Sunday, March 07, 2004
Thank You David Brooks for finally inspiring me to start writing again. His latest column: Clash of Titans discusses what he believes is American hypocrisy.
"We pretend to be a middle-class, democratic nation, but in reality we love our blue bloods.....But we don't actually want to be governed by people like ourselves. We want the bloodlines."
His proof is that John Kerry and George Bush are running for president and they both are rich. Really, that is his proof. Granted, he also takes a sentence to mention such famous families as the Kennedys, Roosevelts, Gores and Deans. But when it comes down this, the argument goes something like this: we have this famous wealthy family and this famous family and this one in politics, thus American voters do not remain true to their democratic ideals but vote for blue bloods. Surely, Brooks having spent his life composing arguments, knows that listing a few examples does prove a general principle, especially if their are obvious counter-examples. It seems disingenuous that having mentioned the Gore family, Brooks fails to bring up Bill Clinton. A man who clearly disproves his theory that we only want to be governed by blue bloods. Also, disproving his theory is Ronald Reagan, not to mention other prominent, current and recent political leaders such as Gephardt, Daschle, Lott, and Dole.
Brooks' argument sounds nice. And it even fits nicely with his larger vision of himself as social commentator capable of showing his readers their own biases. Unfortunately, in reaching his goal, Brooks has to make generalizations. And that is where he gets into trouble. In making larger points that may or may not have a kernel of truth in them, Brooks regularly ignores facts. Thus, we have columns like this one that are insulting to anyone who can get past his prose and clever idea and realize that his point is not actually valid.
"We pretend to be a middle-class, democratic nation, but in reality we love our blue bloods.....But we don't actually want to be governed by people like ourselves. We want the bloodlines."
His proof is that John Kerry and George Bush are running for president and they both are rich. Really, that is his proof. Granted, he also takes a sentence to mention such famous families as the Kennedys, Roosevelts, Gores and Deans. But when it comes down this, the argument goes something like this: we have this famous wealthy family and this famous family and this one in politics, thus American voters do not remain true to their democratic ideals but vote for blue bloods. Surely, Brooks having spent his life composing arguments, knows that listing a few examples does prove a general principle, especially if their are obvious counter-examples. It seems disingenuous that having mentioned the Gore family, Brooks fails to bring up Bill Clinton. A man who clearly disproves his theory that we only want to be governed by blue bloods. Also, disproving his theory is Ronald Reagan, not to mention other prominent, current and recent political leaders such as Gephardt, Daschle, Lott, and Dole.
Brooks' argument sounds nice. And it even fits nicely with his larger vision of himself as social commentator capable of showing his readers their own biases. Unfortunately, in reaching his goal, Brooks has to make generalizations. And that is where he gets into trouble. In making larger points that may or may not have a kernel of truth in them, Brooks regularly ignores facts. Thus, we have columns like this one that are insulting to anyone who can get past his prose and clever idea and realize that his point is not actually valid.
# posted by Julia @ 10:33 PM 
