Onward Christian Warriors!
But after Vietnam, most liberals moved on. It became unfashionable to talk about evil. Some liberals came to believe in the inherent goodness of man and the limitless possibilities of negotiation. Some blamed conflicts on weapons systems and pursued arms control. Some based their foreign-policy thinking on being against whatever George W. Bush was for. If Bush was an idealistic nation-builder, they became Nixonian realists.
via Op-Ed Columnist – Obama’s Christian Realism – NYTimes.com.
I’m always afraid to write about David Brooks, because I worry that my attitude toward this guy is colored by certain strong feelings I have about his appearance — he just looks like a professional groveler/ass-kisser, and every time I see him in public I have to fight off visions of him home at night in his Versace jammies, feverishly jacking off with one hand while caressing in the other an official invitation to, say, a White House event, or a Harvard Club luncheon.
Brooks is the kind of character who has thrived everywhere he’s lived throughout human history; it’s incredibly easy to imagine the nebbishy, hairy-kneed Gaius Domitus Brooksius strolling through Rome and swelling with pride over his new appointment to the post of Senior Licker of the Caligulan butt crack.
A week ago or so a friend pointed out Brooks’s recent toadyist masterpiece, Obama’s Christian Realism, but I didn’t read it until today, not wanting to get upset over the weekend. It’s a pretty awesome piece of apologia, one whose seeming purpose is to hang a cloak of nobility on Obama’s escalation of the Afghan war. The Cliff’s Notes version of the Brooks argument would go something like this:
1. A hundred years ago, then-Princeton University president John Hibben used to admonish his graduates: there is good and evil inside all of us.
2. Evil is foreign despotism, the regimes of Stalin and Hitler being good examples. Goodness is Americans committing troops to replace those governments with democracy.
3. After Vietnam, that kind of armed goodness became “unfashionable,” as lily-livered domestic peaceniks regrettably lost sight of just how good we are and how evil the evil out there is.
4. Barack Obama is dispensing with the secularist discomfort with military commitment by committing more troops to Afghanistan, thereby restoring our faith in America’s essentially Christian mission to spread goodness through force.
Lest anyone think that I’m over-interpreting Brooks’s words, here’s the money passage in his argument:
[Obama's] speeches at West Point and Oslo this year are pitch-perfect explications of the liberal internationalist approach. Other Democrats talk tough in a secular way, but Obama’s speeches were thoroughly theological. He talked about the “core struggle of human nature” between love and evil.
My first thought upon reading this was, “Wasn’t it just yesterday that Brooks was putting the same theological tongue up George Bush’s ass?” In fact it wasn’t yesterday but two years ago, but the basic answer is yes: Brooks gushingly painted Bush with the same “Christian warrior” brush in his interview with the lame-duck president back in July of 2007:
Rather, [Bush's] self-confidence survives because it flows from two sources. The first is his unconquerable faith in the rightness of his Big Idea. Bush is convinced that history is moving in the direction of democracy, or as he said Friday: “It’s more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn’t exist.”
Sometimes it’s hard not to marvel at the amazingly flexible nature of American propaganda. George Bush openly sold the invasion of Iraq as an absolutist exercise in Christian goodness versus non-Christian evil — remember his famous dictum that “God is not neutral” in our fight for justice and freedom — and for his trouble was roundly bashed as a fundamentalist lunatic among the very people Brooks is pitching this column to, educated east coast liberals.
Now Obama is quietly tiptoeing up to the same sorts of policy decisions, and in rushes David Brooks, as willing an official mouthpiece as this country has ever had, and pitches exactly the same ethical argument as justification for Obama’s moves.
The difference here is entirely about style and marketing: instead of referencing the Bible-thumping fire-and-brimstone/snake-handling Christianity that so appealed to Bush’s base, Brooks enlists Princeton, Scoop Jackson, Peter Beinart and Reinhold Niebuhr as cultural markers in his hyping of Obama’s brand of liberal Christian missionary zeal. In a bit of supreme dishonesty he even throws in a reference to Martin Luther King, Jr., who was never anything but a confirmed pacifist, as a piece of Obama’s interventionist puzzle.
The schtick here is all about painting the opponents of military intervention as cynics who lack moral confidence, perhaps because they lack the backbone of Christian belief. Take this passage:
[Obama] said he was not against war per se, just this one, and he was booed by the crowd. In 2007, he spoke about the way Niebuhr formed his thinking: “I take away the compelling idea that there’s serious evil in the world and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction.”
What’s most disgusting about Brooks is that he has it backwards. “Cynicism” is invading a country for the sorts of reasons that have guided the United States in most of their interventionist actions since World War II. There is a American kid in Afghanistan who is going to die tomorrow because Rahm Emanuel doesn’t want his boss to have to answer toughness questions from somebody like Brian Williams in a 2012 electoral debate. And I’m the cynic here?
Brooks is a perfect example of the kind of spineless Beltway geek we always see beating the war drum at times like these. It’s because nebbishly little dorks like Brooks and Paul Wolfowitz and David Frum got their books dumped in high school that we end up dropping daisy cutters on Afghan sheep herds and shipping working class American kids halfway around the world to get their nuts blown off. That sounds like a simplistic explanation, but anyone who doesn’t have a keen ear for the pencil-pusher’s eternal quest for macho cred is going to have a hard time understanding Washington politics. Brooks’s columns have always been the easiest way to take the pulse of that particular dynamic, and it sure seems now that bureaucratic momentum for intervention and more intervention is re-inflating the chests of these Beltway generals.
Anyway, I almost can’t wait to see where this goes. Is the world ready for “Barack Obama, Christian Warrior?”
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Thanks, Matt. I may never get that Versace jammies image out of my head. Ewwww.
Great post.
I know it’s not the done thing to stop so early in a piece and critique it, but the entire blog entry falls apart when you suggest that a man of Brooks’s social and sartorial pretensions does his own jerking off. As we know from our Transatlantic cousins, private school boys of a certain class have butlers who provide a happy finish for them. As we’ve seen in recent years Stateside, the American counterpart may involve strange men in airport restrooms or pages in Congressional offices, but one thing is very clear: pretentious jerkoffs do not jerk themselves off any more than they fight their own wars.
GOOD DAY SIR.
goodness gracious that was hilarious
…and a good day to you too sir!
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by chelsea g. summers and greychampion, cf bateman. cf bateman said: RT @trueslant Onward Christian Warriors! – Matt Taibbi – Taibblog – True/Slant http://bit.ly/5eta6f [...]
It’s the most glaring proof of American depravity that we are in two armed conflicts that have a new meaning every time a new meaning is needed.
And that Obama seamlessly took that mantle shows that he’s a coward and even a liar.
Great commentary, Matt! Go for the jugular as required.
