I’ve reached the point with David Brooks’ NY Times columns that I read them for humor only.
And his post-Debate column from Friday, The Marco Rubio-Carly Fiorina Option, is quite a laugher, at least to me. Essentially, Brooks’ approach channeled our Supreme Court justices. Essentially, they’re political operatives. They decide the result they want, then decide on the legal reasoning to support it. This is most vividly seen in decisions, such as Bush vs. Gore, where conservatives invoke liberal doctrine, and vice-versa.
So, my buddy Brooks wants to see a Rubio-Fiorina ticket. Why?
Two reasons. First, he thinks having a Hispanic and a woman on the ticket will neutralize the gigantic edges the Democrats have with those two demographics. He’s dead wrong (the members of neither group are as shallow as Brooks), but that’s besides the point. Second, he’s a Zionist, and he knows that electing Rubio is effectively electing his billionaire sponsor and ardent Zionist, Norman Braman.
But a post-debate column along those lines wouldn’t cut it. So, in true Supreme Court spirit, Brooks invented a debate-related theory to support his ticket. His genius logic? Republicans want an outsider, but not a “burn down the house” crazy, outsider. Rubio and Fiorina, he feels, best fit that bill. Fiorina, however, can’t have the top slot because of her troubling tenure as Hewlett-Packard CEO. Hence, Rubio-Fiorina. Of course, Rubio is no outsider. And Fiorina was the worst of the worst on defunding Planned Parenthood, which Brooks used to identify the burn down the house crazy crowd.
Oh, but who cares about intellectual consistency when it stands between you and the result you want your readers to support, right?
That’s the gist of it, but you have to read Brooks’ entire column, including what seems to be a bit of a slur directed at WASPs, to appreciate the hilarity.
One last point. Brooks’ column is also the epitome of “exalting the center.” No matter what the spectrum is, there are those who will argue that the center of it is the place to be. In this case, you have 15 Republican candidates, all on the extreme right. So what does Brooks do? He argues for the center of the extreme. Brilliant.