I generally like David Brooks -- "the liberal's favorite conservative" -- and am mostly impressed by the fact that he incorporates modern neuroscience into his account of economic and moral reasoning. However, sometimes I think he gets overly enamored with a concept and, as in this case, tries to shoehorn too much into a clever dichotomy. I suppose I'd consider myself a grind, yet I work at a large corporation.
Still, at a high level, his point about the economic recovery not really benefiting average folks or small businesses seems relevant.
Is it? It's hugely unsupported by data. For instance, we've seen several articles over the last year telling us that new start-ups had reached an all-time high in the United States. That would seem to run counter to his point that the economy is faltering for 'the grinds'.
In addition we've also seen articles talking about increased MAA activity over the last several months. The same goes for general investment.
I'm not sure he knows what he's talking about. He certainly seemed to pluck a lot of assertions seemingly out of thin air.
I do not know where that "the liberal's favorite conservative" line came from, but it is not correct. Liberals hate Brooks with a passion. They see him for the brown-nosing scumbag that he is.
If I had to pick the liberals favorite conservative, it would probably be Ron Paul.
Still, at a high level, his point about the economic recovery not really benefiting average folks or small businesses seems relevant.