David Brooks and the Hollowing Out of Conservatism
David Brooks is the quintessential old-school Conservativeâthe kind who once upheld a semblance of ideological coherence. He belongs to the pre-Reagan-Thatcher vintage, a time when Conservatism at least had the decency to argue from principles rather than blind tribalism. We could debate these people in good faith. Those days are gone. The current incarnation of Conservatism contains only homoeopathic traces of its Classical⢠predecessorâdiluted beyond recognition.
The Degeneration of Conservatism
The rot set in with Reagan, who caught it from Thatcher. Greed and selfishness were laundered into virtues, repackaged as “individual responsibility,” and the party’s intellectual ballast began to erode. By the time Bush IIâs administration rolled in, Neo-Conservatism had replaced any lingering Burkean ethos, and by Trumpâs tenure, even the pretence of ideology was gone. Conservatism-in-Name-Onlyâwhatever Trumpâs brand of reactionary nihilism wasâswallowed the party whole. Do they even call themselves Conservatives anymore, or has that ship sailed along with basic literacy?
Click here to take the worldview survey
To be fair, this didnât go unnoticed. Plenty of old-school Republicans recoiled in horror when Trump became their figurehead. Before the 2016 election, conservative pundits could barely contain their disdain for his incompetence, lack of moral compass, and general buffoonery. And yet, once they realised he was the partyâs golden goose, they clambered aboard the Trump Train with the enthusiasm of lottery winners at a payday loan office. His staunchest critics became his most obsequious apologists. What does this tell us about their value system? Spoiler: nothing good.
Brooksâ Lament
Which brings us back to Brooks, who now bemoans the death of Conservative values. On this, we agree. Where we part ways is on whether those values were worth saving. Say you’re boarding a train from New York to Los Angeles. Conservatism might argue that a Miami-bound train is still a train, so whatâs the problem? Itâs the same vehicle, just going somewhere else. Except, of course, Conservatism has always insisted on the slow train over the fast trainâbecause urgency is unseemly, and progress must be rationed.
If Iâm an affluent middle-classer, I might prefer Conservatismâs careful incrementalismâit keeps my apple cart stable. Admirable, if you enjoy tunnel vision. Progressives, by contrast, recognise that some people donât even have apple carts. Some are starving while others hoard orchards. To the Conservative, the poor just arenât trying hard enough. To the Progressive, the system is broken, and the playing field needs a serious re-levelling. Even when Conservatives acknowledge inequality, their instinct is to tiptoe toward justice rather than risk disrupting their own affluence.
The Fallacy of Objective Reality
Leaving politics for philosophy, Brooks predictably rails against Postmodernism, decrying relativism in favour of good old-fashioned Modernist “reality.” Heâs horrified by subjectivism, as though personal interpretation werenât the foundation of all human experience. Like Jordan Peterson, he believes his subjective truth is the objective truth. And like Peterson, he takes umbrage at anyone pointing out otherwise. It feels so absolute to them that they mistake their own convictions for universal constants.
As a subjectivist, I accept that reality is socially mediated. We interpret truth claims based on cognitive biases, cultural conditioning, and personal experience. Even when we strive for objectivity, we do so through subjective lenses. Brooksâ Modernist nostalgia is touching but delusionalâakin to demanding we all agree on a single flavour of ice cream.
The Existential Problem
And so, I find myself in partial agreement with Brooks. Yes, there is an existential crisis. The patient has a broken leg. But our prescriptions differ wildly. I won’t offer a metaphor for thatâconsider it your homework as a reader.
Brooks is likely a better writer than a public speaker, but you may still find yourself nodding along with some of his arguments. If youâre a âtrueâ Christian Conservativeâif you still believe in something beyond crass self-interestâhe may well be preaching to the choir. But letâs be honest: how many in that choir are still listening?
Philosophics 