That's one of those reviews that comes across better than the book it's reviewing. I think the book can safely be dismissed as, as Brooks says, a partisan-flattery piece. And geez, the last thing in the world I would recommend would be for Democrats to follow the Republican lead and give over completely to an emotion-based content-free political style.

Brooks' own views nail it:

In this more sophisticated view, emotions are produced by learning. As we go through life, we learn what cause leads to what effect. When, later on, we face similar situations, the emotions highlight possible outcomes, drawing us toward some actions and steering us away from others.

In other words, emotions partner with rationality. It’s not necessary to dumb things down to appeal to emotions. It’s not necessary to understand some secret language that will key certain neuro-emotional firings. The best way to win votes — and this will be a shocker — is to offer people an accurate view of the world and a set of policies that seem likely to produce good results.

This is how you make voters happy.

"emotions" do indeed "partner with rationality". The spreadsheet produces the quantitative answer whose quality is judged by the human heart. In real life logic often produces multiple possible answers, and the one we choose is the one that most closely matches our human values.

Continuing as we are our previous discussion of the insufficiency of logic alone in human affairs, I've been meaning to ask: Have you noticed how consistently logic tells you that something is impossible? I think you may have a stuck bit if your logic unit is producing only zero. Or perhaps, as I've been saying, it's working on insufficient data. Emotion powers people to move mountains, and accomplish what the merely logical insist can never be accomplished. The bumblebee insists on flying despite the disbelief of the logical, and Mr. Gorsky got lucky that July night in 1969...