Neuhaus finally admits that Brooks is not a conservative

in June 2006 I wrote at VFR :

Two years ago when [David] Brooks endorsed homosexual “marriage,” I wrote to Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, trying to get him to acknowledge that Brooks was not a conservative. Neuhaus demurred, saying he wasn’t in the business of defining conservatism or expelling people.

In June 2007, a full three years after he refused to say that Brooks was not a conservative, Neuhaus, has written a column at his magazine First Things called “David Brooks Adrift,” in which he writes:

David Brooks is a most congenial fellow and as bright as a freshly polished penny. We were both born in Canada, and he grew up in Stuyvesant Town here in New York, which is in my parish. We have given his wry and insightful cultural commentaries, such as Bobos in Paradise, major attention in First Things. In short, I have reason to like the guy, and I do. But …

When several years ago he took over the “conservative slot” at the New York Times vacated by William Safire, something began to go awry. He has “grown,” as it said by those of a leftward bent. His support for same-sex marriage was a bit of a surprise but seemed like an eccentricity. Friends are unpredictable in sometimes unfortunate ways.

Neuhaus then goes on to criticize Brooks for his claim that the culture war is over, which of course is a variation of Brook’s long-time effort to redefine politics in such a way as to define conservatism out of existence. (See the June 2006 article linked above). Neuhaus doesn’t come right come out and use the words, but when he writes that Brooks “has ‘grown,’ as it said by those of a leftward bent,” that is his gentle way of saying that Brooks is no longer a conservative.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 22, 2007 02:28 PM | Send