HOW MUCH BROOKS TO BROOK? I have to admit it: I read pretty much every David Brooks column. He’s often quite good, honestly. However, as many have pointed out, he also has a unique knack for being infuriating. And it?s easy to get baited into responding each time. (Today, for example, Brooks declares ($) himself to be, in effect, a centrist Democrat, although he concludes with an appeal to Republicans: ?[W]e disaffected voters are easy. We want to go home with you if you?ll give us a reason.? That sort of says it all. But I digress.) But I?ve found two things helpful in dealing with my troubles. One is a helpful warning from Michael Kinsley about a similar threat: ?If you’re not careful, you can squander an entire journalistic career swatting flies from the Wall Street Journal editorial page.? And the other is an awareness of the existence of a natural Brooks Ratio. That would be the ratio of maddening-to-non-maddening columns in the Brooks output, and it’s best not to challenge it. For example, my own Brooks Ratio, since I feel my anger growing when reading roughly two out of seven Brooks columns, is 0.29. I can live with that. But I?d be curious to see how others deal with the problem.

Washington Monthly - Donate today and your gift will be doubled!

Support Nonprofit Journalism

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really works—and how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, I’ll make a donation