The Guardian reports that David Brooks was at a Epstein party in 2011—three years after Epstein pled guilty to soliciting a minor.
This is dog-bites-man. Not news. Is there really anyone out there who expected any more from David Brooks as a human being?
Brooks’ employer, the New York Times, defends Brooks:
“As a journalist, David Brooks regularly attends events to speak with noted and important business leaders to inform his columns, which is exactly what happened at this 2011 event,” a Times spokeswoman said. “Mr Brooks had no contact with him before or after this single attendance at a widely-attended dinner.”
Which is a diversion, because again, the story here is not about Brooks cozying up with a felonious pervert.
The story is this:
Brooks is just doing what the New York Times pays Brooks to do, which is to cleverly defend the Epstein class, week in and week out.
How does Brooks do this so well? Here’s a sample from his column in the Times just last month.
“Why is Epstein the top issue in American life right now? Well, in an age in which more and more people get their news from short videos, if you’re in politics, the media or online it pays to focus on topics that are salacious, are easy to understand and allow you to offer self-confident opinions with no actual knowledge.”
Brooks goes on to say that Democrats highlighting the Epstein story are “undermining public trust and sowing public cynicism…”
Never mind the cynicism of normalizing Epstein’s behavior.
That powerful men manipulating and assault young women, and get away with it, is not what the Epstein story is about. I grew up in the 1970s. The teenaged women I knew were under constant sexual coercion and assault by their bosses, whether the bosses were greasy-spoon restaurant owners or criminal defense attorneys. I have a 16 year old daughter now, and I’d like to think it’s better today. In any case, this persistent everyday horror is not exactly national news.
The reason the Epstein story resonates is because David Brooks and his high-falutin’ intellectual class don’t get the Epstein story.
David Brooks has deeply internalized the privilege of the ultra-wealthy. In doing so his mind unconsciously and consciously categorizes the world into two groups, the one group being the Jeffrey Epsteins and the Sergey Brins, people who are credited with feelings and agency, and the other group, the rest of humanity—you and me—who are objects to be used.
Because David Brooks identifies so powerfully with his wealthy hosts, he cannot fathom that this is offensive to us. He can’t see that the casual treatment of human beings as objects—not the salaciousness—is why we want to see him and everyone else associated with Jeffrey Epstein exposed.
Upton Sinclair wrote:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
Brooks’ salary depends on his not understanding what we know about the fount of human decency. To keep his salary, Brooks must draw a conspicuous mental blank whenever principle conflicts with his assignment to protect capital.
It’s best for Brooks that he doesn’t understand, because not understanding makes it easier for him to spin his illusion—the capital-serving illusion that informs all his work—that democracy and human rights are all about adherence to social norms, rather than about who has power over whom.
We know better. We know that David Brooks is a clever intellectual stooge for the ultra-wealthy class. He got a little too close, and a little too clueless, and showed the world who he is.
