Some look to the pundit class for guidance on the complex and confusing issues of the day. At the cost of several thousands of dollars, this is what David Brooks offers his readers:
Socially liberal knowledge workers naturally want to see people like themselves at the head of society, not people who used to run Halliburton and who are supported by a vast army of evangelicals.
Two things. What does "naturally" mean here? Once that's clear, what is "the head of society" in a democracy such as ours?
Since Brooks offers no quantitative evidence linking “knowledge workers” with particular economic policies, we should disregard his conclusion:
“If the Democrats are elected, this highly educated class will have much more say over policy than during the campaign. Undecided voters sway campaigns, but in government, elites generally run things. Once the Republicans are vanquished, I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for that capital gains tax hike or serious measures to expand unionization.”
Perhaps certain knowledge workers (those supporting Obama) favor these policies…especially those that have brought their liberal politics with them into the elite sectors, as Brooks suggests earlier in the piece. It seems Brooks has undermined his conclusion from the very beginning.
A fine example of a the classic “I I O” style of argument/proof (It Is Obvious).
I wonder if this might be classed as a kind of “crypto” argumentum ad baculum? In this and similar instances, the “stick” is the implicit threat that “you must be dumb” if you don’t just see something so “obvious”?
Gary–
I think in the case your making it might be more an ad populum than an ad hominem, but I feel the same as you about this piece. Brooks is treating the reader as if they are among the stupid if they don’t agree with the infallible conclusion he draws.
substitute ad baculum for ad hominem. Dammit.