I agree that the article is oddly bifurcated. It starts with numerous statistics listed out in a laundry-list fashion. Then it proceeds into unfounded speculati

I agree that the article is oddly bifurcated. It starts with numerous statistics listed out in a laundry-list fashion. Then it proceeds into unfounded speculation with no statistical backing. The traditional and more effective argumentative approach is to make a Claim, then provide Evidence to support it, and Reasoning to tie them together logically. Here, the author starts with heaps of evidence, then moves into unrelated claims/reasoning. Lack luster writing, which I have come to expect from David Brooks, a writer who is so out of touch with the currents of mainstream America that he is forced to be some strawman Republican writing on a left-leaning NYC newspaper who few from either side agree with. Time to replace him with a more skillful and adept opinion columnist.