Follow by Email

Friday, May 8, 2015

David Brooks, "Mothers and Presidents": Explaining Away the Clintons and the Bushes

David Brooks knows best, and in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Mothers and Presidents," he begins:

"Americans are embarrassed. Over the last 35 years there have only been two elections without a Bush or Clinton on the national ticket. Next year both names could rest atop the ballot. In one poll voters saw this as a bad thing by a ratio of 8 to 1.

Some of the people who are upset have a false view of how life works."

Got it: Eight out of nine Americans have a "false" view of how life works. David is fortunate enough to have the "correct" view.

Brooks continues:

"[W]e should be grateful that in each field of endeavor there are certain families that are breeding grounds for achievement. We should be grateful that there are Bachs in music, Griffeys and Molinas in baseball, Brontes and Amises in novel writing and Kennedys, Roosevelts, Clintons and Bushes in politics. These families make life more unfair for the rest of us (because it’s harder for others to compete against them), but they also make society as a whole more accomplished."

Or in other words, we should feel grateful that Hillary felt sufficiently arrogant and entitled to erase 33,000 emails. And we should be overcome with delight that Bill felt so high and mighty that he could take $500,000 speaking fees from foreign entities while his wife reigned over the US State Department.

Brooks adds:

"If you look around the globe, these pseudo-monarchical tendencies seem to be on the increase, not on the decrease. There are Aquinos in the Philippines, Nehru-Gandhis in India, even Le Pens in France. Now that women are more empowered, each dominant clan has essentially doubled the size of its talent pool, so family influence is increased."

"Psuedo-monarchial" global tendencies? So the US is no better and no worse than any other country? How gratifying. Well, I was just informed that there have been disturbances in St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle. In fact, it is King George III, just informed of Brooks's opinion piece, roaring with laughter from his grave.

1 comment:

  1. American created a new form of specifically anti-monarchical government.

    Most of us today wish the British had already progressed to a constitutional monarchy in 1776 or so, if only to spare us from the 21st century endless billion dollar campaigns for that King we never had.

    At least the Windsors know the value of military service in a future King.

    Brangelina2016! a better gene poll for an American dynasty...

    or, is it a coincidence that the newest Clinton and newest Windsor hare both named Charlotte?