Mr. Brooks, you had me up until you lumped Bernie Sanders in with Trump. Bernie is preaching against the very stupidity and greed you say a few lines earlier is one of the causes of our current issues. You yourself say one of the premises of the stability of the 90's was "Nations should pursue economic growth and a decent distribution of wealth" exactly what Sanders is trying to achieve.
So please, please refrain from being a typical centrist pundit and equating the positions of the political right and left in America today...you are smarter than that. The right is way out there, the left is just trying to restore some sanity to our over-crazed, financier run, greed focused society...and that's not an extreme position at all.
So please, please refrain from being a typical centrist pundit and equating the positions of the political right and left in America today...you are smarter than that. The right is way out there, the left is just trying to restore some sanity to our over-crazed, financier run, greed focused society...and that's not an extreme position at all.
47
Where does all this lead, politically? Unfortunately, it could lead to the election of a demagogue, if not now, then at some point in the decade ahead. History includes tragic examples, some apocalyptic, of what happens when a significant portion of a society loses confidence in government, becomes distrustful of the established class of political leaders, and experience economic strain and despair, with unremitting skepticism about the future. Under such circumstances, otherwise law-abiding people can turn like a mob to a political candidate who distorts the truth, lies, and manipulates their prejudices. Arguably, the far-right of the Republican Party is fertile ground for the emergence of an demagogue who could capture the support of Independents and some Democrats. Let's hope, to paraphrase Brooks: "Some leader is able to digest the lessons of the last 15 years and offer a revised charismatic and persuasive sense of America’s historic mission."
31
"Mass stupidity and greed led to a financial collapse and deprived capitalism of its moral swagger."
Yes, my heart just bleeds for capitalism, but millions of us lost a hell of a lot more than our "moral swagger" and can never hope to get it back again. Meanwhile, the "mass stupidity and greed" crowd look and sound an awful lot like David Brooks.
Yes, my heart just bleeds for capitalism, but millions of us lost a hell of a lot more than our "moral swagger" and can never hope to get it back again. Meanwhile, the "mass stupidity and greed" crowd look and sound an awful lot like David Brooks.
29
David, I think that after the invasion of Iraq, when no WMDs were found and there was no link to the 9-11 attacks, America lost its appetite for invading other countries. The 45,000 wounded warriors who are now confined to a life of difficult and exhausting health (and mental) needs, borne primarily by their families, have sapped any desire to step into internal conflicts in other countries. If you REALLY want to rebuild our will and confidence, then 1) bring back the draft so everyone has a stake in a military invasion and 2) make college available to all, not just the wealthy. People with a future will fight to defend it, but make our enemies fight all of us.
26
I have to say that I’m getting tired of the spurious argument that Bernie Sanders is the Democrats' antipodal version of the Republicans' Donald Trump. That’s a false equivalence. While I don’t subscribe to all of Senator Sanders’ positions and find myself in support of Secretary Clinton, he does have a coherent and arguable governing philosophy. One that can be taken seriously.
Mr. Trump, on the other hand, is arguing that he should be elected president because he’s smarter, richer, tougher and knows the art of dealmaking. He says, “When I’m president we’re gonna win so much you’re gonna get tired of winning! You’re gonna have wins comin’ outta your ears!”
There’s no comparison between a serious, experienced public servant and a self-obsessed, grandiloquent demagogue.
Mr. Trump, on the other hand, is arguing that he should be elected president because he’s smarter, richer, tougher and knows the art of dealmaking. He says, “When I’m president we’re gonna win so much you’re gonna get tired of winning! You’re gonna have wins comin’ outta your ears!”
There’s no comparison between a serious, experienced public servant and a self-obsessed, grandiloquent demagogue.
38
I hardly ever agree with Mr. Brooks, but he is onto something here.
You want a revolution? Go Bernie.
You want a revolution? Go Bernie.
15
David: Have you been hiding under a rock? I don’t think that “Many people around the world rejected democratic capitalism’s vision of a secular life built around materialism and individual happiness” as much as they resent that it has not materialized for the vast majority of people. Perhaps you should read John Perkins’ "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man." Or check out America's military misadventures.
“But the big loss of central confidence is in global governance. The United States is no longer willing" ELIGIBLE "to occupy the commanding heights and oversee global order” with any kind of moral credibility. How much of our Constitution’s Preamble is manifested at home, much less abroad?
“Nations should pursue economic growth and a decent distribution of wealth” is a goal we share. It is nowhere in sight, and increasingly at risk. Fatal, even. People are fighting for their lives.
“Mass stupidity and greed led to a financial collapse and deprived capitalism of its moral swagger.” The capture and destruction of moral capitalism was not accomplished by a mass of stupid people. It was accomplished by a highly intelligent, secretive, deliberate, immoral, and treasonous few, aided by the gullible, inattentive masses.
“But the big loss of central confidence is in global governance. The United States is no longer willing" ELIGIBLE "to occupy the commanding heights and oversee global order” with any kind of moral credibility. How much of our Constitution’s Preamble is manifested at home, much less abroad?
“Nations should pursue economic growth and a decent distribution of wealth” is a goal we share. It is nowhere in sight, and increasingly at risk. Fatal, even. People are fighting for their lives.
“Mass stupidity and greed led to a financial collapse and deprived capitalism of its moral swagger.” The capture and destruction of moral capitalism was not accomplished by a mass of stupid people. It was accomplished by a highly intelligent, secretive, deliberate, immoral, and treasonous few, aided by the gullible, inattentive masses.
20
Have you read "The Age of Acquiescence?"
My vote for the major reasons we've lost faith in government:
1, "Government is the problem..." Ronnie laying society's ills at the feet of government; Fox News; government shutdowns...
2. A series of costly, purposeless wars. Does anybody remember why we fought in Vietnam? Weren't almost all of the 9-11 hijackers Saudi?
3. The vanishing middle class -- outsourcing, offshoring, automation, the exorbitant cost of college, a housing collapse...
Next time we contemplate another senseless war, how about a Manned Mission to Mars?
1, "Government is the problem..." Ronnie laying society's ills at the feet of government; Fox News; government shutdowns...
2. A series of costly, purposeless wars. Does anybody remember why we fought in Vietnam? Weren't almost all of the 9-11 hijackers Saudi?
3. The vanishing middle class -- outsourcing, offshoring, automation, the exorbitant cost of college, a housing collapse...
Next time we contemplate another senseless war, how about a Manned Mission to Mars?
20
Oh, Mr. Brooks, you are so predictable. I knew that you would use Senator Sanders as an example of the Democratic Party's move to the left, but he has moved only slightly in that direction.
Let's take a look at your party, the Republicans, who have moved far to the right, advocating for policies and using the same rhetoric as the John Birch Society, who constantly screamed against communism and for impeachment! Sound familiar?
Let's take a look at your party, the Republicans, who have moved far to the right, advocating for policies and using the same rhetoric as the John Birch Society, who constantly screamed against communism and for impeachment! Sound familiar?
29
The Republican/Tea Party's electorate’s disdain for political insiders is real, and it is fueling the demand for Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and, to a lesser extent, Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz.
It's not gravity that's been weakened keeping the outlying fringes in orbit around the large center pull. It's that the far-right has dark energy that is causing them to expand at an accelerating rate away from the political center, resulting in the far-right fading away as they disappear into oblivion (like all the light going out in the universe).
Good riddance.
It's not gravity that's been weakened keeping the outlying fringes in orbit around the large center pull. It's that the far-right has dark energy that is causing them to expand at an accelerating rate away from the political center, resulting in the far-right fading away as they disappear into oblivion (like all the light going out in the universe).
Good riddance.
13
A lovely classic Brooks column and one which inspires me to offer the following template outline for writing your own (Brooks column):
how used to work, but no longer do(es)
In the
how used to work, but no longer do(es)
In the
2
Geez, David. Stop pining away about the lovely and serene past and whining about lamentable present. Put a little effort into analyzing about what CAUSED these things to happen and what CAN be done about it.
Maybe that's a little too deep for you, so let's give a hint. Those that benefited from the Post WWII structures had a moral obligation to maintain the system for the benefit of all - and they turned their backs on that obligation in order to pursue their own selfish interests. The rest flows logically from there.
Maybe that's a little too deep for you, so let's give a hint. Those that benefited from the Post WWII structures had a moral obligation to maintain the system for the benefit of all - and they turned their backs on that obligation in order to pursue their own selfish interests. The rest flows logically from there.
18
Faux conservative, faux pro-life fetal fetishists, Benghazi fraudsters, and shock & awe authoritarians are enabled & encouraged by the MSM. Longing for some charismatic, persuasive, outsider "leader" with good hair instead of examining policy proposals & governance skills gets us to Trump or worse.
10
You know you are desperate to make the republican poll leaders seem less silly by comparing it to Sanders run. Weak Mr Brooks and desperate.
18
It seems to me like Mr Brooks is afraid of having his membership at the country club revoked after his column last week about the state of the GOP. And this column Today is his Est of redeeming himself.
Don't worry Mr Brook, your membership will not be cancelled. You are the Paul Ryan of the republican intelligentsia,meaning you seem like a reasonable person from the outside, but deep inside, you are just another extremist.
An extremist who thinks America in 2015 should behave like it's 1985, when the Chinese economy was less than a $trillion, when Brazil was just another south american country. When India wasn't the country it is Today. Things change Mr Brooks, whether we like it or not. The question is: how to adapt to changes.
A country is like a human body. It grows, reaches its apogee, then declines. How fast will the decline be is what's important here. You think throwing another one $trillion on top of the $3 trillions already spent in the ME will stop the US decline? Just imagine for a moment if all that money had been spent here in the US instead, we will at least have something to show for.
You and your side have turned American exceptionalism into Militarism (Vietnam, Iraq 1 & 2, Afghanistan, ...)with nothing to show for besides thousands bodies bags and increasing US debt.
In the meantime,China has surpassed the US when it comes to the number of people consider Middle class. Mr Brooks, your membership at the country club is safe.
Don't worry Mr Brook, your membership will not be cancelled. You are the Paul Ryan of the republican intelligentsia,meaning you seem like a reasonable person from the outside, but deep inside, you are just another extremist.
An extremist who thinks America in 2015 should behave like it's 1985, when the Chinese economy was less than a $trillion, when Brazil was just another south american country. When India wasn't the country it is Today. Things change Mr Brooks, whether we like it or not. The question is: how to adapt to changes.
A country is like a human body. It grows, reaches its apogee, then declines. How fast will the decline be is what's important here. You think throwing another one $trillion on top of the $3 trillions already spent in the ME will stop the US decline? Just imagine for a moment if all that money had been spent here in the US instead, we will at least have something to show for.
You and your side have turned American exceptionalism into Militarism (Vietnam, Iraq 1 & 2, Afghanistan, ...)with nothing to show for besides thousands bodies bags and increasing US debt.
In the meantime,China has surpassed the US when it comes to the number of people consider Middle class. Mr Brooks, your membership at the country club is safe.
18
Another overcooked word casserole with no good parts to pick out...except maybe "...greed... deprived capitalism of its moral swagger"? Oh the horror!
10
I agree with David that the “....primary problem is mental and spiritual....”. I felt that way when about a decade ago I became a Humanist, who believes that the values of rationality & universal compassion & ethics are needed in place of superficial religiosity & violent, tribal macho courage. You can be an economic & political “conservative” or “liberal” & still believe that.
I don’t feel you necessarily have to be an atheist, but I believe traditional hypocritical religiosity has failed us. About a decade ago, traditional religion did not stop our leaders from ignoring the concept of moral justification of warfare & fooling themselves into believing that God was advising them to unnecessarily start the horrific bloodbath of instability that still rages in the Middle East & now radiates to problems in a wider & wider circle.
Either rationality and compassion will save us, or we will not be saved.
I don’t feel you necessarily have to be an atheist, but I believe traditional hypocritical religiosity has failed us. About a decade ago, traditional religion did not stop our leaders from ignoring the concept of moral justification of warfare & fooling themselves into believing that God was advising them to unnecessarily start the horrific bloodbath of instability that still rages in the Middle East & now radiates to problems in a wider & wider circle.
Either rationality and compassion will save us, or we will not be saved.
10
David, I am a fan of yours and I really don't disagree with much of your analysis but you sound a bit like Jimmy Carter. "the nation is suffering from a malaise" Buck up, talk a walk, the sun will rise tomorrow.
1
I agree with Paul of Nevada. Let us take note of the Scottish election this year and the Alberta, CA. election this summer and now the Canadian PM election yesterday. These elections provide hope that when we the people inform ourselves AND vote we can begin to move forward and towards the solutions that our Republicans can not solve but only deny.
15
Wow, Brooks at his most delusional ! US exceptionalism has taken it's form in the last 120 years or so by overthrowing Hawaii, Cuba, Phillipines, Iran, Guatemala, Honduras, Argentina, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, and assorted others. The US government (and shadow government - CIA) has wreaked havoc throughout the world in the name of democracy when it's really been for the spread of unfettered , unbridled capitalism (see United Fruit, Exxon, Chiquita). See the new tome, The Devil's Chessboard, for more in depth coverage. From Teddy R. to Allen Dulles, to the Bushes and Cheneys we have destabilized the world, and I think people have finally realized the US ain't such a benevolent outfit. Goodness, the last great thing we did, the Berlin Airlift, and the rebuilding of Europe was not out of some altruistic action, but a veiled effort enable Europe to buy our stuff.
Brooks, do you know anything of history other than Manifest Destiny ? Breathtaking.
Brooks, do you know anything of history other than Manifest Destiny ? Breathtaking.
23
Mr Brooks has overlooked the countries who have not become "individualist and materialist," like the (now) trivialized countries, like Denmark!
10
Excellent column Mr. Brooks. A thoughtful, perceptive analysis of the world we are living in.
3
@D.Brooks
"A government of the people,for the people and by the people" is no longer true.
It isn't a question (domestically or internationally) should the United States lead?...It's who's in charge of our collective lives.
"Established order" has become the very wealthy trading influence.
"A government of the people,for the people and by the people" is no longer true.
It isn't a question (domestically or internationally) should the United States lead?...It's who's in charge of our collective lives.
"Established order" has become the very wealthy trading influence.
4
As William Butler Yeats wrote almost a century ago,
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
" And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
" And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
2
A lot of people seem to be running scared these days, and not without reason.
4
“Some leader has to be able to digest the lessons of the last 15 years and offer a revised charismatic and persuasive sense of America’s historic mission.”
The problems with the world are not the same as the problem with the US. The problem here is a dysfunctional Republican Party. The Democratic Party is essentially the same Democratic Party that elected Obama in 2008, Clinton in 1992, and Jimmy Carter in 1976 before that.
The Republican Party that lost the election in 2012 was nothing like the Republican Party that won in 2000, and neither was very much like the Republican Party that won in 1980, 1984, or 1988.
The problems with the world are not the same as the problem with the US. The problem here is a dysfunctional Republican Party. The Democratic Party is essentially the same Democratic Party that elected Obama in 2008, Clinton in 1992, and Jimmy Carter in 1976 before that.
The Republican Party that lost the election in 2012 was nothing like the Republican Party that won in 2000, and neither was very much like the Republican Party that won in 1980, 1984, or 1988.
3
Whatever "age" this is, a mechanistic metaphor is the wrong way to look at this society or any other.
We are human beings, not planets. We can communicate, think, create, and yes, engage in destructive behaviors as well.
The last thing this nation needs is a "strong man" (David apparently having ruled women out, along with tenderness). And we also do not need a type of politics wedded to spirituality or religion. Dictatorships which wed themselves to religion (or the reverse) are anathema to democracy. (Ask people who grew up in Franco Spain.)
David, I hate to break this to you, but... I think you're living in the wrong century. Or maybe the wrong country. (I'm thinking of your friend Netanyahu.) Or perhaps you're living in that republican version of "reality" Cheney talked about. Or something.
But your columns have way too much blather. And way too little substance.
We are human beings, not planets. We can communicate, think, create, and yes, engage in destructive behaviors as well.
The last thing this nation needs is a "strong man" (David apparently having ruled women out, along with tenderness). And we also do not need a type of politics wedded to spirituality or religion. Dictatorships which wed themselves to religion (or the reverse) are anathema to democracy. (Ask people who grew up in Franco Spain.)
David, I hate to break this to you, but... I think you're living in the wrong century. Or maybe the wrong country. (I'm thinking of your friend Netanyahu.) Or perhaps you're living in that republican version of "reality" Cheney talked about. Or something.
But your columns have way too much blather. And way too little substance.
8
In America, we are always one President away from our rethinking everything we thought certain.
3
Conservatism and the values party: A party dedicated to defend and protect the rich and powerful and go to wars for no reason whatsoever, except to show that this this Country is not a sissy.
9
***age of exhaustion - yes, I agree and thank you for the article.
people just want to be happy and ''happiness' is verify subjective.
to many of my co workers it means a partner or marriage, 2 -5 or more children - a new house, the ability to buy a lot of stuff at cheap prices - social media and lots of 'friends' - anything requiring more mental time is not an option.
to me - jealous at times of co workers, living within my means, modest apartment, ability to donate money when I see or hear of a need, and yes, update my devises when I can, and have the luxury of time to research issues, time to think and wonder 'why', and someday learn the 'art' of sentence structure.
people just want to be happy and ''happiness' is verify subjective.
to many of my co workers it means a partner or marriage, 2 -5 or more children - a new house, the ability to buy a lot of stuff at cheap prices - social media and lots of 'friends' - anything requiring more mental time is not an option.
to me - jealous at times of co workers, living within my means, modest apartment, ability to donate money when I see or hear of a need, and yes, update my devises when I can, and have the luxury of time to research issues, time to think and wonder 'why', and someday learn the 'art' of sentence structure.
6
The premise of this article is wrong.
The reason why outsiders are doing so well in the Republican race, while the outsider in the Democratic race is a distant second, is simple: Jeb Bush.
If you are a Republican, you have basically been told that Jeb Bush is your candidate, take it or leave it. Getting behind a Kasich or a Christie is futile, because Bush has that segment of the party locked up. Your only choice is a Trump or Carson, but Bush is such a bad candidate, that they've actually switched.
If Bush dropped out of the race, I'm sure that an establishment candidate would leapfrog the "outsiders" in a minute.
The story on the Democratic side is similar in that Clinton is being pushed as inevitable. The difference is that Clinton is actually a viable candidate, whose connection to a Presidency is a thousand times better than Bush's. So while half of the Democrats are on the fence about Hillary, 90% of the Republicans are on the fence about Bush.
This is remarkable, because these people who are repulsed by the thought of a Bush 3, had no problems voting for Bushs 1 and 2 ( twice ). It takes a lot to get people to admit that they were dead wrong for 8-12 years, but apparently they don't mind.
PS - they'll all end up voting for Bush 3 anyhow.
The reason why outsiders are doing so well in the Republican race, while the outsider in the Democratic race is a distant second, is simple: Jeb Bush.
If you are a Republican, you have basically been told that Jeb Bush is your candidate, take it or leave it. Getting behind a Kasich or a Christie is futile, because Bush has that segment of the party locked up. Your only choice is a Trump or Carson, but Bush is such a bad candidate, that they've actually switched.
If Bush dropped out of the race, I'm sure that an establishment candidate would leapfrog the "outsiders" in a minute.
The story on the Democratic side is similar in that Clinton is being pushed as inevitable. The difference is that Clinton is actually a viable candidate, whose connection to a Presidency is a thousand times better than Bush's. So while half of the Democrats are on the fence about Hillary, 90% of the Republicans are on the fence about Bush.
This is remarkable, because these people who are repulsed by the thought of a Bush 3, had no problems voting for Bushs 1 and 2 ( twice ). It takes a lot to get people to admit that they were dead wrong for 8-12 years, but apparently they don't mind.
PS - they'll all end up voting for Bush 3 anyhow.
3
It would really help if people understood that capitalism is an economic system constructed under the law of contracts to provide institutions called banks where money can be deposited to make more of itself with safety, for the financially uninformed, and financial markets for the securities of private corporations representing their assets and liabilities for the financially more sophisticated.
You have to be able to describe what you want to put it in a contract.
You have to be able to describe what you want to put it in a contract.
1
Mr. Brooks hasn't the slightest grasp of the forces driving the change in political discourse in the US. The political ideology and economic program of neoliberalism his beloved "center" has been pedaling for the last 30 years has been unable to deliver the goods to the vast majority of working class Americans. This project of the 1% has instead delivered the goods to them. It has also spawned several serious economic crises, resulting in the Age of Austerity for workers internationally, and the collapse of material well-being experienced by the majority over the last 10 years has been severe enough to cause the political collapse of public toleration for the neoliberal paradigm that has been the economic gospel of both the Democratic and Republican parties leaderships. The result is the most serious revival of populism, on both the right and the left, since the 1930's. You could have read this paragraph and skipped Brooks essay, but then the Times would just have to hire another centrist hack to replace him.
6
Brooks is really good at recognizing symptoms, but can clearly woeful in understanding causes, and therefore remedies. His whole premise of a hollowed out center can linked directly back to four little words uttered by the icon of conservative thought. "Government is the problem" uttered by Ronald Reagan has done more to obliterate progressive progress than nearly any other factor. For if the government of the "strongest" democracy, which as a democracy is a reflection of our society and community, is "the" problem, then what are we left with? Simply a collection of people living in a defined geographical area, where, due to prevailing economic forces, the ones with the most money get to decide the fates of everyone else.
5
I think this is an interesting argument. The main problem I find is that there seems to be the assumption that only now are the relatively weak actors who have strong conviction able to influence major change/world events. In the Vietnam War, the U.S. was completely embarrassed by a much smaller and much worse armed opponent. And this was after that same opponent similarly embarrassed France. In Gulf War 2 and in Afghanistan, we have a relatively similar outcome but with better PR. Why does anyone think this is new? Did the U.S. not win its independence against a much larger and more powerful foe?
Anyway, I think we do have a lot to fear from a charismatic and god forbid fanatical leader winning the presidency, particularly while our institutionalized checks on the executive are so weak, narrow-minded in focus, profit motivated and naïve in their hope that by being true to some ideal some golden age of their vision will magically appear.
Anyway, I think we do have a lot to fear from a charismatic and god forbid fanatical leader winning the presidency, particularly while our institutionalized checks on the executive are so weak, narrow-minded in focus, profit motivated and naïve in their hope that by being true to some ideal some golden age of their vision will magically appear.
3
David, you keep looking into the Fathers Knows Best past, for answers to an age where no one really knows best. You look for certainty in religion, in institutions, in education ----but still, gravitational pull of the fringes seems to be taking over. The power of the fringes lies in your call in article for a return to an age when Father Knew Best --- that age is gone, and will never return. What upsets you are Republican candidates whose answer to this age of uncertainty is to whistle loudly past the grave yard. The real answer lies in admitting that they are walking past a grave yard.
3
What's wrong with the ancient Greek notion of moderation in all things and the need to nourish the mind, body and spirit?
3
It is hard to lead when you do not know where you want to go. It is also hard to know where you want to go when there is not an obvious unifying theme, like World War Two, escaping The Great Depression, or combatting the Soviet Union. There will be another such event that causes people to pull in the same direction. Until then, we will muddle along.
3
I fully agree with Brooks in that part -the larger part- of the problem he says the US is wrestling with is spiritual, if by spiritual he means "religious."
Franklin, Madison, Adams, Hamilton and the rest of the Founding Fathers tried their damnedest to keep religion out of government. Even the bible tries to keep religion out of government: Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. But over the years since the writing of the Constitution religion has been relentlessly insinuated into the gears of government, with all the beneficial effect of sand poured into the oil of your car's engine.
Both major parties have been guilty of sabotaging the motor of government, with the Republicans being the most devout in this endeavor over the past half century.
Tom Lehrer nailed it in one of the choruses of his song National Brotherhood Week:
Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Catholics hate the Protestants
And the Hindus hate the Muslims
And everybody hates the Jews.
Throw in rich folks vs. poor folks, blacks hating whites and whites hating blacks, and my folks hating your folks while yours hate mine, as Mr. Lehrer did fifty years ago, and that pretty much covers what is wrong with this country and this planet.
Your religion is YOUR religion. Keep it that way. Please.
Franklin, Madison, Adams, Hamilton and the rest of the Founding Fathers tried their damnedest to keep religion out of government. Even the bible tries to keep religion out of government: Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. But over the years since the writing of the Constitution religion has been relentlessly insinuated into the gears of government, with all the beneficial effect of sand poured into the oil of your car's engine.
Both major parties have been guilty of sabotaging the motor of government, with the Republicans being the most devout in this endeavor over the past half century.
Tom Lehrer nailed it in one of the choruses of his song National Brotherhood Week:
Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Catholics hate the Protestants
And the Hindus hate the Muslims
And everybody hates the Jews.
Throw in rich folks vs. poor folks, blacks hating whites and whites hating blacks, and my folks hating your folks while yours hate mine, as Mr. Lehrer did fifty years ago, and that pretty much covers what is wrong with this country and this planet.
Your religion is YOUR religion. Keep it that way. Please.
12
The statement "Mass stupidity and greed led to a financial collapse and deprived capitalism of its moral swagger" is not more accurate than the same one in which 'capitalism' is replaced with utopian socialism. I would also add vanity to stupidity and greed as the major forces that ruin any social utopia.
2
Too many people, too much soma, technology as an accelerant? Yes. Well, if something isn't done (yes, the passive voice), Brave New World will be upon us pretty soon.
3
David Brooks, always completely out of touch with reality.
"As every schoolchild knows..."
Some of my college-age students don't know that humans went to the moon.
And in a recent survey from Mexico, a majority didn't know that Mexico gained its independence from Spain.
"I mention this because..."
I get paid to try to witty and wry comments.
"But now many of the big suns in our world today lack conviction..."
Suns are metaphors for something?
"In the 1990s, the central political institutions radiated confidence...
Ah, the illusion of confidence!
"This vision was materialistic and individualistic."
Now it's hyper-materialistic and ultra-individualistic.
See Fukuyama, Francis. "The End of History?" The National Interest (1989): 1-19. Fukuyama's specific predictions are all wrong. But his basic premise is spot on.
"But the deeper problem was spiritual..."
A spirit-less universe where people want to believe in spirits *is* a problem.
"A group of well-educated men blew up the World Trade Center..."
Sadly, WE are just as fanatical and violent as they are.
"Where is this all heading?"
The world has no inherent direction, so it is heading no where.
Another silly Brook attempt to be witty, wry and falsely intelligent.
"As every schoolchild knows..."
Some of my college-age students don't know that humans went to the moon.
And in a recent survey from Mexico, a majority didn't know that Mexico gained its independence from Spain.
"I mention this because..."
I get paid to try to witty and wry comments.
"But now many of the big suns in our world today lack conviction..."
Suns are metaphors for something?
"In the 1990s, the central political institutions radiated confidence...
Ah, the illusion of confidence!
"This vision was materialistic and individualistic."
Now it's hyper-materialistic and ultra-individualistic.
See Fukuyama, Francis. "The End of History?" The National Interest (1989): 1-19. Fukuyama's specific predictions are all wrong. But his basic premise is spot on.
"But the deeper problem was spiritual..."
A spirit-less universe where people want to believe in spirits *is* a problem.
"A group of well-educated men blew up the World Trade Center..."
Sadly, WE are just as fanatical and violent as they are.
"Where is this all heading?"
The world has no inherent direction, so it is heading no where.
Another silly Brook attempt to be witty, wry and falsely intelligent.
17
Bernie Sanders is a New Deal Democrat. Cruz and co. are fascists. Brooks is unable to call a spade a spade, unable to acknowledge the western world's rapid descent into 21st century feudalism. "Problem was spiritual". Balderdash. Predictably, Brooks retreats into a reverie about living a meaningful life. This only disguises his deep love of the army and the police.
11
David, your birthplace Canada (?) is rejoicing today celebrating the return of the liberals. Did you see the multicultural faces behind the newly elected leader Trudeau? Canada is inclusive of diversity, inclusive of religious and spiritual diversity. Mosques, gurudwaras, temples, churches and synagogues, Native American ritual grounds, thrive.
16
Where is this all heading? Maybe those on the fringes of politics really will take over. Say hello to President Ted Cruz.
The debates will get interesting
The debates will get interesting
1
Let's say for grins that it all started with Rush Limbaugh, even though it was long before that. He said outrageous things, conservatives laughed, loved it, stoked it, made him a multimillionaire. Others followed, with absolutely NO stops on the rhetoric, no objections. Those who objected were ridiculed as "politically correct." Remember? I do. The same thing happened financially. Banks just outright bought people, people got richer and greedier. Same thing with guns. And now, it is all a beast. You stoked the beast, you helped. Wallow in that.
9
Another eloquent belaboring of the obvious. We would be better people if we were better people.
5
"But now many of the big suns in our world today lack conviction, while the distant factions at the margins of society are full of passionate intensity. " i cant believe Brooks co-opted credit for blantant usage of the passage in Yeats' Second Coming. Consider:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
5
Oh, Yeats was the first and only to describe social entropy?
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
Bertrand Russell
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
Bertrand Russell
2
Thanks for inserting this, I was sure as I was reading the column that it would appear and was surprised when it didn't ...
Mr Brooks essay brings to mind W B Yeats chilling poem "The Second Coming." Note that Yeats' poem was published in 1919; perhaps he had detected the vast shift in Europe occasioned by the cataclysm of the European War? And what rough beast slouches toward Bethlehem today?
1
"Republicans blame Obama for hesitant and halting policies, but it’s not clear the foreign policy and defense apparatus believes anymore in its own abilities to establish order, or that the American public has any confidence in U.S. effectiveness as a global actor."
Wrong. What is clear to the American public is that everything we did in Iraq -- after being intentionally mislead by our leaders into intervening in that country -- created a power vacuum between Shi'a and Sunni that has in turn created a very dangerous situation likely to persist indefinitely. So we the people will do the smart thing and not follow leaders who 1) get it horribly wrong for stupid, selfish reasons; and 2) never take responsibility for getting it wrong. I think the model for fragmentation is not the "post-Cold War Order" but rather the Protestant Reformation. As the leaders of the Church, and governments desperate to claim legitimacy through the Church, became more brazen, vicious and just stupid, the people examined where their own interests lie and came up with an alternative that was intentionally fragmented, better to prevent misbehavior. And then they stopped listening to self-important fools.
Wrong. What is clear to the American public is that everything we did in Iraq -- after being intentionally mislead by our leaders into intervening in that country -- created a power vacuum between Shi'a and Sunni that has in turn created a very dangerous situation likely to persist indefinitely. So we the people will do the smart thing and not follow leaders who 1) get it horribly wrong for stupid, selfish reasons; and 2) never take responsibility for getting it wrong. I think the model for fragmentation is not the "post-Cold War Order" but rather the Protestant Reformation. As the leaders of the Church, and governments desperate to claim legitimacy through the Church, became more brazen, vicious and just stupid, the people examined where their own interests lie and came up with an alternative that was intentionally fragmented, better to prevent misbehavior. And then they stopped listening to self-important fools.
6
What overwrought stuff 'n nonsense. If we hadn't deregulated the banks in 1999 and willfully turned over the Middle East wheelbarrow in 2003 things would look dramatically different. As a result, the embittered and the ignorant have been given more stage time than they merit.
Mr. Brooks has gotten himself a little too worked up. Perhaps it's because the party with which he usually aligns himself is going through it's own identity crisis and he's feeling bereft of hope. Methinks he doth project too much.
Let's not confuse this time for the 1930s and 40s. Fascism and Communism are not in the ascendancy. ISIS is not going to take over the world or any significant part of it. The harsher economic challenges posed by unchecked capitalism can be mitigated by balanced, thoughtful policies. In most areas of human endeavor, while the headlines are often bad, the trend lines are usually good.
The world's not on fire. Only Mr. Brook's hair.
Mr. Brooks has gotten himself a little too worked up. Perhaps it's because the party with which he usually aligns himself is going through it's own identity crisis and he's feeling bereft of hope. Methinks he doth project too much.
Let's not confuse this time for the 1930s and 40s. Fascism and Communism are not in the ascendancy. ISIS is not going to take over the world or any significant part of it. The harsher economic challenges posed by unchecked capitalism can be mitigated by balanced, thoughtful policies. In most areas of human endeavor, while the headlines are often bad, the trend lines are usually good.
The world's not on fire. Only Mr. Brook's hair.
6
Way off the mark here. As with empires throughout history, American greed and hubris is at the heart of its decline.
When America started sending middle-class jobs overseas, our economic pull decreased while those of our rivals increased. When America started sending soldiers into ill-advised conflicts halfway around the globe, there were huge costs in lives, in dollars, and in international respect and influence.
When conservative elites decided to pull their money out of infrastructure (education, jobs, transportation, science) so they could be super-duper-duper rich and not just super-duper rich, America lost its internal sense of itself, because it was no longer itself.
This is not some complicated moral drama. This is about greed and hubris, same as it’s been throughout history.
When America started sending middle-class jobs overseas, our economic pull decreased while those of our rivals increased. When America started sending soldiers into ill-advised conflicts halfway around the globe, there were huge costs in lives, in dollars, and in international respect and influence.
When conservative elites decided to pull their money out of infrastructure (education, jobs, transportation, science) so they could be super-duper-duper rich and not just super-duper rich, America lost its internal sense of itself, because it was no longer itself.
This is not some complicated moral drama. This is about greed and hubris, same as it’s been throughout history.
18
Good point overall, but again false equivalence. The Democratic Party is not being 'pulled along' by Sanders as an outlier. Through Sanders' popularity, the party is rediscovering its conscience and courage. That is by no means what is happening in the Republican Party, which you more accurately describe here.
23
Brooks is being sneaky and nasty in saying that the Democratic Party "is being pulled along by Sanders as an outlier." I agree with Mr. Keller that "through Sanders' popularity, the party is rediscovering its conscience and courage." Even if Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination, I think she will be a stronger candidate for Bernie's passionate presence.
3
Thank you, Mr. Brooks, for your thoughtful insight on a difficult issue. It's critical we continue this discussion. We need moderate thought, speech, and behavior in the mainstream as a countermeasure to extremism and frustration.
Bernie Sanders only "radical" idea is that democracy enables people to decide their own future and that working together for the common good is better than dead end materialism.
6
"He seeks every chance to undermine the world order". And what 'world order' would that be? The one where the US says "It's my way or the highway"? The one that says America should have the mightiest military so that everyone else will quake in fear? I am sick to death of that world order. We need to curb climate change and educate our kids. We do neither. The old world order is crumbling, David. You'll have to find a way to cope.