And that Obama seamlessly took that mantle shows that he’s a coward and even a liar
Doesn’t he have to be to accomplish anything in DC? Which begs my next question: what kind of flocking Pollyanna was I for thinking that THIS time it would be different?
As an aside, Joyous Winter Solstice to all — I don’t believe in either good or evil, I simply believe that ‘man’ will generally do what he thinks is best for him; generally to the exclusion of all other humans around him.
In response to another comment. See in context »So basically, you believe that humans are carnivorous? But we’re omniverous.
What is it with so many bitter people wanting to pretend all of humanity is the most blackest of evil, though the contradictory malaise of their minds? If people were evil, society wouldn’t exist, period.
Things may be bad to an extent, but attempt every now and then to recognize that there is good along with the bad. If there were no good, there’d be no need to comment upon the bad because it’d be blatantly obvious to everyone involved.
In response to another comment. See in context »To go one step further, if there was no good in the world would we even recognize evil as evil…wouldn’t evil just be the status quo…
In response to another comment. See in context »Yes but if you actually read what I wrote you have to notice that I quite prominently said that I don’t believe in either good or evil; to wit: I don’t believe in an all-knowing, perfect ‘God’ so it stands to reason that neither do I believe in a ‘being’ that is evil incarnate (Satan). I do believe, as I stated originally, that generally man will do what he feels is best for him, to the exclusion of all others. Oddly enough, there have been times in my life when I have done what one might consider ‘good’ — I invited a young woman who was stranded in a city where she knew no one and had no money so had nowhere to go while her mother was driving from Denver to pick her up. I took her home and fed her and sat up and waited for her mother to arrive. In biblical terms I believe I was a ‘good samaritan;’ but if she had been a male I would never have been willing to do any of that as men are better able to take care of themselves than most females are, and I would have been concerned for my own safety. Did taking care of that girl make me ‘good’ while not being willing to do the same for a male make me ‘bad’? Or did I simply consider what was best for me in that instance? Which brings us back to my original statement — man will do what he feels is best for him, to the exclusion of all others.
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt,
Wow. I really admire your courage in slamming Brooks. He’s given me the creeps for years, and now I understand better why that is.
What I have a harder time understanding is why I never really liked Obama – everyone else drank the kool-aid, but why didn’t I just suspend my disbelief? I could have really used a “hope-n-change” break before reality set in. Now it’s set in, and our nation continues it’s rendezvous with Imperial Collapse.
Keep on fighting for us (we peons) though, won’t you?
Although I appreciate you calling out anyone in government, how about writing a piece about where you think we’d be if McCain/Palin won instead. You can work with their promises and project the ‘would have/could have’s the same way you do Obama’s.
Oh, and please don’t leave out Bill Krystal from the ‘nebbish little dork’ list next time.
McCain/Palin would have sent the even 40K soldiers McChrystal wanted, instead of compromising to 35K. Perhaps tack on an extra 2-5000. Big huge difference!
Do the apologists ever get tired of the “McCain/Palin would have been worse!” mantra? We should give Obama a free pass? especially when the result is little different than McCain/Palin would have been? Is it wrong for us to demand that Obama try a little harder?
In response to another comment. See in context »I didn’t realize I was being an apologist. But I do believe that every time someone on the so-called left piles on Obama for not writing the health care legislation, or making timetables or not meeting timetables etc etc is just fueling the right. They get off on knowing that all these disenfranchised Democratic voters won’t show up at the polls next time and they’ll swoop in and take over again with their base of tea party thinkers. I’m just asking for a little reminder that things could be worse – they were worse with the GOP in charge. I don’t want that to happen again especially since we aren’t any where near paying for their last mistakes.
In response to another comment. See in context »Things could always be worse – you can always add in demons or comet-strike if you need to; we gain little by pointing that out. More importantly, I fail to see how we should accomplish the things I want to accomplish – dire things that affect the health of our country, the world, the planet – by staying silent and letting Obama drift further to the right. If we speak up, perhaps you’re right – there is the outside chance that it will somehow, paradoxically, empower the right, but if we say nothing, then their victory is assured.
This isn’t a contest; I am not merely interested in my “side” remaining in power. I have real goals: I want a sensible health care system in this country that reduces cost and provides universal coverage. I want a sound energy policy and environmental responsibility, and a strong commitment to fighting global warming. I want an end to foolish and needless wars and occupations of other countries. I want capitalists reined in before their folly destroys the edifice of our economy completely. If the guy in charge isn’t doing accomplishing things, if he is in fact enabling their defeat, what makes him, in any way, my ally?
In response to another comment. See in context »expat wins one free internet!
Yes, Brooks is a strapper, but there is little danger of Obama rediscovering his Christianity until shortly before the 2012 election, unless his numbers really start to tank, and Rahm instructs him to start stumping in churches again. Remember, church, like the public option and progressive economic advisers, are for the campaign only.
Matt you are simply the best. This is the BEST smack-down of Brooks ever.
David Brooks is a self delluded idiot not worth the attention.
As for Obama, well it seems that US foreign and domestic policy under him is the same as Bush. Same motives, more spin, just a different costume.
The US political platform is dictated by powerful greedy US corporations and Obama is simply continuing to function within this power structure. The US and its allies such as their boot-licking British cousins are continuing to occupy Afghanistan so Citigroup, Boeing, Halliburton, US and British oil & gas companies can reap maximum gain.
Obama is going to use the lives of US troops and a $600 billion budget in the coming year to continue this mission just like his predecessors. Nearly 200 US soldiers were killed and hundreds wounded trying to protect the so called democratic elections in Afghanistan. In the end a corrupt, glorified war-lord called Karzai won. That is the worth of human life, be it the lives of American troops, Afghan civilians or the millions of citizens without healthcare according to Obama.
Considering the US and Britain both have serious healthcare crises effecting millions of their citizens, but are still spending unjustified amounts of taxpayers money on their attack budgets (surely it would be technically wrong to call it defence budgets), I wonder does the public still believe the White House spin doctors with their ridiculous “war on terror” catchphrases? Or that OBL is still sitting in a cave somewhere or hiding in Pakistan’s mountains successfully executing terror operations?
Absolutely right. Bingo. Brooks needs to be pantsed, over and over again.
I mean this in a literary sense. Matt’s blog today pulls down Brooks’ pants and makes him cry. It’s something that needs to be done on a weekly basis, pretty much every time Brooks is published. David Brooks would have happily served Hitler or Stalin.
Also, you can be sure that David Brooks will be the first to throw Barack Obama to the sharks when his popularity falls below a certain point. Obama is a fool to trust him.
I hope Matt gets to hang out with David Brooks at some swank Manhattan cocktail party soon, so they can chat.
I sort of miss the old days when writers took their opinions seriously enough to punch each other in the face over them.
