Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

No one could have predicted…

Republicans: slavery is when you own me. freedom is when I own you.

Lick the third rail, it tastes like chocolate!

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

I might just take the rest of the day off and do even more nothing than usual.

It’s a good piece. click on over. but then come back!!

One of our two political parties is a cult whose leader admires Vladimir Putin.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

Cancel the cowardly Times and Post and set up an equivalent monthly donation to ProPublica.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

Democracy cannot function without a free press.

People identifying as christian while ignoring christ and his teachings is a strange thing indeed.

I’d like to think you all would remain faithful to me if i ever tried to have some of you killed.

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

Books are my comfort food!

Welcome to day five of every-bit-as-bad-as-you-thought-it-would-be.

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

Let the trolls come, and then ignore them. that’s the worst thing you can do to a troll.

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

We know you aren’t a Democrat but since you seem confused let me help you.

You are here: Home / 2. Put your junk in that box

2. Put your junk in that box

by | 83 Comments

This post is in: ,

My therapist said to stop reading Bobo (she said he’s like a disease without any cure), but sometimes you sick bastards send me links to his columns and I can’t help myself. Here’s a bit of his latest anti-partisanship screed:

Now most TV and radio talk is minute political analysis, while talk of culture has shriveled. This change is driven by people who, absent other attachments, have fallen upon partisanship to give them a sense of righteousness and belonging.

This emotional addiction can lead to auto-hysteria.

I’m not quite sure what he’s talking about since there are numerous late night talk shows (e.g. Letterman, Leno) that rarely discuss minute political analysis. Moreover, Bobo’s many mash notes to W in the early 2000s sound an awful lot like the writing some of someone who has fallen upon partisanship to give him a sense of righteousness and belonging.

But that’s not my point here. What I’d like to know is this: why is it better when someone falls upon very serious independent non-partisanship to give them a sense of righteousness and belonging, as Brooks does now that he’s playing Moderate Man?

People as a group are self-righteous and predictable. This is doubly true of pundits, who, whether they admit it or not, are almost always easily described. Could be loyal conservative. Less often it’s loyal liberal. Increasingly often, it’s Slate pitchesque: gay but conservative, nominally supportive of Democrats but pro-austerity and pro-war (this last one covers a wide swath of contemporary pundits). There seems to be a new development where pundits simply throw out a seemingly randomly generated stream of Slate pitches, unmoored from any political philosophy or school of thought.

And of course, many media elites adopt what Jay Rosen calls “The View From Nowhere”:

In pro journalism, American style, the View from Nowhere is a bid for trust that advertises the viewlessness of the news producer. Frequently it places the journalist between polarized extremes, and calls that neither-nor position “impartial.” Second, it’s a means of defense against a style of criticism that is fully anticipated: charges of bias originating in partisan politics and the two-party system. Third: it’s an attempt to secure a kind of universal legitimacy that is implicitly denied to those who stake out positions or betray a point of view. American journalists have almost a lust for the View from Nowhere because they think it has more authority than any other possible stance

In the view from nowhere, both sides do it…by definition.

The Slate-pitchers and moderate independent non-partisans like to portray themselves as of no party or clique and therefore superior to those who are of a party of clique. But it’s silly: David Brooks is just as predicable (if not more predictable) than E. J. Dionne or Charles Krauthammer. Charles Lane (a self-proclaimed “ostensibly nonpartisan pundit”) is even more predictable. Say what you what will about the tenets of overt wingnuts, they don’t involve writing fifteen articles a year about electric cars. Of course, Lane and much of the rest of the former-TNR crowd mostly criticizes what they sees as the excesses of liberalism because…that’s what Marty Peretz wanted at TNR back in the day. How is that in any way interesting or unexpected?

