David "Babbling" Brooks in The New York Times

So much has been penned lately in blogs related to newcomer David Brooks' columns in The New York Times that I've avoided the topic. But his column yesterday was a bit beyond the pale and has generated even more focus.

As I think I've mentioned before, I rather liked David Brooks from his appearances with Mark Shields on the Lehrer News Hour on PBS each Friday. What I like best about both of them is that while they're partisan, I rarely feel like they forget that they're supposed to try to be fair as well, in their presentation. Translation: it's not over the top, as so much of the debates get to be.

Brooks' writing elsewhere, however, always struck me as a disappointment. He's not the writer Shields is and his writing always seemed "GOP first" and content second. I don't enjoy any column - regardless of the argument being made and regardless of party being represented - if I feel like I'm being clobbered by someone's politics before I understand their point.

I was surprised when the Gray Lady took him on as a new columnist (I miss Bill Keller), not because he's a Republican but because I don't think he's a strong writer. But disappointment doesn't begin to describe the effect I'm left with after reading most of his columns in The Times. They're not just poorly written but often ludicrous (Safire but without the bite or the years of experience). Each entry seems worse than the one before.

Tuesday's, centering on "the so-called neoconservative cabal", was a new low. After hearing for more than a year that anyone who criticizes any aspect of the Bush Administration is a traitor and that anyone who criticizes any of Israel's policies is an anti-Semite, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that Brooks would tell us that anyone who thinks there's a neocon cabal is an anti-Semite.

Silly me. It hadn't occurred to me to check the religious affiliation of the people responsible for much of what I've abhorred about our military actions in the last few years. I knew Wolfowitz was a Jew because I heard him refer to himself as such in an interview or a speech but for the rest - Cheney, Perle, Krystal, Woolsey, Rumsfeld, Gingrich and the whole "New American Century" crowd - I have no idea and not much interest. It's what they say and what they've gotten our country to do that gravely concerns me.

I assume, according to Mr. Brooks, that Mr. Perle is also an anti-Semite because he's not only acknowledged neo-conservatism, he insisted recently that we're only seeing the beginning of a whole century or more of its force, actions and triumphs.

I've read nothing that implies that neoconservatism is Jewish in origin (well, save for a few right wing conservative rather than neoconservative sites). If anything, some of the PNAC's positions would seem to endanger rather than support Israel's existence. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that PNAC, in its approach to the Middle East, has already caused danger by pushing efforts that have fueled excuses offered for the rise in violence in Israeli and Palestinian territories and the rise of anti-Semitic behavior around the world. To me, neocon war-mongering and imperialism are reprehensible. So are the actions of ANY people who target another people simply because of their chosen religion (or skin color, or income level, or a host of other things we conveniently use in "us vs. them" debates).

Where exactly does anti-Semitism come into this debate, Mr. Brooks? Are you just looking for a nasty tag and you'll use it regardless of whether it makes any logical sense whatsoever? What are you trying to achieve? What's your purpose? And finally, how dare you?