I am in a small minority of people resident in Ireland who pay as much attention to the editorial page of the New York Times as that of the Irish Times, Daily Mail, and the Indo. C’est la vie.

Still, it’s painful to read David Brooks these days. A smart guy who realised a few months ago that he had a gig with the NYT, which was not to jump ship and support a Democratic candidate for president, even if that candidate is clearly someone with whom he’s got a lot more affinity than the natural Republican inclinations of his network - his Bush Administration sources, mates in the conservative press, core readership. You get the feeling he was given a talking-to after enthusiasing a bit too sincerely about Obama.

Last week’s column is a perfect example. A spot-on analysis — the five epic challenges facing the next Administration — followed by a tortured chain of reasoning about why John McCain, not Barack Obama, is best equipped to meet them.

The challenges, which seem appropos for the US but also the wider West:

First, there is the erosion of the social contract. Private sector firms are less likely to provide health benefits, producing a desperate need for health care reform. Second, there is the energy shortage. Rising Asian demand strains worldwide supply, threatening industry and consumers, and producing calls for a bold energy initiative. Third, there is the stagnation in human capital. During the 20th century, Americans were better educated than the citizens of any other power. Since 1970, that lead has been forfeited, producing inequality and wage stagnation. To compete, the U.S. will require a series of human capital initiatives.

Fourth, there’s financial market reform. In an intricately connected world, even Republican administrations cannot allow big institutions to fail. If government is going to guarantee against failure, then it is inevitably going to get more involved in regulating how businesses are run. Fifth, there’s infrastructure reform. The U.S. transportation system is in shambles and will require major new projects.

Then an attempt to portray Theodore Roosevelt, who met comparable challenges a century ago, as a conservative; John McCain idolises TR; ergo John McCain is more capabale of energetically taking on these challenges. Besides the patent mischaracterisation of TR as a conservative - he was neither in favour of the status quo or of a Burkean conception of limited government, not to mention his incarnation as a progressive - there is the assertion, and nothing more than that - to argue that McCain is TR’s natural heir.

Paradoxically, I think Brooks has led me to zero in on what it is about Obama that, two years ago, led me to start paying closer attention: if there’s anybody in the last generation of American politics who reminds me of what I know about TR in his governing philosophy and conception of America’s potential for greatness, it’s Barack Obama.