The two David Brookses

Which brings me to the two David Brooks, both of whom jot down opinions for the Times. After reading his intolerably gooey column about Rahm Emanuel on Oct. 5, I was of a mind to consign the man to a cubicle next to Kurtz at The Daily Beast, where presumably the two of them might enjoy polite and edifying luncheon debate with Peter Beinart every fortnight at some university club. Attempting to strike a contrarian’s pose, Brooks insists that Emanuel’s reputation “for profanity and rage is vastly overstated.” (For the record, profane or not, I happen to admire the centrist Democrat Emanuel. He’s a brilliant political strategist and that he was pushed out of Barack Obama’s inner circle by more liberal and less practical advisers explains a lot about the President’s current woes.)…

Brooks says that Emanuel—or, as he calls him, “Rahm”—has remained “true to his whole and florid self.” Bully for the Chicago mayoral candidate, but what’s striking is that in the above paragraph Brooks is describing himself. Of course he was a hall monitor in high school, and maybe president of his class and the kid in the front row who raised his hand at every question a teacher asked. And while I’ve no idea whether Brooks has “subdued his passions,” he certainly worked long and hard to climb the professional ladder. Maybe he listened to Sam & Dave’s “Soul Man,” as a kid, but no lessons were learned. From the University of Chicago to the Washington Times to The Wall Street Journal to The Weekly Standard and finally the Times, he’s reached a level where he can tell readers that he interviews a lot of politicians and, well, he’s pretty darn important.