The way modern punditry works is this: the pundit choose a respectable box for him (almost always) or her self. Could be a Slate pitch special snowflake box (think Megan McArdle, Gregg Easterbrook, Sully, etc.) or it could be one of the standards, such as the view from nowhere or even-the-liberal-New-Republic. Then whatever dumb shit they have to say — John Kerry will run in 2016, the Dolphins will go 12-4, protesters should be beaten with 2x4s — is delivered in this respectable box and therefore demands to be taken seriously. Angry partisans like you and me should never be taken seriously, even if we’re usually right about things.

Reader Interactions

83Comments

  2. 2.

    The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik

    Per always, to the media, it’s better to to be wrong for the right reasons than right for the “wrong” reasons. And sometimes, even better than being right for the right reasons.

    I swear to god, if “Liberals” said 2+2=4 and Conservatives said 2+2=22, these assholes would split the difference and say it must mean 2+2=13.

  3. 3.

    geg6

    Speaking of assholes, what is Friedman flogging these days? He must have a new book or something because I was channel surfing after work yesterday and came across the MoU pontificating earnestly on a couple of the channels. I didn’t stop to listen because I really didn’t want to be sticking chopsticks in my ears right at that moment.

  6. 6.

    piratedan

    case in point, the Republicans have been on the wrong side of damn near every fucking thing since 2000 and yet they still dominate the viewpoints given serious consideration in talk shows and question framing.

    Iraq – wrong
    Bin Ladin – wrong
    economy – wrong
    gun control – wrong

    really think about it, we’ve had four fucking years of austerity, wall street is setting records and we’re still trudging along with jobs.

    90% of the country is in support of tightening gun control laws, can’t even get national background check standards in play.

    ad fucking infinitum…. and outside of an Alan Grayson moment, everyone is scared shitless to go on TV and say this out loud and unequivocally.

    While I loathe the R’s with the fury of a white hot sun, sometimes my disdain for the lack of intestinal fortitude on the Dem side sickens me. Yet each time I start to get mad at them, I am reminded on who is spinning and framing the story, who’s determining what side of the box I get to see and I begin to wonder if pitchforks and guillotines are in order.

  7. 7.

    cmorenc

    @Hawes:

    Just a hunch, but I bet ET and Inside Edition outdraw The Snooze Hour. For that matter, they probably outdraw the nightly news.

    But…but I’m so irresistably curious whether barefoot Julia Roberts is showing a “baby bump”. OOPS! I wasn’t supposed to let on that I caught the few opening minutes of ET last night, albeit unwillingly as background noise to a conversation I was having with my wife.

  12. 12.

    The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik

    @piratedan:

    Don’t forget climate issues.

    Majority believes in GW, dominant viewpoint is “DIE GREEN FASCISM DIE!”

  13. 13.

    Elizabelle

    OT, but how rude:

    CAPE TOWN — Burglars broke into the Cape Town home of Nobel Peace laureate Desmond Tutu while he was in Johannesburg to attend the memorial service for Nelson Mandela, a Tutu family spokesman said on Wednesday.

  14. 14.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    nominally supportive of Democrats but pro-austerity and pro-war (this last one covers a wide swath of contemporary pundits).

    I think the pro-war stuff has faded a bit, at least among “centrists”, but pro-austerity isn’t even an opinion any more. It’s the starting point of any discussion of politics/policy. I see it as a class issue, like the total absence of any discussion of Medicaid expansion as part of the relative merits of Obamacare. In fairness, I have seen a number of articles by “straight reporters” where the health/economic issues of the middle/lower-middle class are addressed. The Washington Post had a good long read a couple months ago about the effect of food stamp cuts in Appalachia. But the Sunday shows and the spreading Morning Joe/Politico culture, especially in/since the Age of Russert, take their cues from FNC and the RNC. See also the total absence of climate change as a topic.

