
David Brooks and the Mind of Edward Snowden - msabalau
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/06/david-brooks-and-edward-snowden.html
======
spodek
Anyone can write what David Brooks wrote, dodging anything of importance about
the situation. Here, I'll do with David Brooks what he did with Snowden --
avoiding looking at the situation, slighting someone's character without
knowing anything important. I'll just work with his Wikipedia page.

Here goes...

David Brooks sounds like an intelligent guy, but if you look at his background
you see his true colors. Raised in suburban Philadelphia's ultra-wealthy Main
Line, he started and has never wavered from an ultra-elite, insider status,
leading to today living literally inside the Beltway, the quintessential
system man, his status-quo "opinions" on every issue a foregone conclusion.

His intelligence sadly belies his consistent conclusion-first-supporting-
argument-second reflexive responses. What else would you expect from someone
so ingrained in the establishment -- Yale, Duke, University of Chicago, Wall
Street Journal, New York Times. This man may have never said a single word to
someone who didn't know where their next meal might come from, drizzled with
extra-virgin olive oil with a creme fraiche brulee.

This nation could use discussion of important issues, debate, thoughtful
exchange. He delivers rubber stamp answers. We as a nation lose out. While he
can't single-handedly deserve credit for our slide into partisan bickering and
bureaucracy, he proudly contributes more than his share. And why not, with
lucrative speaking fees and book options paving his way.

If you want a pundit to unthinkingly deliver a preconceived notion supporting
keeping things the way they are, David Brooks is your man. Sadly, if you want
thoughtful consideration of complex issues, he'll stand in the way of whoever
would deliver.

\---------------

There, how was that? Can I have a job as the knee-jerk conservative guy at the
New York Times now?

~~~
nnethercote
I think you've actually described David Brooks pretty accurately.

~~~
a5seo
Lest we forget, Reason nailed Brooks already: "Do something. Is there a two-
word phrase in politics more loaded with disguised ideological content?
Embedded within is both an urgent call for powerful government action and an
up-front declaration that the policy details don’t matter. The bigger the
crisis, the more the urgency, the sparser the detail."

[http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/22/the-
simpletons](http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/22/the-simpletons)

------
marshray
Surprised no one has pointed out the worst of Brooks' warped logic:

    
    
        > If federal security agencies can’t do vast data sweeps, they will inevitably
        > revert to the older, more intrusive eavesdropping methods.
    

and

    
    
        > He betrayed the cause of open government. Every time there is a leak
        > like this, the powers that be close the circle of trust a little tighter.
        > They limit debate a little more.
    

This is exactly like something a friend from the former Soviet Union told me a
few years ago. People in the community would self-censor, and moreso censor
each other by saying explicitly: "If we don't censor amongst ourselves, the
central authorities will be forced to step in and impose even tighter and more
strict measures than we are under now."

This goes beyond a simple fear of consequences. It's a pervasive acceptance of
the aggressor's malevolence in which the victim ritualistically cowtows in
order to appease it.

This is ICD-9 code 995.81 "Battered person syndrome".
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_person_syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_person_syndrome)
:

* The abused thinks that the violence was his or her fault.

* The abused has an inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere.

* The abused has an irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient.

EDIT:

See also
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome)
"a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and
have positive feelings toward their captors or abusers, sometimes to the point
of defending them. [...] One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of
Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding
is the individual’s response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with
the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes
the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be a threat."

~~~
gridmaths
Great quote ... and we are all kind of susceptible to Battered Person
Syndrome, post 911, post Boston.

It takes a concerted effort to resist the feeling we are guilty : our
government and military and legal systems are there to protect us.. if I'm
noticed and singled out when I cross a border, for criticizing Cheney on
twitter, then maybe its me.. maybe I'm out of line.

Maybe the huge embarrassment at having to take my belt off in public at TSA
checkpoint was my fault.. after all, I chose to wear a belt that had a metal
buckle.. I brought it upon myself.

I think this happened to David Brooks.. I think the state sponsored 'terror'
scheme of putting hackers and journalists away for 10 years for acts of
conscience.. has been effective in keeping Journalists in line. Speak out and
you too could end up rotting in a cell.

~~~
marshray
I'm not from the Northeastern US, but it seems to me like it might not really
be the old 9/11 and Boston traumas. Surveillance and harassment of reporters
certainly didn't start then.

For example, in 1971 the Nixon administration broke into leak-conduit reporter
Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office in an attempt to obtain medical files
with which to publicly discredit him.

