Ben Shapiro Guts David I-Love-Me-Some-Perfectly-Creased-Pants Brooks
[guest post by Dana]
Token “conservative” writer for the NYT, David Brooks, was recently taken to the woodshed by Ben Shapiro. Brooks, of the sneering “I divide people into people who talk like us and who don’t talk like us” fame, and ignorantly refers to conservatives as ‘dangerous,’ ‘imbalanced’ and ‘radical’, foolishly opened himself up for attack with this view of conservatism:
By traditional definitions, conservatism stands for intellectual humility, a belief in steady, incremental change, a preference for reform rather than revolution, a respect for hierarchy, precedence, balance and order, and a tone of voice that is prudent, measured and responsible. Conservatives of this disposition can be dull, but they know how to nurture and run institutions. They also see the nation as one organic whole. Citizens may fall into different classes and political factions, but they are still joined by chains of affection that command ultimate loyalty and love.
Shapiro hits back:
There’s only one problem: this is absolute horseshit. Traditional conservatism stands for principles, not just tactics. Conservatism prefers intellectual humility not because conservatives should politely demur in the face of civilization-destroying leftism, but because lack of intellectual humility leads to tyranny. Conservatism believes in incremental change only when the status quo is decent. It does not prefer incrementalism in rolling back the evils of radical leftism. The idiotic notion that establishment Republicans have done a wonderful job “nurturing and running institutions” has been disproved by years of useless establishment Republican governance. And as to the notion that the nation is “one organic whole…joined by chains of affection,” Brooks is living in a nation that no longer exists. He ought to listen to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton talk once in a while.
(Brooks might want to reconsider that “chain of affection” slop, given that Hillary proudly considers the Republicans her enemies.)
Read the whole thing.
–Dana
UPDATE BY PATTERICO: To me, this is reminiscent of the Thomas Sowell distinction between the constrained and unconstrained visions. Brooks’s vision sounds constrained: conservativism in a cautious, Burkean sense. Shapiro sounds more like a bomb-thrower out to remake America.
The thing is, when radicals have remade America in their own image, getting us back to where we were may require action of a more radical nature than cautious Burkean conservatives are comfortable with. In the courts, for example, you can’t undo Warren-era precedents without being willing to upend a lot of “settled law” that has no basis in the Constitution — but has a lot of cautious judges who have treated it as precedent nonetheless. The same is true of a society that folks like Obama and FDR have remade from a government of limited powers into a Leviathan. Getting us back to limited government, if it ever happens, is going to require us to break some eggs. The David Brookses of the world may not realize that, but if the other side is the only one ever willing to make radical changes, they will accomplish their goals while we sit back and watch. That’s not what I want to do.
Hello.
Dana (86e864) — 10/15/2015 @ 6:52 amrest assure he agrees with hillary
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/david-brooks-sarah-palin_n_133001.html
I haven’t seen anything in seven years, that indicates he has gotten a clue,
narciso (ee1f88) — 10/15/2015 @ 7:11 amNo idea why people call him conservative. I’ve seen him in TV interviews a couple of times saying he’s NOT a conservative, he’s “middle of the road”, or somesuch. It’s a measure of current American media that he’s the designated representative.
Luke Stywalker (395969) — 10/15/2015 @ 7:30 amI have no idea why anyone considers this guy any kind of conservative, much less listen to him.
Rochf (f3fbb0) — 10/15/2015 @ 7:35 amI too want to know what he thinks of Hillary’s comments that she thinks her worst enemy is the Republicans, although the way they’ve been behaving, I would think she counts them among her closet friends.
Brooks is the kind of “Republican” poodle trained to vote for Democrats and reliably piss in the yards of conservative neighbors.
ropelight (421b9d) — 10/15/2015 @ 7:36 amThat should read “closest friends”–maybe a Freudian slip today?
Rochf (f3fbb0) — 10/15/2015 @ 7:36 amUPDATE BY PATTERICO: To me, this is reminiscent of the Thomas Sowell distinction between the constrained and unconstrained visions. Brooks’s vision sounds constrained: conservativism in a cautious, Burkean sense. Shapiro sounds more like a bomb-thrower out to remake America.
The thing is, when radicals have remade America in their own image, getting us back to where we were may require action of a more radical nature than cautious Burkean conservatives are comfortable with. In the courts, for example, you can’t undo Warren-era precedents without being willing to upend a lot of “settled law” that has no basis in the Constitution — but has a lot of cautious judges who have treated it as precedent nonetheless. The same is true of a society that folks like Obama and FDR have remade from a government of limited powers into a Leviathan. Getting us back to limited government, if it ever happens, is going to require us to break some eggs. The David Brookses of the world may not realize that, but if the other side is the only one ever willing to make radical changes, they will accomplish their goals while we sit back and watch. That’s not what I want to do.
