I wondered what had gotten into David Brooks, the token conservative op-ed columnist for the New York Times. The fact that his op-ed today praised Barack Obama in warm terms wasn’t in itself so surprising: Obama’s schtick is one of high minded unity and trans-partisan hope, starkly in contrast to the usual “which of you shall I eat first, you devils” brand of anti-conservative demagoguery so common to his peers. Many find it refreshing.
No, what stretched my eyes was Brooks’ fulsome gushing over Ted Kennedy, the liberal “lion of the Senate.” Oh, there’d been some trouble in Kennedy’s past, Brooks tactfully conceded, but:
After his callow youth, Kennedy came to realize that life would not give him the chance to be president. But life did ask him to be a senator, and he has embraced that role and served that institution with more distinction than anyone else now living — as any of his colleagues, Republican or Democrat, will tell you.
Well, I suppose Brooks should know and Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment. But he keeps that up, and the columnist is not going to get any more invitations to the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy cotillions. Nor bake sales neither.
Fortunately, I have Matthew Yglesias to set me straight:
(One) important driving force behind the sophisticated right’s praise of Obama is a simple belief that he’ll probably lose in the end. Then, when Clinton is nominated, having praised Obama to the skies they can lament that once again — sigh — the Democratic Party has let them down and they have no choice but to vote for the Republicans.
Only two possibilities exist: Either I didn’t get the memo, or I am not a member of the “sophisticated right.” Those are apparently the only options allowed us once we’ve debunked such sophisticated strawmen as “character”, “sincerity” and “humility” in preference to calculation, mendaciousness and ravenous, vaulting ambition.
Having thus been stripped of their illusions, sophisticated conservatives are now free to vote for HRH or – if not her – whomever it is that does eventually win the Democratic Party’s nomination. Just as they were apparently supposed to all along.
Got it.
I’m “right” sophisti-kated and I didn’t see hide nor hair of dat memerandy nether! Jethro? Check the RFD box. Jethro!
b2
I see no significant policy difference between HRC, BHO and JRE, just differing modes of screechy, smarmy and ambulance chasing combined with toxic levels of self regard. I wanted Fred Thompson to be the POTUS, apparently a little more than he did. With him gone, I’ll try to do the adult thing, stay informed and involved and then pull the lever in November for whoever is running against HRC. God forbid the GOP loses, because I’d have to take a hot glue gun to both ears to avoid hearing HRC for the next four years.
“[A] simple belief that he’ll probably lose in the end.”
In general, I agree, but it’s dangerous to think that too often, else we get complacent, and then wonder why we’re on the ground eating the dust.
Maybe Brooks is less worried about invites to the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy cotillions and bake sales than he is about being included at Times swill-ins with the swells.