Supplemental: A week of Brodie’s greatest groaners!


An important cultural question: Now that our gatekeepers are gone, are we able to reason at all?

Walter and David are no longer there. At one time, they sifted the things we were able to hear, saving us from our ourselves.

Now, Walter and David are gone, long gone. They’ve been replaced by Rush and Sean—and by the ludicrous Maureen Dowd, and by the kids at Salon.

And even by Rick Perlstein!

We mention Perlstein for several reasons. First, he’s considered a major progressive voice, and an important historian. Plus, he made extensive use of Fawn Brodie’s work in his 2008 best-seller, Nixonland.

We refer to Brodie’s 1981 “psychobiography,” Richard Nixon: The Shaping of His Character. It’s one of the strangest books we’ve ever read, in ways we think are worth recording.

Why does Brodie’s remarkable book matter now? Let us list the reasons:

Brodie, a UCLA professor, was regarded as a major biographer. She had written earlier biographies which were critically hailed. Her bio of Nixon was her last. As she wrote it, she was dying of cancer.

The book is extremely strange. We’re not familiar with Brodie’s earlier work, but her chains of reasoning are so bizarre in her Nixon book that we wonder if her faculties had perhaps been affected by her illness.

Whatever the explanation may be, her chains of reasoning are among the strangest we’ve ever seen in a major book. And make no mistake—the book was taken seriously at the time, as can be seen in this weirdly favorable review by Christopher Lehmann-Haupt.

Lehmann-Haupt wasn’t a hippie. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, he was “senior Daily Book Reviewer” for the New York Times from 1969 until 2001. (Other sources say the run as senior daily reviewer ended in 1995.)

Lehmann-Haupt was a major voice of the Times. According to CJR, “he wrote more than 4,000 book reviews and articles [for the Times], on every subject from trout fishing to Persian archaeology.”

Back in 1981, “psychohistory” was perhaps a bit hip. (The dawning of the Age of Aquarius hadn’t completely quieted down yet.) Whatever one may think of the discipline, it’s amazing to see the way the Times reviewed this deeply strange book.

Even stranger is the fact that Perlstein used Brodie’s book to such an extent in Chapter Two of Nixonland. In 1981, the New York Times wasn’t able to see (or willing to say) how deeply strange the Brodie book was.

Twenty-seven years later, neither was Perlstein! In fact, he often embellished Brodie’s conclusions, a point we’ll explore next week.

We often wonder if we the humans are able to reason at all. If we don’t have Walter and David to regulate what we’re allowed to hear, do we have any ability to recognize manifest nonsense?

As the wild west of the partisan Internet keeps unfolding, we ask ourselves that question more and more often. The polite reception of Brodie’s book—in 1981 and in 2008—makes us wonder even more.

Starting tomorrow, we’ll spend four days reviewing the logic of Brodie’s book. One final point:

One part of Brodie’s analysis seems to have transmigrated into the coverage of Campaign 2000, some nineteen years later. The reporting of that history-changing campaign was somewhat non-human too.

As with the chains of reasoning in Brodie’s book, it seemed that no one was able to see how strange that reporting actually was. To what extent are we the humans able to reason at all?

Are we able to reason at all? Or is it simply narrative and elite preference—narrative all the way down?

Tomorrow: Was Richard Nixon spanked? We’ve marveled at Brodie’s discussion.

Coming Thursday: “Did Frank Nixon kick his sons?”


  1. In a way we get better news coverage than in the days of Cronkheit and Huntley/Brinkley, because we have many more sources of news. Bob himself is a good example. People who read Bob's blog or TalkLeft or who got their news from conservative sources knew all along how weak the case against Zimmerman was. In the old days, if NBC, CBS, ABC and the NY Times presented a certain narrative, or if they didn't cover the story at all, the public had little opportunity to know the full story.

    1. First of all, nobody reads Bob or talkleft. Second of all, everyone knew from the start that the *legal* case against Zimmerman was weak. Nobody needed Bob or the crazy woman who runs talkleft to tell them that -- it was discussed quite thoroughly on the regular news sources. Third of all, among the many other things people who consume "conservative" news sources learn is that global warming is a hoax, you cut taxes to raise revenue, Obamacare is a huge failure and a communist plot to ruin America's great healthcare system, Obama is a muslim commie who was born in Kenya and hates America, John Kerry shot kids in the back in Vietnam, Al Gore claimed he invented the internet, Bill Clinton had Vince Foster murdered, and so on, and so on , and so on. There is, needless to say, no left wing equivalent to this insanity, although if you read Bob, hopelessly in the grips of his monomania, you'd think there was.

    2. I was somewhat hopeful Fawn Brodie would be left to David in Cal and the spellcasters to this the ideal comment box for Bob's more sensitive regular. Or is it regulars?

    3. I think you, 11:06, may be the only human to think Somerby regards the mainstream "liberal media" as being left-wing.

    4. I think you, 3:01, need to improve your reading comprehension. Nowhere do I say or imply that Bob thinks the mainstream "liberal media" is left wing. What I do think is reading Bob's blog, absent a more sane information flow, would lead one to believe that Rachel Maddow et al are just as deranged as the kooks at Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, The Blaze, and so on. If you understood the criticism that people routinely level at Bob, you would understand that. But you don't. Maybe you and David should enroll in the same "Recovering from brain damage" courses. Bring Bob along with you for company and comic relief. He might even learn something. You, probably, won't, but one must try.

  2. 11:06, you have a point that very few people read Bob or TalkLeft. OTOH I don't agree that "everyone knew from the start that the *legal* case against Zimmerman was weak." As I recall, there was widespread shock when the verdict was announced.

    1. Your recollections are faulty. There is a difference between "anger" and "shock," unless you're a troll like yourself, and it suits your purposes to pretend otherwise. Keep chowing down on those logs. You look less foolish with shitstains on your lips than you do when you demonstrate your ignorance.


  3. I promise Dr.Brave if my wife come back i will shear testimony about him..

    Hello to every one out here, am here to share the unexpected miracle that happened to me three days ago, My name is Jeffrey Dowling,i live in Texas,USA.and I`m happily married to a lovely and caring wife,with two kids A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my wife so terrible that she took the case to court for a divorce she said that she never wanted to stay with me again,and that she did not love me anymore So she packed out of my house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get her back,after much begging,but all to no avail and she confirmed it that she has made her decision,and she never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my wife So i explained every thing to her,so she told me that the only way i can get my wife back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for her too So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow her advice. Then she gave me the email address of the spell caster whom she visited.(}, So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address she gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my wife back the next day what an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my wife who did not call me for the past seven {7}months,gave me a call to inform me that she was coming back So Amazing!! So that was how she came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and she apologized for her mistake,and for the pain she caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster . So, was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster . So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website,if you are in any condition like this,or you have any problem related to “bringing your ex back. So thanks to Dr Brave for bringing back my wife,and brought great joy to my family once again.{} , Thanks.


  4. Hello, my name is Miss faith, I'm from USA. I want to inform you all that there is a spell caster that is genuine and real. I never really believed in any of these things but when I was losing Garvin, I needed help and somewhere to turn badly. I found consultant.odia spells and i ordered a LOVE SPELL. Several days later, my phone rang. Garvin was his old self again and wanted to come back to me! Not only come back, the spell caster opened him up to how much I loved and needed him. Spell Casting isn't brainwashing, but they opened his eyes to how much we have to share together. I recommend anyone who is in my old situation to try it. It will bring you a wonderful surprises as well as your lover back to you. The way things were meant to be." you can contact the spell caster on he's very nice and great.