A shame that he decided to be a bad one

Dayna Evans responded to David Brooks’s terrible, talentless, lazy “opinion piece” the day it appeared (last Friday).

Some writers are bad at writing, while others are good. But being good at writing is often not enough: One must also be gracious when writing about female presidential candidates. The best writers in the world are able to turn good writing into great by calling upon graciousness and intelligence in the face of an anti-intellectual world.

David Brooks — who today published “The Art of Gracious Leadership,” a musing on why Hillary Clinton is not, unlike “Lincoln, Gandhi, Mandela and Dorothy Day,” a gracious leader — is not one of those writers.

Good writers, just like the subject of David Brooks’s latest spaghetti-at-a-wall op-ed, are “humble enough to observe that the best things in life are usually undeserved”…

As David Brooks’s entire career is undeserved. He’s a bad, lazy writer who simply states the obvious or conventional in the least interesting words available. He’s not good at writing and he’s not good at thinking either. There is no there there.

David Brooks writes for a living, but he does not seem to be transformed by the act of it. When writing about a female presidential candidate, he seems to make the same mistakes he’s been making as a writer for nearly two decades. His posture is “still brittle, stonewalling and dissembling.” David Brooks’s columns are all the same.

All the same platitudinous nothing.

Comments are closed.