The New York Times’ David Brooks Is Either Stupid Or Dishonest

Democrats are doing everything to explain their election wipeout but admit that Joe Biden’s presidency and all of the party’s disastrous policies were a wreck. Because the national news media are first and foremost dedicated to helping Democrats, they’re doing the same thing.

New York Times conservative columnist who always votes Democrat David Brooks is the epitome of this dynamic. Brooks this week wrote an unnecessarily long and convoluted piece explaining away the electoral bloodbath (are we still allowed to use that term?) as a matter of Democrats’ miscalculated social science.

“Many of us are walking around with broken mental models,” he wrote on Thursday. “Many of us go through life with false assumptions about how the world works.” He said that “a certain worldview that emphasizes racial, gender and ethnic identity has been prevalent in the circles where highly educated people congregate,” but “it turns out a lot of people don’t behave like ambassadors from this or that group. They think for themselves in unexpected ways.”

True, large numbers of Americans say they’re repulsed by the “woke” and transgender nonsense they’re force-fed by Democrats and the media. But that’s because they’re asked about it, and those are easily the most obnoxious issues linked to the party. What they really hate, though, is constantly calculating where they can save a couple of dollars, how much more they can trim back, and what credit card makes the most sense when it comes to purchasing basic necessities on the next grocery run.

Democrats made them do that. And when they made them do that, it was all the more irksome to watch Democrats send hundreds of millions of dollars to Eastern Europe and then welcome the world’s destitute at the southern border — untold numbers of migrants who then had to be cared for at the expense of American taxpayers, who weirdly enough, didn’t need more problems.

The constant hectoring about racial “equity,” trans “rights” and “women of color” is enough to make anyone leave the room. But you’re not going to convince me that if Democrats had only stopped being annoying they might have at least held onto the White House.

They weren’t just irritating. They passed a bunch of stupid legislation that burned out the Treasury’s printers and left everyone else figuring out how much they could do without in order to keep from dipping into their retirement accounts.

Yes, Democrat leaders and the media are a condescending, unattractive crew preoccupied with race, gender, and sexual identity. But David Brooks and his peers are attempting to excuse the party’s destructive policies on the economy, the border, and foreign affairs by pretending that if they were only less trifling about blacks and gays they’d be in decent shape.

That’s not it, which means that Brooks is either stupid or he’s dishonest. Either way, he should lose his job explaining politics.