Of course, recent administrations have pushed for and obtained laws
_requiring_ that all medical records be stored electronically.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg#Fielding_break...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg#Fielding_break-
in)

~~~
dkarl
Daniel Ellsberg turned himself over to the authorities, was released on bail,
and saw the charges against him thrown out. Today I imagine he would be held
indefinitely in degrading conditions, brutally interrogated, and sentenced to
decades in prison if the government ever bothered bringing him to trial.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/09/h...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/09/has-
the-us-become-the-kind-of-nation-from-which-you-have-to-seek-asylum/)

------
WestCoastJustin
It irks me a little how everyone keeps dropping the " _high-school dropout_ "
bit. If you watch the video of him speaking [1], it is readily apparent he is
no flunky. At any rate, he was taken under the wing of CIA/NSA/Booz Allen, who
must have seen something in him, and given a highly specialized and job
specific education.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yB3n9fu-
rM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yB3n9fu-rM)

~~~
ef4
It's simple: it's an easy way to belittle him. It's part of the broad
character assassination we always see when somebody tries to make waves.

How many people now hear of Julian Assange and think "he's kinda creepy and
megalomaniacal?". They believe that precisely because the media relentlessly
worked that image into every story about him.

~~~
GHFigs
_They believe that precisely because the media relentlessly worked that image
into every story about him._

It's not hard to get a similar impression from his own writing and speaking,
or from people that worked with him.

~~~
SkyMarshal
It's still a form of ad-hominem. Ignore the messenger, evaluate the message.

------
jayro
Brooks is the ultimate apologist for this kind of corrupt military,
industrial, surveillance state crap. What a tool.

This article about Brooks (written by Greenwald and dating back to 2009) is
pretty illuminating.

* David Brooks: our nation’s premier expert warrior [http://www.salon.com/2009/09/25/brooks_6/](http://www.salon.com/2009/09/25/brooks_6/)

------
gridmaths
Totally unimpressed with Brooks' character assassination piece.

This college dropout did what those at the NSA with PhDs failed to do in their
responsibility to ensure that their organisation stayed within the spirit and
laws of their mandate.

He did what Brooks failed to do as a journalist, ie. to draw attention to a
worrying centralization of absolute power, and abuse of law.

Lets describe Benjamin Franklin, John Rockefeller, Walt Disney as high school
dropouts, rather than look at what they achieved.

------
msabalau
"The press is not among the elements of civil society that Brooks lists; and
yet it is the one to which Snowden turned."

Real journalists should be ashamed of "pundits" such as Brooks

------
crazygringo
Brooks deserved a response like this. Just looking at the very top comments
voted up on the NYT:

> _This column reads like ... Nixon 's Enemies List._

> _This is something right out of Nixon 's secret tapes ranting about that
> Daniel Ellsberg fellow._

> _Mr. Brooks, this is one of your more bizarre commentaries._

> _Brook 's article is nothing more than a shallow and poorly thought through
> character assassination_

> _What a bizarre column._

> _Brooks column is the most awful piece of smear journalism I have ever
> read._

