David Brooks Wants to Talk About Love

Love shouldn't mean submitting to a leader's dreams.


Big love, little love, what begins with love?

Like clockwork, David Brooks periodically produces a column bemoaning either Americans' unwillingness to trust our leaders or our unwillingness to embrace the Big Dreams a powerful leader would enact. I'm glad he does this: Sometimes I'm feeling a little glum about the direction the country's taking, and then Brooks comes along with a reminder that the American spirit of disobedience isn't dead. Or at least that it's alive enough to aggravate writers like Brooks.

So Brooks' latest column is a nice pick-me-up. Once you wade through the intro (sample sentence: "Recently neuroscientists have shown that the experiences of beauty and awe activate different parts of the brain"), you get to his Big Point, which is to contrast "little love" and "big love." Little love turns out to be real love: personal passions, family ties, local loyalties—most of the stuff that makes life worth living. Big love means grand projects and the abstractions that animate them. Brooks thinks the latter "is almost a foreign language" today, and being Brooks, he thinks that is bad:

In dreams begin irresponsibility.

Almost nobody speaks about the American project in the same ardent tones that were once routine.

Big love is hopeful, but today pessimism is in vogue. Big love involves a confidence that one can use power well, but today Americans are suspicious of power, have lost faith in leaders and big institutions and feel a sense of impotence in the face of big problems.

Big love involves thinking in sweeping historical terms. But today the sense that America is pursuing a noble mission in the world has been humbled by failures and passivity. The country feels more divided than unified around common purpose.

In practice, Brooks' big loves tend to crush the little ones. Someone dreams up a "noble" "sweeping" "mission" and plows a highway through your neighborhood, or tries to uplift everybody by outlawing people's pleasures, or sends your son to fight in one of those wars that Brooks is always cheering on. Afterward, it becomes less "routine" to speak about such projects with "ardor." What a coincidence.

Brooks sees things differently, but at this point I'm used to disagreeing with David Brooks. If you don't share his big love for "faith in leaders and big institutions," check out the column; it'll boost your spirits.

NEXT: Well, What Do You Expect From "Dan Quayle's Brain"? The End of Bill Kristol & Right-Wing Seriousness

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Big love means grand projects and the abstractions that animate them.

    So this tool thinks the will to power is actually, not just love, but big love?

    Jesus on a pogo stick. What a deformed, sad, little man.

    1. There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together into one “package-deal”: (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism substitutes the second for the first; it evades the task of defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance.

    2. I expect that if David Brooks were to hear Ghost’s Majesty he would fall to the ground weeping as he was confronted with the One who is his true love and his exile from that One.

      1. Ah, someone with taste.

    3. Just happened to be skimming “The Italians” by Luigi Barzini – a fine read if you haven’t – and came across the aphorism regarding the (in)famous ungovernability of the fickle wop that their late tyranny (referring to Mussolini) was tempered by their total disregard for laws. Maybe the US has at least that going for it, too many people who – in Hillary’s words – subscribe to extreme individualism and recognize “you didn’t build that” and “it takes a village” as the laughable shit-crockery that it is, will simply, upon being marshalled for the Grand Purpose, wander off and go smoke cigarettes behind the cowbarn until the busy-bodies find some other cats to herd.

    4. I mean, to be fair to the guy, the Nazi followers, the Bolsheviks, the Mao followers, they all believed this too. There were millions of them, and many of them died. Some people see this and learn. Some people see it and say ‘but this time we have the right people in charge!’ This guy is one of the latter, that is all.

      1. “they all believed this too” – that “Big love means grand projects and the abstractions that animate them. ”

        Is there any bigger love than ein volk, ein reich, ein fuehrer?

  2. Internet confession: I always have to google David Brooks name to remind myself which of the umpteen chickenhawk authoritarian bootlicking columnists he is. After a while they all start to blur together.

    1. I’m surprised at how many wonks Irish knows. He’s always like ” look at this crazy person’s derp” and I’m all like “who the fuck is that?” and then I realize I don’t care and pour myself a drink.

    2. Bobos in Paradise? Is that him? Didn’t he get a thrill from Obama’s pants.

    1. Speaking of “Big Love”, did everyone hear Staffinrun’s story about the fat girl and the skinny japanese man?

      1. link ?