  16. 16.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Certified Mutant Enemy: Rachel Maddow did a great bit a couple years back, after O’Reilly did some childishly triumphant segment on how he was beating her in the ratings. I don’t think Honey BooBoo or Duck Dynasty was on the air yet, but she pointed out that even the alleged ratings juggernaut of al Foxeera gets its ass kicked by TLC reality shows and the real estate and cooking channels. Bill-O responded with extreme altitudes of dudgeon, ostentatiously addressing as RM “Madame”, and she countered with a similar segment calling him “m’Lord”, “Monsieur”, and I think “monsignor”.

  17. 17.

    The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    It’s the failing upward of ideas: the more discredited an idea is academically, the more ‘credible’ it’s treated by the media it seems, as if to offset the ‘academic’ viewpoint or some stupid shit.

  19. 19.

    Bill Arnold

    …even if we’re usually right about things.

    My measure of a pundit is whether they have predictive value, and in general whether they’re usually right, or usually wrong; doesn’t matter except that there extra irritation reading reliable wrongness and inverting it.
    D. Brooks tries to be interesting, which is a different thing. It’s a worthy goal, and he would probably object to being called predictable, and wonder what he’s doing wrong.

  20. 20.

    srv

    I agree with your therapist and Bobo. You FP at a blog that does minute political analysis and has shriveled coverage of culture. Therefore you cling to your echo-chamber clique of hippie-punching hippies and are trapped in a auto-hysteria loop.

    For penance, you should offer to edit McMegan’s culinary book.

  21. 21.

    Mike E

    In pro journalism, American style, the View from Nowhere is a…

    T-shirt/bumper sticker FAIL. Needs to be snappy or the bobos of the world keep on writing their bullshit with impunity.

    How about, “Argle-bargle BOTH SIDES blrbly SUCK. ON. THIS.” over a sorta Mt Rushmore picture of Brooks/Friedman/Cohen/McArgle? No? Any ideas?

  23. 23.

    piratedan

    @Certified Mutant Enemy: TY was simply working with the current state of affairs which apparently works under the idea that anything politically pre 2008 should be consigned to the Nickelodeon Network in regards to having any relevance….

    @The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik: and on and on and on… minority rights, immigration reform, LGBT issues, womens issues, education… it’s appalling when you look at the laundry list of fail and the fact that ANYONE still votes for these kitten skull-fucking revanchists shows just how well the media and personal enmity still shape our politics and stunt our social progress.

  24. 24.

    Hunter Gathers

    I can only imagine the wail that Bobo’s going to emit when Governor and noted Sopranos enthusiast Chris Christie fails to become President. He’s going to completely flip out when the country decides that it doesn’t want to give up Social Security in exchange for the honor of making Christie a sammich.

    Don’t get him started on bridge closings, either. Shutting down traffic on the nation’s busiest bridge is clearly the principled, moderate response when capofamiglia Christie is disrespected by the mayor of Fort Lee.

  25. 25.

    MattF

    So, why not favor Republicans? Because politics matters. It’s not just some weirdly unlikely causal chain– e.g., the reason we don’t have immigration reform is not Adam Lanza, it’s Republican politicians saying and doing what Republican voters want. Brooks et. al. avoid responsibility for their actual political acts by claiming that there’s some other– ineffable, inexpressible– quality that really matters. But, folks, it’s politics, like it or not.

  29. 29.

    Roger Moore

    Angry partisans like you and me should never be taken seriously, even if we’re usually right about things.

    This is the most important point. Modern punditry has completely divorced itself from any kind of claim of accuracy. Pundits become Very Serious by adopting the right attitude, and can only lose their VSP status by giving it up. Anyone who doesn’t have the right attitude is Not Serious, or even shrill. Until predictive accuracy is taken at least as seriously as attitude, Very Serious pundits will not be worth reading.

  30. 30.

    DWD

    Don’t forget Fournier, the most predictable pundit in DC. When’s the last time he wrote something that wasn’t either scolding extremists of both sides or complaining that Obama isn’t leading?

  31. 31.

    Matt McIrvin

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    See also the total absence of climate change as a topic.

