Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Doomed Dems: Rolling Stone on the "Marriage" of David Brooks and the DLC

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 09:35 AM
Original message
Doomed Dems: Rolling Stone on the "Marriage" of David Brooks and the DLC
Edited on Sat Aug-05-06 09:37 AM by Totally Committed
"The DLC are the lowest kind of scum; we're talking about people who are paid by the likes of Eli Lilly and Union Carbide to go on television and call suburban moms and college kids who happen to be against the war commies and jihadists. On the ignominious-sellout scale, that's lower than doing PR for a utility that turns your grandmother's heat off at Christmas."


Excerpt:

Brooks is the perfect priest of American conservatism, and by conservatism I don't mean the bloodthirsty, gun-toting, go-back-to-Africa, welfare-bashing right-winger conservatism of the NRA and Sean Hannity and the Bible Belt. I mean the dickless, power-worshipping, good-consumer pragmatic conservatism of Times readers and those other Bobos in Paradise who have exquisitely developed taste in furniture, coffee and television programming but would rather leave the uglier questions of politics to more decisive people, so long as they aren't dangerous radicals like Michael Moore or Markos Zuniga.

That's why the marriage of David Brooks and the Democratic Leadership Council makes perfect sense. It's repugnant and the kind of thing one should shield young children from knowing about, but it makes perfect sense. Both prefer a policy of being "cautious soldiers," "incrementalists" who shun upheavals and vote the status quo, although they subscribe to this policy for different reasons. Brooks worships the status quo because he has no penis and wants to spend the rest of his life buying periwinkle bath towels without troubling interruptions of conscience. The DLC, a nonprofit created in the mid-1980s to help big business have a say in the Democratic Party platform, supports the status quo because they are paid agents of the commercial interests that define it.

Moreover, Brooks and the DLC have this in common: While they both frown on the open flag-waving and ostentatious religiosity of the talk-radio right-wing as being gauche and in bad form, they're only truly offended by people of their own background who happen to be idealistic.
Hence the recurring backlash by both against the various angry electoral challenges to the establishment of the Democratic Party -- including, most recently, the campaign of Ned Lamont, challenger to Joe Lieberman's Senate Seat in Connecticut.

Brooks's column of a few weeks ago on the subject of Lieberman/Lamont, titled "The Liberal Inquisition," was a masterpiece of yuppie paranoia. In an editorial line that would be repeated by other writers all across the country, Brooks blasted the "netroots" supporters of Lamont for being leftist extremists driven by "moral manias" and "mob psychology" to liquidate the "scarred old warhorse" Lieberman, whom he calls "transparently the most kind-hearted and well-intentioned of men." This is the archetypal suburban-conservative nightmare -- anonymous hordes of leftist boat-rockers viciously assaulting the champion of the decent people, who is just a really nice guy given to tending his lawn and minding his own business.

Entire Article:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11034127/the_low_post_why_the_democrats_are_still_doomed

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. Excellent!
About the egregious David Brooks: "Brooks worships the status quo because he has no penis and wants to spend the rest of his life buying periwinkle bath towels without troubling interruptions of conscience."

:rofl:

The best description of that weaselly yuppie I've seen yet!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanyev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yes, weaselly!
The words "smarmy weasel" usually come out of my mouth when I see him on TV and can't get to the mute fast enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. Ad hominems never win an argument
Edited on Sat Aug-05-06 09:59 AM by longship
I'm sorry that the author chose to stoop to this level.
So how is this any better than Brooks sleazy crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoPasaran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
2. I'm really turned off by this misogynistic language
Brooks worships the status quo because he has no penis and wants to spend the rest of his life buying periwinkle bath towels without troubling interruptions of conscience.

How does this differ from the Governater calling Dems "girlie men"? There's plenty of material to trash David Brooks without delving into his imagined taste in bath towels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Typical Rolling Stone
Though I'm glad to see them speaking out on these issues, its a disappointment to see them retreat to their usual misogyny. Is that kind of thing common in the rock & roll world, I wonder?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bjorn Against Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. I agree, I was put off by that as well
It suggests that males are superior. I don't think that is necessarily what the author intended, but that is the way it comes across.

