New York Times columnist David Brooks routinely pillories the poor for their own shortcomings (here, for instance). For him, one’s situation is all about behavior and attitude. The rich have what it takes, and if we want what they have, then we need only adopt their dispositions.
Just as routinely, Brooks’s unsolicited advice and admonitions trigger reactions such as this. Ever supercilious, Brooks never even hints that his fact-based opposition affects his own dispositions. He is fixed in his ways and views. Nor does the Times bother to juxtapose a correction sheet to Brooks’s mendacious meanderings. I suspect that the reason for the recalcitrance and the paper’s conspicuously absent truth meter has much to do with money. Yep.
Brooks is controversial, deliberately so. People read him to either confirm their equally fanciful biases or to derive perverse entertainment. He writes. The Times publishes. People notice. Advertisers delight. Repeat.