      2. I think I already saw that particular porno/snuff film. It was titled “Smothered.” Are we talking about the same thing?

        1. No. He said last night (our AM) he was asked to convince a 250lb woman (presumably American) to finger a skinny japanese guy in the butt. Which he did, and she did, and everyone seemed pleased with the project.

          Forget it Jake, Its Japan Town

          Its really not *that* weird except for the part of needing a translator. I knew a few ladies who used to work at “The Vault” in the 1990s and they had their own “strange-requests from little japanese men” stories which would make SugarFree blush.

          1. I don’t even try to compete with the Japanese. Any culture that came up with tentacle porn centuries ago is way out of my league.

            1. I am suddenly, and deeply, frightened of Japan.

            1. You are a resource of unparalleled excellence, HM. Sure, it might be for some…odd…things, sometimes. But please do keep up the good work.

            2. Of course there is…

  3. I thought Big Love was about having multiple wives.

    1. I loved that show.

      Of course, they had to get all PC and kill off the evil white patriarch in the end.

  4. David Brooks loves Big Brother.

    1. Or he is high on Hillarymilk.

      1. Poison to Humans

      2. I didn’t think that female reptiles produce milk.

  5. Brooks never ceases to amaze with his obtuseness and singular attraction to greatness, whatever mysticism that may be.

    He is a shell of a human being that cannot find meaning or purpose in anything that is not in service to the greater good. He is the living embodiment of a Randian altruist.

    1. Brooks just wants something to worship. God, country, government… anything. It’s a really weird mental disorder.

      1. Somebody should introduce him to pornhub.

        1. Or that girl that used to play guitar for the Go-Go’s….so I’ve heard.

          1. Jane Wieldin has publicly said she’s into kinky things.

      2. He just longs to feel like he’s a part of something greater than himself, which could be just about anything considering how hollow and insignificant he is.

        1. Does anyone know if he’s a drunk? He’s sounds like AA dogma, always looking for a higher power to surrender himself to.

          1. Maybe he just wants to find Strength through Joy?

            1. It’s a shame, because David Brooks Wants to Talk About Love should be the title of his smooth jazz album.

              1. “12 Unforgettable A Capella re-imaginings of your favorite Nazi-Era Marching Songs,”

                1. In the fields and on the heath
                  I lose Strength through Joy.

        2. The True Believer

          It’s like it was written about Brooks.

      3. I think he just wants a daddy. Who wants to be his big love?

  6. Didn’t someone already write a book with a Ministry of Love?

    Brooks is just obviously trolling now.

  7. Here in New Hampshire we have a WW2 museum, which the morning radio host promotes. Said host waxes nostalgic for World War II, when the country was united in a common purpose, and people didn’t disagree with the president. He was so ardent one morning that he actually said, “I love world war 2.” Sure. What’s not to like about 10’s of million dead in the most destructive event in human history, as long as everyone is pulling together in a big endeavor, amirite ?

    1. You should call in a remind him that you can’t have WW2 without Hitler, so he owes Adolph a debt of gratitude for unifying the world by killing a bunch of Jews and Poles.

      1. What about Rape of Nanking?!!?!?!?
        /that guy

        1. What’s a Nanking?

          /Japanese politician

      2. You’re being sarcastic, but I’m afraid he might agree. Like Brooks, he loves authority and big government and national greatness. At least Hitler united us in common purpose, which was so much better than the divisiveness of today.

        1. Uncle Victor: “The two best wars this country ever fought were against the Gerrys. I say get the Krauts on the other side of the fence where they belong. Let’s get back to the kind of enemy worth killing, and the kind of war this whole country can support.”

          1. World War II brought us the ball point pen!

    2. Remember when we had food rationing and concentration camps? Good times, good times.

      1. Omelet…. something… something… eggs…

      2. And songs that made the Hit Parade. Guys like us, we had it made. Those were the days!

        1. Didn’t need no welfare state.

          1. Happy to be an oakie from moskokie.
            /I don’t care how you spell it

            1. “Okie”


              You’re welcome.

              1. Damn it! I read it. You son of a bitch. You made me learn!

                1. Oklahoma! Oklahoma! Oklqhoma!

        2. We could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.

          Actually, can we have Calvin Coolidge instead?