To be honest, I'm almost surprised the NYT ran it. I've read a lot of his
columns, never thought much of them, they just seemed fairly "normal". But
this one is truly just bizarre, just bizarre. I really want to know what on
earth he was thinking?

~~~
grandalf
He's doing his part to help diffuse the situation. It's his show of loyalty to
the powers that be. He's thought of as influential and this kind of thing is
expected of him.

He won't be held accountable for this piece. He's done his duty and would
never submit to any kind of rational questioning of his motives or his
beliefs. I guess what it boils down to is that he's an actor.

------
grandalf
What I can't understand is how anyone can respect the NY Times with stuff like
this being published. This guy is one of the paper's star writers and he
writes this kind of thing.

It's one thing to be conservative and wish to defend atrocities committed by
governments, but it's completely another to do so using the kinds of
techniques Brooks employs.

I'd go so far as to say that the NY Times is complicit in the moral wrongs
that it spreads propaganda to help cover up.

------
wavefunction
David Brooks is a glorified typist. What the hell does he know about anything,
let alone the human mind.

------
randlet
The Rockwell painting mentioned in the article for anyone who is interested:
[http://www.kingsacademy.com/mhodges/11_Western-
Art/27_Popula...](http://www.kingsacademy.com/mhodges/11_Western-
Art/27_Popular_Modern-Realism/Rockwell/Rockwell_1943_'Four-
Freedoms'_Speech.jpg)

------
grappler
One story here is about what a “hacker” is. What the word represents, what
people who identify with it value, and what role those people play in private
industry, in government, and in the military/security/intelligence world.

Here on Hacker News, where most of the top stories, threads and comments are
favorable to Edward Snowden, you might have the impression that there's some
unspoken “hacker code” just below the surface, encompasing ideals like sharing
source, promoting freedom of expression and privacy, understood by anyone
whose work closely concerns the internet.

When it comes to the intelligence community, this impression would be sorely
mistaken. If you are a regular on hacker news, NSA types already have a
stereotype for people like you:

“Remember, folks, IT weenies are the code-clerks of the 21st century”
[https://twitter.com/20committee/statuses/343812020992372736](https://twitter.com/20committee/statuses/343812020992372736)

After this incident, they'll probably step up efforts to keep people who
sympathize with these sorts of values away from classified information.
They'll find plenty of other able candidates who don't share these values.

[http://qz.com/92509/edward-snowdens-lesson-to-both-
businesse...](http://qz.com/92509/edward-snowdens-lesson-to-both-businesses-
and-the-nsa-your-it-people-are-your-biggest-risk/)

------
wam
Brooks's entire business model is getting people to respond to what he writes,
however stupid it is. "Trolling for money" (a trite observation, but there it
is). It's unfortunate that even sound rebuttals like this one feed into the
cycle that makes him a successful columnist.

------
pradocchia
Ha, that's nothing. Just wait till Friedman weighs in.

------
crusso
_Is the information so grave that it’s worth betraying an oath, circumventing
the established decision-making procedures, unilaterally exposing secrets that
can never be reclassified?_

Isn't the fact that this story has had such strong "legs" a great indication
that this act of whistle blowing was justified?

------
specialist
Thank you for including the name of the pundit (David Brooks) in the link.
Saves me the effort of opening link.

------
saosebastiao
What I can't figure out is how it always takes 1000 words for David Brooks to
explain a concept simple enough to convey in 10. I'm not that big of a fan of
the TL;DR...but with David Brooks, you don't actually gain anything by reading
the whole thing.

------
koops
With his column David Brooks loses his title of "The Liberals' Favorite
Conservative."

New title: "Betrayer of a Genuine American Hero." And I can think of worse.

------
ck2
David Brooks is a well-known institutionalist.

This is why you cannot listen to him about when the government behaves badly.

------
michaelochurch
I tend to think of this immediate reversion to _ad hominem_ attacks as an
extension of the bike-shedding impulse.

Is PRISM a good idea? Did Edward Snowden do the right thing? Where is the line
between unacceptable disclosures (that should be punished severely) and, e.g.,
the Pentagon Papers. These are complex issues and few people are courageous
enough to take a stand on them, especially under their real names. There's
just too much uncertainty. I sure as hell don't know what the right answer is,
on many of these questions.

But everyone feels entitled to an opinion of whether Julian Assange is
"creepy", "arrogant", et cetera.

As a lesser degree of whistleblower, I went through something similar. People
make all kinds of speculations about why you did what you did, and they're
usually far off the mark. Granted, in my case I made some mistakes along the
way. For one example, I probably should not have implored Google to "choke on
a taint" at one point (if only because it distracted attention away from the
valid message there) even if, on that particular issue, my indignation was
justified.

People get into bike-shedding discussions about personalities and possible
motivations because it's a lot easier than discussing the underlying and often
more complicated issues.

------
CleanedStar
"betrayed the Constitution. The founders did not create the United States so
that some solitary 29-year-old could make unilateral decisions about what
should be exposed."

Actually, if you look at the Constitution, it says - "The Congress shall have
power...To declare War...To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of
Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years...To provide for
calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasions...To provide for organizing, arming, and
disciplining, the Militia"

If the US was going to have a permanent standing army, an intelligence service
monitoring its citizens and so forth, why specifically limit appropriations to
two years? Why place power in Congress's hands? Why have citizen's militias
repelling foreign invasions?

The US has a professional army more akin to Czarist Russia than anything the
founder's imagined.

I never really thought that much about Ai Weiwei, but what he just said is
right. There's really no fundamental difference between the kinds of
monitoring the government of China does and what the US is doing with things
like PRISM.

------
ttrreeww
The mind of a Savior of Humanity.

~~~
e3pi
HN Poll: Are you `properly embedded in gently `gradated' authoritative
structures'?

Who'd be a better friend. Choose one:

Edward Snowdan: unmediated, indeferent, catalyst `Savior of Humanity'?

or

David Brooks: `mediated', `deferent', genuflecting despicable toady?

