Reply to the Deliberate Misstatements of Columnist David Brooks

On May 4, David Brooks devoted his New York Times column to an attack on Kevin Phillips and American Theocracy, accusing both of promoting conspiracy theory and paranoia. Fellow New York Times columnist Paul Krugman replied on May 8, accusing conservatives and Bushites of “using the term ‘conspiracy theory’...primarily to belittle critics of the Bush administration,” in particular critics who attack the motivations behind the war in Iraq. But following the newspaper’s rule that its columnists cannot reply to each other, he did not name either Brooks or Phillips.

Phillips, arguing that the Brooks column contained multiple and deliberate mis-statements and distortions, contacted several top editors requesting a chance to reply. The decision was to allow only a short two-paragraph letter to the editor, which Phillips rejected as inadequate. The following letter and enclosure state his case, along with relevant material from American Theocracy submitted to the Times to show the degree of Brooks’ misstatement and distortion.  Readers who might have a particular interest will find a copy of Brooks' May 4 column attached with annotations that give the page in American Theocracy from which his various citations have been drawn. Since the letter was sent to the Times, it has become probable that Brooks relied on an attack sheet from the White House or the Republican National Committee. Two of the quotes from American Theocracy that he characterized as bizarre were also cited eleven days earlier in a review by Gil Troy, a little-known historian with a relative working for Bush in Washington.

Letter of May 9 to Selected New York Times Editors:

Dear Editor:

I understand that this is an unusual letter, but it partly involves what should be an unusual intramural fight between elements of the New York Times. The issue is a book – mine, American Theocracy – that was very favorably reviewed on the front page of the New York Times Book Review and five weeks later vehemently attacked as “paranoid” by the Times’ pro-Administration columnist, David Brooks. In a sense, the Brooks column – which can be shown to be largely specious – was also an attack on the NYTBR.

Inasmuch as I appreciated the Times’ review and doubt that the Brooks piece represents more than his (or the Administration’s) views, I thought I would send along the enclosure to several top editors at the Times. In essence, the enclosure is a mark-up of the Brooks piece showing the falsity or reckless and unethical mis-characterizations represented by a fair percentage of his quotations and allegations. I have no idea whether or not he received any kind of sheet from the Bush crowd – they sent one around on my book American Dynasty in 2004 – but I suppose it is possible.

The enclosure is a quick enough read that I’ll let it be self explanatory. As of this date, I have not gone public with this, in the blogosphere sense, but that is my intention unless some other solution can be achieved.

With best wishes,
Kevin Phillips

Enclosed Memorandum

The easiest approach to take here would be to quote all the good things that the New York Times Book Review said about American Theocracy as a rebuttal to the Brooks thesis of my rampant paranoia, but I think something more is at work.

Instead of paranoia, Brooks appears to suffer from a well-deserved case of insecurity in his journalistic role. I heard back in 2004 that he was telling people he was voting for Kerry, and he bears no more relation to the typical red-blooded Sun Belt conservative than a college grind does to John Wayne. Perhaps, from time to time, he feels the need to indulge in some ideological breast-beating – “liberals latch onto another [Phillips] conspiracy” – as a substitute for the genuine conservative chest hair he so palpably lacks.

At any rate, the essence of his May 4 column is that his comments, after the grandiose paranoia blather, climb from silliness to gross inaccuracy and misquotation. The attached copy of Brooks’ piece has the page numbers added to indicate where in the text they were drawn from, and beginning with those in his sixth paragraph, the full paragraphs from the book are included to show the dishonesty of his citations.

In paragraph 6 of his column, Brooks writes that “Relying on the fact that millions of people read the ‘Left Behind’ apocalyptic fantasy novels, Phillips asserts that 50 to 60 percent of Republicans believe in Armageddon...”  Not so. My basis for saying 50-60% percent comes from Newsweek polls showing that 45% of all Christians and thus 50-60% of Bush’s evangelical, fundamentalist and pentecostal-weighted constituency so believes. The poll numbers are shown in detail on p. 102 of the book and referred to again on p. 364, exactly the page where he (or the source who fed him) found the 50-60% reference.

His paragraph seven is entirely misleading. See p. 206 quoting University of Chicago theologian Bruce Lincoln’s study for the language he (Brooks) misrepresents.

His paragraph eight cites three bizarre assertions that aren’t bizarre, as the context on the enclosed pages show.  The reference to the discrimination against women by some of the Orthodox Jewish sects, which takes up a full half-sentence in American Theocracy, can be confirmed on-line in journal articles and research sources like the Wikipedia (encyclopedia) discussion of the Role of Women in Judaism noting how the Haredi and other ultra-Orthodox sects forbid women’s prayer groups and discourage study.

Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 are used by Brooks to proclaim Phillips’ “intellectual dishonesty on stilts” for a one-sentence description of a quotation by Franklin Graham as follows: “Only Jesus Christ can bring about the societal change needed to stop AIDS,' preacher Graham told a 2002 Washington conference.”  Beyond this quote, I know nothing about the conference and said nothing about it in my book. Actually, it probably would have been better to use a more recent Franklin Graham quote like his 2005 reference to Katrina-swamped New Orleans – “it’s a city that has strong ties to the gays and lesbian community, and these types of things.” This roused the gay websites to a fury. It’s tempting to suggest that the “dishonesty on stilts” is that of Brooks.

Not that I would expect much less. If he is indeed a 2004 Kerry voter posturing as a hairy-chested conservative, dishonesty must be one of his specialties.

Kevin Phillips

 

Annotated Article from New York Times

Editorial Desk
The Paranoid Style
By David Brooks
May 4, 2006
The New York Times Late Edition

There's always been a strain of paranoia running through American politics. Back in the mid-1960's, when the right felt powerless, the John Birch Society thrived. Today, when the left feels disinherited, liberals seize upon the conspiracy fantasies of Kevin Phillips, whose book ''American Theocracy'' is in its fifth week on The Times's best-seller list.

Phillips's method is pretty conventional for conspiracists -- he takes a single issue or set of data points and constructs an all-explaining story line to show how hidden cabals are controlling America.

But his method is pretty standard. First, he takes advantage of the record of his liberal readers' ignorance of evangelical communities to make ludicrous assertions. Second, as Jacob Weisberg noted in Slate, Phillips will begin a chapter making some grand accusation. Then he will depart on what Weisberg accurately calls ''a pompous, pedantic history tour'' of medieval mineralogy or 16th-century politics. Then, without presenting any evidence or answering any objections, he will repeat his accusation in stronger language.

Third, Phillips is a master of slicing reality so that it conforms to predetermined conclusions. To take one example among many, in 2002 the evangelist Franklin Graham organized a meeting to address the AIDS crisis. Graham said evangelicals should be ashamed of how slowly they've responded to the crisis, ''I have to point the finger at myself and say, 'I'm late.' '' AIDS is not about homosexuality, he continued, ''the danger is to all of us.'' He praised Colin Powell's efforts, even though Powell is a strong advocate of condoms. He accelerated what has become a strong evangelical mobilization against AIDS.

This is intellectual dishonesty on stilts. Nonetheless, Phillips's books fly off bookstore shelves, and he's given respectable platforms in the major media and at universities.

We're at a moment when crude conspiracy mongering -- whether it is academic papers on the Israel lobby or George Clooney's ''Syriana'' -- is emerging from the belly of the American establishment.

And while many informed critics have picked apart Phillips's fantasies, other Americans, at once cynical and naive, are willing to believe any whacked-out theory, so long as it focuses hatred on Bush.

It's a funny way to run a theocracy.

©2006 The New York Times Company.