disingenuous: how he tells history -- acts like the fake debates he talks about (i.e. urban vs rural, intellectuals vs common people) took plays separate from the race "debates" and the popular movements (anti-reconstruction, anti-civil rights, moral majority, Reaganism and its links to rightwingers, birthers, etc) in US of the last few hundred years.
and is he conveniently the only one that found birthers and black family reunion peeps sharing the mall that day. [btw, racists are usually find buying stuff from people they don't like or disparage or they feel are different and deserve less).
finally, he just happened to go jogging there. he did not go himself.
@DollaBrand: What's also pretty "disingenuous" is that David Brooks, an urban elite who apparently endorses reform based on a quick read of his previous columns, admits that he can't peer into the soul of Obama's critics, then tries to describe their motives in an exercise of intellectualism.
@Magister: Oh, and I'm sure the Toronto-born, New York City-raised David Brooks knows much better, what's motivating the largely rural tea baggers than President Carter, who was born, raised and largely still lives in a Georgia small town.
David - Isn't the heart of your column, the rurals resent being judged and bossed by the urbans, who think they're smarter. And isn't that what you've done?
Yes, Mr. Brooks, American's know all about this ideological conflict in American history. That is why only 2.8% of Oklahoman high school students can pass the citizenship exam. Out of a sample of 1,000 students, not one could answer more than seven questions correctly.
So Obama's most strident opponents, many of whom call him fascist and communist in the same sentence, who don't want the government to mess with their Medicare, are remembering their 8th grade history and finding their place in a 200 year American feud? You have to love these right-wing propagandists...er, 'thinkers'. Occam's razor, my friend.
"Nobody on the left is making any comments like that. Not even in the same ballpark."
Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer wrote an article calling people un-American for "drowning out opposing views" when those very people were trying to express opposing views on health care reform. I'd call that the same ballpark. Sharpton urged "decent" Americans to not allow health care reform to be turned into a "racial issue". Jimmy Carter basically said that the majority of people who disagree with the President are racists. And how can accusing him of being a Muslim, which essentially no one does, be "racist"? Muslims aren't a race of people. There are Arab Muslims, Persian Muslims, African Muslims, Chinese Muslims, etc. Do you honestly think that The Right would be any less vitriolic toward Hillary Clinton? Or John Kerry? Do you not remember the Swift Vets? Did The Right hate Ted Kennedy because he was Catholic?
@SloaneCaninus: Again, there are a wealth of arguments describing the behavior of Birthers, Deathers, Teabaggers, and other assorted mob lunatics as "un-American." It is how they are going about voicing their criticism, not that they are voicing it in the first place. I don't see anybody calling Glenn Greenwald, one of the president's staunchest critics (who happens also to be a left-winger who voted for Obama), "un-American" because he chooses to voice issues with Obama's policies. He and many others (mostly on the left, oddly) are living proof that you can voice criticism and not be a stupid idiot. The right-wing is really squandering a rare opportunity to be the opposing voice of reason.
Mr. Brooks - I'll believe that you may have seen some white faces at a rap concert, but I think that your rose-colored glasses somehow convinced you they were tea partiers and I guess it was pure imagination that made you think these elderly, white rap enthusiasts were rocking out in a mostly black crowd while holding images of the President with a bone through his nose, signs telling him to go back to Africa and others letting him know that they were unarmed, this time.
Someone wake me up, when David gets back to earth.
Brooks is wrong. This isn't Jefferson vs. Hamilton, this is Jackson vs. everyone else. He completely fails to mention the idiocy with Jacksonian strain of thought, which is, to (mis)quote Walter Russell Mead, that "while problems may be complex, the solutions are simple."
That mode of thinking is even more bullshit today than it was 200 years ago, when Jackson, in his paranoid, populist, ignorance, thought the country shouldn't have any sort of central bank.
skt.smth promoted this comment
Edited by bowel_and_the_obstructors at 09/18/09 9:08 AM
bowel_and_the_obstructors was starred
bowel_and_the_obstructors was unstarred
As far as my reading of American history goes, "states rights" has been the rallying cry for segregationists, anti-abortion activists and many of the other reactionary regressive movements of the last half century or so. So pardon me for thinking these people are dangerous fools, my mistake.
@lionel-mandrake: Well, and it's interesting how he never mentions that central gov't vs. states rights was pretty much the central conflict in the struggle for racial equality. He seems to think that these things are completely divorced from one another.
Belonsky hits the nail on the head with the line: "They're simply continuing — um —the age old Jefferson v. Hamilton debate."
