejected the idea that the national economy is fundamentally divided along class lines. They rejected the zero-sum mentality that is at the heart of populism, the belief that economics is a struggle over finite spoils. Instead, they believed in a united national economy — one interlocking system of labor, trade and investment.
Hamilton championed capital markets and Lincoln championed banks, not because they loved traders and bankers. They did it because they knew a vibrant capitalist economy would maximize opportunity for poor boys like themselves. They were willing to tolerate the excesses of traders because they understood that no institution is more likely to channel opportunity to new groups and new people than vigorous financial markets.
In their view, government’s role was not to side with one faction or to wage class war. It was to rouse the energy and industry of people at all levels. It was to enhance competition and make it fair — to make sure that no group, high or low, is able to erect barriers that would deprive Americans of an open field and a fair chance. Theirs was a philosophy that celebrated development, mobility and work, wherever those things might be generated.
The populists have an Us versus Them mentality. If they continue their random attacks on enterprise and capital, they will only increase the pervasive feeling of uncertainty, which is now the single biggest factor in holding back investment, job creation and growth. They will end up discrediting good policies (the Obama bank reforms are quite sensible) because they will persuade the country that the government is in the hands of reckless Huey Longs.
They will have traded dynamic optimism, which always wins, for combative divisiveness, which always loses.
Excuse me Brooks needs to change the pink shirt and lavender tie every now and again. Like a green tie on St. Patrick’s day and a red white and blue one on the Fourth. Surprise us.
Excuse me Brooks needs to change the pink shirt and lavender tie every now and again. Like a green tie on St. Patrick’s day and a red white and blue one on the Fourth. Surprise us.
Excuse me Brooks needs to change the pink shirt and lavender tie every now and again. Like a green tie on St. Patrick’s day and a red white and blue one on the Fourth. Surprise us.
Some conservatives deserve a good spitting-on.
Your blustery machismo is wonderfully practiced, by the way.
Some conservatives deserve a good spitting-on.
Your blustery machismo is wonderfully practiced, by the way.
Some conservatives deserve a good spitting-on.
Your blustery machismo is wonderfully practiced, by the way.
Extra points for Joe.
Extra points for Joe.
Extra points for Joe.
“Some conservatives deserve a good spitting-on.
Your blustery machismo is wonderfully practiced, by the way.”
Keep starting fights with people you know nothing about from the safety of your kitchen and someday you’ll find out what I mean by “spit-on” you fucking twat.
It ain’t practiced son. I didn’t start this fight, you did. But I’ll end it.
The “conservatives” that need a good spitting on are David Brooks and those, like you, who give him a “fair hearing” after he creased Obama’s pant-leg with his tongue while smacking those of us who actually give a shit about this country in the face every chance he got.
Get your fucking priorities straight before you come back at me again, jackass.
“Some conservatives deserve a good spitting-on.
Your blustery machismo is wonderfully practiced, by the way.”
Keep starting fights with people you know nothing about from the safety of your kitchen and someday you’ll find out what I mean by “spit-on” you fucking twat.
It ain’t practiced son. I didn’t start this fight, you did. But I’ll end it.
The “conservatives” that need a good spitting on are David Brooks and those, like you, who give him a “fair hearing” after he creased Obama’s pant-leg with his tongue while smacking those of us who actually give a shit about this country in the face every chance he got.
Get your fucking priorities straight before you come back at me again, jackass.
“Some conservatives deserve a good spitting-on.
Your blustery machismo is wonderfully practiced, by the way.”
Keep starting fights with people you know nothing about from the safety of your kitchen and someday you’ll find out what I mean by “spit-on” you fucking twat.
It ain’t practiced son. I didn’t start this fight, you did. But I’ll end it.
The “conservatives” that need a good spitting on are David Brooks and those, like you, who give him a “fair hearing” after he creased Obama’s pant-leg with his tongue while smacking those of us who actually give a shit about this country in the face every chance he got.
Get your fucking priorities straight before you come back at me again, jackass.
Why this vulgarity, these intimations of violence? It’s unbecoming.
Let’s move on, act like adults, and practice the art of polite conversation.
Help me don’t understand what so riles you about this column. As I pointed out, Brooks unequivocally defends capital, trade, and finance against the class war mantra of left-liberals. Don’t we rightists like this?
