Since the Times moderators have been sleeping in this morning, you can read my comment on David Brooks' column here. Brooks has been reading about the life of Leo Tolstoy, and reports that Tolstoy became a wacky crusader in his later years:

... most historical leaders write pallid memoirs not because they are hiding the truth but because they’ve been engaged in an activity that makes it impossible for them to see it clearly. Activism is admirable, necessary and self-undermining — the more passionate, the more self-blinding. -- David Brooks

Forgive me, Brooks; I am always looking for the point of your little essays.

So maybe it's, "George Bush wrote a 'pallid memoir' because he really had no idea what he was doing." That's possible. But, unlike many of my liberal friends, I think Bush knew very well what he was doing. He was waging unnecessary wars of aggression to satisfy his Napoleonic complex and at the same time reward his Haliburton-type friends. He was decimating the American economy to help out his bankster buddies. He was depleting the government larder to force entitlement cutbacks. If his memoir is "pallid," it's because telling the truth would be a confession of guilt, not a memoir.

Or maybe your point is that "activists are nuts, just like Tolstoy." It is activists who got us every societal advantage we enjoy today. Were it not for revolutionary activists, we might still be singing "God Save the Queen" (though I doubt it). If not for reformers, we might still have indentured servants (of course, informally, we do). If not for abolitionists, we might still have slaves (here is Southwest Florida, there are still slave rings, but at least they're illegal). If not for suffragists, women would not have the vote. If not for later feminists, women would still not be allowed to perform "men's jobs" and they would not be entitled to equal pay for equal work (of course, we're still not getting that). If not for activists, gays would be treated as second class citizens (oh, wait, they still are).

Activism isn't nuts, Brooks, it's a badge of honor. As you so often do, you looked at a set of facts -- in this case, your reading of Tolstoy's life -- and drew a conclusion in direct opposition to its true meaning. I suppose for those who choose to applaud the status quo, it is satisfying to observe the failures of the righteous. But your self-satisfaction is hollow. In the end, we must hope, for the sake of humankind, that the smug indifference of the privileged falls into the dustbin. In the long arc of history, that's pretty much where such thoughts now lie, sometimes scooped up & regurgitated by fools, but mostly employed in the service of historians deciphering what went wrong.

You, Mr. Brooks, are once again cheering for the team who always gets it wrong.

(My comment on Krugman came up at 8:35 am ET -- it's #2.)