I normally find Brooks a bit of an intellectual simpleton. Like many of his brethren in the openly-conservative camp, he's fond of simplistic characterizations that really don't hold up under scrutiny.
For example: In the present article he equates collective action with a loss of individual rights.
This isn't alway the case. Sometimes, group action is necessary to expand individual rights. Kind of a no man's an island view of things.
Simple solutions and simple social constructs appeal to a specific audience: Simple people.
Brooks is an affable sort, so I avoid being too hard on him. Sometimes he does make a valid point.
His take on the financial turmoil results in a conclusion that I agree with (thus, I don't think he's too bad...).
I've said for a time now that financial trouble is dangerous when those most affected by it are educated, ambitious, and carry a certain degree of expectation from their society. They'll be the sort to create trouble and can carry it out because of their education, experience, and degree of motivation.
Brooks agrees, in a round about way.
No comments:
Post a Comment