What would really be fun is a cage match between Brooks and Charles Krauthammer to see who can lick Dick Cheney’s butt-crack the cleanest.
“David Brooks would have happily served Hitler or Stalin.”
My only problem with this statement is that it is too weak to describe Brooks’s natural powers of sycophancy and sucking-up. To do justice to to them, you have to envisage the guy transplanted into a Cormac McCarthy novel. Imagine one of those sodomising, amputating, cannibal gangs from “The Road” proceeding down a highway. In front of them is a little nerdy guy with cracked glasses and a shit-eating grin testifying to their natural goodness for any remaining uneaten humans hiding in the darkness. Yea – even at the end of the world, David Brooks would fall on his feet. Pity the poor folk that he deceives, though.
In response to another comment. See in context »“What is militarism? It is the madness of a nation…Militarism is a theory of state. Where militarism exists the government is a part of the army, instead of the army being a part of the government. With militarism the idea of war dominates even the pursuits of peace; and war becomes a public policy for the expansion of a country’s territory and the development of its resources. Militarism is the internal control of the whole machinery of government in times of peace as well as in times of war.” – John Hibben, in the The Higher Patriotism some 45 years before Eisenhower’s infamous farewell speech.
I also think we ought to have a blanketed “Godwin’s law”-type ban on appropriating Niebuhr. He was a democratic-socialist who was deeply opposed to the Vietnam War, so it’s not exactly a slam dunk that he would have appreciated the rationality of the Iraq or Afghan Wars.
Brooks resorts to the worst caricature of the anti-war movement: the unthinking idealist who hasn’t seen the light of “political realism.” It goes hand in hand with the growing “Church of the Savvy.”
I often think that when guys like Brooks or McFaul write this shit, they’ve got “Damn It Feels Good to be a Gangsta” on repeat and are trying to come up with ways to quote it and paraphrase it without using the n-word. It always comes back believing the last two lines, “Cuz now I got the world swingin’ from my nuts; And damn it feels good to be a gangsta,” and forgetting two of the first, which explain that real gangsters don’t flex nuts, because real gangsters know they got ‘em.
Matt,
I appreciate the content of this and you may see me as a spoilsport but I think the image of Brooks jerking off pushes your case too far in the beginning of the piece. Yes it is (sort of) funny but I think you are a good enough writer to suggest that Brooks is (sexually?) turned on by displays of and access to power without the gratuitousness of this image. In my book it would be funnier to talk about Brooks’ “racing pulses” “stirring in pants” and other more suggestive ways to discuss this.
I do appreciate though the perspective but I only wish that you had made the sexual imagery less overt to make your point at just a slightly higher level of abstraction. I want people to read what you have to say and not put on a “vulgarity” filter that keeps them from absorbing the very important ideas behind the piece.
The point IMO is not to personally humiliate Brooks but to point out a pattern that sweeps through government and the punditocracy.
Ahh Matt, I love your guts and all your writings.
Does David Brooks over-night at the “C Street Jesus as a Killer” church/brothel/slush fund to absorb his talking points? Put God right next to guns and you’re on.
You’re right, he does have that mouth that looks too ready for ass kissing and too late for reality. Odd though, his taste buds are telling him and us they aren’t exactly loving the steady ass diet, their distaste causes his mouth to veer into sneers wanting to spit, but he swallows every time. If he can swallow it, he doesn’t see why we can’t.
His eyes are always darting around looking for the nearest exit, just in case…so far so good, he still has a job. But how?
Matt is entitled to take down Brooks’s sycophantic American Establishment philosophizing, but he’s not entitled to take at face value Brooks’s ascribing that to Barack Obama. ‘Onward Christian warriors’ is not extractable as the belief system on which Obama’s Oslo speech rests, nor any other writing by Obama. Brooks is reinterpreting Obama to make him palatable to some of his conservative friends, since Brooks has said nice things about Obama’s intelligence and motives, and wants to get those friends to believe that maybe Obama is not the Weak Liberal they’ve stereotyped him as. That’s all that’s going on. But Matt is making this into an uber-explanation of Obama’s Afghanistan policy. Nonsense.
I’ve not followed American politics for most of my life, and in my tiny home country of New Zealand it is very rare to even encounter a situation where subjects like ‘good’ and ‘evil’ might be discussed.
So I think the first time I had ever heard a politician talk about ‘good’ us versus ‘evil’ them was in the first gulf war, and it would have been Herbert Walker Bush telling us that Saddam was evil.
To me, those words had previously only existed in films and books of a certain genre, and the bible. So they were ‘cartoon’ words that left me distinctly uneasy when heard from the president of the U.S.A.
Fortunately that war didn’t last long and I never paid a lot of attention to Clinton. But then George Walker Bush came along and within a year he was using these words almost every other sentence.
It seemed infantile, it still does. Good and Evil may serve as shorthands for the types of acts engaged in by particularly generous or unpleasant people. But the reason for these acts is always rooted in specific mental/emotional states that we can describe logically without using fairytale words.
‘Evil’ is just another word for the type of acts and thoughts that normally we couldn’t bear to do or have ourselves. But some people are born with a sadistic streak, and others have severe mental health problems such as certain types of schizophrenia and paranoia that lead them to do things that are ‘evil’.
But ‘evil’ doesn’t exist on its own, any more than ‘height’ exists on it’s own. Similarly, ‘good’ only exists as an attribute of something, not as it’s own entity.
And it’s not like we don’t know the real causes of ‘evil’ these days. Between mental health problems, peer pressure, ruthlessness and revenge, people can, over time, be driven to come up with more and more horrific acts to subject others to. But any psychologist would be able to tell you what combination of circumstances and conditions have probably led to the hideous murder/rape culture of the Congo militia gangs of today. Simply saying they are ‘Evil’ is both stupid, and counterproductive, because the term doesn’t encourage the idea of rehabilitation or repair at all.
We now seem to be in an era of politics where the use of ‘evil’ and ‘good’ as specific entities is well entrenched and the public just accepts it without question.
I swear from an external viewpoint it seems like your political/foreign policy debates are at the level of elementary school students.
There’s not a lot of hope for a workable policy when you describe your opponents as the boogeyman in the closet.
Sorry, first mention of Herbert Walker Bush should be George W Bush.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’ve always wondered why anybody could possibly think any form of war was justified in any “Christian” capacity. It makes me want to spit Tolstoy quotes at everybody’s faces. Doesn’t matter anyway, as most people misinterpret even Thomas Aquinas as much as they misinterpret the Constitution. Shucks.
It’s something that needs to be done on a weekly basis, pretty much every time Brooks is published. David Brooks would have happily served Hitler or Stalin.
http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2009/12/protocol-droid-speaks.html
Driftglass has been doing it, brilliantly, for years.
