No matter his political views, from this article (and others I've seen from his pen) he is certainly a phony and almost unquestionably a pr*ck, hence a dildo by definition.
''Intellectual elite'', my great aunt Sadie. For membership in this soi-sidant ''elite'', all one has to do is to talk frequently enough with some number of the similarly self-anointed, to the point where one is granted ''elite'' status by the other dildoes and dildettes.
''Oooohhh, I read avant-garde 'literature' with no plot, no cohesion, no characters...I'm of the ''elite'', dontchasee?''
''Well, the notion that a person must produce in order to consume is just a bourgeois misconception left over from a century ago. The purpose of society, as any intellectual will tell you, is to provide for those who will not provide for themselves.'' (...borrowed freely from Rand, this is)
''Property? How can there be private property when there is need? Does your ''property right'' to a piece of land outweigh the ABSOLUTE right of some other person to eat? Yes, absolute. Even if his right requires the sacrifice of your property.''
How does that old saying go (I won't get it right, sorry)?
''It's only an intellectual who can say such stupid things.''
And Brooks and his fellow dildoes qualify...in spades.
It seems to me that Brooks is trying to make a valid distinction between pubbies who are practical and value loyalty and rats who are theoretical and only care about winning, regardless. I can't understand your hostility other than its a visceral hatred of anything associated with New York.
Is there some confusion between David Brooks and David Brock, the former writer for the American Spectator and tormentor of Clinton, who flipped to the left after his homosexuality was disclosed?