Fraters Libertas

Their Mr. Brooks

In the August 23rd edition of National Review Ross Douthat explored the appeal of David Brooks to liberals:

David Brooks is every liberal's favorite conservative -- or so every liberal says. He is the New York Times's "loveable house conservative," according to Slate; "the in-house conservative pundit of Liberal America," says Philadelphia magazine; the "right's ambassador to the liberal establishment," writes Timothy Noah in the Washington Post; and the Left's "tame conservative, the right-winger without flecks of foam on the sides of his mouth," according to The Nation. CNN's Aaron Brown and Michael Kinsley (writing in the New York Times Book Review) have proffered similar phrases of fond condescension. But Nick Confessore recently topped them all, writing in The Washington Monthly that "to put things in Brooksian terms, he's a conservative, but the kind you'd bring home to discuss politics over $17-a-pound artisanal goat cheese and organic chardonnay bottled by third-generation French peasants."

Although some of that shine has apparently worn off as a result of Brooks' continued support for the war in Iraq and his optimistic embrace of the American Dream in On Paradise Drive, for many liberals he continues to be the token conservative writer they proudly site as evidence of their media diversity. It brings to mind the old line "Why, some of my best friends are black" used to insulate one from accusations of racism, as if merely the fact that liberals read David Brooks' columns is evidence of their openness to differences of opinion.

The liberal view of Brooks as a "good conservative" was in evidence last night at an appearance by Brooks at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, which was sponsored by the Orwellian sounding National Institute of Health Policy. I attended the affair accompanied by Saint Paul. We had invited Atomizer to join us, but he had a Pilates class that he just couldn't tear himself away from.

I am a fan of David Brooks, more for his books than his columns in the New York Times. Most of his speech last night dealt with the divided nature of the country in the aftermath of the election. He offered a few explanations for the Blue/Red state divide, among them the geographic and lifestyle divisions that he talks about in On Paradise Drive. Brooks is a treasure trove of interesting demographic tidbits and he shared them with us in a humorous, yet insightful manner. All in all, I enjoyed his speech although at twenty bones, the price of admission did seem a bit steep.

It was also easy to see why liberals have taken Brooks in as their pet conservative. I don't know if he was just playing to the audience, but he slipped in several harsh jabs at the Bush administration. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with it, if that is truly what you believe. But it seemed as if Brooks was consciously electing to include these anti-Bush asides just to make sure the crowd knew he wasn't some ideologically driven, "tow the party line" conservative.

He also tempered most of his arguments that supported conservative positions. Again, it might have been a function of the setting and the audience, but I couldn't help but get the feeling that Brooks was diluting his rhetoric so as not to offend any liberal sensibilities. He tried very hard to get the idea across that "I'm a conservative, but I'm not one of those conservatives."

You could also tell that he revels in his role as a "reasonable conservative" and enjoys the liberals scratching him behind the ears. I guess I can't really blame him. He's got a sweet gig at the Times and wants to keep that gravy train rolling. And everybody likes to be liked. But there's something off-putting about watching an intelligent, thoughtful conservative voice who's more concerned about being pals with liberals than taking them on.

The real fun began after Brooks finished his speech. There was a brief question and answer session that revealed much about our fellow audience members. I had expected that Brooks would attract a mixed bag of liberal and conservative partisans. However, if the Q&A was any indication, Saint Paul and I may have been the only right thinkers in the crowd.

There were seven, maybe eight people who asked questions. All liberals. Scratch that. Mostly liberals with a few radical lefties. Two of those who rose to query Brooks proudly announced that they were active in the anti-war protest movement. We're not talking MoveOn.org members. We're talking International Answer types.

Saint Paul and I were sitting up in the cheap seats in the balcony, and once the partisan nature of the questions became apparent we slipped into Statler & Waldorf (the old men from The Muppets) mode. Lord knows our wise cracking and chortling was certainly well deserved.

If you tried to come up caricatures of liberal thinking, you could never match the real life silliness on display last night. During his speech, Brooks had explained that one of the reasons the Democrats lost the election was that many people in middle America didn't appreciate being condescended to. In case anyone wasn't sure what Brooks was referring to, a man who was a textbook definition of liberal condescension stepped up to the mike. He explained how much he liked Brooks and how distraught he was at the election results. He described how he took his teenage children to Ohio to help the Kerry campaign instead of backpacking in Colorado. Saint Paul accurately labeled that as "child abuse." His voice wavering, seemingly on the verge of tears the man then pleaded with Brooks to explain why the "people that he visited in trailer homes in Wisconsin" had failed to "vote their economic interests" and instead had chosen to give him the finger when he asked them to vote for Kerry.

At this point me and Saint Paul were almost doubled over with laughter. The guy was disturbed that he was given the bird? He was lucky that he didn't get his ass kicked when he rolled up in his Volvo wagon and demanded to know why the stoopid white trash folks didn't seem to appreciate the nuances of class consciousness. To his credit Brooks did explain to the baffled Bobo that economic populism was a losing cause.

But the highlight of the Q&A was definitely the butchy looking older gal who prefaced her question by proudly proclaiming herself a member of the "secular Left", insulting the Catholic Church (bear in mind that St. Thomas is a Catholic college and Brooks was introduced by a priest), and claiming that Bush did not "believe in science."

The last ridiculous assertion was too much for Saint Paul and he expressed his opinion of the validity of her claim. To me. At that point a young man seated behind us felt the need to intervene in our personal conversation by interjecting, "It's true!"

Saint Paul immediately retorted, "It's false!"

This tit for tat continued for a brief time before sputtering out. At the conclusion of the questions, the same youngster elected to engage Saint Paul in further debate on the matter. As oft happens in such situations, he came in full of vim and vinegar, prepared to unleash the complete arsenal of his rhetorical weaponry on an unprepared conservative. By the time the discussion was over, he had been forced to recant almost all of his original claims and humbly acknowledge the legitimacy of Saint Paul's arguments.

This is the second time in less than a month when I've witnessed a liberal make a very poor decision to challenge Saint Paul to verbally throw down. David Brooks may be a bit of poodle when it comes to such matters. Saint Paul is a junk yard dog, whom local liberals would be well advised to beware of.

On the way home I flipped on the radio and caught a replay on an interview with Brooks on Minnesota Public Radio that had aired earlier in the day. The venues that Brooks elected to appear in while in town (St. Thomas and MPR) speak volumes about his desire to cater to his liberal base.

Hey David, if you're still around tomorrow how about swinging by the Patriot studio and coming on the air with the NARN? We're some of those conservatives. Could be a whole new audience for you.