Around here we call David Brooks a loose cannon. My Dad enjoys him and frequently gives me his stuff. The loose cannon angle is that he picks different targets, seemingly at random, saying interesting or provocative things about them. Sometimes he picks good topics; but sometimes the targets are wildly inappropriate. You just never know.
The other note is that he is sloppy. He makes generalizations and blatant omissions in a way that few NY Times op-ed writers seem to (Thomas Friedman sort of does too, but Friedman is a bit more optimistic). I’ve come to think he does it on purpose in order to create more buzz. I occasionally see others who do this, and admit to it. “I just like to set off sparks.”
He recently dismissed populists as not contributing to the forward progress of the country. I tend to agree that the “us against them” approach is fairly superficial. But then he says no populist has ever advanced our country. Even without knowing the veracity of it, I’m sure you can find examples of populists who accomplished useful reforms (Andrew Jackson comes to mind).