In Defense of David Brooks

Empathy isn’t easy. The best we can hope for is honesty in both the expression and criticism of points of view. I don’t mean “criticism” in the pejorative sense but insofar as it means to actively engage in interpreting the view of the other. It is safe to say that such honest exchanges are far too rare in our national discourse. Part of this is due to the prevalence of monologue. By which I mean we seldom engage in the act of understanding something that is unfamiliar. We take it at face value and either approve or disapprove while lauding the “refreshing” sense that someone else “gets it” (read: “Agrees with me”); or deriding the idiocy of someone who “doesn’t get it” (read: “Disagrees with me”).

I hate to bring political affiliations into this but given that many of Mr. Brooks’ critics have used his conservatism against him; I shall offer my critics the opportunity to use my liberalism against me. I voted for Obama twice and have every intention of voting for another democrat in 2016. I can’t stand the bloviating nonsense coming from pundits of all stripes but I admit that I can stand it a little less when the bloviations come from the right.

Having yet to read Ta-Nehisi Coates’ novel, I am disinclined to voice whether Mr. Brooks’ or Mr. Coates’ opinions are well-founded. Rather I have chosen to address the tone of Mr. Brooks’ review rather than his stated disagreements with Mr. Coates.

First, it should be noted that David Brooks is not Bill O’Reilly. So the vitriol with which we – rightly, I believe – beat up on Mr. O’Reilly should be reserved for those whose views are so thoughtless, thin, and loud that they can only be born out of an ignorance so pure as to whither under the meekest scrutiny.

Mr. Brooks, on the other hand, is principled and disciplined in his views. Remember that he supported marriage equality long before many liberals dared embrace it. It is for this reason, that I interpret his review as genuine. In the beginning of the Brooks piece he speaks of the “humbling and instructive” nature of the recent racial unrest in Ferguson, Baltimore, and Charleston. He calls Mr. Coates’ work “a great and searing contribution” to the education of the public about what underlies these tragedies. Then writes: “Every conscientious American should read it.”

It’s hard to give a better review than that. But what follows is a critique of the work acknowledging the past endured by African Americans, as well as – what I perceive – as an honest question: Can a white person disagree without being an instrument of oppression?

Brooks gets to the heart of the matter quickly when he admits being disturbed by Coates’ rejection of the American Dream. After all, Brooks’ ancestors – as is the case with nearly all white citizens – came here willfully. The same cannot be said for Mr. Coates and Mr. Brooks acknowledges that explicitly.

This is a very important point and white readers would do well to acknowledge this as unequivocally as Mr. Brooks. Where Messrs. Brooks and Coates appear to agree is that history matters. But for Coates, it seems to matter more...at least according to Brooks.

As I said, I haven’t read Mr. Coates’ work but the recurring theme in Brooks’ piece is that such a targeted focus on the past blinds one to the opportunities of the present and future. Possibly, but I question whether this is not a fundamental difference in racial relations. Does the nature of our histories affect our ability to advance? Is it only easier for whites to say: “Get over it” because we’ve had nothing to get over? Is it harder for blacks because they do? I suspect there is some truth here but it is likely still only a small piece of the issue.

David Brooks is being criticized because he has limits to his ability to understand and has admitted as much. It’s an honesty to which we are so unaccustomed that we perceive it as racism. While it is a piece of the ignorance that breeds racism, the fact that someone is willing to point it out in themselves so publicly ought to be commended. It is when we deny such fundamental ignorance that racism is able to thrive. It is in its acknowledgement that we stand a chance at defeating it.

August Wilson told a story that a white guy once came up to him at a party and said: “Mr. Wilson, I don’t see race.” His reply was something like: “Really? Then why – out of all these people -did you choose to say this to me?” The point being that even well-intentioned ignorance is ignorance.

I fear that the backlash against Brooks’ honesty is the symptom of a similar problem affecting our culture – something which Brooks has, himself, pointed out on several occasions. We tend to live in ideological bubbles. We no longer seek out information to learn but to reinforce views which we already hold. This constant feedback loop is an impediment to the kind of sincere conversation we need about issues – racism being chief among them. It is so foreign to us that anyone can both appreciate a perspective while also disagreeing with it. We frequently confuse the two viewing all disagreement as a sign of disrespect. Our bubbles are made of a puritanical intolerance rendering us incapable of reconciling so mild a form of cognitive dissidence as to regard a view as both sound and important while also disagreeing.

It’s called civility.