Engaged Or Detached Analysis

As an adult, and a person finally allowed to vote in the different elections that go on with the government, I find it important to know a little bit about who I am voting for and why I am voting for them. A lot of young adults who just now possess the ability to vote, do so by what they hear, which are usually negative things. They don’t perform their own research and get the whole story. In his New York Times article “Engaged or Detached?” Brooks discusses this in a more primitive sense. Even though his article discusses the difference between an engaged and a detached writer, he relates it to politics in the very first paragraph. He says that people know what they believe, but why do they believe it, and how? From the few articles that I have read that Brooks has written (It’s Not About You, Engaged or
He has as little research as possible, then twists it to make it seem like he is right and that he thought of it all by himself. Throughout the entire article he claims that the engaged writer does this while the detached writer does this, making it seem like he did research, but then you get through the paragraph and realize that he must have twisted his logic a bit to make it seem like he is right. In his writing, it seems like Brooks has no side to his argument. Are engaged writers better or are detached writers better? He goes on to talk about the greatness of each, but also the flaws of each. Going as far as saying “at his worst, the engaged writer slips into raid extremism and simple-minded brutalism. At her worst, the detached writer slips into a sanguine, pox-on-all-your-houses