Mile-wide and inch-deep David Brooks seems like a nice, affable guy with a boomer's-worth of self-esteem.
He writes literate columns. But, for the most part, they are ... what's a nice way of saying "lacking in intellectual integrity." See today's column, example.
Okay, don't. But at least go and read the comments that follow it. Civil, diverse, and coming from all over the place, quite a few of their authors should be considered for taking over Brooks' column inches at the Times. Brooks might make a good commenter. Looks like a lot of people feel more or less the same way, and they don't all appear to be flaming socialists.
In a tough economy, it's hard to imagine that one would lay out good money for any self-satisfied fuddy-duddy's breakfast, much less his words.
___
Jeez. I figured I'd be mostly alone in my assessment of Brooks' latest. I guess not. One of my favorite bloggers cites another critique of Brooks at The Economist. A much more detailed one. And a commenter at that blog has this pie to throw at Brooks (and the New York Times):
All of Brooks' columns are incoherent messes. That is because his job (and yes, this is why he is employed by the NYT) is to make conservative insanity seem reasonable, coherent, and palatable to a marginally sane audience. Since conservatism (at least in the present and likely always) is none of these things, this effort creates inherent chaos forcing him to resort to gibberish.