13
David, As most of the time, I enjoy your insights and skill in crafting words into thoughts. At times, I have to wonder whether our larger generation is guilty of attempting to micro-manage the world. If you ever read these comments, your questions regarding this curious perspective or comments would be welcome Jamus of Newport
1
"But the deeper problem was spiritual."
Nonsense. Brooks evidently thinks of economic forces as some kind of internal character struggle. In reality there is a disconnect and a discontent that have to do with:
- economic marginalization: we need jobs, and well-paying jobs
- political marginalization: or, power elites have little to do with the "ordinary people" who are to be courted/manipulated every few years during election cycles.
And a Paul Ryan Social Security scheme (work your *** off for 45 years then get a voucher and fend off as best as you can until you die) is the best way to demoralize people who might otherwise ponder their situation.
Nonsense. Brooks evidently thinks of economic forces as some kind of internal character struggle. In reality there is a disconnect and a discontent that have to do with:
- economic marginalization: we need jobs, and well-paying jobs
- political marginalization: or, power elites have little to do with the "ordinary people" who are to be courted/manipulated every few years during election cycles.
And a Paul Ryan Social Security scheme (work your *** off for 45 years then get a voucher and fend off as best as you can until you die) is the best way to demoralize people who might otherwise ponder their situation.
14
While I agree with the notion that the Republican party is being defined by its fringe elements, the theory you've put forth falls apart when you go beyond them. The current Democratic party has rediscovered it's center by returning to its advocacy for the middle class.
You speak as if being policeman to the world and imposer of global ideology was a noble undertaking and a big foreign policy success. But it's apparent that many of the problems in the Middle East come from that flawed and outdated approach. The world has changed, and a refusal to adapt would be idiotic.
I think you should just be honest about the GOP, and stop trying to paint their weakness and lack of ideas as part of some new age of global idiocy.
You speak as if being policeman to the world and imposer of global ideology was a noble undertaking and a big foreign policy success. But it's apparent that many of the problems in the Middle East come from that flawed and outdated approach. The world has changed, and a refusal to adapt would be idiotic.
I think you should just be honest about the GOP, and stop trying to paint their weakness and lack of ideas as part of some new age of global idiocy.
59
A big part of the changes that David Brooks laments are due to the increasing ability of passionate people to communicate, participate and contribute via social media, for good or ill. In the USA, some of the masses can support a Bernie Sanders, largely in reaction the excesses of the GOP and the oligarchical ambitions of its mega-donors encouraged by Citizens United. And some of the masses in the USA can rally to Ben Carson. In other parts of our disturbed and disturbing world, ISIS can thrive in a social media universe and the wretched refugees from the region can use social media to help them flee to safety. Information flows quickly and easily, if not accurately.
It's not the centralized world it used to be and it never will be again.
It's not the centralized world it used to be and it never will be again.
2
Mr. Brooks sweeping and simplistic assertions and the conclusions he draws from them can't be taken seriously. Such grand oversimplification of the last 15 to 25 years can only come from someone who has spent them wearing rose-colored glasses inside the Beltway. Mr. Brooks is yearning not for the 1990s, but rather the Cold War days when everything seemed so much simpler, which of course we know it was not.
4
Or, we might consider the events in the U.S. today a perfectly predictable reaction of white southerners to a Black President, and the chaos in the Middle East a result of the U.S. signaling that it would no longer prop up Middle-Eastern dictators.
6
Rather than "to occupy the commanding heights and oversee" or even "establish (global) order," should not the US mission be to act as example? That may seem naive, but is not perception of US bullying and/or interference often the driving force behind US-focused terrorism and hatred? Too many alleged conservatives want domestic government to be prudent, minimal, restrained, while at the same time they want an interventionist foreign policy that will "occupy the commanding heights" from visions of their own moral superiority.
1
"But the deeper problem was spiritual." ..."Iran is still committed to its radical eschatology."
"Losing confidence in the post-Cold War vision, people will be content to play with their private gadgets and will lose interest in greater striving."
Kant in among his thoughts on organisms talked about the concept of "reciprocity." It is a natural law that we cannot affect others without being affected ourselves. And that life as viewed by post-Darwinists is fundamentally a 'game of reciprocal induction" (Donna Haraway, UMN).
One of the founders (Hall Waddington) of Theoretical Biology or the Theory of Phenotype (a topic reductionists in general and geneticists specific hate to even acknowledge) or now called EVO-DEVO-BIO -- wrote It is time for the 'evolution of the evolutionary mechanism." We are not just products of evolution we are agents of evolution. We are responsible agents of evolution -- we cannot abjure it. And before the last scene we need to "raise our game." This is not vacuous words like 'learning' or 'adapting". Solow hit the nail on the head -- development and evolvability is about higher levels of existing.
David Brooks is our generation's Walter Lippmann and Edward R Murrow. They were journalistic giants in their day. Brooks has the potential like them, their issue was the "Vital Center" and its loss -- Yeats 1917. We no longer hear the call of the falconer. The vital center starts with E Pluribus Unum. It took a Russian dissident to remind us of that.
"Losing confidence in the post-Cold War vision, people will be content to play with their private gadgets and will lose interest in greater striving."
Kant in among his thoughts on organisms talked about the concept of "reciprocity." It is a natural law that we cannot affect others without being affected ourselves. And that life as viewed by post-Darwinists is fundamentally a 'game of reciprocal induction" (Donna Haraway, UMN).
One of the founders (Hall Waddington) of Theoretical Biology or the Theory of Phenotype (a topic reductionists in general and geneticists specific hate to even acknowledge) or now called EVO-DEVO-BIO -- wrote It is time for the 'evolution of the evolutionary mechanism." We are not just products of evolution we are agents of evolution. We are responsible agents of evolution -- we cannot abjure it. And before the last scene we need to "raise our game." This is not vacuous words like 'learning' or 'adapting". Solow hit the nail on the head -- development and evolvability is about higher levels of existing.
David Brooks is our generation's Walter Lippmann and Edward R Murrow. They were journalistic giants in their day. Brooks has the potential like them, their issue was the "Vital Center" and its loss -- Yeats 1917. We no longer hear the call of the falconer. The vital center starts with E Pluribus Unum. It took a Russian dissident to remind us of that.
2
I agree with David, we're entering unknown political space. I believe the main reasons are all of our institutions has failed us. Capitalist and free market failed to deliver for the middle class, income inequality is now as bad as it was 1930s, those that caused the great recession did not go to jail for their crimes, corporation for years has been closing plants and shipping good paying jobs to overseas for cheap labor, our political system is dysfunctional.
Establishment politicians are offering the same failed policies and corporate media are showing NO interest of the series problems that this country faces, keeping people uninformed for the issues that really matters in their lives.
Why not outsiders? I'm willing to take that chance.
Establishment politicians are offering the same failed policies and corporate media are showing NO interest of the series problems that this country faces, keeping people uninformed for the issues that really matters in their lives.
Why not outsiders? I'm willing to take that chance.
1
Saying Donald Trump is the same as Bernie Sanders? A blowhard reality TV has-been whose bankruptcies caused so many people in Atlantic City to lose their jobs compared to a longtime mayor, congressman, and senator who has consistently worked within the political process for the benefit of the poor and middle class? They may not be mainstream candidates, but they are so clearly not comparable it's almost laughable that David Brooks would try to put them on the same level. I'm originally from the Atlantic City area, and I've lived in Vermont for the past 17 years, so I've had some experience with both Trump and Sanders. Trump is appealing to the baser instincts in his constituency; Sanders is inspiring his followers to be more caring people.
6
Words worth to introspect about, a self-examination of our purpose in life, and our social structures and how it ought to function. The establishment (status quo) lost credibility because it became complacent of material goods, greed and all, and content with the inequalities...and inequities toward the poor and disenfranchised. So, some activist people, misinformed and afraid of their feeble standing, angered by the inflammatory nonsense of politician charlatans, unable to embrace a constant, persistent change, are fighting back, dissing politics as usual, and embracing new faces, however dimwitted. For the great majority, not understanding the urgency for reforms, for inclusion, for compromise, have given up participating, as they sense the system is rigged, favoring the 'rich and powerful', and watching this democracy of ours simulate a corpocracy or oligogarchy, in which they have no say; hence, a climate of despair, and worse, anomia. Not hopeful, at least for now. Ted Cruz is a wolf in sheep's clothing, obstructionist-in-chief no matter the pain inflicted on others. And the for now most popular candidates, outsiders Trump and Carson, with a poor showing in character, knowledge and common sense, with religious undertones devoid of reality. We have become a sick society, looking for Band-Aids instead of proper therapy.
1
To say that the primary problem is mental and spiritual is to ignore the disruptive power of new technologies of destruction (IEDs being just one example) and communication (social media being the prime example). You don't have to make any adjustments to the mental and spiritual states of the "centers" and the "fringes" to account for the spread of barbarity if you take these new technologies into consideration.
To say that the primary problem is mental and spiritual is also to assume without basis that the systems we have put into place would operate perfectly if only we could get our heads right. On the large scale, have we proven conclusively that our presidential system is better than, for example, a parliamentary system? Isn't it possible that our system has fatal flaws that are built in, that it is not yet fully evolved? On a smaller scale, can even a pretty-good system survive gerrymandering, winner-take-all closed primaries, and the American way of campaign financing? Or to put it another way, doesn't the toleration of these quirks in the way that we select people for leadership roles guarantee that the overall system is going to fail someday?
It may be that losing confidence in the post-Cold War vision is a step that we have to go through in order to live in the world as it really exists.
To say that the primary problem is mental and spiritual is also to assume without basis that the systems we have put into place would operate perfectly if only we could get our heads right. On the large scale, have we proven conclusively that our presidential system is better than, for example, a parliamentary system? Isn't it possible that our system has fatal flaws that are built in, that it is not yet fully evolved? On a smaller scale, can even a pretty-good system survive gerrymandering, winner-take-all closed primaries, and the American way of campaign financing? Or to put it another way, doesn't the toleration of these quirks in the way that we select people for leadership roles guarantee that the overall system is going to fail someday?
It may be that losing confidence in the post-Cold War vision is a step that we have to go through in order to live in the world as it really exists.
1
Perhaps we should envision "democratic capitalism" and "democratic socialism" in a balanced orbit, with Democracy as the force that keeps the system in order. The problem is that our Democracy is broken and people know it. It has fallen prey to legalized bribery of the political class, a press dominated by corporate media, militarized police's suppression of dissent, perpetual war, secrecy in government, surveillance of citizens, voter suppression - the list goes on. The corrupted "center" has lost the legitimacy to provide adequate balance in our political system. When the institutions that preserve democracy become and are viewed as corrupted, societies fall into chaos.
1
David Brook's conclusion that the primary problem is mental and spiritual, and the loss of confidence in central government, leading to a ripping apart by the pull from the fringes, is a mirror of Arnold Toynbee's description of the disintegration of civilizations, as explained in his famous 10-volumes: A Study of History. There he pointed out that the barbarians succeeded in sacking the Roman Empire because of its internal spiritual decay and loss of purpose. Challenges to the larger order always exist, but a healthy order can rise to the occasion, while the decaying order just collapses.
1
All this movement to the edges began in earnest when Hillary Clinton waged war on the "vast right wing conspiracy" for daring to question her philandering husband and his zipper problem. 20 years later that war is full scale and is tearing the political fabric apart.
I'm old enough to remember great statesmen in American politics. I never thought about what party they represented. They showed respect and constraint for the good of the country. Now we have over 500 self centered ego maniacs running rampant over a once civilized body. This encourages everyone with a computer to spew hatred for each other when their views differ.
The leader in the Whitehouse gleefully divides the citizenry showing no leadership whatsoever and is re-elected to continue his Sherman's March on our economy and debt level sowing miscontent and hatred for anyone who dares to have a differing opinion.
I'm old enough to remember great statesmen in American politics. I never thought about what party they represented. They showed respect and constraint for the good of the country. Now we have over 500 self centered ego maniacs running rampant over a once civilized body. This encourages everyone with a computer to spew hatred for each other when their views differ.
The leader in the Whitehouse gleefully divides the citizenry showing no leadership whatsoever and is re-elected to continue his Sherman's March on our economy and debt level sowing miscontent and hatred for anyone who dares to have a differing opinion.
Still looking for the Messiah, then? god forbid! But still ... The inability of materialism alone to satisfy other than material needs is now convincingly demonstrated by the very large numbers of people on the planet who are well fed, clothed, housed, accoutered in every way ... but feel hollow, unfulfilled. But if materialism has failed to satisfy, so has 'big three' (or is it only one?) monotheism, and political ideology. And their more extreme forms, whose very extremity betoken desperation rather than 'faith'. Which leaves us with ... each other, in an everyday kindness and concern, way. No big organizational underpinnings of church or state; no unending plundering of physical resources to find 'happiness'. If you want an overarching way of understanding ourselves and each other, I'd suggest Buddhism, and the technique of 'mindfulness' as a way of noticing what we're doing - to ourselves or others. It's really a way of developing a reasonably good reality check against which we can test ourselves. No visions or soaring political rhetoric; closer to the 'still quiet voice' than thundering sermonizing. Doesn't require a vast administrative infrastructure. Just an awareness of our internal state, and kindly disposition to others. No market value, because there's nothing to be sold - only practiced. Completely transparent to any religious faith or none. Or political. But results in a kinder, gentler version of any. Just a suggestion.
1
This article sounds deep but in end amount to nothing. Does Brooks really expect the United States to be the master of "global governance" acting basically as "global police"? Yet made no mention of a global economy, where we compete just as hard, where Capital has no national allegiance, creating trans-national mega corporation with no sense of national wellbeing but the whole world to pillage.
In the case of "democratic socialism," where capitalism is the actual economic model, democracy mediates both the ills of capitalism and socialism. In "democratic capitalism" however, capitalism, in its inherent tendency to accumulate Capital, will eventually eat democracy, as we see happening now in the United States, especially in the post Citizens United era.
The "core" is weak, Mr. Brooks, because Capitalism has weakened it, by failing to deliver its promise of individual prosperity. China won't be wobbling if it could keep the façade of capitalism going. Capitalism cannot deliver this promise because prosperity of the people was never its mission. The Capitalists like us to think it is -- calling themselves "wealth makers," and sidelining workers who actually produce as "takers."
The biggest hoax ever perpetuated is Capitalism is free market. When the Capital always dominates, controls and manipulates, even our government and our values, how can the "market" be free?
One has to ask, who promotes greed and desires most strongly? Certainly not the fringes, certainly not Bernie.
In the case of "democratic socialism," where capitalism is the actual economic model, democracy mediates both the ills of capitalism and socialism. In "democratic capitalism" however, capitalism, in its inherent tendency to accumulate Capital, will eventually eat democracy, as we see happening now in the United States, especially in the post Citizens United era.
The "core" is weak, Mr. Brooks, because Capitalism has weakened it, by failing to deliver its promise of individual prosperity. China won't be wobbling if it could keep the façade of capitalism going. Capitalism cannot deliver this promise because prosperity of the people was never its mission. The Capitalists like us to think it is -- calling themselves "wealth makers," and sidelining workers who actually produce as "takers."
The biggest hoax ever perpetuated is Capitalism is free market. When the Capital always dominates, controls and manipulates, even our government and our values, how can the "market" be free?
One has to ask, who promotes greed and desires most strongly? Certainly not the fringes, certainly not Bernie.
4
America has lost its sphere of influence around the world because it lost its moral compass and failed to deliver its promises.
Its foreign policy is inconsistent and incoherent. The foreign aid it gives to different nations is never enough to make a major impact. America has spread itself too thin.
Instead of picking one spot that has a good chance to succeed, focus on it, until it is successful, then move to the next spot, America chose to give a little bit here and a little bit there which satisfies no one and makes every body dependent on charity instead of real action.
Financial aid should never be handed to a government because it is stolen and ends up in the bank account of corrupt politicians. It should be given to individuals with a business plan to be followed very tightly. with the supervision or partnership with US or European citizens with the same goals, preferably benevolent businessman/woman or professionals who want to make a difference.
A strong focus should be put on women. men failed miserably to turn things around. They will be buying cars, televisions and useless gadgets. Empowering women will speed up change. It is being done but not vigorously and aggressively enough. S
Its foreign policy is inconsistent and incoherent. The foreign aid it gives to different nations is never enough to make a major impact. America has spread itself too thin.
Instead of picking one spot that has a good chance to succeed, focus on it, until it is successful, then move to the next spot, America chose to give a little bit here and a little bit there which satisfies no one and makes every body dependent on charity instead of real action.
Financial aid should never be handed to a government because it is stolen and ends up in the bank account of corrupt politicians. It should be given to individuals with a business plan to be followed very tightly. with the supervision or partnership with US or European citizens with the same goals, preferably benevolent businessman/woman or professionals who want to make a difference.
A strong focus should be put on women. men failed miserably to turn things around. They will be buying cars, televisions and useless gadgets. Empowering women will speed up change. It is being done but not vigorously and aggressively enough. S
1
Bernie Sanders is arguably "marginal" but is anything but unreasonable.
Ah, Yeats ! That's fine. You could do worse. Good takedown of Francis Fukuyama. ". . . decent distribution of wealth" ? When did that happen ? "Mass stupidity and greed led to a financial collapse and deprived capitalism of its moral swagger." Wall Street has always been massively stupid , greedy and hardly moral, but they're still swaggering at least in Republican World. No, it was the decades-long fight to deregulate money and everything else that led to the financial collapse. No mention of that and no mention of Bush lying us into two wars that he bungled along with hurricane relief. Don't try to slip Democrats into your false equivalence. It's all Republicans, Southern Strategy and Ayn Randism run amok.
5
The reason why Trump and Sanders have both captured the imaginations of the American people is that they both "get" the American people. Public Speaking 101 says "know your audience". What I do not understand is how come the media doesn't "get" the American people likewise. The fact that both Trump and Sanders have had such great appeal and staying power seems to have completely flummoxed the media. It really makes one wonder just how informed our media really is. Sad, really sad.
1
In the 1990s? You mean the period when Dr Gingrich was advising his fellow-caucus members to refer to the other side of the aisle as"traitors", "intolerant", or that they "betray"? And when a bright young man from Chicago was furthering his in the right-wing press in Bill "Always Wrong" Kristol's Weekly Standard? Gee, I wonder where all the strife came from?
This piece left me speechless. Why who would have thought that three percent of the population should not have all the wealth and power? Luckily I found a quote later on in the paper. It comes from our neighbor in the North. "When the time for change strikes, it's lethal," former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney said in a television interview
1
Mr. Brooks seems to be echoing the famous lines of Yeats:
" Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned,
The best lack all conviction, while the worst,
Are full of passionate intensity."
Of course, that's what one would think just listening to the Republican Presidential candidates. But as our Canadian neighbors have just shown us, there's an alternative to this "end of times" scenario with, as Yeats foresaw, a "second coming" in a more enlightened, new spiritual awakening
"That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"
It's time to cast aside the troubled dogma of the Abrahamic religions and, as Pope Francis urged Congress, to embrace "the transcendent dignity of the human being" with life-affirming compassion for all, especially immigrants, the poor, and the planet, as the Pope noted. This is spiritual message that lies at the heart of our Constitutional democracy that many, but not all, have forgotten.
" Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned,
The best lack all conviction, while the worst,
Are full of passionate intensity."
Of course, that's what one would think just listening to the Republican Presidential candidates. But as our Canadian neighbors have just shown us, there's an alternative to this "end of times" scenario with, as Yeats foresaw, a "second coming" in a more enlightened, new spiritual awakening
"That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"
It's time to cast aside the troubled dogma of the Abrahamic religions and, as Pope Francis urged Congress, to embrace "the transcendent dignity of the human being" with life-affirming compassion for all, especially immigrants, the poor, and the planet, as the Pope noted. This is spiritual message that lies at the heart of our Constitutional democracy that many, but not all, have forgotten.
David. I am not sure all republicans share your first premise.
"I only have space to add here that the primary problem is mental and spiritual." What kind of nonsense is that? It sounds a lot like "The Wizard of Oz's" "click the heels of those red shoes and all will be as it was before." If you consciously wrote and believe that kind of magical thinking it may be time to retire because a column built on nothing but over generalizations, platitudes, and a couple of aphorisms is no column at all.
3
There's something wrong when the comments are more interesting and intellectual than the columnist's musings.
10
Mr. Brooks need look no further than his own favoured party's role in supporting those groups he calls "weak in strength and strong in conviction." Republican leadership financed much of the chaos and unrest convulsing the Middle East. Under a Republican president's watch, Saudi Arabia received millions of dollars in material, cash, and favourable contracts that ended up in the hands of several extremist groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban. Only now have the taps turned off as ISIS threatens the House of Saud's interests.
A good number of Americans are tired of global governance after two grueling, unnecessary wars that depleted the treasury and international goodwill. They have no stomach to enter another morass for a decade and no end in sight. Military commitments are expensive and exhausting, but you'd never know that from the war hawks who keep shouting for invasions of Iran and Libya, and bombing campaigns against Syria and Russians lurking in Crimea. A good many of those come from the Grand Old Pretenders who want to mobilize public opinion overseas rather than addressing domestic challenges.
These idealistic notions of a benign U.S. leading the world into a newly minted era of peace and cooperation are hocus pocus, and nothing more. Take a look outside your Ivory Tower once. Have you seen the uptick in poverty across the U.S., gross inequality in distribution of wealth, and corporations gaining more legal rights than I have as a woman?
A good number of Americans are tired of global governance after two grueling, unnecessary wars that depleted the treasury and international goodwill. They have no stomach to enter another morass for a decade and no end in sight. Military commitments are expensive and exhausting, but you'd never know that from the war hawks who keep shouting for invasions of Iran and Libya, and bombing campaigns against Syria and Russians lurking in Crimea. A good many of those come from the Grand Old Pretenders who want to mobilize public opinion overseas rather than addressing domestic challenges.
These idealistic notions of a benign U.S. leading the world into a newly minted era of peace and cooperation are hocus pocus, and nothing more. Take a look outside your Ivory Tower once. Have you seen the uptick in poverty across the U.S., gross inequality in distribution of wealth, and corporations gaining more legal rights than I have as a woman?
4
The liberal democracies of northern Europe double down with gusto every day and remain steadfastly secular and humane when faced with mass migration, extremism and terrorism.
It's a shame we cannot learn anything from them because "it would never work here".
It's a shame we cannot learn anything from them because "it would never work here".
3
I'm not in favor of a new version of America's historic mission that includes overthrowing foreign leaders, invading foreign countries, or bankrolling and arming authoritarian thugs simply because they and we dislike the same people.
2
David Brooks usually follows the path of compassionate conservatism but in this commentary, he lost the vision. Bernie Sanders has ignited the liberals in that there is a lot of room for getting social programs back on track after the huge cuts determined to dismantle the federal government by Tea party fanatics.
It is not all gloom and doom. The pendulum has swung way too far to the right and it is the election booth that is charged with bringing policy back to serving all the people rather than just a wealthy few. There is a crisis in government and it is the candidates as well as news media responsibility to ignite the populace to the crisis and get them to the voting booths.
As for the world stage, Iran moderates did get a treaty signed, the Iranian people have a chance to join the world stage. The Islamic State is being challenged on many fronts and barbaric actions are not acceptable and will be cast out. Putin's support of Assad and his use of the Syrian people as a testing ground for his war weapon experiments cannot be gaining favor of the Syrian people.
In the end, the sun will shine, but not after a LOT of blood is spilled. This is the one lesson history has shown us.
It is not all gloom and doom. The pendulum has swung way too far to the right and it is the election booth that is charged with bringing policy back to serving all the people rather than just a wealthy few. There is a crisis in government and it is the candidates as well as news media responsibility to ignite the populace to the crisis and get them to the voting booths.
As for the world stage, Iran moderates did get a treaty signed, the Iranian people have a chance to join the world stage. The Islamic State is being challenged on many fronts and barbaric actions are not acceptable and will be cast out. Putin's support of Assad and his use of the Syrian people as a testing ground for his war weapon experiments cannot be gaining favor of the Syrian people.
In the end, the sun will shine, but not after a LOT of blood is spilled. This is the one lesson history has shown us.
David, most people are actually quite happy about the insanity going on out here in the real world. It makes them happy to point fingers. And to type their happy thoughts to you on their smartphones that horrid capitalism brought them and their kids, who sleep outside the store for a week in order to buy it before someone else does. Funnier still, it's the calm before the storm. Even funnier, not one of them will defend themselves when the time comes.
Interesting take, opens some new subjects for exploration. The next column should pick up where this one left off, and offer some deeper constructive ideas and suggestions. Criticism is relatively easy; now dig.
1
Yes, please let's talk more about spirituality and our moral failures as a society! That way we can avoid all that unpleasant talk about income inequality and tax cuts for the hyper wealthy and gun violence, and the most profound policy failure in American history, the Iraq War("my brother kept us safe!!)
Please, keep your hands off my spirituality and I don't care about yours. What I want is for politicians to govern, to stay out of bedrooms, to check the calendar to see what century we're living in when they wrestle with their retrograde ideas about race, gender, sexual freedom, immigration, and religion.
Please, keep your hands off my spirituality and I don't care about yours. What I want is for politicians to govern, to stay out of bedrooms, to check the calendar to see what century we're living in when they wrestle with their retrograde ideas about race, gender, sexual freedom, immigration, and religion.
6
After a surprisingly refreshing column of last week, The Republicans' Incompetence Caucus, where David Brooks questioned the sanity of the Republican Party, this week he returns to his long-held position of equating both parties and blaming both for the woes facing the country.
I suggest that Mr, Brooks reacquaints himself with his Tuesday column and officially recognizes that the serious problems we are facing are of the Republican making.
I suggest that Mr, Brooks reacquaints himself with his Tuesday column and officially recognizes that the serious problems we are facing are of the Republican making.
4
Perhaps the author is afraid that the right wingers he's written about with such gusto over the years are being replaced by thugs.
The reasonableness that Mr brooks asks for has always been on the table. It's just ignored by the ultra right.
The reasonableness that Mr brooks asks for has always been on the table. It's just ignored by the ultra right.
Capitalism, in its free market form, does not possess a moral purpose and is certainly not entitled to Brooks' suggested "moral swagger." If looking for a moral element in an economic system, go to Bernie for advice and consider Denmark as a workable example.
Brooks evidently fears the comprehensive debunking of every last narcissist's claims to know what God thinks more than any other current movement.
1
I see two causes for the rise of the extremists.
The first is that the mainstream politicians have been unable to do anything. Congress is in a constant state of gridlock, the public is therefore looking to elect people who will break the logjam.
The second cause is the media. Trump is a media creation, without the constant publicity he would fade away like the clown he is. The media, desperate for eyeballs with the election over a year away, publicizes the most outrageous comments as if they were real policy. They are the ones giving legitimacy to the fringe. They then write self serving OP-ED pieces like this bemoaning the state of the American Politic; look in the mirror, you are the problem.
The first is that the mainstream politicians have been unable to do anything. Congress is in a constant state of gridlock, the public is therefore looking to elect people who will break the logjam.
The second cause is the media. Trump is a media creation, without the constant publicity he would fade away like the clown he is. The media, desperate for eyeballs with the election over a year away, publicizes the most outrageous comments as if they were real policy. They are the ones giving legitimacy to the fringe. They then write self serving OP-ED pieces like this bemoaning the state of the American Politic; look in the mirror, you are the problem.
1
David, you're so wrong and blinded by your conviction that America is meant to lead the world (???) that your article misses all points, from the initial 'As' to the closing 'comfort'.
Nice analogy with a solar system but I see only one fringe in American politics and it's the black hole at the center of the GOP. The GOP establishment, you included, facilitated the gravitational attraction of this hole that now it is eating any reasonable GOP people.
Regarding the Middle East, it has to be said that we are largely responsible for the instability there. The sooner we get the heck out of there the better for them, for us, and the entire world.
The US doesn't have the power for unilateral leadership and action -- and really never did. The US DOES have the power to lead patiently built coalitions of nations with enough overlap of interests and goals to be steady partners.
Bush 41 knew this; Bush 43 shattered the concept with a pair of stupid wars. Maybe Obama could have been a better coalition-builder than he has proven to be -- but let's not forget he had to spend years repairing the damage Bush policies did to American standing in the world.
The Democratic party, by and large, understands the need for international teamwork. The current mutant authoritarian GOP rejects it -- one more reason the GOP cannot be trusted with the White House.
Bush 41 knew this; Bush 43 shattered the concept with a pair of stupid wars. Maybe Obama could have been a better coalition-builder than he has proven to be -- but let's not forget he had to spend years repairing the damage Bush policies did to American standing in the world.
The Democratic party, by and large, understands the need for international teamwork. The current mutant authoritarian GOP rejects it -- one more reason the GOP cannot be trusted with the White House.
3
I believe only the right wingers are pessimistic about their future and for good reason. Things seem pretty bright in Canada today. Why is the Republican campaign motto always take back America?
They have been running things in most states and the US congress now for some time.
The times always change. Nothing lasts forever and thankfully so
They have been running things in most states and the US congress now for some time.
The times always change. Nothing lasts forever and thankfully so
3
We should retitle this piece "The Retainer's Lament". It's an old theme, but the Exceptional American version offers new and improved poignancy. But it's hard to know how to best react.
There are so many things wrong with this essay it's hard to know where to start. "Democratic capitalism" seems to be a reworking of neocon thinking and the New American Century. Who are we to think that the rest of the world wants to buy into this? I suggest that most of the people in Iraq and Syria were more concerned about their homes, families, friends and jobs, and did not appreciate being bombed out and having to hit the road. My thinking in 2003 was once the first civilian was killed in Iraq, GWB and Cheney were war criminals. Who are we to call Putin a thug? This is a person who went to the United Nations and posited a question "what have you done?" I would like to see the US being an example for the world, but in a different way, not by big footing it around the world, telling other people how to live their lives, and enriching arms manufacturers. Maybe the emptiness that's referenced here is because people are seeing the emperor has no clothes.
1
In the United States a major problem is media who see fairness as equal time, even when it is clear that the Republican Party has moved to the far right and can not govern.
2
What you're witnessing but don't want to admit openly is the slow death of Western culture. Cultures, like everything else, have life spans. Our parochial view is that we represent something special; that we embody a progress that, despite bumps on the way, is leading to the Millennium, or the city on a hill, or whatever your personal vision of that ethos may be. But it simply isn't so. All things in existence are born, grow to maturity, age, and die. That wisdom is as old as the Greeks (read Plato; read Polybius), probably older.
The lack of coherence you discern is a foretaste of dissolution. Something is passing and something new will take its place. We may not like that, but there's nothing we can do about it.
The lack of coherence you discern is a foretaste of dissolution. Something is passing and something new will take its place. We may not like that, but there's nothing we can do about it.
3
Mr. Brooks:
Today your column reads like one having been written by a man who himself has reached a stage of exhaustion. You seem to be harkening back to a time before the internet (which as I type this I am using and which without I would not be typing even in the old-fashioned way), before cell phones and before email.
Those days are gone with the wind. The entire planet is in new territory, where once marginalized people now have a voice, where leadership once conducted behind closed doors is now exposed for everyone to see and react to.
You can view these changes as positive or negative. I am sorry for your evident wishing that it would all just go away and we could all go back to 1955.
We Americans will either figure it out or we will simply be another in a long line of civilizations which failed to adapt to changing circumstances. Mr Sanders, whom you seem to castigate at every opportunity, seems to have found a key to awaken our historic egalitarianism; and whether or not he is elected will not muffle his message.
Today your column reads like one having been written by a man who himself has reached a stage of exhaustion. You seem to be harkening back to a time before the internet (which as I type this I am using and which without I would not be typing even in the old-fashioned way), before cell phones and before email.
Those days are gone with the wind. The entire planet is in new territory, where once marginalized people now have a voice, where leadership once conducted behind closed doors is now exposed for everyone to see and react to.
You can view these changes as positive or negative. I am sorry for your evident wishing that it would all just go away and we could all go back to 1955.
We Americans will either figure it out or we will simply be another in a long line of civilizations which failed to adapt to changing circumstances. Mr Sanders, whom you seem to castigate at every opportunity, seems to have found a key to awaken our historic egalitarianism; and whether or not he is elected will not muffle his message.
4
Mr Brooks says: "I only have space to add here that the primary problem is mental and spiritual. Some leader has to be able to digest the lessons of the last 15 years and offer a revised charismatic and persuasive sense of America’s historic mission."
With all due respect, Mr. Brooks, if America has lost its historic mission and its leadership role in the world, why are people all across the globe desperately trying to move their retirement savings into US dollars? Preferably, into US Treasury bonds, which are the gold standard for safety and stability everywhere in the world.
With all due respect, Mr. Brooks, if America has lost its historic mission and its leadership role in the world, why are people all across the globe desperately trying to move their retirement savings into US dollars? Preferably, into US Treasury bonds, which are the gold standard for safety and stability everywhere in the world.
3
Geez, it seems to me the world is about where it was 100 years ago. The old empires are in the process of falling apart as a consequence of their calcification. In their wake there is significant disorder. It'll take another generation or two to sort it out. It's cyclical rather than cosmic change.
1
Spiritual (whatever that means) is not the problem. Religion maybe a big part but religion is hardly spiritual, its a business. No, its the corruption that occurs with governments. Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Congo, Nigeria etc. all "democracies" and all corrupt with most starving or in prisons. No, our "democracies" are really places for various thugs to steal the goodies. We are seeing the same thing in the US as people lose faith everyday in the democratic system . Democracies are not what they are advertised.
Angular momentum keeps the solar system from collapsing. The gravitational constant, g, is constant. Angular momentum probably keeps the constituents of atomic nuclei apart as well.
When you wonder what is the meaning of it all, remember that the all-powerful wizard some people invoke to explain everything would have to invent that for itself too.
When you wonder what is the meaning of it all, remember that the all-powerful wizard some people invoke to explain everything would have to invent that for itself too.
1
I cannot thank you enough for this comment, or for pointing out angular momentum. 'Gravitational holding' really irked me.
Rather than continuing an interventionist policy that fails more often than it succeeds, I'd like the government to focus on shoring up our infrastructure, alleviating poverty, improving our schools and supporting our economy.
And if, as Mr. Brooks suggests, my non-interventionist view is a "mental or spiritual" problem, I'm OK with it.
And if, as Mr. Brooks suggests, my non-interventionist view is a "mental or spiritual" problem, I'm OK with it.