        3. Gee, our old LaSalle ran great!

          1. I thought that line was about “granola” or something until I was an adult and read the lyrics for the first time.

      3. But everyone had a job, Hugh.

        1. One of my favorite lines from that Hayek vs Keynes Rap Battle Round 2 is:

          Creating employment’s a straightforward craft
          when the nation’s at war, and there’s a draft

          If every worker was staffed in the army and fleet
          we’d have full employment, and nothing to eat

      4. And when the 82 Airborne changed the words to the “Battle Hymn of the Republic”?

        Gory, gory hallelujah

    3. Even if you think it was a great thing that people did unite in common purpose during WWII, it’s pretty idiotic to talk about it that way. And that uniting in common purpose when you have a dangerous enemy to fight is a good thing doesn’t mean that it’s something that will always be a good thing in every situation. People can and often do do amazing things in terrible situations. That doesn’t mean we should hope for more terrible situations.

      1. We were scared and poor and lost hundreds of thousands of our loved ones, and we liked it!

      2. Nobody remember’s Jimmah’s Moral Equivalent of War? Drive 55 or the terrorists will win! Keep your thermostat at 65 in the winter and 78 in the summer or little baby Jesus will die! Wear a cardigan and scold profligate bastards who think you need 23 kinds of deodorant or I’ll give you such a stern lecture like you won’t believe! That unified the nation for a brief period of time in pointing and laughing at Jimmah.

        1. Keep your thermostat at 65 in the winter

          Well, that’s awfully decadent.

      3. I don’t think there was a much uniting in a common purpose as a lot of people think there was.

        Go look at the actual history of actual and threatened labor strikes, the black market trading of rationed goods and all sorts of other things one would expect in any era.

        I suspect that there was quite a bit of expressed unity that was nothing more than lip service.

        Besides, if there was no much “unity”, why was it necessary to have a military draft?

        1. Because nothing says UNITY like a slave army?

        2. Yeah, I don’t really know.

          But even assuming it was, it’s dumb to assume that what is good for the biggest war ever is how we should be all the time.

    4. The 1942 and 1944 elections say Hi.

    5. “He was so ardent one morning that he actually said, “I love world war 2”

      I suspect he might have had a different perspective if he had been in the first wave that hit the beach at the battle of Iwo Jima.

    6. Britain seemed to think the same thing after WWII. They ended post-war rationing well after Germany did, if it can be believed. And look at what a marvelously unified country they are today!

    7. The host seems to forget about John T. Flynn?

  8. I feel apprehensive at ‘David Brooks’ and ‘love’ appearing in the same sentence.

    1. Ah, so you show good sense then.

  9. I sometimes imagine a nice anarchy with possibly some minimal government whose only authority was to establish common terms like “threat”, with no budget and no coercive power. And part of the fun for me is that you’d still have the campus offencerati, you’d still have the Clintons and Bernies and Trumps and David Brooks types, but there’d be no central coercive government for them to fight over. They’d actually have to convince people by argument alone, or maybe bribery, but it would be a voluntary bribery, not taxes.

    Their ideas are all anathema to me, but in a world without coercive government, their ideas would compete in the market place of stupid governance ideas, and they would have to get better and more realistic, they’d have to win every follower instead of taking over government to force their ideas on everybody.

    It would be a fascinating stew of ideas, almost all much more realistic than what we have nowadays. You’d even have associations of these people, including some rich people giving their money to voluntary collective associations, and competition among them too. A few would survive for a while on the most hippy dippy pie in teh sky rules, but most would demand some kind fo work for charity, otherwise they’d run out of other people’s money.

    I’d love to live in such a place.

    1. Incidentally, one of the reasons that I find anarchotopia so unpersuasive is the existence of folk like D Brooks and Clinton. Sure, those two are comically ineffectual but there are plenty just like them who are as good at (if not better than) liberty loving types at organizing people and having them do what they want. I suspect that anarchotopia in a society like ours (where social bonds are weak and mostly limited to small circles of friends + nuclear family) would be replaced fairly quickly by whatever paramilitary, church, or mass movement was most organized and willing to do violence for their ideals. Somehow I doubt the winners of that particular contest are likely to be libertarian.

