Talk:David Brooks (commentator)

Where Brooks Grew Up
Where did someone find the info that he grew up in Stuy Town? My strong recollection is that he grew up on the Main Line outside Philadelphia, or at least spent significant time there, and graduated from Radnor HS. This is alluded to in the Phila. Mag. article referenced at the bottom of the page. See also: http://www.waynepa.com/History/wellknown/default.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radnor_High_School That's correct - David grew up in Wayne, PA and graduated from Radnor High School in 1979. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StacyDutton (talk • contribs) 17:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Formative Years
David just stated tonight on the PBS NewsHour program that he got his biggest break working for W.F. Buckley Jr. straight out of College. He had written a parody bio. of Buckley in College. Buckley then visited the school and invited him to work for him directly from the stage. --166.84.254.33 (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are we told that he is Jewish in this roundabout way--"born into a Jewish family"? This echoes the N.Y. Times obituary style--"born to Jewish parents"--no one there is ever explicitly referred to as Jewish. Is Wikipedia concerned that Brooks may self-identify as a Buddhist or an atheist? In that case, you can never state with certainty that anyone is Jewish--or Catholic: perhaps on his deathbed, William F. Buckley converted to Islam. You weren't there to confirm or refute that possibility.Also, all biographies or none should state the subject's religion.Arguably (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point about being born into a Jewish family. If you see the article on Paul Krugman, you will note the same language. It is odd language that leaves the reader to believe that the subject has abandoned his Judaism. In the case of Brooks, that would not be the case as not that long ago he wrote an op-ed in the NY Times about his son's Bar Mitzvah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.148.217 (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That quote from New York Magazine is a bit puzzling. While Buckley was reared Catholic, National Review was not a Catholic magazine. He brought in atheist George F. Will as an editor, who wrote the front page of every issue of the magazine for years. His instruction to Will, per a Will interview on CSPAN, was that he just be not hostile to religion. He did not have to be pro-religion.2602:301:7734:4550:416E:996B:C7D8:B8CB (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC) I thought I signed this, sorry 2600:1004:B16F:C1E6:A984:FBAB:5D00:E15F (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC) SteveJEsposito (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Brooks considers himself a 'Neoconservative'
I've heard him say it on C-Span in (I believe) an event in memorium of Rabin. Plus he is a senior editor of the Weekly Standard, a magazine which considers itself neoconservative.-Jersey Devil 19:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Aspen Ideas Festival
David Brooks is a neocon / neoliberal, not a conservative.

At the 2008 Aspen Ideas Festival (you can watch it on YouTube or foratv) the last question he is asked after presenting his latest book ideas is why he is a conservative and not a liberal. His answer is 'epistemological modesty'... a term that needs to be added to Wikipedia. Liberals over estimate what they actually know and attempt to reengineer society....conservatives stick with the tried and true, making only incremental changes rather than the radical.74.192.42.63 (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)sbb

The above is one of the funniest bits of asshattery I have read in some time. Supposing for a moment that these labels have any real usable meaning today, the "conservatives" in the United States have been in the last several years an example of deluded overestimation of knowledge, while at the same time blocking actual knowledge and study. We should certainly open our eyes to the actual activities of the two groups, both detrimental to society in the US -and across the globe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.104.48 (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Classification

 * I'd say that both fiscally and culturally, Brooks sounds like a conservative moderate, a moderate conservative, or perhaps even a "liberal conservative", but not a hard-core New Rightist or neo-traditionalist, and this has nothing at all to do with whether or not he is a neocon, which is not concerned with such issues but solely with specific aspects of foreign policy. 173.28.244.122 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Is he a naturalized American citizen?
I was wondering if he ever naturalized or if he still retains his Canadian citizenship.
 * Could be both. Quark1005 (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Brooks would not need to be naturalized since he was born to an American father who happened to be living in Toronto at the time. Brooks is therefore an American citizen by birth.  Not sure about his Canadian citizenship status but since he was born there, he'd be eligible for dual citizenship.107.128.172.32 (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Where He Grew Up
Regarding the subject of where David Brooks grew up, I can attest to the fact that he graduated from Radnor High School, in an affluent suburb of Philadelphia, as he was a classmate of mine in the Radnor class of '79. It's possible that he spent some earlier years living in NYC, but I can't vouch for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BchrisD (talk • contribs) 23:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