1
"But the deeper problem was spiritual." The comments so far seem to find fault with David Brooks' analysis of where all of us are heading. After reading his analysis, I think he should be invited to some world conference to air his views in a face-to-face conversation with world leaders who still have the power to create positive change as Pope Francis is doing. I suppose I am talking about the upcoming world conference on climate change which is my view is one answer, and a very healthy one, to "where are we all heading?
Several recent Brooks columns had me wondering if he'd been channeling Yoda, but for a couple of clandestine "givens" that he tries to slip in that aren't givens at all but conservative mantras, often not even true. This column is no exception with the simplistic comparison of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders as fringe candidates providing the stumbling block. While Trump exposes the soft, lily white underbelly of the GOP, much to the dismay of party elders, Bernie - who has represented Vermont for almost 25 years - consistently addresses the real concerns of Amaricans. Trump is a clown who illustrates all too clearly what the Republican Party has come to. Brooks' comparison of the two candidates trivializes the struggles we face and destroys his own credibility.
1
"The United States is no longer willing to occupy the commanding heights and oversee global order."
Perhaps it is not a matter of willingness but the ability to face a new reality. We are no longer the superpower of the 50s. It is also striking to acknowledge that when we have decided to enter a major fray how poorly the outcome has been; from Vietnam, to Afghanistan, and to Iraq. Our superior military power brings no one to heal and if it does the impact is only temporary. Americans have been nurtured in the belief of American being the world leader and now in the Mid East we are being taught the lesson that old rules no longer apply. So frustrated Americans point the finger of blame at our leadership giving rise to outsiders who give them the verbiage and illusion they crave. "Make America Great Again". Isn't this the same thing the Russians, who have a suffering economy ,are doing with the machismo Putin. It is the publics inability to accept new and uncomfortable realities which are giving rise around the world to new and dangerous demagogues. We only have to go back to the 40s in Germany and Italy to see the catastrophic results such a trend can unleash.
Perhaps it is not a matter of willingness but the ability to face a new reality. We are no longer the superpower of the 50s. It is also striking to acknowledge that when we have decided to enter a major fray how poorly the outcome has been; from Vietnam, to Afghanistan, and to Iraq. Our superior military power brings no one to heal and if it does the impact is only temporary. Americans have been nurtured in the belief of American being the world leader and now in the Mid East we are being taught the lesson that old rules no longer apply. So frustrated Americans point the finger of blame at our leadership giving rise to outsiders who give them the verbiage and illusion they crave. "Make America Great Again". Isn't this the same thing the Russians, who have a suffering economy ,are doing with the machismo Putin. It is the publics inability to accept new and uncomfortable realities which are giving rise around the world to new and dangerous demagogues. We only have to go back to the 40s in Germany and Italy to see the catastrophic results such a trend can unleash.
3
Mr. Brooks misdiagnoses again.
Things began to come off the rails when people started believing that government is the enemy and "civic virtue" means not questioning authority.
We used to believe in the US, in our institutions, in our schools. Then we were fed a steady diet of "government is your enemy, corporations know best."
That is when civilization came off the rails and we know wherein lies the blame.
Things began to come off the rails when people started believing that government is the enemy and "civic virtue" means not questioning authority.
We used to believe in the US, in our institutions, in our schools. Then we were fed a steady diet of "government is your enemy, corporations know best."
That is when civilization came off the rails and we know wherein lies the blame.
1
Maybe we ought to embrace the age of the outsiders. Our founders thought in terms of the central government with departments of State, Treasury and Defense and leaving it to the states to deal with local issues . The requirements of our city states, New York for example, are diametrically opposed to rural states, so go ahead and embrace central dysfunction and let the laboratories of democracy work it out.
1
"Republicans blame Obama for hesitant and halting policies, but it’s not clear the foreign policy and defense apparatus believes anymore in its own abilities to establish order, or that the American public has any confidence in U.S. effectiveness as a global actor."
David- the reason the American public has lost confidence as a global actor is the quagmire of the 2 Bush wars in the ME- unfunded wars and the invasion of Iraq was based on a lie. We are sick and tired of Vietnam type wars that have cost trillions and we have nothing to show for it except destabilization of the ME. Moreover, it is impossible for Americans to have confidence in government when the GOP obstructionist mantra is to tear down everything and not accomplish anything except to keep the military budget bloated so that our tax dollars cannot be used for the greater social good, environmental policies, infrastructure, veterans and education.
If we got rid of the GOP party in its present form- we'd have plenty of confidence and would get things done. Your GOP is the problem when they fawn over other leaders like Putin and Netanyahu and disrespect their own twice elected POTUS and do everything in their power for their rich Super Pac 1% overlords at the expense of everyone else. The decay of the GOP started with Reagan and will not be stopped as long as the media promote these buffoons- and that includes Cruz.
David- the reason the American public has lost confidence as a global actor is the quagmire of the 2 Bush wars in the ME- unfunded wars and the invasion of Iraq was based on a lie. We are sick and tired of Vietnam type wars that have cost trillions and we have nothing to show for it except destabilization of the ME. Moreover, it is impossible for Americans to have confidence in government when the GOP obstructionist mantra is to tear down everything and not accomplish anything except to keep the military budget bloated so that our tax dollars cannot be used for the greater social good, environmental policies, infrastructure, veterans and education.
If we got rid of the GOP party in its present form- we'd have plenty of confidence and would get things done. Your GOP is the problem when they fawn over other leaders like Putin and Netanyahu and disrespect their own twice elected POTUS and do everything in their power for their rich Super Pac 1% overlords at the expense of everyone else. The decay of the GOP started with Reagan and will not be stopped as long as the media promote these buffoons- and that includes Cruz.
1
Mr. Brooks says: "...the big loss of central confidence is in global governance. The United States is no longer willing to occupy the commanding heights and oversee global order." That is far too sweeping a generalization; our problem is that the Republicans are still very eager to "occupy the commanding heights" as they see them, while the Democrats generally see their role as a desperate carriage driver, pulling frantically back on the bridles of unruly horses. Obama doesn't lack conviction; he is trying to lay the foundations for an American global leadership that doesn't rely on fantasies of omnipotence.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the idea that American should involve itself everywhere in the world has metastasized into the assertion that we can just do everything ourselves, as long as we summon the necessary "conviction." I utterly reject that the exercise of American military power is an appropriate demonstration of conviction, and will result in greater American power overall.
I once heard the analogy that hard power is like cash, and soft power is like credit. Maybe that helps explain why the Republicans seem to believe that the more "cash" we have, the more "credit" we will be able to draw on. As they would have it, America doesn't "spend" it's "cash" by going to war, we *invest* it, and we can expect to reap a tidy sum of capital gains. And the real money that we have to spend? Oh.. that just takes care of itself... somehow.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the idea that American should involve itself everywhere in the world has metastasized into the assertion that we can just do everything ourselves, as long as we summon the necessary "conviction." I utterly reject that the exercise of American military power is an appropriate demonstration of conviction, and will result in greater American power overall.
I once heard the analogy that hard power is like cash, and soft power is like credit. Maybe that helps explain why the Republicans seem to believe that the more "cash" we have, the more "credit" we will be able to draw on. As they would have it, America doesn't "spend" it's "cash" by going to war, we *invest* it, and we can expect to reap a tidy sum of capital gains. And the real money that we have to spend? Oh.. that just takes care of itself... somehow.
Please take a deep breath. Think back to the 1960-70s. A sitting US president, a major civil rights leader and a US presidential candidate were assassinated; the US and Soviet Union came very close to a nuclear confrontation; the domino theory necessitated that the US stand up S. Vietnam (losing more than 50,000 US soldiers' lives) lest communism take over the world; a sitting US president resigned (VP too...) as a result of criminal activities; the social upheaval of the counterculture and civil rights movements and the Middle East was a source of constant conflict and war. Relatively speaking, we live in a golden era... Take a deep breath
1
Let us always remember that the political spectrum is a circle and not a straight line. There are radicals on the left as well as the right and both extremes are into some type of thought control.
Look at the pervasive and insidious effect that the radical left---
the Ayatollahs of Political Correctness and Trendiness---
have on long standing traditions and major cultural mores.
It is obvious that in "Trendy America" traditions, rules and morals mean nothing. All that matters is "love" (whatever that means) and supposed "equality". One person's "equality" is another person's immorality but of course political correctness and trendiness always wins out over truth and reasonableness. Everything must be sacrificed for trendiness and self gratification.
The Five Ayatollahs in Black Robes have spoken their irrevocable decrees and we the masses must be trendy and "equal". Kind of like Barney The Dinosaur with an AK. Be nice and trendy or else. What a joke and what a major cultural disaster.
Look at the pervasive and insidious effect that the radical left---
the Ayatollahs of Political Correctness and Trendiness---
have on long standing traditions and major cultural mores.
It is obvious that in "Trendy America" traditions, rules and morals mean nothing. All that matters is "love" (whatever that means) and supposed "equality". One person's "equality" is another person's immorality but of course political correctness and trendiness always wins out over truth and reasonableness. Everything must be sacrificed for trendiness and self gratification.
The Five Ayatollahs in Black Robes have spoken their irrevocable decrees and we the masses must be trendy and "equal". Kind of like Barney The Dinosaur with an AK. Be nice and trendy or else. What a joke and what a major cultural disaster.
American democracy was pretty healthy with historical checks and balances working fairly well until after WWII when the cold war developed. It was after that war that religion, always a part of American culture, morphed under McCarthyism, invading the authoritative realm of once secular American government by inexorably linking atheism to communism. Then in 1954 The Pledge of Allegiance, itself a product of a minister, was revised adding, "under God". At that point did the dissolution of the American ideal begin. The dissent and distrust we are witnessing now is a response to the shift of government authority toward the religious, despite historical evidence provided by our own revolution that faith in the divine can be a powerful tool of tyranny, as so employed in colonial times by the King of England. Yet, we embrace the God and Country theme of the redcoats we once rejected, in Calvinistic ranked "blessings" based on financial status and fortune, the perfect blend of Christ and capitalism. Just listen to the millionaire televangelists. God loves the wealthy. Spirituality hasn't died, it has morphed into something sinister. What passes for religious conviction now is employed to control the masses. If you won't allow them financial control of their lives, give them moral authority over their neighbors. It's the next best thing. Just ask Kim Davis.
1
We get the leadership that the people elect. The same people Paul from Nevada claims "put it back together," whatever it is. We rejoice in leaders who, while they may lack a public moral compass, still balance the budget. Those who founded this nation did indeed have a historic mission, perhaps unknown to them in the moment. They wrote it down, and we have used it for two centuries and more to guide our way. Perhaps it is time to reclaim that very mission in its modern embodiment, acknowledging, unlike a Supreme Court justice or two, that the world is markedly different now, and using that difference to create a new declaration, even a new constitutional statement that clearly states who we are and whom we wish to become. Finding the leadership to get us there will always be problematic, especially in a society that wastes considerable energy on symbols that no longer serve our needs at all. President Cruz? Not a chance.
Put "ethical" in the place of "spiritual" and I can go along with the piece. By and large, it was the earlier sense that religious and political convictions held some form of truth that others lacked which provided the higher levels of existential comfort, but without the hubris of absolute certainty that so characterizes discourse today.
The mistaken "new" certainty is finding its footing in extremist faith mongering and political know-nothing postures that appeal to simplistic common notions, which are, er, common, as in not so hot. To take on the contemporary real world, one needs otherwise to become versed in provisional best-guess answers that can be amended by new data as we progress, but this is decidedly an effort beyond a genpop raised in the current educational and media environment.
The mistaken "new" certainty is finding its footing in extremist faith mongering and political know-nothing postures that appeal to simplistic common notions, which are, er, common, as in not so hot. To take on the contemporary real world, one needs otherwise to become versed in provisional best-guess answers that can be amended by new data as we progress, but this is decidedly an effort beyond a genpop raised in the current educational and media environment.
The US is great because we occupy commanding heights and oversee global order?
How silly. All this time I thought the United States became the envy of the world because of our unprecedented commitment to education, opportunity, and shared prosperity. We had the best cities, the best schools, the best universities, the best transporation, the best scientists, the best medicine. And the best military, sure, but that was for defense, not for meddling in the affairs of others or conquest.
This used to be the place where you could start with nothing and one day become a nobel prize winner or leader. We didn't achieve greatness through militaristic dominance, we achieved it by keeping our own house in order.
Today, we have a fractured government that thinks fixing 100-year old crumbling bridges, building public transportation, paying for health care, paying for education, and investing in research are "vanity projects" and "big government"
If "vanity" means being the best at everything, then maybe it's time we decided once again to be a vain nation, instead of a xenophobic one that cares mostly about enriching a handful of people, while the rest falls apart and all those things that once made us great are only available to a few who can afford them.
How silly. All this time I thought the United States became the envy of the world because of our unprecedented commitment to education, opportunity, and shared prosperity. We had the best cities, the best schools, the best universities, the best transporation, the best scientists, the best medicine. And the best military, sure, but that was for defense, not for meddling in the affairs of others or conquest.
This used to be the place where you could start with nothing and one day become a nobel prize winner or leader. We didn't achieve greatness through militaristic dominance, we achieved it by keeping our own house in order.
Today, we have a fractured government that thinks fixing 100-year old crumbling bridges, building public transportation, paying for health care, paying for education, and investing in research are "vanity projects" and "big government"
If "vanity" means being the best at everything, then maybe it's time we decided once again to be a vain nation, instead of a xenophobic one that cares mostly about enriching a handful of people, while the rest falls apart and all those things that once made us great are only available to a few who can afford them.
1
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke
When the cultural status quo is to take care of one's self, one's family, one's neighborhood, you have turned all power against those who most need protection. This is pervasive on the Left and the Right, the Left abdicating that role to the government and the Right assigning that goal to a mysterious invisible and benevolent hand.
Any honest person knows that both of those approaches fall well short of what we have been challenged to do.
Edmund Burke
When the cultural status quo is to take care of one's self, one's family, one's neighborhood, you have turned all power against those who most need protection. This is pervasive on the Left and the Right, the Left abdicating that role to the government and the Right assigning that goal to a mysterious invisible and benevolent hand.
Any honest person knows that both of those approaches fall well short of what we have been challenged to do.
1
We're repeating the 20th century. We're right near Saravejo. Putin in Syria and the Proxy war are Saravejo equivalents. We drove Putin there with post-cold warmanship that is more of a reflex than something in our national interest. The US doesn't want any war. We want out of the Middle East that is religious while we are secular. We can't go back though. The US is already effectively anti-war on the way to isolationism. If the world economy were better, all major powers would act more responsibly. But see, that's the way things normally fall apart. The more prosperous we become the more it undermines our character. We're headed to a bad place.
The Age of Outsiders is essentially the result of an inflection in the development of societies around the world made possible by 1) technology enabled globalization and 2) the replacement of World wars with local or regional conflict.Technology,in addition to making connectivity virtually ubiquitous,enabled unprecedented communication,sharing of information as well as misinformation and leveled the playing field for ideas.Technology also dis-intermediated many jobs in developed countries while creating as many opportunities for raising the standard of living in developing ones.Increasing inequality around the world was sure to follow,with instant billionaires in the East and falling living standards for those with modest education or skills in the West.Given that another World War is seen as a "nuclear option" (literally), those left behind economically express their anger locally and regionally via political,social and religious extremism.What Brooks refers to as "Gravity from the Center"is associated with the status quo and therefore has little appeal under these conditions.
Maybe world citizens are becoming the new insiders while David Brooks fights a rear guard action against them.
Point 1: "Democracy, especially in the United States, has grown dysfunctional". It did not grow dysfunctional. Rather the dysfunction was carefully designed and orchestrated by Rove, et., al, and undemocratic gerrymandering tactics of the GOP operatives.
Point 2: On a relative basis, global governance is stronger today than it's ever been (since the Mongolian empire that is). The UN, WHO, EU, NGOs and many other multinational entities function very well to keep major health crises at bay (Ebola, bird flu), respond to natural disasters and avoid the sort of WW conflicts that the pre-1914 alliance system and the League of Nations couldn't.
Point 2: On a relative basis, global governance is stronger today than it's ever been (since the Mongolian empire that is). The UN, WHO, EU, NGOs and many other multinational entities function very well to keep major health crises at bay (Ebola, bird flu), respond to natural disasters and avoid the sort of WW conflicts that the pre-1914 alliance system and the League of Nations couldn't.
Oh, the horror! The many nations of the world, rudderless and adrift, off in their own directions without "the one, indispensable nation," no longer under its command and control. As if we never installed our share of puppet leaders, propped up corrupt regimes, or thwarted the will of the people of another country with ominous threats. And all along, I thought a central tenet of modern conservatism was a belief in the power of self-determination and freedom from centralized authority. It sounds as if David Brooks loves the idea of world government so long as it bears a big "Made in the USA" stamp on it. Once again, David Brooks points to the hollowness at the core of modern American conservatism while decrying our current sorry state -- like any other belief system, conservatism's the one, true perfect one, just as long as you're the one calling the shots.
1
The ruling class has abused our trust. Median wages have been stagnant for 30 years, poverty has been undented over the past 20, college tuition grows ever more expensive, and jobs that can pay for it are increasingly scarce. This is what the American elite has given us as its own wealth has soared to unprecedented heights. I am not surprised by populism, I am surprised there are still so many old style Centrists in office.
'Gravity from the center lends coherence to the whole solar system.'
OK...and the gravitational force consolidating is money and power. Money attracts more money, and consolidates and emanates power over the sytsem.
It's economic physics and manifests itself in more going to fewer. In this societal solar system Bernie Sanders is marginalized by the centrally consolidated narrative of the few...but is inspiring the many as he glides outside the orbit of corrupting influencers.
Greed is so powerful as a force of attraction it blinds many of us to its presence, even when it stands and proudly declares itself.
Sanders merely pulls the curtain back, we still need to see.
OK...and the gravitational force consolidating is money and power. Money attracts more money, and consolidates and emanates power over the sytsem.
It's economic physics and manifests itself in more going to fewer. In this societal solar system Bernie Sanders is marginalized by the centrally consolidated narrative of the few...but is inspiring the many as he glides outside the orbit of corrupting influencers.
Greed is so powerful as a force of attraction it blinds many of us to its presence, even when it stands and proudly declares itself.
Sanders merely pulls the curtain back, we still need to see.
2
Brooks's "Sun King" cosmology is a lttle wacky. Think more in terms of contradiction and conflict (capitalist class versus working class). From that vantage point, pull from the margins becomes understandable as the energized edges react strenuously to increasing poverty (working class) and decreasing profit (the other guys). Class analysis is also more inductively satisfying an explanation for what we see in everyday reality.
2
Mr Brooks, I agree we are living in a time of great upheavals and change. I am sure you are made more despondent because the conservatives in the US (some are Republicans), clearly are clueless and living in some fantasy state where they are not even able to govern their own caucus in the House, and their Presidential candidates are clearly bizarre and without any ideas that could help us try to navigate the REAL world. Your gratuitous slam of Bernie Sanders was off the mark and you know it. He and Hillary, while still early in the campaign, both have the gravitas, intelligence and experience to help navigate these times.
Ideology is what has helped to break the world, whether religious or political. We have seemingly given in to our insecurities and are using views that require new, harsh rules, to try to master our world situations. Information, it seems to turn out, is scary to everyone and is a force in itself that too many are trying to control to assure their place.
Our solution cannot be to re-institute the US as military world leader, asserting and coercing a false definition of liberty and democracy. A value for justice and liberty cannot be coerced. We must continue, as much as it rankles the old guard, to build and use our soft power -- humanitarianism, belief in diversity, intellectual and religious freedom -- and patience.
Have faith, Mr Brooks. The correct way is not to emulate Putin. You must know that.
Ideology is what has helped to break the world, whether religious or political. We have seemingly given in to our insecurities and are using views that require new, harsh rules, to try to master our world situations. Information, it seems to turn out, is scary to everyone and is a force in itself that too many are trying to control to assure their place.
Our solution cannot be to re-institute the US as military world leader, asserting and coercing a false definition of liberty and democracy. A value for justice and liberty cannot be coerced. We must continue, as much as it rankles the old guard, to build and use our soft power -- humanitarianism, belief in diversity, intellectual and religious freedom -- and patience.
Have faith, Mr Brooks. The correct way is not to emulate Putin. You must know that.
1
"In the 1990s, the central political institutions radiated confidence." Why don't they do so now? Maybe because since Ronald Reagan ascended those institutions have been relentlessly attacked as the source of the problems that beset us rather than as part of the solutions to those problems. We did not prevail in the Cold War because of low taxes, an absence of regulation, and an abandonment of public responsibility. Instead, we've lost the post-Cold War Era with, precisely, low taxes, an absence of regulation, and an abandonment of public responsibility--in short, by an abandonment of those political institutions that once radiated confidence.
5
"In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does but by what one owns."
These words are not from Mr. Brooks' essay, but from President Carter's prescient 1979 speech. The American people reacted to Carter's warning by embracing the "shining city on a hill" self-delusion offered by Ronald Reagan. The tragedy was that we decided that we did indeed want to be defined by what we owned. Thus began the long national decline that Mr. Brooks laments today. Our obsession with the lifestyles of the rich and famous has led inexorably to a reality television star being the leading candidate for the Republican nomination for president. Pay no heed to the world's problems he tells us. They either do not exist, like climate change, or they can be easily solved, like mass undocumented immigration. Just elect him and he will make America great again; continue to cling to the pleasing illusion.
Where Mr. Brooks fails is his continued use of the false equivalency fallacy in describing the state of our nation's politics. He cannot acknowledge that it has been his political party that has been the primary proponent of the individualistic, materialistic, and anti-community policies that he rightfully identifies as the "primary problem" facing our country.
These words are not from Mr. Brooks' essay, but from President Carter's prescient 1979 speech. The American people reacted to Carter's warning by embracing the "shining city on a hill" self-delusion offered by Ronald Reagan. The tragedy was that we decided that we did indeed want to be defined by what we owned. Thus began the long national decline that Mr. Brooks laments today. Our obsession with the lifestyles of the rich and famous has led inexorably to a reality television star being the leading candidate for the Republican nomination for president. Pay no heed to the world's problems he tells us. They either do not exist, like climate change, or they can be easily solved, like mass undocumented immigration. Just elect him and he will make America great again; continue to cling to the pleasing illusion.
Where Mr. Brooks fails is his continued use of the false equivalency fallacy in describing the state of our nation's politics. He cannot acknowledge that it has been his political party that has been the primary proponent of the individualistic, materialistic, and anti-community policies that he rightfully identifies as the "primary problem" facing our country.
12
Cogent comments such as yours prove that Mr. Brooks never reads them and refuses to learn anything from smart readers. He was part of the problem as cheerleading scribbler for rightwing publications and tv talking-head and will never cop to it.
Interesting to watch a pundit learn to punt it. Mr. Brooks has seen that something is amiss, but there is an error in the perception. Institutions tend to evolve from the purpose that created them to the purpose of preserving the institution. So, right now, the political institutions are engaged in holding on to their position. They are aided and abetted by the support of wealthy and influential people and enterprises who have a compact with the political institutions. What Mr. Brooks sees, from his institutional vantage, appears to be fringe elements. Instead, the fringe elements are the majority who perceive, and rightly so, that their institutions no longer serve the people. Instead, they serve their institution and their beneficiaries and benefactors. The good thing is that in a democracy, periodically the majority have access to a nonviolent cleansing by voting. Time to throw the bums out. Our northern neighbors have just shown us the path.
3
We live in a country where the new wealth being created is being concentrated into fewer hands as the old wealth is gradually used up, which means that instead of all participating in how this country uses it's wealth, fewer and fewer people are making those decisions. In addition, the attempts to increase democracy and to respect individual liberties and to assure equal opportunity have left resentful factions who want their privileges back, privileges that depended upon injustice for many others. The resulting dissatisfaction is rending apart the fabric of our society. Democracy requires confidence that everyone shares in fortunes of the polity and so despite any private individual or factional concerns all will comply with the decisions of the majority. The way in which democracy relates to individual liberty is by assuring that all are equal in their rights to participate and in the workings of the law and the courts, so relative wealth and influence have far less effect upon the way the government operates. When people mistrust others so that they refuse to accept the policies and decisions produced by democratic institutions and of the independent judiciary, the whole stops functioning and the basic rule of the strong over the weak begins to dominate what happens.
1
Gravitational pull is a product of mass. The more mass, the greater pull.
Political power in a democracy is the product of the masses. The more the masses coalesce, the greater the pull.
The masses in this country are fractured for two important reasons. The first and foremost was the Great Recession, which broke apart the political planet into fragments that are only now starting to re-coalesce. In that trauma the result is the same as it has been time and time again since the founding of this country. Financial dislocation brings forth small but committed populist radicals who try not to heal, but only to blame. Through that blame they seek to gather the power to impose their beliefs on all.
The second is the Boomer bulge. This is a group with great financial strength to support their positions, and the will to participate in the political culture to an extent that younger people do not. It should not be lost that the a great portion of the financial strength in Boomers, is currently being spent on populist radicals. Boomers both liberal and conservative are deeply interested in protecting what they have.
The real strength of our democracy lies in those young and in middle age. Those that still aspire for themselves and their children. The ones that want a future with promise and potential; ones with ides for change that will help them prosper.
The next election will be decided by the young and middle aged. The questions is whether they will participate or not.
Political power in a democracy is the product of the masses. The more the masses coalesce, the greater the pull.
The masses in this country are fractured for two important reasons. The first and foremost was the Great Recession, which broke apart the political planet into fragments that are only now starting to re-coalesce. In that trauma the result is the same as it has been time and time again since the founding of this country. Financial dislocation brings forth small but committed populist radicals who try not to heal, but only to blame. Through that blame they seek to gather the power to impose their beliefs on all.
The second is the Boomer bulge. This is a group with great financial strength to support their positions, and the will to participate in the political culture to an extent that younger people do not. It should not be lost that the a great portion of the financial strength in Boomers, is currently being spent on populist radicals. Boomers both liberal and conservative are deeply interested in protecting what they have.
The real strength of our democracy lies in those young and in middle age. Those that still aspire for themselves and their children. The ones that want a future with promise and potential; ones with ides for change that will help them prosper.
The next election will be decided by the young and middle aged. The questions is whether they will participate or not.
In 1980 Republicans elected a Hollywood actor to be president, it was the last year U.S.A. trade deficit with The Peoples Republic of China was $00.00. The "central political institutions" started radiating something in the 1980's, Mr. Brooks, but it was not "confidence."
1
"But the big loss of central confidence is in global governance. The United States is no longer willing to occupy the commanding heights and oversee global order."
If attempts to oversee global order, to the tune of the longest and costliest war in the history of this country, fail, one should retire that notion and concentrate on the domestic nation building. We certainly need and deserve better that what we have.
If attempts to oversee global order, to the tune of the longest and costliest war in the history of this country, fail, one should retire that notion and concentrate on the domestic nation building. We certainly need and deserve better that what we have.
Three things:
1) You write
"Republicans blame Obama for hesitant and halting policies, but it’s not clear the foreign policy and defense apparatus believes anymore in its own abilities to establish order, or that the American public has any confidence in U.S. effectiveness as a global actor."
That's because it failed miserably in its attempts to establish order, in Iraq and before that in Vietnam before that. It's a rational belief. Also what you refer to as 'establish order' was often supporting regimes as murderous as ISIS in Latin America. It's good for them we can no longer 'establish order'.
2) The great contradiction of your writing is that you really really want people to believe in something larger than themselves, but your affiliation with the republicans belies this possibility. Thatcher and Reagan believed there wasn't any such thing as 'society' , no larger thing than the self to identify with that had a claim on our private interests.
Republicans lament the kind of big government engineering like the 'great society' when all that was suggested is that people live above a certain level of material immiseration and that opportunities be equal for all. The right gets rabid at something as basic now, as universal health care.
3) You offer a false dichotomy between the mental/spiritual and the material as usual. Ask anyone whether or not their mental and spiritual health improved after finally getting a job and financial well-being after being poor. Bingo.
1) You write
"Republicans blame Obama for hesitant and halting policies, but it’s not clear the foreign policy and defense apparatus believes anymore in its own abilities to establish order, or that the American public has any confidence in U.S. effectiveness as a global actor."
That's because it failed miserably in its attempts to establish order, in Iraq and before that in Vietnam before that. It's a rational belief. Also what you refer to as 'establish order' was often supporting regimes as murderous as ISIS in Latin America. It's good for them we can no longer 'establish order'.
2) The great contradiction of your writing is that you really really want people to believe in something larger than themselves, but your affiliation with the republicans belies this possibility. Thatcher and Reagan believed there wasn't any such thing as 'society' , no larger thing than the self to identify with that had a claim on our private interests.
Republicans lament the kind of big government engineering like the 'great society' when all that was suggested is that people live above a certain level of material immiseration and that opportunities be equal for all. The right gets rabid at something as basic now, as universal health care.
3) You offer a false dichotomy between the mental/spiritual and the material as usual. Ask anyone whether or not their mental and spiritual health improved after finally getting a job and financial well-being after being poor. Bingo.
3
What does Brooks even mean by leaders must "offer a revised charismatic and persuasive sense of America's historic mission"? Seems like Brooks is part of the"hollowed out", egoistic deceiver class that has got us into this mess, and so thinks that all we need is leaders who are better liar-propagandists to fool us the ignorant mob majority. Here's a clue Mr. Brooks! For the US to lead the world, which most Americans don't give a damn about, so now this "goal" is treason against the majority, - we need a real democracy here to serve as a proper role model, and so our citizens be committed to national goals THEY HAVE CHOSEN. We need to end the "contempt for the common man" attitudes of both our parties' leaders who continually preach a treason of "the people are ignorant and always a racist mob" to each other and in the media, in order to justify defying the majority will/interest in an increasing number of policy areas.The majority want our immigration laws enforced, immigration totals reduced & our leaders say "NO! Shut up your racists! The majority want manufacturing jobs brought back to the USA & both parties say "NO! You're racists for not wanting to give up your jobs to brown people overseas!" The majority wants a living $15 wage & both parties say "NO!" And democrats stall, because they want to maintain the slave-wage illegal immigration jobs magnet&import more poor voters. Things will not improve unless our leaders end their defiance of the majority will and interest.
This is a "spiritual" problem? Nonsense. It's a policy problem. In America, our postwar national consensus about what government should do lasted while our economy functioned in a way that actually worked for most Americans. When the trickle-down economic policies of Brooks's party (policies adopted by centrist Democrats like Bill Clinton) caused the economy to stop working for most Americans, so that the rewards of economic growth went almost entirely to a few, that consensus broke down. Democrats and Republicans have moved away from the center, the place of consensus, because supporting it no longer produces results that are good for most people.
You have summarized the problem rather well, Mr. Brooks, but it seems to me that "Mass stupidity" can be blamed for much, if not all, of the problem. A complete loss of critical thinking ability is what allows rabble rousers such as Trump, Carson, and Cruz to dominate the discussion. More "spirituality" - belief in things lacking any supporting evidence whatsoever, is not the solution. Its opposite, rationality, is.
1
I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand, but YOU are the outsider David Brooks. You have no political party which represents your views, and your typical standby that soft skills and social connections are the keys to success is completely beside the point in today's era of extreme income inequality. What you call the "incompetence caucus" in the Republican Party is not the exception, it is the new normal.
5
Brooks is one of my favorites. With that said, more rationalizations. Two issues seem front and center. First, Empires don't last. Second, The Social Democratic Welfare State Model in western Democracies, is very very popular. I believe post WW 2 and with our current administration, Obama chose circumstance two, as his priority, He coined it," hope and change". Time will tell if the model is financially sustainable. Lastly Americans are war weary. Haven't won a conflict since WW2. Caskets coming home because of a Middle East war is a no no. Confronting Russia over her efforts in eastern Europe is not going to be our affair. Germany and Russia will have to decide how eastern and western Europe are managed. China will be busy for decades feeding their billions, war is doubtful.
1
Mr. Brooks asks "Where is this all heading?" Republicans, who are for all intense and purpose a minority party, have decided, by any means necessary, to force their ideology and will upon the American people. Republicans cannot win by force of argument so they are attempting, with some help from the Supreme Court, to use force of law to intimidate and limit Democratic leaning minority participation in elections. And of course there is the gerrymandering of safe Republican seats filled by the lunatic fringe. Where is all this heading? In this country, at least, we are inching towards a dictatorship of the majority by a minority. No compromise! is their motto, and no amount of disruptive and destructive politics is beyond the pale of human behavior for these people. The Republican's object is to rule, and to rule absolutely.
3
The outright dismissal of Bernie Sanders' vision for an America that functionally balances economic gains with benefits to workers, that champions across-the-board access to public education, that sees opportunity in a more equitable re-structuring of the country's approach to balancing the potential of capitalism with the health and well-being of its people, is patently at odds with your concept of "reasonableness." What aspects of what we should understand to be "socialist" institutions—police and emergency services, infrastructure spending, Social Security and Medicare, libraries, public utilities, etc. and etc.—are so reprehensible to us as citizens that we would ever dream of abolishing them? Sanders' message, after 35 years of delivering it, resonates so profoundly with many because it has proven to be very reasonable indeed.
1
C'mon, David, your Unified Theory of Everything is an error-ridden downer. Lighten up. The Mets are in the Series, they're gonna win, I drive a Prius and eat grass-fed beef. I expect to outlive my ancestors.
Things are not perfect, but the old joke about the glass and the engineer is worth repeating. The optimist says the glass is half full; the pessimist says the glass is half empty; the engineer says the glass was built to the wrong specs. Stop the moralizing and the hand-wringing, David, show us how to build a better glass. Lead the way.
Things are not perfect, but the old joke about the glass and the engineer is worth repeating. The optimist says the glass is half full; the pessimist says the glass is half empty; the engineer says the glass was built to the wrong specs. Stop the moralizing and the hand-wringing, David, show us how to build a better glass. Lead the way.
1
The engineer never stops trying to find something to tweak.
“If we tear the country in half, we can pick up the bigger half.” Pat Buchanan to Richard Nixon
Does anything more really need to be said? Of course there was Reagan crushing Jimmy Carter's sensible call to eat our metaphorical lean meat and vegetables as a nation, scaling back on Middle East oil, turning down the thermostats. Instead a population already addicted to consumerism and "ME!" was promised it could have all the ice cream and candy sprinkles it wanted while cutting taxes till government died. Voodoo Economics and the walking dead.
By the way David, the sun's gravity doesn't "help" hold the planets in their orbits, it's the only thing that does. The tribalism and fear that the ranting right of today are playing upon aren't fringe disorders of the human race, recently appeared, they are core to our natures and their results fill up countless mass graves from the World Wars of the last century to ones dating to the Stone Age.