      The D Brooks personality type ain’t going away. The special genius of limited government, checks and balances, etc when done right is that they chain that personality to a hamster wheel where they have to work hard for a payoff with minimal damage. The disadvantage is that it’s not a permanent solution and that it’s almost certain to get worn down through attrition or the D Brooks finding the loophole that was unaccounted for by the formal rules of the limited government in question. Guess that’s why they invented woodchippers, heh.

      1. I have come round to the opposite conclusion, that the only reason these idiots have so much influence is because they can concentrate their ire on the government cronies who hold so much power. It’s mainly a historical trend: I look at how monarchs have given way, how the British vote began as very much Top.Men but gradually diffused to more and more people, how government power decentralized as information spread, especially after Gutenberg, how railroads and steamships let people migrate more easily, how telegraphs and telephones and radios and broadcast TV and cable TV and now the internet have made it harder and harder for government to control the news.

        I think this decentralization is unstoppable in the long term, and that is partly why screamers like David Brooks can no longer control the masses like Hitler and Mussolini could, because there are too many competing screamers and it is too easy for the various truthinesses to diminish each other. Who would have thought even a year ago that Trump would drown out Clinton? Clinton is very much the old school politico who knows where all the skeletons are; Trump is a new kind who probably doesn’t give a shit and won’t focus on doing much if he wins. But whoever wins won’t have the same influence as Hitler or Mussolini or even FDR.

        Look at how many cronies have tried to stomp out Uber; it expands in spite of them. It’s things like that that make me an optimist.

        1. I consider myself an anarchist, but I think government is pretty much inevitable. But I do agree that the best hope is that through technology and culture things become so decentralized that government can’t control people without throwing out the baby with the bath water.
          We probably won’t win through politics. But we might win if governing becomes practically impossible.

        2. truthinesses, Adds to Dictionary

        3. I’m more of a pessimist. The things you note as having been dissolved (monarchy, limited franchise, etc) have not been replaced by freedom but rather by even more influence and authority being held by the D Brooks types — clergymen with sweeping visions, or ideologues and academics ruling over wide swathes of public life. We regulate aspects of life that would have been considered an unfathomable excess in power by a monarch, and wage wars on a scale that would have been seen as world-ending.

          Maybe if these things were well and truly gone I would agree with you, but I see government usurping most of the things that would have been done by non-violent societal groups or family more so than any trend of freedom. I suspect that people are simply not naturally inclined to preserve freedom and that a special group of us is inclined to dominate others. Separating out the latter group from the former and sticking them in generally ineffectual positions within governments seems to be the only reprieve from this normal condition that humanity has stumbled upon.

          Interesting conversation. Thanks for making me think.

          1. The parliaments which replaced absolute monarchial power had less power than the monarchs if only because there was room for squabbling and hence less uniformity of purpose and slower decision making. No parliament could ever be as mad as Caligula or Hitler. As the vote diffused, the kinds of corruption weakened while it spread. Sure, we have social security and the EPA and the War on Drugs, but they are nowhere near as plain evil as Henry VIII or Hitler. I suppose the per-capita evil might be closer to constant, but still, Stalin made Hitler look like an amateur, and Mao made Stalin look like an amateur. US blackskin slavery and redskin genocide weren’t on the same scale, if you leave out disease which was unplanned as far as I know.

            I think of our current free stuff democracy as an abberation, where the corruption and massive payouts are left over from the earlier period where Top.Men bribed voters. They can’t keep expanding. Greece could expand them a lot longer than a bigger country, but big countries don’t have that option. Look at France, where even Hollande is trying to roll back benefits. It’s not a question of what they want to do; markets rule like gravity, the piper is going to get paid one way or the other, and precisely because a democracy is subject to the violent whims of one ruler, it will self-correct one way or the other.

      2. What you said about limited government is pretty much what Scarecrow said about anarchy.

        1. You’re not wrong about that. I just don’t think anarchy is an effective means to handle these personality types; if it were, wouldn’t we still be living under such rather than seeing governments emerge and successfully extinguish anarchy?

          1. wouldn’t we still be living under such rather than seeing governments emerge and successfully extinguish anarchy?

            You TIT.

