Liberals have an odd habit: they like to designate one conservative pundit or politician as the “Voice of Reason” from the other side.\u00a0 To be considered a Voice of Reason, the person must be intellectual (as opposed to strident) and occasionally express a “crossover” view: one that demonstrates how, after carefully considering an issue, he finds he agrees with us.<\/p>\n
Many years ago, the official Voice of Reason was George Will, often infuriating and typically bombastic but every so often saying something<\/a> that (coincidentally I’m sure) reaffirmed a liberal position.\u00a0 But that was then.\u00a0 Our current Voice of Reason<\/a>, having quietly assumed this role over the last several years, is David Brooks.<\/p>\n David Brooks writes for the New York Times.\u00a0 David Brooks appears regularly on NPR.\u00a0 David Brooks was born in Canada.\u00a0 What more could a liberal want in a Voice of Reason?<\/a><\/p>\n Well, he’s really done it this time.\u00a0 In his most recent column<\/a>, “The Politics of Solipsism”, Brooks offers the following:<\/p>\n Almost seductively reasonable.\u00a0 I think David is a double-agent. Liberals have an odd habit: they like to designate one conservative pundit or politician as the “Voice of Reason” from the other side.\u00a0 To be considered a Voice of Reason, the person must be intellectual (as opposed to strident) and … Continue reading The political culture encourages politicians and activists to imagine that the country\u2019s problems would be solved if other people\u2019s interests and values magically disappeared.<\/em><\/h5>\n
\n<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"