"Getting along" with those "different" than ourselves was a force that only ever inhabited the outer rings of the solar cloud, and could only form into a recognizable gravitational force to gently challenge the sun if enough people denied the strong forces inside themselves that wanted to hate and kill and pushed together against the more basic repulsive force to form government of, by, and for the people.
It was easy for the neoCons to tear things apart in this country. Now we are reaping what they sowed, Americans United and all.
Does anything more really need to be said? Of course there was Reagan crushing Jimmy Carter's sensible call to eat our metaphorical lean meat and vegetables as a nation, scaling back on Middle East oil, turning down the thermostats. Instead a population already addicted to consumerism and "ME!" was promised it could have all the ice cream and candy sprinkles it wanted while cutting taxes till government died. Voodoo Economics and the walking dead.
By the way David, the sun's gravity doesn't "help" hold the planets in their orbits, it's the only thing that does. The tribalism and fear that the ranting right of today are playing upon aren't fringe disorders of the human race, recently appeared, they are core to our natures and their results fill up countless mass graves from the World Wars of the last century to ones dating to the Stone Age.
"Getting along" with those "different" than ourselves was a force that only ever inhabited the outer rings of the solar cloud, and could only form into a recognizable gravitational force to gently challenge the sun if enough people denied the strong forces inside themselves that wanted to hate and kill and pushed together against the more basic repulsive force to form government of, by, and for the people.
It was easy for the neoCons to tear things apart in this country. Now we are reaping what they sowed, Americans United and all.
1
David Brooks correctly identifies that something is amiss in modern society. The reason he assigns for the dysfunction – a lack of spirituality – is totally wrong. In fact, it is the polar opposite of what is wrong today.
The reason nothing seems to work right here or in Europe, the Far East or the Middle East is deception. Leaders claim beliefs which they are too smart to hold, and do so to exert power over those too ignorant or too desperate to realize they are being led falsely.
Few Republican politicians in America actually believe there is no man-made factor to climate change, that evolution and selection of species is false, that human life begins at the moment of conception, that cutting taxes on the rich benefits the poor and middle class, that austerity in a recession creates a healthy economy, that immigration reform harms Americans, that destroying labor unions is good for workers, that suppressing voting rights of blacks and Hispanics is needed because of wide-spread election fraud, that unbridled ownership of guns is required by the Constitution and beneficial to America, that gay people marrying are a danger to Christianity, that state regulation of business is wrong, but okay when a woman is in a doctor's office.
The same deception occurs in foreign policy where no thinking Republican leaders really believe that American armed force is preferable to diplomacy in partnership with our allies. Telling the truth, however, upsets the folks you wish to lead.
The reason nothing seems to work right here or in Europe, the Far East or the Middle East is deception. Leaders claim beliefs which they are too smart to hold, and do so to exert power over those too ignorant or too desperate to realize they are being led falsely.
Few Republican politicians in America actually believe there is no man-made factor to climate change, that evolution and selection of species is false, that human life begins at the moment of conception, that cutting taxes on the rich benefits the poor and middle class, that austerity in a recession creates a healthy economy, that immigration reform harms Americans, that destroying labor unions is good for workers, that suppressing voting rights of blacks and Hispanics is needed because of wide-spread election fraud, that unbridled ownership of guns is required by the Constitution and beneficial to America, that gay people marrying are a danger to Christianity, that state regulation of business is wrong, but okay when a woman is in a doctor's office.
The same deception occurs in foreign policy where no thinking Republican leaders really believe that American armed force is preferable to diplomacy in partnership with our allies. Telling the truth, however, upsets the folks you wish to lead.
3
The demonstration that one supposedly has to lie to govern extends across the whole economy now.
1
Because of space limitations, extensive shortening of this comment was necessary. Three words in the second line -- "a lack of" -- should have been deleted.
"The Democratic establishment no longer determines party positions; it is pulled along by formerly marginal players like Bernie Sanders."
I'm curious as to what exactly is marginal about Bernie Sanders, given that a clear majority of Americans support all of his major policy positions, including raising the minimum wage and eliminating college tuition at public universities.
I'm curious as to what exactly is marginal about Bernie Sanders, given that a clear majority of Americans support all of his major policy positions, including raising the minimum wage and eliminating college tuition at public universities.
3
Brooks describes Sanders as "formerly" marginal, so I don't know what your objection is to the description. Brooks is conceding that he is no longer marginal.
My issue, Jonathan, is that Brooks sees Sanders as representative of a "fanaticism" that he believes is hijacking the Democratic party. The fact is that Sanders' positions have always been mainstream; it's the "responsible people" running the party, who have long been beholden to Wall Street and big corporations, who really have the marginal beliefs, furthering the goals of a small corporate and financial elite against the will of the broader American public.
OK, I see your point but I think Brooks' point is, for better or worse, Sanders' views did not play a role in determining the establishment's agenda in the past, and now his views are playing a role. I didn't see where Brooks called him a fanatic, at least not in this article, but Brooks does clearly think Sanders views are out of the mainstream, and you may be right that he is mistaken in that respect. I think you could look at it another way, which is that Sanders has held the views he has held for 30 or 40 years, whereas the mainstream Democratic voter of 2016 has moved to be closer to Sanders' views than they were in say 1992 or 1996. So Brooks may be wrong that Sanders is changing the party; it's really the voters who have changed and they are now more algned with Sanders than they used to be.
"Gravity" is a bad metaphor for what you are trying to say; BOTH bodies "pull" on each other. But I get your meaning and agree.
The combination of Yeats with Newtonian celestial mechanics is really mixing metaphors. David Brooks appears to be having a sad because his clockwork universe is running down, and there seems to be no one to wind it up again.
The fault, Mr. Brooks, is not in the stars but in yourself. The dysfunction you perceive in politics is a consequence of, and a reaction to, the essential nature of the conservatism you have embraced. The center around which it orbits is selfishness, propelled by fear of loss of status and power. This is the morning after Reagan's morning in America, and the hangover from conservative excess weighs heavy on the land.
Decades of conservative policies have made the vast majority of us poorer; the politics of division have driven us apart; the war on government has exalted the privileged over the public; the dominance of money over democracy has made us less free.
The Republican response has been to double down, learning nothing and forgetting nothing. The Democratic response has been to shake off the heavy diet of conservative snake oil and emerge from eclipse.
The country is overdue for a course correction - and only one party is capable of pulling it off.
The fault, Mr. Brooks, is not in the stars but in yourself. The dysfunction you perceive in politics is a consequence of, and a reaction to, the essential nature of the conservatism you have embraced. The center around which it orbits is selfishness, propelled by fear of loss of status and power. This is the morning after Reagan's morning in America, and the hangover from conservative excess weighs heavy on the land.
Decades of conservative policies have made the vast majority of us poorer; the politics of division have driven us apart; the war on government has exalted the privileged over the public; the dominance of money over democracy has made us less free.
The Republican response has been to double down, learning nothing and forgetting nothing. The Democratic response has been to shake off the heavy diet of conservative snake oil and emerge from eclipse.
The country is overdue for a course correction - and only one party is capable of pulling it off.
4
The Republican Party as we once knew it, the party of economic conservatism is dead. In its place we have an unholy alliance, a nihilistic Tea Party fusion with Christian Evangelism that has adopted racial hate mongering and disrespect for a woman's rights to seek healthcare on her own terms. Massive amounts of money from the Kochs and others is used to push out any moderates who don’t toe the Tea Party line. Fear of retribution keeps any rational centrist silent and obedient. Moderate Republicans have either fled the rancorous chaos or been driven from the ranks. What is left is a pathetic group of presidential pretenders who appeal to the remaining extremists. It would be far better for this country if they had even one serious candidate who could carry the GOP banner but they do not. It serves no valid purpose to equate a Sanders on the left with the what can only be called madness on the right.
5
Without freedom from religion, freedom of religion is an oxymoron.
2
Our past leaders in government and industry that lived through the depression had moral fiber and had more compassion for the people of this country. As they passed, so did the moral fiber and the compassion.
2
I think Mr. Brooks will find one of the primary reasons for the disruption of the "gravitational pull" as he puts it, is the rise of a punditacracy that thrives on the unconventional and disrupting the established order and pushing it to the extreme. Combine that factor with the growth of social media and you will get the tearing apart of the social order and the growth of decentralization or political order.
I am not only referring to Republicans or Democrats but, as Mr. Brooks points out, this disruption seems in many respects to be a global phenomena.
The problem is that this phenomena, if history is a guide, to a strong man or false leader. For in the end, it is all about living in a changing world that many fear, and fear of the unknown can lead to some very undesirable consequences.
I am not only referring to Republicans or Democrats but, as Mr. Brooks points out, this disruption seems in many respects to be a global phenomena.
The problem is that this phenomena, if history is a guide, to a strong man or false leader. For in the end, it is all about living in a changing world that many fear, and fear of the unknown can lead to some very undesirable consequences.
That is exactly why Plato distrusted Democracy
It is why Socrates was an atheist.
2
The grass is greener on our side of the fence. Let us define “grass:” our grass. Let us define “green:” our green. Brooks unrolls his story in an “only in America” version. I cannot imagine a comparable editorial or opinion piece in western Europe, let alone in Nigeria or Syria or China or Japan. Let us all join hands and do it our way, the inside way.
I haven’t read something so Americo-centric in a long time … if “they” would only accept the right (my) way, “our” way, not the wrong (high) way.
I haven’t read something so Americo-centric in a long time … if “they” would only accept the right (my) way, “our” way, not the wrong (high) way.
4
How naive I was. Here I was thinking that this was a follow up to Brooks' previous article on irresponsible Republican's in the House and that he was not going to attack the right wing extremism and gun mania that abounds in this country. Sadly, it appears that the earlier article was a one off and Brooks is now returning to form
2
“Conservatives are not our enemies, they are our neighbours,” so says Justin Trudeau, new Liberal prime minister of Canada. I have read these same words before--from Union general Ulysses Grant after the Civil War. So much wisdom. Oh yes, Americans can learn much from our Canadian friends.
9
Canadians are much better than Americans at not shooting each other.
1
The center no longer holds because the Republican party's goal is to break government -- "drown it in a bathtub" is one of their catch phrases. But no one need look far to see exactly how the Republican self-fulfilling prophecy that "government is broken" operates. From another NY Times news item this very morning: "In recent months, several nonprofit insurance plans that were created to compete with for-profit insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act have run into financial difficulties. Republicans and other critics of health care reform are cynically pointing to their problems as evidence that the whole reform effort is a waste of money that ought to be repealed.
They neglect to mention that the nonprofit plans, known as health insurance cooperatives, were created as a weak, underfunded alternative to a much stronger option that the Republicans blocked from passage."
You need to be blind to not see the Republican subterfuge from within. It's horrific.
http://www.nytimes.com/.../a-new-attack-on-health-care...
They neglect to mention that the nonprofit plans, known as health insurance cooperatives, were created as a weak, underfunded alternative to a much stronger option that the Republicans blocked from passage."
You need to be blind to not see the Republican subterfuge from within. It's horrific.
http://www.nytimes.com/.../a-new-attack-on-health-care...
9
It would have been decent of him to credit Yeats' Second Coming for the theme informing his column.
6
Mr Brooks has a tough job these days. Somehow he must make us believe that there is a reasonable conservative who has been pushed aside by these new Republican radicals. His career has always been to conceal the radical agenda of American Conservatism behind a lot of nice platitudes and his very pleasant personality. With this new and noisy Tea Party it has become impossible to do, so he disowns them. Where is this heading? It's heading right where the GOP has always intended to go. Cut taxes for the wealthy, wage unending world war and pay for it by cutting the government programs that 99% of the people depend on.
11
If this is addressed to the Republican Party. It will fall on deaf ears. It begins with a science analogy.
4
Aside from lauding Mr. Brooks' column as an important, contemporary "state of the situation" commentary, two particular passages struck me.
"While those on the edge burn with conviction;" conviction of what? Outright nihilism? Mass homicide? Sickness? Entrenched poverty? Displacement of millions? Destruction of history? Nation-as-shooting-gallery? What vision do any of them represent beyond various ego-sustaining, self-aggrandizing scenarios of cynicism.
As for "Some leader has to be able to digest the lessons of the last 15 years and offer a revised charismatic and persuasive sense of America’s historic mission," we have that leader. His name is Barack Obama. We're too obtusely self-absorbed to listen.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
"While those on the edge burn with conviction;" conviction of what? Outright nihilism? Mass homicide? Sickness? Entrenched poverty? Displacement of millions? Destruction of history? Nation-as-shooting-gallery? What vision do any of them represent beyond various ego-sustaining, self-aggrandizing scenarios of cynicism.
As for "Some leader has to be able to digest the lessons of the last 15 years and offer a revised charismatic and persuasive sense of America’s historic mission," we have that leader. His name is Barack Obama. We're too obtusely self-absorbed to listen.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
11
"Gravity from the center lends coherence to the whole..." I am old enough to remember working in offices before personal computers were available. Information and knowledge were concentrated at the top and all else orbited around this "force". The "information revolution" changed this and now workers are learning to build "consensus" and form "teams" of talent. The internet and social media have disbursed the power of communication and shifted center of power from the center and business and governments will have to learn to operate more "democratically" and with more transparently. Yes, our old systems are "exhausted" and hopefully we will gravitate toward more inclusiveness rather than demagoguery. Yes, there is a "spiritual" aspect to this and it will be a collective motivation of human dignity rather than corporate greed and military might. Will the transition be ugly? My guess is it will.
2
I think Mr. Brooks is looking at one (WWII) or possibly two (WWI?) instances where the U.S. did well in terms of "global governance" and is then extrapolating it into something that doesn't exist. Since 1945 our work in this regard has been an abysmal failure. It would only be rational for the population to have grown weary of these expensive catastrophies.
There are two ways to respond, though, both of which I suspect trouble Mr. Brooks. One is to detach (who could blame us?) and the other is to glom on to someone that promises that they can, in fact, easily oversee the world from "commanding heights", even if reasonable people understand that it's not at all a simple task.
There are two ways to respond, though, both of which I suspect trouble Mr. Brooks. One is to detach (who could blame us?) and the other is to glom on to someone that promises that they can, in fact, easily oversee the world from "commanding heights", even if reasonable people understand that it's not at all a simple task.
5
In what history fantasy world does David Brooks live? "A group of well-educated men men blew up the World Trade Center." Mr. Brooks, groups of well-educated men, Americans all, enslaved and de-humanized a whole race of human beings while trumpeting their glorious visions of equality and democracy. Groups of well-educated men fought one another to allow a region to maintain that system, and later for 100 years implemented laws designed to further the dehumanization. Now in other forms, including mass incarceration and unequal implementation of justice, the minimization of those slaves' descendants continues. Brooks and his ilk deny the reality of the world's assessment of this fundamental American hypocrisy, and the effect of its continued insistence on humiliating our black President on the world stage. American wounds are self-inflicted by its blindness and its persistent hatreds -- fuel and tinder for the resentments and irrationalities of our current uncivil discourse. We lash out at others, but fail to see ourselves except through this facade of "we are always right and powerful." We have power, but rarely have we been right about who we really are. Trump, Carson, Cruz, Bush, Fiorina, and Rubio on the stump with their adoring crowds are giving us a full-length portrait.
12
Life is too short to spend time commenting on David Brooks. (My excuse, I have plenty time on my hands) The Times offers him as a way to get people to not think about real issues, much like the Republicans offer Donald Trump and Ben Carson. Hot air is what these times seem to be about. David Brook is the king of hot, airy thoughts. How much more interesting the paper would be if they offered an opinion page to John Gray or Bernie Sanders. Readers forced the Times to give up on Kristol, they can to the same for Brooks.
5
US customs and institutions were not handed down free from Heaven.
We had to work constantly to uphold customs and to strengthen institutions.
Our gifts from Heaven were abundant rainfall in the Northwest and eastern ends of today's US, good soil, flat land, temperate climate, two wide oceans to keep invaders out, and minerals not suspected until after permanent settlers had already put down roots.
Even with so much in our favor, our really key customs and human advancement were not free. To think we can bring all that to others with no idea what we are talking about is crazy. They cost us plenty. For us to provide what we have to other countries, with no clue what civil society and rule of law mean, would necessarily involve huge struggle. Do we have the resources to take care of ourselves plus other people who understand only the material life?
Switzerland and Holland have no great natural resources. Yet they have civil societies, peace, and order, because they provided their own.
Trying to talk with tribal, honor feuding, woman suppressing, caste societies about democracy is a waste of time. They will gladly engage in that conversation as long as we pay them to.
We had to work constantly to uphold customs and to strengthen institutions.
Our gifts from Heaven were abundant rainfall in the Northwest and eastern ends of today's US, good soil, flat land, temperate climate, two wide oceans to keep invaders out, and minerals not suspected until after permanent settlers had already put down roots.
Even with so much in our favor, our really key customs and human advancement were not free. To think we can bring all that to others with no idea what we are talking about is crazy. They cost us plenty. For us to provide what we have to other countries, with no clue what civil society and rule of law mean, would necessarily involve huge struggle. Do we have the resources to take care of ourselves plus other people who understand only the material life?
Switzerland and Holland have no great natural resources. Yet they have civil societies, peace, and order, because they provided their own.
Trying to talk with tribal, honor feuding, woman suppressing, caste societies about democracy is a waste of time. They will gladly engage in that conversation as long as we pay them to.
2
When I first started reading this article, I thought you were lamenting the fact that people who have never held public office, are now in the lead for the republican presidential nomination and the traditional republican leadership is among the also-rans. I was waiting for you to link the "Age of outsiders" with the present mood in the republican party. But it never came. Instead you seem to invent this world wide phenomenon and present it in a way that seems to say that republicans are ahead of the curve. Nice try.
2
"The United States is no longer willing to occupy the commanding heights and oversee global order." The pesky event Mr. Brooks fails to mention - the second Iraq war - might have something to do with that, as we not only squandered our moral authority and global good will, but treasury and the lives of our sons and daughters as well. Wars of adventurism tend to do that to great nations.
5
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
- John Adams
When you kill God everyone does what is right in his own eyes. Hardly a standard for morality for governance of said people. Hence the slouch toward Gomorrah and lack of global influence.
How is it that as America loses influence the world isn't getting better? I though America was the problem, these other nations and their superior forms of government and holier principles should be leading them to lands flowing with milk and honey. What gives??
- John Adams
When you kill God everyone does what is right in his own eyes. Hardly a standard for morality for governance of said people. Hence the slouch toward Gomorrah and lack of global influence.
How is it that as America loses influence the world isn't getting better? I though America was the problem, these other nations and their superior forms of government and holier principles should be leading them to lands flowing with milk and honey. What gives??
Once again David Brooks makes a generalization and tries to make everything in the world fit into it. He equates Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump as somewhat irrational,implying that the movement of Democrats to the left and the Republican movement to the right are equally irrational. That is totally unbelievable.
He neglects to take into account the fact that projection of American military power has demonstrablly made the sectarian and ethnic disorder in the Middle East worse not better.
He fails to take into account the fact that the 1% are sopping up all the additional wealth being produced in the American Capitalist system, and the youth are saddled with high unemployment and crushing student debt. It is the Republican party that is obstructing solutions to the US domestic problems, and many in Republican party want to return to the failed policies of Bush2, which spent Trillions on military action which made the humanitarian and stability problems in the Middle East worse.
As usual, Brooks tries to be a seer, but has blinders on.
He neglects to take into account the fact that projection of American military power has demonstrablly made the sectarian and ethnic disorder in the Middle East worse not better.
He fails to take into account the fact that the 1% are sopping up all the additional wealth being produced in the American Capitalist system, and the youth are saddled with high unemployment and crushing student debt. It is the Republican party that is obstructing solutions to the US domestic problems, and many in Republican party want to return to the failed policies of Bush2, which spent Trillions on military action which made the humanitarian and stability problems in the Middle East worse.
As usual, Brooks tries to be a seer, but has blinders on.
6
If our current capitalism with its total inequality should be the standard for the rest of the world, people in other countries have a right to worry.
We can pretend that our actions did not cause the turmoil in the Middle East but they did. We can pretend that we are not subsidizing corporations at the expense of the poor but we are. We can pretend the our military expenditures are not decimating our infrastrcture but they are.
We can continue to pretend while the country falls apart or we can demand better government. The candidates resonating on the Republican side are feeding on our anger and angst but offer no solutions. The candidates on the Democratic side are offering solutions but only Bernie Sanders is willing to tell the unvarnished truth and for that he is deemed unelectable by the intellectual elite that would rather continue to allow things to deteriorate.
We can pretend that our actions did not cause the turmoil in the Middle East but they did. We can pretend that we are not subsidizing corporations at the expense of the poor but we are. We can pretend the our military expenditures are not decimating our infrastrcture but they are.
We can continue to pretend while the country falls apart or we can demand better government. The candidates resonating on the Republican side are feeding on our anger and angst but offer no solutions. The candidates on the Democratic side are offering solutions but only Bernie Sanders is willing to tell the unvarnished truth and for that he is deemed unelectable by the intellectual elite that would rather continue to allow things to deteriorate.
1
Since Bill Clinton was in office, but particularly after Barack Obama's election, Republican's have been stoking the flames of divisiveness and hatred in this country in the pursuit of pure political power. They have been aided in this pursuit by their reactionary corporate supporters who seek to control the government for their interests only which don't happen to coincide with the best interests of a united country. The result is our current dysfunctional government. In the past, Mr. Brooks has justified their having done so in the pure pursuit of that power. The GOP now finds itself being devoured by the same forces it created to seize that power in the Congress. Mr. Brooks clearly hasn't learned the lessons of the costs of seeking power by any means. Perhaps he needs to do a bit more reading of history - a book on the French Revolution might be a good place to start.
6
This is a weird column, one that talks about a serious problem but omits any mention of what caused it. David, people have lost confidence in the establishment because it led the nation over a cliff, not once but several times. Did you miss that?
Establishment leaders have been discredited not by some odd cosmic event, but because their policies have failed. A GOP president started two bloody, costly wars in the Mideast that he was unable to win. Our current president maintains a token involvement in both conflicts because that's easier than admitting a truth the American people do not want to hear: we lost those wars.
The same GOP president put his faith in "free market" economic policies that allowed our financial industry to crash our economy, causing a terrible recession. Our current president vowed to correct the problems that led to this disaster, but his policies have been much too small, too timid to accomplish that. Meanwhile, the damage done to our economy has not been repaired from the point of view of most Americans.
Those are facts. How can anyone who knows those facts wonder that many voters are tuning out the voices of the establishment and looking for different solutions? Our traditional political choices have not produced the results people want. So of course they look elsewhere. What did you expect?
Establishment leaders have been discredited not by some odd cosmic event, but because their policies have failed. A GOP president started two bloody, costly wars in the Mideast that he was unable to win. Our current president maintains a token involvement in both conflicts because that's easier than admitting a truth the American people do not want to hear: we lost those wars.
The same GOP president put his faith in "free market" economic policies that allowed our financial industry to crash our economy, causing a terrible recession. Our current president vowed to correct the problems that led to this disaster, but his policies have been much too small, too timid to accomplish that. Meanwhile, the damage done to our economy has not been repaired from the point of view of most Americans.
Those are facts. How can anyone who knows those facts wonder that many voters are tuning out the voices of the establishment and looking for different solutions? Our traditional political choices have not produced the results people want. So of course they look elsewhere. What did you expect?
2
"America's historic mission"? Oh, please! Mr. Brooks has mistaken the rhetoric for the reality. Our "mission" has always been to pursue our national interests, which in the Middle East was oil--now that we are not in such dire need of ME Oil, we have less at stake there. And without a dog in that fight, the rhetoric of "mission" is insufficient to motivate an expensive intervention. Follow the money, not the mission statement.
2
I recall being moved by Mr. Obama's inauguration speech precisely because of its "charismatic and persuasive sense" of the mission of America - to be more "nationalistic and universal, and less individualistic." What happened? My view is that he was buried by the consequences of his predecessor's economic failures and the disasters caused by our interventions in the Middle East, and finally, if not primarily, by Congress. I will never forget Mitch McConnell's cameo in which he stated that the primary goal of his side of the senate would be to make Mr. Obama a one-term president. Mr. Obama had not even entered office when that statement was made - and he will leave his second term with that same congressional priority, having been thwarted in his many efforts to make America a more "nationalistic and universal...and less individualistic" world leader.
1
Excellent article for the most part. I prefer reasoned secular humanism to sky faerie superstition, yet what Brooks ruminates upon woul be equally true. Human ideas about truth/falsehood, right/wrong, virtuousness/lack thereof, etc. change constantly. They initially change at the margins because there are vested interests in the center. The main point is that ideas matter and character matters a great deal to how we conduct ourselves with each other.
1
What in the world is he saying? Vegetable salad. Where are the facts to back up the assertions? The facts he has in mind my help clarify for the reader, his ideas and thoughts.
I, for one, am left confused and perplexed.
I, for one, am left confused and perplexed.
2
Typical Brooks hyperbole! Nativism and fundamentalism are nothing new. We saw them in the 1930s, and we're seeing them again today.
Such movements arise as a reaction to changing cultural norms and power relationships. They occur regularly throughout human history, whenever a power vacuum opens up, allowing simmering resentments to surface.
The Tea Party, of course, is such a protest. Among a wide swathe of middle-class whites – especially the men – there has been a loss of economic security and the pride that goes with it. These white males feel the ground shaking under them. Their values, livelihoods and once-dominant position in family, community and government have eroded – and are under further threat from women, people of color and immigrants. The government has aided and abetted the challengers, as they see it, while forsaking them.
The same words could be used to describe nativist movements in Europe, or the radical Islamic movements in the Middle East.
These movements threaten the established order, but they are not existential threats unless we make them so. The holy war fervor that Brooks invokes is just the kind of trap we must not fall into.
Such movements arise as a reaction to changing cultural norms and power relationships. They occur regularly throughout human history, whenever a power vacuum opens up, allowing simmering resentments to surface.
The Tea Party, of course, is such a protest. Among a wide swathe of middle-class whites – especially the men – there has been a loss of economic security and the pride that goes with it. These white males feel the ground shaking under them. Their values, livelihoods and once-dominant position in family, community and government have eroded – and are under further threat from women, people of color and immigrants. The government has aided and abetted the challengers, as they see it, while forsaking them.
The same words could be used to describe nativist movements in Europe, or the radical Islamic movements in the Middle East.
These movements threaten the established order, but they are not existential threats unless we make them so. The holy war fervor that Brooks invokes is just the kind of trap we must not fall into.
3
What's exhausting is the end-of-the-world rhetoric coming from a desperate and aimless Republican party. They have ceased to be a party with workable solutions. Now all they have is chicken little scare tactics. Granted, the geo-political landscape has become complicated and we're still not out of the woods created by the economic collapse, but our economy is growing better than most. We need leaders with creative solutions that can help extricate us from our military entanglements rather than another manifest destiny Republican willing to spend all our children's money on guns and bombs.
1
Yeats said it first, and better. When things fall apart and the center doesn't hold, when "the best lack all conviction" and "the worst are full of passionate intensity," then "anarchy is loosed upon the world."
President Cruz? I shudder. Moving to Canada if that happens.
1
I wish I had confidence in resurgence of morality, but this is not new. To quote W.B Yeats. "The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity." This was written in 1920.
I am tired of the US media and pop culture trying to make me feel bad about being a straight caucasian male with moderate beliefs. We are the victims of an entitled society of our own making that feeds off extremism. Reality TV as an example, does not get high ratings for having average people participate. These programs cast agitators and provocateurs to boost ratings and we have shifted culturally as a result.
This is a good time to talk about how fringe and radical elements are dictating the agenda of contemporary America and the world.
This is a good time to talk about how fringe and radical elements are dictating the agenda of contemporary America and the world.
The Center couldn't hold. Too many were left out of the sun's glow. Sanders at least offers a unifying vision, a new center, one where we all work together to make the nation great, too see the sun reaches as many as possible.
2
I'd add that many competing ideologies around the world enable people to believe what they will, prefer, avoiding facts, avoiding science.
1
"Many people around the world rejected democratic capitalism’s vision of a secular life built around materialism and individual happiness. They sought more intense forms of meaning. Some of them sought meaning in the fanaticisms of sect, tribe, nation, or some stronger and more brutal ideology. In case after case, “reasonableness” has been trampled by behavior and creed that is stronger, darker and less temperate." Great description of the current Republican party.
1
How is it that Brooks and Douthat are always a year behind the rest of the political world—is it because they keep waiting to be right but then have to haul butt back toward the front of the conversation so they can pretend to be cutting edge. I mean, it really gets old, doesn't it? You'd think these two guys would get tired of being wrong all the time. I know that I'm tired of it.
3
Sorry David. You have a hard road ahead to earn the respect of those who've been yelling at you for years. Your silence on the obvious excesses of the GOP fringes helped this plague to grow. You and your ilk, pseudo-intellectual right-wing writers, bear a heavy burden of guilt. Treason of the Intellectuals, indeed.
2
"This vision was materialistic and individualistic."
No, it wasn't. The vision was shared, of a social compact that would involve, invest in, and advance all participants, all citizens. See Mr Krugman's comments yesterday re conditions in Denmark, or any broader survey of social democracies' metrics which indicate the US is bumping along the bottom of what societies can accomplish for their populations.
It took the rise of the divisive intent patterned in the 1972 Powell Memorandum for the US to begin tearing itself apart into U$$$$ vs them, kind of a dark star of at first hidden gravitational sway, but today fully revealed as a force willing and increasingly able to destroy the social fabric for a penny or two of clear profit.
As a consequence, these "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world."
No, it wasn't. The vision was shared, of a social compact that would involve, invest in, and advance all participants, all citizens. See Mr Krugman's comments yesterday re conditions in Denmark, or any broader survey of social democracies' metrics which indicate the US is bumping along the bottom of what societies can accomplish for their populations.
It took the rise of the divisive intent patterned in the 1972 Powell Memorandum for the US to begin tearing itself apart into U$$$$ vs them, kind of a dark star of at first hidden gravitational sway, but today fully revealed as a force willing and increasingly able to destroy the social fabric for a penny or two of clear profit.
As a consequence, these "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world."
2
Don't worry too much about it, David. Those millennials with their gadgets want to be part of something big -- they just don't know how or what yet. The Boomers have always been focused on tearing down the bad and never really been a generation of builders. Millennials want to build something just for the sake of building something -- maybe they could use a little direction, but they aspire to something greater than the materialism of gen X. I was recently witness to a topless protesting advocating for... toplessness?? -- but we digress.
In 10 years, the gen X-Boomer coalition currently running politics, whose central ethos would appear to be self-centered radical materialism, will give way to a new gen X-millennial coalition focused more on moderation, acceptance, and building institutions worth being proud of. If millennials can just find conviction and stop being ironic, they will lead us towards the kind of humble power that you advocate for. You can see hints of it in the gay rights movement. That's the outward manifestation of their ethos -- everybody should have a right to be happy AND we should use rules and laws to keep people from breaking with the collective wisdom.
In 10 years, the gen X-Boomer coalition currently running politics, whose central ethos would appear to be self-centered radical materialism, will give way to a new gen X-millennial coalition focused more on moderation, acceptance, and building institutions worth being proud of. If millennials can just find conviction and stop being ironic, they will lead us towards the kind of humble power that you advocate for. You can see hints of it in the gay rights movement. That's the outward manifestation of their ethos -- everybody should have a right to be happy AND we should use rules and laws to keep people from breaking with the collective wisdom.
It is very difficult today to get a lot of people in the U.S. to rally around a cause, but Mr. Brooks, your point is well taken. When the chance came for Germany to re-unite, my friends there said "we needed something like this to re-focus and re-purpose ourselves." They are doing the same now with the Syrian refugees. Not everyone is behind it, but the shrinking pool of labor due to the low birth rate makes it a wise choice by Mrs. Merkel for the longer run. Here on this side of the pond, we are more into our bread and circuses and this needs to change.
12
Would that the problem was simply a matter of attitude. No empire is sustainable.
1
David is quite correct when he writes "Each central establishment, weakened by its own hollowness of meaning, is being ripped apart by the gravitational pull from the fringes."
And St. Augustine explained this pervasive "hollowness of meaning" When he wrote "You are great, O Lord, and greatly to be praised... you have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you." More recently Archbishop Desmond Tutu wrote: "We were made by God to be like God and we were made for God."
In our self-centered materialistic culture we have tried to replace the solid center of our heart and soul with the poor substitutes of wealth, power, pleasure, and celebrity. As Meister Eckhart wrote: God is at home. It's we who have gone out for a walk." Dorothy was right--"There's no place like home."
Twitter: @RayGlennon
And St. Augustine explained this pervasive "hollowness of meaning" When he wrote "You are great, O Lord, and greatly to be praised... you have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you." More recently Archbishop Desmond Tutu wrote: "We were made by God to be like God and we were made for God."
In our self-centered materialistic culture we have tried to replace the solid center of our heart and soul with the poor substitutes of wealth, power, pleasure, and celebrity. As Meister Eckhart wrote: God is at home. It's we who have gone out for a walk." Dorothy was right--"There's no place like home."
Twitter: @RayGlennon
"The Democratic establishment no longer determines party positions; it is pulled along by formerly marginal players like Bernie Sanders."
The party positions should be determined by the party members, not by the party establishment. It is the voters who determine the party's agenda. And so, if Bernie Sanders' program appeals, as it does, to many Democrats, but does not appeal to the party establishment, that means that the party establishment needs to change. After all, they are elected by us and they work for us, not the other way around.
"Congress does not regulate Wall Street, Wall Street regulates Congress"
The party positions should be determined by the party members, not by the party establishment. It is the voters who determine the party's agenda. And so, if Bernie Sanders' program appeals, as it does, to many Democrats, but does not appeal to the party establishment, that means that the party establishment needs to change. After all, they are elected by us and they work for us, not the other way around.
"Congress does not regulate Wall Street, Wall Street regulates Congress"
2
The most troublesome group of outsiders currently is a group of about 42 members of Congress, a small minority (20%) even in their own Republican Party, that wants to set the agenda for the entire nation. Minority rule is very dangerous and can lead to more authoritarianism than anyone would tolerate.
Look around the world a see what a vocal, right wing conservative group can do to a country and its people. In some places, it stokes revolution as a reaction.
Look around the world a see what a vocal, right wing conservative group can do to a country and its people. In some places, it stokes revolution as a reaction.
