Sunday, October 22
That's it: we need a name for this Rule once and for all
How many times have I said it?
Everytime some half-wit progressive brings up Jerry Falwell, the Bakers and Pat Roberston, don't you always hear "Hungry Like the Wolf" playing in the background? Can't critics at least learn some new names from this century if they're going to criticize the Religious Right? (Although I guess we can take some small comfort from the implication that progressives are just too stupid and/or lazy to bother...)
But anyway, I don't have a NYT column, and David Brooks does. Here's part of his review of Andrew Sullivan's book:
So: the time is long past for a variation on Godwin's Law, to whit:
The first one to mention the name of a prominent 1980s televangelist forfeits the argument.
I'm calling it Brooks' Law. And I'll be using it even if nobody else does.
Which goes back to that book review actually. I'm not a big fan of either Sullivan or Brooks at this point, but I do lean temperamentally to Sullivan's "Oakeshottian" philosophy, that it doesn't matter if we get elected as long as we're right. Then again, Brooks disagrees and says he's a disciple of Oakeshott too. So, whatever. A good read.
Anyway: Brooks' Law. Reductio ad Falwellum and all that. I like it.
(Via thepolitic. I feel bad that they feel bad that I caught them in my "C-List" dragnet. However, I still don't think "insult to dogs" level jibes are up to their usual standards of commentary. It's too bad that was the line CP chose to focus on, given all the superior stuff at thepolitic, but that's journalism for you.)
Everytime some half-wit progressive brings up Jerry Falwell, the Bakers and Pat Roberston, don't you always hear "Hungry Like the Wolf" playing in the background? Can't critics at least learn some new names from this century if they're going to criticize the Religious Right? (Although I guess we can take some small comfort from the implication that progressives are just too stupid and/or lazy to bother...)
But anyway, I don't have a NYT column, and David Brooks does. Here's part of his review of Andrew Sullivan's book:
"The Conservative Soul is imbued with Sullivan's characteristic passion and clarity. And yet I must confess, if I hadn't been reviewing this book, I wouldn't have finished it. I have a rule, which has never failed me, that when a writer uses quotations from Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and the Left Behind series to capture the religious and political currents in modern America, then I know I can put that piece of writing down because the author either doesn't know what he is talking about or is arguing in bad faith."Which. Is. What. I've. Been. Frickin'. Saying.
So: the time is long past for a variation on Godwin's Law, to whit:
The first one to mention the name of a prominent 1980s televangelist forfeits the argument.
I'm calling it Brooks' Law. And I'll be using it even if nobody else does.
Which goes back to that book review actually. I'm not a big fan of either Sullivan or Brooks at this point, but I do lean temperamentally to Sullivan's "Oakeshottian" philosophy, that it doesn't matter if we get elected as long as we're right. Then again, Brooks disagrees and says he's a disciple of Oakeshott too. So, whatever. A good read.
Anyway: Brooks' Law. Reductio ad Falwellum and all that. I like it.
(Via thepolitic. I feel bad that they feel bad that I caught them in my "C-List" dragnet. However, I still don't think "insult to dogs" level jibes are up to their usual standards of commentary. It's too bad that was the line CP chose to focus on, given all the superior stuff at thepolitic, but that's journalism for you.)
