AP+2016+David+Brooks

 David Brooks (Alec) >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>
 * 1)  Aim: David Brooks is a prominent conservative American political pundit and theorist, known for his ability to engage and encourage debate across the political spectrum. Moreover, his opposition to political partisanship works to an overarching goal of discussion and sensible argument, rather than any desire for total consensus. By ridding himself of that desire, he can focus on formatting an argument not meant to deride or insult, but rather to sow the seeds of future discourse. Referred to even by his detractors as being one of“ those Republicans who want to 'engage with' the liberal agenda” (A War Between Two Worldviews), David Brooks sees his responsibility is to rise above party politics. Because of this belief, Brooks ignores advancing either party over the other, frequently attacking Republicans and endorsing Democrats. This shows the execution of his dedication to personal values and discussion rather than universal, or even significant, dedication to either party. Above all else, Brooks is dedicated to the encouragement of debate, and the continued discussion of his beliefs. Those two goals walk hand in hand with the other, and often act to serve the other, as both overlap.
 * 1)  Audience: The cultivation of a largely anti-party image establishes David Brooks as being the ideal person for those who are interested in a perspective that can not be accused of being party propaganda. Regardless of the faults of his writing or the arguments made by those who either disagree with or disdain him, there exists a consensus that he is no party hack. But more than just attracting those with an independent streak, his support for the Iraq War, Israel, a dedication to a culturally conservative family (though notably including support for gay marriage) and opposition to the legalization of Marijuana, the audience of David Brooks tend to be more right of center. But as stated above, those right-of-center readers and viewers must be as dedicated to his penchant for being independent in thought. By writing to an audience uninterested, or at the very least undedicated, to parties, Brooks can write about personal beliefs and more inner discussions about politics rather than the more dichotic writings of more Democratic or Republican writers. This gives him free reign to understand more peripheral understandings of politics, and write less about the more common understandings of politics: evaluating big names and big institutions. By avoiding the tropes of party political writings, he focuses more on character analysis and an understanding of ethics. By combining political science and sociology together, Brook’s encourages a following of right-of-center or centrist readers that are disloyal to either party, and interested in ethical discussions and an analysis of character traits.
 * 1)  Cultural: A common trope in American political discourse is the idea of the ‘Culture Wars’, which has been characterized as a period following the rise of the Hippie movement and the conservative reaction in the 1980’s. For decades this idea has dominated both cultural and political writings, even to the modern day, though it peaked in the 1990’s. Brooks’s writings on this topic capture a changing age in American cultural relations, and they present a very interesting conclusion. The two sides of the Culture Wars have had a rolling line up of actors, but the overlying conflict has remained the same: traditionalism and progressivism. The traditionalists favored a greater focus on the family and a more monolithic culture, the more right wing of the two (though the terms are not synonymous). The progressives, on the other hand, support a more pluralistic and less overtly religious or cultural society, they are the more left wing of the two. Rather than argue that either side has won or lost, instead Brooks argues that the end result has been a combination of the two. Brooks argues, “ Today's young people...seem happy with the frankness of the left and the wholesomeness of the right” (New York Times), showing an understanding of the culture wars as being over, but not won by either side, but instead being ended by a sense of consensus through debate and discussion.
 * 1)  Historical: David Brooks was greatly shaped by the rise of the Conservative movement in the 1980’s. His career began by writing for the influential National Review, operated by William F Buckley. William Buckley is one of the most famed and prolific contributors to the rise of the new Republican Party around Ronald Reagan. The most important effect of the Conservative Revolution was the complete transformation of his political views into what he is now. As he wrote about meeting and arguing with Milton Friedman, “ [It] was essentially me making a point, and he making a two-sentence rebuttal which totally devastated my point. That didn’t immediately turn me into a conservative, but ....” (Everyone’s a Critic), the characters of the time shaped both him and his views. By being employed by William F. Buckley and being shaped by Milton Friedman, David Brooks was very much a product of his time. That transformation from liberal to conservative matched the general change in American national opinion in his time. And now, in the rise of more casual liberalism, he has been able to a match a general disdain for party politics.
 * 1)  Works Cited:
 * 1)  Brooks, David. "Public Hedonism and Private Restraint." //New York Times// 17 Apr. 2005: n. pag. Print.
 * 1)  Warren, David. "A War Between Two World Views | RealClearPolitics." //A War Between Two World Views | RealClearPolitics.// Real Clear Politics, n.d. Web. 05 Jan. 2016.