« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Is David Brooks Comparing the Tea Party to Nazis?

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  February 28th, 2012 at 11:18 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

“David Brooks, please look up Godwin’s Law.”

David Brooks seems to forget it was the tea party movement that handed the Republicans control of the House in 2010. Today he laments the rise, again, of conservatives and views his ideological drift to the left as standing still with conservatism moving away from him. He really does lack serious self-awareness.

How silly.

In a column titled The Possum Republicans poor David Brooks laments

All across the nation, there are mainstream Republicans lamenting how the party has grown more and more insular, more and more rigid. This year, they have an excellent chance to defeat President Obama, yet the wingers have trashed the party’s reputation by swinging from one embarrassing and unelectable option to the next: Bachmann, Trump, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum.

Similar statements were made about Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and John McCain. Today, Democrats praise each of them as more reasonable than the current crop of candidates. When they die, the Democrats and people like David Brooks will herald them as saints of conservatism whose legacies are polluted by the present crop of conservatives.

David Brooks is a man who liked the crease of Barack Obama’s pants after years of flirting with John McCain. You’ll excuse me if his lament falls flat with me. But the most striking thing is his last line after spending a few hundred words lamenting the resurgence of across the board conservatives. He ends with

First they went after the Rockefeller Republicans, but I was not a Rockefeller Republican. Then they went after the compassionate conservatives, but I was not a compassionate conservative. Then they went after the mainstream conservatives, and there was no one left to speak for me.

Does he really intend to compare the tea party to Nazis?

He is playing off German preacher Martin Niemöller’s statement regarding German intellectuals and how they sat quietly by as the Nazis rose to power.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I know many people who use paraphrases of Miemoller’s line as jokes to highlight the absurdity of various absurd situations, but I don’t get the sense David Brooks is joking. I assume he is finally comfortable sharing ink with the intellectual heavyweights at the New York Times who, through Walter Duranty, gave cover to Stalin’s purges and apologized to the world for Reagan beating evil.

I would also point out that the Rockefeller Republicans were losers and compassionate conservatism put us on the brink of financial ruin. As for being a “mainstream conservative,” David Brooks writes at Walter Duranty’s paper in New York City.

Oh, and David Brooks, please look up Godwin’s Law.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • docaja

    Bush, now David Brooks.

  • Republican_Michigander

    You voted for Obama, jagoff, so sit down and shut your bleepin’ mouth.

  • mikelindell2

    Santorum is after all pleading with Democrats to vote for him in MI by making robocalls to bash Romney for not supporting the auto bailouts. Brooks and Santorum both seem like sellout liberals that repeatedly run left when it’s convenient for them to do so. They should suit each other well.

  • izoneguy
  • Juggernaut

    who came out of the closet long ago. Not too many conservatives at the NY Times.

    Like the liberal tools he works with, Brooks has read enough guttersnipe liberal trash talk about the TP to believe they are not choosing wisely when selecting candidates. The real story is the TP shifted from one candidate to another and moved as as they learned why the drop outs were not electable or lacked resources, etc..

    NYTimes columnist Charles Blow had to apologize to Romney for a “magic underwear” comment on Twitter over the weekend. Time for Brooks to apologize or submit his resignation. Nazi anything is too childish, unprofessional and lacking in intellectual reasoning to be taken lightly. Even worse he used to work for the National Review.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/ny-times-charles-blow-apologizes-for-magic-underwear-comment/

  • thosjefferson

    This is no surprise coming from Brooks. http://equalize-now.org/nytimes/brooks-watch/

  • http://www.ArchitecturalShots.com mdyou

    When David Brooks writes a sentence that starts “All across the nation…”, further reading is unnecessary. David Brooks knows NOTHING about what goes on ‘across the nation’. Geez…

  • wantthegopback

    these are the death-wails of a losing philosophy?

  • citizenjerry

    Anyone who trots out the “Hitler” or Nazi” pejorative has already lost the argument. I’m hoping Small Mind will make a better effort next time.

