The New York Times "conservative" columnist David Brooks has become as unhinged as Keith Olbermann. Yes, Brooks has joined "The Resistance" and now urges a scorched earth policy when it comes to President Donald Trump. Even if a policy would help the country, it must be resisted, according to Brooks' new twisted logic, if it also helps Trump. Even those who oppose Trump but support some of his policies, such as the upcoming tax bill, would be considered lousy collaborators by Brooks who is now channeling his inner Olbermann.
Should you think your humble correspondent is exaggerating about just how unhinged Brooks has become on the subject of Trump, I urge you to take a look at his October 26 column in which he desperately compares Trump & co. to the Bolsheviks:
One hundred years ago on Friday, John Reed was in St. Petersburg watching Lenin, Trotsky and the rest of the Bolsheviks take over Russia. It was interesting to read his account, “Ten Days That Shook the World,” this week — the week when Donald Trump and Steve Bannon solidified their grip on the Republican Party and America’s national government.
Get it? Trump and Bannon are just latter day versions of Lenin and Trotsky in Brooks' not very subtle analysis.
Oh, and besides being Bolsheviks, Trump and Bannon are also sort of basically satanic according to the Olbermann-channeling Brooks:
Trump and Bannon have filled the void with their own creed, which is anti-biblical. The American story they tell is not diverse people journeying toward a united future. It’s a zero-sum struggle of class and ethnic conflict. The traits Trump embodies are narcissism, not humility; combativeness, not love; the sanctification of the rich and blindness toward the poor.
And since Trump is the embodiment of such horrible things listed by Brooks, he must be opposed at all costs. Any cooperation with Trump, even for the good of the country, is to be considered collaboration with the enemy.
The people who oppose Trump make a big error: “Let’s Get Togetherism.” This is the belief that if we can only have a civil conversation between red and blue, then everything will be better. But you can’t destroy a moral vision with a process. You need a counter-moral vision.
The people who reluctantly collaborate with Trump make a different error: economism. This is the belief that Trump’s behavior is tolerable because at least Republicans can pass a tax cut. People who believe that value money more than morals. Trumpism is not just economic, and it can’t be thwarted by passing a bit of economic policy.
This sounds like a veiled reference to Republicans who have publicly opposed Trump such as Bob Corker and Jeffrey Flake who might still be inclined to support him on such economic matters as his tax bill. To Brooks that is wrong even if it makes economic sense. Trump and "Trumpism" must be opposed no matter the cost. Scorched earth.
Brooks' thoughts on collaboration by Republicans sound like it could have been written by Keith Olbermann who in his Trump Is F***ing Crazy book wrote:
..the Republicans who enable him to stay there are passively collaborating with a foreign enemy of the United States of America.
As to why Brooks morphed into Keith Olbermann at this time, the answer might be due to the calendar. Shortly after the 2016 election, Brooks made this confident prediction:
...the guy will probably resign or be impeached within a year. The future is closer than you think.
Well, almost a year later and the future is now with Brooks' prediction even further from reality which explains why he has become Keith Olbermann.
