The contrast in today’s dueling NYT columns between David Brooks and Paul Krugman is worthy of close study even by those who make a habit (as I generally do) of avoiding the New York Times as if it were a leprous sore.
David Brooks, channeling his inner child, absolutely floats way from reality in a warm and whimsical bubble of utopian fantasy wherein the most leftist individual to ever run for the presidency, much less win it, runs a centrist, non-partisan, administration with truth and justice for all.
Meanwhile, Krugman calls for Obama to role over and destroy all conservative opposition and usher in an era of iron-fisted “progressive” domination of the entire United States.
Unfortunately, one man is being a realist here, and the other is having a dizzy spell worthy of a teenage girl at the concert of her “most favoritist” pop idol.
None of this in itself is surprising, but considering the reasons why Brooks finds it necessary to behave this way are instructive. We’re going to see a LOT more of this from the conservative pundit class, imprisoned as they are in enemy territory where they’ve been pistol-whipped into making rote expressions of embarrassment for carrying (even loosely, in Brook’s case), the conservative mantle. Had John McCain won, could anyone imagine Brooks writing a column like Krugman’s? Krugman writing a column like Brook’s?