        2. I’ve always said what we’ve got now is a libertarian form of government – everybody’s free to work for and vote for and support whatever form of government they want, and here we are. This is apparently what people want when everybody has a say in what we get. Oh, sure, nobody specifically wanted this exactly but when you make the trade-offs you gotta make, you get a little of what you want, I get a little of what I want, he gets a little of what he wants, she get a little of what she wants – and we wind up with this pile of garbage. It’s like we all get to vote on what to have for lunch but everything gets put in the same bowl. Good luck fishing your taco out of my chili and separating it from his spaghetti and meatballs and her chicken noodle soup. You want something different? You’re going to have to work harder and want it more than the next guy, and the next guy may be armed.

    2. Here’s another simpler way to think of it.

      As information spreads, wealth increases and power diffuses. This slows down the drastic policy swings which corrupt markets and disguise reality. The corruption we see nowadays in the EPA, welfare, the military industrial complex, and Title IX is political inertia. Uber, eBay, Airbnb are the new paradigm and they are disrupting much faster than the politicos can keep up with.

      Just as horses have been relegated to hobbies, so will the new reality leave government bureaucracies in the dust. Greece could fall to pieces because it is small; France is finding it harder to do, and even Hollande is coming round. The US will be even less likely to keep on the current corrupt path. Hillary is the tail-end of her breed, and Trump is an aberration typical of rot in its final stages. I bet that within a generation, government will be smaller and more accountable, simply because newer generations don’t have FDR baggage left over and do have cell phones and Uber in their daily lives and will not put up with Hillary-style corruption.

  10. Big Love With Guns means never having to say you’re sorry.

    1. Big Love…with Bigger Guns.

  11. Big love involves thinking in sweeping historical terms.

    You know who else thought in sweeping historical terms?

    1. James Spangler?

    2. Skeletor?

      1. Wind’s in the East, mist coming in.
        Like something is brewing, about to begin.
        Can’t put my finger on what lies in store,
        But I fear what’s to happen all happened before.

        1. I wasn’t sure anyone was going to get that. Well done.

    3. Jaques Barzun?

    4. Every “visionary” who retarded the advancement of the species ?

    5. Tyler Perry?

    6. Jim Jones?

    7. Corinne Dufour, of patent US664135A fame?

    8. Arnold J. Toynbee?

  12. David Brooks is a special kind of moron. What he calls “big love” is and can only be motivated by little love. One cannot have a “Big Love” that is counter to or separate from the other kind; abstract principles cannot motivate relational sentiment. Lacking that, one is left with hate as a motivator for grand projects — which is why so many of the state’s projects are either apathetic or malevolent. Love can’t be faked, and as often as libertarians are called aspies I wonder if that label isn’t better applied to the type of people who think that little love can be crushed underfoot by Big Love or that any kind of love can be synthesized on-demand for a Great Leader.

    1. The left worships force. This “big love” requires government force, whereas “little love” does not. So naturally they scoff at “little love” and worship “big love.” After all, if something isn’t backed by force, then it isn’t worth their consideration.

      1. Yup. In their minds, you can tell what’s important by what people will kill you for.

  13. Americans are suspicious of power, have lost faith in leaders and big institutions

    !@#*(&!@#*, David Brooks has been beating this dead-horse longer and harder than Gillespie’s ‘Perpetual Moment’.

    I think its an epiphany i keep having over and over again = Every columnist in the Times basically has one point that they just make over and over and over and over again until the reading public just comes to think these things “are known” and it becomes a theme in their general mode of thought.

    which is suppose is the point of any sort of editorial board. The illusion that there are groups of people with different perspectives who just pen whatever they think is interesting/important at the moment always returns… which I guess is basically some variation of the Gell-Mann effect

    1. Brooks is a one trick pony, a mental midget with access to a library of quotes that writes “Chicken Soup for the Boot-Licking Soul” once a week.

    2. Americans are suspicious of power, have lost faith in leaders and big institutions

      He says this with no apparent recognition that America was founded on suspicion of power, and no thought to whether our leaders and institutions have actually earned or deserve our faith.

      And he passes as a “thought leader” in these fallen times.

      1. That anyone thinks of him as a moral leader sickens me.

        Most of the comments to your very well done editorial are self serving blather to demonstrate the supreme intelligence of the commentator. . I’ll just say that Big Love is simple and profound. Thank you. Most of the elites you cater to will find it absurd.


