Don't go popping any champagne corks yet, David. Meaning is made by more than just individual words, much less one word. I call this the “Yes, but” rhetorical principle. Brooks covers himself by sticking in the word “fringe” to indicate that he is not making a statement about the Muslim world in general, or the Islamic faith in general — and then he proceeds in the remainder of his column, to do exactly that, as here (where he actually demonstrates the technique by making his first sentence a disclaimer, and the rest of the paragraph a biased narrative):

This narrative is embraced by a small minority. But it has caused incredible amounts of suffering within the Muslim world, in Israel, in the U.S. and elsewhere. With their suicide bombings and terrorist acts, adherents to this narrative have made themselves central to global politics. They are the ones who go into crowded rooms, shout “Allahu akbar,” or “God is great,” and then start murdering.

Next, he attacks “political correctness” — thus himself employing the very narrative that Marc Lynch warns against. It's harmful “political correctness,” you see, that leads people to decry religious extremism that leads to violence, without explicitly naming Islam. It's “political correctness” that leads Pres. Obama, for example, to say that no religion endorses the idea of a God who endorses the killing of innocents. Because, clearly (so the narrative goes), Islam does say that God endorses violence and the Koran makes it mandatory to kill infidels, and on and on and on. Mind you, Brooks doesn't say all of this. He doesn't have to. Everyone understands the narrative, although no one who subscribes to it will admit it IS a narrative.

And this is another important point. Brooks does not give the slightest indication that the particular narrative HE decries — call it the “allahu akbar-jihadist” narrative — is not the only narrative. He does not acknowledge (because, I believe, he does not understand) that his entire column is a narrative as well — the narrative that says that, if the media and the president and government leaders and bloggers, et al., do not explicitly attribute an act like Hasan's to Islamic extremism, if they do not name Islamic extremism as the problem, and go through the litany of received wisdom about suicide bombers and the requirement to kill infidels and take over the world, they are being “politically correct” and trying to avoid the real problem because they don't want to offend Muslims.

It is precisely this narrative that Lynch condemns — in part because it's wrong, but also because it's harmful to the very goal people like Brooks supposedly seek. Endless fulminations about the “Islamic jihadi suicide bombing threat” — without any attempt to put it into a larger context or to name the extreme, often religiously inspired, usually unreasoning hatred and prejudice that exists in our society (read anything Mark Steyn has written for illustration), that feeds it — is itself a narrative. Brooks lays out that narrative in seemingly blissful unawareness that this is what he is doing — and the fact that he himself is not a Mark Steyn-like hater only make that more egregious, in my view. Because he should know better. But he doesn't.

There is a constant tension in democratic politics between principle and compromise. Thus, I certainly do not concur with your assessment of “the concept of the 'political center'” as “repugnant”. If memory serves, when Republicans controlled both the executive and legislative branches from 2002 thru 2006, Democrats often criticized the GOP for rejecting centrism in favor of unmitigated ideology.

Now back to David Brooks. You asked for a quote to demonstrate that Brooks practices what Marc Lynch preaches. Here it is, from the column you cite in your article. The first sentence is actually the last sentence you quoted. The second sentence is the one that follows it:

But over the past few decades a malevolent narrative has emerged.
That narrative has emerged on the fringes of the Muslim world.

I think I win this one hands down. Brooks uses the precise word, “fringe”, that Lynch insists on. Although I prefer to be magnanimous in victory, this point goes directly to your claim,

I did give Brooks a “fair hearing.” I read his column, every word of it and judged its quality against my understanding of reality and common sense.

I confess, my own partisanship and ideological commitments have tripped me up many times. I have had enough egg on my face to make many an omelette. So my purpose is not to condescend or suggest that I approach politics from a better place than you do. But I am asking you to ask yourself whether the casual use of terms such as “clueless” to describe Brooks makes it far too easy for you to ignore both your own imperfections as well as Brooks' actual arguments.

