StephenKMackSD's Blog

^{Mr. Brooks in his essay of January 30, 2012 regarding Libertarian Scholar Charles Murray and his latest book “Coming Apart” entitled The Great Divorce, has words of praise for his analysis of our present economic condition, through the lens that Mr. Murray provides. Mr. Brooks asserts that it is the most important book of the year. Although a critical reader might just be a bit doubtful about the Murray credentials as scholar, The Bell Curve being an example of a well defined ideological use of data, toward a political end. Does any reader have an obligation to treat Mr. Murray and his intellectual champion, Mr. Brooks with a high degree of caution and skepticism? I must admit that I always treat the essays of Mr. Brooks as propaganda: he fills his essays with such beguilingly ambiguous language that has an appeal that transcends political boundaries, e.g. 'political reform', 'tax reform', 'moral renewal', 'personal responsibility' etc., it contributes to the notion that Mr. Brooks possesses a high degree of moral/political seriousness.}

^{Mr. Brooks is obsessed with out-of-wedlock births as a measure of declining American morality and with breathtakingly reductive notions of 'upper tribe' as opposed to 'lower tribe' conduct. Please note, the argumentative outcome is a foregone conclusion, all measures indicated as important to social stability and moral maintenance are middle class values of stability, wedded to the important value of sexual chastity, at least in the Conservative world view. Being that the 'upper tribe' values are determinative in this rhetorical context, of the necessary cultivation of public morality as imagined by Mr. Brooks aided by his ideological ally Mr. Murray then,}

^{in sum, the 'upper tribe' needs to teach the 'lower tribe' how to live, in the reductive terms that Mr. Brooks so loves, by a government forced association. This seems like a complete deviation from anything resembling 'Conservatism', least of all it's Libertarian expression. But let me quote from the essay to provide some definitional frame:}

^{“The truth is, members of the upper tribe have made themselves phenomenally productive. They may mimic bohemian manners, but they have returned to 1950s traditionalist values and practices. They have low divorce rates, arduous work ethics and strict codes to regulate their kids.”}

^{“Members of the lower tribe work hard and dream big, but are more removed from traditional bourgeois norms. They live in disorganized, postmodern neighborhoods in which it is much harder to be self-disciplined and productive.”}

^{For this all to make something resembling coherence, one need only think of the 'upper tribe' as the 1% and the 'lower tribe' as the 99%.Then it becomes a matter of the 'elites' assuming their natural place of moral/economic superiority as teachers of the 'lower order'. What is proving so frustrating to Mr. Brooks is that not many are listening to these preachments of an unsurprising Social Darwinism masqurading as Conservatism.}

^{Political Observer}

^{Mr. Brooks in his essay of January 30, 2012 regarding Libertarian Scholar Charles Murray and his latest book “Coming Apart” entitled The Great Divorce, has words of praise for his analysis of our present economic condition, through the lens that Mr. Murray provides. Mr. Brooks asserts that it is the most important book of the year. Although a critical reader might just be a bit doubtful about the Murray credentials as scholar, The Bell Curve being an example of a well defined ideological use of data, toward a political end. Does any reader have an obligation to treat Mr. Murray and his intellectual champion, Mr. Brooks with a high degree of caution and skepticism? I must admit that I always treat the essays of Mr. Brooks as propaganda: he fills his essays with such beguilingly ambiguous language that has an appeal that transcends political boundaries, e.g. ‘political reform’, ‘tax reform’, ‘moral renewal’, ‘personal responsibility’ etc., it contributes to the notion that Mr. Brooks possesses a high degree of moral/political seriousness.}

^{Mr. Brooks is obsessed with out-of-wedlock births as a measure of declining American morality and with breathtakingly reductive notions of ‘upper tribe’ as opposed to ‘lower tribe’ conduct. Please note, the argumentative outcome is a foregone conclusion, all measures indicated as important to social stability and moral maintenance are middle class values of stability, wedded to the important value of sexual chastity, at least in the Conservative world view. Being that the ‘upper tribe’ values are determinative in this rhetorical context, of the necessary cultivation of public morality as imagined by Mr. Brooks aided by his ideological ally Mr. Murray then,}

