The David Brooks/John Tierney echo chamber

Media Matters nails a couple of uncanny similarities in David Brooks' and John Tierney's columns:

Brooks on President Bush's Social Security proposal, May 8: Democrats have been hectoring President Bush in the manner of an overripe Fourth of July orator. ... Over the past few weeks, the president has called their bluff.

Tierney on President Bush's Social Security proposal, April 30: Democrats have good reason to be aghast at President Bush's new proposal for Social Security. Someone has finally called their bluff.

Brooks on thin people dying sooner, April 24: People who work out, eat responsibly and deserve to live are more likely to be culled by the Thin Reaper.

I can't tell you how happy this makes me. Since I read about this report a few days ago, I haven't been able to stop grinning.

Tierney on thin people dying sooner, April 23: For those of us lacking six-pack abs, this week's report that the overweight live longer is the greatest medical news in history.

And here's Kevin Drum on another parallel set of passages:

Here's Tierney on Saturday writing about George Bush's Social Security plan:

Faced with the grim math, President Bush offered a progressive compromise last week to Democrats: protect the poor while moderating the growth of benefits for higher-income workers. Democrats refused to bite, denouncing his "cuts" without offering a plan of their own, and members of both parties wondered why any politician would jeopardize his party's chances in 2006 by tackling an unpleasant future problem.

And here's Brooks on Sunday:

By embracing the progressive indexing of Social Security benefits, the president has asked us to make a shared sacrifice for the common good. He's asking middle- and upper-class folks to accept benefit cuts so there will be money for the people who are really facing poverty....So how has the St. Francis of Assisi wing of the Democratic Party responded to Bush's challenge? Does it applaud him for doing what it has spent the past years telling him he should do? Of course not.

This is what happens when liberal media tastes dictate the selection of "acceptable" conservatives -- you get two libertarian-leaning non-evangelicals who focus on humorous pop psychology/sociology instead of ideology or policy and thus have similar takes on most issues. The problem is that they've both turned out to be pretty useless on the op-ed page; their columns aren't funny or interesting, and neither has displayed any particular insight into policy or politics. At least Paul Krugman has a point of view and some policy expertise. Give me Bill Kristol!

Comments

[Rick]

So what do you think of the Washington Post's editorial page, with Krauthammer and Will?