I find True Believers and the True Believer Syndrome repugnant in the extreme. When I say ‘True Believer’, it doesn’t necessarily refer to religion. It runs the gamut from religion to politics of any stripe; an unreasonable and unreasoning belief in and adherence to anything. True Believers never questions their assumptions, are convinced they are right, and their way is the only way. They ooze arrogance and self-delusion. Truth, God, goodness, history, whatever, is always on their side and they feel fully justified in imposing their beliefs, way of life, and political systems on everyone else.
It never occurs to them that others may not see things their way and would prefer to do things and live a different way. That they choose to believe differently religiously, politically, morally, ethically, economically, or sexually.
Has anyone in power ever asked the Iraqis, the Afghans, or the Palestinians one simple question, “What is it that you want?” If they have asked, did they listen to the answer? Based on results, no one has.
This country and its leaders are profoundly arrogant and presumptuous. It’s one delusional circle-jerk.
Interesting information in the article, I loved reading about what Brooks article boiled down to and how it’s the same as previous articles, just with quotes and references pulled for a different audience, really shows that he’s a sell out.
But the mindless childish ad hominems really bring the article back to point for me in showing that liberals are no different than conservatives. As soon as they can, they call each other every name in the book.
Humanity in general is unimportant, so long as you can paint whoever is on the other side of the fence as Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Bush/Obama/the devil/etc.
It’s pathetic, and I really wish pseudo-academic articles like this wouldn’t perpetuate such a mindless and short-sighted agenda as simply appeasing emotional reactions. We get it. Brooks pisses you off. Logic is what will win me over to your side, not pedantic tirades about what you image Brooks to masturbate to.
“But the mindless childish ad hominems really bring the article back to point for me in showing that liberals are no different than conservatives.”
As a group, liberals (liberal males, anyway) sure have a devotion to tough-guy posturing. I used to think it was a defensive response to the standard image of liberal males as wimps (an image also tacked on to male English profs, pianists, and so on). Such a response is understandable.
But, more and more, I’m getting the impression that at least some of our tough-talkers on the left ADMIRE the behavior in question. Which makes me uncomfortable. I can’t imagine envying or admiring unprincipled bullies like Cheney, Rove, or John Boehner. These are not people to be like.
I’d like to think the dickhead act is just that, but I’m really starting to wonder.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Some based their foreign-policy thinking on being against whatever George W. Bush was for. If Bush was an idealistic nation-builder, they became Nixonian realists.”
It’s hard not to be cynical knowing that there are well paid fools spewing such nonsense, and that there are self loathing liberals who read it, nod their heads and grunt in agreement.
The crimes of our age are the casual deceptions that cooperate to create run-of-the-mill delusions. David Brooks is a grand pimp.
I’m a big fan of your “storm the Bastille” style.
There are knee-jerk liberals. Just as Brooks describes. He is correct. If a healthy measure of humility equals self-loathing, then I’m proud to be a self-loather.
You seem bent on proving Brooks’ point.
In response to another comment. See in context »I am ecstatic about this passage: “It’s because nebbishly little dorks like Brooks and Paul Wolfowitz and David Frum got their books dumped in high school that we end up dropping daisy cutters on Afghan sheep herds and shipping working class American kids halfway around the world to get their nuts blown off.”
Exactly! This is what I have always thought of Brooks: here’s a guy who used to get the crap beaten out of him on a semi-regular basis, age 13-16, and he (because he’s relatively smart, but not objectively smart) decided it was a lot easier to curry favor with his abusers than to oppose them. What amazes me is that no one seems to see this! It’s right there in his mincing demeanor on PBS; he even looks like he’s trying to duck blows while he talks. It would be great satire if only he hadn’t been instrumental in so much killing.
Matt, that was not fair. You need to put up a disclaimer before you post things like those first two paragraphs. I took a big gulp of Diet Coke just as I finished your opening quote. The next thing I knew, I had DC spewing out my nose, running down my neck and splattering onto my keyboard. I was laughing so hard I accidentally sucked the remaining DC lodged in my sinuses right back up my nose. That was the funniest shit I’ve read or heard in weeks. Spot on Matt. Spot on.
Matt, hope you can kick Brook’s ass…! Not that I think you can’t or that I like the guy… but after this if he has one drop of testosterone in his doughy body he better call you outside.
Brooks probably went to private school. I had a boss like him – pressed his bluejeans. If he had gone to public school he would have been found hanging by his belt and partially stuffed in a gym locker…
Its like a fresh breeze blows through my office when I read this guy. I suppose he wouldn’t be so offensive to the “wonks” if he didn’t use such tough language like .. dork. In this day of yellowish news reporting I’ve come to admire this kind of clarity.
few things are more irritating than watching armchair generals like brooks suggesting that the people who oppose war are the ones being posers. talk about self-projecting.
anyways i thought that bullshit argument died back in 2004. apparently i was wrong.
Easy target. Unfortunately, a bit pointless, since no one that matters gives a damn whether David Brooks approves of anything or not.
The logical extension of your premise that these hawks are just beat-up school kids gotten older might suggest that all these namby-pamby efforts to bring fairness and stop bullying in the school yard might just be good ideas. Who would have thought?
Good piece, Matt. Brooks is a classic Villager, but what the MSM, including obviously the NYT, don’t get is that Brooks is essentially a bigot. He’s hates Arabs, Muslins generally, and Europeans. He’s made that clear in his commentary for many years. He couches his xenophobia in a personna of nebbish amiability, but he’s no wonk and certainly no Boy Scout. He’s a hater, much along the lines of the wingnuts he occasionally disparages.
Nice stuff as always, Matt, but this one was a heckuva Xmas present. You remind me of me when I’m trashing CDs for the outlets I write reviews for. Who’s to say I won’t ever be in the same room with Tiesto and that he wouldn’t try to wring my neck?
That is balls, my nigga. You are fast becoming the pundit of your generation, I told my know-it-all son that just yeserday, no shit.
Toward that, see, what’s going to happen, without a doubt in my mind, right, is you’re somehow going to end up on the same ABC This Week show as that slimy little douchebag.
It’ll be uncomfortable for you for a few minutes as you settle into your chair and get miked up, but you can get through the sketchiness by making a game out of it: see if Cokie Roberts’s eyes ever blink (useless horrible part-of-the-problem fucking dinosaur that she is).
Keep hitting em into the cheap seats, boy.
O/T Matt: Hope you have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.
We have learned nothing from history. Nothing.
Look up the lyrics to Bob Dylan’s “With God On Our Side” and Phil Och’s “I Ain’t Marching Anymore.”
Good comment!
