I can name that columnist in one paragraph!

“…he exists to bring comfort to boring middle-aged, middle-class, middle-management, middle-of-the-road white people that it’s OK to be that way. Your life may be dull and static, you may envy the rich, the hip, and the activist, but David Brooks is there to tell you really have the better deal. In terms of politics, his purpose is to try to take the wind out of the sails of any possible political movement for change.

The definitive take on David Brooks. Brought up for no reason whatsoever.



  1. Norman Farrell

    Brooks does not fit the mold of a typical Faux News commentator, who talks to the already disaffected and is not expected to show any particular sign of knowledge, balance or brains. Perhaps, Brooks is more dangerous as one more of those “sophisticated and respected” commentators who claim to speak for America’s moderate majority.

    Under that guise, he promotes imperialist military actions, neo-con politics and social policies that widen the gap between rich and poor. Because he accepts same-sex relationships and a need for gun control, progressives want to embrace him. It is a dangerous embrace.

  2. spartikus

    He’s the court-sanctioned “centrist” – nice, safe, stifling – a courtier living in the Beltway Bubble advancing the interests of power. That Baldrey lavishes such praise on him was very, very illuminating.

  3. Norman Farrell

    Remember that Brooks excoriated the writer who revealed Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s direct challenges to civilian authority in Rolling Stone. Michael Hasting’s response was to mock Brooks by imagining, “david brooks to young reporters: don’t report what you see or hear, or you might upset the powerful.”

    Brooks promoted the Iraq invasion and seemingly adheres to the neocon guiding principle of “bomb today for a brighter tomorrow.”