1
And Obama said "we're going to fundamentally change America." Well, he's done it. How's that "fundamental change" working out for you? The Democrat fringe has led us into the current distasteful state of affairs.
1
You have a seriously short memory.
2
The "fringe" on the left desires only to return tax rates to those accepted without much comment in the 1960's and avoid foreign entanglements (which places them in the good company of George Washington). The "fringe" right has the idea that having enacted laws establishing a process to enter this country to work or immigrate that the government enforce those laws. With such bland objectives why do the 25% or so of the public who hold these views provoke such strong reactions?
1
LOL! Now we're blaming Obama for the implosion of the Republican Party? Hilariously crafted argument that is more "try-hard" than the Kardashians at Paris Fashion Week.
4
“Mass stupidity and greed led to a financial collapse and deprived capitalism of its moral swagger.”
Mass stupidity does not exist. The financial “collapse” of 2008 was caused by insufficient governmental regulation made possible by the failure of the media to keep the electorate informed.
“The Democratic establishment no longer determines party positions; it is pulled along by formerly marginal players like Bernie Sanders.”
The Democratic Party – obviously – determines its positions, and a United States Senator from Vermont is not a marginal player. Since none of the three currently leading contenders for Republican presidential candidate – Trump, Carson, and Fiorina – have had any political experience whatever, they could reasonably be regarded as marginal players.
Brooks starts by announcing that our political and social systems no longer work and concludes that “I only have space to add here that the primary problem is mental and spiritual. “ The primary problem is the Republican Party, which Brooks has been supporting for years without informing the electorate of its specific shortcomings.
Mass stupidity does not exist. The financial “collapse” of 2008 was caused by insufficient governmental regulation made possible by the failure of the media to keep the electorate informed.
“The Democratic establishment no longer determines party positions; it is pulled along by formerly marginal players like Bernie Sanders.”
The Democratic Party – obviously – determines its positions, and a United States Senator from Vermont is not a marginal player. Since none of the three currently leading contenders for Republican presidential candidate – Trump, Carson, and Fiorina – have had any political experience whatever, they could reasonably be regarded as marginal players.
Brooks starts by announcing that our political and social systems no longer work and concludes that “I only have space to add here that the primary problem is mental and spiritual. “ The primary problem is the Republican Party, which Brooks has been supporting for years without informing the electorate of its specific shortcomings.
6
"Some leader has to be able to digest the lessons of the last 15 years and offer a revised charismatic and persuasive sense of America’s historic mission."
So we should await a great charismatic and persuasive leader! Who have these been in the past? They include Napoleon, Hitler, Mao, Stalin and several false messiahs. Just about every monstrously destructive tyrant was a charismatic and persuasive leader. How about Ross Limbaugh? Or Donald Trump?
So we should await a great charismatic and persuasive leader! Who have these been in the past? They include Napoleon, Hitler, Mao, Stalin and several false messiahs. Just about every monstrously destructive tyrant was a charismatic and persuasive leader. How about Ross Limbaugh? Or Donald Trump?
1
As to David's last paragraph, FDR did not synthesize the 1920s early 1930s. He tried different methods to put people to work & fight the Depression. Some worked well, some did not like 1937 reduction in 'stimulus', even with unemployment over 10%, he was reelected. Then he became a war leader again with mixed results & good luck when the 'outsiders' overreached.
One of the consistent NeoCon cheerleaders for the party of "no" is mourning the loss of "mental and spiritual" values in his party. Supremely ironic....
1
Thomas Jefferson believed in a educated citizen. We have
devolved to a uneducated citizenry without purpose beyond
the material. Start with the classroom to reestablish the thread.
devolved to a uneducated citizenry without purpose beyond
the material. Start with the classroom to reestablish the thread.
1
The problem is mental and spiritual? Ha. After decades of being subjected to conservative prattle about how we can't afford to give a decent education or retirement security or health care to millions of poor Americans, especially shall we say the brown ones, it never ceases to amaze how neocon orthodoxy can find no limit to the amount of resources we should poor into international misadventures. If we can't afford to take care of ourselves at home then we ought not to wasting trillions trying to tell others how to live abroad.
2
A reasonable assessment of a bad situation Brooks helped to foment. We all make mistakes, I guess. No self aware adult gets old without acquiring a few regrets along the way.
"Mainstream Conservatives" (Brooks among them, imo) thought they could safely harness the enthusiasm of fringe Tea Partiers for their own advantage, but the fire they set is now out of control. As a wise man once said, "Knowledge is knowing Frankenstein is the Doctor, Wisdom is knowing Frankenstein is the Monster". Happy Halloween.
"Mainstream Conservatives" (Brooks among them, imo) thought they could safely harness the enthusiasm of fringe Tea Partiers for their own advantage, but the fire they set is now out of control. As a wise man once said, "Knowledge is knowing Frankenstein is the Doctor, Wisdom is knowing Frankenstein is the Monster". Happy Halloween.
Some say that our systems of self government in recent decades have been gradually unraveled by the market system.
They say that the maldistribution of power in American politics – as now embedded in the governing processes, reinforced by the inequalities of private wealth, protected by the existing relationships and tacit understandings that determine who has political power and who doesn’t – is at the root of the profound and corrosive mutation in our national governance.
What they say has emerged instead is a power system that more nearly resembles a global feudalism – a system in which the private economic enterprises function like rival dukes and barons, warring for territories across the world, oblivious to all unaligned local interests while vast thongs of citizens are reduced to a political position resembling that of serfs.
If so, Maybe presidential candidate and professor Larry Lessig is right…. Maybe we need to “Fix Our Broken Democracy – First.”
They say that the maldistribution of power in American politics – as now embedded in the governing processes, reinforced by the inequalities of private wealth, protected by the existing relationships and tacit understandings that determine who has political power and who doesn’t – is at the root of the profound and corrosive mutation in our national governance.
What they say has emerged instead is a power system that more nearly resembles a global feudalism – a system in which the private economic enterprises function like rival dukes and barons, warring for territories across the world, oblivious to all unaligned local interests while vast thongs of citizens are reduced to a political position resembling that of serfs.
If so, Maybe presidential candidate and professor Larry Lessig is right…. Maybe we need to “Fix Our Broken Democracy – First.”
To call what the republicans are doing stretches the definition of governing. However, the definition of sabotage fits very well. Their behavior toward our President is absolutely disgraceful and hateful which speaks volumes about those who are currently supporting the party.
I know Bernie does not have a chance simply because of the word socialism. It amazes me that Americans who drink water, use public roads, hunt on public lands, fill their car with fuel, drink or produce milk, eat or produce corn, own a crp field, or use electricity, fear socialism as each one is rooted in socialism. The countries registering highest on the happiness scale have democratic socialism as a form of government. Any intelligent politician should at least be studying these countries to bring elements of them to America.
I know Bernie does not have a chance simply because of the word socialism. It amazes me that Americans who drink water, use public roads, hunt on public lands, fill their car with fuel, drink or produce milk, eat or produce corn, own a crp field, or use electricity, fear socialism as each one is rooted in socialism. The countries registering highest on the happiness scale have democratic socialism as a form of government. Any intelligent politician should at least be studying these countries to bring elements of them to America.
1
What we have now is the post WW II population explosion colliding with failure to meet expectations of energy too cheap to meter to support it.
What a remarkably US-centric attitude. The problem is not spiritual it is rather that we have moved away from a world dominated by one or two "super powers". What we are witnessing are regions and countries where historic tensions and differences are no longer being held in check by local dictators and distant super powers. Look at what happened in the Balkans after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is heartbreaking to watch the death and destruction that is occurring. However to think that the US can come in from its "commanding heights" is naive at best. Didn't you learn anything form Iraq?
1
On the domestic front a lot of this is the Republican Party's own fault. Whenever a Democrat was in the White House (Bill Clinton, Obama) the Party would unleash the "crazies" to harass and lead the opposition. The problem is now the "crazies" have taken over the Party.
2
Oh dear, things fall apart for Mr. Brooks, lose their logic. A crisis of fate at least shows that it was genuine, which is more than I expected. His upbringing during the cold war made him think that capitalism had "moral swagger" because it was the opposite of communism, which obviously was a most godless affair. This illustrates the intellectual grounding when growing up during the 50ies and 60ies in America, the ever repeated viewpoint that it's the ideology that shapes everything. That is, I'm afraid, wrong and many a neocon delusion can be traced to this fallacy. If you watch the news openmindedly or as an unshakeable intellectual have read "Das Kapital" critically you will come out knowing that the state of the economy (and the predictions folks make on its development) shapes ideology. Do you seriously believe that the critical mass of people in the ME would be running around murdering others if they had something to lose? To extend Mr. Brooks' metaphor, the planets won't turn around the sun the same when the whole system gets close to a black hole.
1
Great to see that David has his mojo back. The past month, in my opinion, has been his best writing in years. Creative, insightful and independent thing. Keep it up!
Maybe the notion of a national mission however charismatic, persuasive and universal is a problem. Perhaps just being an example of simple respect for each other and the earth is enough.
1
"Some leader needs to step up." I believe this is code for "where is the Republican party that I placed my bets on." Unfortunately, it's just about gone. But, fortunately, there is another party that is still here, sane, basically centrist but ready to be a lot more "progressive," and figuring out how to help lead the world toward a stable and more equitable future. That is the Democratic Party. David, please just abandon the idea that the Republicans can find their way again (at least in this election cycle), and don't dismiss the idea that the Democrats may actually be party to lead the country forward.
As much as I admire David Brooks' often incisive thinking and suasive writing, I don't agree with this analysis that sees a spiritual crisis. The global crisis, and America's domestic crisis, is about distribution of wealth and resources. If you are unwilling to put economic analysis first, then you are unable to see that the spiritual is, in Marx's terms, derivative from economic position and, often, desperation. Both in this bizarre but most interesting political year in the U. S., and in the tragic events unfolding in the Middle East, we see so clearly that severe inequality and maldistribution of income and wealth lead to hopelessness and anger -- and why not? The concentration of wealth in the United States, and in London, Paris, and Saudi Arabia (to name a few) is a modern global obscenity -- a world of private jets, investments and privilege that would make Saul or Cleopatra, or even Andrew Carnegie, blush with shame. This is not a spiritual issue -- it's about money and survival, Mr. Brooks.
Mr.Brooks, I want to remind you that Bernie Sanders has been in congress for decades Democratic party presidential candidates are adult and have qualifications to be president.Unfortunately, the GOP presidential candidates are silly children (except Jeb Bush). Donald Trump is behaving like a clown and he is on the top. It looks the majority of GOP supporters are dumb. They listen too much to Rush Limbaugh and Hannity. These guys are totally naive and ignorant (politically). Global leadership of USA is at stake.
1
Shades of Jimmy Carter's malaise!
Mr. Brooks’s column is clearly a riff on Yeats's famous poem "The Second Coming,” and especially Yeats’s famous phrase, “the center cannot hold.” It’s a very old story: Political and intellectual elites (of which Mr. Brooks is one), resentful at the failings of democracy, subverting and undermining it at every turn, and then, once they’ve succeeded at this, crying for “a strong leader to fix this mess."
Pace Mr. Brooks, for democracy to survive requires not so much a strong leader as a strong citizenry committed to democratic values—shared governance, civil discourse, public education, a separation of church and state, a vigorous national defense, and a shared sense of what constitutes justice. When these things are fractured, democracy is threatened, and from there its easily destroyed.
For Mr. Brooks to want to prop up our weakened American democracy (caused, in no small part, by the overt subversiveness of so many Republicans in Congress) with "some leader" who offers “a revised charismatic and persuasive sense of America’s historic mission" is shockingly irresponsible, and even dangerous. Any fool can see that it can easily be answered by a demagogue.
When I look at the Republican presidential field, I see candidates who have already answered Mr. Brooks’s call. Several of them sound like tyrants in the making.
Pace Mr. Brooks, for democracy to survive requires not so much a strong leader as a strong citizenry committed to democratic values—shared governance, civil discourse, public education, a separation of church and state, a vigorous national defense, and a shared sense of what constitutes justice. When these things are fractured, democracy is threatened, and from there its easily destroyed.
For Mr. Brooks to want to prop up our weakened American democracy (caused, in no small part, by the overt subversiveness of so many Republicans in Congress) with "some leader" who offers “a revised charismatic and persuasive sense of America’s historic mission" is shockingly irresponsible, and even dangerous. Any fool can see that it can easily be answered by a demagogue.
When I look at the Republican presidential field, I see candidates who have already answered Mr. Brooks’s call. Several of them sound like tyrants in the making.
3
"Many people around the world rejected democratic capitalism’s vision of a secular life built around materialism and individual happiness." Perhaps because consumer capitalism - the social form of the supposed reconciliation of democracy and capitalism, for otherwise the latter is a pure economic despotism - has turned out to produce epidemics of Type II diabetes and other nefarious effects of consumerist "life style" addictions, a result rather different than "happiness".
Not even to mention the ecological catastrophe being promoted by "consumer choice" as the rationalization of democracy with capitalism. The ultimate "life-style disease".
Not even to mention the ecological catastrophe being promoted by "consumer choice" as the rationalization of democracy with capitalism. The ultimate "life-style disease".
Although there is no equivalency between a serious leader like Bernie Sanders and demagogues like Trump and Carson, the broader point that conviction has weakened at the center is valid. There's an old saying: to have authority, one must be under authority. America's authority was once its high-minded vision of self-governance and the Rights of Man. To lose faith in a national purpose that transcends mere selfishness and domination of others is to lose the source of our strength.
1
Senator Sanders has been elected and re-elected to higher and higher offices by large majorities over a 30 year period. His policies and proposals are rational and have worked well elsewhere whether Mr. Brooks likes those proposals and policies or not. Comparing Senator Sanders to the kind of extremists this column is purportedly about is repugnant. Likening the enthusiasm for Senator Sanders to some kind of spiritual depravity has me wondering, isn't Mr. Brooks practicing the exact form of extremism he purports to decry with his rhetoric and false equivalences?
1
David it would appear that you have found religion and if I were a betting man, I'd bet that it isn't the religion of your birth. No matter, it is clear that in your world it would be order for order's sake and that your "utopian" society would brook no dissent. What do we call that?
Oh, and speaking of Bernie Sanders how about putting him in the proper context within your world. Mr. Sanders advocates taking care of those who have less, providing an atmosphere in which children can have happy ,productive lives, ensuring that adults are not overcome by the predators among us, and guaranteeing a dignified old age. Now , within your quasi- religious world vision who does that sound like?
Oh, and speaking of Bernie Sanders how about putting him in the proper context within your world. Mr. Sanders advocates taking care of those who have less, providing an atmosphere in which children can have happy ,productive lives, ensuring that adults are not overcome by the predators among us, and guaranteeing a dignified old age. Now , within your quasi- religious world vision who does that sound like?
2
Mr. Brooks thinks we, "should be countering fanaticism with gusto." Sounds like a euphemism for that '80s expression, "Kill them all, let God sort 'em out." I can already hear President Cruz' clarion call.
1
David Brook’s is right: the problem is mental and spiritual. Mentally it is the collapse of the technical, material vision of progress that, in the aftermath of World War II, assumed that scientific knowledge was the only valid form of knowledge. Spiritually it is the failure to recognize that explanations are not enough: humans are concerned with meaning. Their concern is with the existential questions: Who are we? Why do we matter? What’s our mission? The answer can’t be “More!”
What is needed is a secular version of a spiritual revival; a wise revolution. It would require an ecological, systems worldview that showed humans as immersed in Nature, not separated from it. It would show how institutions are conceived in passion, born in communities of trust, advance through the application of reason and mature in power. Here they tend to get stuck (our current condition), which sets them up for crisis and destruction, but with the possibility of renewal.
In ecosystems change always comes from the edges and open patches, for the core is choked with hierarchy and special interests that have a large stake in the status quo. What is needed is a new narrative that shows why our current worldview has become empty and what is needed to restore meaning and purpose to our lives. Without that new narrative, as Brooks’ allusion to Yeats’ poem suggests, there will be too many rough beasts slouching toward Bethlehem.
What is needed is a secular version of a spiritual revival; a wise revolution. It would require an ecological, systems worldview that showed humans as immersed in Nature, not separated from it. It would show how institutions are conceived in passion, born in communities of trust, advance through the application of reason and mature in power. Here they tend to get stuck (our current condition), which sets them up for crisis and destruction, but with the possibility of renewal.
In ecosystems change always comes from the edges and open patches, for the core is choked with hierarchy and special interests that have a large stake in the status quo. What is needed is a new narrative that shows why our current worldview has become empty and what is needed to restore meaning and purpose to our lives. Without that new narrative, as Brooks’ allusion to Yeats’ poem suggests, there will be too many rough beasts slouching toward Bethlehem.
1
I agree that the "deeper problem was spiritual." as Mr. Brooks seems to put the cause of these political dysfunctions as spiritual. Too much "spiritual" and less reason, I would say. On the Republican side, being "spiritual" in a sense of deep religious conviction in the form of evangelical Christianity is a must confession in public, even for Mr. Trump, before anything else. However, as we know, deep conviction in any religion leads to absolutism and, by definition, can not see others' view points and therefore, no compromise. If you look around, the states that are controlled by a Republican majority, the legislations have been mostly related to religiously based social issues, like anti-abortion, anti-homesexual, etc., instead of relating to secular governance issues. And, this same absolutist's spiritual conviction also applied to deeply held right wing ideologue, disregarding scientific reasonings. Our Founding Fathers' idea of separation of religion and state has been persistently eroded, with the help of the conservative Supreme Court, by this more and more radical spiritualism instead of reasoning.
A society based on driving a car, scrolling devices, and blindly adhearing to political or religious dogma or fanaticism, is not going to evolve in a way that is mentally or physically healthy to its inhabitants. Besides, an overpopulated earth will bring little peace to its masses who all feel entitled to while away their days railing at the powers that be who they believe owe them happiness, something that is going to be in shorter and shorter supply in this driven society!
1
Since you're not old enough, apparently, to have met, listened to & been schooled by the men & women of the working class, who gave the incentive to the principled leaders of our domestic past to provide for the safeguards & recompense remaining for those who work with their hands & brains for their families & thus, the nation, I will advise an informative pair of books for you to read, Mr. Brooks.
Read The Workers, An Experiment in Reality, East & West by Walter A. Wyckoff, an assistant professor of political economy at Princeton University, who walked, worked & lived with "the outliers" from one end of the country to the other in the early 1890s.
You have no idea how the tough minded survivors of the depression, who are mostly gone now, would scathingly take you to task for the fear mongering & defense of plutocratic dominance you continually display. Even a typical discussion with a Yuppie of the early 1980s would have alerted you to the disdain these people had for those not residing in the greed camp. Your worry & alarm is severely misplaced. Maybe your advise should be for members of the plutocratic class to wear those jeans with the strategically placed holes that were popular a few years back & selling for about a hundred bucks a pair. And yes those old timers would have supported Bernie Sanders wholeheartedly.
Read The Workers, An Experiment in Reality, East & West by Walter A. Wyckoff, an assistant professor of political economy at Princeton University, who walked, worked & lived with "the outliers" from one end of the country to the other in the early 1890s.
You have no idea how the tough minded survivors of the depression, who are mostly gone now, would scathingly take you to task for the fear mongering & defense of plutocratic dominance you continually display. Even a typical discussion with a Yuppie of the early 1980s would have alerted you to the disdain these people had for those not residing in the greed camp. Your worry & alarm is severely misplaced. Maybe your advise should be for members of the plutocratic class to wear those jeans with the strategically placed holes that were popular a few years back & selling for about a hundred bucks a pair. And yes those old timers would have supported Bernie Sanders wholeheartedly.
1
David Brooks....the past is not prologue; and brightest most well educated
are not the best....there has been a change and the great cultures that
heretofore had remained parted by oceans are capsulated by instantaneous
communications....and this has created ..unprecedented
leap...leaps...to judgments and critique ...such as yours today...Leaps that
are simply frenetic skewed opinions..
The ethical conclusions by the brightest scholars...just have not been able
to find pathways for a peaceful world...not yet...but...these scholars and
these ethical thinkers...are beginning to inspire confidence...so
Bernie Sanders is an ethical thinker...and whatever label you and others
try to stick on him...is just not sticking...because Bernie...is on a mission..
to appeal to people like you...who wish as many still do...that the GOP...and
the Dems...were ...just as they were...after WWII or before...and they are
not...this is the difficult road we are trying to follow...forward..
and trusting a guy like Bernie...or Pope Francis...or any really nice ordinary
leader isn't going to get any easier...but let's just try...OK???
are not the best....there has been a change and the great cultures that
heretofore had remained parted by oceans are capsulated by instantaneous
communications....and this has created ..unprecedented
leap...leaps...to judgments and critique ...such as yours today...Leaps that
are simply frenetic skewed opinions..
The ethical conclusions by the brightest scholars...just have not been able
to find pathways for a peaceful world...not yet...but...these scholars and
these ethical thinkers...are beginning to inspire confidence...so
Bernie Sanders is an ethical thinker...and whatever label you and others
try to stick on him...is just not sticking...because Bernie...is on a mission..
to appeal to people like you...who wish as many still do...that the GOP...and
the Dems...were ...just as they were...after WWII or before...and they are
not...this is the difficult road we are trying to follow...forward..
and trusting a guy like Bernie...or Pope Francis...or any really nice ordinary
leader isn't going to get any easier...but let's just try...OK???
2
The problem is that the American Capitalist message stresses principal over principle, more over mores, futures over future, and worth over values.
2
Nice.
I'll just comment on the Defense part of the article. The biggest problem is that our political apparatus and public seem to believe that War is merely a game on a computing console instead of real life and death. Going to war means killing the enemy; brutally, efficiently, and without mercy. That is how wars are won and evil groups like ISIS are destroyed. Wars are definitely not won by "winning" hearts and minds. As a Veteran of Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the last two left me feeling that I was fighting with a jammed rifle. When the rules of engagement dictate that you can only fire when fired at, even when the enemy is right in front of you holding an AK 47, that spells defeat. It's little wonder that no one is afraid of US military might anymore. Why should they be when our mission is not to win but rather to not lose.
Visionary poets speak about this: William Butler Yeats for one.
"Some leader has to be able to digest the lessons of the last 15 years and offer a revised charismatic and persuasive sense of America’s historic mission." America's new mission could be fighting/learning to live with climate change. It's the only possible "new mission" that I can imagine that has any hope of uniting us all. If only the Republicans believed in it . . .
Mr. Brooks, I agree with almost everything you said. Your thoughts mirror those of Yeats who writes in The Second Coming: "the centre will not hold". You and the poet both seem to be saying that a savior, a redeemer needs to appear to be the new center for philosophical and moral authority.
Where I find your column lacking, however, is not addressing the implementation of any new order. For new ideas to gain traction, for attitudes to change, for a new center to hold, there must be a way to control those very satellites you describe whose strength has toppled the old world order. Are we faced with the ugly reality that a beneficial, new philosophy requires a big stick to implement?
Where I find your column lacking, however, is not addressing the implementation of any new order. For new ideas to gain traction, for attitudes to change, for a new center to hold, there must be a way to control those very satellites you describe whose strength has toppled the old world order. Are we faced with the ugly reality that a beneficial, new philosophy requires a big stick to implement?
This is one of David Brooks' most prescient and insightful pieces in a long time
Gusto? The US hegemony could only last post WWII because we did not have our nation destroyed by war. Every other major geographic area that had power did. One might yearn for US ruling the world or not but it is simply not possible anymore and W's 'with us or against us' stance did not help us. Bad idea.
"Some of them sought meaning in the fanaticisms of sect, tribe, nation, or some stronger and more brutal ideology."
This is an apt description of The Tea Party and its hand maidens in the House, the Freedom Caucus.
This is an apt description of The Tea Party and its hand maidens in the House, the Freedom Caucus.
The myth of the "educated" voter has been exposed by the popularity of the likes of Trump, Carson, and let's not forget Mr 9-9-9 himself, Herman Cain. It's less a spiritual crisis, as Mr. Brooks states, and more the simple fact that the average American is too busy watching football and playing on the Internet to bother to learn about the issues and make informed choices. They are ripe pickings for a charismatic demagogue.
1
How many times have presidential candidates assured us that they will "reach across the aisle" to find compromise and progress on the issues that confront the US and the world? It's not happening. Republicans have drawn "lines in the sand" they won't cross. Universal healthcare is one of them. They just say no. And they've said no to almost everything Obama has proposed. They don't want the US federal government to be the center of power -- unless they first control it, then dismantle it piece by piece.
Mr. Brooks, I believe, is enough of a student of history to realize that this particular circumstance in which we find ourselves at this moment in time is not unique in our history. We've been there before.
In all likelihood, our exhaustion from this current state of governmental paralysis and extremism politics will lead us to alternatives - change is the one constant of our society and our civilization.
In all likelihood, our exhaustion from this current state of governmental paralysis and extremism politics will lead us to alternatives - change is the one constant of our society and our civilization.
This column resonated with me for a different reason -- how reminiscent the description of the political arena is of the late 50's and early 60's described in the Rick Perlstein book "Before the Storm" about the rise of conservatism and Barry Goldwater. Replace the current right wing news and opinion makers with Robert Welch and his ilk along with the extraordinary private wealth funding of political action groups in both periods and the similarities are striking. One can only hope that a Trump or Carson can end up with a Goldwater showing in a national election.
I actually think that younger people need to be more enthusiastic and get involved. Everything has a shelf life. All the people running for president are very old or seem very old. Democracy needs constant renewal. Where are the youngsters?
"Mass stupidity and greed led to a financial collapse and deprived capitalism of its moral swagger."
Isn't greed the basis of capitalism - and "'mass stupidity" is what makes the 90% believe it's not or that they have a chance in this corrupt system.
Isn't greed the basis of capitalism - and "'mass stupidity" is what makes the 90% believe it's not or that they have a chance in this corrupt system.
You need to get out more, Mr. Brooks. Senator Sanders is simply voicing what the vast majority of Americans think - the top 1% global financial elite have robbed OUR hard-earned taxpayer treasury, out 401Ks, our consumer dollars, our jobs and the lives of our young people - and the expendable seniors in our society - in their 40+ year wars for power and the vast majority of us do not want to fund their games. The vast majority of Americans do not want to be the police of the world and want OUR hard-earned money to be used for a strong social safety net - not war. The responsible, socially conscious Center in America is holding and you and other "pundits" will find that out in clear terms on November 8, 2016.
2
I have no love for the 1% but how has either of the Kochs or Trumps taken anything from me? If anyhing has been taken from Americans its job offshoring. But what choice did American business have? Cut costs or close. Unfortunately cutting taxes did not create or save jobs. And those hurt by offshoring are too proud to get or vote for help.
I wonder what shop keepers in Saudi Arabia think when a prince - who has done nothing in the way of actual work - sports a solid gold car. When I hear about celebrities and their eighty million dollar divorces, CEO's and their hundred million dollar estates, it's almost impossible for me to fathom how they can roam around in such excess when poverty is often as close as the cleaning woman fluffing their pillows and the people weeding their Versaille-like gardens. People don't see democratic capitalism anymore, Mr. Brooks. What they see is a do-nothing Paris Hilton on television, asking her hard working, middle class hosts "what Walmart is."
This is not a question of anything but income disparity and a gross shirking of social responsibility by the wealthiest around the world. And that world will end - in fact is coming to an end - one way or the other. If the rich want it to end peacefully, they had better step up to the plate, pay their taxes, finance projects to benefit the environment and the public, and fundamentally care more about the people that were instrumental in their accumulation of wealth; And who are those people?? Everybody else.
This is not a question of anything but income disparity and a gross shirking of social responsibility by the wealthiest around the world. And that world will end - in fact is coming to an end - one way or the other. If the rich want it to end peacefully, they had better step up to the plate, pay their taxes, finance projects to benefit the environment and the public, and fundamentally care more about the people that were instrumental in their accumulation of wealth; And who are those people?? Everybody else.
1
David, you are right, the fundamental problem is a lack of mission. History offers two types of missions that galvanize societies: defending against existential threats, or conquering substantial territory while projecting identity. The West suffers malaise because there are no genuine threats, and it has nothing glorious to conquer. In 20 years, once the East has exhausted its economic catch-up phase, it will feel the same way (unless it goes to war). There is only one constructive mission left: to go to Mars and beyond. This would re-establish the center of human identity, and clarify today's problems as the kid-stuff everyone knows them to be. It is the way for America to lead.
I applaud the ability to get so much into such a short essay. (For a longer piece on the weakening of our large institutions see "The End of Power" by Moises Naim). I disagree with the false equivalence of comparing Bernie and Democrats to the self-inflicted kidnapping of the Republican Party by the radical right. Bernie's success is just a reaction to the radicalization of the no-tax, no-government, no-compromise Republican Party. Our weakened institutions today are the result of a thousand societal and technological evolutions and revolutions. But, if you wanted to sum it up in one little political catch phrase, how about :"Government is not the solution to our problem, Government is the problem!"
Brooks is absolutely right to be concerned that the enlightened center is no longer holding. Unfortunately, the underlying causes are more structural and less tractable than he suggests.
Essentially, a new age in the progressive disintermediation of public commentary has dawned, and now any raving lunatic can be heard and win converts. Allow me to demonstrate personally:
La di da di da di da
Fifty years ago, my chances of having that nonsense published for public consumption anywhere, let alone in conjunction with the New York Times, would have been precisely zero. Now, adult believers in Santa Claus, angels, public floggings, a stable climate, or celibacy can spread their madness far and wide and find like-minded individuals with whom to drink the Kool-Aid. By contrast, modern enlightened versions of Sir Isaac Newton and Benjamin Franklin, who once were heard above the din of the multitude with the backing of educated, elite editors and publishers, now struggle for influence in a world in which everyone is potentially a publisher.
The only hope is not more “spiritual” obscurantism from a magically resurgent hierarchy but rather in turning the hoi polloi loose on themselves in carefully orchestrated, purposeful, self-regulated forums that permit destructive editing of nonsense in the same manner as that which has been essential to the incredible achievements of a Wikipedia, but in the meta-realm of making sense of how we should organize society and live.
Essentially, a new age in the progressive disintermediation of public commentary has dawned, and now any raving lunatic can be heard and win converts. Allow me to demonstrate personally:
La di da di da di da
Fifty years ago, my chances of having that nonsense published for public consumption anywhere, let alone in conjunction with the New York Times, would have been precisely zero. Now, adult believers in Santa Claus, angels, public floggings, a stable climate, or celibacy can spread their madness far and wide and find like-minded individuals with whom to drink the Kool-Aid. By contrast, modern enlightened versions of Sir Isaac Newton and Benjamin Franklin, who once were heard above the din of the multitude with the backing of educated, elite editors and publishers, now struggle for influence in a world in which everyone is potentially a publisher.
The only hope is not more “spiritual” obscurantism from a magically resurgent hierarchy but rather in turning the hoi polloi loose on themselves in carefully orchestrated, purposeful, self-regulated forums that permit destructive editing of nonsense in the same manner as that which has been essential to the incredible achievements of a Wikipedia, but in the meta-realm of making sense of how we should organize society and live.
The primary problem may be mental and spiritual, but we could certainly start with material comfort.
A few have way too much and many have way too little. If we raise wages, create jobs by upgrading our infrastructure, fund quality child care and education, and make sure people who work 40 hours a week can afford to adequately feed, shelter and educate their families, I think that will go a long way toward improving our mental and spiritual foundations.
After all, providing care and material comfort for others is at the foundation of most religions.
A few have way too much and many have way too little. If we raise wages, create jobs by upgrading our infrastructure, fund quality child care and education, and make sure people who work 40 hours a week can afford to adequately feed, shelter and educate their families, I think that will go a long way toward improving our mental and spiritual foundations.
After all, providing care and material comfort for others is at the foundation of most religions.
1
This seems to me like a hodgepodge of unrelated thoughts. I don't want to sound like a broken record but David Brooks forgets the fact that "moral clarity" was what drove us in Iraq and we all know the consequences. He still sees the world with cold war lenses but during that period the west was living under an existential threat and the U.S. rose to the occasion because it was the uncontested winner of WWII (and our nukes) not because of our moral superiority. We did some great things and we did some bad things along the way... Today there are no such threats despite the multitude of hot spots scattered around the world and we live in a slightly more complicated environment. I'm not sure I agree with his statement "the distant factions at the margins of society are full of passionate intensity" I for one think it's insane to believe in the 21st century that the world has been created in 6 days, that everybody should carry weapons, government should be run like a business, women health choices should be decided by the government, etc.
Other advanced countries like Canada, the UK and (bar a few exceptions) most of mainland Europe have been confronted with many of the same world issues yet their voters have channeled their uncertainty/anxiety about the future to "established" centers of gravity rather than ideologues or populists.
The US however has seen an unprecedented rise in inequality over the past decades resulting in quality of their healthcare, education etc. of Americans to be far more dependent on income than in other countries, resulting in a growing class of poorly educated and people (e.g. 1/3 of Americans still believe today Obama is a muslim...) who also get to vote. And guess who they vote for...
Both in the US and e.g. Denmark, you get what you pay for.
The US however has seen an unprecedented rise in inequality over the past decades resulting in quality of their healthcare, education etc. of Americans to be far more dependent on income than in other countries, resulting in a growing class of poorly educated and people (e.g. 1/3 of Americans still believe today Obama is a muslim...) who also get to vote. And guess who they vote for...
Both in the US and e.g. Denmark, you get what you pay for.
Every time I read a story or see a debate or discussion on TV about the unwinding of the world order no one it seems is able to really understand the primary driver that makes the dysfunction operable.
That is almost in every case a protection of power by the ruling king, president or Ayatollah.
Saudi Arabia allowed the Wahhabi sect to take over the control of religion and women in 1979. The pact allowed the Saudis to retain their huge control of wealth and fended off a revolution.
The Ayatollah has a tiered army and police system that is the same kind that Hitler used in Germany. He has his Republican Guard and every political and religious decision has dotted line control to the Ayatollah. That cements power by a virtual dictator.
Putin is protecting the powerful men who now also control major Russian assets including himself. Also in Russia's case you are seeing the beginning of the fossil wars in Europe and Asia. Putin captured the Crimea to gain access to the fossil assets in the Black Sea and to protect his naval base and is usurping eastern Ukraine also for long term fossil reasons.
Throughout the Arab world and the middle east there is heightened fear simply because the leaders have not been able to escape that church and state are not separated and that all religions have to be protected equally. The key problem is that you cannot argue religious doctrine and you have to know when a doctrine is harmful to society and the state.
