A few years ago, Phil A. and some friends of his said that they thought David Brooks was OK, as conservative columnists go. I don't know other conservative columnists, but I loathe David Brooks. At the time I couldn't quite explain why. His column today on Al Gore — "The Vulcan Utopia" — gives me an opportunity.

First, something so obvious it's easy to miss: he doesn't deal with the substance of Gore's book; instead he attacks Gore on style. Gore, we are told, is a "robot." (Haven't we heard that before?) The evidence: he thinks machines are important; his prose style is clunky. Ergo, Gore is not made of flesh and blood, he doesn't understand emotions, passions, relationships. This is as mean, unscrupulous, and spurious (and, unfortunately, as effective) a strategy as questioning someone's patriotism. It's impossible to prove and impossible to refute, and it sweeps away all substantive issues.

Brooks cloaks his essential frivolity in smug invocations of virtue and justice. (He does this in all his columns, or at least all the ones I can bring myself to read.) These are empty catchphrases in his mouth, though I must say I'm surprised he mentions "justice": that brings the conservative doublethink to new heights. "Virtue" of course is an old favorite with them, though Cheney almost ruined it when (in an implicit slap at his predecessor) he sneeringly called conservation efforts a mark of "personal virtue."

To be sure, "family, friendship, neighborhood, and just face-to-face contact" are important, but how is that relevant to public policy? (Brooks once wrote a column arguing that what the poor really need is "connections." Rich and powerful ones, naturally.) Emotions are important too — Brooks mentions fear in particular — but what should be the role of emotions (which emotions?) in politics and civic life? Republicans can't talk about this with any honesty, because they owe too much to fear (and greed, and hatred). Brooks's glorification of emotions is a veiled defence of Republican demagoguery.

And if emotions are important (and they are), why doesn't Brooks go after rational-choice economists?

Does Brooks disagree with Gore's view of television? If so, why doesn't he argue against it, instead of merely holding up Gore's words for ridicule?

It's strange to read a political columnist who, in the first paragraph of every column, negates the premises for rational argument and then descends to innuendo and name-calling on the level of "your mommy dresses you funny" (Gore is "exceedingly strange"), all the while pretending that he's taking the high road. It's strange to hear someone talk about virtue, while heaping scorn on an exhortation to do good. I know Brooks is considered a moderate, a "reasonable" Republican, but I don't think that's a fair description of someone who offers, in column after column, a defence of demagoguery and an attack on Enlightenment values.