Balkinization  

Saturday, June 26, 2004

David Brooks on the state of liberal public intellectuals

JB

David Brooks thinks American liberals have lost it because Michael Moore is no Jean Paul Sartre. That's a bit like saying that American conservatives are intellectually bankrupt because Rush Limbaugh is no Edmund Burke. Come to think of it, he may be on to something.....

Implicit in Brooks' objection to Michael Moore is that we expect more from liberals-- they are supposed to be even tempered, judicious, able to see the other person's point of view and not given to exaggeration or hyperbole. Indeed, many liberals like to cultivate these traits, because they think that they are necessary to sound public deliberation.

But Brooks does not demand the same of conservatives. I've seen no broadsides from Brooks delivered against Ann Coulter for calling liberals traitors, or against Sean Hannity for his wish that America be delivered from evil, which he helpfully defines as "Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism." Excuse me David, but have you seen the trash being poured out in generous heaps by the most popular right wing pundits? Perhaps you should be more focused on preserving the integrity of the public face of American conservatism. No movement should be particularly proud of having Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Bill O'Reilly among its most recognizable spokesmen.



Comments:

Brooks can no longer defend, and maintain whatever credibility he may have left, Bush Jr.'s series of mistake, after mistake, after mistake, so he attacks third persons that don't like Bush Jr., to divert attention from Bush Jr. Also, Brooks seems to be taking Moore's comments overseas out of context.
 

Haters don’t really hate you. They hate themselves because you’re a reflection of what they wish to be.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home