David Brooks Wants a Strong President
Somehow Dave must have managed to outwit HAL because there is another vacuous column under his byline this morning. If I am reading his column right, David Brooks seems to be yearning for a strong man, a dictator. He wants the President with expanded powers.
We don’t need bigger government. We need more unified authority.
The democracy thing is too messy for Mr. Brooks. As is his wont he tries to legitimize his spurious analysis by quoting a scholar. Francis Fukuyama serves this function in this morning’s column. Also, what is it with NYT columnists and their yearning for dictators, Tom Friedman is always praising the authoritarian governments of China and Singapore. All I can say is be careful what you wish for.
Bow before the Paw
LoL by: two_kittehs (Picture by: SWNS)
The only Overlords I don’t mind are of the furry kind.
Posted on December 13, 2013, in Cats, China, Cute Animals, Lolcats, Politics, Punditubbies say Hello and tagged David Brooks, New York Times. Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.
Schroedinger's Cat 
Because the one things dictatorships are known for is limiting the size of government. Does Brooks even listen to himself?
He passes for an intellectual in our discourse, more is the pity.
Brooks: “It’s possible that years will go by without the passage of a major piece of legislation.”
ACA sez O HAI!
Totally agree with your assessment of David Brooks & Tom Friedman. The difference between us is that I stopped reading both a while back. Brooks when I just got fed up with his pseudo-sociological commentary. And I had it with Friedman back in the Iraq War days (he’s just a total BS artist — only Charlie Rose could find his opinions fascinating). However, I admire your persistence (masochism?) in continuing to read their columns. I hear Brooks every week on NPR and PBS and am continually amazed at his ability to say nothing at great length (interestingly he pushes the same theme idea on each — requires less thinking, I guess!). Other than than, lIfe is too short. Carry on!
Actually writing about them is cathartic, and pushing back their nonsense is important because many folks who should know better take Brooks and Friedman seriously because of the venues they pontificate from (NYT and PBS).
Agreed.