The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewEamonn Fingleton Archive
Has David Brooks Defined a Turning Point for the Republican Party?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“Conservatism has lost the balance between economic and traditional conservatism. The Republican Party has abandoned half of its intellectual ammunition. It appeals to people as potential business owners, but not as parents, neighbors and citizens.”

So writes David Brooks in his latest column in the New York Times. Reading his words yesterday, I was immediately struck by their power. Brooks may have defined a turning point. Certainly, given how poorly Mitt Romney has been doing at a time when the state of the economy should have handed him an impregnable lead, it is clear that the Republican party is going through a historic life crisis. The betting is that it will seek to redefine itself in future elections and Brooks’s remarkable tour de force will help show the way. My conviction in this regard has not been lessened by the discovery this morning that his column has already attracted more than 540 comments at

Brooks is in a perfect position to read the Riot Act. For most of the last thirty years, he has been one of the Republican party’s more prominent spear carriers, having generally supported its ideology in a succession of commentariat jobs at National Review, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, and latterly at the New York Times. He even provided outspoken support for George W. Bush’s disastrous effort against Saddam Hussein. Though those of us who see the world in a larger context always knew the war was based on simplistic ideology and would end in fiasco, Brooks’s mistake has done nothing to undermine his credentials as a Republican loyalist. By the same token his credibility in the larger world was quickly repaired when he became one of the earliest of the war party’s members to admit that, to use Hirohito’s words in another context, the war situation had not necessarily developed to the aggressors’ advantage.

In condemning the party’s obsession with simplistic economic ideology, Brooks is again displaying the sort of intellectual leadership that has long been sorely lacking in both American political parties. His basic point is surely right: the human condition cannot be reduced to mere accounting pluses and minuses. The Republican party of the Eisenhower understood this and 1950s America was visibly the better for it (at least the white majority was and for minorities the trend on civil rights was already then moving in the right direction). It is past time the party rediscovered commonsense.

Eamonn Fingleton is the author of In the Jaws of the Dragon: America’s Fate in the Coming Era of Chinese Hegemony .

(Republished from Forbes by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Economics • Tags: Republicans 
Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Eamonn Fingleton Comments via RSS
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?