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt, after reading your article in rollingstone about goldman sachs I’ve become an avid of your work. As always, I agree with you all the way but… what to do? It seems like after the 1960’s, the establishment learned from their mistakes and made sure that the people would never be able to organize and make REAL change in this country ever again. Your analysis of the situation with obama is spot on but what to do about it? We know the game is rigged… it seems that knowledge is not half the battle anymore. A lot of people know that all the the capitol building is a three ring circus but is the best thing we can hope for is to be passive observers, and letting the fire burn itself out? I see no other solution to the influence of money and the (insert here) industrial complexes on our national government.
[...] Matt Taibbi: There is a American kid in Afghanistan who is going to die tomorrow because Rahm Emanuel doesn’t want his boss to have to answer toughness questions from somebody like Brian Williams in a 2012 electoral debate. And I’m the cynic here? [...]
Wow, Mr. Smarty-Pants. The know-it-all-ness would benefit from a dose of clever.
“Wow, Mr. Smarty-Pants. The know-it-all-ness would benefit from a dose of clever.”
Is Mr. hilmerreese talking about Obama? If so, I agree…
[...] on Brooks Matt Taibbi reads David Brooks so we don’t have to: My first thought upon reading this was, “Wasn’t it just yesterday [...]
I don’t understand the complaints about the scene-setting of Brooks sitting in his jammies and wanking for all he’s worth. The guy is a wanker without peer.
The greater point is that this guy gets the venue he does. Says more about the elite in this country than can ever be said outright.
This country’s elite likes war, likes having the military as a government unto itself, and takes every opportunity to propagandize the rest of us in the most scurrilous fashion.
Would Brooks find war so attractive if war profiteering were illegal, if the elite were forced into uniform and deposited on the front lines, if all weapons industries were nationalized for the duration and run without profit? If that fight for good over evil included plunking down his plump ass in the middle of the Congo’s civil wars that have killed an estimated four million?
My guess is that Brooks would squawk like a Christmas goose headed for the funnel if war were fought on those terms. He’d quickly become an avowed pacifist and isolationist, and there would be very, very little talk from him employing the conservative’s favorite rhetorical device, the Manichean black-and-white, good v. evil, argument.
M’self, I think it’s time for the Brooks of this country to feel a little real fear, rather than the sort they regularly manufacture to influence the hoi polloi. There’d be a whole lot less cheerleading for war….
There will always be wars until someone produces a political paradigm that makes peace as efficient a vehicle for looting.
In response to another comment. See in context »I would have thought the current Wall St royalty have already demonstrated that peacetime is no impediment to wholesale looting of the public coffers.
Sure, there is a war going on as well, but the thieving the money-men are doing these days isn’t dependent on one. So your assertion is clearly false because the Wall St guys are able to loot with impunity and yet there is still an abundance of greed to drive war profiteering, by a mostly different bunch of slime.
In response to another comment. See in context »I know this is off-topic, but don’t know another way to bring this to Matt’s attention. Are you aware there was a full-fledged “Constitutional Convention” in St. Charles, IL this year?
This begs for one of Matt’s wonderful take-downs:
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2009-11-29.htm
You always seem to hit the nail on the head & address the real underlying problem with an issue that the “regular” media don’t seem to comprehend. Or perhaps it’s their philosophy that Americans are too stupid or too unfocused to handle more than a soundbite.
You’re such a good guy.
Not sure its fair to pick on Brooks – yes his Lippmann-esque schitck is tiring – because the entire mainstream media accepts and promotes the notion that the American empire is an unquestionable fact of “good” in the world.
They never really question how it is we can claim to be a “democracy” when all the decisions made about how we deploy our empire’s power are determined behind a secret, classified process Americans never “debate” because of “national security.”
Instead, the media frames the question for us: do we stay in with 20,000 or 40,000 or 80,000 troops? Always, the “get out” crowd is viewed as reckless, naive, treasonist cowards who want to undermine America. And of course the real “decision” has already been made and involves much more than the troop number that gets “debated” in public.
Cynical? Of course I’m cynical because we have spent trillions on “national defense” in the last few years without any debate because it in our national interest to prop up the defense industry while we “debate” healthcare reform which would cost far less and could provide health insurance for millions.
Some democracy.
I would love to see you do an article on Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, and others along those lines, Matt.
They seem to have a good feeling for the pulse of things.
I wrote an earlier comment that Matt’s tendency toward scurrilous description undermined the real serious moral commentary that hides underneath the satirical hyperbole. I know that many read Matt exactly for the most scurrilous things that he can write and I will grant you that this is important for his popularity. I guess I think he should get better “control” of his gift for colorful descriptions of the dark side of American political and economic life because to me this piece just gets TOO personal about a figure that I don’t really care that much about. If this were a high official or a quasi-oligarch from the business world, that would be one thing. But Brooks is not even the most influential commentator in the Times op-ed roster, which plucked him out of relative obscurity to be their “conservative” lite voice. I think Matt could use his gift better and more judiciously on other figures.
That being said, the “take home message” that I think is being obscured by Matt’s colorful language is as follows:
1) There is a ring of commentators and speechifiers both in office and in the commentariat that glorify America’s use of arms no matter to what purpose they are being deployed
2) These commentators are most probably people who have an unhealthy, perhaps sexualized, identification with the image of the warrior
3) This might come from the experience of being particularly unathletic nerds as children and having been bullied in our culture that celebrates physical prowess over intellectual acumen.
4) These chicken-hawks distract us from the real costs to actual soldiers that the glorification of arms and the real reasons that we are engaging in military adventures.
5) The division of the world into good and evil is a morally suspect enterprise
6) The use of the force of arms to combat evil, if it exist, is often (always?) wrong.
Even though I didn’t degree with the use that Obama put his Oslo speech, in its propositional content it was difficult to disagree with. It was a very good speech that was put into service to support a morally questionable enterprise.
Obama is putting his speaking and communication gifts to use to support a very conventional somewhat right of center political and economic agenda. This is a big disappointment to me and it sounds like it is a big disappointment to Matt. I wish he would use his gifts to transform the terms of American discourse about a number issues including war and piece. But other than his determination to become the first black President, Obama hasn’t shown much boldness in terms of his actual policy agenda.
Uh…I think I like Matt’s version better. Maybe you can put your comments up on the refrigerator with a couple of gold stars so you feel good about your writing talent. But, I’ll take Matt’s straight to the heart any day. The man has a gift. Seriously. Read your post. Then read his. It isn’t even close.
In response to another comment. See in context »Walter,
I’m focused on the ideas behind the writing. You are focused on the surface of the writing and apparently seem to think I wrote that comment as part of a “contest” with matt.
I realize Matt’s writing attracts people like you who are cruising around looking for the cruelest put-down you can find. Fair enough.
I care about what’s going on in terms of ideas. While I may not have represented Matt’s ideas exactly, I’m trying to draw them out of their sarcastic skin, so we can discuss them as post-pubescents rather than mere pubescents.