That is almost in every case a protection of power by the ruling king, president or Ayatollah.
Saudi Arabia allowed the Wahhabi sect to take over the control of religion and women in 1979. The pact allowed the Saudis to retain their huge control of wealth and fended off a revolution.
The Ayatollah has a tiered army and police system that is the same kind that Hitler used in Germany. He has his Republican Guard and every political and religious decision has dotted line control to the Ayatollah. That cements power by a virtual dictator.
Putin is protecting the powerful men who now also control major Russian assets including himself. Also in Russia's case you are seeing the beginning of the fossil wars in Europe and Asia. Putin captured the Crimea to gain access to the fossil assets in the Black Sea and to protect his naval base and is usurping eastern Ukraine also for long term fossil reasons.
Throughout the Arab world and the middle east there is heightened fear simply because the leaders have not been able to escape that church and state are not separated and that all religions have to be protected equally. The key problem is that you cannot argue religious doctrine and you have to know when a doctrine is harmful to society and the state.
Any student of history should be able to diagnose the phenomenon. The USA, over 200 years old, having been in a position of dominance, or near dominance for almost a century, is facing the inevitable reaction of other nations and cultures to its role. This process, which is cast by some as "decline", terrifies the the "chicken little" elements of society. It presents an opportunity for fraudulent messiahs to profit from this fear as confused, self-indulgent masses grasp irrationally for any straw that might reverse the changes taking place.
Mr. Brooks needs to chill. Panicky statements over the activities of a relative few, magnified by media always on the lookout for sensation, do not a crisis make.
Recently we hear that the world is not, for the moment, starving to death. Indeed "poor" countries are actually doing better and "really poor" countries are a shrinking minority.
And if the keepers of our consciences want to restore gravity to its normal levels, they should stop disemboweling the political parties with more and more campaign finance restrictions that only serve to increase the power of rich individuals and encourage fractionalism and extreme viewpoints. For all its faults, the pre-Watergate system actually worked when it came to keeping a lid on things.
Recently we hear that the world is not, for the moment, starving to death. Indeed "poor" countries are actually doing better and "really poor" countries are a shrinking minority.
And if the keepers of our consciences want to restore gravity to its normal levels, they should stop disemboweling the political parties with more and more campaign finance restrictions that only serve to increase the power of rich individuals and encourage fractionalism and extreme viewpoints. For all its faults, the pre-Watergate system actually worked when it came to keeping a lid on things.
"Now the gravitational pull is coming from the edges, in sphere after sphere. Each central establishment, weakened by its own hollowness of meaning, is being ripped apart by the gravitational pull from the fringes."
When the oligarchy prevents incremental change to benefit everyone, then we have sudden shifting of tectonic plates (to mix a metaphor) and revolution. If the US continues in the direction of accumulation of wealth and power in a few, which you have championed all along, we can expect the shifting of those tectonic plates soon.
When the oligarchy prevents incremental change to benefit everyone, then we have sudden shifting of tectonic plates (to mix a metaphor) and revolution. If the US continues in the direction of accumulation of wealth and power in a few, which you have championed all along, we can expect the shifting of those tectonic plates soon.
When the problem was drugs, the Reagans had a simple solution: "just say no." There is much more to say, but the ability to say no has a place in governance at the family and at the local, state, and national level. Parents are too weak to say no to children who create a ruckus in stores because they want something; Republican leaders are too weak to say no to extremists in their party who create havoc because they do not want something. Whether they know it or not, they are all hippies doing their own thing, unrestrained by others or themselves. Liberal critiques destroyed individuals' respect for authority and tradition, and conservatives are benefiting from the void by adopting authoritarian policies to restore them by the tacit coercion of dark money and franchise restrictions. Which means that those who believe in democracy are going to have to learn to accept responsibility to go with freedom--and, with respect to candidates ignorant and arrogant offering slogans and placebos, learn to just say no.
Here is an alternative way of looking at it. The 'centrists' (if we define 'centrist' as free-market neoliberal) have had enormous power in US government at least since the 1980s, certainly since in the 1990s in their own D and R versions. The fall of the Soviet Union greatly magnified their political power and message. What did they do with it?
Well, they did what any elite class does, and sought to parlay that power into further wealth and power at the expense of anyone else. Laws were passed in the interest of elites shrouded in the neat language of "cost" and "rationality", like VA privatization to take just one of literally thousands of examples. Democratic checks and balances were turned into economic inefficiencies in the language of the centrists, who promised to deliver a profoundly better and more 'free' society than the "socialist" New Deal Welfare State circa 1945-75.
They failed to deliver. The fact that the Washington Consensus no longer commands the intellectual respect it was once did is a stunning blow to the psychology of an elite class. So increasingly, they have to apply the screws to those who work for them directly. The centrists become unpopular because they are now pursuing brutal economic ends in the form of mass privatizations and school closings, crumbling infrastructure et al. So no, Brooks, the reason that people are fleeing the sinking ship that you remain on is not that their stupid, it's that your centrist ideology utterly failed.
Well, they did what any elite class does, and sought to parlay that power into further wealth and power at the expense of anyone else. Laws were passed in the interest of elites shrouded in the neat language of "cost" and "rationality", like VA privatization to take just one of literally thousands of examples. Democratic checks and balances were turned into economic inefficiencies in the language of the centrists, who promised to deliver a profoundly better and more 'free' society than the "socialist" New Deal Welfare State circa 1945-75.
They failed to deliver. The fact that the Washington Consensus no longer commands the intellectual respect it was once did is a stunning blow to the psychology of an elite class. So increasingly, they have to apply the screws to those who work for them directly. The centrists become unpopular because they are now pursuing brutal economic ends in the form of mass privatizations and school closings, crumbling infrastructure et al. So no, Brooks, the reason that people are fleeing the sinking ship that you remain on is not that their stupid, it's that your centrist ideology utterly failed.
"This mission, both nationalist and universal, would be less individualistic than the gospel of the 1990s, and more realistic about depravity and the way barbarism can spread. It would offer a goal more profound than material comfort." Brooks reigning conclusion ignores the core myths of America that cloaked the very barbarism he decries. The myth of rugged individualism diminishes the connection to the sacrificial values of sharing, caring and the collective baring of burdens as a centripetal counterforce to the hyper centrifugal force of peripheral spheres. The other founding myth of Manifest destiny, today's American Exceptionalism, institutionalizes and weaponizes this distortion on a national and international scale, provoking the same forces of dark energy it cannot repel. Sanders is not the ascendant detritus of a once radiant cosmic order, but an obdurate ember of a dying lode star.
1
"I mention this because that’s how our political and social systems used to work, but no longer do."
Q: Who brought the bull into the China shop? A: Republicans, who hammered into America's brain Ronald Reagan's "government IS the problem" mantra (his best-delivered Hollywood line ever). Such politicians deliberately work every day to make sure that government indeed looks broken; it serves their ideology to break the system from within. They break government so they can point at it and say how broken it is. It's a classic self-fulfilling prophecy. Trouble is, the right-wing invited into the tent so many agitators against the brokenness they themselves engineered that now they can't even govern their own party, much less a country. How anyone can consider electing a President from a party so hell-bent on breaking America's ability to govern itself is astounding.
Republicans are actually a minority in America. They hold the House of Reps because of long-term, calculated gerrymandering, and because they brilliantly appeal to voters who vote at the emoticon, Facebook "Like" level of understanding. Look at the education levels of the tea party districts. The dumb-and-dumber tail is wagging the dog. People as smart as Mr. Brooks who still back the truly disingenuous party that the modern Republicans have become - if such people wish to do America a service - should publicly remove their "I'm With Stupid" t-shirts and read "The Audacity of Hope" to see what government can do.
Q: Who brought the bull into the China shop? A: Republicans, who hammered into America's brain Ronald Reagan's "government IS the problem" mantra (his best-delivered Hollywood line ever). Such politicians deliberately work every day to make sure that government indeed looks broken; it serves their ideology to break the system from within. They break government so they can point at it and say how broken it is. It's a classic self-fulfilling prophecy. Trouble is, the right-wing invited into the tent so many agitators against the brokenness they themselves engineered that now they can't even govern their own party, much less a country. How anyone can consider electing a President from a party so hell-bent on breaking America's ability to govern itself is astounding.
Republicans are actually a minority in America. They hold the House of Reps because of long-term, calculated gerrymandering, and because they brilliantly appeal to voters who vote at the emoticon, Facebook "Like" level of understanding. Look at the education levels of the tea party districts. The dumb-and-dumber tail is wagging the dog. People as smart as Mr. Brooks who still back the truly disingenuous party that the modern Republicans have become - if such people wish to do America a service - should publicly remove their "I'm With Stupid" t-shirts and read "The Audacity of Hope" to see what government can do.
1
Again and again Brooks presents his main theme of a purpose beyond the secular and material. But the problem is that science has eroded away the mythology of God. Religion today grows energetically only in places where education is poor. The more aware a citizenry becomes, the less religion matters to the people. Humpty Dumpty is really dead and there is no putting him back together again. Rather than continually looking backward to the past for a spirituality based on a God who doesn't exist, a responsible writer would explore the issues of morality in an era of secularism and the absence of a deity. This would be of more service in a search for meaning.
"This happens in loud ways in the domestic sphere. The uncertain Republican establishment cannot govern its own marginal members, while those on the edge burn with conviction. Jeb Bush looks wan but Donald Trump radiates confidence.
The Democratic establishment no longer determines party positions; it is pulled along by formerly marginal players like Bernie Sanders."
Sorry Mr. Brooks, but this is false equivalence. Hillary Clinton is pure Democratic establishment and she is way ahead in the polls. Bernie Sanders offered fairly mild criticism of her and none of the candidates attacked another the way the Republicans are going after each other. The Democrats seem to understand that tearing each other apart in the primary is not a long-term winning strategy. The Republicans are not only ripping each other apart, they are tearing the House apart and working up to take the whole country down with them. And Paul Ryan will not be able to save them.
I'm not surprised by your dour tone, because your party is in a shambles, but don't pretend the Democrats are just the same.
The Democratic establishment no longer determines party positions; it is pulled along by formerly marginal players like Bernie Sanders."
Sorry Mr. Brooks, but this is false equivalence. Hillary Clinton is pure Democratic establishment and she is way ahead in the polls. Bernie Sanders offered fairly mild criticism of her and none of the candidates attacked another the way the Republicans are going after each other. The Democrats seem to understand that tearing each other apart in the primary is not a long-term winning strategy. The Republicans are not only ripping each other apart, they are tearing the House apart and working up to take the whole country down with them. And Paul Ryan will not be able to save them.
I'm not surprised by your dour tone, because your party is in a shambles, but don't pretend the Democrats are just the same.
1
Mr. Brooks the Democratic Party is the party that has given us those programs that have been life affirming: Social Security, Medicare, the Affordable Health Care Act, and also programs that sought to give employment with dignity such as the WPA, and also a dream of reaching the stars through a Space Program which has been a source of pride for this country. The list goes on and on. These are programs that are based on decent values.
The Republicans in every instance have voted against these programs. What have Republicans stood for since Reagan? War, greed, the dissolution of social safety nets, and a return to an era when women's rights and civil rights were negligible.
The Republicans in every instance have voted against these programs. What have Republicans stood for since Reagan? War, greed, the dissolution of social safety nets, and a return to an era when women's rights and civil rights were negligible.
2
This morning there are two articles form conservative pundits, Mr. Brooks and Mr. Weir, that essentially express the same thing, their frustration with the fringe elements of their party that threaten to destroy the central authorities that have ruled the Republican Party. Mr. Brooks turns it outward and talks about the world, but it is the internal GOP politics which is his real frustration. Traditional conservatives have lost control and the crazies have taken over and it is their own fault as they have condoned the shutting down of the government, conducting witch hunts against Democrats such as Bill Clinton and Hillary and in general becoming the Party of obstruction since the 1990's.
The thing is that when the fringe becomes very powerful and the center becomes weak, the structure collapses in on itself and destroys itself in the process. So we can only hope that this is what is happening to the garish old pretenders.
The thing is that when the fringe becomes very powerful and the center becomes weak, the structure collapses in on itself and destroys itself in the process. So we can only hope that this is what is happening to the garish old pretenders.
2
Might it be that we've "lost faith" in our "capacities of understanding and action" because science is letting us down?
The physical sciences excel. Our capacities to land men on the moon, put a lander on an asteroid, and fly a reconscience mission past Pluto tend to give us confidence.
In contrast, leading economists - Krugman included - offer diametrically opposite positions on matters involving taxes, deficits, debt, productivity, and growth. This is a failure of economics as a science. Many people are turning and returning to mere opinions, beliefs, and ideologies held with religious conviction.
Essentially the same problem extends to sciences of other types of complex adaptive systems (CAS) such as people (medicine, gun control, conflict resolution), brains (mental illness), and ecosystems (climate change).
Fortunately, a means exists to dramatically strengthen sciences of CAS. Stronger science can increase our "capacities of understanding and action."
The physical sciences excel. Our capacities to land men on the moon, put a lander on an asteroid, and fly a reconscience mission past Pluto tend to give us confidence.
In contrast, leading economists - Krugman included - offer diametrically opposite positions on matters involving taxes, deficits, debt, productivity, and growth. This is a failure of economics as a science. Many people are turning and returning to mere opinions, beliefs, and ideologies held with religious conviction.
Essentially the same problem extends to sciences of other types of complex adaptive systems (CAS) such as people (medicine, gun control, conflict resolution), brains (mental illness), and ecosystems (climate change).
Fortunately, a means exists to dramatically strengthen sciences of CAS. Stronger science can increase our "capacities of understanding and action."
1
What Mr Brooks so depressingly describes is simply the start of a pendulum swing back in the direction of sanity and reason. At its most outward arch the pendulum rests, for a time, in an extreme position - at the fringes of what would be considered ideal - but it can't stay there. The gravitational pull of fairness, common sense, and decency will move us back closer to the center. The center, or the Sun, and Mr Brooks has called it, does not lie in a leader or a political party. It is a deeper, stronger, unnamed force which the founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom recognized.
21
"Gravity from the center lends coherence to the whole solar system... I mention this because that’s how our political and social systems used to work, but no longer do."
A broader look at history shows that from the mythical time of Gilgamesh, those systems were held together by militaristic forces, which defined the center, and by self interest which benefited from the threat and/or protection of militaristic forces. The concept of democracy was always that, a concept. American mythology says we were a democracy, but we didn't even have the telegraph when the revolutionary war got under way. Now, money is king, consumerism dictates social norms, and they are reinforced by mindless tweets that zing around the world at the rate of millions per hour. Corporations protect their profits by keeping people ignorant and misinformed. Anger and frustration are commercial commodities.
I continue to be shocked that Brooks and others can support the GOP while ignoring its current mission of dumbing the people down. How ironic that David writes of the spread of depravity and barbarism without recognizing their value to his party.
A broader look at history shows that from the mythical time of Gilgamesh, those systems were held together by militaristic forces, which defined the center, and by self interest which benefited from the threat and/or protection of militaristic forces. The concept of democracy was always that, a concept. American mythology says we were a democracy, but we didn't even have the telegraph when the revolutionary war got under way. Now, money is king, consumerism dictates social norms, and they are reinforced by mindless tweets that zing around the world at the rate of millions per hour. Corporations protect their profits by keeping people ignorant and misinformed. Anger and frustration are commercial commodities.
I continue to be shocked that Brooks and others can support the GOP while ignoring its current mission of dumbing the people down. How ironic that David writes of the spread of depravity and barbarism without recognizing their value to his party.
57
This is not dissimilar to the time between the two world wars. The 'west' talked democracy while keeping colonies. Capitalism crashed. Parliamentary democracy appeared incapable of solving problems. It appeared corrupt and a tool of the rich. International accords favored 'have' nations over the 'have not's' - at least in the eyes of those sometimes self defined have not's.
Most recently, GW Bush did more to stoke these fires than anyone else. He has done more damage to our country than Osama bin Laden. Be honest, Jeb, and face that.
How do we recover? We need a one hundred days of government reengingeering with particular emphasis on the tax structure. We may need to impeach some members of the Supreme Court to break the unhealthy hold of some wealthy. Internationally, we need someone who can first define current challenges in a readily understandable way that does not rely upon tired inapplicable cliches. Then, lead a conversation that leads to implementation.
Both the domestic and international conversations will leave the typical GOP wacko candidate supporter behind. They are a large part of the problem, not the solution.
Most recently, GW Bush did more to stoke these fires than anyone else. He has done more damage to our country than Osama bin Laden. Be honest, Jeb, and face that.
How do we recover? We need a one hundred days of government reengingeering with particular emphasis on the tax structure. We may need to impeach some members of the Supreme Court to break the unhealthy hold of some wealthy. Internationally, we need someone who can first define current challenges in a readily understandable way that does not rely upon tired inapplicable cliches. Then, lead a conversation that leads to implementation.
Both the domestic and international conversations will leave the typical GOP wacko candidate supporter behind. They are a large part of the problem, not the solution.
2
When the COLD WAR ended there was a vacuum. For so long the world had revolved around this battle between two super powers that when only one was left standing it seemed both reassuring and destabilizing. It was as if America had become so dependent on having an enemy to define its moral high ground that it needed another to fill the void. This vacuum was soon filled with an amalgam of adversaries, of dissidents and disaffected fanatics who were willing to win by inspiring fear more than by outright competition with the 'surviving' power on the global scene. Traditional defenses, involving a superior military, were rendered impotent against those whose ammo was a bizarre mix of ideology and hate, decentralized and often out of sight. I do not agree, however, that the failure of combating this new enemy derives entirely from the lack of spiritual focus in our materialistic society. This is a weakness but not an Achille's heel. The return to American 'greatness' -- a common refrain of the GOP -- can mean simply taking care of our own country. That is not a minor undertaking. It is national hubris to believe we were meant to govern the universe. Moral substance is more than a weapon to be wielded over a mean-spirited adversary. It is a reality to be demonstrated at all times.
24
"It is national hubris to believe we were meant to govern the universe."
Since when is that the goal? The U.S. is not "governing" Europe, Russia, China, India, Africa, South America, Australia or Antarctica? Trying to "govern" the ME is not hubris. Heck, even Russia is joining in. Lack of governing the ME is Obama and Hillary's legacy to the next president.
Since when is that the goal? The U.S. is not "governing" Europe, Russia, China, India, Africa, South America, Australia or Antarctica? Trying to "govern" the ME is not hubris. Heck, even Russia is joining in. Lack of governing the ME is Obama and Hillary's legacy to the next president.
When George H.W. Bush invited Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan to be the main speakers at his Republican convention, and I heard what they had to say, I decided to become an Independent; it just didn't do to stay in a party that pandered to such types.
President Bush, all those years ago, opened the doors wide to fringe elements. They're no longer fringe elements. They are the Republican party.
President Bush, all those years ago, opened the doors wide to fringe elements. They're no longer fringe elements. They are the Republican party.
5
In the end, the sun expands and consumes the plants. The renown economist Joseph Schumperter predicted in his book that capitalism would eventually gravitate into socialism. There is always a natural conclusion to any reality were experiencing today. Societies are at least as complex as as the relativity theory. Fringe forces are always overcome in the big picture.
Mr. Brooks, Respectfully, you really need to get out and talk to new and different people. You seem like a very intelligent, very thoughtful, well intentioned person who has built a framework of understanding with major distortions at its base. You're too intelligent not to have seen the gerrymandered political districts in the US; you're too intelligent not to have recognized the chicanery that went into putting George Bush in office in 2000; you're too intelligent not to understand the intensely destructive implications of the Republicans' government shutdowns; you're too intelligent not to recognize the inane distortions and their effects of Fox News. If you're so sure of your position why do you never address these issues directly in your column. If you're so certain of the Right wing agenda then you ought to be able to forthrightly examine these aspects and the role they have in bringing the US to its position today. Take a step back and look at the whole picture; I think you're really much better than this column.
5
I suppose that a good defining example of our communal intellect is the reverence we hold for the 2nd amendment. Guns in every waistband is a solid foundation for scaling up to military action anytime and anywhere we see fit. Of course we temper our bent for military violence with the satisfying caveat "no boots on the ground". That caveat translates into "bomb anyone you want, any time you want", which is well within our comfort zone.
Mr Brooks' conservative bent inclines him to include us all in the perpetrator category. But I think he is coming to realize that conservatives are a major force in not only limiting communal progress, but also in attempting to reverse that progress.
Mr Brooks' conservative bent inclines him to include us all in the perpetrator category. But I think he is coming to realize that conservatives are a major force in not only limiting communal progress, but also in attempting to reverse that progress.
3
Compare the debates between the Republican presidential candidates and the recent Democratic debates to see how well your false equivalence between the two parties holds. The content as well as the tone of the Democratic debate says everything about the difference between the two parties.
3
I often agree with Brooks, but not today.
The same article can be written in almost every decade. The passionate radicals always burn brighter until they burn up.
We'll see if Trunp wins the GOP, and if he does, her will surely lose to the Democrats. And Sanders is hardly a radical. There is nothing extreme about wanting equality, universal health care and free education.
The same article can be written in almost every decade. The passionate radicals always burn brighter until they burn up.
We'll see if Trunp wins the GOP, and if he does, her will surely lose to the Democrats. And Sanders is hardly a radical. There is nothing extreme about wanting equality, universal health care and free education.
1
Question regarding the prospective leader Brooks mentions: is it best that he/she comes from within the party system, or comes from without and forces the parties to realign?
"This vision was materialistic and individualistic. Nations should pursue economic growth and a decent distribution of wealth. If you give individuals access to education and opportunity, they will pursue affluence and personal happiness. They will grow more temperate and 'reasonable.'”
David, can you please tell us how a "decent distribution of wealth" logically flows from a vision that is materialistic and individualistic and temperance and reasonableness arise from the pursuit of affluence and personal happiness? All is whirl, alright - starting with this column. I can't figure out whether you are lamenting the death of the vision or acknowledging that it contained the seeds of its own destruction.
David, can you please tell us how a "decent distribution of wealth" logically flows from a vision that is materialistic and individualistic and temperance and reasonableness arise from the pursuit of affluence and personal happiness? All is whirl, alright - starting with this column. I can't figure out whether you are lamenting the death of the vision or acknowledging that it contained the seeds of its own destruction.
2
David you say: "The United States is no longer willing to occupy the commanding heights and oversee global order." The question is to what extent has that fueled the fires of today. Order and democracy are difficult to impose and if we were being honest how much of our efforts were driven by our need for oil. When a country supports "order" at any cost to real human development, it merely delays a problem.
3
What is this "historic" mission of the United States? Who assigned this mission to us? God? Did it come to us as we grew and took land that did not "belong" to us? We have no "historic" mission. For most of our history we've been isolationist. So why this mission? More to the point would be to apply Chaos theory to what is happening to centrist government. The "butterfly" effect began with income disparity and a fight for power and resources. This small change has developed into "us vs them" at a class, societal, nationalist level. It has yet to settle into a new system. And when it does, chaos will begin breaking it down again.
5
Yes, Mr. Brooks. Regrettably, we are all "slouching towards Bethlehem."
"Mass stupidity and greed" ... David again misconstrues the center of gravity in reality. The recent depression was not only a typical financial asset bubble burst - it's in the nature of credit cycles for lenders to seek marginally riskier debtors towards the peak of each cycle - but was geometrically amplified by the use of illusory risk-shifting and leveraging financial products like credit default swaps (remember them? how quickly people forget). That was NOT an occasion of mass stupidity and greed, but an incredibly narrow one that had incredibly outsized amplifying effects on the panic and its aftermath. To this very day, there's been no proper accounting for this because doing so apparently beggars the abilities of journalistic and scholarly researchers - that's how huge this was. But David is blind to this because it belies his preferred narrative. Again.
6
Perhaps a reading of Theodore Roosevelt's "New Nationalism" speech, delivered in 1910, will reveal just how far our political system has lost its way ( http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/new-nationalism-speech/ ). His thoughts and sentiments are being echoed today -- and are being well received -- by that socialist, Bernie Sanders, hardly a radical by Teddy's standards. There is nothing radical about the government being used to promote the common good, as stated in the constitution.
6
The world has never been free of serious conflicts and tragedies. Looking around the world at the awful things, one must remember WWII and then the cold war -- it's better than that! Much of Asia is reasonably prosperous and moving forward. South America is free of dictatorships, and silly wars ... and mostly moving forward. With a generous eye one can discern progress in Africa.
Islam and the Middle East are in the throes of over-population, collapse of resources, bad governments, sectarian war. As tragic as this is, it is paltry compared to WWII.
We have no foreign excuse for our ugly scene at home in the US. Our wounds are entirely self-inflicted -- and I think Mr. Brooks entirely either misunderstands them -- or writes a column of false equivalences in an effort to make a sweeping claim were the reality is so much more particular.
Bernie Sanders is no "outsider:" (Hun at the gates of Rome). Arguing that Bernie represents an assault on the Democratic party similar to the Tea Party/ "Freedom Caucus"/ Rush Limbaugh / Fox News assault on mainstream Conservatism is absurd. The Democrats have a more unified party than any in a very long time; unified by the collapse of organized communism and the assault from the right. The polite wonkish Presidential Debate makes it clear how little rancor and discord there is among the Democrats.
It is the Republicans who have gone crazy, nothing more.
Islam and the Middle East are in the throes of over-population, collapse of resources, bad governments, sectarian war. As tragic as this is, it is paltry compared to WWII.
We have no foreign excuse for our ugly scene at home in the US. Our wounds are entirely self-inflicted -- and I think Mr. Brooks entirely either misunderstands them -- or writes a column of false equivalences in an effort to make a sweeping claim were the reality is so much more particular.
Bernie Sanders is no "outsider:" (Hun at the gates of Rome). Arguing that Bernie represents an assault on the Democratic party similar to the Tea Party/ "Freedom Caucus"/ Rush Limbaugh / Fox News assault on mainstream Conservatism is absurd. The Democrats have a more unified party than any in a very long time; unified by the collapse of organized communism and the assault from the right. The polite wonkish Presidential Debate makes it clear how little rancor and discord there is among the Democrats.
It is the Republicans who have gone crazy, nothing more.
10
As always, Mr. Brooks's inconsistency is utterly maddening. He diagnoses our current troubles as fundamentally spiritual, while conveniently overlooking that he and his party have pushed harder than anyone for an America based on market principles and material gain. Then it gets worse. He writes: "In the 1990s, the central political institutions radiated confidence, derived from an assumed vision of the post-Cold War world. History would be a slow march toward democratic capitalism. Nations would be bound in peaceful associations like the European Union. The United States would oversee a basic international order." Many of us didn't believe for one minute in Frank Fukuyama's liberal capitalist end of history for the same reason we rejected Marx's communist eschatology: other than the fact that it makes a nice narrative, it's pure hubris to believe that history has an endpoint. But given there were true believers like Mr. Brooks, and that they saw America's role as overseeing a "basic international order," how can they not have seen, in advance, that disregarding international law by invading Iraq completely undermined America's credibility as global policeman? Why should Russia or China abide by international law when we, the alleged enforcers of such law, don't either? Lastly, Mr. Brooks write frequently about "character," and yet, rather than acknowledge W. B. Yeats's poem "The Second Coming" as the inspiration for his opening paragraph, he simply plagiarizes. Character?
13
"...he [Brooks] and his party..."
What is his party, and what is the basis for your conclusion? From reading him for many years I can only conclude the most likely answer is he's an Independent. Certainly Republicans do not claim him as one of their own.
What is his party, and what is the basis for your conclusion? From reading him for many years I can only conclude the most likely answer is he's an Independent. Certainly Republicans do not claim him as one of their own.
David Brooks is a high-functioning schizophrenic. He holds mutually-contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
The United States seem less united now than ever. Perhaps, it is the result of instant communication. Take Alabama where a Republican Governor shut down Motor Vehicle offices in the Democratic districts in what is a Jim Crow fixing of the coming election. If voters cannot get picture ID's, they cannot vote and the issuing offices are Motor Vehicle Offices. Then we have Trump ranting about Political Correctness as if being caring and concerned about our fellow creatures is a bad thing. He demeans women openly with his misogynistic "I love women, etc. etc." He may love them, but he sure doesn't respect them as equals. All he needs to communicate his feelings towards women is a blinking eye which even he hasn't dared. What you call charisma is for those seeking a Messiah to lead them to the promised land. You know, like Reagan, who ran on apple pie, motherhood and the American flag. The war monger bullies that were in the driver's seat, ala Cheney, lead us to understand that we are not invincible. Obama tries diplomacy rather than violence and is called weak while we all know it takes strength to do things like opening Cuba and talking to Iran. The loud, bombastic right tried and failed using war mongering. However, it is hard for the public to grasp the peace initiatives value when the Right is hell-bent on condemning all things Obama even when they are clearly for the country's good. Those who seek power have no principles except re-election. Diversity demands inclusion!
1
What is currently happening in the US and the world is an individual and selfish ambition both at the personal level and at the country level. This ideal is being pursued without any concern for the collective need. As individuals are eagerly going after "what is mine," the governments, factions, and organizations are receiving those individuals and advertising their mantra, with great success. The only way to balance this out is to grow an international discussion (a humanity discussion) on the importance of collective goals and community ideals. Unfortunately, as more and more are feeling the anger of the haves and havenots, I don't know how to start that discussion.
It is Tuesday morning after an election where my party finished a distant third and I am happy to read a David Brooks column with which I can again disagree.
Two months ago my party was leading in the polls on a platform of change. Our Republican Prime Minister destroyed our party's chances by railing against niqabs and the two women in a hundred thousand who chose to wear niqabs at their citizenship swearing in.Our party was correct in principle but the issue did not resonate because my generation is old and dying and the issue is largely disappearing because it is essentially meaningless. Change is meaningless unless it has direction. Once our party adopted balanced budgets and austerity as its economic mantra we were dead in the water.
The third place Liberal party was attacked for being young and naive but election night saw a resounding Liberal victory from coast to coast. What fueled the Liberal victory was a rejection of austerity and balanced budgets and a commitment to build for the future.
Canada voted for a future. It voted for deficits and higher taxes on wealth. It voted for new infrastructure. It voted for investments in health education and welfare. Canada's people are among the world's wealthiest people but at a time where wealth is talking entrenchment and austerity Canada's voters said it is about the future not the past. To David the world may seem in terrible shape but Canadians said we are in better shape than ever all we need is a good road map.
Two months ago my party was leading in the polls on a platform of change. Our Republican Prime Minister destroyed our party's chances by railing against niqabs and the two women in a hundred thousand who chose to wear niqabs at their citizenship swearing in.Our party was correct in principle but the issue did not resonate because my generation is old and dying and the issue is largely disappearing because it is essentially meaningless. Change is meaningless unless it has direction. Once our party adopted balanced budgets and austerity as its economic mantra we were dead in the water.
The third place Liberal party was attacked for being young and naive but election night saw a resounding Liberal victory from coast to coast. What fueled the Liberal victory was a rejection of austerity and balanced budgets and a commitment to build for the future.
Canada voted for a future. It voted for deficits and higher taxes on wealth. It voted for new infrastructure. It voted for investments in health education and welfare. Canada's people are among the world's wealthiest people but at a time where wealth is talking entrenchment and austerity Canada's voters said it is about the future not the past. To David the world may seem in terrible shape but Canadians said we are in better shape than ever all we need is a good road map.
It is amusing to see Conservatives who usually view things as either or and zero sum refuse to see the rise of China and perhaps India in that context. We worship capitalism as religion, export our jobs to the lowest bidder and then wonder what happened to American exceptionalism.
We can't have it all. If we value individualism above the common good, if we value wealth accumulation as the ultimate expression of individuality, then we forego the "spiritual" solutions Mr. Brooks alludes to.
We live in a country with friendly neighbors north and south with thousands of miles of ocean on either side. WWII is over, the Cold War is over, the frontier has been conquered. Now over three hundred million of us live in fixed borders with a global economy. We have an opportunity to move away from the illusion that the magic of markets, trickle down, or tax cuts will rebuild America. How about concentrating on the common good for a while.
We can't sprinkle democracy dust on the third world or remake everyone in our own image. Lets rebuild our own infrastructure, solve our healthcare and educational issues, and lead by example.
We can't have it all. If we value individualism above the common good, if we value wealth accumulation as the ultimate expression of individuality, then we forego the "spiritual" solutions Mr. Brooks alludes to.
We live in a country with friendly neighbors north and south with thousands of miles of ocean on either side. WWII is over, the Cold War is over, the frontier has been conquered. Now over three hundred million of us live in fixed borders with a global economy. We have an opportunity to move away from the illusion that the magic of markets, trickle down, or tax cuts will rebuild America. How about concentrating on the common good for a while.
We can't sprinkle democracy dust on the third world or remake everyone in our own image. Lets rebuild our own infrastructure, solve our healthcare and educational issues, and lead by example.
1
Brooks is looking at the wrong spectrum. It is not the liberal conservative line we should be looking at, but the reality ideology line. We need politicians who look at the data, not ideological fanatics. Bernie is way out on the reality spectrum while the Republicans are way out on the other end. Here are some lies conservatives believe:
1. Significantly (say, no deficits for more than 3 years) paying down the federal debt has usually been good for the economy.
2. The single payer health care systems of other developed countries produce no better results at not much lower costs.
3. The very high top tax rates after WWII combined with high real (ratio of taxes actually paid to GDP) corporate taxes stifled economic growth.
4. The devastation of WWII caused the output of Europe to stay low for many (>10) years.
5. A small ratio of federal debt to GDP has always insured prosperity.
6. Inequality such as we have today (Gini about ,50) has usually encouraged entrepreneurship thus helping the economy.
7. Our ratio of our corporate taxes actually paid to GDP is among the highest of all developed countries.
8. Since WWI, the cause of severe inflation in developed countries has usually been the printing of money.
9. As a percentage of GDP, today's federal debt service is the highest in many years.
10. Inequality such as we have today is an aberration; the history of capitalism has shown that periods like 1946 - 1973 with low inequality are the norm.
1. Significantly (say, no deficits for more than 3 years) paying down the federal debt has usually been good for the economy.
2. The single payer health care systems of other developed countries produce no better results at not much lower costs.
3. The very high top tax rates after WWII combined with high real (ratio of taxes actually paid to GDP) corporate taxes stifled economic growth.