  • jet5000

    I like Brooks, and I share his concern about excessive unwillingness to compromise even at times when some compromise is far better than no deal at all (and when those seem to be the only two options), but his use of a Nazi reference is further support for the general rule that Nazi analogies usually reflect very poorly on the speaker. Although I understand he was speaking only of the dynamic of a narrowing band of acceptance (and thus increasing exclusion), and not trying to equate consequences or morality between the two cases, I would have expected a thoughtful guy like Brooks to exercise better judgment than to go there. He could have made his point just as well (in terms of both substance and style) without a disturbing Nazi reference.

    Posted by 74.73.163.104 via http://webwarper.net, created by AlgART: http://algart.net/
    This is added while posting a message to avoid misusing the service

  • indieinvirginnie

    How would one know how to “speak for” David Brooks? What would one say, exactly? He calls himself a conservative, but rarely has anything to say that fits that description. And what he does have to say never seems to be useful. It usually boils down to an assertion that he is smarter, more sophisticated and urbane than the people he derides as “wingers.”

    Can someone remind me why he should be important to me?

  • libertus

    What in the world does that even mean?

    If it’s Brooks’ “I don’t know what I believe in”, then that may be mainstream but it is not conservative.

  • jet5000

    I’m also personally offended on behalf of my family. My father and his parents and his mother’s (my grandmother’s) side of the family fled Austria in 1938 after the Anshluss. Five of his father’s (my grandfather’s) sisters were killed.

    My dad still displays among his old family photos a photo of one of his uncles (one of my grandmother’s brothers). The photo is torn in half. He survived because when the Gestapo came to his home he was not there. In frustration, one of the Nazis tore that photo of him.

    That’s what it meant when the Nazis “came for” someone. Shame on Brooks for using such an insensitive analogy so unnecessarily.

    Posted by 74.73.163.104 via http://webwarper.net, created by AlgART: http://algart.net/
    This is added while posting a message to avoid misusing the service

  • http://www.ArchitecturalShots.com mdyou

    I don’t buy the ‘compromise or no deal’ position. Granted, that is the way it has been. The Right is poised to assume political power, and no compromise will be forthcoming on basic issues. We don’t have the LSM, entertainment, or education – the Left owns those institutions and that won’t change.

    If we assume control of the three branches and don’t trample the constitutional rights of the Left, this country has a chance. If not now, when?

  • uselogic

    With Brooks, I expect as much.

  • jet5000

    …our long term fiscal imbalance. I don’t think it’s politically realistic to think we can accomplish sufficient reduction of projected deficits without compromise before a bond crisis hits, and with it economic disaster.

    Sure, we’re able to sell our debt now at low interest rates, but that’s because of favorable global conditions (most notably the European mess) that won’t hold up forever as our debt/GDP ratio spirals out of control.

    If time weren’t a factor, I’d say sure, let’s hold off on compromise and continue fighting to gain enough power to solve the problem wholly on our terms (by reductions in projected non-Defense spending), but time is a factor. The prospect of a crisis grows over time as our debt/GDP grows and as the cost of seniors’ benefits grows (due to the baby boomers, greater longevity, and the excess cost growth of healthcare).

    If we can get a grand bargain deal closer to our terms than theirs sometime soon, I’ll give up my ideal rather than perpetually holding out for everything we want and putting the nation at great risk of a fiscal and economic meltdown.