New York Times Comments
In what way is "fast eddie" racist? Bill Clinton was called "slick willie." Comparing politicians to con artists is a very old tradition in America. Many are con artists. As an English journalist said, "Public men must expect public criticism, and no criticism is so good for them, and therefore for the State, as criticism of character." (from Alistair Cooke's Six Men) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.120.166 (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Fast Eddie" term is also the name of another notorious huckster politician in Chicago, Eddie Vrdolyak. 76.16.180.109 (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The article was cited but if there are no sources verifying that people are upset about this characterization (besides anonymous/pseudonymous Wikipedia editors) the whole section ought to go. White 720 (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

White 720 seems very intent on deleting everything remotely impugning the "integrity" of his beloved conservative commentator. I think the Applebee story and his comments in the NYT are very relevant. They're not opinionated, just stating fact, and people can ignore them, agree with what he said, or get offended as they choose. If you delete all these things, there really isn't very much left of the article is there?117.102.134.31 (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't love Mr. Brooks. I also agree that Mr. Brooks has made mistakes. I am "very intent" on deleting content that is of little encyclopedic value. You'll notice that other editors agree. If a consensus of people believe something ought to be deleted, it ought to be deleted. That statement makes absolutely no sense in academia or science, but this is Wikipedia -- not some kind of academic or scientific forum. White 720 (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because other people with similar views to you agree to something doesn't mean it should be done though. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be academic?129.96.208.151 (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia is built on consensus. If a consensus of users believes X, then X is what gets published on this site. See WP:CON for more. White 720 (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And this is part of the problem with Wikipedia. Consensus so often means sinking into mediocrity. Brooks has as much as said himself he is an entertainer, not a journalist; but next to his name this article says "journalist". Alright then, I think reporting the criticism of a journalist, with regards to the integrity of the information found in his columns, is of obvious encyclopedic value. What does it matter if you can find 100 editors to say up is down? Brooks himself minimizes his work, but heaven forbid we say something critical in the article. Consensus won't change that you are ridiculous. Gripdamage (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Aspen Ideas Festival 2008: New Book Ideas
According to Mr. Brooks there is a new trend in Nuerosciece and psychology; they are being more fully integrated into the disciplines of sociology, behavioral economics, political science and others. Nueroscience and pyschology are filling the gaps between outdated academic models in politics and economics. Models will then better represent empirical reality. He is about a quarter finished with the new book.

Mr. Brooks cites several academic sources that he plans to use in his book at the Aspen Ideas Festival in 2008. His formal presentation lasted 40 minutes and he took questions from the audience for another 30 minutes. Surprisingly, Mr. Brooks voice was 'shaky' for the first few minutes of the presentation. This may be due to an insecurity in speaking to a large group of academic researchers, whereas he is a talented generalist and not a researcher.

Mr. Brooks spoke briefly of the mental landscapes of President Bush and presidential candidates McCain and Obama. For example, former Pres. Bush leads with a mental landscape of 50 years in his mind, according to Brooks, and often forgets the present. He joking said that McCain's personality or mental landscape is pre-christian, but not to mean that McCain is older than Christ, rather that he espouses characteristics such as honor, courage, loyalty which were highly valued in ancient warrior cultures before the life of Christ. Compassion or charity are the characteristics espoused and valued in christian cultures of today. McCain has a warrior mentality which is expected due to his decorated military history and genealogy.

A woman in the audience was offended by Brook's pre-christian comment claiming that she is the same age as Senator Jon McCain and is not 'older than christ'. She was likely confused about Mr. Brook's motives or was being too oversensitive. Mr.Brooks has been an indirect supporter of McCain's presidential election campaign, often referring to him as a 'great man' and also stated that he almost wrote McCain's biography. Although Brooks favored McCain, he has an admiration and awe for Obama, specifically Obama's ability to distinguish motives or 'mindsight'.

