Flop-ulism

HTML Mencken at Sadly, No! has a classic David Brooks takedown in today's must-read.

Today David Brooks offers the most dishonest, morally-degenerate column I have read in, maybe, years. Srsly. Brooks is so worried about class-based left populism that he’s willing to concede culturally-reactionary rightwing populism “equally” sucks just so he can give the appearance of even-handedly condemning the supposed excess of all populist movements, whose anger and sincerity scare professional gasbags for whom politics is a game. Then he fakey-fakely positions himself as, at the same time, anti-elitist — more bullshit even-handedness — so he can pretend his take is, yes, sensible, centrist, reasonable, disinterested etc. etc. barf. and not what it actually is: an inky-lubed handjob for the wealthy criminal class.

Politics, some believe, is the organization of hatreds.

David Brooks is among that “some,” but he has his Mr. Pop Sociology hat on here, so he speaks from disinterest and objectivity and.. right.

The people who try to divide society on the basis of ethnicity we call racists. The people who try to divide it on the basis of religion we call sectarians. The people who try to divide it on the basis of social class we call either populists or elitists.

Yeah, though racists are more specifically people who say things like… well, like what David Brooks said about Haiti. But that’s neither here nor there; my point is Brooks’s strategery, his affect, and for what ultimate purpose. The first co-opts a liberal point; the second does as well, but is a more subtle (doesn’t immediately ring as phony) “evidence against interest” item than the first, coming from a conservative. Then there’s the third item; ding ding ding; here’s the real “tell”: those who even see class differences are the moral equivalents of racists. And to actively oppose the interests of the opposite class? Hitlerian, presumably.

So, to be Hitlerian: The interest of the wealthy is in opposition to (or, if you like, exploitation of) that of most of the non-wealthy. The lower classes have to pursue their interests explicitly, by raising hell. In contrast, the wealthy interest is pursued “structurally” — or, implicitly in the everyday culture. Because the wealthy have the power, duh. From Brooks’s point of view, this fact can’t be stated without a huge political cost — there’s no way to not appear mean-spirited. There is no equivalence in reality, so Brooks’s solution is to throw the whole class war out as an irrational fraud, based not on poor people’s alleged envy (as per the usual wingnut rationale) but on bigotry. Talk about gall.

Do read the whole thing. The whole comparison Brooks manages is vile, even by Bobo standards.  Up id down, black is white, and populism is bad, while corporate profits are the only thing that matters while your average American is barely scraping by.

Unlike NY Times columnists.

[UPDATE 11:17 AM]  What an amazing coincidence.  Brooks' fellow NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman is also chastising both Democrats and pretending to chastise Republicans for picking on our poor, precious rich people by giving into the "political sugar high" of populism and uses it as a platform to attack Obama and push the GOP talking points.