          Quoth Gillespie:

          David Brooks Is Right

          1. No one can be wrong all the time. I’m sure there is some kind of fixed point theorem to prove it.

      2. And he passes as a “thought leader” in these fallen times.

        Only to readers of the NYT.

  14. The little loves, like for one’s children, one’s neighborhood or one’s garden, animate nurture, compassion and care. The big loves, like for America or the cause of global human rights, inspire courage and greatness.

    The small attachments serve as the foundation of our emotional lives, but when you have a big love for your country or a cause, you are loving something that transcends a lifetime. You are pursuing some universal ideal and seeking excellence.

    Only the big loves inspire courage and greatness?! Nobody was ever courageous or a better person for their children’s sake?! And isn’t a large part of why people have children that family transcends their lifetime?

    I’m writing in defense of the big love that once inspired big projects, like NASA, the national railroads…

    Wait, is he seriously saying the national railroads were a pursuit of a universal ideal that inspired courage?

    The whole thing is like a bad parody of what conservatives say about liberals, or a horrendous mashup of the worst ideas of the right and the left – sure, loving your family and your town are fine and all, but really your higher loyalty should be to the Grand State and the ideal of the New National Man. In another life, Brooks would have been writing glowing paeans to Pavlik Morozov.

    1. So how does this clown feel about the UN? Best thing ever?

      1. Not great enough. He prefers unilateral action for utilitarian reasons. Besides, that way we get to put a flag on it and call it part of American Greatness.

    2. Yup, nobody ever strove or died to save a child, spouse or even a squad mate….THEY DID FOR THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM!!!!!

  15. Almost nobody speaks about the American project in the same ardent tones that were once routine.

    Oh my god fuck off Brooks.

    Were people in the 50s, or 20s, or 1890s talking about “the American project”? People do still talk about “the American Dream,” what it means to be an American, etc. But only self-styled intellectuals have ever wasted words about “the American project.”

    1. People do still talk about “the American Dream,”

      Mostly in tones of fond nostalgia.

    2. Exactly when was the time when people were speaking in “ardent tones” about the “American project”?

      It sure wasn’t the era of the founding fathers – or any other than I can discern.

      1. Exactly when was the time when people were speaking in “ardent tones” about the “American project”?

        It’s called the NYT circle jerk, er, Tuesday morning staff meeting.

      2. “Manifest Destiny” worked pretty well as a rationalization for exterminating the savages. Wasn’t their fault they weren’t born white like normal people but hey, we were just doing our duty and they were standing in the way of progress.

        I think maybe the whole “Big Love” thing is just a way to rationalize the ends justifying the means. You can’t go around exterminating the savages just for fun, but if you can find a good reason to exterminate the savages then the fun of it is just the icing on the cake. I mean the regrettable icing on the cake, of course. Not that it’s fun, really. It’s just necessary. Tragic, even. Not fun. Forget I said that. It’s our duty to do what must be done.

        1. So, the cake is a lie?

        2. The question is how prevalent was some idea like “manifest destiny” among the common people. A lot of folk just wanted land and didn’t want to deal with hostile or strange natives nearby. It certainly wasn’t an idea that drove people to San Francisco or Deadwood. Manifest Destiny was a concept to be debated by the elites in the abstract, and not the cause motivating actual people to act a certain way.

  16. So, basically, David Brooks is the sort of warped cretin who puts political sloganeering as a higher value than his friends, his family, and any personal passion. What a sad, sad, little man.

  17. Almost nobody speaks about the American project in the same ardent tones that were once routine.

    Because America is not a “project,” you malodorous twat.

  18. why it never occurred to Brooks that the corruption of our leaders and big institutions has played a significant role in our losing faith in them (to the extent such faith actually existed) is mind-boggling.

    1. Its of a piece with the copsuckers, who bemoan that so many people have lost their faith in the police, without ever asking themselves why.

      1. It’s because the media portrays the bad apples to be the norm, that’s why! If only the media wasn’t so hard on the police! Then they’d get the respect that they deserve!

