David Brooks is a moron

New York Times columnist David Brooks is renowned for his sharp ability to clearly see only one side of an issue. There are times when he seems utterly unable to grasp how inconsistent his argument is with his evidence. Then again, maybe the "liberal media elite" wants him to look like a stooge, since Brooks is really the NYT's only regular right-leaning op-ed writer.

In today's column, Brooks talks about the Dutch and French rejection of the EU constitution. He starts off with a bang:

Forgive me for making a blunt and obvious point, but events in Western Europe are slowly discrediting large swaths of American liberalism.

And swiftly undermines his argument:

The "no" campaign united the fearful right, led by Jean-Marie Le Pen, with the fearful left, led by the Communists.

So the "discrediting... of American liberalism" was led by a borderline Fascist and radical socialists. I'm not sure that is a demographic we should be using as a barometer of American policy. But more importantly, Brooks' argument overlooks the counterpoint his evidence tries to hard to make for him. Le Pen's opposition had nothing to do with American-style liberalism and everything to do with nativism and xenophobia, so I hardly think Brooks should use this as supporting evidence that the left is on the run. Brooks then turns his sharp analytical abilities to the left's opposition. As evidence of his idea that the European left is turning against American-style liberalism, Brooks offers this logical gem:

Most of the policy ideas advocated by American liberals have already been enacted in Europe: generous welfare measures, ample labor protections, highly progressive tax rates, single-payer health care systems, zoning restrictions to limit big retailers, and cradle-to-grave middle-class subsidies supporting everything from child care to pension security...

The highest "no" votes came from the most vulnerable, from workers and the industrial north.

Could it be that the poor industrial workers actually like having generous social programs, restricted immigration, and government subsidies? This would seem to be the logical conclusion, but Brooks inexplicably concludes they are voting "no" to express their frustration with leftonomics. This is hardly a rejection of what Americans call liberalism; in fact, the French left's rejection is a show of support for France's current socioeconomic policies, which are far to the left of American liberals. If anything, their stance signals a rejection of the American right's economic approach.

The only evidence Brooks offers to back up his thesis is evidence that is better suited to the counterpoint. David Brooks is the worst columnist at the Times, and that's saying something.