^{in sum, the ‘upper tribe’ needs to teach the ‘lower tribe’ how to live, in the reductive terms that Mr. Brooks so loves, by a government forced association. This seems like a complete deviation from anything resembling ‘Conservatism’, least of all it’s Libertarian expression. But let me quote from the essay to provide some definitional frame:}

^{“The truth is, members of the upper tribe have made themselves phenomenally productive. They may mimic bohemian manners, but they have returned to 1950s traditionalist values and practices. They have low divorce rates, arduous work ethics and strict codes to regulate their kids.”}

^{“Members of the lower tribe work hard and dream big, but are more removed from traditional bourgeois norms. They live in disorganized, postmodern neighborhoods in which it is much harder to be self-disciplined and productive.”}

^{For this all to make something resembling coherence, one need only think of the ‘upper tribe’ as the 1% and the ‘lower tribe’ as the 99%.Then it becomes a matter of the ‘elites’ assuming their natural place of moral/economic superiority as teachers of the ‘lower order’. What is proving so frustrating to Mr. Brooks is that not many are listening to these preachments of an unsurprising Social Darwinism masqurading as Conservatism.}

^{Political Observer}

http://www.cambridge.org/us/knowledge/isbn/item6562287/?site_locale=en_US

^{Mr. Brooks in his essay of January 30, 2012 regarding Libertarian Scholar Charles Murray and his latest book “Coming Apart” entitled The Great Divorce, has words of praise for his analysis of our present economic condition, through the lens that Mr. Murray provides. Mr. Brooks asserts that it is the most important book of the year. Although a critical reader might just be a bit doubtful about the Murray credentials as scholar, The Bell Curve being an example of a well defined ideological use of data, toward a political end. Does any reader have an obligation to treat Mr. Murray and his intellectual champion, Mr. Brooks with a high degree of caution and skepticism? I must admit that I always treat the essays of Mr. Brooks as propaganda: he fills his essays with such beguilingly ambiguous language that has an appeal that transcends political boundaries, e.g. ‘political reform’, ‘tax reform’, ‘moral renewal’, ‘personal responsibility’ etc., it contributes to the notion that Mr. Brooks possesses a high degree of moral/political seriousness.}

^{Mr. Brooks is obsessed with out-of-wedlock births as a measure of declining American morality and with breathtakingly reductive notions of ‘upper tribe’ as opposed to ‘lower tribe’ conduct. Please note, the argumentative outcome is a foregone conclusion, all measures indicated as important to social stability and moral maintenance are middle class values of stability, wedded to the important value of sexual chastity, at least in the Conservative world view. Being that the ‘upper tribe’ values are determinative in this rhetorical context, of the necessary cultivation of public morality as imagined by Mr. Brooks aided by his ideological ally Mr. Murray then,}

^{in sum, the ‘upper tribe’ needs to teach the ‘lower tribe’ how to live, in the reductive terms that Mr. Brooks so loves, by a government forced association. This seems like a complete deviation from anything resembling ‘Conservatism’, least of all it’s Libertarian expression. But let me quote from the essay to provide some definitional frame:}

^{“The truth is, members of the upper tribe have made themselves phenomenally productive. They may mimic bohemian manners, but they have returned to 1950s traditionalist values and practices. They have low divorce rates, arduous work ethics and strict codes to regulate their kids.”}

^{“Members of the lower tribe work hard and dream big, but are more removed from traditional bourgeois norms. They live in disorganized, postmodern neighborhoods in which it is much harder to be self-disciplined and productive.”}

^{For this all to make something resembling coherence, one need only think of the ‘upper tribe’ as the 1% and the ‘lower tribe’ as the 99%.Then it becomes a matter of the ‘elites’ assuming their natural place of moral/economic superiority as teachers of the ‘lower order’. What is proving so frustrating to Mr. Brooks is that not many are listening to these preachments of an unsurprising Social Darwinism masqurading as Conservatism.}

^{Political Observer}

Schams El Ghoneimi

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/feb/23/can-we-have-democratic-e…

I take the title of my essay from Harold Bloom’s book title which neatly captures all of that is amiss with this essay by Mr. Brooks. I’ll take some key sentences and paragraphs and subject them to some examination and analysis.

