Ann Althouse delivers a stunning takedown of the NYT’s king of sanctimony, David Brooks, here. What she said got me thinking. Who in the world thinks like David Brooks? Those who imagine themselves rich and cultured and whom look to the NYT for advice on how to comport themselves in that manner.
However, this mindset reveals itself early on to be quite shallow. Does Brooks really imagine himself such a connoisseur of Christianity that being in Ephesus would have any real impact to him? No, he does not. He knows a little of it, enough to discuss it with ennui in broad, sweeping terms as he looks for the next full meal or martini. He is a professional gasbag, an intellectual dilettante, a sermonizer of the mundane.
Worse, this superficial outlook on life and a sense of being bored with it all constitutes not only the mindset of the lazily rich, but also those of the left. For the left also does not know subjects in any great detail, but knows just enough to peg ideas as “triggering” or “progressive” and so on. The left emulates the rich, because they long to be them, even as they claim to despise them. Put another way, the left is obsessed with greed because they are greedy. They do not want to have equality because they wish to participate in equality; they simply want to switch places with those currently at the top of the heap. This is typical – all the childishness and caprice of a third-grade dream, made rotten by the fact that it is held and believed by adults.
I think it humorous that anyone at the NYT opposed Brooks’ article. When I think of the NYT, I think of such stuffy, elitist, condescending, sanctimonious, and intellectually dilletantish articles as the norm. David Brooks is representative of the Times outdated mindset, perfectly preserved in time as though a fossil in an iceberg, as if a dinner table of the Titanic were to suddenly rise above the waves. The Times’ worldview is 1920’s cocktail set.
Finally, without any sense of irony, Brooks makes the case for Americans behaving badly overseas – they should be elitist. They should treat the staff as servants. They should be pretentious. And apparently most of all, they should live in a bubble and castigate the manners and the mores of their fellow man as being too bourgeoisie.
And the Times wonders why they are losing money hand over fist!