I always knew David Brooks was an asshole ....

yeah

Trying to visualize Brooks looking tough and macho

shall I post that photo again

Oh Noooooooooo

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/opinion/brooks-the-piketty-phenomenon.html?hpw&rref=opinion

Many people join the political left driven by a concern for the poor. But, over the past several years, the Democratic Party has talked much more about the middle class than the poor. Meanwhile, progressive political movements like Occupy Wall Street directed their fervor at the top 1 percent. Progressive movies and books have focused their attention on conspiracy and oligarchy at the top, not “Grapes of Wrath” or “How the Other Half Lives” stories at the bottom.

This is natural. The modern left is led by smart professionals — academics, activists, people in the news media, the arts and so on — who tend to live in and around coastal cities.

If you are a young professional in a major city, you experience inequality firsthand. But the inequality you experience most acutely is not inequality down, toward the poor; it’s inequality up, toward the rich.

idk wtf he is tryina say exactly

this bloke is seriously a professional writer?

that middle class/bourgie status anxiety is unworthy of whatever legacy Dems have, and it is the face of the new elitist left? just by looking at the quote, not the article

because rich assholes haven't had their asses kissed and their taxes cut enough in the past 15 years . . .
"This is a moment when progressives have found their worldview and their agenda. This move opens up a huge opportunity for the rest of us in the center and on the right. First, acknowledge that the concentration of wealth is a concern with a beefed up inheritance tax. Second, emphasize a contrasting agenda that will reward growth, saving and investment, not punish these things, the way Piketty would. Support progressive consumption taxes not a tax on capital. Third, emphasize that the historically proven way to reduce inequality is lifting people from the bottom with human capital reform, not pushing down the top. In short, counter angry progressivism with unifying uplift." . . . a la sean hannity and rush limbaugh

fuck david brooks forever, how does such a simple man have such influence in the world

also fuck the rich forever, tax them into poverty then redistribute some of it back to them as welfare

he doesnt have influence

nope, no influence whatsoever. meanwhile in the US

tell me how he has influence

aside from people talking bout his dumb ideas--how does david brooks promote real change and help enact it

*folds hands together in a steeple, leans back in chair*

he teaches at yale, he writes two op-eds a week for the ny times, he squares off with david shields on a regular basis, he's on the sunday talk shows every weekend. i realize that's less influence than we here at ILX wield, but it's still something

the gop will never ever ever repeal the estate tax. it was a massive cause celebre during the bush administration when they cut it down to what it is now.

yeah that isn't influence

First, acknowledge that the concentration of wealth is a concern with a beefed up inheritance tax. Second, emphasize a contrasting agenda that will reward growth, saving and investment, not punish these things, the way Piketty would. Support progressive consumption taxes not a tax on capital.

This is so bizarrely contradictory that I can only read it two ways: (1) he doesn't understand what the fuck he's talking about or (2) he's saying "let's throw them a bone with the inheritance tax while not actually addressing concentration of wealth"

x my own p

also realize brooks is on npr all the time and some people only get there news and opinion from it

he does all those things but how do we know everyone he comes into contact with isn't saying "this dude is full of it"

yes, everyone he comes into contact with says "this dude is full of it"

David Brooks talks out of like three to five different sides of his mouth in any given column

I thought I saw somewhere Obama reads Brooks' column regularly and values his viewpoint, it was a depressing moment, hope I was imagining it

Obama does read it, I wonder how he feels about being called a wimp by noted hardcore alpha male David Brooks

sad that he reads/"values" Brooks's opinion, but somehow that makes sense to me, maybe even explains something about Obama

this guy reminds me of when the onion runs one of those editorial/thinkpieces on politics by a seven-year-old or whatever.

xpost

i think that's obama in populist mode, i.e. "i, too, read these brazenly mediocre columns in the NYT."

"I'm just a regular guy, I read the same smug priveleged assholes as joe lunchpail!"

lol reading

I give credit to Brooks for even supporting the inheritance tax. I also think he has a fair point that if the inequality issue is nothing more than the upper-middle-class envying the upper-upper-middle class, then maybe it's not such a big deal. However, obviously the inequality issue is about a lot more than that. Brooks doesn't mention anything about how this dynamic affects the distribution of political power, or the social dynamic in a society in which inherited wealth begins to play a large role. Maybe because he doesn't buy Piketty's arguments that we are headed that way. But his breezy dismissal of Piketty's careful arguments lacks substance.

I also think he has a fair point that if the inequality issue is nothing more than the upper-middle-class envying the upper-upper-middle class, then maybe it's not such a big deal.

How is this a "fair point" given no real evidence that that's the case?

However, obviously the inequality issue is about a lot more than that. Brooks doesn't mention anything about how this dynamic affects the distribution of political power, or the social dynamic in a society in which inherited wealth begins to play a large role.

But this is the big DUH point about the whole issue that every conservative pundit DELIBERATELY glosses over, reducing inequality to "I eat at Per Se you eat at Outback, I drive a Rolls you drive a Ford, what's the big deal?"

also I'd quibble with "begins to play a large role"

basically stop being "fair" to david fucking brooks

Another signature Brooks attempt to incisively analyze "the left" that is almost wholly projection

Also lots of clunky half-hearted 8th grade book report prose in here

Well, of course, this book is going to set off a fervor that some have likened to Beatlemania.

The book is very good and interesting, but it has pretty obvious weaknesses.

Piketty predicts that growth will be low for a century, though there seems to be a lot of innovation around.

I don't know why it's hard for me to hate Brooks as much as he clearly deserves.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2014/05/i_dont_know_whether_this_point050439.php#

Brooks says Simpson-Bowles-like commissions push populist reforms. Author of the piece questions Brooks' understanding of populism and democracy

Author of the piece questions Brooks' understanding of populism and democracy

No surprise. Brooks said a month ago on NPR with one of his trademark embarrassed chuckles that he wished we were ruled by elites.

His favorite books: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/23/opinion/brooks-really-good-books-part-i.html?rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=origin®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=article

David Brooks has taken his valuable NYTimes column inches to inform his readers that George Orwell and Leo Tolstoy are good writers.

His other lesson for writers, even opinion writers, is that it’s a mistake to think you are an activist, championing some movement. That’s the path to mental stagnation. The job is just to try to understand what’s going on.

But I digress, next on my list of white male writers...

People are always asking me what my favorite books are.

instant lol

Hi, I'm David Brooks

I've read books.

he wished we were ruled by elites.

it must be awesome to have your wishes fulfilled so easily

i thought this was a lovely brooks column:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/06/opinion/brooks-president-obama-was-right.html

He spent his NPR segment praising the president.

i was kinda down on this decision. since after the shalit trade i've been feeling very cynical about these prisoner swaps (and brooks only refs it obliquely but sometimes you don't even get a living soldier in return). but he makes i think a very rational and on some level moving case about why it's honorable to do so.

you needed david brooks for that? jesus

Despite all our polarization, we do accept the election results, even when the other party wins

o rly