Shiflett: Don't Take Brooks Seriously

I'm one of those people who read David Brooks's Atlantic piece on red and blue America and thought it interesting enough to post to Reductio Ad Absurdum (and later, criticism of the piece as well). And I've also (reluctantly) commented on the piece. So I guess I'm one of those ignorant readers that Dave Shiflett feels compelled to lecture in a recent article on NRO. Apparently, we just don't understand Shiflett's old friend, Mr. Brooks, who was just writing entertaining journalism not to be taken seriously.

I have to say that I HATE cynical pieces like Shiflett's, pieces that attempt to dismiss serious argument by way of haughty humor. Brooks obviously thought he was up to something more significant than writing entertainment journalism, and I'm sure his editor, the rather serious Michael Kelly, thought so also. And Blake Hurst thought it serious enough to write a passionate, if flawed, critique. Why such a casual dismissal from Shiflett? What purpose did it serve even posting that piece?

While I'm bitching -- I cannot stand the phrase "Haven't they got" (paragraph two). Isn't "Don't they have" much nicer? And the split infinitive in paragraph four made me cringe also, even though I do understand the practice is considered acceptable now (but in the enterprise Buckley founded? Say it ain't so).

[Posted at 21:39 CST on 02/21/02] [Link]