In today's New York Times, David Brooks, in keeping with his self-placement as a quasi-independent-minded Republican, issues a quasi-criticism of Tom DeLay. Although Tom is a lovely man, we are told, he is simply too partisan. But this is an endearing flaw in a way, because it shows selfless enthusiasm to help the team. Brooks notes that DeLay is charged with shenanigans to help his team win, not with stealing money for himself.
Let's leave aside all those lobbying junkets, which certainly had something in it for ol' Tom. This is not actually all that endearing. Would partisanship and the selfless desire to help the team be a satisfying defense of Bin Laden, Joseph Goebbels, or Communists around the world during the Stalin era? The U.S. political system cannot and will not survive if enough people take partisanship to the lengths that DeLay has.
Brooks quasi-acknowledges this, and ends with a quasi-dig at the Democrats suggesting that they will be as bad in their turn as DeLay. I suppose one can't rule this out, but it would take some doing.
As someone who has known many "lovely men" in the course of his lifetime I can say without reservation, quasi, or otherwise that Tom Delay is the opposite of a lovely man. David Brooks, on the other hand, while being a lovely man, in a lovely violet shirt I might add, tries a little too hard to keep everybody a little happy.
ReplyDeleteLovely as that is, really, is not.
Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
ReplyDeleteI have a mark holdenshirt site called Holden Tees. We're a small company and we sell shirts and stuff.
Come and check it out if you get time
-Holden Tees