Friday, August 24, 2007
Attack of the smug
Though I appreciate the diversity that David Brooks brings to the NY Times Op-Ed page, and he frequently makes some interesting points (which are just as frequently expanded way out of proportion to his supportive evidence), this "review" is Exhibit 28 in why he infuriates me. And the editors thought he would write a fair (and meaningful) review of this book, Why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I thought it fair and meaningful, and I don't typically like David Brooks columns. How is it problematic?
Upon re-reading, he addressed the book a bit more than I thought at first. I thought 4 things were unfair:
1)He lumped the book in with a series of books he has already read with a reaction he had already formed, raising objections to the books as a class without responding to what I thought was supposed to be new about this one, which was the recent fMRI evidence about political decision making.
2)I think the Times would have gotten a more interesting review from a neuropsychologist rather than a political partisan. That said, few reviewers are non-partisan, and the overall Times reviewer (I'm looking at you, Michiko) is probably pretty solidly on the left, and I don't complain as loudly when it's someone else's ox being gored. (Or Gored.)
3) His first few objections are silly. If the book is really so simple-minded that those objections shake it's fundamental premises, then I'm shocked it is being taken seriously at all.
4) Does he really think that the Dems won votes because they were right on Civil Rights? What cave was he living in from 1968 to now when the whole South went Republican? There's clearly a mix of emotion and reason at play in winning elections. Brooks just looks foolish when he goes all the way the other side and claims you just have to appeal to reason and show voters that you have the right answer.
I haven't read the book. There may be plenty to object to in it. But I couldn't sort out those valid objections from Brooks' previous political inclinations when I read this review.
Post a Comment