Don’t Listen to David Brooks: It’s Not You, It’s the 1 Percent

How do commentators like David Brooks account for the undeniable rise in inequality? Not by analyzing the dynamics of wealth distribution and power that would help us address the problem, but by pointing the finger at the rest of us.

Newt Gingrich Addresses The National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast On Capitol Hill

New York Times columnist David Brooks moves out of the way of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich as he leaves the Russell Senate Office Building on May 11, 2011 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla / Getty


In the post-Occupy age, the Right has had two kinds of response to the unwelcome intrusion of class inequality into the public sphere. The first, seemingly preferred response is to simply deny that the ever-widening gap between those at the top of society and everyone else is a matter of any real concern. The economist Greg Mankiw became briefly infamous a decade ago for writing a response to Occupy arguing as much, and there has been no shortage of people presenting the same case more recently in regard to Bernie Sanders.

The plausibility of this argument, however, has only declined over the past ten years. As the gulf between rich and poor grows ever larger, ignoring the problem becomes less and less credible. Even the American Enterprise Institute, a high temple for worshiping the market, sounded the warning recently, suggesting that “Republicans need to consider how to position themselves in a universe in which more and more Americans believe the state must play a far greater role in mitigating both poverty and wealth disparity than in the past.”

All in the Family

The Right’s second kind of response to the problem of growing inequality has been most recently expressed by David Brooks. From his sinecure at the New York Times opinion page, Brooks’s role is to filter concern about inequality through a combination of WASPy moralism and conservative common sense. His latest piece, “Who Is Driving Inequality? You Are,” is a typical example of this method. Brooks argues that income inequality is indeed a moral problem in our society, but he tries to domesticate it politically with two contentions.

Sorry, but this article is available to active subscribers only. Please log in or become a subscriber.