David Brooks' Secret E-Mail

To: Gail Collins

From: David Brooks

Date: October 12, 2004

Re: Running one of my Columns on Tuesday.


Gail,

I have been writing for the paper for a few years now. I consider myself to be a loyal New York Times employee.

I know that your recent e-mail questioned the amount of time I actually spend at the office. However, as you know, my commute is a long-one across several blocks and after being called "MEAT" several times on the subway I can no longer use that method. Furthermore, I cannot handle cab drivers and their unpredictable behavior. Plus, you should be aware from several conversations you and I have had that before I can leave home each day I require a substantial amount of time to digest various psychotropic medications and find a shirt that matches my skin-tone.

You also know, as the comments of several co-workers can tell you, I feel it is necessary to follow their advice and do something to myself each morning that cannot be communicated in an office e-mail. All together these aversions and routines take approximately 4 to 5 hours a day. It is exhausting, yet nonetheless, I manage to make it to the office, after lunch, a number of days betweent 2 and 4 p.m. and assist the nurse with Bill Safier's afternoon feeding of glass shards and black coffee.

Speaking, of Bill, he recently suggested that I write to you to request a couple of things that can, we believe, improve my column in being noticed.

While I have tolerated, for some time, the Tuesday, Saturday method of placement. I would like to request that my column be moved to Wednesday/Saturday. The reason for this is fairly basic. I believe that Paul Krugman is far too verbose and factually detailed to be a satisfactory match for the profound higher wisdom reflected in my column.

As you know from our many talks (which you have referred to as job reviews, or disciplinary actions, but which I prefer to call collegial advisement) I believe that the strength of my column does not lie in such nullities as factual truth. Rather, the column reflects a higher truth, a truth of universal, esoteric, wisdom.

The higher truth is so powerful that it can be demonstrated through mere bromides and kindly-worded admonishments. The higher truth does not require objective evidence, it just "is" -- and I believe that my column acts as its conduit, much like the President is its facilitator.

I do not believe that it is advantageous for this "higher truth" to be coupled with the fact-based, objectivist, diatribes of Paul Krugman. I admire Paul's intellect and fine goatee and I realize that he is considered by many to be a world-class economist. However, whatever his talents, Paul is clearly disconnected from the higher-truth I possess.

Quite frankly, this leaves Tuesday's readers understandably confused. When the "higher truth", based upon faith, is placed next to such fact-based detail, it serves the interest of neither. My readers should not be confused by factual detail as facts make connecting to the higher truth that much more difficult.

I believe that today's respective columns are a good example of this.

Today, Paul writes about 8 "Lies" as he phrases it, that President Bush will state in tomorrow's Presidential Debate. Paul provides details on the issues of Jobs, Unemployment, the Deficit, Tax plans of himself and Kerry, health care, spending, and fiscal responsibility. Now, I realize that Paul backs these assertions up with detailed facts that he claims dispel what President Bush will say. However, as you know from our many discussions and this e-mail, this, again, ignores the "higher truth" which I provide.

That higher truth is plainly this. When an issue is bad for President Bush, Senator Kerry's solution is no different; and when an issue is good for President Bush, which I believe is his "manly resolve", then that is far different from Senator Kerry's "effete" logical, fact-based proposal.

I will grant you it is hard to define what "manly resolve" is -- frankly "manly resolve" has been something I have never really possessed anywhere but my mind. However, whatever it is, the higher truth is that the President has and the Senator does not, I do not need facts to demonstrate this.

As you know, Paul's column therefore is far different than my column today. My column is full of this "higher truth" -- a truth so high, it cannot be distilled in a mere 500 words, it cannot even be defined in a series of analogy-laden series of books where it is demonstrated in the spirit of conservative americans that I put out each year. But it is undoubtedly there.

Just something I would like you to think about. By the way, I have have an appointment at "NABU" this afternoon, for some fusion sushi. Since my column is going to be required until Friday afternoon, I won't be in today -- but believe me, I am truly thinking about what I will write.

Thanks for your time.

Dave