Your total rejection of everything Brooks writes proves his point about the destructiveness and inanity of the Us vs. Them mentality.
Why this vulgarity, these intimations of violence? It’s unbecoming.
Let’s move on, act like adults, and practice the art of polite conversation.
Help me don’t understand what so riles you about this column. As I pointed out, Brooks unequivocally defends capital, trade, and finance against the class war mantra of left-liberals. Don’t we rightists like this?
Your total rejection of everything Brooks writes proves his point about the destructiveness and inanity of the Us vs. Them mentality.
Why this vulgarity, these intimations of violence? It’s unbecoming.
Let’s move on, act like adults, and practice the art of polite conversation.
Help me don’t understand what so riles you about this column. As I pointed out, Brooks unequivocally defends capital, trade, and finance against the class war mantra of left-liberals. Don’t we rightists like this?
Your total rejection of everything Brooks writes proves his point about the destructiveness and inanity of the Us vs. Them mentality.
Er: *Help me understand why this column so riles you.
Sorry, multitasking on this end.
Er: *Help me understand why this column so riles you.
Sorry, multitasking on this end.
Er: *Help me understand why this column so riles you.
Sorry, multitasking on this end.
Your website’s slogan: “Opening minds to conservative thought.”
How can you hope to ‘open minds’ when you brand those with even slight disagreements untouchables worthy of scatological scorn?
Your website’s slogan: “Opening minds to conservative thought.”
How can you hope to ‘open minds’ when you brand those with even slight disagreements untouchables worthy of scatological scorn?
“Help me understand why this column so riles you.”
In 1997, David Brooks wrote the big-government Republican manifesto, “A Return to National Greatness.” It was a defeatist reaction to Clinton’s re-election. It was also a betrayal of the limited-government ideas that won for Reagan and the 1994 “Contract With America” congressional campaign.
Brooks has never retracted or apologize for “National Greatness,” which paved the way for “Compassionate Conservatism,” which led directly to the wipeouts of 2006-08.
David Brooks is a loser, an albatross around the neck of the GOP. It doesn’t matter whether any specific column of his — or any specific sentence in any column — is right or wrong. The point is that to the extent that Brooks has any influence, it is an influence that will inerrantly lead to disaster.
More questions?
“Help me understand why this column so riles you.”
In 1997, David Brooks wrote the big-government Republican manifesto, “A Return to National Greatness.” It was a defeatist reaction to Clinton’s re-election. It was also a betrayal of the limited-government ideas that won for Reagan and the 1994 “Contract With America” congressional campaign.
Brooks has never retracted or apologize for “National Greatness,” which paved the way for “Compassionate Conservatism,” which led directly to the wipeouts of 2006-08.
David Brooks is a loser, an albatross around the neck of the GOP. It doesn’t matter whether any specific column of his — or any specific sentence in any column — is right or wrong. The point is that to the extent that Brooks has any influence, it is an influence that will inerrantly lead to disaster.
More questions?
Phil,
I’m always more than ready to engage in serious political and policy debate with anyone on anything.
On the other hand, I’m from Jersey and if someone challenges me in a way I don’t like, (like say by calling me someone else’s bitch), well then I’m gonna take that person out at the knees and sling insults and ad hominems like a fucking black belt.
You did that. You’ve since backed off. Apology accepted.
I would be more than happy to explain calmly and rationally why David Brooks’ deserves nobody’s respect, least of all Conservatives. Just watch who you call a “groupie” next time.
My vulgarity and “intimations of violence”, (which you also started) have nothing to do with any disagreement on Brooks and everything to do with your coming at me like a chickenshit instead of a man.
I’m more than willing to move on.
Russ
Phil,
I’m always more than ready to engage in serious political and policy debate with anyone on anything.
On the other hand, I’m from Jersey and if someone challenges me in a way I don’t like, (like say by calling me someone else’s bitch), well then I’m gonna take that person out at the knees and sling insults and ad hominems like a fucking black belt.
You did that. You’ve since backed off. Apology accepted.
I would be more than happy to explain calmly and rationally why David Brooks’ deserves nobody’s respect, least of all Conservatives. Just watch who you call a “groupie” next time.
My vulgarity and “intimations of violence”, (which you also started) have nothing to do with any disagreement on Brooks and everything to do with your coming at me like a chickenshit instead of a man.
I’m more than willing to move on.
Russ