Brandeis awarded an honorary degree to commencement speaker David Brooks. Their article on the graduation ceremonies says that he is "renowned for centrist cultural commentary."
No he is not. He's a total shill for the Republicans and their various so-called values.
(Also pondering what it means that Yo-Yo Ma played a couple of numbers, but fellow honoree Paul Simon evidently did not.)
17 comments:
David Brooks is as centrist as it gets in the pundit class.
I beg to differ. His style is kindler and gentler, but he's just as wrong-headed and right-wing as can be.
Maybe it was the other Paul Simon. Oh, wait, he's dead.
I CHECKED, because the list of honorees says "Paul F. Simon." Well, maybe it was some unknown captain of industry, right? But no! It's the songwriter, being honored for his artistic career and philanthropy.
In case it wasn't clear, I was trying for a small and insignificant humorous comment.
It was clear and I was sort of attempting the same, but less successfully.
Ben Stein spoke at my graduation. I only stayed because he's funny.
Okay, Brooks is DEFINITELY preferable to Stein.
What's funny is I went to a VERY liberal college.
He stayed away from politics, did a Bueller bit, and made a pot-smoking joke. Kinda progressive, actually,
You spoke in capital letters. You looked upset.
Imagine a wry smile and some waving of the hands.
Word. How anyone could read that fawning tripe he wrote when the absurd Ryan budget came out and still believe he deserves a place in civilized policy discourse is beyond me (to cite only a recent example in his many years of offenses)...
From his column today:
"the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative."
Still think he's a tool of the right wing mob?
Yes, he is. Getting things right once a year doesn't make up for the other 100 columns of slavishly following the party line.
Not to mention, look at the substance of his column, which includes this:
"If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases."
Trillions of unnecessary cuts. We should be spending more, not making cuts, during the continued economic slump. See Krugman, DeLong, etc. for the details of why.
If the position is that he is a shill for Republicans, then I just don't see how you can stick to that in the face of him writing, "The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency".
Or, the scathing (for him) condemnation he gave of the GOP at AEI a while back:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKkCHA2F9kk&feature=player_embedded
Brooks writes about 90 columns a year for the Times. If 85 to 88 of them are Republican party line and 2 to 5 are critical of the party - why, yes, I'll continue to think of him as a shill.
Post a Comment