Patterico (fecd9b) — 10/15/2015 @ 7:47 amPatterico (fecd9b) — 10/15/2015 @ 7:47 am
In other words, we haven’t had incremental change in the liberal direction, e.g. Obamacare, legalizing millions of illegals with a stroke of the pen, courts destroying the right of states to set their own marriage laws, etc. Even if we accept the simple minded idea that conservatism by definition means supporting only incremental change, rolling back Obama’s excesses is consistent with incremental change, since they weren’t incremental in the other direction.
But as Shapiro notes, conservatism is about principles. Incrementalism is okay when things are basically good. There was nothing incremental about Lincoln freeing the slaves.
Gerald A (949d7d) — 10/15/2015 @ 8:03 amEdmund Burke was sympathetic to the causes and goals of the American Revolution.
BobStewartatHome (a52abe) — 10/15/2015 @ 8:20 ami weary of this david brooks
happyfeet (a037ad) — 10/15/2015 @ 8:35 amThe Day of The Rope draws ever closer.
Greg (880337) — 10/15/2015 @ 10:07 amFIFY.
J.P. (cc46f4) — 10/15/2015 @ 10:08 amOmlettes for everyone!
Dan S (94f399) — 10/15/2015 @ 11:59 amBrooks’s vision sounds constrained: conservativism in a cautious, Burkean sense. Shapiro sounds more like a bomb-thrower out to remake America.
Shapiro could also have noted that to be a lukewarm conservative in the context of, for example, 1950s America — when even something like Eisenhower’s policy to remove illegal aliens was labeled “Operation Wetback” (IOW, even the working title of such activity back then was the opposite of today’s Nidal-Hasan-ized PC malarkey) — was one thing. But to be a lukewarm or squish-squish conservative/Republican in the context of Obama’s America (a Jeremiah-Wright-ized USA) is a whole different matter. That’s why I know a person is fairly liberal in 2015 if he or she thinks Person A, B or C (or a particular Republican activist) is too rightwing or is moving too far to the right.
Mark (f713e4) — 10/15/2015 @ 12:39 pmMark, in an America where democrats are now socialists and socialists are now communists a person can’t be too right wing and no movement is necessary as they’ve already moved as far as they can to the left.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/15/2015 @ 1:21 pmBrooks reminds me of the late WaPo columnist David Broder who crafted this image as a sort of apolitical moderate. He tended to cast aspersions on conservative Republicans with no real specifics. What was wrong with any specific thing they wanted to do? It was largely a mystery, but at the same time it seemed clear if you read his columns that there was something wrong with them.
Gerald A (949d7d) — 10/15/2015 @ 1:40 pmPatterico – …if the other side is the only one ever willing to make radical changes, they will accomplish their goals while we sit back and watch. That’s not what I want to do.
What radical changes do you propose? More importantly, how do you plan to accomplish them?
scrutineer (b7d257) — 10/15/2015 @ 1:46 pmWhat’s “dangerous” is that Brooks is too dull to recognize that he’s the media equivalent of Vichy French and the slack-jawed son-of-a-bi+ch drives an automobile on public roadways..
Colonel Haiku (0f4bb0) — 10/15/2015 @ 3:47 pmHey, Greg… all i need’s a day, a goat, a Spanish girl and 50 feet of rope and I gots me a good time!
Colonel Haiku (0f4bb0) — 10/15/2015 @ 3:53 pmI was curious about the origin of the expression about eggs and omelettes. One of the earliest, at least in the context of politics, was from the time of the French Revolution:
So I gather Second Amendment solutions will be necessary to right the great wrong of same sex marriage.
Northener (6697aa) — 10/15/2015 @ 4:04 pmNortherner never fails to be an asshat.
JD (a731c0) — 10/15/2015 @ 4:55 pmWhat’s “dangerous” is that Brooks is too dull to recognize that he’s the media equivalent of Vichy French…
Brooks understands his role perfectly. He writes strictly to prop up and signal loyalty to the sharp crease political class. See for example the tongue bath he gave Ta-Nehisi Coates. It’s all self-serving theater.
scrutineer (b7d257) — 10/15/2015 @ 5:10 pmBrooks fits perfectly with the Roveaholics.
mg (31009b) — 10/15/2015 @ 9:47 pm“…they will accomplish their goals while we sit back and watch. That’s not what I want to do.”
Amen. A-freakin-men.
NeoCon_1 (1bb699) — 10/16/2015 @ 4:50 pm