This initially seemed harmless and original. But by the end, I was extremely unimpressed. Here’s what I don’t get about David Brooks. Sometimes, he talks about the methods and outcomes of modern science like they’re failsafe and flawless. Then today, election day, he makes conclusions with no evidence but the words of politicians with histories of and incentives to lie. He’s a philosopher-king of an opinion columnist. I love him. But his articles that predict the factual future of politics are naive, simplistic and reckless. In this article, and many others, I detect a self-conscious, calculated brand of centrist bias on the facts. While I like a centrist perspective on policy and ideas, I don’t like his his judgment of character or his take on the political tide.