I've known for a long time that David Brooks was an idiot.. Now a lot of my fellow Knicks fans know too. This because the New York Times token right-wing columnist wrote an op-ed piece called "The Jeremy Lin Problem."
"Jeremy Lin is anomalous in all sorts of ways. He’s a Harvard grad in the N.B.A., an Asian-American man in professional sports. But we shouldn’t neglect the biggest anomaly. He’s a religious person in professional sports."
Mr. Brooks was definitely not watching when Allan Houston was a Knicks star. Or Charlie Ward.
..
"The moral universe of modern sport is oriented around victory and supremacy. The sports hero tries to perform great deeds in order to win glory and fame. It doesn’t really matter whether he has good intentions. His job is to beat his opponents and avoid the oblivion that goes with defeat."
This is pure David Brooks: make an obvious point but make it extremely so it can be the premise for a totally fallacious essay. Defeat does not bring oblivion. You've got to play again tomorrow, or the next time. Jeremy Lin lost tonight. He'll win the next time.
...
"The modern sports hero is competitive and ambitious. (Let’s say he’s a man, though these traits apply to female athletes as well). He is theatrical. He puts himself on display.
He is assertive, proud and intimidating. He makes himself the center of attention when the game is on the line. His identity is built around his prowess. His achievement is measured by how much he can elicit the admiration of other people — the roar of the crowd and the respect of ESPN."
This part is pure boilerplate. Blah blah blah.
...
"Soloveitchik plays off the text that humans are products of God’s breath and the dust of the earth, and these two natures have different moral qualities, which he calls the morality of majesty and the morality of humility. They exist in creative tension with each other and the religious person shuttles between them, feeling lonely and slightly out of place in both experiences."
So who's this guy Solowhosis? Sounds vaguely communist. what Mr. Brooks is, mostly, what used to be called a pseudo-intellectual. The argument of this column is patently absurd. Lots of fans on Twitter blamed the column for the Knicks loss to the Hornets tonight. Which is itself sort of linsane.
Jeremy Lin is now living this creative contradiction. Much of the anger that arises when religion mixes with sport or with politics comes from people who want to deny that this contradiction exists and who want to live in a world in which there is only one morality, one set of qualities and where everything is easy, untragic and clean. Life and religion are more complicated than that."
Jeremy Lin doesn't seem angry. But maybe I'm missing the point. Then again, what is the point anyhow? We'll have to ask Soloveitchik.