In an era of polarization and misinformation, the voices we amplify matter. Yet David Brooks—the New York Times columnist and self-proclaimed conservative thinker—still commands an outsized platform. While the world faces systemic inequality, climate crises, and eroding democracy, Brooks’ detached centrism isn’t just unhelpful—it’s counterproductive. Here’s why we need to stop listening.
1. The Myth of Thoughtful Conservatism
Brooks sells himself as a genteel conservative bridging left and right, but his politics rely on nostalgia for a past that never existed. His columns romanticize a time of “civility” and bipartisanship, ignoring America’s history of messy, unequal politics.
For instance, his calls for “national unity” amid rising authoritarianism ignore reality. By treating extremism as just another perspective, he legitimizes dangerous ideologies under the guise of balanced debate.
2. Elite Blind Spots on Inequality
Brooks epitomizes elite detachment. His 2013 column, “The Cost of Relativism,” blamed moral decay for economic struggles—ignoring wage stagnation and corporate greed. His recent musings on the “cultural elite” further prove his disconnect from working-class life.
His solutions? Personal responsibility and “character-building,” ignoring systemic barriers that trap people in poverty. In a nation where the 1% own more than the bottom 50%, his moralizing is irrelevant—and insulting.
3. A Track Record of Bad Predictions
Brooks’ political forecasts are reliably wrong. He backed the Iraq War, dismissed Trump’s appeal, and fawned over Jeb Bush. Yet media still platforms him—because his faux-intellectualism comforts establishment elites.
4. The Harm of Both-Sidesism
While one party embraces election denialism, Brooks pretends both sides are equally extreme. Comparing Medicare-for-All to white nationalism isn’t balance—it’s false equivalence that normalizes extremism.
Conclusion: Stop Giving Brooks a Platform
Today’s crises demand clarity and courage—not Brooks’ platitudes about civility. He’s either a relic of a bygone era or an enabler of the status quo.
Next time you see his byline, ask: Is this the voice we need? The answer is clear. Seek thinkers who engage with reality—not Brooks’ fantasies.
— NextMinuteNews