    To be fair, environmentalism doesn’t mesh all that well with advocating expansionary policy to help the poor: in the long term, the way to save the biosphere is probably to reject growth entirely and embrace some form of austerity across the whole economy, which is way more radical than liberals like, say, Krugman would probably advocate.

    But there are ways to make it fit. In the short to medium-term, moving to a less carbon-intensive economy will take a lot of infrastructure spending. The impacts of climate change will also fall disproportionately on the poor, who can’t spend their way out of natural disasters.

    Rich people have bigger carbon footprints than poor ones, but dollar for dollar it might be the other way around, unfortunately for the same reason that spending on the poor is stimulatory. To limit environmental effects you want consumption taxes, like high gasoline taxes; but those are regressive. So these policies have to go hand in hand with some progressive ones just for the sake of fairness. I figure that if we were to level out income and wealth to some degree first, it would make environmental consumption taxes that much fairer to implement, since the pain would be shared more equally.

  32. 32.

    Rex Everything

    The way modern punditry works is this: the pundit choose a respectable box for him (almost always) or her self. Could be a Slate pitch special snowflake box (think Megan McArdle, Gregg Easterbrook, Sully, etc.) or it could be one of the standards, such as the view from nowhere or even-the-liberal-New-Republic. Then whatever dumb shit they have to say — John Kerry will run in 2016, the Dolphins will go 12-4, protesters should be beaten with 2x4s — is delivered in this respectable box and therefore demands to be taken seriously. Angry partisans like you and me should never be taken seriously, even if we’re usually right about things.

    That really is a very good analysis, true as far as it goes… But the problem with you angry partisans is the way you turn around and hate Leftier-than-Thou types for being purer than you, even though we’re always right about all things.

  33. 33.

    jl

    @geg6:

    ” what is Friedman flogging these days? ”

    Dean Baker at his CEPR ‘Beat the Press’ blog has corrected several of Friedman’s most recent mistakes in economic analysis, so that is a good place to check.

    As for this Bobo column, it was a pretty bland phone-in job, and I think it actually made a few good, if scattershot points, before dissolving into confusion and non sequitur.

    My first strategy in trying to decode a Brooks column is to look for a social engineering attempt that serves the purposes of his paymasters, which I think becomes clear towards the end of this column. Namely: degrade and sneear at political engagement, brand it as ‘auto-‘ something which brings to mind self-indulgence, immaturity, self-absorption and masturbation. And wisely tells readers that to have real lives, they shouldn’t pay much mind to political debates and issues.

    He advertises the dangers of cynicism with an air horn at the top of the column, then sneaks in a much more corrosive version through the back door at the end.

    I clap with one hand for this bland phone in. For a connoisseur of fake centrist faux reasonable punditry Brooks makes soggy cardboard delicious, thought it is probably an acquired taste.

  34. 34.

    Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader

    I have an opinion about cumfelchers like Brooks but it isn’t valid because I can’t couch it in the lofty rhetoric of faux nonpartisanship.

  35. 35.

    Roger Moore

    @The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik:

    I swear to god, if “Liberals” said 2+2=4 and Conservatives said 2+2=22, these assholes would split the difference and say it must mean 2+2=13.

    Not at all. They’d say “2+2: opinions differ”, and bring on “experts” from both sides to debate the issue. Simply explaining both positions and not taking any position is even more neutral and less committal than splitting the difference. After all, if one side turns out to be completely correct, you can claim you reported their side of the issue.

  37. 37.

    JPL

    Some asshole quizzing Sebelius just said talking to her was like talking to the Republic of North Korea. I’m not sure who it was but think it was a republican from IL.

  39. 39.

    some guy

    the “View From Nowhere” in Rosen’s apt phrase describes about 1/2 the commenters of the BJ Center Right Fight Club. mention Greenwald, or Syria, or the drone war, and see how quickly they assume the center-right crouch at this blog.

