Friday, January 13, 2006
Brooks
David Brooks was on Charlie Rose last night. If there were a movie ad it would say “the provocative and engaging David Brooks”. Brooks' ideas have a compelling logic. He has built tremendous credibility by being moderate — in roiling times you listen to people whose eyes are not intellectually popping out of their heads; you want honesty, reflection, considered and informed opinion.
Underneath, Brooks is an ideologue as much as the next commentator. But he presents his ideas with modesty and decency — traits he praised in Alito and clearly holds in high regard. So do many of us.
Brooks tries to be both Tom Friedman global sociologist and Tom Wolfe social critic. Brooks regards himself as a “cultural determinist” rather than what he characterized as a “technological determinist” — like Tom Friedman. Cultural determinism — the idea that cultures and their received notions explain historical outcomes — seems credible; at least to the extent that any theoretical structure can explain reality. Too often theories impose themselves rather than offer explanation.
Brooks, as an ideologue, also sells tickets. He said that Bush was really smart behind the scenes but it just doesn't show in public. This reminds one of the same assertions made about Reagan. I remember an old SNL skit in which Reagan is portrayed in his public face, somewhat doddering and disengaged, a sympathetic grandfatherly figure, and then the moment the public event is over, and Reagan is in private, dealing only with his staff, he becomes a clipped master-builder — issuing staccato commands with assurance and absolute authority. It was hysterical. If Bush is really smart he should get an Academy Award.
More important than sheer intelligence, Bush does seem to have a grounded sense of what matters. He seems to understand we are involved in a war. Brooks said the briefings Bush gets each morning about the status of our war with Islamo-fascism are horrifying; that if anyone was in Bush's position they would do the same things. To me this is credible as well. Bush isn't blindly seeking power, he is trying to protect the country. There have been many mistakes along the way, but none that warrant the Democrat's excessive reaction to him or efforts to rekindle Viet Nam contentiousness. Democrats are making the same mistakes Republicans made with Clinton.
Brooks said that he gets Nexus printouts of all of NYT reporter John Burn's public appearances. Burns is so credible a reporter on the actual situation in Iraq that Brooks follows Burns' reports closely. I had the same reaction to Burns years ago. I remember how Burns criticized the press in Iraq for sucking up to a thug like Hussein for access. I noticed in TV reports that Burns always seemed to be thinking as he spoke, not regurgitating received notions.
Burns is a character out of central casting — seeming to have perpetually just gotten out of bed; disheveled, the antithesis of slick, Burns tells the truth without agenda; even more admirable, Burns seems able to sort out the chaotic war zone that is Iraq. It's easy to share Brooks' admiration for Burns.