...Or We Can Talk About David Brooks

The other day, a friend sent me an op-ed written by David Brooks in the New York Times, titled, “Can We Talk About Joe Biden?”  He was curious about my response.  In fairness, I can’t do opinion piece justice because, in full disclosure, as I explained to my friend, I only skimmed it.  Though in fairness to me, there are three reasons why I only skimmed it.
 
One, it was by David Brooks.  Two, it was interminably long (even by my standards), and even if I was willing to read something by David Brooks, there is no way I was going to read something that long by David Brooks.  And third, I hate articles about "Should Biden be the nominee since he's old" -- most especially when they don't even mention that Trump is just as old.  Which, it turns out, not surprisingly David Brooks conveniently ignores.  Among many things.

(Though I only skimmed the op-ed, to be as fair as possible I did do a search of it for various words and phrases, in hopes that David Brooks at least mentioned them.  Alas, no.  But that was no surprise.)
 
A word of warning:  This response to the piece is very long.  But the good thing is that it’s not even close to as long as David Brooks’ article.
 
A few things I did note in my skimming that are just oh-so David Brooks.
 
When speaking of Biden, Brooks writes, "He has his faults" — as if no human on Earth doesn't.  And what are Biden's huge, almost disqualifying to Brooks faults that he notes?  He mentions a few, starting with "The tendency to talk too much."  Oh, nooooo!  A politician who talks to much!!  As if Trump doesn’t talk worlds more – the difference being that when Trump talks, it’s overflowing with documented lies.  And another Biden fault for Brooks:  "The chip on his shoulder about those who think they are smarter than he is."  What???  Putting aside that I don't know what he's talking about, assuming it exists, a "chip on his shoulder" is about as paltry a "fault" for a president as there is, since "chips" are just personal quirks when not tied to destructive actions as a result of having them, which Brooks doesn't tie to Biden.  And then there’s -- "The gaffes."  Yes, Biden makes gaffes.  And the other week, Trump suggested that Joe Biden could start "WWII" and twice talked about running about Barack Obama (which borders on more than a “gaffe”).  Not to mention all his other massive Trump errors over the past six years, including my favorite -- airports during the Revolutionary War.  And another Biden fault so glaring to Brooks it demands singling out – "That episode of plagiarism."  For the record, "that episode" was 36 years ago!!  Before almost one-quarter of voters today were even born.  An "episode" that hasn't been repeated since.  "And the moments of confusion."  Sorry, that's pretty much the same as the gaffes, and Brooks doesn't get a twofer on the same thing.   
 
And for all that, perhaps worse is when he describes two things he wants in a candidate that he finds lacking:  The first of those two is, " I’ve always thought: Give me a leader who identifies with those who feel looked down upon."  For starters, when referencing those who he wants a leader to identify with, what Brooks is describing are people who "have a chip on their shoulder," which he supposedly hates, since “feeling looked down upon” doesn't mean you actually are, but rather is often just a knee-jerk reaction to being angry others are doing better than you.  Further, if you are a person who believes in banning books, banning women's rights, banning gay rights, separating children from their parents,  and supporting white supremacists, then it could be argued your fascist view deserve to be looked down upon.  And most notably, while a leader who truly identifying with the downtrodden is a noble and rare thing, far more common are leaders who spot that "I feel looked down upon" attitudes of people and use it to play to their grievances, which is what makes them nothing more than “I alone can fix it” pandering demagogues, in the image of a Huey Long.  And to think that Trump -- with his golden toilets and hatred of “losers” and “sh*t hole” third-world countries and disdain of injured soldiers-- "identifies" with such people is utterly ludicrous.  Almost as ludicrous as almost any Republican leader, whose real base is corporations and their checkbooks, identifying with “those who feel looked down upon.”
 
