Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
Your host, PM 'Papa' Carpenter


  • ***


« Atta boy, Donald | Main | And then there's Gerson »

October 28, 2016


I think Brooks has much of this backwards. Alas, having reached my monthly limit of free NYT articles a full reading must await the coming month. Of your critique of the binding religion and politics I find no fault. That was a grievous error fundamentally at odds with conservative intellectual underpinnings. But I would assert they did worse earlier. Their intellectual opposition to human rights legislation that ostensibly violated the right of free association and compelled business owners to serve blacks and other non-white races came first. That sucked the venom of racism from the Democratic party over time and brought it into the GOP. They like to talk about Lincoln a lot as if Lincoln were a hero in the South but we all know the truth of that. They dare not assault the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution but the Fourteenth and birthright citizenship has been in their cross hairs a long time.

Geographically co-located with the bible belt this gave them a large base from which to snipe at northern States as opportunity presented and that worked for them. Brooks' error in his first point is simply this and it was well made in DF Wallace's essay Host. The markets and specifically the media organizations like Clear Channel did not create this market. They chose to serve it because that is where the money was. Conservatism did NOT go down market. The media that serve that market found it ready made by the GOP and that is huge distinction. The media serving that market segment do not give a rat's asshole about Brooks' intellectualism or ideology. They do care about money and it will disappear when it is no longer profitable and not because conservative intellectuals think it should.

He called ideas from the Reagan era "obsolete." Isn't that heresy for the GOP everywhere, particularly inside the beltway, intellectual or otherwise?

Why do we never hear of the new ideas of the conservative intellectual class? I mean they call things new, but it's always old and/or an undoing of some aspect or another of the New Deal, Great Society.

Another interesting take on Brooks: Courtesy of Zack Beauchamp

I suffer from excessive brevity. What Beauchamp consumed 1,000 words in saying, I said in one: I changed Brooks' "middle and working-class Americans" to "middle- and working-class white Americans." Beauchamp is correct, however, that the subject deserved more.

As I commented on Booman Tribune earlier this year, "Looks like the Radioactive Base has overwhelmed the Liquid Bobo Coolant and the machine is melting down."

I call it pithiness. You've covered the subject well before this.

In my line of business we have the ironical concept of Time Mechanics. As in, if something didn't work as planned leave it alone for awhile and time will fix it for you. Then it will work fine. For the record it never does. Brooks solution seems to be just that. Left to their own devices the Republican deplorables will expire to be replaced by a younger rising ideologically pure generation untainted by racism and religious bigotry. Who presumably won't mind hanging with the deplorables while they are kicking the bucket.

Sometimes I wonder what planet Brooks is from.

You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views, which can be uncomfortable, if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.

Dr. Who The Face of Evil

The comments to this entry are closed.