You know, this standard-issue conservative horse manure from David Brooks wouldn't irritate me nearly so much if he hadn't rather gratuitously tossed Sweden into the mix:

Over the last few decades, American liberals have lauded the German model or the Swedish model or the European model. But these models are not flexible enough for the modern world. They encourage people to cling fiercely to entitlements their nation cannot afford. And far from breeding a confident, progressive outlook, they breed a reactionary fear of the future that comes in left- and right-wing varieties - a defensiveness, a tendency to lash out ferociously at anybody who proposes fundamental reform or at any group, like immigrants, that alters the fabric of life.

As anyone who's the least bit familiar with recent Swedish history could tell you, Brooks isn't just exaggerating up there -- he's lying, at least by implication. Jesus. Can't the NYT get their crack web team to teach that guy how to Google before he picks up his pen?

MORE: Here's the Heritage Foundation -- yes, the Heritage Foundation -- lauding Sweden's radical reform of its pension system. Not flexible enough? C'mon Mr. Brooks.

(NOTE: As you would expect, the Heritage piece is misleading in some ways; you simply can't compare Sweden and the US without looking at a lot more than their respective retirement systems. Still, the Heritage analysis, which is accurate if not true, pretty clearly puts the lie to Mr. Brooks' nonsense.)

UPDATE: Oops, I almost forgot -- full disclosure here.