He makes a lot of valid and interesting points, but his tone and perspective also seem firmly rooted in a hardline individualist approach, embittered by a loss of status in relation to these collective opinion aggregators and methods on the rise. What is needed is balance, but we humans aren't real good at that. Relying on an elite cadre of consultants and trailblazers is no more sane though, IMO.
The article is definitely worth a read either way, and again I do agree with a number of things he says. I suppose I would just say that I don't necessarily agree with his thesis, merely many of his points and supporting arguments. I don't think they necessarily paint the same whole picture that he does though.