That Brooks really thinks people are consciously playing out a Jefferson/Hamilton feud is utterly preposterous. I think we live with the ramifications of this national divide, but Brooks would have us believe that nothing that's happened since Jefferson/Hamilton has made a mark on the discourse. And was he ever going to mention that Jefferson owned slaves? I mean, I know it's common knowledge, but it seems odd for him to seemingly overlook that detail when he's trying to make the argument that this all has nothing to do with race.
@lionel-mandrake: Certainly in recent history, and even further back, those positions have been correctly associated with a prominent wing of the states-rights movement. But, for what it's worth, the fight about federal vs. state power doesn't always devolve to these issues. I think all sides have looked to the states at certain points when they've viewed the federal government as problematic. Also I would argue that Anti-Federalists were critical in securing one of our most important contributions to government, The Bill of Rights.
@kneetoe: @kneetoe: That's why I qualified my comment by bracketing it into the post-war years. I do believe the earlier arguments about states rights were about other things, and certainly necessary in terms of providing a bulwark against unchecked federal power.
That said, I reiterate, that many in the anti-federalist camp these days are there for less noble reasons than their forebears.
@if_i_only_had_a_heart: The arguments for states rights extended well beyond the Civil War. States rights is what effectively instituted Jim Crow laws in state constitutions as well, which didn't end until the Johnson administration.
Racism didn't end in 1865, and there is reason to continue discussing it today. Here are a few statistics from the Kaiser Family Foundation of where young black males stand in this society:
Young black males ages 15-29 represent 14 percent of the population, but make up 40 percent of the prison population.
20 percent of young black males are unemployed, vs. 10 percent of white males. (This stat dates back a few years)
In 2002, at every education level black males made less then white males.
So David Brooks stopped by the rally and didn't personally observe racism so therefore the antipathy towards Obama is not racist but, in fact, the noble concerns of people who care deeply for their country?
Damn, that's quite a leap.
11/06/09
11/06/09
Nobody puts Modo in the corner . . . unless there's a fifth of scotch in it. #media
11/06/09
One assumes that she got her invite because like a lot of Americans, Ms Liasson has been the White House staffers' commuter buddy for years #media
11/07/09
11/06/09
09/18/09
and is he conveniently the only one that found birthers and black family reunion peeps sharing the mall that day. [btw, racists are usually find buying stuff from people they don't like or disparage or they feel are different and deserve less).
finally, he just happened to go jogging there. he did not go himself.
yeh.
09/18/09
09/19/09
David - Isn't the heart of your column, the rurals resent being judged and bossed by the urbans, who think they're smarter. And isn't that what you've done?
09/18/09
[www.ocpathink.org]
09/18/09
09/18/09
Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer wrote an article calling people un-American for "drowning out opposing views" when those very people were trying to express opposing views on health care reform. I'd call that the same ballpark. Sharpton urged "decent" Americans to not allow health care reform to be turned into a "racial issue". Jimmy Carter basically said that the majority of people who disagree with the President are racists. And how can accusing him of being a Muslim, which essentially no one does, be "racist"? Muslims aren't a race of people. There are Arab Muslims, Persian Muslims, African Muslims, Chinese Muslims, etc. Do you honestly think that The Right would be any less vitriolic toward Hillary Clinton? Or John Kerry? Do you not remember the Swift Vets? Did The Right hate Ted Kennedy because he was Catholic?
09/18/09
09/18/09
09/18/09
Someone wake me up, when David gets back to earth.
09/18/09
That mode of thinking is even more bullshit today than it was 200 years ago, when Jackson, in his paranoid, populist, ignorance, thought the country shouldn't have any sort of central bank.
09/18/09
09/18/09
09/18/09
09/18/09
09/18/09
Belonsky hits the nail on the head with the line: "They're simply continuing — um —the age old Jefferson v. Hamilton debate."
That Brooks really thinks people are consciously playing out a Jefferson/Hamilton feud is utterly preposterous. I think we live with the ramifications of this national divide, but Brooks would have us believe that nothing that's happened since Jefferson/Hamilton has made a mark on the discourse. And was he ever going to mention that Jefferson owned slaves? I mean, I know it's common knowledge, but it seems odd for him to seemingly overlook that detail when he's trying to make the argument that this all has nothing to do with race.
09/18/09
09/18/09
09/18/09
09/18/09
That said, I reiterate, that many in the anti-federalist camp these days are there for less noble reasons than their forebears.
09/18/09
09/18/09
Racism didn't end in 1865, and there is reason to continue discussing it today. Here are a few statistics from the Kaiser Family Foundation of where young black males stand in this society:
Young black males ages 15-29 represent 14 percent of the population, but make up 40 percent of the prison population.
20 percent of young black males are unemployed, vs. 10 percent of white males. (This stat dates back a few years)
In 2002, at every education level black males made less then white males.
09/18/09
09/18/09
09/18/09
Damn, that's quite a leap.