Other stories Mr. Brooks tells of himself and Jon McCain are positive or humorous, such as the time they were gambling in Atlantic City and Mr. Books was forced to walk out of a casino with $500 in chips because McCain hated standing in lines. The husband of the offended woman later, in jest, stated that he was offended that he referred to his wife as a 'senior citizen'. Brooks was able to use humor throughout the presentation to avoid confrontation.

The last question he is asked after presenting his latest book ideas is why he is a conservative and not a liberal. His answer is 'epistemological modesty'... a term that needs to be added to wikipedia. Liberals over estimate what they actually know and attempt to reengineer society....conservatives stick with the tried and true, making only incremental changes rather than the radical.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbb7101 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Jewish
Is David Brooks Jewish? Most articles citing him suggest that he is, but one pro-Jewish editor keeps reverting my edits that state David is Jewish. Some help on this would be appreciated as the editor in question is now threatening me with blocking. MichelleSBernard (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources which state that Brooks is "Jewish", per WP:BLP. Also, don't refer to other editors as "pro-Jewish" - though it's hard to imagine why someone would want to be "anti-Jewish". Jayjg (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In his book On Paradise Drive, page 61, David Brooks says, "Bragging about what a good deal you got is one of the many great art forms that my people, the Jews, have introduced to American culture." Are his published writings a reliable enough source for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.174.1.191 (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when "Jewish" is an ethnicity? I propose to replace "Ethnicity" by "Religion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.114.150 (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sigh... Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
Request edit If you find this link useful may you please add it to the article’s external links: Interview with David Brooks on Neuroscience Thank you, Anon111 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Anon111


 * Seems ok to me. ✅ and thanks! Avic enna sis @ 19:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Social views upgrade
The "Social Views" section could stand a serious update. Brooks has written at least two books dealing with upper middle class culture, including Bobos in Paradise and The Social Animal, as well as frequently espouses about culture in his New York Times columns, and has become a noted thinker on subjects such as social class and American meritocracy. And yet the only references to his opinions under "Social Views" constitute a rundown on his opinions regarding sex and marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.166.163.142 (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sidney Awards?
I just downloaded about half of the Sidney Award essays Brooks picked out last month, and came here to see if I could confirm my memory of reading his columns about that before the Web made it possible easily to find the articles he was talking about. Instead I find that the Wikipedia entry doesn't even mention them. I realise Brooks is important as a pundit and so forth, but sheesh. If I didn't lack the info to do so, I'd add a whole section myself.

Joe Bernstein 66.212.64.252 (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in David Brooks Latest Book
I am wondering if this issue should be addressed in this article. →→http://www.salon.com/2015/06/15/the_facts_vs_david_brooks_startling_inaccuracies_raise_questions_about_his_latest_book/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3770:D5F0:7946:276C:924A:3EC8 (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it absolutely should. I don't know enough about Wikipedia's biography format to say definitively how to do that, but it seems that many articles have "Criticism" or "Controversies" sections. I think that Mr. Brooks merits one, given this article and the Philadelphia Magazine piece. Note that a paragraph on the latter is currently ill-fitted into the section on "Social views", even though the subject is not his views but his standards for conducting and presenting research. Marfire (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There are many published discussions of Brooks misstatements of fact and other journalistic lapses. I think Salon is among the weaker sources for this sort of thing.  I suggest doing a broader search.  I believe that some of these fails are in his books rather than his news and magazine writing.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The Social Animal and The Road to Character
The information on Brooks’ books needs to be more balanced. While the article discusses Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There, it is lacking in content on On Paradise Drive: How We Live Now (And Always Have) in the Future Tense, The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement (2011) and especially The Road to Character (2015). The latter two books both achieved #1 on the New York Times bestseller list and represent Brooks’ more recent work. The Social Animal connects insights into human nature from the cognitive sciences with the massive implications they have for economics and politics. The Road to Character discusses the importance of values in American life. Brooks explains, “We live in a culture that focuses on external success. We live in a fast, distracted culture. We’ve lost some of the vocabulary other generations had to describe the inner confrontation with weakness that produces good character. I am hoping this book can help people better understand their own inner lives, their own moral adventures and their own roads to character.” Updating the article with Brooks’ more recent work will improve its balance and accuracy.