        1. Which is another reason why the media has all the respect it deserves.

    2. Brooks is the guy who has repeatedly labeled the Obama administration as “relatively scandal-free.”

      In Brooks’ warped mind, Our Leaders naturally deserve the people’s faith, like it’s an inalienable right of theirs.

  19. All I want for Christmas is a YouTube video of David Brooks getting kicked in the nuts.

    That is all.

  20. ur unwillingness to embrace the Big Dreams a powerful leader would enact

    Don’t get the sheeples wrong, they don’t like the idea of a big powerful leader putting a boot on their face, they like the idea of a big powerful leader putting the boot on your face. When the boot lands on their own face, they will be in complete shock as to how such a thing could have happened. This is how tyranny succeeds.

  21. A shooting at UCLA occurred with two males reported dead and the shooter is reportedly still at-large.

    My office is a couple buildings over on the same side of campus and it’s gotten pretty nuts out here. Lots of helicopters and sirens. Police were in the Biomed library earlier, which is attached to our building, so that was a little concerning, although it’s probably just for a perimeter.

    I don’t want to sound dramatic and give the perception my situation is anything more than a light precaution (it’s not, totally safe right now), but it’s such bullshit I can’t carry. My wife texted the same sentiment too. What a nice level of comfort that would be for me and my family.

    1. Stay safe! Curl up in a ball under your desk, and if you do spot the shooter, try not to agitate him.

      1. Agitate? So you’re saying I shouldn’t lock eyes with him? Are you saying the shooter is retarded?! OH GOD, IT’S WORSE THAN I THOUGHT!!!

        1. You might be saying NO NO NO and all he hears is WHO WANTS LEAD?

        2. He did go to UCLA.

          And I’m done!

    2. I feel you. My institution is private, so they’re in their rights to have such a policy, imo…and it’s my choice to continue working there. Doesn’t mean their reasoning for the policy isn’t bullshit magical thinking though.

      1. At least where I work we can take guns to work if we’re legally able to have them, but they must stay in the car. Better than nothing I guess.

        And the way things are going, in a few months I could sit at my desk with every gun I own. (Looks like they’re gonna shutter the office and sending us home with company workstations. I’m not gonna complain.)

        1. At least where I work we can take guns to work if we’re legally able to have them, but they must stay in the car.

          At the last faculty meeting, they administration was quite adamant that was a violation of policy (assuming the car is parked on a campus lot, I suppose).

          1. Here in Maine I believe they passed legislation that bans private employers from having such a policy. Not sure about public ones. We’ve also got the constitutional carry thing, which is nice.

          2. I think my employer has such a policy (they are based out of CA). But no one in the NH office gives a shit.

        2. That’s good policy. You can have your gun, but only if you keep it somewhere where it’s easier to steal.

    3. Laws aren’t magic. You can still carry. Just not legally.

      1. But friendship is magic.

        Make friends, not guns.

      2. I’ve long considered it. My assessment of the trade off is that I’d be much more likely to lose my job or go to jail over it than me ever needing it to save my life. I still maintain that assessment too. The cost-benefit and likelihood of either has me landed on the unarmed and helpless side of the equation right now.

        1. No doubt the scumbags would can your ass if you ever successfully defended yourself with it.

          1. No doubt the scumbags would can your ass if you ever successfully defended yourself with it.

            Better to be unemployed and alive than the alternative…

            1. Making the pro-CC/2A circuit as a survivor is probably good for a few bucks, too.

        2. I would likely have made the same assessment. Heck, I can legally carry in Maine without a permit now, and I don’t. At least not yet. Want to take a class or two first.

      3. That reminds me of an episode of 48 hours I was watching a few days ago. A guy was in the barber shop getting a hair cut and 2 guys jumped him and drug him outside where another guy was waiting with a gun, to kill him. He happened to be carrying and shot 2 of his attackers and got away. One of the guys died.

        He did not get charged with murder or even assault because it was a clear case of self defense. He got charged with a felony weapons possession charge because he didn’t have a carry permit and wasn’t eligible because he had a past felony.

        So the question is, was he better off carrying illegally? If he hadn’t of been, he would be dead now.

        1. Chances are that, being a felon, he had more reason to carry than the average person. By “reason” I mean “people wanting to kill him.”

