Comments on Brooks on Kristol

And oh the comments on Brooks's paean to Irving Kristol, obviously his favorite mentor.
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/opinion/22brooks.html

Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Opinion
World
U.S.
N.Y. / Region
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
Opinion
Arts
Style
Travel
Jobs
Real Estate
Autos
Editorials
Columnists
Contributors
Letters
The Public Editor
Global Opinion
Three Cheers for IrvingBack to Article »
By DAVID BROOKS
Irving Kristol thrust himself into every ideologically charged battle of his age, but he was able to pick a side without losing his clarity.
Comments are no longer being accepted.

163 Readers' Comments
All Comments
Editors' Selections
Readers' Recommendations
Replies
Oldest
Newest
of 7Next
1.
George Neal
Steilacoom, WA
September 22nd, 2009
6:53 am
Nice job! It's always a pleasure to read of someone who has a bias, but is non-ideological and pragmatic. Thansk for so many insights into people I rarely read about!
Recommended by 43 Readers
2.
soso
Canada
September 22nd, 2009
6:53 am
Finally, the shackles locking the minds of decent conservatives is off.
Recommended by 10 Readers
3.
RoughAcres
New York
September 22nd, 2009
6:53 am
wow... first President Obama on David Letterman, and now this.Nice listening to/about people who THINK for a change.Thanks.
Recommended by 27 Readers
4.
Barbara
NY
September 22nd, 2009
6:53 am
A nice tribute, but it breaks what you state was Kristol's practice. Where's the scrutiny and the skepticism?
Recommended by 19 Readers
5.
Matthew
Portland, OR
September 22nd, 2009
6:53 am
It is a pity Irving Kristol's ability to rationally analyze and compromise wasn't passed on to many of his political heirs.
Recommended by 120 Readers
6.
Tim Connor
Wheaton, IL
September 22nd, 2009
6:53 am
It is particularly fitting that David Brooks would defend the man who made the following statement:"Among the core social scientists around The Public Interest there were no economists…. This explains my own rather cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit and other monetary or fiscal problems. The task, as I saw it, was to create a new majority, which evidently would mean a conservative majority, which came to mean, in turn, a Republican majority – so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government…"David Brooks is the greatest modern practicioner of using apparent earnestness to mask systematic misrepresentation to justify the often inexcusable behavior of his patrons and benefactors --who happen to be the same powerful interests served by Iring Kristol.I have news for you David. We are held accountable for our actions. And you cannot be forgiven if you do not repent.
Recommended by 413 Readers
7.
Ortrud Radbod
Antwerp, Belgium
September 22nd, 2009
6:53 am
Irving Kristol was a reactionary right wing revanchist. Don't sugar coat him, Brooks. Don't even try.
Recommended by 306 Readers
8.
Richard Bowes
Manhattan
September 22nd, 2009
6:53 am
For what it's worth Edmund Burke was Anglo Irish.
Recommended by 15 Readers
9.
MNW
Connecticut
September 22nd, 2009
6:53 am
Somehow I think Irving Kristol would approve of the following comment from an enlightened Norwegian.A Real Socialist StateAs a Norwegian, looking at the U.S. health care debate from the outside, I cannot help but laugh sometimes. It seems like the word “socialism” has become a swear word. In Norway, we just re-elected a “socialist” government. That does not mean that we live in a communist state. We have full-fledged capitalism over here, and we are just about the richest country in the world, per capita. But we have chosen to let the state supply world class health care to all inhabitants.To allow private insurance companies to let private profit maximizing decisions get in between a patient and a doctor is close to unethical for us. In Norway, you get the same care no matter if you are a homeless drunk or the C.E.O. of one of the biggest companies. And that’s how it should be. They say that the measure of a country’s success lies in how it treats its most unfortunate citizens.— Gjert MyrestrandYour hero would approve of your climbing aboard, Mr. Brooks. Have a nice day.
Recommended by 438 Readers
10.
mickster
Seattle, WA
September 22nd, 2009
6:53 am
There seems to a confusion on the right. Buckley is dead, Kristol is dead. How to separate out the kooks from the conservatives.We now have Rush, Oreilly, Beck, Hannity as radio/tv talking heads angling for very large amounts of money 50million+ dollars. Competing to be most outrageous. I can say something every more farout and outragreous than you. Vieing for market share and massive dollars for just running one's mouth that pleases the right wing in its current ephemeral form changing moment by moment, hour by hour. The race amongst the pundits seems to be who say the most outrageous thinkg about obama. The audience is open, wide open let the bidding start with the clain that obama want's to destroy this country. Yes start fro here. Its important to note that nothing can be said about obama that will unbelievable to the right wing true believers.
Recommended by 107 Readers
11.
Southernlight
Australia
September 22nd, 2009
6:53 am
RIP Mr. Kristol. Our world loses its light yet again....Thanks for the column Mr. Brooks. It was inspiring.
Recommended by 25 Readers
12.
