It has been a while since I've been on the David Brooks bandwagon. "Wayne's Best" became such a huge Wapologist over the last year or so, I couldn't even read him. That said, let's hang him for the right reasons.

Here is the only mention of Steven Sailer in his column:

"As Steve Sailer pointed out in The American Conservative, George Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility rates, and 25 of the top 26. John Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest rates."

Whether you think it is a meaningful fact in the context of the column is certainly open to debate, and I certainly would think it was interesting if it were proven untrue (I haven't confirmed it myself). But I have a hard time thinking of that level of citation as "pushing" his writing.

If it is, it should be pointed out that Brooks "pushes" the New Republic Online with the very next sentence:

"In The New Republic Online, Joel Kotkin and William Frey observe, 'Democrats swept the largely childless cities - true blue locales like San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Boston and Manhattan have the lowest percentages of children in the nation - but generally had poor showings in those places where families are settling down, notably the Sun Belt cities, exurbs and outer suburbs of older metropolitan areas.'"

In other words, in consecutive sentences he cited conservative and liberal sources who were basically agreeing on the same demographic fact.

I also think it is specious to use the fact that Steve Sailer's name is mentioned in his column to suggest that, therefore, David Brooks agrees with everything he (Sailer) stands for, especially without providing a link to the column. It is a great dismantling of Sailer, but the 'guilt-by-association' attack on Brooks is not compelling (to me, at least, but hey, well . . . you know).

You can also read the actual column if you like, by clicking here. It's OK. I think there is some interesting anecdotal thought, but the dots are too far apart to be connected in any meaningful way. I certainly can't take seriously the idea that there is a political movement called Natalism quite yet.

Jim, you'll change your tune on Sailer if you read his review of the Powerpuff Girls. He totally doesn't get it -- and worse, thinks "little girls will enjoy watching the Powerpuffettes use their Mighty Mouse-like ability to fly and levitate objects to paint their new bedroom pink." Cause that's all little girls want to see -- painting stuff pink.

But seriously, now -- this is of a piece with Brooks' earlier column about John Stott, the kinder, gentler Crusader. Quoting someone like Sailer doesn't mean Brooks agrees with everything Sailer says, any more than a fawning piece on Stott will turn Brooks into a Christian. But quoting him in the NYT gives Sailer mainstream legitimacy, even if you mention him in the same breath as NRO.

Oh, and Jim -- I am "Wayne's Best."

Or maybe Emily.

That Powerpuff Girls Movie review was possibly the highlight of my day or week.

And yeah, from what I see about Sailer here, he wouldn't be my first choice as a source. I just don't see it as a killing blow to David Brooks when the problem could be remedied by deleting the words "as Steve Sailer pointed out in The American Conservative," without changing anything else (including any of the factual points or rhetorical conclusions of the piece).

This doesn't have to be a killing blow, but I wouldn't mind if it was the 1,000th cut that kills his credibility. Brooks' pattern of consistently promoting culturally divisive figures and views under the guise of "even-handed opinion" gives lie to his sage, gentle persona, and it should erode the warm embrace he receives from liberals and the punditocracy. Again and again, he quietly strokes the egos of the intolerant and the powerful. He may be the very best at what he does, but that doesn't mean what he does is what he appears to do.

"I also think it is specious to use the fact that Steve Sailer's name is mentioned in his column to suggest that, therefore, David Brooks agrees with everything he (Sailer) stands for..."

And I think it's specious to imply that the post above suggests that, which it plainly doesn't. But I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know.

"... especially without providing a link to the column."

Now that is a killing blow.

The perils of research assistants.

Ive read the Steve Sailer piece about voting patterns and I have to ask; what is it you actually disagree with? You dont like Sailer, you dont like Brooks, you insult them, OK fine. Now I want to see you refute what they said about voting patterns.

Sailer has noticed that white and black tend to have different party affiliations, that married people with children tend to be more conservative - my god! - hold the front page! For that you seem to think a re-run of the Nuremburg trials seems to be in order. So come on then lets have a reasoned refutation rather than all these knowing condemnations.

I don't think Colin was critizing Sailer for his analysis of voting patterns - he was noting a few of Sailer's more "colorful" viewpoints, and questioning whether it is responsible journalism to use him as a source (especially when you consider that the facts cited could have been sourced independently, making the Sailer reference feel rather gratuitous).

At any rate, I don't see how Colin can be challenged to refute something he didn't question.

I also think it is hard to demand a "reasoned refutation" in any post that uses the Nuremburg trials as an analogy. But then again, I suppose such an inflammitory reference is the essence of trolling, no?

Godwin'd!

FWIW, the same Sailer article was cited in today's Arts and Letters Daily.