> David Brooks himself is part of the very same cultural elite that he's complaining about.

Thats a strengthening of the argument, not weakening. Imagine the opposite: “he hasn’t gone there, he doesn’t understand, he’s just jealous”

> For all his faults, and least Trump is willing to lie to his base

Again, that’s a weakening of the standpoint. It’s completely backwards rationalization.

> People voted for Trump because neither side is willing to do anything to actually help people. That's why people don't trust institutions or "the establishment."

This is so much in the article that it’s arguably the entire point of it. You’re basically agreeing with it, but in a contorted contrarian way.

> It's also hard to take risks or cultivate different skills when you're saddled with college debt you can't get rid if, and when healthcare and rent are taking up a large chunk of your income.

Right, but you can only get so far with a solution that amounts to getting more kids into schools that brag about how few kids they accept. There have to be more avenues and less inbreeding/nepotism/favoritism based on brand names.

At the heart of academic movement of inclusivity sits the most entrenched and extreme form of exclusivity. This is a problem worthy of its own attention, without bringing in socioeconomic everythingism. The fact that you have tons of smart and ambitious kids coming out of non-brand-name schools unable to get their resumes looked at is a disgrace and a failure. It’s demoralizing as hell.