Jim
New York
September 22nd, 2009
7:34 am
If Mr. Kristol was indeed able to see the flaws in his belief systemn and was therefore not an idealogical purist what happened to his followers? Somewhere along the line they must have been asleep during his lectures on the values of improving the human condition. That is unless you count improving the Human condition of a priviliged few at the expense of the many.
Recommended by 123 Readers
13.
Basil Marasco, Jr.
Rochester, NY
September 22nd, 2009
7:34 am
Mr Brooks, I've often wondered if the purpose of becoming as well-educated as you are is to be able to know the difference, for example, between what is "creative" and what is "destructive", or at least what is "creative in most cases" and likewise destructive.I now suspect that the purpose of SOME students' education is to develop a talent for fusing antonyms together in order to debilitate the real meaning of each and so leave a debate muddled beyond usefulness or benefit.Does the concept of "destructive creativity" lend itself to mathematical evaluation? Can an example of it be proven to be clearly more destructive than creative? Or vice versa? Or is it just a beguiling little phrase that comes in handy when suggesting that the American middle class--between the post-war boom, the benefits of the New Deal, and organized labor--had just gotten too secure? That a "job for life" was the flawed element of our market economy and that the education gotten between the ages of 5 and 18 should never have been considered sufficient?Pray tell, what is "destructive creativity"? Why not devote an entire column to it, complete with history (if any), definitions (preferably free of ambiguities), and examples. Above all, I'd like to know how to avoid the "destructive" part of it.
Recommended by 89 Readers
14.
Thomas W.
Germany
September 22nd, 2009
7:34 am
Are the 'conservative predispositions of the people' the predispositions of those in constant terror that the majority will find out that the majority has been taken for a ride, and who, as a result, cannot quite bring themselves to believe in democracy, while at the same time praising democracy and trying hard to bring it to other failed states?If Irving Kristol indeed favored the insurance view on governmental activity in labor markets, health and life insurance and retirement benefits, then he was a very innovative and progressive thinker indeed - discovering what Bismarck knew and what the german conservatives knew after WWII, and what the founders of the state of Israel knew.I sincerely doubt that the final analysis is in on whether it was The Grand Inquisitor or his counterpart who understood better what it means and takes to not be a schmuck.
Recommended by 21 Readers
15.
vballboy
Highland NY
September 22nd, 2009
7:34 am
I wish you condolence for losing an admired intellectual leader of neoconservatism.That said, while fiscal restraint in government spending appears a primal focus of modern neoconservatives, I am still baffled at how supposed neoconservatives quietly let the Bush Administration commit America to years of spending for an unnecessary Iraq War and GWOT. This long term, some would even say endless, commitment requires spending hundreds of billions every year which does not sit well with me in the greater context of fiscal conservatism.How is spending on near-endless war morally or ethically acceptable whereas spending on certain other political ideologies considered heinous? The spend-thrift logic is not clear on this...
Recommended by 191 Readers
16.
AT Lardner
Granada, Spain
September 22nd, 2009
7:34 am
"Don’t fall for fantastical notions that have nothing to do with the way people really are"...hmmm, I am grateful that Irving Kristol knew (and, we are to surmise) David Brooks knows "the way people really are". Obviously a clear indicator of "detached attachment"...
Recommended by 23 Readers
17.
jcoyle
paris
September 22nd, 2009
7:34 am
As one who has learned much from Irving Kristol's writing, I would tend to sum up David Brooks's three sources of Kristol's excellence--ethnic, philosophical and moral--as a particular ability to see and absorb wisdom. Perhaps this is another way of stating his self-description as having detached attachment. Reinhold Niebuhr had a similar talent, the ability to distance himself from the world around him, seeing it more whole and clear, as if he were an historian writing about the distant past. All this leaves me wondering why many of Kristol's closest collaborators and followers in neo-conservatism--I think especially of Norman Podhoretz and Irving's son, Bill--seem not to have absorbed this distancing capacity and constant sense of the brokenness of humanity.Joseph S. CoyleParis
Recommended by 52 Readers
18.
OETKB
Reading, Ma
September 22nd, 2009
7:34 am
As John McEnroe is inclined to say, "You can't be serious." We see none of his disciples having the inclination to take the general public into consideration on any policy as you intimate. By your reckoning his son, William, should be trumpeting Medicare For All. From a purely business point of view it would serve the cause of open markets by providing more capital. Forget the 45,000 who die each year needlessly from lack of insurance or the over the top bankruptcies because people become seriously ill. Neocons start wars, deepen poverty, despoil the environment and take no responsibility for their actions. Even after abundant evidence their cloistered ideas don't work, it is somebody else's fault, and there is no adjustments in their thinking. Yes an influential political philosopher has died but let's not use his passing to idolize unsubstantiated ideology over critical thinking. May he rest in peace.
