Liberals have an odd habit: they like to designate one conservative pundit or politician as the “Voice of Reason” from the other side.  To be considered a Voice of Reason, the person must be intellectual (as opposed to strident) and occasionally express a “crossover” view: one that demonstrates how, after carefully considering an issue, he finds he agrees with us.

Many years ago, the official Voice of Reason was George Will, often infuriating and typically bombastic but every so often saying something that (coincidentally I’m sure) reaffirmed a liberal position.  But that was then.  Our current Voice of Reason, having quietly assumed this role over the last several years, is David Brooks.

David Brooks writes for the New York Times.  David Brooks appears regularly on NPR.  David Brooks was born in Canada.  What more could a liberal want in a Voice of Reason?

Well, he’s really done it this time.  In his most recent column, “The Politics of Solipsism”, Brooks offers the following:

The political culture encourages politicians and activists to imagine that the country’s problems would be solved if other people’s interests and values magically disappeared.

Almost seductively reasonable.  I think David is a double-agent.

Hats off to those who helped rid our world of Osama bin Laden.

Hats off to the the fallen rescuers and the families of those he murdered on September 11, 2001.

This isn’t about justice.  This is about people living in a safer, saner world.

I had always suspected Condoleezza Rice was an arrogant person.  It was not only what she said (and failed to say) on her many Sunday talk show appearances during the Bush years. It was also her insistent, remorseless defense of her actions (and non-actions) with respect to the famous August 2001 memo “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” as well as the ease with which she could use hundreds of words to say nothing, or to shift blame to others, or to nobody.  What was clear was that Rice could not tolerate being questioned.

Her April 2004 testimony to the 9/11 Commission was typical (watch if you prefer):

BEN-VENISTE:  You acknowledged to us that Richard Clarke told you that al Qaeda cells were in the United States.  Did you tell the President, at any time prior to August 6, of the existence of al Qaeda cells in the United States?

RICE: First, let me just make certain…

BEN-VENISTE: If you could just answer that question, because I only have a very limited…

RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but it’s important…

BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president…

RICE: … that I also address…  It’s also important that, Commissioner, that I address the other issues that you have raised.  So I will do it quickly, but if you’ll just give me a moment.

BEN-VENISTE:  Well, my only question to you is whether you…

RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but I will…

BEN-VENISTE: … told the president.

RICE: If you’ll just give me a moment, I will address fully the questions that you’ve asked.

First of all, yes, the August 6 PDB was in response to questions of the president — and that since he asked that this be done. It was not a particular threat report.  And there was historical information in there about various aspects of al Qaeda’s operations.

Dick Clarke had told me, I think in a memorandum — I remember it as being only a line or two — that there were al Qaeda cells in the United States.  Now, the question is, what did we need to do about that?  And I also understood that that was what the FBI was doing, that the FBI was pursuing these al Qaeda cells. I believe in the August 6 memorandum it says that there were 70 full field investigations under way of these cells. And there was no recommendation that we do something about this; the FBI was pursuing it.

I really don’t remember, Commissioner, whether I discussed this with the president.

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

At long last Rice answered the question Ben-Veniste asked, but not before she was ready, and not before she delivered her mea non culpa.  FBI on the case?  Check.  Next question?

You may ask, why dredge up Condoleezza Rice now?  Well, today I stumbled upon a short interview with her in the New York Times, “Nobody Puts Condoleezza Rice in a Corner.”  Here’s an excerpt:

Q: I’ve read that people consider you almost incapable of admitting a mistake. What do you consider to be the biggest of your career?

RICE: You know, I’ve done pretty well. I don’t spend a lot of time dwelling on the past that way.

Q: You can’t think of just one?

RICE: I’m certain I can find many. It’s just not a very fruitful exercise.

I did some things well and some things not so well.  If you’re a public figure, there are always going to be a few people who don’t like what you did.  I’m just really glad I don’t have to listen to them.

I learn more and grow more from my mistakes than from my successes.  Rice seems to think that mistakes have nothing to tell her.  Maybe the problem is she isn’t listening.