I am a Brooks convert

Well, not quite. But for the first time ever I have seen evidence of his charms; until now I have been baffled by how he has become such a star -- well, not baffled at all really: smug, glib, superficiality sells well, especially on the right, and for David Brooks it is nicely overlain with a veneer of openmindedness and something vaguely resembling cogitation. But I like this from yesterday's good column:

you have to remember that Republicans have a different relationship to ideas than Democrats. When Democrats open their mouths, they try to say something interesting. If the true thing is obvious and boring, the liberal person will go off and say something original, even if it is completely idiotic. This is how deconstructionism got started.

Ha! A good line. As a grad student in the 1990s, I suffered through -- nay, I must say, even embraced -- a good deal of hokum passing itself off as the latest method of finally seeing through what others had missed for centuries upon centuries. As for deconstruction (and any real deconstructer knows that it was never an "ism" -- that was the point!), my wife retains some fondness for it, having actually understood Derrida. But then she has even read all of Lacan, so one might question her sanity.

Brooks continues:

Republicans are less concerned with displaying their own cleverness. When they actually stumble upon an idea, they are so delighted they regurgitate it over and over again. Where others might favor elaboration, Republicans favor repetition.

Yes, repetition is right, though for the Republicans it works just as well (maybe even better) for repeating a phrase actually divorced from any idea.