Recommended by 292 Readers
19.
audreygoodman
Cherry Hill, NJ
September 22nd, 2009
7:34 am
Three cheers to you, for emulating this giant in your own thought and writing. No matter how negative or positive you are about a government policy or economic plan, you can stand somewhat detached and point out its imperfections.This long-time liberal can agree with Irving on several things--that no policy or law can really change the way people think or feel, and that any system of economics or politics will have some overlooked or unintended negative consequences.Accepting the imperfections in human efforts as well as human beings is a big step in becoming mature. I'd hope that we could start getting there and stop yelling at each other sooner rather than later, but know I have to be patient about that too.
Recommended by 32 Readers
20.
Mike
ct
September 22nd, 2009
7:34 am
He wa an influential thinker who will be missed by many. My condolences to his family.
Recommended by 11 Readers
21.
Mark
ny
September 22nd, 2009
7:34 am
Kristol was an avid supporter of the invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was the worst foreign policy debacle in US history. Yet, somehow Mr. Brooks fails to mention this fact. We may forgive some mistakes but we cannot forgive one that has cost the lives of so many Americans and Iraqis and cost trillions of dollars. For this alone Irving Kristol was an abject failure, unworthy of the eulogy that Brooks gives him here.This country has to start dealing with facts.
Recommended by 348 Readers
22.
Jeff-for-progress
Washington, DC
September 22nd, 2009
9:45 am
Brooks is rapidly becoming the Dr. Joyce Brothers of American conservatism. It reminds me of the scene in Mel Brooks movie "High Anxiety," where before a conference of psychologists, Brooks (the Mel one), is the Director of the "Institute for the Very, Very Nervous," thanks Brothers, for giving them all "a very nice living." What one sees in Kristol's career is a pattern of economic opportunism. Which Brooks who has followed on the conservative gravy train has tried to paint here as a Profile in Courage.His disingenuous analysis also seems to be particularly self-serving, especially when he says: "So while others were marching to barricades, picking out bits of the truth that confirmed their own prejudices, editing contrary evidence and working themselves up a righteous lather, Kristol would adopt an attitude of smiling forbearance. He was able to pick a side without losing his clarity."Which reminds me of Brooks most recent previous column where he picks out a bit of truth about teabaggers getting lunch from Family Reunion people on the Mall and listening to soul music and coming to the conclusion that race had little to no relation to the opposition to Obama. I suppose Brooks identifies with the supposed Kristol forbearance in holding on to his economically lucrative views, without losing his clarity, from where his next paycheck was coming from. Hint: racism is seldom a black and white thing, but usually is triggered by a disproportionate amount of imappropriate passion given to an issue where the offender is the racial target. Yes, this sort of thing happens with blacks as well, as several episodes of inappropriate response that have occurred with Al Sharpton protests. But, Brooks, supposes that somehow his is the "neutral" point of view. Fat chance.Finally, E.J. Dionne in The Washington Post while acknowledging Kristol's sense of bonhomie, as Brooks does, noted that in a 1968 New Republic article ("Why I Support Hubert Humphrey") that he opposed Richard Nixon, for precisely the same reasons that the current crop of conservatives have become so ideologically distempered:"(T)o my mind, the election has already narrowed itself down to the choice between Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon as President of the United States. These are the only two candidates who make a nationwide, "majority appeal" to the American electorate. In these pages, I need not explain why the prospect of electing Mr. Nixon depresses me. Suffice it to say that he appeals to the wrong majority to govern the United States in these times--a majority whose dominant temper will be sullenly resentful of the social changes we have been experiencing and impulsively reactionary toward the crises we shall inevitably be enduring."It would seem that Barack Obama represents the type of moderate liberalism that Hubert Humphrey did and that the current state of mean spirited racially tinged conservatism is reflective of "the wrong majority" sullenly resentful of the changes we have been seeing." However, this time Kristol had switched his allegiance since 1972 to the sullen resentful side of a wrong majority, and persisted in clear-eyed fashion, and to to oppose the right majority, which he once persuasively argued for. This hardly calls for three cheers, although Kristol's opposition to Joe McCarthy and his previous support for Hubert Humphrey might, in the spirit of not speaking ill of the dead, elicit one cheer. The other two cheers in the title, appears to me, David cheering for himself.
Recommended by 82 Readers
23.
Martin
Apopka, Florida
September 22nd, 2009
9:46 am
Hardly three cheers for Irving. As the literal father of William Kristol and philosophical father of the tragic neoconservative movement, the legacy of Irving Kristol one of death and destruction, corruption and war crimes. As an American Jew, I cannot be proud of any sort of link with this man.
Recommended by 166 Readers
24.
qualquan
Evanston
September 22nd, 2009
9:46 am
It is no surprise Brooks loved fellow Neocon Irvine Kristol. They both readily sacrificed America's interest in championing the horribly expensive budget and economy busting Iraq war based on transparent lies.
Recommended by 112 Readers
25.
roberto
toscana
September 22nd, 2009
9:46 am
quite a man! so what has gone wrong with his followers, the neo-con? could it be that the man was all and that his neo-con ideals were, shall we say, flawed and destined to be "manipulated" and leave a questionable legacy(!)salutiroberto
Recommended by 13 Readers
of 7Next
Log In