Watch as David Brooks stars in "Backhanded Attacks on Feminism"

If you have a New York Times Select account, you can read David Brooks' latest, an article titled All Politics Is Thymotic. In it, Brooks makes a guise of arguing that the main driving motivation of politicians is Plato's thymos, the hunger for recognition. But much like John Tierney's promise to enlighten us about the desires of women, I'm suspicious of any article that opens with a promise to tell you "what men want." Brooks doesn't disappoint.

He writes ten paragraphs that say a lot of things that I can mostly agree with. I think he's right that men want recognition. (I'd argue that that holds true for women as well, but that's because I'm me and he's David Brooks.) Brooks says things like:

If I had the attention of the world's politicians for one afternoon, I'd lead a discussion on the nature of the thymotic urge. I'd point out that if politicians weren't consumed by a hunger for recognition, none of them would agree to lead the miserable lives they do. I'd point out that in the thymotic urge, selfishness and selflessness are intertwined. Men compete for personal glory. But thymos also induces them to sacrifice for causes larger than themselves.

I'd point out that if you see politics as a competition for recognition, many things become clear. The economic and literary backwardness of the Arab world has set off a thymotic crisis, as Arab men lash out to make the world pay attention to them. The Israeli-Palestinian dispute is not only a squabble over land; it's intractable because each side wants the other to recognize its moral superiority. Democracy still has good long-term prospects in that region because it's the only system that meets rising expectations about individual dignity.

There is something here that could be the foundation of a good point. Much like the idea of Richard Dawkins' memes, there are probably situations where it would be helpful to consider political situations as a series of interactions centered on thymos. And yet, much like Dawkins' memes, it doesn't really tell the whole story. Certainly a large part of politics is the hunt for personal recognition, but there are also times when politicians act according to their principles, whether that makes them popular or not. (See George W. Bush's entire second term as an example.)

But despite the title, all of Brooks' talk about the politics of thymos is really just a fancy way to tell feminists to shut up. In his last three paragraphs, Brooks writes:

If I had those politicians for an afternoon, I'd point out that even though the thymotic urge drives so much of public life, we really don't talk about thymos anymore. I'd add that when you read the ancient political philosophers on thymos, they treat it as a male trait. But over the past century women have been expressing their thymotic urges more and more, and people over 40 have a complex about female thymos that people under 40 generally don't have.

I'd ask them to read Harvey Mansfield's new book, "Manliness," which is two books in one. First, it's a subtle exploration about the virtues and vices of the thymotic urge. It's also a series of troublemaking generalizations about the differences between men and women.

Over the next few weeks, Mansfield and his feminist critics are going to brawl — thymotically — over his assertions. I'm not as impressed by Mansfield's generalizations as he is, but he'll have one advantage: he understands the nature of thymos, which shapes this fight, and so much of our political life.

Brooks first tries to cover himself by saying that he isn't impressed by Mansfield's "troubling" book and pointing out that popular support for women's rights has come a long way in the last 40 years. But the entire essay up to this point has been nothing but a defense of Mansfield's ideas. When it finally comes down to it, Brooks admits that half the book is worthless. But instead of resoundingly condemning the worthless parts, he excuses them and makes a preemptive strike against the feminists for daring to speak up.

I can't help but notice the irony that an essay about the destructive nature of the hunger for recognition is replete with stories of how much better the world would be if only Brooks had the ear of the politicians for a day. But when Brooks has an opportunity to do some real good by denouncing sexism on a national stage, instead he chooses to imply that any criticism of leveled at the theory can only be explained by the feminists' desire for individual accolades. In Brooks' world, there are no principled arguments against sexism to be found, only the thymotic pursuit of glory.

Brooks' essay would have benefited from a more nuanced discussion that admitted that sometimes the concept of thymos just doesn't apply. But of course he couldn't afford to make that admission. It would have destroyed his backhanded attack against feminism.

Thanks to Orange for passing on the article.