Posted on 04/22/2017 6:20:59 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Once upon a time, David Brooks was considered the house conservative at the New York Times. But in his April 21 New York Times column, he put President Donald J. Trump on a list of "strong men" that includes Turkey's Recep Erdoğan and North Korea's Kim Jong-un. Mr. Brooks noted that Erdoğan has "dismantle[d] democratic institutions and replace[d] them with majoritarian dictatorship." The Times columnist went on to assert: "While running for office, Donald Trump violated every norm of statesmanship built up over these many centuries[.]" Mr. Brooks, however, does not elaborate, explain, or elucidate the nature of the alleged violations.
But when it comes to discussion of President Trump, NeverTrumps like David Brooks feel no need to place their anti-Trump views on a foundation of fact. For Trump-haters, the truth is in the accusation. And so, comparing President Trump to Turkey's Erdoğan, Mr. Brooks does not set forth the democratic institutions dismantled by Mr. Trump, nor does he provide evidence of the "majoritarian dictatorship" that was constructed during the first 100 days of the Trump administration. How could he, there being no such dismantling, no such dictatorship here?
Mr. Brooks recognizes "the collapse of liberal values at home," citing "fragile thugs who call themselves students [who] shout down and abuse speakers in a weekly basis." But are these illiberals to be found under the banner of Trumpism – or under the banner of totalitarianism of left?
Mr. Brooks goes on to cite a study suggesting that only 57 percent of "young Americans" (age range not provided) are committed to democracy, compared to "91 percent in the 1930's[.]" What is the source of this declining commitment to democracy: student Republicans, or students influenced by leftist professors? Mr. Brooks does not say.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Well, it’s about time. Shame. WFB thought the boy had promise. Failure of mentoring or failure of character? I suppose no need to choose.
Brooks has never been a conservative. I hear him sometimes on an NPR program and he's as left as left can be.
Why can’t human beings learn how to love one another for the sake of loving their fellow human being is the right way to go? It is the Golden Rule. It is accepting one another without regard to what they have accomplished or what they look like. It is believing in the example of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is reaching out to our fellow man to spread the news that love is Christ’s message. Those who don’t know that message are missing the true value of existence.
If only this was literal.
Brooks has NEVER really been a “CONSERVATIVE”, but now, he’s just a cuck.
Brooks is a loser. He’s always been a loser and he will always be a loser.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is sending a sad number of FReepers off the rails tonight.
“House conservative”? - I thought he was the Times’ fashion critic.
Many, many moons ago Brooks consumed the creepozoid pill and has not looked back.
Brooks is a conservative. Old school conservative. 1970s conservative. He’s a Thatcherite. He’s a Majorite.
I’ve said this before, but I am convinced that David Brooks, David Frum, David Brock, and Jennifer Rubin are all the same guy, just wearing different disguises.
Sort of like Artemus Gordon, but stupider.
Absolutely not a conservative “
” Â Mr. Brooks, however, does not elaborate, explain, or elucidate the nature of the alleged violations.”
He won’t until he can come up with something that may or may not be feasible and he thinks he can sell it. But I am willing to bet he will keep a low profile on this until it is forgotten and goes away so he can save face using the libs stall tactic of throwing something out there, and seeing if it sticks.
I don’t believe in fake news. Any attempt to misrepresent the truth is nothing more or less than a lie!!! So, another lie!!!!!!
red
Don’t forget George Will
Brock and McCain. Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dummy.
David Brooks is what the libtard press wants a conservative to be, a sniveling groveling cuck-servative.
No this article is totally wrong. While The New York Times may have considered Brooks to be a conservative, nobody else did. Brooks is very liberal. And he often complains about almost every Republican. Brooks has never been conservative but he does bill himself as conservative at the Times. Which is like Bruce Jenner saying he is a women. But David and Bruce need to understand, there is more to it than dressing the part.
Keith Olbermann is going to have company in that padded cell of his it seems
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.