So, I hadn't really been paying attention, but apparently the New York Times has gone off and hired a conservative columnist. "Conservative" is, of course, a relative term - the gentleman in question has very suspect right-wing credentials (NPR?!?). But David Brooks seems to have a pretty diverse resume - the Atlantic Monthly, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, the New Yorker. And he certainly qualifies as conservative (perhaps even fascist) when compared to some of the other long-time denizens of the Op-Ed page.
He first caught my eye on Saturday with his column "Lonely Campus Voices," in which he examines the hostility conservative graduate students can face in pursing the golden "tenure track." Academia is generally characterized as politically left-of-center, and an underlying theme to the piece is, maybe that is at least somewhat by design.
But I also enjoyed today's column quite a bit, "The Presidency Wars." His basic observation is that the prevailing language over how we talk about the President has devolved into base personal hatred. The fury and rage the left directs at Bush as a person is perhaps matched only by the fury and rage the right directed (and continues to direct) at the Clintons.
To bore you with a quote (you really should check out the articles though), "the quintessential new warrior scans the Web for confirmation of the president's villainy. He avoids facts that might complicate his hatred. He doesn't weigh the sins of his friends against the sins of his enemies. But about the president he will believe anything. He believes Ted Kennedy when he says the Iraq war was a fraud cooked up in Texas to benefit the Republicans politically. It feels so delicious to believe it, and even if somewhere in his mind he knows it doesn't quite square with the evidence, it's important to believe it because the other side is vicious, so he must be too.
The fundamental argument in the presidency wars is not that the president is wrong, or is driven by a misguided ideology. That's so 1980's. The fundamental argument now is that he is illegitimate. He is so ruthless, dishonest and corrupt, he undermines the very rules of civilized society. Many conservatives believed this about Clinton. Teddy Kennedy obviously believes it about Bush. Howard Dean declares, "What's at stake in this election is democracy itself."
The plight of those of us in the middle is, of course, the insanity we see on both sides. I don't know if I'll continue to like Mr. Brooks (two columns does not a fan make), but it is nice to see a moderate (oh, I mean conservative) voice on the back page.


