Sorry to defend David Brooks, but I have to. Think Progress ignores a subtlety in his column.

[BurtWorm]

The last four paragraphs undermine the apparent toadying that seems to have gone on in the rest of the column. Hang on after his one bit of toadying here, because the rest of the essay lets a wiser man have the last word to make Bush's "self-confidence"--his belief that the "club" of world leaders Bush likes and trusts can change the world--look like plain foolishness:

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/opinion/17brooks.html?hp

Many will doubt this, but Bush is a smart and compelling presence in person, and only the whispering voice of Leo Tolstoy holds one back.

Tolstoy had a very different theory of history. Tolstoy believed great leaders are puffed-up popinjays. They think their public decisions shape history, but really it is the everyday experiences of millions of people which organically and chaotically shape the destiny of nations — from the bottom up.

According to this view, societies are infinitely complex. They can’t be understood or directed by a group of politicians in the White House or the Green Zone. Societies move and breathe on their own, through the jostling of mentalities and habits. Politics is a thin crust on the surface of culture. Political leaders can only play a tiny role in transforming a people, especially when the integral fabric of society has dissolved.

If Bush’s theory of history is correct, the right security plan can lead to safety, the right political compromises to stability. But if Tolstoy is right, then the future of Iraq is beyond the reach of global summits, political benchmarks and the understanding of any chief executive.

[greenman3610]

1. "smart and compelling presence in person,"

Jesus.

[BurtWorm]

2. Just hold your breath and get past that.

The rest of the column basically calls Bush a fool.

[ananda]

3. gag.. and I get it that DB just wants to be seen as a credible..

.. intellectual pundit. Thus Tolstoy and a bit of novelist wisdom.

It's true that the Iraq war cannot be won simply because it's not a real war
but rather a simplistic police action designed to keep Iraqi oil flowing and
contractors making money. It's not about aid or freedom or democracy,
though sometimes the pseudo-patriotic rhetoric might fool a few people
into thinking so. It's about Bush's shadow and America's weakness and
childishness in not being able to stand up to Bush or his corporate masters.

Sue

[BurtWorm]

4. What I find interesting about this column is that here's a guy who was let in

to sit with Bush for that eternity of 110 minutes, who is a Republican and conservative, who has never given any doubt about whose water he carries, who would seem to be a total sucker for the alleged Bush charm. And what does he take away from this audience? Does he take away the message Bush wanted him to take away, the one presented in the first part of the column, the part lefties are mistakenly seeing as what he did take away? No.

David Brooks makes it as clear as his wienie self can make it that what he took away is this: Bush is a colossal fool.

[blitzen]

5. yeah, right...this illegal pre-emptive war was "organically shaped...from the bottom up"

Brooks is even a bigger idiot than I thought

[BurtWorm]

7. I don't think he's saying that.

Even if he thinks that, that isn't what I infer from Tolstoy's reading of history. The reason the occupation is a failure is because the head of the club thought it was a capital idea and didn't see the forces at work that would prove what a fucking stupid idea it was after all.

[blitzen]

10. yes, but it's also a way of absolving Bush of responsibility for his actions....

In general, I agree with the Tolstoy view that history is shaped by large-scale forces, not by great individuals. But in certain particular cases, it is shaped by leaders, and this Iraq fiasco is one of those. Your reading of Brooks' intent may well be right--but he is also implying that the war arose from a "clash of civilzations" rather than from Bush's and Cheney's criminal minds.

[BurtWorm]

11. That may be his reading, I don't know.

It seems not open for argument that the Iraq occupation is the direct result of an idiot thinking he could control history trying to control history.

[EFerrari]

8. I think he's saying the resolution will come from the bottom up

not from Junior and his Thug Club.

[NewJeffCT]

6. is there another link to where I can read the whole article?

It's behind the NY Times select screen.

[BurtWorm]

9. I don't know. I'm looking to see if he's on a blog somewhere.

Haven't found him yet.

Meanwhile, here's a little stomach-churning taste of the part of the column that people are buzzing about:


I left the 110-minute session thinking that far from being worn down by the past few years, Bush seems empowered. His self-confidence is the most remarkable feature of his presidency.

All this will be taken as evidence by many that Bush is delusional. He’s living in a cocoon. He doesn’t see or can’t face how badly the war is going and how awfully he has performed.

But Bush is not blind to the realities in Iraq. After all, he lives through the events we’re not supposed to report on: the trips to Walter Reed, the hours and hours spent weeping with or being rebuffed by the families of the dead.

Rather, his self-confidence survives because it flows from two sources. The first is his unconquerable faith in the rightness of his Big Idea. Bush is convinced that history is moving in the direction of democracy, or as he said Friday: “It’s more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn’t exist.”

Second, Bush remains energized by the power of the presidency. Some presidents complain about the limits of the office. But Bush, despite all the setbacks, retains a capacious view of the job and its possibilities.

[groovedaddy]

12. It's his fundamentalist view of "reality" and that he is ordained by God

for this great mission he's on...Hasn't he said that he "hears God?"
He can look up to heaven and ignore the blood on his hands.
Hopefully, this will set organized religion back a few centuries!

[BurtWorm]

14. I think you're exactly right.

As I was first reading this column and my eyes were hitting those incredible, disturbing words, I was having the exact same reaction the bulk of the left is having: How the hell could anyone know that Bush believes this shit and NOT be alarmed?

For some reason, I kept reading and learned that Brooks is probably alarmed.

[BurtWorm]

13. Found a link to the whole column here:

http://iraqwarit.blogspot.com/2007/07/brooks-heroes-and-history.html

[NewJeffCT]

15. Thanks

I'll have to do like you and re-read to column.