The New York Times’ columnist David Brooks is sometimes referred to as a conservative voice of reason, an intellectual who crafts his arguments in a way that is foreign to much of the commentariat. Along with fellow Times columnist Ross Douhtat, he balances a liberal op-Ed page.
But Brooks’ reputation is fraudulent. He is no better than most columnists — whether they write for the Times or some other news organization. His balanced, rational discourse is neither balanced nor rational, and is as cherry-picked and one-sided as anyone’s.
Brooks’ claim to intellectual legitimacy is his penchant for sociological interpretation — or, as today’s column shows, the appearance of sociological acuity. Brooks writes well, and his columns sound deep, but they really are nothing more than bland generalities. Joe Biden is a Honeymooners politician representing an earlier demographic. Paul Ryan represents the new health club generation. It was Ed Norton versus Alex Keaton, a war of the generations, old versus new and on and on.
It is a clever argument, but about as deep as the shallow end of the baby pool and completely meaningless.
There are a lot of things you could say about last night’s vice presidential debate, but calling it a generational war stretches the bounds of credulity, especially with the Democrats holding an edge among younger voters.
But then, this column is pretty typical of Brooks’ approach — broad pronouncements and generalities cast as hard data and focused argument. As Biden might say, it is just a bunch of malarkey.
Hank Kalet 