I know, I know, I've said it before, but...ugh.
David Brooks, on the who knows what the fuck he's really talking about, 'cause he sure as hell doesn't "success" of conservatives over liberals, in the marketplace of ideas:
In the early days of National Review, many of the senior editors didn't even speak to one another. Whittaker Chambers declared that the writings of Ayn Rand, a hero of the more libertarian right, reeked of fascism and the gas chambers. Rand called National Review "the worst and most dangerous magazine in America."
Gentle reader, from those words, would you not walk away with the idea that Whittaker Chambers and Ayn Rand were senior editors of National Review who "didn't even speak to one another?" If you did, then you are a victim of David Brooks and his lack of professionalism, as well as that of his editor at the New York Times, who did not catch that mistake and force Brooks to rewrite that paragraph. It's too bad there's no such thing as journalistic malpractice, 'cause if there were, David Brooks couldn't afford the malpractice insurance.
Oh, you may ask, and why am I so confidently attacking Brooks here? After all, who am I? I do not write for the Times, after all, nor, I'll admit, have I ever been asked. Well, I'll tell you why: because it is a simple matter of fact -- fact, not ideology -- that Ayn Rand never had anything to do with National Review, ever, let alone having been a "senior editor," or any other flavor of editor. Chambers's vitriol was expended in his notorious "review" of Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Not only that, but Rand never regarded herself as a "conservative," or as being part of any sort of conservative "movement."
So what's the value of the examples Brooks brings to bear, or of the argument he is trying to present, or of his competence in presenting either one? Why is he paid to opine as the house conservative for the New York Times? Why should anyone bother to read him?
Why indeed? You tell me.
Posted by Craig Ceely at April 5, 2005 11:26 PMDo you believe he's writing for an audience unfamiliar with Miss Rand? I think anyone who would read that and come away with the idea that Miss Rand was a magazine editor probably opened the paper looking for the funny pages.
The example is relevant. Miss Rand is, as the text states, a hero of the libertarian right. The National Review savaging Atlas Shrugged could be compared to The Nation ripping apart Earth in the Balance. Didn't happen. The left simply don't work that way.
Posted by: McGroarty at April 6, 2005 08:19 AMI think that maybe you should think again. I know that I would be far less likely to vote straight "R" every time if I felt that a particularly passionate faction of our party had hi-jacked the entire agenda. While pro-choice myself, I can understand how the pro-life people consider abortion the taking of a human life, which it is, and murder (which is a step I am unwilling to take). If this wing of the party had as much control as the green left continues to take in the Dem party (Howard Dean, John Conyers, etc, I would leave.
To give an example of what I mean, consider that the Democratic party is adamantly opposed to the creation of high-paying union jobs in ANWR. Seems to be opposed to the steel jobs in W VA, steel which goes into SUVs BTW. The Dems cannot choose between the workers in auto production in the US, and the green left, which is made up of high-income white people like Howard Dean, and the masses it used to identify with, of which I once was a part. Does the Democratic Party make any attempt to resolve this fundimental divide, or will it continue to ignore the elephant in the room as it shrinks further and further, crying wolf at each election about this or that. I think that maybe you should think about the column again.
I would have a much harder time voting for Republicans if I believed that the Dems were the ones who really cared about those who want to work for a living at a decent wage. It seems to me though that it is the Republicans who do. The Dems seem to believe that their future lies in demographic changes, and increased handouts, not in adjusting their policies to the new realities of free flowing information (read: you lost control of the media) And the simple, apparent to all but the most obtuse, fact that command economies do not produce the widespread wealth that market economies do. And that being against everything is no way to lead a country.
Posted by: brb at April 6, 2005 09:08 AMEarth in the Balance. Another good example. How could the left ignore what a piece of crap that book was, and what a second-rate mind Al Gore has, and keep its credibility? Well, it couldn't.
And BTW, I don't think all liberals have second-rate minds. Clinton certainly didn't.
Posted by: brb at April 6, 2005 09:13 AM