Jon Chait and Brendan Nyhan had some good pieces last week about how Peggy Noonan’s columns are essentially mystical in outlook. Obviously, you don’t need them to tell you that; nevertheless, I was happy to see two semi-VSPs touch on one of the things we rant about here regularly.
I would argue that David Brooks’ columns are also essentially mystical (believe it or not, I’m tired of talking about Bobo today, but everyone’s talking about his anti-stimulus idiocy in the comments). Yes, he wears glasses and talks about Hume, Burke, and Niebuhr, and even cites quantitative studies (from National Affairs and Steve Sailer, which aren’t so different when you get down to it). But there’s no evidence he understands any of the quantitative arguments — the citations are one and two-line throwaways, and he failed high-school math according to yesterday’s NY mag profile. The imaginary businessmen from Racine, Washington he communes with at the Applebee’s salad bar are no more real than the dolphins who saved Elian Gonzales.
I don’t find Nooners and her ilk to be all that toxic; sure, Brian Williams loves her, but she’s openly superstitious, and sometimes openly drunk. Mysticism dressed up as high-brow analysis is toxic. Using totebag-friendly pseudo-intellectual references to argue in favor of pointless wars and irrational economic policies is much more damaging than drunkenly blathering on about magical dolphins.