And second, after Brooks lists all his paltry complaints with Joe Biden, he then adds that what he finds lacking, but really most wants is instead, " Give me a leader whose moral compass generally sends him in the right direction" -- not realizing he has, in fact, described Joe Biden!  The man who is widely recognized for his best quality being compassion, so much so that he often is referred to as the "Healer in Chief."  A man who even Republican Lindsey Grahm said, that Joe Biden is "as good a man as God ever created" and “The bottom line is, if you can't admire Joe Biden as a person, you got a problem."
 
David Brooks has got a problem.

And that was only paragraph four.  From an article that would give Moby Dick a run for its money.
 
And immediately after that, David Brooks does he best to show his fairness by writing, “But I’ve also come to fear and loathe Donald Trump.”  Sorry, excuse me??  He’s just “come to fear and loathe” Trump?!  If anything undermines Brooks it’s that simple phrase:  the “come to.”  Personally, I think the proper phrase is “But I fear and loathe Donald Trump.”  Because “come to” says that you thought Trump was okay for a while – not a bad guy, good policies, interesting talented, solid president…but eventually he just went too far, and so finally, at last, Brooks has “come to” fearing and loathing Trump.  Besides which, I also think that fear and loathing overwhelmingly exceeds a tendency to talk too much.
 
A few other things that caught my eye as I skimmed –
 
Like his passive aggressive – “Some Democrats tell me in these talks that they hope their party leaders will somehow persuade Biden to retire and open the door for a fresher candidate.”  Putting aside that “some Democrats” could be 12 people or a whopping 100), the reality is that Joe Biden has announced that he is running for reelection, he is not retiring, and on top of all that…no one is challenging him.  Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee.  And so the only actual issue is not “should Joe Biden retire,” but who should be the next president?  The man who plagiarized a paragraph 36 years ago, or the one Brooks “fears and loathes”?
 
And when he writes, “The thing that so many of us are stuck on is Biden’s age, of course,”  what he ignores – totally ignores, without mention – is that Trump’s age is essentially the same, and to David Brooks, that turns out not to be a thing that he and “so many of us” are stuck on.  Just because. 
 
By the way, Joe Biden is older than I think is best to run for president.  However, that doesn’t mean a) he won’t do a great job as president if re-elected, and b) that if something happens and Kamala Harris –a former U.S. Senator and California Attorney General -- becomes president, she won’t be very good as president, and universes better than anyone the equally-old Trump picks as his vice-president.  And again, the issue isn’t “Is Joe Biden too old?”  It’s – Joe Biden or Trump will be the nominees, so who do you prefer to be the next president?!!!!
 
And then, after going on and on about Joe Biden’s age, Brooks jumps to – “To me, age isn’t Biden’s key weakness. Inflation is.”  So, after all this about Joe Biden’s age and titling the article, “Can we talk about Joe Biden?”, it’s really just “inflation” that most bothers David Brooks???   Which, if so, Brooks should have made the title, “Can we talk about inflation?” – especially since inflation will touch any Democratic candidate, even one of the “fresher” ones who Brooks mentions as alternatives to President Biden.  Yes, inflation is more attached to Joe Biden, but the economy will be seen as a Democratic issue.  Yet that aside, Brooks leaves out that inflation has lowered significantly, that inflation is much lower in the U.S. that any other nation in the world (an odd omission since he gladly notes that inflation is a world problem right now, something clearly not caused by Democrats), and that U.S. unemployment is historically low, and that new jobs are monumentally high – 13.9 million of them created during the Biden administration.  But…it’s really “inflation” that David Brooks says bothers him most about President Biden. 
 
Yes, inflation is a big issue Democrats will have to deal with.  But Brooks (as always, conveniently) leaves out all the “weakness” Trump and Republicans have to deal with.  Like anti-abortion (of which actual results in special elections show this to be a disaster for Republicans), pro-guns, anti-environment – the three issues that most-especially drive young voters, it’s worth noting -- book burning, banning drag shows, , banning health care for trans-children, growing fascist policies, total GOP dysfunction in the House, 15 ballots to pick a Speaker, kicking out their own Speaker, unable to immediately find a new Speaker, on the verge of shutting down the government, thinking “But Hunter Biden!” is an issue to run on, and…and we haven’t even gotten to Trump having four indictments, two impeachments, being actually found guilty of fraud, being actually found liable for the equivalence of rape, giving away top secret material, still insisting he won the election, trying to overthrow the government, saying his former chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs should be executed, threatening judges, prosecutors and witnesses and…and oh-so-more, none of which David Brooks (or apparently the “many of us” he talks to) aren’t concerned enough about for him to specify in critically important detail, let alone even mention.  Leaving it only to your imagination to figure out his concern of a “Trumpian Götterdämmerung”.  Compared to Joe Biden having an apparent (or mythical) chip on his shoulder.
 
