David Brooks, the New York Times’ idea of a sensible conservative voice, had a great op-ed (by his standards) Monday. It was unpredictably critical of Barack Obama, mainly for his administration’s massive spending. It looked as if Brooks couldn’t believe in the change.
Then he rolls out today’s op-ed, prostrating himself before the Almighty Obama by letting them tell their side of the story. Behold:
In the first place, they do not see themselves as a group of liberal crusaders. They see themselves as pragmatists who inherited a government and an economy that have been thrown out of whack. They’re not engaged in an ideological project to overturn the Reagan Revolution, a fight that was over long ago. They’re trying to restore balance: nurture an economy so that productivity gains are shared by the middle class and correct the irresponsible habits that developed during the Bush era.
This sort of explaining of the Obama administration’s intentions continues for several more paragraphs ad nauseum (and, for me, that’s a literal understanding of the phrase).
Ed Morrissey, who deserves a gracious tip of my hat for this, is exactly right that this column is supposed to represent David Brooks’ opinion, not that of Rahm Emmanuel and company. Why the hell does Brooks offer Obama the opportunity? It disgusts me on more than one level.
I encountered very similar circumstances during my stint as editor of the Hustler. I had members of Vanderbilt Student Government, Honor Council, and a million various clubs and organizations coming to us asking for a favorable story or opinion column. There’s a responsibility for newspapers to be independent from these groups. We let folks from VSG write guest columns or letters, but the kind of water-carrying displayed here by Brooks is beyond the pale.