In response to another comment. See in context »So what are you trying to say here, michaelsfb? In your post above, you are saying contradictory things; that Matt’s writing is too childish for the intellectual, yet his points are too intellectual for the childish?
Matt doesn’t need you to be his personal translator, he seems to have a pretty thorough grasp of the English language without your help. If you feel the need to paraphrase his posts in a language you find more palatable, well, my best recommendation to you is to get your own blog. Until then, I certainly hope that there is enough air for you to breathe way up there on your pedestal, because oxygen deprivation can lead to brain damage, and all of humanity would suffer if your intelligence were diminished in any way. Douche.
In response to another comment. See in context »Sarge, thanks for demonstrating my point for me. I guess that’s the first time time I’ve been called a “douche” since about …let me see… middle school!! Just about the time of puberty…
The thing is I want to actually use what Matt is saying in political discussions where people don’t call each other douches. I actually care about people being sent to war under false pretenses. I’m not sure if you do. I guess you are happy with whatever effluent comes out… To each his own, “sarge”.
In response to another comment. See in context »Oh…to answer your first question. Yes, I think some of what Matt has to say is lost in his rhetoric and lost to people who just like to hear him “whomp on” anybody they don’t like. So it is a matter not of writing the English language but gaining control of Matt’s ideas so he can use his writing gift more wisely. I don’t think this is his best piece. He admits in the beginning that Brooks tempts him to be scurrilous and he is scurrilous. But scurrilous only gets you so far.
I think Matt has the makings of a great satirist..which means more than just being sarcastic and putting people down. There are many people who have done that. A satirist gets at the underbelly and shows it to people who are not inclined to look at the underbelly. If their language is too foul, they only attract people who like foul language.
I don’t care enough about Matt or Brooks to start my own blog about this.
In response to another comment. See in context »First, I don’t think any of the “take home message” was obscured by Matt’s writing style. I think we all got his points just fine. I think maybe you aren’t receiving enough attention at home or enough “atta boys” at work and you came calling on this blog for some strokes.
You probably won’t get those strokes suggesting Matt address the ideas he addressed, but that he should write it the way you wrote it instead of the way he wrote it. Whose blog is this anyway? It was Matt who brought up all the ideas you chose to regurgitate in the first place.
Second, your criticism is entirely based on his style, not his substance. You really do come across as petty, frustrated and a wee bit jealous. Are you a journalist, a blogger or someone who might feel professionally threatened by all the attention Matt’s gotten lately? Or are you an angry writer who hasn’t been able to break through? “I think Matt could use his gift better and more judiciously on other figures.”
Third, I don’t even agree with your premise that his language is undermining his argument. Matt tackles very tough issues that many writers won’t take head on. He says what many of us think but can’t articulate, at least not as well as he can. He anchors his ideas and points to powerful visual imagery. (often blunt or gross or mean.) And, he’s funny. Those things make his points interesting and compelling. And it makes his writing effective. His ideas stick in our heads. (“vampire squid jamming it’s blood funnell.”) What’s wrong with that? Isn’t that what writers are supposed to do?
In this particular piece, wanking in the Versace jammies was a visual anchor to drive home his points about the subtext of Brooks agenda. It makes total sense why he would use language that you describe as “pubescent.” That’s the point. Get it? Brooks is locked in his own pre-pubescent need for approval from the powers that be. Just like a sexually frustrated pre-teen pining for validation from the cool kids or the “warriors.”
Fourth, Maybe if you disagreed with his core ideas you might have something serious to take issue with. But, you don’t. You didn’t disagree with any of the main points in Matt’s piece. How can you say he’s underming serious moral commentary? Did you skip over his comments about young Americans dying in Afghanistan? If you don’t disagree with the ideas presented in the piece, all you’ve got left is writing style.
Fifth, why is it you feel so compelled to come onto a Matt Taibbi blog under the guise of meaningful and polite political discourse and proceed to slag everyone who likes the way Taibbi writes?
“I know that many read Matt exactly for the most scurrilous things that he can write and I will grant you that this is important for his popularity.” “I realize Matt’s writing attracts people like you who are cruising around looking for the cruelest put-down you can find. Fair enough.” “I’m trying to draw them out of their sarcastic skin, so we can discuss them as post-pubescents rather than mere pubescents.” “I guess you are happy with whatever effluent comes out… To each his own, “sarge”.
Fifth and finally, my God you are full of yourself. Your reactions remind me of the Tucker Carlson/Jon Stewart feud. I’m also reminded of Salieri and Mozart. You figure out which one I think you might be.
“I guess I think he should get better “control” of his gift for colorful descriptions of the dark side of American political and economic life.” “I think Matt could use his gift better and more judiciously on other figures.” “So it is a matter not of writing the English language but gaining control of Matt’s ideas so he can use his writing gift more wisely.” “I don’t think this is his best piece.” “I think Matt has the makings of a great satirist..which means more than just being sarcastic and putting people down.”
I’m at least glad that with your help and guidance, Matt just might have the makings of a great satirical writer. For our sake, please don’t let your pupil stray and deny us the greatness you can impart on him (and us).
In response to another comment. See in context »OK, you’re the guy that likes to sit back and read Matt’s prose as it happens. Fine.
You and others could have ignored my comment. I didn’t come to put people down… what you are quoting are my responses to your and sarge’s put-downs of my efforts. So yes, my responses ARE put-downs. But where is it that my put-downs are wrong and yours are right? Your put-downs ain’t in the league of Jon Stewart, in case you were hoping they were.
I’m not interfering with your enjoyment of it unless I’m actually getting you to think rather than just consume Matt’s stuff. I praise Matt and I recognize that he has both some good ideas and a way with words. I’m glad the piece has entertainment value.
If I have an opinion about Matt’s writing and think it can be improved or changed, that doesn’t mean I’m “full of myself”. Posting things on the Internet means that other people can comment on it instead of absorbing it like a passive sponge. I’m not just a fanboy posting atta-boys. Some people are…I’m not. That doesn’t make me a “Tucker Carlson” or whatever.
That doesn’t make them worthy of attack either, unless they, like you and sarge, decide to attack someone like me for a serious effort to push the discussion forward beyond the attaboys. I want Matt’s message out there to a broader audience outside the pubescents. You don’t care. Fine.
I guess this has been a little sociological experiment to see if there are people in Matt’s online readership that actually want to discuss the content rather than revel in the put-downs. I guess there aren’t that many.
In response to another comment. See in context »michaelsfb,
You’re not “discussing the content” when you write things like:
“I realize Matt’s writing attracts people like you who are cruising around looking for the cruelest put-down you can find.”
“I’m trying to draw them out of their sarcastic skin, so we can discuss them as post-pubescents rather than mere pubescents.”