Wife's conversion
An IP editor keeps adding the side note "which is peculiar considering his wife converted to Judaism" after the mention that Brooks is not particularly observant. I've reverted it a few times as an opinion. This is not something we can say in Wikipedia's voice.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Purpose of political parties
In the discussion of Brooks' article "No U-Turns",, the article used to read: "He [Brooks] claims that these core concepts had served their purposes and should no longer be embraced by Republicans in order to win elections, which he considers the most important purpose of a political party designed to serve the political class." I removed the segment in italics. I read the referenced article and see no such claim about the purposes of political parties. Since the vague marker is from May 2012, this has been around long enough without clarification that I thought it best to remove it. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Not a dual citizen?
Did he give up his Canadian citizenship? Does anyone know?--173.56.236.51 (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd guess he probably never was a Canadian citizen. Most countries have much different citizenship law than the US.  He very well may be eligible for Canadian citizenship, but likely would have to apply for it. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless Brooks' parents were diplomats – which they weren't – Brooks should have acquired Canadian citizenship at birth. For example Brooks' nemesis, Ted Cruz, was born in Calgary and gave up Canadian citizenship after they learned about dual citizenship. In Cruz's case dual citizenship was controversial, but I couldn't find a source which mentions Brooks' life in Canada with more than a passing mention to Toronto, so I guess whether Brooks has given up their Canadian citizenship is pretty much irrelevant. Politrukki (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on David Brooks (journalist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150815094043/http://gawker.com/neutral-observer-david-brooks-has-noticed-hillary-is-a-1717779151 to http://gawker.com/neutral-observer-david-brooks-has-noticed-hillary-is-a-1717779151
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714051755/http://video.on.nytimes.com:80/index.jsp?fr_story=cfc87df81f75d643f2ee861d2b9de31a7617b1b7 to http://video.on.nytimes.com/index.jsp?fr_story=cfc87df81f75d643f2ee861d2b9de31a7617b1b7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Page Title
just renamed this page from "David Brooks (journalist)" to "David Brooks (political commentator)". I suggest that "David Brooks (cultural commentator)" is most appropriate. I cite especially the following passage: "'Some of the big arcs and spheres of politics seem a little less relevant, and the individual relationships seem a lot more important, and you begin to adopt a more personalist and I think a more realistic lens. So Donald Trump has given me a reason to live this year, to oppose him, but I confess I’ve lost a lot of interest in politics because it doesn’t seem to me the primary reality anymore.'" Sondra.kinsey (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

"when the world is led by a child" (Donald Trump)
www.nytimes.com 15 May 2017.

Should this aerticle be mentioned in the article ? --Neun-x (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

NPOV Political Views
The phrase "fictional moderate majority" appears to be the opinion of the Wikipedia author and is nowhere to be found in Brooks' column of 2006 August 10:


 * "On August 10, 2006, Brooks wrote a column for The New York Times titled "Party No. 3". The column proposed the idea of the McCain-Lieberman Party, or the fictional representation of the fictional moderate majority in America." [Emphasis mine.]

Brooks statement that the fictional MiCain-Lieberman Party "counters with constant reminders that country comes before party, that in politics a little passion energizes but unmarshaled passion corrupts, and that more people want to vote for civility than for venom," appears to be sincere. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the summary. Please let me know if your concerns are not adequately resolved. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Dispute Over Political Views
A couple of weeks ago, I tagged the description of Brooks as a “conservative” in the lede as dubious. No one responded. Earlier today, I removed the “conservative” descriptor from the lede and added the following material under “political views”:


 * Ideologically, Brooks has been described as a moderate, a centrist, a conservative,  and a moderate conservative.  Brooks has described himself as a “moderate,” and said in a 2017 interview that “[one] of [his] callings is to represent a certain moderate Republican Whig political philosophy.”

