David Brooks on the Virtues of Mitt Romney and Family by Political Cynic

“The philosopher Michael Oakeshott once observed that it takes several generations to make a career. Interests, habits and lore accrue in families and shape those born into them.”

This defense of the British hereditary aristocracy by Michael Oakshott is not the least bit out of place in Mr. Brooks latest essay, that has all the marks of a political press release, although a bit more tarted up . Or should we just call it what it really is, just the usual David Brooks sycophancy aimed at a rich and powerful male,whose ruthless swaggering practice of Capitalism and an addiction to the vocabulary of Patriarchal power as always unquestionably right, as in always justified, makes Mr. Romney an unsurprising choice for our scribe. Add to this the possibility that Mr. Romney might just have a very good chance of winning, given the shoddy and shopworn character of his opponents. Romney looks like the perfect stand-in for Ronald Reagan, updated of course, but without having mastered the amiable bonhomie that Reagan practiced to great effect. But perhaps Mr. Romney’s, wooden yet sincere, personality might play well to the Independents and dissatisfied Democrats, not speak of disillusioned Republicans, that gave a victory to President Obama. Of course, if the Bain Capital and the Caymans matters can be effectively neutralized. Perhaps that is the point of Mr. Brooks’ haigiography, neatly disguised as an American Family Melodrama (with the Great Man as its’ final issue) to begin the long process of naturalizing the candidate, in the philosophical/religious/political sense, thereby rendering him not just as a reasonable alternative to the failed New Democrat Obama, but as the only alternative. David Brooks has lent his column space and his unquestioned preeminence in the production of Conservative propaganda,rhetorically framed as the harbinger of a great American Renewal,to that very end.

Political Cynic

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.' https://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/perry-anderson/diary
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.