What you are doing is more akin to censorship, can you not see why that wouldn’t fly around here? Nobody asked you to come here and put your own word filter on Matt’s writings, why do you feel compelled to keep pressing this point? This seems the action of someone suffering from a serious case of narcissism or delusional self importance, not the altruistic desire to “spread the word” as you keep alluding to. I, like everyone else here, am an adult, and am perfectly able to make my own decisions of whether or not I want to continue following a passage that contains words that may be interpreted by some as offensive, I do not need you to water it down for me in order to preserve my delicate senses. And if I were so sensitive as to be willing to reverse my position on an issue because someone used a graphic metaphor or two, wouldn’t that already make me too shallow a person to be counted on in the first place? You like Matt’s message but feel that his language may offend some, well, like I told you above, start your own blog about it. Not motivated enough to do that? Well, consider not trying to be so offensive in your own commentary here (consider the situation in reverse….if you were the one making what you thought were relevant points in a public forum, yet some member of the crowd felt the need to keep sounding off right after you were finished speaking to censor/change everything you said because he felt you had the idea right but that you said it all wrong…a bit annoying to say the least, right?).
Now, in response to this comment:
“I actually care about people being sent to war under false pretenses. I’m not sure if you do. I guess you are happy with whatever effluent comes out… To each his own, “sarge”.”
I wonder where in my original reply I made any mention of my own point of view concerning troops deploying to war? What little clue did you use to so effectively discern my opinion on this? Being dead wrong in your evaluation, let me enlighten you with a little backstory. I served in Iraq from 2004-2005. I served in Afghanistan from 2007-2008. I am currently getting ready to go back to Afghanistan. I have two cousins, a brother, and a sister-in-law who are also on their way to Afghanistan (one of them is going for the fifth time). Still think I don’t care about sending troops to war under false pretenses? It is a bit ridiculous to assume that just because I disagreed with your comment that I automatically hold an opposing view on the issues that you find important. Just like it is a bit ridiculous to assume that people need your paraphrasing in order to appreciate the points Matt is trying to make using his own words.
To further prove my point above, one of the characteristics of a narcissist is the need to “have the last word”, so I fully expect (although I must admit, not eagerly) your reply. I have to say though, I am beginning to feel a little like Barney Frank here, in that I have no interest in arguing with a dining room table.
In response to another comment. See in context »Damned if I do and damned if I don’t, hunh, sarge? If I reply I am a narcissist and if I don’t reply, I am also a narcissist. Nice set up…thank you (insincere).
First, full respect for your service to this country! Thank you (sincere) for that!
I am also going to apologize to you for applying quotation marks to your screenname. You are apparently a sergeant. Also I’m going to apologize for the implication that there MIGHT be the possibility that you didn’t care about what happens to the troops. You obviously do.
However, whatever your service, I’m not going to thank you for your calling me a douche and saying this is NOT the place to do exactly what I am doing. The internet, unlike the public forum you mentioned, is EXACTLY the place where people take the ideas of others and run with them and DISCUSS THOSE IDEAS with others. That’s what I’m doing and that’s what you’re doing now with me though you don’t like it. You don’t see the use of it and prefer to apply various names to me.
Your claim that I am “censoring” Matt is delusional. I am a commenter on the Internet. Matt is a well-known writer backed by Rolling Stone Magazine. The only people that can censor him are the people who own Rolling Stone or the government.
Rather than being a fun diversion between deployments, wouldn’t you prefer that Matt’s writing was read by people like Sec’y Gates and the Sen Armed Services Committee? Do you think they take people who write about imaging guys masturbating in Versace jammies seriously?
Matt has started to be taken seriously in his commentaries on Goldman and recently Obama and the banks. But to me this piece is a step backwards towards simply wallowing in the cultural/psychological muck.
If I disagree with you and have good reason to do so, doesn’t mean that I’m a piece of furniture, by the way.
In response to another comment. See in context »Damn Sarge, you and your family got something personal against these people or you just like you job?
In response to another comment. See in context »You keep saying you are all about the content. So, let’s see it. What do you think about the content? We all know what Matt said and we really know how you would paraphrase what Matt said. Do you have anything regarding the content that you thought of yourself? A counterpoint? Go for it. Further the debate on the content. We are all waiting.
In response to another comment. See in context »Well Walther,
You’re asking me to have a lot more balls than many of the people who comment here have to actually put out an opinion about content rather than lacing it all with sarcasm and venom. Furthermore you’ve treated my efforts here as something that you want to attack and now you’re saying you want hear my opinion? For what purpose? As fodder for another sarcastic put down? Do you have the balls to state an honest opinion here that isn’t a sarcastic putdown?
But since I’ve taken it this far let me say that I have two ideas that are potential solutions to the problem that Matt outlines, which is that people who don’t have a stake in the losses of war, celebrate and/or make decisions that effect those that do.
1) If we are going to continue to provide “armed services” to places like Europe or the middle East, i.e. be the world’s gendarme, we should bring back the draft for which there are no exemptions (maybe a national service with some equivalent level of exertion for C.O.’s). This is one way to make the chickenhawks of the world experience or at least know people who will experience the consequences of American military adventurism
2) Better yet, scale back the military adventurism and redefine what it means for the US to be strong and secure. Redefine the purpose of the military and then scale back the military using a number of realistic scenarios about potential future conflicts. We need the money, frankly, for other purposes including re-fitting our domestic infrastructure to address climate change etc.
There you go….there’s an opinion. What do you got?
In response to another comment. See in context »You write about Brooks’ “eternal quest for macho cred.” Project much? Not that South Park-style prose turns me off, or anything. I can connect with my inner junior-high student as readily as anyone else. One has to, given the junior-high orientation of modern mass entertainment.
I read Brooks’ piece, and while I don’t remember exact details, it sounded reasonable to me. My main problem was not agreeing with Brooks’ agreement with Obama–I think we should have gotten out of A. a long time ago. And I never supported the Iraq invasion, even before it was revealed to be a lie-based move. And I go to church. Go figure.
Brooks’ point of view aside–and I realize your essay is all (or mostly) about what you presume to be his take–you yourself don’t view opposition to preemptive war as secular in nature and support for same as Christian? I sincerely hope not.
Re Brooks’ ass-kissing, I recall he was one of the first conservative columnists to criticize Bush, even while the “liberal” media was still too timid to take on President Cheney. So please cut him some slack.
Behold the prickly juxtaposition of “Barack Obama, Christian Warrior?” and “Rahm Emanuel”…
Matt,
You’re, and have always been (especially during the Dumbya days), a ray of hope for most of us who’ve become cynical over the years. You’ve finally outed Brooks for what he is – a closet zealot. These guys don’t come out right away, but sure have a way of exposing their true POV over time. Keep up the good work – soldier!
