Skip to comments.David Brooks' Lame Trashing of Sen. Cruz
Posted on 09/16/2013 2:24:48 PM PDT by jazusamo
New York Times columnist David Brooks argued on PBS' "NewsHour" Friday night that "Sen. Ted Cruz and similar legislators" are obstructionists who care more about undermining the Republican establishment than advancing legislation.
Note that I didn't use "conservative" to modify "columnist" or "David Brooks," though the Times and other mainstream media outlets routinely bill Brooks as conservative. Featuring a left-leaning moderate and depicting him as a conservative is a clever technique the liberal media employ to discredit conservative ideas.
Not to mention any names, but we see this technique in practice daily on NBC's deranged stepchild, MSNBC, where a former Republican congressman habitually impugns conservatives in the name of conservatism.
But let's not dwell too much on whether these liberal-enough-to-be-hired-by-bigshot-liberal-media-outlets-as-conversative-commentators are bona fide conservatives.
Instead, let's take a look at what Brooks is asserting. Does it have validity? It's important to quote a substantial segment to get the thrust of Brooks' remarks and his accompanying attitude.
Brooks said: "What's going on in the House and a bit in the Senate, too, is what you might call the rise of Ted Cruz-ism. And Ted Cruz, the senator from Canada through Texas, is basically not a legislator in the normal sense, does not have an idea that he's going to Congress to create coalitions, make alliances, and he's going to pass a lot of legislation. He's going in more as a media-protest person. And a lot of the House Republicans are in the same mode. They're not normal members of Congress. They're not legislators. They want to stop things. And so they're just being they just want to obstruct."
Perhaps you can detect the dripping contempt Brooks has for Cruz? But what's worse is Brooks' complete misunderstanding of what motivates Cruz and like-minded conservatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
Politics of Destruction. It’s one of the main tenets of Liberalism. They must attempt to destroy those they fear and any who challenge them. Cruz is their enemy du jour.
I think we already have enough laws, don’t you?
Exactly, Cruz is exploding leftist and RINO heads.
Ted Cruz Ping!
Ted Cruz IS THE REAL DEAL!
Thank you for the post and ping.
David Limbaugh nails it. Too bad Brooks has his fingers in his ears, and he’s chanting La-la-luh-la-la... I can’t HEAR you!
More like, "he's chanting la-la-la-la, you didn't go to HAHH-vuhd, I can't HEAR you!!"
Go read the January 2010 article in Commentary on why Jews "hate" Sarah Palin, then chase links to David Frum's comment on the article, and then to the Pareena commentary on Frum and his website commenters, and her commenters. Fascinating posts, all loathesome -- and these people are nominally Republican. They're just from the wrong side of the Adirondacks, and that makes all the difference.
Someone needs to write a new book on regionalism in American politics, and elite-school snobbery.
It was attitudes like Brooksie's, flowing out of 17th-century and later New England Congregationalist pulpits that led to the Civil War, but nobody knows enough U.S. history to recognize the similarity in the odor.
Interesting and well said. Thank you.
And no, I didn’t go to Harvard. I went to Immaculate Heart.
You can find people like Brooks and Frum all around the world -- or the developed world, at least. When you find someone like that in France or Finland or Chile or the Czech Republic do you really think that some New England preacher is responsible for their attitudes or thinking or behavior?
And isn't this kind of attribution something you'd object to if it were done to you? If somebody claimed to trace your opinions back to some slaveowner or segregationist, say? If you wouldn't object, a lot of people would, and it's more likely to be done to you or them than to Brooks or Frum.
Brooks is a pretty familiar case. Like a lot of people 30 years ago, he got fed up with the liberal excesses of the 60s and 70s. Some of those people became conservatives. Some lost interest or faith in politics altogether. Some went back to being liberals or stuck to the middle of the road.
Brooks is somewhere in that last group, but he made friends with William F. Buckley and got jobs as a "conservative" based on that connection. It still keeps him employed, so until something better comes along he's going to stick with the pretense.
Not much to do with New England preachers or Puritans there. Still less in Canadian Frum or in soft conservatives wherever you find them around the world.