Reasonable contempt

While David Brooks has a point in today's opinion, that mere spite for a political leader is dangerous and counterproductive- his point is lost in his irresponsible innuendos and absurdities.
Here, he gets to the real problem:

The quintessential new warrior scans the Web for confirmation of the president's villainy. He avoids facts that might complicate his hatred. He doesn't weigh the sins of his friends against the sins of his enemies. But about the president he will believe anything.

But for the examples of this 'new warrior,' Brooks cites folks who lay out reasoned arguments for not-supporting a particular president. To wit, Brooks quotes John Chait's most recent New Republic piece. Has Brooks read that piece? If so, he's the paradigm of intellectual dishonesty when he writes it is the product of "cultural resentment and personal antipathy," and more importantly...solely the product of such--rather than of reason and commitment to particular civic goals (as were the motivations behind the now lost cultural wars, in Brook's opinion.)
Chait's piece is anything but unreasoned. Read it, and having done so, make an argument that it isn't. You will fail. Thus, what bothers me with Brook's piece is what I see in the larger picture...which, in candidness, falls partly on assumptions on my part.
And that is this: there is a tendency to find content, substantially and reason in one's own disdain for a president--we are more able to assert policy differences. But, where the vitriol comes from the other side- aimed at 'our-side's' president, we attribute the disdain to mere hatred...hatred for hatred's sake--not reasonably related to policy difference, but to personal disregard (thus, childish).
Now, that condition is problematic (and note again Chiat's article--he recognizes this. That's why, after he spits out the child-like rhetoric, he backs it up with 'serious' (adult/reasoned) arguments.) I fear that Brook's piece doesn't point out this problem. It simply points out the more elementary point that unreasoned contempt is bad. Good for you, Brooks...but we all know that.