The Social Animal by David Brooks

David Brooks explains that human behavior is driven by emotion more than reason. Duh. An irritating feature of the book is Brooks commitment to appear politically even-handed; when he criticizes the left for something, he must follow it immediately by a criticism of the right, with himself positioned as some sort of Aristotelian mean between the two. Is it never the case that either the left or right is simply correct on some policy position? Is the wise position always a splitting of the difference between the two?