And by the way, Adesnik? if you are reading this, that first sentence — or the first half of it at least — is exactly the verbal behavior I was talking about. Is my use of the word “clueless” to characterize David Brooks's column really so much more “unnecessary” than the sort of veiled sneering fake psychologizing imputation of hidden motives as a rhetorical undermining device revealed in that sentence? And note, I'm only bringing this up as illustration. Normally, I wouldn't even bother to point it out. It's far too common an occurrence to point out something like that everytime it happens. I try to pick my battles.

Is this meant to suggest that Brooks' writing makes sense? Because if so, I don't see it.

Might I suggest that you have constructed a narrative toward Republicans that ensures conflict and anger?

Does it bother you this much when Republicans and conservatives refer to “those 'evil' insurance companies” as their way of supposedly restating the supposed “liberal” position on health care? I've never complained about that, but it's high on my list of grating annoyances. Why can't Republicans simply describe the liberal Democratic position on health care reform and the private insurance industry accurately, rather than acting out what they think Democrats think about health care reform or any one of a dozen other topics.

I perceive that Republicans are extraordinarily sensitive to negative descriptive language about themselves, but have no problem whatsoever using words in a way that not only mocks liberals but also distorts their position. Yet, in my perception, I don't see me or people like me calling conservatives on every single adjective or turn of phrase. Do you?

By contrast, you will notice here that I have used words to express my own opinion of David Brooks's intellectual abilities and capacity for logical reasoning. I do not parse language so as to impute my own interpretation of Brooks' columns as if I were channeling him.

Give him credit for doing exactly what Marc Lynch recommends: describing Islamic extremists as a “marginal fring” while calling for cooperation with the great Muslim majority.

Where did he do that? Can you give me a quote?

But be careful; if you give Brooks a fair hearing, you may slowly start drifting toward the political center….

What you're missing here is that I did give Brooks a “fair hearing.” I read his column, every word of it and judged its quality against my understanding of reality and common sense, which is quite different from his. You seem to believe that because you think Brooks is perceptive and reasonable, that must mean that, objectively, he is, and I should think so, too. Well, I'm sorry, but I don't.

By the way, calling a New York Times columnist “clueless” for a column he wrote is not an ad hominem attack. I am characterizing the strength, quality, and value of his arguments, not him as a person. And I think it should be clear to a reasonable reader that “clueless” refers to the way Brooks thinks as demonstrated by what he writes, and not to Brooks as a human being.

On the other hand, expressing one's dislike for and disagreement with Barack and Michelle Obama's political philosophy, or some specific thing they did or said, by criticizing Michelle Obama's choice of clothing, or her arms, or the size of her butt, is an ad hominem attack. I could give literally countless examples of this kind of personal attack from the usual suspects in talk radio and elsewhere, but for now I will refrain.

Finally, I will say that I don't even begin to understand the implied assumption in your sentence, above, that “drifting toward the political center” is so unquestionably a good thing that even *I* the flaming liberal agree that it is a good thing, and deliberately refuse to give David Brooks “a fair hearing” because if I did then I would have to consider drifting to the political center, and my stubborn pride just will not allow me to admit that that would be for the best.

The concept of the “political center” is, if possible, even more repugnant to me than open, unabashed far right ideology. At least you know what someone like John Boehner or Michele Bachmann stand for and what they believe. David Brooks is wishy-washy and doesn't appear to really understand his own arguments or why he's taking the positions he does, and that's much more irritating than someone like Bachmann, who really and truly believes that the feds are going to come and put her children into re-education camps. She's a loon, but at least you know she truly buys her own looniness. With someone like Brooks, I get the sense he takes the middle position on principle, because he believes that is the best position to take in any argument. It's the concept of the center that he believes in, not the particular centrist argument he's making at the moment. Indeed, he even said that straight out in one of his columns. I'd have to go back and search to find out which one, but it was either during the campaign shortly before the election, or immediately after the election.

But again, I don't share your belief that the “political center” is a great place to be, and that I must, perforce, secretly want to be there.

Also, I'm going to defend Brooks on substance. Give him credit for doing exactly what Marc Lynch recommends: describing Islamic extremists as a “marginal fring” while calling for cooperation with the great Muslim majority.

But be careful; if you give Brooks a fair hearing, you may slowly start drifting toward the political center….