Nerds, Jocks, Preps, Goths and Goofs

David Brooks channels Tom Wolfe (again!) today in his spot on piece, "Lunch Period Poli-Sci" (sub req'd). Brooks quotes Wolfe's 1976 Commentary essay which observed that adult political preferences are "sub-rational" reflections of adolescent affiliations. You know, the people who hang out together before class, in study hall and at lunch. For all time thereafter, Brooks claims, our fates are sealed: "nobody has ever voted for a presidential candidate they wouldn't have had lunch with in high school."

How perceptive.

No matter the ex post facto explanations (as a demonstration of the accuracy of Brooks' observations, I almost resorted to the Three Stooges' ex post fatso construction of that phrase, a big hit in my own peer group) of our choices, their roots lie deeply ingrained in our psyches. As a rule, we like people who are like us. We dislike those who aren't. Our strongest +/- emotions are reserved for those special demons and nemesises (nemisi?) who haunt our early years, especially adolescence.

What else could explain even 32% of Americans still supporting the horrendous performance of George W. Bush? Transparent failure of this magnitude can only be ignored by those blinded by old loyalties.

But here's where Brooks' thesis breaks down for me. I would have had lunch with Bush in high school. Back then, he was probably a goofy, fun-loving idiot, full of fart jokes and stories of backseat conquests. Just the kind of stuff that made the grade in my corner of the Bronx in the early 60s.

It's today's version of Bush that I wouldn't have lunch with...then, or now. The sanctimonious, self-righteous "Decider" who's let the fiction of being the leader go to his head while the big boys in the back jerk him around like Howdy Doody. The only thing still intact from the old days is the goofiness.

We're watching a man completely at sea trying to outrun the consequences of a misplaced belief in the nature of his destiny. And at this point, we're almost all harkening back to the high school version of that person in horror.

Tags: David Brooks George W. Bush

Comments

[brooksfoe]

I think much of the problem with Brooks's column is that his typology is as reductive as a 1980s Hollywood teensploitation flick. There are in fact innumerable cliques in high schools, and the shifting alignments of different characteristics is not easily predicted over a span of decades. I know from what I've read of the Bronx in the '50s and '60s (which is where my parents grew up) that the alignment of cliques was significantly different than that with which I grew up in DC in the '80s. Notably, the very large percentage of Jews altered the mix in terms of the possibility of crossover between intellectuals and athletes, and in terms of a more ambiguous sense of who was "on top". I think I notice the same shift in alignment today in schools with high percentages of Asian and South Asian students. In any case, given the confusing position of the science or computer nerd with regard to Brooks's "soft" vs. "hard" axis, and in regard to subsequent political allegiances, as well as the high percentage of Jewish intellectuals among the neocons, it's not surprising that he has to tack on his unconvincing explanation of why some intellectuals are conservatives (including, presumably, himself).

Also, in the early MAD Magazine days, pranksterism had a very different character from that in the post-"Animal House" era. Think "The Graduate" vs. "Risky Business". It seems clear to me that Bush is someone who fits better into the "Animal House"/"Risky Business" paradigm than the MAD/"Graduate" one. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised that he has left America and Iraq looking like a frat house after a massive kegger.

I've also just read the fascinating 2003 Pulitzer winner "They Marched Into Sunlight", about a disastrous battle in Vietnam and the anti-Dow demonstrations at UWisconsin, both from Oct. 17-18, 1967, and it's illuminating to find that Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne were both grad students at Madison at that point (in poli sci and English), and were repelled by the demonstrations.

[Tom Guarriello]

Your thoughts on this issue are very interesting, brooksfoe.

Brooks' taxonomy is undoubtedly reductive. Yet, I find it resonant. As caricatured as his images may be, there is still the familiar smell of lunchroom Jello about them. Growing up in the Bronx in the era you cite, with many, many Jewish friends and cohorts, and attending Stuyvesant High School, attended by upwards of 80% Jews, I can attest to the complexity of our social milieu. Nonetheless, it feels to me as if Brooks is on to something.

Your insight into the Cheneys' Madison experiences is most informative.

Thanks for the thoughts.

[Candy Minx]

Brooksfoe as I was reading Toms post here, the first thing that popped into my head was that INCREDIBLE book They Marched Into Sunlight. and immediately the Cheneys attitude during that weekedn in Oct/67. Tom, if you haven't read David maranis' book I really urge you to track it down. I couldn't put it down once I opened it.

Did you all see the clip from Colbert at the Press dinner this past weekend. You can see it online at crooksandliars.com. I think the quality of his attitude"good ol boy" "jolly easy going" of Bush is what his appeal has always been. I think people lean on him because he is so relaxed and leaning on the work of his staff. he doesn't give off confidence in himself...but rather his smile always seems to sign to me that he knows his people know so MUCH. I think people find him the guy from high school. Its how he reads to this day. I am always amazed his coke habit wasn't a hinderance to his leadership. You guys are so lenient in America. In Canada we just scorn and shame our politicians, as soon a sthey act show-offy they are OUT. I think Americans just love "characters" and that can be sweet too.

Enjoy all your thoughts here Tom, I linked you to my blogs....
Cheers
Candy

[Tom]

Thanks for your thoughts, Candy...somehow, I missed this comment when you first posted it.

We love show offs here...they're our biggest heroes. Cultures that don't (Japan comes to mind) find us grotesque and fascinating, like circus freaks, which may capture the reaction of most Canadians as well! By the way, much/most of what I know about the Canadian psyche (and that's not much) I learned from Robertson Davies, a great, great novelist. His insights in the Deptford Trilogy were most informative.

[Candy Minx]

Ah yes dear Robertson Davies, he was a lovely writer. The Deptford Trilogy had an interesting character, I believe he was the friend of the boy who killed his mnother with the snowball(THAT is so Canadian) with a rock accidently init, and then he was obsessed with finding out his family heritage...only to find he wasn't fancy at all. Canadians aren't fancy...and whne he found out he was "just regular" like everybody after boasting about his past he kills himself. We are kind of like that. We don't kill ourselves but we know pride comes before the fall. Actually there is a lot of Beowulf in that story...boasting=bad. The major Canadian identity and YES we do have one , is self-depricating humour, then shaming our politicians then hockey! donuts, curling, "the cottage" come closely later...lots of laughing...

Cheers and thanks for taking the time to respond..
Candy