  41. 41.

    jl

    @Matt McIrvin: I disagree. There was a big push among some environmental groups for a crash energy efficiency program as a stimulus measure at the beginning of Obama’s first term. This would have created a lot of jobs for building trades, would have given a big boost toe technical schools and community colleges across the country, and subsidized money saving renovations that would have been a lot more valuable in poor neighborhoods than wealltier ones.

    Our fossil fuel economy has serious health effects in poor neighborhoods, particularly in respiratory disease. And poor communities know that, at least here in the SF Bay Area, where there has been a lot of agitation for control of diesel exhaust near ports and warehouse districts and regarding poor regulation resulting in serious air pollution problems around oil refineries and outdated power plants. So, I think your conclusion is too glib.

  42. 42.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @Rex Everything:

    even though we’re always right about all things.

    Sounds a great deal like the attitude of that vile toad, Ralph Nader, who worked tirelessly in 2000 to give us the deserting coward to totally fuck up the country in the hope of being the knight in white armor to rush in and save the day.

    Hasn’t happened, won’t happen.

  43. 43.

    Mike E

    @Matt McIrvin: AAA measures miles traveled and notes a drop due to gas being relatively more expensive, despite the price being <$5/gal. This, coupled with stagnant wages, has reduced a major source of CO2 which is a good thing. However, those of us who don't live in/near centers which provide decent public transportation cannot easily take the logical next step away from personal automobiles. I'm staring nervously at my bicycle…

    ETA …that vile toad, Al Gore, who worked tirelessly in 2000 to give us the deserting coward….
    @VDE: Fixt’d for accuracy.

  44. 44.

    Belafon

    I wouldn’t really lump TNR with Brooks. TNR attempts to be the part of Democrats that says “have you REALLY thought through it enough?” They’re the serious version of when I ask my kids “Are you sure? Are you sure your sure? Are you sure your sure your sure?”

    Brooks has exactly one purpose in life: To make conservative statements that sound just moderate enough to get him invited to cocktail parties where he and other people try to find the center of the country, which Brooks believes is where he stands.

  46. 46.

    Cris (without an H)

    @cmorenc: OOPS! I wasn’t supposed to let on that I caught the few opening minutes of ET last night, albeit unwillingly as background noise to a conversation I was having with my wife.

    A conversation about Julia Roberts’ baby bump?

  49. 49.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @piratedan:

    the Republicans have been on the wrong side of damn near every fucking thing since 2000

    As Seanly pointed out, they’ve been on the wrong side of just about everything since the end of the Eisenhower administration. And Eisenhower was a serious outlier, given that he viewed any attempts to kill Social Security as outright madness.

  52. 52.

    sparrow

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: This will change as soon as becomes blindingly obvious that climate change is happening. Then the same fools will all of a sudden say “we were always in agreement on this, but really, who minds milder winters anyway, amiright? Don’t you dare increase the gas tax. And screw science funding. I’m only gonna live another 30 years, anyway.”

  53. 53.

    Mustang Bobby

    If Mr. Brooks is so worked up about the minutae of overanalysis by pundits, why doesn’t he give up his weekly gigs on NPR and PBS? Take one for the team, Bobo.

  55. 55.

    slippy

    I can’t stand reading Brooks because I studied hard and worked hard at learning to write, and that fucktard buffoon is getting paid a mint every week to shart out something I wouldn’t even qualify as a paragraph, let alone an essay worthy of reading, considering, and responding to.

    Let’s never mind his mendacious horseshit that passes as content: his ability to write things that are consistent and credible is nonexistent. He’s a total fucking hack, and how he has this job I have no idea. Except to note that he fellates the establishment and the status quo quite vigorously.

  59. 59.

    Rex Everything

    @Belafon: And Tom Friedman is wrong about everything, but his mindset has ruled Washington for 20 years.

    Yes, change is in the air—but when it comes, your Gore/Lieberman bumper sticker won’t get you into heaven anymore.

    Purity is the new black!

