They live in modest homes with recently renovated kitchens and Nordic Track machines crammed into the kids’ play areas downstairs (for some reason, people in Ward Three are only interested in toning the muscles in the lower halves of their bodies).
What?! What are you talking about?! Oh my god, we hate David Brooks so much.
So, his column today is about how these so-called "third warders" now run everything, and rich people are going to embarrass themselves by taking private jets to resorts when that kind of behavior is not in vogue anymore. Now, Brooks argues, Ward Three people decide what is acceptable behavior. What are some characteristics of Ward Three-ers? Brooks, who apparently can't think of anything substantial to opine about, describes them thusly:
"...they suffer the status rivalries endemic to the upper-middle class. As law school grads, they resent B-school grads. As Washingtonians, they resent New Yorkers. As policy wonks, they resent people with good bone structure.
In short, people in Ward Three disdain three things: cleavage, hunting and dumb people who are richer than they are."
GAH! It's painful to read! It's so idiotic it--it--it's truly inexplicable. WHO LET THIS GET PUBLISHED?! You know what's hard to understand, what could use some illuminating? The crumbling economy. Maybe some new perspective on that in the O-E page? No? Ok, well then how about you just let some William Buckley-protege turd meander for a few hundred words about some arm-chair psychology that wastes everybody's time, simultaneously celebrating the opulence of the rich while giving empty lip-service to a new era of populism that is the antithesis of everything Prince Brooks stands for.
In his overly cute way, he criticizes the Financial Class, writing:
"...there are times when Masters of the Universe must be Masters of the Grovel. If you are a hedge fund manager and you find yourself in conversation with a person from Ward Three, apologize for ruining the Hamptons, and subsequently, the entire global economy."
Haha, aren't you so clever. The problem with people like Brooks is that he can't criticize the rich and powerful, because his whole life and livelihood is based on gaining access to them and their secrets. He is not an antagonist to the rich, or a populist representative of the oppressed. He stands for nothing other than perpetuation of conventional wisdom, for celebration of his friends in power who (he would have us believe) have all of our best interests at heart.
Brooks in neither insightful nor informative in anything he ever writes, which just makes him an empty-headed lap dog for Washington's elite. What makes him a destructive force in this country is the fact that he takes up valuable space that could be used to present, you know, arguments reasoned from agreed-upon facts, and that his empty missives encourage blind allegiance, not critical thought. That, now that we think of it, would be a great tag-line for his column.