The Optimist

David Brooks used to be a conservative I could occasionally look up to. When he was on PBS, he seemed to be reasonable and often had interesting, incisive things to say about politics. Since becoming a regular on the Op Ed pages of the New York Times, however, I have found him to be a relatively insipid public intellectual largely out of touch with the America he often claims to speak for. Today, in is column "Relax, We'll be Fine," he offers "great luscious orgy of optimism" in the face of America's ongoing crisis: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/opinion/06brooks.html?pagewanted=print. After regaling us with his claim that America will grow by 100 million people in the next 40 years and that we are especially adept at "assimilating immigrants" (a claim many immigrants, including the Mexicans, might disagree with), he claims that self-sufficent suburban villages like Fargo, Dubuque and Boise will be the hotbeds of American renewal. Huh? He then goes on to say, "The United States already measures at the top or close to the top of nearly every global measure of economic competitiveness." While we do have the second highest GDP per capita there are a lot of numbers that are quite troubling. For example, we have the largest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized country, among the highest infant mortality rates and lowest life expectancy, work longer hours than europe (almost four extra weeks a year) and have an education system that ranks near the bottom of developed nations. But what comes next is the truly absurd. Brooks claims that America will rise again because of our acumen at providing "emotional experiences." This is because "educated Americans" grow up in a "culture of moral materialism." What is moral materialism? Apparently shows like The Sopranos, The Wire and Mad Men. All three are good shows, but are they moral? They appear to provide pretty strong critiques of the greed, violence, general discontent and unhappiness, corruption and poverty so endemic to American society. And this is the problem with the argument. It is quite plausible that America will restore itself as the super power in the world. But what is real progress? How should we measure ourselves as a society? I would say the general happiness of the people should matter. And this is missing from Brooks, just as it is missing from that other cheerleader for capitalism and unfettered globalization -- Thomas Friedman. My optimism is a little different. It is that someday Brooks and Friedman will retire and we will get some real intellectuals that actually challenge readers to think more deeply about what makes a country truly great; not just what makes some of its citizens truly rich . . .