I will admit that I stopped a careful skimming when David Brooks went a bridge too far for me.  That’s when got to quoting one of his sources he talks to who said, “They seem hell bent on nominating the one Democrat who would lose to Donald Trump.”  Putting aside that I’ve heard and read far more people suggest, contrary to this Brooks source, that Joe Biden is rather the “one Democrat” who could actually beat Trump – a) since he’s already beaten him, b) he is the sitting President, and c) he has the deep compassion that contrasts Trump’s malignant narcissism – what most impacted me is the fact that this one person who David Brooks quotes about what Democrats should do is…Karl Rove!!!
 
For the record, Karl Rove is not my go-to guy for advice on what Democrats should do.  That he is for David Brooks is almost all one needs to know about the David Brooks’ mindset.
 
And there were still another 20 paragraphs or so to go!  I very lightly skimmed the rest of the way, but my heart was no longer in it. 
 
That's because for all David Brooks’ concerns about Joe Biden plagiarizing one passage in a speech 36 years, and his concerns of a Trumpian Götterdämmerung, the thing he most importantly leaves out is the part he himself and his fellow deeply-reactionary conservatives played in their writing and actions over the years laying the groundwork in the Republican Party that made the GOP welcoming Trump as its leader possible.  Trump did not just happen overnight, the party base had to be prepared and pointed that way, which they were for decades by GOP politicians and conservative journalists demonizing Democrats as supposed Communists and Socialists and tree-huggers and ruining society by caring about peace and love, and so much permissiveness that gave black people more freedom, and gave the womenfolk more freedom, and gave The Gays more freedom, and having evil policies and Barack Obama not being an American and from the devil and on and on and on and on, for many decades – indeed, long before the GOP disaster of Kevin McCarthy, there was the real Republican McCarthyism and the Republican-led House Un-American Activities Committee where Americans were literally blacklisted and banned and lost their careers and, for some, their lives for often just being suspected of being “too liberal”.  (Not to mention too “Red,” an irony which is not lost on some as we see Trump and the GOP base today embrace Vladimir Putin and Russia.)  All of which helped leave the door open for a Trump to waltz in and convince the Republican Party that “I alone can fix it” and to trust a literally anonymous “Q” for its information (like that JFK Jr. will come back to life and run with Trump, and that Anderson Cooper eats babies), and to not believe in science (which is not a belief system).
 
David Brooks doesn’t mention any of that, or his part in his that helped strew Republicans garlands on the path to Trump.  No, it’s Joe Biden’s occasional gaffes and “really” inflation.
 
In the end, after all that, after having his “talk about Joe Bien,” David Brooks’ concluded that we “must” vote for Joe Biden.  Which is just oh-so full David Brooks.  Here he is saying that we must vote for Joe Biden against the truly-horrific Trump…but first, let me explain all the things wrong with Joe Biden, like he talks to much and he’s old and y’know, inflation.  But we must vote for him against Gotterdamerung.  Never mind that Trump is just as old and four-times indicted and found liable for rape and found guilty of fraud and enables white supremacists and promotes fascism talks endlessly more (if lying counts as talking) than Joe Biden, who we must vote for.  Because even though Joe Biden plagiarized one paragraph 36 years ago, we must vote for him.  Good ol’ David Brooks.  Praising with faint damns.
 
The only thing I’m grateful about is that I only skimmed the article.  Because otherwise, I’d probably still be writing this days later.
 ​