  60. 60.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @some guy: If you think BJ is “center right”, you’re a good example of why I quit reading Eschaton, the delusion that the Left-Blogosphere reflects the American electorate.

  62. 62.

    Mandalay

    What I’d like to know is this: why is it better when someone falls upon very serious independent non-partisanship to give them a sense of righteousness and belonging, as Brooks does now that he’s playing Moderate Man?

    Your shtick is getting really old and tired.

  63. 63.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @Rex Everything:

    Your purity sensors are not in need of recalibration. It’s that like a semi-stopped clock, sometimes they have some pretty good insights into the way people think.

    Also, they delightfully mocked World of Warcraft in one episode, so there’s that too.

    Besides, anyone who mocks $cientology can’t be all bad. Now, if they’d just apply the same standard to the $cientology of the 19th century, they’d be on their way!

  66. 66.

    Paul in KY

    @Mike E: VP Gore certainly made mistakes, several of them serious, during the 2000 run, but to label him a ‘vile toad’ is a bit much.

    Nader, however, is & was a vile toad. If I ever see him, I will try to kick him in his balls.

  67. 67.

    Belafon

    @Rex Everything: Swing, and a miss.

    You seem to be confusing goals with attainability. There is probably not a single thing you support that I would be opposed to. But you have to figure out how to get enough Congresspeople to pass what you want passed, and they have to stay in there long enough to either override the courts or get the right people in the courts.

    This country was designed to allow conservatives to have an unfair advantage. How are you going to work around that?

  70. 70.

    Rex Everything

    @Villago Delenda Est: I agree. It’s also good to keep in mind their memorable evocation of the fact that, regardless of one’s political leanings, Atlas Shrugged is a complete piece of shit, every last word of which is garbage.

    It would be nice if they had a bit more than that little clue, though.

  71. 71.

    Rex Everything

    @Belafon:

    You seem to be confusing goals with attainability.

    You seem to be confusing goals-attainability with what star you’re steering by.

    Or, maybe, we don’t really have much of an argument? Today, anyway?

  73. 73.

    Alex S.

    I think in that first quote, Brooks is lamenting that there are no social conservatives spelling doom on society on the TV anymore. Those late night talkers, even Leno, are all sort of hippies.

    I think it would be funny if your story about the therapist was true, and that your therapist was a totebagger.

  74. 74.

    Alex S.

    @geg6:

    For some reason, I thought of Bloomberg’s legacy this week and came to the conclusion that it won’t last beyond Tom Friedman’s op-ed page.

  77. 77.

    Mandalay

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    I don’t see anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to stay here.

    Ah, the familiar retort from the tribe when you criticize an OP here….if you can’t play nice in the sandbox and mindlessly go along with whatever drivel is posted then go somewhere else.

    If you find Doug’s obsession with Brooks fascinating and enlightening then bully for you, but I find it boring. If you can’t handle that then YOU can go somewhere else.

  79. 79.

    Matt McIrvin

    @sparrow:

    This will change as soon as becomes blindingly obvious that climate change is happening.

    I don’t think so. It’s already pretty obvious.

    The winger option #2 is then to say “Nobody disagrees that climate change is happening” (even if they themselves were saying “global warming stopped in 1990-something” yesterday), “sensible people just disagree on whether it’s human activity or natural cycles or something” (even when 99.5% of climate scientists say it’s human activity).

    Fallback position #3 is “it’s happening, but it’s good” as you mentioned, and #4 is “it’s happening and it’s bad, but the economic cost of doing anything about it would be worse” as you also mentioned. Often numbers 2, 3 and 4 are combined, sometimes with #1 as well to make it extra-confusing.

    Basically nothing will change their minds. I just saw a guy going on and on about how global warming theory is a fraud because the coldest temperature ever was just recorded by satellite at some spot in Antarctica. Never mind that there’s basically no historical data set at that spot to compare it to.

  81. 81.

    Joel

    The problem with the current crop of trolls is that they have no humor. Where’s BOB when you need him?

Comments are closed.