          That right there is why I think depriving felons of the right of armed self defense is bull. There’s a good chance that they need it more than most non-felons. I could possibly understand if felonies were limited to serious crimes with victims, but they’re not.

    4. Has Obama been out to climb atop the dead bodies yet?

    5. All over now. Turned out to be a murder-suicide.

  22. Brooks said he loves you
    And you know that can’t be bad
    Yes, he loves you
    And you know you should be glad

    Brooks loved you, yeah, yeah, yeah

  23. David Brooks’ love is very different from that of a square.

    1. Oddly enough, I’d go this route:

      David Brooks’ love is very different from that of a square.

  24. The thing is, if you believe that the “American project” is anything worthy of love, big or small, it’s only so because America was the first (and perhaps only) country founded on the premise that the individual was something more than the building blocks for inspired sociopaths to pursue their “grand projects” and “big loves”. Brooks’ prattling is to demand that America walk away from what makes it something worthy of respect.

  25. David Brooks Wants to Talk About Love

    OK David, I’d love for you to take a long walk off of a short pier. Or fall into a running woodshipper. Or walk headfirst into the blade of running chainsaw…

    1. Or run into a falling woodchipper.

      1. ..feet first!

  26. If you don’t share his big love for “faith in leaders and big institutions,” check out the column; it’ll boost your spirits.

    I have feeling, based on the small excerpt, that it’ll more likely make me vomit. How anyone can write such tripe is beyond me.

    1. Fuck it, I’d write that shit for what Brooks gets paid.

  27. Sound like a pretty solid plan to me dude. Wow.

  28. LOL it’s just a gooey version of what Tony always says. He’ll probably be quoting it soon.

  29. Brooks write a whole fucking article about relearning to desire big things and didn’t have one specific idea of his own, even a shitty idea.

  30. Sophia chicago 23 hours ago

    How about creating a heroic and sublime infrastructure and energy project which would express our Big Love aor America? Maybe we could even reactivate some Big Love for the WPA and support the arts?

    Oh wait. That would require Congress to stop behaving like a bunch of obstructionist two year olds having tantrums and yelling nooooooooo at the top of their lungs every time they’re presented with an opportunity to do the right thing, because Obama! Or maybe their true allegiance is to Grover Norquist or Ayn Rand?

    Mr. Brooks, maybe you should come over to the dark side. Vote for the Democrats, abandon these nihilists whose new standard bearer is the antithesis of love, large or small, before it’s too late and America the Beautiful is but a memory.

    You see it, I know you do. Now act. Speak out loudly and clearly in defense of our great shared values. You have a great platform and a beautiful voice. Use them, please!

    1. Libtard fangirls make the crease in my pants more pronounced.

    2. How about creating a heroic and sublime infrastructure and energy project which would express our Big Love aor America? Maybe we could even reactivate some Big Love for the WPA and support the arts?

      Lots and lots of nuclear power plants and we pay people to paint heroic dioramas on the cooling towers. That work for you?

      1. The nuclear power plant idea would be easy to implement. The big idea needed would be to relax the foolish regulations that make it impossible to actually build such a plant.

  31. Psychologically and emotionally normal human beings conceptualize love as an emotion of mutual affection. If love is not mutual, it is not genuine and is more accurately characterized as infatuation.

    When I was a high school, the state forced me to waste time in their stupid schools. When I turned 18 during the Vietnam era, I had to register for involuntary participation in the state’s slave army. (I was lucky to get a high draft number.) Since then, the state has stolen money from every paycheck I ever got. I’m just not feeling the love.

  32. “If you don’t share his big love for “faith in leaders and big institutions,” check out the column; it’ll boost your spirits.”

    So David Broooks is like Crying Guy after the unsuccessful Scott Walker recall election?

  33. I noticed that Brooks quoted Burke’s “little platoons” in his (polemic? paean to the State?) and calling that a starting point toward Bigger Things. Brooks is many things, but he ain’t no Edmund Burke.

  34. Are you looking for Cute Love Quotes For Her From Heart ?

    Then you are at the correct spot. Get the most marvelous and cutest Love Quotes For Her and make her feel loved.…

  35. Love Status for Whatsapp are best selected Love Status you can Pick that Love whatsapp Status Quotes Collection And Use it on Your Whatsapp.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.