Do you think that David Brooks sits in his computer chair, reads over a finished essay, and wonders just for a second before he hits the send button what is going to turn up in the Internet the next day? Does he wonder how many bloggers are going to tear apart his every word, mock his world view, and belittle his education? Does he ever google his name?
Brooks is a lightening rod for the leftie bloggers. I think that the Crooked Timber folks have devoted more posts to him than any other op-ed writer. He doesn’t bother me too much. I actually like his stuff on suburbia and red/blue America, because he’s fun to read even if he does paint American culture with a broad brush.
However, the article in today’s Times set my teeth on edge. He writes that Americans have grown more virtuous. He points to several indicators of a better America — lower levels of domestic violence, fewer abortions, bettering parenting, fewer children in poverty, teenage births down, teenage suicide down.
He credits these developments to the final death of 60s counterculture, better parenting, backlash against divorce, and the growth of charitable groups.
Brooks says it’s not utopia, but its damn close. But the good news is out there. You want to know what a society looks like when it is in the middle of moral self-repair? Look around.
I have so many problems with this essay, I am not sure which angle to take. Do I handpick my own indices to show that America is not so virtuous? Do I question his definition of virtuous? Do I point out what Brooks is really saying in this article? Oh, let’s do that.
What David Brooks is really saying is that America is doing swimmingly for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with government. American youth are pulling themselves up by their bootstraps with the help of family and church groups. Our Republican government has sensibly not devoted one cent to these efforts. Just set a good example. (Eyes rolling.)
Brooks wisely sets up his essay by pointing to the drop in the levels of domestic violence, which takes the steam out of any liberal counterargument. Who wants to play down that important development? If it is true that fewer women are getting thumped, then great. But to attribute that change to an underfunded church group and an army of well scrubbed teenagers is bizarre.
Apt. 11d 
I’d like to hear your list of ways in which America has grown less virtuous over Brooks’ time period.
And I can think of one very big governmental action that may have had much to do with the trends Brooks describes: welfare reform… 🙂
LikeLike
I could cite different ways that America has grown less virtuous, but first I would have to figure out how Brooks was defining virtuous. Does he mean less violent, more careful with birth control, less poor? I have no clue. Actually people write books on this topic, so I’m not going to hazzard a definition. My definition of virtuous would probably include open mindedness, creativity, civic mindedness, and a whole host of other factors. Not sure how well America stacks up in those departments. You could point to decreasing voting turnout, widening gap between rich and poor, the sad state of pop music. Whatever.
Oh, yeah. Welfare reform has a great impact on family structure. But you just want to make my face get all red… 🙂
LikeLike
What bugs me about articles like this is that I don’t think a society can grow more or less virtuous. I think it is what it is and virtue or lack thereof develops in manifestations. Even a society’s definition of virtue changes over the years, so it’s hard to measure more or less virtue.
LikeLike
Here are the first three paragraphs of the Brooks article:
>According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rate of family violence in this country has dropped by more than half since 1993. I’ve been trying to figure out why.
>A lot of the credit has to go to the people who have been quietly working in this field: to social workers who provide victims with counseling and support; to women’s crisis centers, which help women trapped in violent relationships find other places to live; to police forces and prosecutors, who are arresting more spouse-beaters and putting them away.
>The Violence Against Women Act, which was passed in 1994, must have also played a role, focusing federal money and attention.
The government, at the insistance of the women’s rights movement, takes spousal abuse seriously. The stuff brooks is talking about wasn’t cheap. But, it was effective.
Liberals need to be more comfortable taking credit for positive changes that have occured in society: Civil rights, social security, the environment.
LikeLike
Agreed, Joe. Liberals do need to more comfortable taking credit for changes. There should be more liberals pointing out that THEIR Violence Against Women Act has made some real changes. It’s funny. Brooks points this out in the beginning of his essay, but when he lists his variables that brought about a more virtuous America, he doesn’t mention this or other smart legislation, which passed during the Clinton administration.
LikeLike
EMERGENCE, OR INTELLIGENT DESIGN?
Laura at 11-D offers a different take on David Brooks’s “Virtues of Virtue” column.
LikeLike
Hey, never visited your blog before, and it looks smart and thoughtful … however, I don’t think you’re really being fair to Brooks here. First, it’s not an “essay”, it’s a couple-times-a-week column, and he spends two of the first three paragraphs praising the VAW Act and the people (in the government, like police, prosecutors, and social workers) who make it work. To ask him to re-state that a second time in a very short piece seems a little much …
And ” … the sad state of pop music. Whatever.” So now I can’t figure out if you want to have a serious discussion of Brooks’ points or not. Whatever. And btw, voter turnout among 25-34 year olds increased from 36 to 47 percent between the 2000 and 2004 elections, while overall turnout was up from 60 to 64 percent, so even when you’re trying to be serious, it’s not all that germane.
Sorry to vent, but while I like to see David Brooks bashed as much as the next overpaid pundit, this particular line of attack doesn’t convince me …
LikeLike