(“The Simpson-Bowles report wasn’t just a policy document. For a few months, it expanded the national debate. Everybody seemed to realize that the country was beset by large challenges that could no longer be neglected: soaring debt, lagging growth, wage stagnation, family breakdown, political dysfunction.”)

Here is Mr. Brooks celebrating Simpson-Bowles, a report that advocated deep cuts to social programs, austerity, but no taxes on the financial industry. Mr. Bowles was a director for Morgan Stanley. Mr. Brooks thinks his readers are uninformed and unable to do some independent research. By the way, I don’t think that ‘family breakdown’ was part of the Simpson-Bowls mandate, but David can’t resist the felt ideological imperative: Mr. B. loves to ride his favorite hobbyhorses.

(“Suddenly, there was a sense of urgency. There were grand plans coming from all directions.”)

The political hot air produced by the debate on Simpson-Bowles as somehow the strong medicine needed to redeem our economic condition was enhanced by Mr. Brooks propagandizing.

(“It’s sad to compare that era of bigness to the medium-sized policy morsels that President Obama put in his State of the Union address. He had some big themes in the speech, but the policies were mere appetizers. The Republicans absurdly call Obama a European socialist on the stump, but the Obama we saw Tuesday night was a liberal incrementalist.”)

To call Barack Obama a ‘liberal incremetalist’ is so wide of the mark as to be quite laughable, hence the map of misreadings title. President Obama is a New Democrat.

(“In normal times, that sober, incremental approach would be admirable. In normal times, the best sort of change is gradual, flexible and constant. But these are not normal times. This is not Clinton’s second term, or Eisenhower’s. The fiscal train wreck is coming. The current U.S. growth model is insufficient. The American family and the American political system are cracking up.”)

We are in a crisis,these are not normal times, incrementalism won’t work, it is time for radical economic austerity and sweeping moral reform. There is no time to ponder, to hand wring over the blight that Free Market Economics brought, we must act to save ourselves from the ravages of ‘Liberalism’!

(“Legislatively, the president has to build a center-left governing majority that can overwhelm those Republicans who will never support him. That can be done only with ground-shifting policies. Politically, the president has to resonate with voters who feel the country is on the wrong track. Prudentially, the president has to prepare for the likelihood that the economy is going to hit another rough patch this year — if Greece leaves the euro or if the French banks implode or if the Iranian crisis comes to a head. If any of that happens, the desire for profound change would be overwhelming and the candidate with a few carefully targeted tax credits would get blown away.”)

There is no ‘Left’ or the possibility of a ‘center-left’ coalition, only cowardly New Democrats and nihilistic destructive Republicans. That is the sum of our politics, and Mr. B’s imitation of superior knowledge of those politics is pathetic and unconvincing.

(“This election is about averting national decline. The president is making a mistake in ceding the size advantage to the Republicans. The Republicans at least speak with epic alarm about the nation’s problems. They are unified behind big tax and welfare state reforms that would purge Washington and shake things up.”)

Here again Mr. Brooks voices one of his master ideas, national decline, a favorite of Conservatives, that ever approaching ‘decadence’ that haunts our national life, at least as imagined by our essayist. Is it real, is it a potential reality? His argument is that if austerity defined as the dismantling of what is left of the New Deal and higher taxes on middle income and poor people, and a continuing tax policy favoring the rich is not followed, to enhance our economic success in the 21^st Century, we are doomed to failure.

(“The president is making a mistake in running a Sunset Boulevard campaign: I am big; it’s my presidency that got small.”)

And you thought Mr. Brooks didn’t have a sense of humor or lacked a quick and native wit!

American Litterateur

http://www.cambridge.org/us/knowledge/isbn/item6562285/The%20Freud%20Files/?s…