4. The devastation of WWII caused the output of Europe to stay low for many (>10) years.
5. A small ratio of federal debt to GDP has always insured prosperity.
6. Inequality such as we have today (Gini about ,50) has usually encouraged entrepreneurship thus helping the economy.
7. Our ratio of our corporate taxes actually paid to GDP is among the highest of all developed countries.
8. Since WWI, the cause of severe inflation in developed countries has usually been the printing of money.
9. As a percentage of GDP, today's federal debt service is the highest in many years.
10. Inequality such as we have today is an aberration; the history of capitalism has shown that periods like 1946 - 1973 with low inequality are the norm.
The Modern Era is over, and the attempt to cure sectarian violence with individualism and materialism has reached its limits in hyper-modern chaos. The choice is not between doubling down on Modern liberalism or a return to sectarian exclusivity. The world will return to more community-oriented and less individualistic forms. The real question is how open and tolerant these communities will be. Can we learn to function more like ecosystems - with clear identities at the center and open edges where constant exchange goes on? So far, extremists are winning because they are clear about creating strong cohesive groups. As long as moderates keep pushing individualism and ignoring the human need for community, we will continue to fail.
David Brooks' opening paragraphs of article: "As every schoolchild knows, the gravitational pull of the sun helps hold the planets in their orbits. Gravity from the center lends coherence to the whole solar system. I mention this because that’s how our political and social systems used to work, but no longer do. In each sphere of life there used to be a few big suns radiating conviction and meaning. The other bodies in orbit were defined by their resistance or attraction to that pull." Please give us a list of names David Brooks--say 100 names--of the big suns radiating conviction and meaning over the past fifty years. Specifically give us the names of people of integrity and intelligence, true individuals (since you also state individuality was and is a major goal of our democracy here in the U.S.) in especially the written word--especially the written word because the written word more than anything else finds itself at odds with marketing, business, political interests,--all those who who seek to force themselves upon the public and mold the mind. My experience of America over the past fifty years is not much of a sun radiating warmth and intelligence on the American public. Rather what I have seen is a lot of attempts at control by the two major political parties and business whether that means television and newspaper and I am still of the belief I had when 12 years of age: That the only place one can be sure of integrity, recognition of accomplishment, is rock music.
1
The "big suns" in our little universe have abandoned the very things that made the nation what it was. We once had a robust democracy and a thriving middle class. Today, we are a de facto oligarchic surveillance state with the political system up for the highest bidder and our great public companies, which once led the world, have stopped being anything more than pure profit seeking entities busy "maximizing shareholder value".
The result is a politico-economic system that long ago stopped working for most Americans, who are justly frustrated by the state of things and therefore turning away from elites who have demonstrated time and again that they really don't care.
I can blame the GOP for this, but the truth is that elites in both parties have been busy pushing an anti-middle-class agenda for quite some time. It was Bill Clinton who pushed through NAFTA and Obama who is pushing for the TPP. Both are excellent if you own stocks and terrible for people who once made a decent living in manufacturing.
What I think people are also finding is that having the latest new piece of iJunk doesn't create happiness; it creates a feeling of emptiness. What people are seeking is a sense of meaning and purpose, which happens to be something market economies are just awful at creating. We have failed to put capitalism in its rightful place as a tool for prosperity and have instead elevated it into a civic religion with predictable unhappy results.
The result is a politico-economic system that long ago stopped working for most Americans, who are justly frustrated by the state of things and therefore turning away from elites who have demonstrated time and again that they really don't care.
I can blame the GOP for this, but the truth is that elites in both parties have been busy pushing an anti-middle-class agenda for quite some time. It was Bill Clinton who pushed through NAFTA and Obama who is pushing for the TPP. Both are excellent if you own stocks and terrible for people who once made a decent living in manufacturing.
What I think people are also finding is that having the latest new piece of iJunk doesn't create happiness; it creates a feeling of emptiness. What people are seeking is a sense of meaning and purpose, which happens to be something market economies are just awful at creating. We have failed to put capitalism in its rightful place as a tool for prosperity and have instead elevated it into a civic religion with predictable unhappy results.
Gravity has no pull. According to the General Theory of Relativity what we perceive as gravity is space-time warped by normal natural matter. But most matter is dark and so is most energy. The matter and energy that we know makes up a mere 4% of physical reality. Most of space-time is occupied by 70% dark energy and 26% dark matter wherever or whatever they both are.
Using gravity as the metaphor to hold together a socioeconomic political educational argument lacks the proper context and perspective. Outsiders are better conceived of as pillaging rampaging mysterious alien barbarians of unknown origin. The harbingers of unknown revolutionary and civil socioeconomic political educational war.
Using gravity as the metaphor to hold together a socioeconomic political educational argument lacks the proper context and perspective. Outsiders are better conceived of as pillaging rampaging mysterious alien barbarians of unknown origin. The harbingers of unknown revolutionary and civil socioeconomic political educational war.
1
Start with the studied intellectual secularism that places man at the center of the universe, as the highest form without accountability beyond its approving, supporting class. No wonder conviction and faith are vying for ascendence. This country was founded on the principle that the individual is born with embedded, natural rights - the right to live, and to be free to pursue its own excellence and talents. Perhaps to fail and learn, then succeed and share that success. This philosophy brings meaning and satisfaction to the individual: ie happiness and happy, healthy prosperous people are good, giving and productive people who treasure their blessings and understand their obligation to spread them among those less fortunate. Let us remember that God-fearing/loving/owing America created the institution of volunteerism still absent in much of the world and its cultures. Materialism rushed in where the religious faithful rarely trod. We broke it, we must fix it. The Founding Fathers were mavericks, extremists and traitors. Perhaps in fact, we need some of those again, to remind us that we are most certainly not the highest law: that there is a higher calling. Stewardship not stifling power that tramples the human spirit is what we need now. We've spent too much time pursuing the perfection of power (government). Time to get back to the people.
Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity, not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy; and resulting in time dilation, where time lapses more slowly in strong gravitation.
Davids definition of gravity is Newtonian and out of date. Our present political chaos is the result of uneven distributions of wealth (mass) resulting in
influence-dilations where a lack of wealth causes political influence to move more slowly. The result is that power/influence is distributed less broadly.
Davids definition of gravity is Newtonian and out of date. Our present political chaos is the result of uneven distributions of wealth (mass) resulting in
influence-dilations where a lack of wealth causes political influence to move more slowly. The result is that power/influence is distributed less broadly.
3
These outsiders burn with conviction because they currently hold no responsibility, and therefore, can say whatever idiotic thing polls well, because it's a bunch of talk.
Put one of them in a position of power, and it'll be brought to heel post-haste.
I'm of the mind that while we certainly have some work to do in this country, the last thing we need is a revolution. What we really need is boring, responsible governance, and stability. Properly fund our commitments, and earnestly endeavor to serve the people.
In that light, polarizing, energetic figures with jarring ideas may sell ads, but they are guaranteed to exacerbate Congressional gridlock and the incomprehensibly revived culture wars.
I'd opt for a single party Democratic supermajority for two Presidential terms, we would finally begin to address the root of our modern problems - campaign finance, the composition of the Supreme Court, and continuation of responsible governance.
Put one of them in a position of power, and it'll be brought to heel post-haste.
I'm of the mind that while we certainly have some work to do in this country, the last thing we need is a revolution. What we really need is boring, responsible governance, and stability. Properly fund our commitments, and earnestly endeavor to serve the people.
In that light, polarizing, energetic figures with jarring ideas may sell ads, but they are guaranteed to exacerbate Congressional gridlock and the incomprehensibly revived culture wars.
I'd opt for a single party Democratic supermajority for two Presidential terms, we would finally begin to address the root of our modern problems - campaign finance, the composition of the Supreme Court, and continuation of responsible governance.
3
The problem is that democracy only works in a diverse society if certain things happen:
1- People agree to be tolerant of world views and faiths different from their own.
2- The ability to accept the decisions made by the electorate.
3- A respect for all people- not just those you agree with.
4- An understanding that governments were created to serve people and society by doing the things private individuals or enterprise cannot or will not do effectively or fairly.
5- Each generation has a responsibility of stewardship to the generations that follow.
We are not getting that from the Republicans in the United States. They are practicing scorched earth tactics and that will eventually come back to bite them- ask soon to be ex Prime Minister Harper. The Liberals went from irrelevance to majority in one election.
1- People agree to be tolerant of world views and faiths different from their own.
2- The ability to accept the decisions made by the electorate.
3- A respect for all people- not just those you agree with.
4- An understanding that governments were created to serve people and society by doing the things private individuals or enterprise cannot or will not do effectively or fairly.
5- Each generation has a responsibility of stewardship to the generations that follow.
We are not getting that from the Republicans in the United States. They are practicing scorched earth tactics and that will eventually come back to bite them- ask soon to be ex Prime Minister Harper. The Liberals went from irrelevance to majority in one election.
9
It takes at least six years and three elections to change the direction of federal government in the US.
David,
Your column brings to mind this William Butler Yeats' Second Coming, first stanza:
"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
One suggested quick solution for you and GOP members of conscience to ponder and possibly advocate is for 35 or so members of the GOP, who think as you do, to consider declaring themselves Independents and then joining the Democratic Caucus. This would return the House majority back to the Democrats and have a much better chance of the Congress moving to solve national problems.
I knew that something was wrong when the GOP turn Senator Lugar out and recently I heard one of the Freedom Caucus say that the problem was Obama (who is not seeking reelection) and the GOP majority Senate?
The alternative is continuation of the anarchic trends. This will save the seats of many of the Republicans, who are under attack by their own party.
Your column brings to mind this William Butler Yeats' Second Coming, first stanza:
"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
One suggested quick solution for you and GOP members of conscience to ponder and possibly advocate is for 35 or so members of the GOP, who think as you do, to consider declaring themselves Independents and then joining the Democratic Caucus. This would return the House majority back to the Democrats and have a much better chance of the Congress moving to solve national problems.
I knew that something was wrong when the GOP turn Senator Lugar out and recently I heard one of the Freedom Caucus say that the problem was Obama (who is not seeking reelection) and the GOP majority Senate?
The alternative is continuation of the anarchic trends. This will save the seats of many of the Republicans, who are under attack by their own party.
2
Democracy has grown dysfunctional - nonfunctional - because of Citizens United and gerrymandering. A legal entity's financial power is considered speech that outweighs the concept of one person one vote. That decision and that process did not come out of the ether. Certain Americans of your political persuasion did these things. The attempts to make democracy meaningful - caps on political spending and the VRA - have been obliterated by these same Americans.
Intertwining capitalism with materialism and individualism ignores capitalist societies that don't heavily emphasize things and use the collective good to protect the individuals in it.
Rejection of secularism is not a process limited to "the world". It has been entrenched in the US - by your party. It rejects same sex relationships, science, healthcare and critical thinking. American anti-secularists ideology parallels the fanatics to which you refer: anti-modern, manifestly anti-woman, aggressively territorial, violent societies, abhor central government, racist/ethnocentric, seeks to establish one official religion.
WTC was funded by successful capitalists. The supporting ideology is funded by successful capitalists. These people are deeply spiritual. The bulwark of the West doubled down on its fanatical neocon ideology and ignored the WTC's looming destruction.
Their less financially successful followers - who are the base of your party- differ from ours in degree, not kind.
Intertwining capitalism with materialism and individualism ignores capitalist societies that don't heavily emphasize things and use the collective good to protect the individuals in it.
Rejection of secularism is not a process limited to "the world". It has been entrenched in the US - by your party. It rejects same sex relationships, science, healthcare and critical thinking. American anti-secularists ideology parallels the fanatics to which you refer: anti-modern, manifestly anti-woman, aggressively territorial, violent societies, abhor central government, racist/ethnocentric, seeks to establish one official religion.
WTC was funded by successful capitalists. The supporting ideology is funded by successful capitalists. These people are deeply spiritual. The bulwark of the West doubled down on its fanatical neocon ideology and ignored the WTC's looming destruction.
Their less financially successful followers - who are the base of your party- differ from ours in degree, not kind.
6
This column cites many wide ranging examples in support of its thesis, but only gives passing reference to the financial collapse of 2008, and completely ignores the foundation of most discontent- income inequality and the fallout from Reganomics.
For the last thirty-five years, the United States has lived under a form of economic extremism, which funneled all growth, wealth, and its accompanying power upward into smaller segments of the population. Simultaneously, we have been under an unrelenting assault by corporate interests who demolished labor unions, consolidated ownership of media for propaganda purposes, corporatized higher education and prisons, and have - most damagingly- done everything in their power to corrupt our government through financial influence.
The "big loss of central confidence" is the American people finally waking up as to how rigged and corrupt our current system is. We've swallowed trickle down poison for three decades, and are much worse off as a result.
If we are entering an "Age of Exhaustion" it is only our exhaustion with a crooked status quo which only serves itself, and not those whom it is tasked in representing. You might think that's exhaustion, but I look at is as hopeful. The American people are finally waking up, and we're tired of being played.
We want our democracy back.
For the last thirty-five years, the United States has lived under a form of economic extremism, which funneled all growth, wealth, and its accompanying power upward into smaller segments of the population. Simultaneously, we have been under an unrelenting assault by corporate interests who demolished labor unions, consolidated ownership of media for propaganda purposes, corporatized higher education and prisons, and have - most damagingly- done everything in their power to corrupt our government through financial influence.
The "big loss of central confidence" is the American people finally waking up as to how rigged and corrupt our current system is. We've swallowed trickle down poison for three decades, and are much worse off as a result.
If we are entering an "Age of Exhaustion" it is only our exhaustion with a crooked status quo which only serves itself, and not those whom it is tasked in representing. You might think that's exhaustion, but I look at is as hopeful. The American people are finally waking up, and we're tired of being played.
We want our democracy back.
5
Democracy works when everyone agrees that they have a mutual interest in sharing decision making and doing so by agreeing to accept the decisions of the majority. Underneath it all is a perception that we are all in it together, so we agree to live in a manner in which nobody is left out and everyone has enough material goods and means to participate, meaning progressive income tax to offset inequalities. It was impressed upon us by the difficulties in overcoming the Great Depression and winning in World War II. We developed a sense of trust in working for our mutual best interests in a secular civil order that included all who were willing to join in, and it worked.
Unfortunately, it all came apart and it does not exist except in memory, destroyed by us all. What we see today are isolated groups and individuals fending for themselves, in a kind of Hobbesian state of nature.
Unfortunately, it all came apart and it does not exist except in memory, destroyed by us all. What we see today are isolated groups and individuals fending for themselves, in a kind of Hobbesian state of nature.
2
When they thrust idols in you face, and scream that the dead must be appeased, there is no negotiation.
"In the 1990s, the central political institutions radiated confidence, derived from an assumed vision of the post-Cold War world. History would be a slow march toward democratic capitalism. This vision was materialistic and individualistic. Nations should pursue economic growth and a decent distribution of wealth. If you give individuals access to education and opportunity, they will pursue affluence and personal happiness."
Except that this never happened. That's the narrative that the public knows, but in reality, our institutions projected capitalism FAR more than democracy. The vision WAS materialistic and individualistic, aligning with the prevailing Neoliberal US ideology, which was taking a victory lap.
However, rather than trying to balance the international promotion and tempering of those impulses, we went whole hog. We promoted a massive land grab by Oligarchs in ex-Soviet states. It was all privatization, supported by our "best" thinkers that wanted to bring the Reagan Revolution to Moscow.
The end-game of distribution and education were ignored for the short game of market magic and personal profit. As this failed abroad, we created room for Putin. As it fails at home, we get Trump.
The counterbalancing force David wished for is global communism! Its spectre made us temper our worst instincts. Without it, we've run amok.
Except that this never happened. That's the narrative that the public knows, but in reality, our institutions projected capitalism FAR more than democracy. The vision WAS materialistic and individualistic, aligning with the prevailing Neoliberal US ideology, which was taking a victory lap.
However, rather than trying to balance the international promotion and tempering of those impulses, we went whole hog. We promoted a massive land grab by Oligarchs in ex-Soviet states. It was all privatization, supported by our "best" thinkers that wanted to bring the Reagan Revolution to Moscow.
The end-game of distribution and education were ignored for the short game of market magic and personal profit. As this failed abroad, we created room for Putin. As it fails at home, we get Trump.
The counterbalancing force David wished for is global communism! Its spectre made us temper our worst instincts. Without it, we've run amok.
3
Radicalism rises when the established governing class refuses to acknowledge or address serious social, political and economic issues. The world sees escalating tensions and dislocations due to escalating stresses of overpopulation, global warming, technological change and increasing scarcity of resources. In the US the political class refuses to confront serious domestic issues because the establishment does not want to change or adjust to new conditions since it perceives change threatens the status quo and the establishment likes the status quo because it benefits from the status quo. According to the late Republican economist Herbert Stein, trends continue until they can't. Waiting until things stop working is a recipe for social, political and economic upheaval.
4
Since the US decreed itself "under God", its citizens have come to take for granted that God provides for everything.
I used to be proud of splitting my ticket among those candidates I thought were best, or at least less awful. I have deep suspicion regarding political parties, and scorned those voters who chose not on individual or issue but by party alone.
Not anymore.
Ever since their tortured efforts to excuse Nixon, the Republicans have embraced closing ranks, ignoring or denying obvious failures and latching onto any life preserver, no matter how noxious, that will cover their failures at governance. Sky high deficits and Iran-Contra under Reagan? Never happened, doesn't matter, co-opt the poison spewed by Limbaugh and his ilk to marginalize 'others' and deflect. Bush I's abortive Gulf War and tax increases? Turn on him for apostasy. Clinton's economic success? Impeach him and drag the country through years of sordid, made-up political witch hunts. Sell the political process to a tiny group of the fantastically rich, gerrymander districts to disenfranchise as many non-conservatives as possible, embrace the snakes of the Tea Party, ALEC and Wall Street to gain momentary advantage while ignoring the inevitable result of their combined venom. Foist a president on the country through electoral trickery, unleash the wolves of Wall Street and watch them fall, ravening, on the American public, lie to the world and start a war without foreseeable end, and then shut down the government when voters take away power.
That is what is killing faith, hope and trust.
Not anymore.
Ever since their tortured efforts to excuse Nixon, the Republicans have embraced closing ranks, ignoring or denying obvious failures and latching onto any life preserver, no matter how noxious, that will cover their failures at governance. Sky high deficits and Iran-Contra under Reagan? Never happened, doesn't matter, co-opt the poison spewed by Limbaugh and his ilk to marginalize 'others' and deflect. Bush I's abortive Gulf War and tax increases? Turn on him for apostasy. Clinton's economic success? Impeach him and drag the country through years of sordid, made-up political witch hunts. Sell the political process to a tiny group of the fantastically rich, gerrymander districts to disenfranchise as many non-conservatives as possible, embrace the snakes of the Tea Party, ALEC and Wall Street to gain momentary advantage while ignoring the inevitable result of their combined venom. Foist a president on the country through electoral trickery, unleash the wolves of Wall Street and watch them fall, ravening, on the American public, lie to the world and start a war without foreseeable end, and then shut down the government when voters take away power.
That is what is killing faith, hope and trust.
7
Sorry, but I think the best way forward for humanity is, in
fact, through "materialism and individual happiness," at least
in the short-term. Most of the organized violence in the world
today is the outcome of notions of collective moral, sectarian
or national superiority. There may be a long-term solution
to this in the form of some new universalist religion or political
philosophy not yet imagined. But in the meantime, the most
effective way to sap the toxic energy of collective insanity is
to encourage individuals to abandon it to pursue their own goals.
If the majority seek nothing more than material contentment,
isn't that still better than the alternative?
fact, through "materialism and individual happiness," at least
in the short-term. Most of the organized violence in the world
today is the outcome of notions of collective moral, sectarian
or national superiority. There may be a long-term solution
to this in the form of some new universalist religion or political
philosophy not yet imagined. But in the meantime, the most
effective way to sap the toxic energy of collective insanity is
to encourage individuals to abandon it to pursue their own goals.
If the majority seek nothing more than material contentment,
isn't that still better than the alternative?
14
If by material contentment entails a concept "enough", you may be right. But if material contentment means "more" we are right back in the same place.
"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Once again Mr Brooks misses the point. We just spent the last decade proving that it is impossible for the United States to oversee the world order. Two wars spending trillions of dollars, think of what that could have done for the beleaguered programs like education, infrastructure development, medical research, social security, etc etc etc ... All we succeeded in doing was destabilizing the region and allowed more radical groups to fill the void.
He is right is that the problem is spiritual or should I say religious. Religion has proved to be the most divisive force on the planet. More people have died over these differences then any other cause. Once people understand that no ones God is going to come to the rescue and that we need to be inclusive in our policies will we have a chance to deal with our ever increasing problems on planet earth.
He is right is that the problem is spiritual or should I say religious. Religion has proved to be the most divisive force on the planet. More people have died over these differences then any other cause. Once people understand that no ones God is going to come to the rescue and that we need to be inclusive in our policies will we have a chance to deal with our ever increasing problems on planet earth.
101
Context is everything. It is surely correct to remark with concern on the rise ISIS, the resurgence of Cold War-era thinking in Moscow, and the Know-Nothings at home in the present incarnation of Trump, Carson, et al. But the remedy is not the substitution of "spiritualism" for logical, rational, educated thinking.
Brooks pretends not to know that it was the Enlightenment, not more "spiritualism," which began to break the stranglehold of the medieval church on science, clarity of thought and moral progress. Surely from 1300-1700, free thinkers (i.e. those who did not dedicate their brains to merely repeating the tired nonsense of superstitious men dead for 1,000 years or more) would have been regarded as "outsiders" and a danger to settled expectations of the few who, then as now, sought to hold on to their accident-of-birth privileges over the masses, through power and fear.
The United States in particular is a far better place for having historically relegated organized religion to the private sphere, decoupling its coercive authority from the power of representative government. The last thing we need as we face challenges such as climate change and the rise of new superpowers is to abandon reason and retreat to Brooks' children's reading room, filled only with coloring books based on the fables of the Old and New Testament.
Brooks pretends not to know that it was the Enlightenment, not more "spiritualism," which began to break the stranglehold of the medieval church on science, clarity of thought and moral progress. Surely from 1300-1700, free thinkers (i.e. those who did not dedicate their brains to merely repeating the tired nonsense of superstitious men dead for 1,000 years or more) would have been regarded as "outsiders" and a danger to settled expectations of the few who, then as now, sought to hold on to their accident-of-birth privileges over the masses, through power and fear.
The United States in particular is a far better place for having historically relegated organized religion to the private sphere, decoupling its coercive authority from the power of representative government. The last thing we need as we face challenges such as climate change and the rise of new superpowers is to abandon reason and retreat to Brooks' children's reading room, filled only with coloring books based on the fables of the Old and New Testament.
87
Where does Brooks mention the OT or NT? I always assume he means a new-agey take on spiritualism, even when expressed through a traditional religion.
nope, that ain't it.
As Tony Downs ("The Economic Theory of Democracy") and others have explained, in a two-party system each party tries to maximize the number of voters it attracts by moving as close as it can to the center. Think about the analog of two hot-dog stands on a beach: they will be close to each other at the center. This is, or was, the basic force that kept the US political system away from an extremist President.
At the root of the effects that changed this more-or-less happy result was not so much the factors David mentioned, but rather the democratization of the primaries after 1968 and extreme gerrymandering. This combination led to pressures within each party to move away from the center -- more toward its own center.
Of course many other forces, both domestic and international, were also acting -- as David and many of the comments describe. Globalization with its downward pressure on the wages of the unskilled, and the return to labor in general; the end of the Cold War, which was the conclusion of the end of colonialism, that unleashed the disenfranchised of the third world and in particular the long-seething despairs of the Arab societies. And more. But to say that "... the primary problem is moral and spiritual..." is an extreme example of an unsupported conclusion. David, I fear you are projecting your own personal enlightenment a bit further than its validity can sustain.
As Tony Downs ("The Economic Theory of Democracy") and others have explained, in a two-party system each party tries to maximize the number of voters it attracts by moving as close as it can to the center. Think about the analog of two hot-dog stands on a beach: they will be close to each other at the center. This is, or was, the basic force that kept the US political system away from an extremist President.
At the root of the effects that changed this more-or-less happy result was not so much the factors David mentioned, but rather the democratization of the primaries after 1968 and extreme gerrymandering. This combination led to pressures within each party to move away from the center -- more toward its own center.
Of course many other forces, both domestic and international, were also acting -- as David and many of the comments describe. Globalization with its downward pressure on the wages of the unskilled, and the return to labor in general; the end of the Cold War, which was the conclusion of the end of colonialism, that unleashed the disenfranchised of the third world and in particular the long-seething despairs of the Arab societies. And more. But to say that "... the primary problem is moral and spiritual..." is an extreme example of an unsupported conclusion. David, I fear you are projecting your own personal enlightenment a bit further than its validity can sustain.
48
I have never voted Republican in my entire life (I am 65) but I find the comments of so many "progressives" about the nature of faith to be incredibly ignorant. Their comments reflect the same kind of dogmatism and ideological purity that characterizes the most conservative fundamentalists. I do not always agree with Brooks but I ascribe to the truth spoken to by philosophers, theologians, and faith based folks and most succinctly in scripture that we are made in God's image, that we are more than materials human beings that long for meaning, beauty, connection, and love. Faith based folks consider these elements to be given by God for all people to partake in.
From both a secular and a faith based perspective,
Consider the overwhelming response of hope surrounding the visit of Pope Francis.
Consider the spiritual power of a Martin Luther King JR. Their character and their followers are/were rooted in believing that God intervenes in the world through his people now to care for the poor, to show mercy and seek justice. and be humble.That is what we are called to do. David Brooks is caulking for this kind of character.
Are the dogmatic atheists in this post just dismissive? You have the mindset of adolescents who never move beyond reacting to the sins of their past.
From both a secular and a faith based perspective,
Consider the overwhelming response of hope surrounding the visit of Pope Francis.
Consider the spiritual power of a Martin Luther King JR. Their character and their followers are/were rooted in believing that God intervenes in the world through his people now to care for the poor, to show mercy and seek justice. and be humble.That is what we are called to do. David Brooks is caulking for this kind of character.
Are the dogmatic atheists in this post just dismissive? You have the mindset of adolescents who never move beyond reacting to the sins of their past.
My husband used to say that you want those potential discontented people on the inside spewing (that wasn't his word, but I'm not sure what he used would pass commenting standards) out, not on the outside spewing in.
As for interior hollowness of institutions, or of people, interior bankruptcy maybe comes from pursuing a mistaken fix for what ails them -- perhaps a rich but still unsatiated institution or person tries to continue to take more, rather than reversing the dynamic and trying to give more instead. Why people or institutions want more and more -- money, power, prestige -- is usually understood, I think, in terms of a wound or flaw. But to address it, people or institutions have to be willing to change, and to change in ways they may find difficult. Most people or institutions who do even get as far as be willing to make changes usually only make superficial changes, unless something big forces them into realizing that their current mode of operating is not adequate, and they also have information that allows them to try something better.
So maybe one approach to the problem as presented is for institutions to become healthier themselves.
As for interior hollowness of institutions, or of people, interior bankruptcy maybe comes from pursuing a mistaken fix for what ails them -- perhaps a rich but still unsatiated institution or person tries to continue to take more, rather than reversing the dynamic and trying to give more instead. Why people or institutions want more and more -- money, power, prestige -- is usually understood, I think, in terms of a wound or flaw. But to address it, people or institutions have to be willing to change, and to change in ways they may find difficult. Most people or institutions who do even get as far as be willing to make changes usually only make superficial changes, unless something big forces them into realizing that their current mode of operating is not adequate, and they also have information that allows them to try something better.
So maybe one approach to the problem as presented is for institutions to become healthier themselves.
2
Bernie Sanders is not marginal. He is an articulate presidential candidate running on real ideas of how to fix the problems in our country. And unlike your fringe candidates on the right, he is an actual Senator, who has held public office before.
Do you think the rich are undertaxed in this country? Do you think US corporations should not be able to park their profits in the Cayman Islands and not pay taxes? Do you think it's not okay for young people to become indentured servants in order to get a college degree? Do you think the banks should not be allowed to get bigger and bigger? Do you think that at least one banker should have gone to jail for criminal acts during the financial crisis of 2008? Do you think we should rebuild our infrastructure? Do you think we shouldn't have invaded Iraq?
Even in regards to the invasion of Iraq, you and your fellow conservatives refuse to admit it was a horrible mistake, a self-inflicted wound, for which we are still paying.
You and your Republicans have created the mess in your party. Now you are sowing the seeds you've sown, from states' rights to WIllie Horton, from Swiftboating to Birther issues, you have allowed this ugliness on the right to fester and now every week you seem to be more and more in despair.
But, we on the left don't share your despair. We see that the majority support gun control, Planned Parenthood, rebuilding our infrastructure, helping our fellow citizens.
You just need to heal your own party, Mr. Brooks.
Do you think the rich are undertaxed in this country? Do you think US corporations should not be able to park their profits in the Cayman Islands and not pay taxes? Do you think it's not okay for young people to become indentured servants in order to get a college degree? Do you think the banks should not be allowed to get bigger and bigger? Do you think that at least one banker should have gone to jail for criminal acts during the financial crisis of 2008? Do you think we should rebuild our infrastructure? Do you think we shouldn't have invaded Iraq?
Even in regards to the invasion of Iraq, you and your fellow conservatives refuse to admit it was a horrible mistake, a self-inflicted wound, for which we are still paying.
You and your Republicans have created the mess in your party. Now you are sowing the seeds you've sown, from states' rights to WIllie Horton, from Swiftboating to Birther issues, you have allowed this ugliness on the right to fester and now every week you seem to be more and more in despair.
But, we on the left don't share your despair. We see that the majority support gun control, Planned Parenthood, rebuilding our infrastructure, helping our fellow citizens.
You just need to heal your own party, Mr. Brooks.
13
Bernie Sanders is right on many of his positions. His refusal not to to parse the truth for the sake of politics is refreshing. He has captured the imagination and enthusiasm of many younger more educated voters. He can do much to help set the agenda for the upcoming election. But let's be honest. Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist from Vermont. As the Democrat nominee in a national election Bernie Sanders would be lucky to carry three or four states. Bernie Sanders is a marginal candidate.
We have lost our way on the path to perfection. Any illusions that we have "democratic" capitalism is badly flawed. Our democracy is flawed due to Citizens United which empowers capitalists to overcome any semblance of democracy. Voters feel disenfranchised so they don't bother to vote-note that Canada had a 68 percent turnout in yesterday's election. The rich are getting richer and poor have no hope of doing better because conservatives have control and believe we can not afford to provide a quality education, health care, and fix our infrastructure (let along make it better-public transportation). We definitely need a new direction, but it is not by doubling down on radical austerity as proposed by most Republican candidates for President.
4
"it’s not clear the foreign policy and defense apparatus believes anymore in its own abilities to establish order, or that the American public has any confidence in U.S. effectiveness as a global actor."
It is not confidence that gets things done. It's statecraft and alliances. Confidence without those is hubris that alienates the rest of the world and results in wars we can't win. What a silly column.
It is not confidence that gets things done. It's statecraft and alliances. Confidence without those is hubris that alienates the rest of the world and results in wars we can't win. What a silly column.
3
"In the 1990s, the central political institutions radiated confidence, derived from an assumed vision of the post-Cold War world. History would be a slow march toward democratic capitalism. Nations would be bound in peaceful associations like the European Union. The United States would oversee a basic international order."
Analysis sentence by sentence.
1. The US vision of the end of the cold war was to push its influence into countries that have been in the sphere of Russian cultural and political control for centuries. Was that really smart?
2. Democratic capitalism in Western Europe since the end of WWII? Yes. Not so much in the US where you now have a monetized economy on WS, corporations are people & a push over the LAST 35 YEARS (not 15) by the R's to destroy your government.
3. The EU is a project, despite growing pains, is supported & recognized by Europeans as our greatest achievement - especially following our history - centuries of conflict and war. The EU poses a problem for the US. We are collectively saying that we too have a voice in world affairs and will not necessarily follow US dictates.
4. The US can not alone "oversee a basic international order". Rome didn't last forever. The French, British, Spanish and Portuguese empires have also dissolved. The USSR has a short 70 year lifespan. In my opinion, the US, for the good of its people, should concentrate on your domestic problems in order to preserve your democracy and gracefully exit as the world cop.
Analysis sentence by sentence.
1. The US vision of the end of the cold war was to push its influence into countries that have been in the sphere of Russian cultural and political control for centuries. Was that really smart?
2. Democratic capitalism in Western Europe since the end of WWII? Yes. Not so much in the US where you now have a monetized economy on WS, corporations are people & a push over the LAST 35 YEARS (not 15) by the R's to destroy your government.
3. The EU is a project, despite growing pains, is supported & recognized by Europeans as our greatest achievement - especially following our history - centuries of conflict and war. The EU poses a problem for the US. We are collectively saying that we too have a voice in world affairs and will not necessarily follow US dictates.
4. The US can not alone "oversee a basic international order". Rome didn't last forever. The French, British, Spanish and Portuguese empires have also dissolved. The USSR has a short 70 year lifespan. In my opinion, the US, for the good of its people, should concentrate on your domestic problems in order to preserve your democracy and gracefully exit as the world cop.
3
"Since 2000, this vision of the post-Cold War world has received blow after blow. Some of these blows were self-inflicted. Democracy, especially in the United States, has grown dysfunctional. Mass stupidity and greed led to a financial collapse and deprived capitalism of its moral swagger"
As I see the fits and starts underway in the two parties, I prefer a "marginal player" like Bernie Sanders to the likes of the Republican offerings. Just the same, I agree that we need some sort of charismatic political figure who can re-aim us. No one is there to do it now.
How the world is to live with the Putins, the al-Assad's, and the likes of the destructive Cruz's remains to be seen. It would be wonderful if those people following us into the future had something positive to live for and they certainly don't now.
Let the rallying cry be, "Represent all your citizens! All 330 million of them."
At least in a Democratic society, that should be the most important aspect of good governance. Little else matters. If we can't hold our own society together, we have no place trying to tell other nations how they should run theirs.
As I see the fits and starts underway in the two parties, I prefer a "marginal player" like Bernie Sanders to the likes of the Republican offerings. Just the same, I agree that we need some sort of charismatic political figure who can re-aim us. No one is there to do it now.
How the world is to live with the Putins, the al-Assad's, and the likes of the destructive Cruz's remains to be seen. It would be wonderful if those people following us into the future had something positive to live for and they certainly don't now.
Let the rallying cry be, "Represent all your citizens! All 330 million of them."
At least in a Democratic society, that should be the most important aspect of good governance. Little else matters. If we can't hold our own society together, we have no place trying to tell other nations how they should run theirs.
