New York Times columnist David Brooks labeled Sen. Bernie Sanders “The end of liberalism” in one opinion piece published on Friday, inciting anger from progressive journalists who have established factual errors in the article.
Slate political editor Tom Scocca even went so far as to call the Brooks piece “a really grotesque package of lies” in a tweet on Friday, while New York Magazine author Jonathan Chait found it “proof-free.”
The never-Sanders column by David Brooks is a really grotesque package of lies that no honest editor would have allowed him to publish
– Tom Scocca (@tomscocca) February 28, 2020
– Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) February 28, 2020
Zack Beauchamp from Vox published a piece Brooks article’s argument was “based on assumptions and perceptions of Sanders that are not supported by evidence.”
Regarding Brooks’ claim that Sanders was a “useless” congressman and “marginal” senator, Beauchamp reminded readers that Sanders and John McCain co-submitter a piece of legislation that extended veterans’ access to health care, and added, “Sanders may talk a lot about political revolution, but as a legislator he has a surprisingly long record of silent, pragmatic achievements.”
Crooked Media’s Jon Favreau, a White House veteran of Obama, wrote on Twitter that Sanders “has adopted more dual amendments to a republican congress than any other member.”
Does anyone want to let David Brooks know that Bernie’s most important piece of legislation was a veterinary health care bill that he co-sponsored with John McCain, and that he adopted more two-part amendments in a republican congress than any other member?
– Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) February 28, 2020
The Atlantic Ocean author Adam Serwer Brooks accused the lack of quotes from Sanders in his play.
What is remarkable about this Brooks column about Sanders, who tries to frame him awkwardly as a threat to liberal democracy similar to Trump, is that it does not contain a single word from Sanders. https://t.co/zZvfBifwS7
– Adam Serwer🍝 (@AdamSerwer) February 28, 2020
In his Vox article, Beauchamp also goes after Brooks accusation that Sanders’ spending programs would lead to “the greatest concentration of power in Washington’s elite in American history,” arguing: “If Medicare-for-all were a kind of neo-Stalinist trick, then Canada and much of it would of Western Europe are totalitarian nightmares. “
Jewish movements editor David Klion also contacted Twitter to express his disapproval of the op-ed, calling Brook’s position “anti-democratic.”
David Brooks, Bret Stephens, etc. Have an explicit anti-democratic position that they dress as ‘liberalism’, whereby, given the choice between popular socialism and popular fascism, they at least passively opt for fascism. I prefer, but I respect democracy.
– David Klion (@DavidKlion) February 28, 2020
Do you have a tip that we need to know? [email protected]