Better Pundits Please

Glenn is right. Today's David Brooks column reads like a parady of insular Beltway punditry. Without citing any polling data or even marshaling a coherent argument, Brooks writes:

Now it’s evident that if you want to understand the future of the Democratic Party you can learn almost nothing from the bloggers, billionaires and activists on the left who make up the “netroots.” You can learn most of what you need to know by paying attention to two different groups — high school educated women in the Midwest, and the old Clinton establishment in Washington.

High school educated women in the Midwest. Of course. Those are the "real" Democrats. And David Brooks--a male, college-educated Republican who grew up in Manhattan--understands this demographic better than anyone. He speaks for them. And he knows--again no polling needed--that what they really want is someone who is "moderate on social issues, activist but not statist on domestic issues and hawkish on foreign policy."

Given that up to 55% of Iowa Republicans now favor immediate withdrawal from Iraq, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this magic demographic Mr. Brooks claims to speak for is not quite as hawkish as he thinks, at least in the way he means it.

But what's the point of trying to analyze this kind of stuff? Brooks is just speaking from his navel, and columns like this are just a waste of everyone's time. Can we have some betters pundits please?