David BrooksYou all know how much I like Humble David Brooks: he's a radical economic conservative with some reasonable social beliefs. But he did an interview with Ezra Klein that really surprised me. But before I tell you, let me step back.

This morning's David Brooks column was a real winner, The D.C. Dubstep. In it, he falsely claims that Obama had not proposed an alternative to the Sequester. Jonathan Chait was the first person I read who totally demolished the key point of Brooks' argument. But there were many more—so many, that it got kind of boring.

Although Brooks is a thoroughly unreasonable guy, it is very important to him to appear reasonable. So he updated his column to claim that yes, as a matter of fact, Obama has offered an alternative to the Sequester. But! David Brooks doesn't think it is enough, so it doesn't really count. That's when, as if to prove that he isn't nearly as smart as he is given credit for, he accepted Ezra Klein's invitation for an interview. Oh my!

I don't think Ezra Klein is particularly brilliant. I would definitely put my 28 year old self against him. But he is very knowledgeable. If I were Brooks, I would have expected to eat a lot of crow. But like when the incredibly good Donald Byrne played against the insanely great Bobby Fischer in 1956, Brooks underestimated his young adversary. It was time for pena ajena.

Really, if you're up to it, go read the interview. David Brooks totally embarrasses himself! He starts by claiming that the Obama plan hasn't been scored by the CBO. Klein replies that this isn't because the plan isn't scorable, but just because the CBO doesn't score every proposal that comes around. Brooks then changes the subject and says the President should be leading with plan. Klein notes that this is a conservative double bind where the president can't win. Brooks again changes the subject and says Obama should do something like Robert Rubin. Klein counters that Rubin is calling for a more liberal plan. Brooks says that the Republicans should have taken Obama offers in the past, but (Of course!) the current Obama offer does not go far enough. Klein asks what would go far enough. Brooks mentions his dream plan which is not that different from what Obama has offered.

Klein then goes in a different direction, saying he doesn't understand why the Republicans won't take a deal with Obama, given that he is offering them most of what they claim they want. (Ari Melber explained this.) Brooks says he doesn't understand why the Republicans are so focused on tax rates. (See how reasonable Brooks is!) Then he goes on to explain that Obama ought to do what Obama is trying to do.

Bottom line: if Obama were a Republican, Brooks would love him!

But here's the thing: Brooks referred to himself as a "moderate." That's the word he used. This is a seriously delusional man. His hapless moderate colleague Mark Shields doesn't even call himself a moderate. The fact that Brooks calls himself a moderate and even more that Ezra Klein doesn't blast him about it tells you everything you need to know about modern American politics and the media that covers it. As I wrote before, journalists seem to think that just because they aren't for burning homosexuals alive that they are "moderate." To Books, that apparently means that he doesn't think that tax cuts are the answer to all problems. It is pathetic.

If Brooks wants me to think that he isn't a totally crazy Republican who doesn't know anything, then yeah: he's not that. He's much more dangerous. He's a reasonable seeming conservative who wants to dismantle the social contract, but says it using nice words and quoting Edmund Burke. Some liberals may be fooled. I'm not. David Brooks is a conservative cancer that is metastasizing on the pages of the New York times and the TV screens of PBS.