New York Times columnist David Brooks is defending his god, the state. To be fair, his criticism is aimed at a certain crowd. I find his blog to be a slightly brilliant criticism of "strong national defense" Republicans' hystericals about the Yemen bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab who terrorized a plane by lighting himself on fire. Brooks says:
Much of the criticism has been contemptuous and hysterical. Various experts have gathered bits of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s biography. Since they can string the facts together to accurately predict the past, they thunder, the intelligence services should have been able to connect the dots to predict the future.
Though David Brooks makes some good points against the hyprocrisy of the average state-loving Republican or Democrat, he makes a very poor case against those who don't support the state at all. His argument is pretty much "the state exists and is flawed, get over it."
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments
Connect with YAL
to the YAL channel on 
Upcoming Events
-
Info This seminar offers an introduction to the thoughts and thinkers of the...
-
Info The contrast between liberty and power in the history of the...
-
Info The summer’s final Freedom University boasts lectures on the hottest...
-
Info This is an all day, family-friendly convention for freedom-minded folks in...
-
Info Taking RSVP now for a June 30th - July 1st convention.We need to secure...
George, I don't agree with this statement;
Not once in his column did he address only Republicans or Democrats, he just addressed the public on the coruption of the government. On a lighter note, I agree with you that he is basicly saying:
But what he doesn't understand is that we aren't "whining", we are working to lessen government control of our constitutional liberties.
I tried not to insinuate that he was addressing republicans or democrats. He did a general criticism of those who criticized Obama in a certain way. His criticism was intelligent and justified for those who think that the state is a moral and just or even effective. Also, those who criticize Obama in that certain way are often republican.
I was going to make the fact that what I was saying was an unfair summary of what David Brooks actually meant but I figured people would get the gist of it. In any case, yeah, you are right.