Mirror, Mirror On The Wall…

Whose the smuggest prick of all?

Trust me, aristocrats LOVE democracy... I swear!

I usually leave Mr. Brooks’ blathering in the more than capable hands of our friend driftglass, who has made an art form out of pummeling this sad excuse of a man on a weekly basis.

Never mow another guy’s lawn, so to speak.

But this week’s column was really something special, and I felt compelled to comment.

Britain is also blessed with a functioning political culture. It is dominated by people who live in London and who have often known each other since prep school. This makes it gossipy and often incestuous.

But the plusses outweigh the minuses. The big newspapers still set the agenda, not cable TV or talk radio. If the quintessential American pol is standing in his sandbox screaming affirmations to members of his own tribe, the quintessential British pol is standing across a table arguing face to face with his opponents.

First of all, pretending that American politics is not run by a good-old-boys club is preposterous.  But to then say that we’d all be better off if it was run by an incestuous aristocracy is truly revolting.  Isn’t it interesting to see democracy held in such low regard by someone like David Brooks?  Yet another beltway insider who worships money and power above all things.  But of course we’ve all known that for some time haven’t we?

In David’s centrist utopia all decisions are handed down by the benevolent elite who are much better equipped to make serious decisions than the unwashed rabble they rule over.  Democracy is really just too messy for people like him who want to protect their own power and status.  If we let the masses have their say in public policy, why there’s no telling what might happen.  They might even demand “rights” or something.

I’ll leave Mr. Brooks’ obvious lack of knowledge about Britain’s history and politics to those who know it best.

Let’s take a few choice bits, starting with the opening paragraph. Apparently, from 1900 to 1920:

Britain faced an enormous task: To move from an aristocratic political economy to a democratic, industrial one. This transition was made gradually, without convulsion, with both parties playing a role.

Gradually? Without convulsion? I don’t know if you’re aware of this David, but most British historians believe that the First World War was pretty convulsive. And definitely not very gradual. He seems to think that Britain cast off her aristocratic rulers by a process of “constructive competition.” In fact, what happened was that we went to war, conscripted millions of young men and sent them to France to be machine-gunned. Simultaneously, our government was taken over by a clique, led by Lloyd George, which ruled autocratically from a garden shed in No 10 Downing Street. Meanwhile, a whole part of the country – Ireland – descended into civil war. Somehow, I don’t see that as a “gradual” transformation.

David Brooks is a walking mediocrity, yet holds an incredibly well-paying position at the New York fucking Times writing this kind of repellent garbage every week.  That’s another reason I usually leave this piece of shit to driftglass, I just don’t have the stomach for it.

Tuesday, as President Obama visits London, we will get a glimpse of the British political culture. We Americans have no right to feel smug or superior.

Unless you’re David Fucking Brooks, then you clearly have every right to feel smug and superior.  Prick.

…

Update:

As I suspected he would, driftglass has once again proven why he’s the master of the David Brooks Beat-down.  Well done Sir, and thanks for the link.