Another user takes issue with my edits, claiming that the sources are inadequate. I disagree. In addition, it should be noted that I included Brooks’s own words in my edits. I believe that the edits improve the article and should stay. SunCrow (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You're concatenating a diverse set of statements plucked from a variety of not-real-strong sources and opinion pieces and uttered in a variety of contexts. Try looking for authoritative assessments of his work by notable commentators -- secondary sources -- that make declarative statements about his overall stance.  The sourcing and content you added is weak and poorly supported.  The version you reverted (twice) was stronger.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Unless someone somewhere has written a biography of David Brooks, I doubt that any "authoritative assessments of his work by notable commentators" exist. But you are certainly free to add such sources if you are aware of them. The material I added demonstrates that there is diversity and nuance about Brooks' ideological stance, and includes his own words. That is certainly far superior to the version I reverted twice, which merely described him as "conservative."SunCrow (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

There's       SPECIFICO  talk  20:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I find it strange that after turning up your nose at the sources I cited, you came up with a cite to one of the same sources I used (New Republic). I find it even stranger that you cited to a piece on Brooks’s wedding in The Washington Post. Overall, I don’t see any great difference between the quality or type of the sources you cited and the quality and type of those I cited. In any event, I added all of your sources to the article—with the exception of the wedding-related piece. Happy now?SunCrow (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Brooks (cultural commentator). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110308235031/http://www.salon.com/books/review/2011/03/04/pz_myers_on_david_brooks_the_social_animal/index.html to http://www.salon.com/books/review/2011/03/04/pz_myers_on_david_brooks_the_social_animal/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113220503/http://forum-network.org/lecture/david-brooks-what-makes-humans-tick to http://forum-network.org/lecture/david-brooks-what-makes-humans-tick

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Excessive external links trimmed
I've removed several of the way-too-many External links, per WP:EL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Below is a source (previously an external link) that could be used as a reference in future article expansion. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Conservative again
By far the most sources call Brooks a conservative. WP:SECONDARY sources are the foundation of Wikipedia, so the opinion of Brooks himself is interesting but not defining. We can certainly tell the reader where he thinks of himself on the continuum of liberal–conservative. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Improvements needed in Criticisms section re: Supreme Court Cases
The (currently) final paragraph in the Criticisms section desperately needs to be improved. It has several references to Supreme Court cases that he allegedly mischaracterized, but it doesn't say what the cases were about or how he allegedly mischaracterized them. I don't have the time currently but this would be a good project if anybody wants to volunteer ;). Proxyma (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Section "Criticisms" unbalanced
I noticed there were little to no criticisms from the Right in the section. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"Conservative"
The adjective "conservative" was recently deleted from the first sentence of the article. I was about to revert the deletion, but then looked at some recent sources and now believe the deletion is justified. For example, in his NYT article This Is Where I Stand (August 13 2020) Brooks writes Of course, we need more secondary sources, and in many ways Brooks certainly still is conservative, but I think it would be misleading to use the label in the first sentence. -- Chrisahn (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I find I have moved “left” on race, left on economics and a bit “right” on community, family and social issues.
 * I’m hopeful that if given power, Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer will forge a new conservative radicalism.
 * Mostly I find myself supporting the conservative radicals
 * The philosopher Isaiah Berlin once said he occupied the “extreme right-wing edge of the left-wing movement.” If that’s good enough for Isaiah Berlin, it’s good enough for me.
 * I'd say Brooks' credibility on this is rather limited. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

NewsHour
The introduction correctly mentions his work on the PBS program, but this is not explained or expanded on in the body. 199.127.133.181 (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Airport flameout
There's an extraordinary amount of blowback at Brooks for his tweet apparently blaming the economy on his having bought 3 whiskeys at the airport. Who wants to try some article text? WaPo republic.com/post/175705/david-brooks-78-airport-meal-fact-check New Republic Politico Guardian Defector. SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)