    Posted by 74.73.163.104 via http://webwarper.net, created by AlgART: http://algart.net/
    This is added while posting a message to avoid misusing the service

  • DefendUSA

    Heh…I am not insulted by idiots like Davd Brooks…because, as a commenter said over at Powerline about Act of Valor…Liberals are unaware of their own shortcomings ss mcuh as they babble about wingers and the like…any of us can put our money where our mouth is, unless of course, they hold an office already…and I have yet to know a single democrat who has done so.
    David Brooks suffers from the “I’m superior to the rest of the minions” because he has a platform from which to spew. But, we’re smarter than the average jackass, aren’t we? ;)

  • eheassler

    David Brooks is like many who have spent their lives inside the confines of Philadelphia, Chicago, The Beltway, and NYC. They view everywhere else as “The Wilderness” both geographically and intellectually. As most self described intellectuals and progressives will tell you, they know better than the rest of us what is good for the country and when it comes to morals and policy, they are not bound by any rigid concepts of Judeo-Christian teachings. The sophisticated know that the moral relativism of the progressive movement is far superior to any moral lines in the sand drawn by outdated concepts like the 10 Commandments. That is why the Tea-Partiers are held in such contempt by Brooks and his ilk in that the TP’s have boiled the debate down to its essential elements – follow Judeo-Christian teachings, don’t spend more than you earn, and forced redistribution of wealth is not the same as charity. They consider those of us who hold these views to be simple minded, incapable of understanding the nuances of moral relativism and the truly sophisticated progressive thinkers. Without them, how else could we have flushed 56 million unborn down the toilet since 1973, how else could our country be on the verge of financial and political meltdown, and how else could we have gotten President who is rapidly establishing an Oligarchy. And David Brooks thinks we are the equivalent of Nazis. Well, I think David Brooks is a useful idiiot that works for what I consider to be the criminal enterprise known as the New York Times.

  • ctyank66

    Don’t forget, it was the tea party that cost us Republicans the Senate and ditching Harry Reed!
    signed,
    A life long Connecticut Republican

  • edintexas

    The Democrats almost never compromise. They know that if they hold their position long enough the Republicans will fear the bad publicity the MSM will hit them with. Then the Republicans will roll over and dispense with their principles to accommodate the Democrats.

    I’ve watched this occur over and over during the time I’ve paid attention to politics (although with greater frequency in the last decade or so). I started paying attention with the election of 1960.

  • edintexas

    Well, at least he is when compared to his co-workers and neighbors in Manhattan. That is his apparent frame of reference. See this classic New Yorker map of the US for his frame of reference:

    http://bigthink.com/ideas/21121

  • edintexas

    NT

  • Seedyrom

    what a low classed degenerate. Northeastern republicans, what the heck is wrong with so many of them? Ehh, he’s just a rino but still, do these people actually think they are the upper crust, more like the snotty booger under the counter.

  • oldmountainman

    Don’t forget, it was the TEA party that gave us contol of the House and got us close in the Senate.

    Signed,
    A life long Appalachian Republican and now proud TEA partier.

  • funwithknives

    it was a plethora of occurances that gave us Harry,2.0. But you got your whipping boy and it would seem music is not a fave at your place. One note is seemingly A Song at your place. Sharon was admittedly, not very credible and TEA-Pers were just gettin’ goin’. Even babies gotta’ stumble. Remember DeDe Scozzafava?That was purely a GOP deal, no TEA-Pers required.
    Whassa- Motta, won’t they let you join?

  • funwithknives

    compromise, there is always the Dialectic. In truth, they give up Zilch when they claim to meet in the middle,cause they’re Half-Way There. They know there is always a next time and they make damn sure of it.
    Meanwhile, Liberty recedes and a new normal is established.
    The bar is lowered.And, so it goes……

  • duncer

    i would bet that if brooks ever interviewed obama, he would leave with obama on his breath.

  • myron_j_poltroonian

    I guess it’s the “H” factor. Without it, the RINO’S all have a very thin skin. They remind me of Mark Twain’s rephrasing of an old homily; to wit: “God must have hated the Common Man. He made him so common”. And so do RINO’S and their fellow travelers, also known as “Progressives”, feel the same about we “Tea Partiers”, everywhere. After all, they’re all so “Superior” to us wee common folk. News flash: “Davy, I got your ‘Superior’ Hangin’, right here”.