That being said David Brooks is a right-wing blowhard with absolutely no appreciation for Democracy. His defense of Lieberman proved that. He was trying to suggest that the voters who would dare vote against his candidate were evil people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. I didn't take it that way,
Edited on Sat Aug-05-06 10:03 AM by ocelot
and I'm female. The way I interpreted the comment (which I found hilarious) was that Brooks is a self-absorbed, shallow, effete yuppie who is concerned only with appearances and propriety. I've known guys like that -- they weren't effeminate or gay (one was an old boyfriend; what was I thinking?); they were just totally into having the best stuff and not making waves or doing anything that might be construed as making waves or "extreme." My yuppie scum old boyfriend would have shopped for periwinkle towels, and would have made sure they were the expensive Egyptian cotton ones. If I hadn't seen photos of David Brooks I'd swear it was the same guy.

Anyhow, the point of the article, which should not be lost here, was that the DLC and its effete yuppie scum supporters is a tool of the corporations and does not reflect the views of actual Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. I'm a pretty ardent feminist, and I didn't take it that way, at all...
And I took that bath towels thing as an insult to the validity and weight of his opinions as well as a commentary on his values. Everyone should have more important things to them than their bath towels. I took it as a shot to him in that way... not in a "girlie-man" way.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #2
13. Re: The "bath towels" frivolity --
There is an entire thread about Hillary Clinton's clothes on this board:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2757127&mesg_id=2757127

When I first saw it, I thought THAT was a little sexist, so I get what you're saying, I just thought this wasn't meant as sexist as much as to suggest Brooks' "elitism".

Just a thought.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. There are many ways to make a point
without having to resort to that approach. It does seem small and petty, doesn't it? Certainly not a way to win supporters to an important POV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
15. I agree
Edited on Sat Aug-05-06 10:44 AM by TomClash
Why not trash David Brooks and the DLC by simply stating that they are happy to send middle and working class American kids off to die for the greater glory of BIG OIL, Empire, Israel and so on? Why not trash them for not sending their own kith and kin, exempting them from the murder and mayhem of war?

I loathe David Brooks but his penis and taste in bath towels have nothing to do with anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
4. I could swear last night he said he used to be a Democrat-New Hour
with jim lehrer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
7. I think Matt is wrong in referencing Markos in his piece. Kos supports DLC
preferred candidate, Mark Warner.

See, Markos was only against the DLC when its furthest LEFT member was running, but is FOR a DLC candidate from the furthest right of the centrists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. That was a thought of mine, as well...
But, I believe Warner is the DLC "fall-back" candidate of choice. The DLC preferred candidate, imo, is Hillary Clinton.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. Yet Clinton is left of Warner
Funny how the supposedly liberal netroots keep choosing the more centrist candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
12. And the Drive-By Truckers "World of Hurt" is the #1 song
It's good to see that Rolling Stone's political coveage is still as silly and pointless as ever....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhiteTara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
16. the road to hell is paved with good intentions, Joe
"transparently the most kind-hearted and well-intentioned of men." His intentions may be well meant, but his actions make me sick. I'll be glad to see the self serving war monger gone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
17. Noting the reaction to this article, I am left pondering
whether or not the Democrats have lost the ability to indulge the side of themselves that feels and revels in SHADENFREUDE.

We always play so politely, and speak so cogently, while rejecting any of the totally outrageous contempt amd language that the other side never thinks twice about using against us. Yes, I realize we want to feel superior to them -- but, at what cost?

Have we lost the will to sling mud when and if they deserve it?

Just wondering...

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
19. MATT TAIBBI has no credibility with me
after his hit piece on Wesley Clark in "The Nation."

Pure drivel.

The DLC is in decline, Lieberman tanked in 2004 and is about to lose his senate seat, and David Brooks is a joke, but Matt Taibbi is working his ass off to prop them up while pretending to be against them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC