I like how Brooks engages intellectually with the people he criticizes, this is something I think is priceless - there's nothing worse than reading shallow criticism intended for people to just parrot. I feel like the idea of convincing people something/someone is bad as more important than actually making them understand why it's the case is a genuine "political pathology" and is actually very unethical: it treats people as a means to an end, rather than empowering them to be intellectually autonomous political agents capable of thinking and reaching conclusions for themselves. To me unsubstantiated critique intended for mere parroting is the recipe for disaster, because if people don't actually understand what's wrong with, say, a public intellectual, it's easy af to be lured into p r o b l e m a t i c ideas and movements whose tactic centers around casuistry and emotional rhetoric. We shouldn't take people's desire to be in for granted... it might work sometimes but it's dishonest. So this is a nice short book, a good example of a substantive critique in a sea full of trash talking passing as political commentary.