Greg Sargent recently chimed in on the subject, pointing out the shortcomings in a Brooks column. Sargent summarized:
The whole column is a massive intellectual failure. There's no originality of thought, no effort to marshal facts, no original reporting, nothing. In short, Brooks has added absolutely zippo of value to the larger conversation.Brooks has penned many a column like this one; for him to base a column on rigorous research and facts is rare indeed.
As Sargent states elsewhere, shame on his editors to allow such light fodder to make it to print. Sadly, because of the Times stature, Brooks' evidence-free opinions likely pass for truth in rightwing circles. I mean my gosh, it's the NY Times, it must be more plausible than Fox News! Yet, all too often Brooks peddles the same kind of lazy crap that his less-overtly-sophisticated brethren (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc.) make a nice living manufacturing.
To that end, his assumed credibility makes him that much more a dangerous voice for the right.