For some years David Brooks was the only "house conservative" at The New York Times. For most of that time Brooks has been worth reading. Recently he has been joined in that role by William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard.
In the last couple of months Brooks has been dumping on Palin and, to a lesser extent on McCain. This column is an example of his disaffection with the current directions of the Republican Party, the McCain campaign, and the dearth of what we used to call derisively "the Rockefeller Republicans." I agree with him that the McCain campaign has been less-than-skillful much of the time.
Brooks identifies three strains in American politics and implies that they are of equal size: liberals, conservatives, and [his term] "progressive conservatives." He whines that in this election McCain gave up claims to this third group.
My sense of modern American politics is that we have become more and more polarized, and that there isn't much "middle" in the electorate. The folks who would be the middle often don't bother to vote.
If Brooks can't stomach the current Republican Party, and yet doesn't much like the Democrats either, he could end up sounding like one of those non-voters. A political columnist who might as well be a non-voter?
I suppose the real issue for Brooks is that he no longer has a clear role at the Times. I don't see how he can lay claim to "house conservative" any more, and the Times is downsizing as they make less and less money. Peggy Noonan may have the same problem at The Wall Street Journal. In both cases this is unfortunate as they have been talented writers.
