David Brooks Takes Flak on His Column on "Neoconservatives"

It looks like David Brooks' latest criticizing-Bush-is-hate-speech column has taken care of any problem he might have had with liberals saying too many nice things about him, at least for a while. The blogosphere has been on this one.

Josh Marshall, who has reported extensively on the various factions in the Bush foreign policy team and their relative influence, responded in a serious vein:

The point is that [neoconservatives are] an ideological group in American politics. The people who are a part of it see it as such, as do its critics and opponents. And yet many now want to use blanket criticisms of anti-Semitism to stigmatize and ward off any and all criticism.

It’s almost like a thuggishly rhetorical assertion of intellectual property rights. Neoconservatives can use the term and talk about their movement as a movement. But it’s off-limits for opponents --- sort of like how trademark holder Nike can use the phrase “Just Do It” but if Reebok tried, Nike would sue.

Not only is this dishonest. It's a conscious cheapening of the charge of anti-Semitism that should be roundly and vociferously criticized.

Eric Alterman in his Weblog of 01/06/04 gave a "what he said" to Marshall's comments and adds some of his own.

Tom Tomorrow made fun of Brooks for being ridiculous. Tongue planted firmly in cheek, he suggests that by making Brooks a regular contributor, the New York Times has revealed its liberal bias by hiring a conservative columnist but "they say, allowing themselves just a hint of a smile--it has to be the biggest nitwit we can find."

Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler combines the serious approach with mockery in his take-down of the Brooks column: "Brooks’ downward spiral in the past few years has truly been a thing to see. But this nasty—and deeply stupid—column helps us see, not just Brooks’ decline, but the soul of prehistoric man."