The obligatory “David Brooks really impressed with Obama’s pants” post

posted at 9:37 pm on August 31, 2009 by Allahpundit

If it’s not Frum and Bruce Bartlett demanding greater outreach from Republicans while sneering at them at every turn, it’s Brooks breaking his arms patting himself on the back for being an intellectual … who happens to find political portent in how well Barack Obama irons his pants.

It’s hard out here for a RINO apologist, my friends.

“I don’t want to sound like I’m bragging,” Brooks recently told me, “but usually when I talk to senators, while they may know a policy area better than me, they generally don’t know political philosophy better than me. I got the sense he knew both better than me.”

That first encounter is still vivid in Brooks’s mind. “I remember distinctly an image of–we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,” Brooks says, “and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.” In the fall of 2006, two days after Obama’s The Audacity of Hope hit bookstores, Brooks published a glowing Times column. The headline was “Run, Barack, Run.”…

“Obama sees himself as a Burkean,” Brooks says. “He sees his view of the world as a view that understands complexity and the organic nature of change.” Moreover, after the Bush years, Brooks seems relieved to have an intellectual in the White House again. “I divide people into people who talk like us and who don’t talk like us,” he explains. “Of recent presidents, Clinton could sort of talk like us, but Obama is definitely–you could see him as a New Republic writer. He can do the jurisprudence, he can do the political philosophy, and he can do the politics. I think he’s more talented than anyone in my lifetime. I mean, he is pretty dazzling when he walks into a room. So, that’s why it’s important he doesn’t fuck this up.”

As much as I hate the fetishization of populism, it’d be hard to find a more loathsome expression of intellectual elitism than “I divide people into people who talk like us and who don’t talk like us,” especially given the extent to which people like Brooks and Frum disdain the “one of us” appeal that inspires so many of Palin’s fans. For Brooks, it seems, it all depends on who “us” is. Also, did I misread that last paragraph or is he suggesting that the main reason he wants Obama to succeed is to vindicate governance by the smart set? I know he gets off on Ivy League pedigrees but I didn’t suspect until now that he was treating Hopenchange as some sort of field test of his theory that postgrads should rightly run the world.

As for “the organic nature of change,” he’s talking about a guy who wanted a health-care bill forced through Congress before anyone had a chance this month to read it (viva intellectualism) and whose entire political strategy seems aimed at cramming as many statist programs as possible down America’s throat before the country inevitably vomits up 50 or so Democratic seats in the House. Organic. Exit question: Er, didn’t this “bromance” actually end six months ago? Quote: “Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Brooks’s tie seems to be just one way he begs people to think he’s a nice guy.

Kralizec on September 1, 2009 at 10:07 AM

Why do people who have liberal ideas/views, who vote for libs, defend libs, say that conservatism is dead, etc. try to say they are conservatives???

jeffn21 on September 1, 2009 at 9:16 AM

I’ve wondered the same thing myself. If voting liberal doesn’t make you one, and neither does any of the other things you’ve mentioned, then what does?

Still, my guess is that it’s done on purpose. It’s the wolf in sheep’s clothing. The best way to get the country to move left is to convince the Right to go there, leaving the debates between Left and Lefter.

Esthier on September 1, 2009 at 10:42 AM

..it’d be hard to find a more loathsome expression of intellectual elitism than “I divide people into people who talk like us and who don’t talk like us,”

I thought the same thing. Arrogant elitist.

This one too.

..while they may know a policy area better than me, they generally don’t know political philosophy better than me.

Philosophers often are kings-of-the-hill of arrogance while being complete fools without even knowing it.

shick on September 1, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Left and Lefter.

Esthier on September 1, 2009 at 10:42 AM

Wasn’t that a movie staring Jim Carrey?

shick on September 1, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Wasn’t that a movie staring Jim Carrey?

shick on September 1, 2009 at 11:04 AM

No, that was the big budget version. This one will use less talented actors and an even worse script.

Esthier on September 1, 2009 at 11:16 AM

“I divide people into people who talk like us and who don’t talk like us,” he explains.

So I guess Brooks is not a big Larry the Cable Guy fan…

Goodeye_Closed on September 1, 2009 at 11:18 AM

So I guess Brooks is not a big Larry the Cable Guy fan…

Goodeye_Closed on September 1, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Larry is a much better judge of character. He smells better too.

Jeff from WI on September 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM

I guess we are being treated to the Great RINOs for Obama Butt-Boy Contest. Brooks, Frum, Bartlett and McCain are just a few of the finalists.

Sporty1946 on September 1, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Blinky Brooks, the makeup-and-lip-gloss-wearing Tool of the NY Times, through whom the NYT espouses lib views under the guise of a “conservantive,” is at it again.

Now Blinky proudly recalls checking out Obozo’s pant leg and calls him “dazzling,” while Chris Matthews got a thrill up his leg. Someone please find a way to get these FREAKS out of my sight.

Stuff like this makes me want to hurl, and I just had lunch.

Please, in the name of humanity, no more Blinky Brooks posts! He is as irrelevant as he is disgusting. No one with half a brain could take this tool seriously on anything. Surely more worthwhile subjects can be found for discussion at this site.

OneVision on September 1, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Here is some classic mark levin from a politico article on frum which could be said of brroks

“Frum is a crude and troubled exhibitionist unencumbered by integrity or judgment,” says Levin, “a self-destructive intellectual lightweight who craves attention with increasingly shrill attacks on real conservatives, which makes him a favorite with Bill Moyers, MSNBC, Newsweek and their ilk. For the nation generally and the conservative movement specifically, he is irrelevant.”

kangjie on September 1, 2009 at 1:32 PM

IF conservatives win control of anything in 2010, what are we going to do with the RINO leaders like McCain?

barnone on September 1, 2009 at 3:29 PM

Umm… isn’t this the same David Brooks who in July talked about a dinner party where he allowed a politician to grope his inner thigh the whole evening? And now he tells us that his admiration for Obama started when he stared at the One’s pants?

Dude, get out of the closet already; you’re fooling no-one. If I ever meet Brooks, my first words will probably be, “Hey, buddy, stop staring at my crotch!”

theCork on September 1, 2009 at 3:54 PM

First of all… isn’t The New York Times and “conservative” columnist an oxymoron? Why do we put up with people who call themselves conservatives? Please… someone educate me on even one thing Brooks has written lately (or at all) that is conservative. PLEASE. Oh and for an intellect he sure doesn’t talk like one, but he sure speaks like a typical liberal would.

trader67 on April 23, 2010 at 4:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3