[...] From Tiabblog: [...]
As a Christian conservative, I wish I could bitch slap Brooks upside his head and make him bleed onto his frou frou pink shirt with its delicious hot pink and purple tie. (The black and blue bruises would also add a lovely touch.) Damn, I’m disgusted.
How could Brooks desecrate Christianity by saying Obama is one? Obama has never been a Christian – ever! If Brooks wasn’t so blinded by the excrement splattered all over his horn-rimmed glasses (not to mention that sucking noise booming in his ears), he’d see clearly that the LAST thing in the world anyone could call Obama is a Christian.
Obama has never been one – ever. To him, Christianity has never been anything but a tool to achieve his own ends. Obama says he joined Trinity United because he’d become a Christian; but trust me, it had nothing to do with faith.
Obama originally came to Chicago ostensibly to work as a ‘community organizer’ for Jerry Kellman. But the truth is the only thing Kellman was organizing were unions. Problem was, however, that by the mid-80’s, unions were dying in Chicago. The power vacuum had shifted to the black churches whose pastors ruled their congregations like union bosses. Kellman desperately wanted to tap that church power but he couldn’t; as a white Jew, the black churches wouldn’t let him. So, Kellman went looking for a black tool to do the job instead – and guess who answered Kellman’s ad in the paper? It is telling that Kellman’s first order to Obama after the kid arrived in Chicago was for Obama to march his ass into Trinity United Church and become a member. Obama the atheist not only joined, the pupil did his master’s bidding one better. Obama sucked up so powerfully to Rev. Wright that he soon called Wright ‘Uncle’. As a result, Wright’s support (not Kellman’s) landed Obama his first political appointment. Obama was clever enough to note that fact which is why he stayed on as a member of Trinity – but not as a believer.
The proof that Obama was never a Christian is revealed by how quickly he dumped his ‘Uncle’ once Wright’s racism began hurting Obama’s campaign. Further proof that Obama isn’t a Christian is revealed by his refusal to step foot inside a church since his election, his temper tantrum to have the cross removed during his speech at William and Mary, his refusal to have Christian decorations in the White House during Christmas, etc. But then why should Obama humor Christianity any longer? Just like Wright, Christianity was never anything but a tool to be used by Obama to attain his goal of becoming President. Now that he’s accomplished that, the faith is of no further use. How could Brooks not see that glaring fact?
Lord, reading Brooks’ suck-up article makes me channel Dorothy’s Aunt Em – “David, I’d love to strangle you with your stupid pink tie – but I can’t because I’m a Christian.”
“As a Christian conservative, I wish I could bitch slap Brooks upside his head and make him bleed…”
It’s good that you identified yourself as a christian conservative because you are certainly not a christian. See bible for examples supporting my point.
In response to another comment. See in context »Wow! Obama made calculated choices with his political future in mind? Unprecedented. And, for sure, if he hasn’t attended church since stepping into office, as you claim, then he can’t be a Christian. For, if there’s one thing Christ emphasized, it’s that the essence of being a Christian is keeping up appearances, and who cares what’s in your heart?
Re Christmas decorations, even if there’s truth to the charge, at worst it would point to a lack of regard on his part for the popular celebration of Christmas–and we know that Obama is fairly blind to the popular pulse (mixed metaphor?). I suspect he was in God-and-guns mode when (and if) he suggested forgoing religious decorations. He speaks. Then, a few days later, he thinks.
It doesn’t make him a non-Christian, however.
Jesus, however, probably wouldn’t look too kindly on O.’s apparent indifference to the fate of health care reform. Or his virtual eagerness to continue such Bush policies as prolonging pointless wars, ignoring security warnings, using God’s name for gain, and funneling tax dollars to Wall St.
Speaking of Bush, now there was a guy who probably couldn’t name the first book of the Bible. The atheism of Bush adviser Karl Rove is an open secret in Washington. I recall an MSNBC guest joking about it.
Are you sure you have the right non-Christian?
In response to another comment. See in context »@Savio: You may be right about Obama’s external appearance not really being a good indicator of his personal spiritual beliefs. Personally I had him pegged as a Christian-in-name-only as soon as he said he wouldn’t bother attending that nightmare called the National Prayer Breakfast, which is organised by the twisted souls in the Family.
However, you are dead wrong about GW Bush. He may not have been able to quote any part of the Bible but his faith was well documented. He only felt comfortable with world leaders who were genuine Christians, he attended the aforementioned prayer breakfast every year, he spoke of his personal connection to God and his thought that God specifically wanted him to be President when he was.
I’m pretty sure he was a born-again, who are often extremely slavish in their self-proclaimed piety, but all too often fail at any real test of Christian principles.
And that, as you mention, is the true test of Christianity. Any real Christian president, in power today, would have no choice but to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq, release 90% of the detainees, and start war crimes trials against Bush and most of his administration.
And on the 2nd day he would rewrite the healthcare bill for single-payer, withdraw all bailout monies given to Wall St, and make criminals of Bernanke, Geitner and Co for their duplicitous behavior.
None of that is going to happen, so the fact is, nobody who has say in the Oval Office in the last 20 years has been able to call themselves a Christan with any honesty.
In response to another comment. See in context »Your point of view strikes me as inconsistent. You seem to be going with the standard stereotype of the true believer as a not very bright bigot, yet you’re also calling out such people as phonies. Which are they? Real or counterfeit?
In response to another comment. See in context »When one man, President or not, holds ANY other man prisoner, for life, without a trial or even legal charges, with absolutely no basis in the rule of law, solely because they have the power, uh, I’m struggling here…if that’s not evil, please, someone help me, What Is It?
Good and evil may not adequately describe nations but there are individual actions that pass a threshold and must represent fundamental, unadulterated evil. These actions are not the result of delusion or hysteria or any manner of mental illness. They are cold, calculated acts of ego and hubris. Man against man or even man against child. They are often cloaked in perversions of language such as ‘unlawful combatant’ AKA person with no rights or ‘collateral damage’ AKA people whose lives are so insignificant they can repeatedly be killed without even much afterthought. This kind of evil stems from an arrogance that has as a predicate that WE are good and thus are incapable of any significant wrong. Sure, mistakes were made, they always are. Even when these ‘mistakes’ are repeated in a thousand different ways, thousands of times the predicate still stands…WE are good and THEY are evil.
It can’t just be that it is man’s nature to try to get what he wants to the exclusion of all others. WE have so much and it still isn’t enough. They have so little and it still isn’t little enough. But WE aren’t satisfied with the power to do evil we are driven to cross the line into hypocrisy. We will not be satisfied unless our evil acts are acknowledged as good…or at least until good and evil are understood to have no meaning.
Mr. Taibbi, you are a bad boy. Keep up the great work.