3
Turning away from God, as our country has done in recent times, always leads to destruction of that civilization. Hopefully, as has happened in the past, we will have a revival, another great wakening, and will get back on track.
I think that is exactly the same thing the radical Islamists would say. Problem is, it comes down to what religion and whose God.
We can no longer afford rationalizing this government with lies about nature, the worst of which is the claim that it has a human personality.
Our country turned away from...what?
1
Pope Francis, a global leader, is offering such a vision for the whole world. Read his encyclicals.
1
I fear that Mr Brooks overshoots his mark by conflating our dysfunctional domestic politics with the chaos of the international scene. They are different even if the "true believers" in each domain prefer to proselytize their ideologies rather than engage in enlightened discussion centered on finding common ground.
Domestically, our political dysfunction is driven by a right wing political cabal determined to reshape the country into their vision of social conformity. Although a minority of the republican party, the party's leaders pander to this sect because it votes. The party leaders may or may not buy into the extremism advocated by its propaganda, but their central concern is the exercise of power.
Internationally, the political dysfunction is driven by marginalized leaders who exploit the venues of state or religious ideological fanaticism to gain or keep their exercise of power.
Wait a minute, maybe Mr Brooks is on to something after all.
Domestically, our political dysfunction is driven by a right wing political cabal determined to reshape the country into their vision of social conformity. Although a minority of the republican party, the party's leaders pander to this sect because it votes. The party leaders may or may not buy into the extremism advocated by its propaganda, but their central concern is the exercise of power.
Internationally, the political dysfunction is driven by marginalized leaders who exploit the venues of state or religious ideological fanaticism to gain or keep their exercise of power.
Wait a minute, maybe Mr Brooks is on to something after all.
31
Mr Brooks, the obvious question to me is, "so now what?". Love to read your thoughts on that.
Or maybe it's the friction between the planets that keeps the sun in the center?
One other indication that the center is not holding: the public is increasingly skeptical of the narratives offered by the mainstream media. A case in point is the characterization of Bernie Sanders as a "formerly marginal player", a characterization that reinforces the notion he is "unelectable". And yet at the end of this piece, Mr. Brooks seeks a candidate who might "...offer a goal more profound than material comfort." I would urge Mr. Brooks to read some of the speeches Mr. Sanders is giving and recognize that his goals are more profound than "material comfort"… and that MAY be one of the major reasons his campaign is getting traction.
4
Uh-oh.... David nailed it and I am scared. Seriously.
I see a dark future ahead with the crazies taking over here and around the world. I see democracy, justice, fairness, civility, diplomacy, mercy, and other such words fading. They are replaced by marauding, killing, bloodletting, burning, etc. New alliances are forming as old institutions begin to collapse. New axes of power are taking shape that bode badly for our way of life. The skies are darkening as they did in 1914 and 1932. We need to reinvigorate our institutions and choose leaders who believe in them. We need leaders who have intelligence, knowledge, depth of understanding, experience, and the courage to pull together and represent our interests and our principles. We need to preserve human decency and human rights. We need honesty and realistic behavior. We need to identify our friends and our enemies and think clearly about our future together. We need help and we need to help.
I see a dark future ahead with the crazies taking over here and around the world. I see democracy, justice, fairness, civility, diplomacy, mercy, and other such words fading. They are replaced by marauding, killing, bloodletting, burning, etc. New alliances are forming as old institutions begin to collapse. New axes of power are taking shape that bode badly for our way of life. The skies are darkening as they did in 1914 and 1932. We need to reinvigorate our institutions and choose leaders who believe in them. We need leaders who have intelligence, knowledge, depth of understanding, experience, and the courage to pull together and represent our interests and our principles. We need to preserve human decency and human rights. We need honesty and realistic behavior. We need to identify our friends and our enemies and think clearly about our future together. We need help and we need to help.
32
Nobody who claims to know what God thinks is honest.
If only we could be as "spiritual" as we were in the 1990s then we could deal with the enormous problems we face? That must mean we need leaders as "spiritual" as Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, or Bill Clinton were. What hogwash. What we need, first, is recognition that one formerly national party in the US, the GOP, has abandoned any pretense of rationality in its pursuit of power. It is the party of climate change denialists, enemies of the rights of women, Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities, and the party of the very rich. It seeks to disenfranchise opposition voters by any means possible, etc. That its current contenders to be president are mostly "outsiders" is the result of its scheme to manipulate conservative voters going terribly wrong. It has nothing to do with anything remotely connected with Americans' spiritual condition, which is as various and as chaotic as it always has been.
9
Conservatives create their own ideological boxes when they focus on what is "lost" and not what the actual problems are. Spirituality has never solved socio-economic issues, and neither have tax cuts for the wealthy. What's missing from these kinds of essays is that unlike the prosperous years of the American dream in the mid 20th century, prosperity and economic mobility are so concentrated that a vast majority of citizens are not seeing their lives nor their children's lives improve or even maintain their previous economic status. Claiming to be exceptional as a society requires actually doing those things that represent widely shared prosperity, not allowing a small percentage to accumulate great wealth, leaving 90 percent to share the 50 percent that's left.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
8
Mr. Brooks, Don't be surprised if people start calling you "Phil." Two and half millenia back, Plato, with cogency and perspicacity like yours was known simply as "the Philosopher." Today's column, last Monday's on the House Divided were/are brilliant and help the polity sort out current chaos.
1
"The United States is no longer willing to occupy the commanding heights and oversee global order..... The Islamic State spreads in Syria and Iraq."
---------
When the United States WAS willing to occupy Iraq, for all the wrong reasons, in 2003, was there any thought given to the idea that the action might not be acceptable to many inhabitants of that region, for nationalist and religious reasons ? Western invasions had not worked well for locals in that way since the Napoleonic Wars.
David Brooks describes the political situation at home. He should try to explain how that came about by machinations in the petroleum sector, before scaring the dickens out of the reader by writing "Say hello to President Ted Cruz." We just voted out his kind of Canadian-born, oil-financed "fringeness" in a federal election.
---------
When the United States WAS willing to occupy Iraq, for all the wrong reasons, in 2003, was there any thought given to the idea that the action might not be acceptable to many inhabitants of that region, for nationalist and religious reasons ? Western invasions had not worked well for locals in that way since the Napoleonic Wars.
David Brooks describes the political situation at home. He should try to explain how that came about by machinations in the petroleum sector, before scaring the dickens out of the reader by writing "Say hello to President Ted Cruz." We just voted out his kind of Canadian-born, oil-financed "fringeness" in a federal election.
9
"Some leader has to be able to digest the lessons of the last 15 years and offer a revised charismatic and persuasive sense of America’s historic mission."
Are you kidding me? Someone has to be able to digest the last 60 years! And you're right, Mr. Brooks, the primary problem is mental.
Are you kidding me? Someone has to be able to digest the last 60 years! And you're right, Mr. Brooks, the primary problem is mental.
2
Have been saying this for years. When so many people in a society feel marginalized and inequality is rampant, then revolutions happen. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. And thanks to your Republican chums, David, who have made opposition to ANYTHING the other party puts forth an art form, we are entering into an age of instability and inability to govern. Lord help us all.
4
So what's wrong with "outsiders?" Outsiders create ever more diversity, and liberals absolutely worship diversity. And after seven years of Obama, we now have the Russians, the Chinese, ISIS, the Iranians, the Syrians, and the North Koreans all chanting "Yes we can!"
1
Mr. Brooks,
Given my past submissions, it is unlikely that you will publish this; however, I hope you (personally) consider it:
1. The United States of America is not Planet Earth's "God".
2. Globalism is an "unGodly" (though prophesied) phenomenon.
3. Americans need American money here at home [many of your buddies would spread our money around the world {in furtherance of your own interests}]).
4. It is time for American boys and girls to stop fighting other people's wars (American blood is NOT cheap).
5. Why would you think you and your people have the "right" to rule and we should be on the "fringes"?
(I am not speaking in anger; however, candidity is sometimes appropriate [even for a minister]).
Given my past submissions, it is unlikely that you will publish this; however, I hope you (personally) consider it:
1. The United States of America is not Planet Earth's "God".
2. Globalism is an "unGodly" (though prophesied) phenomenon.
3. Americans need American money here at home [many of your buddies would spread our money around the world {in furtherance of your own interests}]).
4. It is time for American boys and girls to stop fighting other people's wars (American blood is NOT cheap).
5. Why would you think you and your people have the "right" to rule and we should be on the "fringes"?
(I am not speaking in anger; however, candidity is sometimes appropriate [even for a minister]).
5
The leader you describe IS Bernie Sanders, who is not on the fringe but right in the middle of the heart of the Democratic Party. Sanders and his audience of high minded progressives orbit each other in mutual attraction.
5
Bernie's anger assures that he will remain outside.
Bernie is an Independent. High minded progressives are not prohibited from being realistic about the electability of a socialist.
Oh lord, blame the lack of spirituality again. While you're praying, Brooks, people in the USA are seeing their kids go hungry. You never tire of placing morality above mortals.
136
Legislating respect for the lie that nature has an empathetic humanoid personality is one of the worst errors of US public policy.
@klm
I think what you are suggesting is that the morals of all the people you hate and hold responsible for hungry kids are irrelevant. David Brooks is saying that those morals and that decline of spirituality is absolutely at the center of the problem you list.
I always find it odd that Progressives go sarcastic and cynical when someone suggests that contemplation, prayer, self-reflection, and self-awareness might be helpful.
Your desire to "place morality BELOW mortals" needs to justify its ability to save us from ourselves.
And good luck with the cynicism.
I think what you are suggesting is that the morals of all the people you hate and hold responsible for hungry kids are irrelevant. David Brooks is saying that those morals and that decline of spirituality is absolutely at the center of the problem you list.
I always find it odd that Progressives go sarcastic and cynical when someone suggests that contemplation, prayer, self-reflection, and self-awareness might be helpful.
Your desire to "place morality BELOW mortals" needs to justify its ability to save us from ourselves.
And good luck with the cynicism.
1
Of course, we all need to be reminded that one of the goals of Christian fundamentalists is to see that Revelations myth becomes true - that the End of Days occurs starting with wars in the Middle East. Their undying support for Israel is strongly based on the idea that the modern Israeli state has to be part of that war, and that Islam represents the forces of evil in that play. Unless that all happens according to script, they (the true believers) cannot ascend to Heaven, leaving the rest of us behind. Can someone in the press ask this question of the Republican candidates: Do you believe that the ongoing unrest in the Middle East is part of the preparations for the End of Days as explained in the Bible?
"Some leader has to be able to digest the lessons of the last 15 years and offer a revised charismatic and persuasive sense of America’s historic mission."
David, when are you stepping in to run for President?
David, when are you stepping in to run for President?
What is "your" definition of spiritual, David? From your past writings it's apparent that it's a one sided Judeo-Christian view.
Let's get some global perspective, shall we? DNA analysis has revealed that the famous and biblical shroud at Turin was likely made in India! Yes back then way back, cultures mingled and exchanged views and informed each other. Yet today, you are stuck in a "western" mindset of dominance, materialistic and militaristic. You have faith in war.
Another perspective, 6000 year old carvings are found in Silemania, Iraq of mythical Hindu King Rama and his monkey human Hanuman. Deep ties between ancient Sumer and India. Thankfully your favorite King Georgie Bush boy did not destroy the 6000 year old Ram chapel if Sumer. Let's hope ISIS doesn't get to it, either, shhhh.
Let's get some global perspective, shall we? DNA analysis has revealed that the famous and biblical shroud at Turin was likely made in India! Yes back then way back, cultures mingled and exchanged views and informed each other. Yet today, you are stuck in a "western" mindset of dominance, materialistic and militaristic. You have faith in war.
Another perspective, 6000 year old carvings are found in Silemania, Iraq of mythical Hindu King Rama and his monkey human Hanuman. Deep ties between ancient Sumer and India. Thankfully your favorite King Georgie Bush boy did not destroy the 6000 year old Ram chapel if Sumer. Let's hope ISIS doesn't get to it, either, shhhh.
5
The cloth of the Shroud of Turin is a millennium too young to have wrapped the corpse of Jesus, according to Carbon 14 dating.
David's "spirituality" is just a put-on that he knows something lesser mortals do not.
David's "spirituality" is just a put-on that he knows something lesser mortals do not.
1
What is the chance we could get you to write an article entitled "Why Michael Bloomberg should run for President".
2
Bernie Sanders is not a fringe-element outsider. Fevvennsakes, David Brooks, fanatics and zealots (look at Trump and Carson) burn with conviction in our politicized society nowadays. And fuggedabout Ted Cruz becoming POTUS! He was born in Canada, and O, Canada is over the moon today with Justin Trudeau's joyous election as Prime Minister of our sweet northern neighbor! How great to see him following in his Father's liberal footsteps! May Justin Trudeau's election be a harbinger of ours next year.
14
David who was also born in Canada, might feel a bond with Cruz.
1
If all your needs are met "well enough," why would you worry about outsiders when your insiders are doing very well, thank you.....
3
Enjoyed the Yeats but you left the best part out: "what rough beast,..., slouches toward Bethlehem (Washington?)..." Hillary? Trump?
7
And what would be the authority of your orthodoxy?
4
One of today’s most worrying big trends is that the more extreme fringe elements of society are on the rise, in domestic politics, global politics, and beyond.
And you are their apologist when not their defender and rationalist.
And you are their apologist when not their defender and rationalist.
17
I wonder what it would have been like to live in the United States when mostly everyone wanted the same person for President. Would that have been in the years of Franklin Roosevelt?
All this divisive demeanor is overwhelming, it's nauseating actually. It's getting worse with every election cycle, isn't it? Or has history always taken this path in the US? Extreme dislike and meanness toward others who also want to become president? (we don't see that in the Dems this cycle - at least not yet)
It's also very curious about the "outsiders" who have grabbed the steering wheel and taken Americans for this ride. It's a new ball game, but it's scary too. I mean - a brain surgeon in the White House? What does a scalpel have to do with the Pentagon? Maybe more than we could imagine??
Do Americans know what they're doing? Only time will tell and that is the scary part.
All this divisive demeanor is overwhelming, it's nauseating actually. It's getting worse with every election cycle, isn't it? Or has history always taken this path in the US? Extreme dislike and meanness toward others who also want to become president? (we don't see that in the Dems this cycle - at least not yet)
It's also very curious about the "outsiders" who have grabbed the steering wheel and taken Americans for this ride. It's a new ball game, but it's scary too. I mean - a brain surgeon in the White House? What does a scalpel have to do with the Pentagon? Maybe more than we could imagine??
Do Americans know what they're doing? Only time will tell and that is the scary part.
4
All we get from Republicans is government for cronies.
Spirituality used in terms of politics no longer retains its sense of spirituality but rather a bridge to persuade voters. Limiting spirituality to Earthling small solar system is like attributing people's personalities to the 12 Astrological events in the sky. Something the climate change deniers might do while clutching on to their Bibles instead of realizing that there are larger astronomical forces in play. Namely, the scientific fact that interorbital asteroids & comets billions of years ago crashed into our lovely blue planet Earth. The fragments from the rock & ice debris formed goo that was leftover from the crash bringing with them the new building block molecules, RNA and DNA bases, for use as a starter kit for life on Earth. Rising out of the sea, evolutionary forces propelled life onto dry land & sea gills transformed into mouths gasping for air. Ever since this transformational cataclysmic event, mankind has struggled for survival on the planet. When the first civilization sprung up magically in Mesopotamia, the first mythology was created to explain the significance of the culture's existence. This human need to divide or create schisms of difference between ourselves & others is different from the unifying principle of creation which considers all life valuable & worthwhile. Only man creates myths that separate creation into fragments. Nations & their leaders striving for dominance are artificial boundaries of an otherwise perfectly whole planet.
7
Magically? I thought it had to do with agriculture.
The "God" of Abraham was the ruling potentate of Ur, and human sacrifice was a state-sponsored rite there.
I think you have misread radical Islam. Religion was invented by man to serve his needs. It comes in a variety of forms, but in every case it either survives and grows or dies away depending on its ability to serve the people who take it as their faith. I believe that Islam is at a crossroad. Given the number of adherents, in the passed Islam served the people well, but that was when the world was a more isolated place. Now with modern transportation and communication it faces a smaller secular world. It is unable to cope in its present format. It must either modernize or die. What we are seeing is Islam in its death throes, a contest for its survival. The last vestiges of its brutal medieval incarnation is making one last desperate stand. We are unfortunate to the extent that we are caught in the middle, but it is the success of democracy not its failure that we now witness. We cannot determine how the outcome proceeds. That is up to the adherents of the faith. We can only wish them well and do our best not to become part of the collateral damage.
13
Ahh yes, yet another example of modern "journalism's" duality of false equivalences. On one hand...on the other as if Bernie Sanders' 24 years in the House and the Senate are equivalent to Trump's years as the pompous firer-in-chief on reality TV. As if serious attempts at programs to reverse the obscene inequalities of wealth were equivalent to long-discredited voodoo economics that enhance those inequalities. Wow, David, you really do live in an ivory tower of obscured vision.
25
Pockets of civility persist.
Canadians have just elected a new Prime Minister who ran a campaign based on positivity - rather than dividing people by pursuing wedge issues, his platform was based on inclusivity. Most notably, both before and and after his election, he stated unambiguously that the ousted Conservatives are not our enemies, but rather our neighbours. Canadians responded with overwhelming support, and in response to his election, relief.
Canadians have just elected a new Prime Minister who ran a campaign based on positivity - rather than dividing people by pursuing wedge issues, his platform was based on inclusivity. Most notably, both before and and after his election, he stated unambiguously that the ousted Conservatives are not our enemies, but rather our neighbours. Canadians responded with overwhelming support, and in response to his election, relief.
239
And this shows how really different Canadians and Americans are. Canadians actually have bolstered K-12 and thus turned out an electorate with a brain.
@Peter B. Reiner, Vancouver, BC: A magnificent point, sir! Can you possibly imagine Republicans south of your border referring to Democrats as anything but enemies? Can you imagine Republicans referring to President Obama as "our president?" Didn't think so! See Mr. Brooks's mea culpa from October 13.
The reality is that the United States misinterpreted our rise as a global leader following WWII as a vindication of our beliefs, policies and form of government when it was more a result of our being fortunate enough to have escaped the effects of the war being fought on our soil and, thus, being able to return to the same home we occupied before the was began. Our wealth and manpower could continue growing the economy while Europe was struggling to rebuild theirs.
The United States has mostly existed as a myth, "the shining city on a hill" the rest of the world envied. What has changed is we, along with other countries, have a better understanding of what linking democracy with capitalism costs in the end. In some ways, religion has faded from prominence precisely because it chose to ignore the hypocrisies inherent in the "materialistic and individualistic" policies at the heart of "democratic capitalism".
The lie at the heart of these policies is the premise that every successive generation should live better than their predecessors and I would trace that to Reagan's, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" The choice of "you" instead of "we" was significant.
Our foreign policy mistakes can be traced back to the energy crises of the 70s, a period that forged the core views of most of those who manipulated the country into the second Iraq War, believing they could rule the Middle East.
This is not a crisis of spirituality; this is a crisis of hubris.
The United States has mostly existed as a myth, "the shining city on a hill" the rest of the world envied. What has changed is we, along with other countries, have a better understanding of what linking democracy with capitalism costs in the end. In some ways, religion has faded from prominence precisely because it chose to ignore the hypocrisies inherent in the "materialistic and individualistic" policies at the heart of "democratic capitalism".
The lie at the heart of these policies is the premise that every successive generation should live better than their predecessors and I would trace that to Reagan's, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" The choice of "you" instead of "we" was significant.
Our foreign policy mistakes can be traced back to the energy crises of the 70s, a period that forged the core views of most of those who manipulated the country into the second Iraq War, believing they could rule the Middle East.
This is not a crisis of spirituality; this is a crisis of hubris.
27
False advertising for cheap labor built the US.
Yep. The times we are nostalgic for, and take as somehow "right," were anomalous. The current world is more like it had been in the past.
" Some leader has to be able to digest the lessons of the last 15 years and offer a revised charismatic and persuasive sense of America’s historic mission.."
Seems to describe Obama pretty well here. Repubs would have none of it.
Seems to describe Obama pretty well here. Repubs would have none of it.
13
This column is wrong on so many levels. The United States was never solely responsible for "overseeing a basic international order". Americans with a modicum of intelligence (e.g., Bernie Sanders) learned from the disasters in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Our Founding Fathers never saw America as the World Cop.
Domestically, the Republican Party moved a great distance to the right, and pulled the Democratic Party with it. The saner Democrats, like Sanders, did not move. So, why did most politicians move to the right? Answer: there was more money for them, since the rich wanted lower taxes and more wars, and lavished money on politicians who could be bought.
Donald Trump is the rich guy who decided to cut out the middleman. If he were President, the country would go broke because he would amplify all the wrong policies, like George W. Bush on steroids. He would not raise the debt ceiling, start more wars, cut taxes for his fellow billionaires, and starve Social Security and Medicare of funds. But the same bad policies are supported by almost every Republican politician.
Domestically, the Republican Party moved a great distance to the right, and pulled the Democratic Party with it. The saner Democrats, like Sanders, did not move. So, why did most politicians move to the right? Answer: there was more money for them, since the rich wanted lower taxes and more wars, and lavished money on politicians who could be bought.
Donald Trump is the rich guy who decided to cut out the middleman. If he were President, the country would go broke because he would amplify all the wrong policies, like George W. Bush on steroids. He would not raise the debt ceiling, start more wars, cut taxes for his fellow billionaires, and starve Social Security and Medicare of funds. But the same bad policies are supported by almost every Republican politician.
17
Perhaps we overplayed our hand; we assumed that our system of democracy was not only the best one, but also the right one for everyone in the world. We set out to inspire, if possible, and force, if necessary, our 'right order of things' in parts of the world to which such methods were foreign at best, anathema at worst. We did so during the Bush II years with a remarkable disregard of culture in the places we entered. We lacked understanding assuming that the workings of a "modern" nation-state could readily be created in places which have functioned on a tribal system of elders for millennia.
Some of us came to understand that the world is changing; that we are no longer a Cold War world where a couple of Superpowers along with the spheres of influence control what happens. While there will always be more powerful and less powerful nations in the world, it seems plain that no single nation can be the world's police or army. Nor can one nation command respect from or demand acquiescence from the rest of the world.
The world has changed. We must learn to pick our battles carefully. We must lead first by being an example of democracy (functional democracy), human rights, and justice within our own borders. Beyond that, we must support nascent democracies, human rights workers/programs, and programs which care for the health and well-being of all peoples.
Some of us came to understand that the world is changing; that we are no longer a Cold War world where a couple of Superpowers along with the spheres of influence control what happens. While there will always be more powerful and less powerful nations in the world, it seems plain that no single nation can be the world's police or army. Nor can one nation command respect from or demand acquiescence from the rest of the world.
The world has changed. We must learn to pick our battles carefully. We must lead first by being an example of democracy (functional democracy), human rights, and justice within our own borders. Beyond that, we must support nascent democracies, human rights workers/programs, and programs which care for the health and well-being of all peoples.
10
Mr. Brooks, what a downer this morning. But it is darkest just before the sunrise, or something akin to that. And I believe it is happening. Enlightenment, that is.
The banking and business world have had their experts look hard into the data, and global warming is real! And they are concerned.
Young voters are against stupid wars, greed, hurtful racial profiling of immigrants and citizens alike. They realize that we have to take care of our own and our friends who ask for help. Investment and rational taxes. The rule of law and reason. Making religion a personal belief that fosters human beings to care for all human beings. Putting ancient myths in proper prospective.
Don't believe for a second that the vast majority of normal voters don't see through the Shinola coating the the likes of Cruz, and the rest of the religious right wing. And the sophomoric philosophy of Representative Ryan, the "intellectual" leader of the soon to be defunct Republican Party. He will not be able to run away from his own bishops, who declared his highly touted budget as immoral.
The current Republican Party is held hostage by intelligent individuals with narcissistic personality disorder. Single issue voters who cannot grasp a nation of diversity. Any Democrat will be an infinitely better choice than any of the current Republican candidates.
The banking and business world have had their experts look hard into the data, and global warming is real! And they are concerned.
Young voters are against stupid wars, greed, hurtful racial profiling of immigrants and citizens alike. They realize that we have to take care of our own and our friends who ask for help. Investment and rational taxes. The rule of law and reason. Making religion a personal belief that fosters human beings to care for all human beings. Putting ancient myths in proper prospective.
Don't believe for a second that the vast majority of normal voters don't see through the Shinola coating the the likes of Cruz, and the rest of the religious right wing. And the sophomoric philosophy of Representative Ryan, the "intellectual" leader of the soon to be defunct Republican Party. He will not be able to run away from his own bishops, who declared his highly touted budget as immoral.
The current Republican Party is held hostage by intelligent individuals with narcissistic personality disorder. Single issue voters who cannot grasp a nation of diversity. Any Democrat will be an infinitely better choice than any of the current Republican candidates.
224
Ben Carson has more than a narcissistic personality problem; it's called fatal ignorance.
David Brooks: “Some leader has to be able to digest the lessons of the last 15 years and offer a revised charismatic and persuasive sense of America’s historic mission. This mission, both nationalist and universal, would be less individualistic than the gospel of the 1990s, and more realistic about depravity and the way barbarism can spread.”
The sad thing is that this type of leader has been holding the office of president of the USA for the last 7 years. But your party, mister Brooks, from the start of his presidency has embarked on an unprecedented campaign of demonization of this president. Though he is very intelligent, highly educated, charismatic and a very moderate politician, this mister “reasonableness” has been painted by the GOP and its propaganda machine (Fox News et all) as a dangerous leftwing extremist, who was not even born in the US, a communist, a muslim, the anti-Christ, etc. And all this is undoubtedly fueled by racism.
And now your party comes up with the personification of “greed”, the horror that is Donald Trump, and “stupidity”, personified by Ben Carson who must be the most ignorant and dangerous know-nothing about geo-politics, who ever ran for the presidency.
I really can not understand how you can still support this bunch.
The sad thing is that this type of leader has been holding the office of president of the USA for the last 7 years. But your party, mister Brooks, from the start of his presidency has embarked on an unprecedented campaign of demonization of this president. Though he is very intelligent, highly educated, charismatic and a very moderate politician, this mister “reasonableness” has been painted by the GOP and its propaganda machine (Fox News et all) as a dangerous leftwing extremist, who was not even born in the US, a communist, a muslim, the anti-Christ, etc. And all this is undoubtedly fueled by racism.
And now your party comes up with the personification of “greed”, the horror that is Donald Trump, and “stupidity”, personified by Ben Carson who must be the most ignorant and dangerous know-nothing about geo-politics, who ever ran for the presidency.
I really can not understand how you can still support this bunch.
18
I hope I'm not the "mass stupidity" Brooks refers to, as I only have straw for stuffing, but, to me, it looks as if the sun has not been doing its job and the planets are getting a little jumpy and jittery. The edges are frazzled as a result.
As to "education and opportunity" leading to happiness --- it does, when half of the base pay buys more than a dozen eggs. (Either the pay has to go higher or the eggs have to go lower, and in the meantime, "I'll Cry Instead"? - those fabulous boys!
I think the sun has been spending too much time grooming itself in the mirror --- missing what was going on behind. My sunshine is Bernie. I don't know why you call him marginal, for he is everything every other candidate is, and then some.
As to "education and opportunity" leading to happiness --- it does, when half of the base pay buys more than a dozen eggs. (Either the pay has to go higher or the eggs have to go lower, and in the meantime, "I'll Cry Instead"? - those fabulous boys!
I think the sun has been spending too much time grooming itself in the mirror --- missing what was going on behind. My sunshine is Bernie. I don't know why you call him marginal, for he is everything every other candidate is, and then some.
2
"Some leader has to be able to digest the lessons of the last 15 years and offer a revised charismatic and persuasive sense of America’s historic mission. This mission, both nationalist and universal, would be less individualistic than the gospel of the 1990s, and more realistic about depravity and the way barbarism can spread. It would offer a goal more profound than material comfort."
Sounds a lot like Bernie Sanders to me, Mr. Brooks!
Remember that the best leaders come from the outside: Lincoln was derided for his country ways, Martin Luther King was the pastor of a single church in Birmingham and in his late 20's when he began his activities. Mr Sanders is reorienting the Democratic Party to popular ideas, and perhaps strengthening its center. Bringing more people into a system and working together increases gravity (which is proportional to mass in both physics and politics). "When the people lead, the leaders follow" should be our goal, not "Money talks".
Sounds a lot like Bernie Sanders to me, Mr. Brooks!
Remember that the best leaders come from the outside: Lincoln was derided for his country ways, Martin Luther King was the pastor of a single church in Birmingham and in his late 20's when he began his activities. Mr Sanders is reorienting the Democratic Party to popular ideas, and perhaps strengthening its center. Bringing more people into a system and working together increases gravity (which is proportional to mass in both physics and politics). "When the people lead, the leaders follow" should be our goal, not "Money talks".
5
David, you're right. The world is poorer for the lack of American leadership. Who else can teach the benighted how to invade a strange land, declare that God has deeded that land to you and your kind, and then bully and often exterminate the inconvenient aboriginals?
Clearly, Great Britain could have used our advice in South Africa, where both the English and Dutch appropriated the land but failed to do away with the inhabitants. Today, Israel is suffering from the same lack of foresight. Oh, if someone in Begin's government had only read American history!
Our moral light should shine brightly into every corner of the Earth, just as it did when Chile's Allende had to be put down at the behest of ITT or when the Guatemalan and Iranian governments had become inconvenient to our "legitimate business interests."
David, there was a time when Americans were not convinced that they knew what was best for everyone on the planet. Woodrow Wilson, for all his failings, got one thing right: A League of Nations, empowered and supported by powerful states, or later a United Nations, backed by troops from most nations, could exert its will in places like Syria and Sudan in a way that is unthinkable for the armed forces of any one nation.
However, backing the United Nations would be failing in one's chauvinistic American duty, a misstep that will never be made by any candidate who courts the yahoo vote. So America intercedes.
The formula's rotten David, not the execution of the formula.
Clearly, Great Britain could have used our advice in South Africa, where both the English and Dutch appropriated the land but failed to do away with the inhabitants. Today, Israel is suffering from the same lack of foresight. Oh, if someone in Begin's government had only read American history!
Our moral light should shine brightly into every corner of the Earth, just as it did when Chile's Allende had to be put down at the behest of ITT or when the Guatemalan and Iranian governments had become inconvenient to our "legitimate business interests."
David, there was a time when Americans were not convinced that they knew what was best for everyone on the planet. Woodrow Wilson, for all his failings, got one thing right: A League of Nations, empowered and supported by powerful states, or later a United Nations, backed by troops from most nations, could exert its will in places like Syria and Sudan in a way that is unthinkable for the armed forces of any one nation.
However, backing the United Nations would be failing in one's chauvinistic American duty, a misstep that will never be made by any candidate who courts the yahoo vote. So America intercedes.
The formula's rotten David, not the execution of the formula.
10
It appears people like Mandela, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi et al rise from the ashes, so to speak. Unfortunately, maybe we have to be first burnt by the fringe elements for a leader of their caliber to rise once in a way; although there has to be a better way to make it easier for people like them to rise to the top
Many years ago, Richard Nixon appealed to the Silent Majority. They were the people disgusted by the anti-war anti-establishment rhetoric of the hippies and dippies. He won two elections, but was forced to resign because he conspired to cover up campaign abuses. That was the beginning of what Mr. Brooks describes.
Since then we've been seeing what happens when a cabal intent on making the government small enough to drown in a bathtub comes to power. They've been very effective at using public relations to manipulate opinion. During the Age of Reagan, it became apparent that reality didn't matter any more and, when GWB was president, his aides came right out and said so.
That, far more than any spiritual crisis, is what's driving the US down the tubes. We have to accept and adapt to a changing world where the US no longer has the economic or military power to control events. That reality was hidden for a generation after WWII, but it can no longer be ignored. A charismatic leader is more likely to be a demagogue than the champion of America's historic mission.
Since then we've been seeing what happens when a cabal intent on making the government small enough to drown in a bathtub comes to power. They've been very effective at using public relations to manipulate opinion. During the Age of Reagan, it became apparent that reality didn't matter any more and, when GWB was president, his aides came right out and said so.
That, far more than any spiritual crisis, is what's driving the US down the tubes. We have to accept and adapt to a changing world where the US no longer has the economic or military power to control events. That reality was hidden for a generation after WWII, but it can no longer be ignored. A charismatic leader is more likely to be a demagogue than the champion of America's historic mission.
13
"The Democratic establishment no longer determines party positions; it is pulled along by formerly marginal players like Bernie Sanders."
Uh, David, have you looked at the GOP lately?
Trump, Carson, Fiorina, Cruz, Huckabee, Jindal, Graham, etc.
Why is it Republicans always project their own behavior onto others?
Uh, David, have you looked at the GOP lately?
Trump, Carson, Fiorina, Cruz, Huckabee, Jindal, Graham, etc.
Why is it Republicans always project their own behavior onto others?
17
There are several fallacies in Mr. Brooks reasoning, the first being that the US has an obligation or right at all to establish an international order. Not any more than Russia or any other self-appointed arbiter of the common good. Whereby the latter miraculously happens to coincide with the national interest, - a term usually reserved for the interests of the elite -, of the arbitrating country. Second, Mr Brooks lampoons Russia's Mr. Putin as a "cold-eyed thug with a semi-theological vision of his nation' destiny. The latter part seems to very aptly describe how the US sees itself and how Mr. Brooks and others see the US ('manifest destiny', 'American exceptionalism'). So we can pursue this semi-theological vision for the US, but for Russia it is hubris or utterly misguided? At the very minimum it portrays an astounding, if common, hypocrisy that we should be free to meddle anywhere else, but others are accused of interference? Regarding China, while clearly bullying in its neighborhood, has not invaded anywhere recently, let alone caused the death of over a hundred thousand civilians and untold misery in Iraq. So perhaps a Chinese dominance might be less coercive than our own. So it seems that any effort to remove the US from a role in the Middle East, and from a Pax Americana looks like enlightenment, rather then the lack of willpower of a people devoid of 'spiritual values'. Abstaining from militarism and wars to the contrary seems to embody spiritual values.
7
The essential problem is that Brooks misunderstands the end of the Cold War. All that "didn't work" after that is explained by what really happened.
The Soviet side collapsed. We did not "win." They lost. We had our own problems before, and in the glory of our presumed win we've made those problems worse.
The guys like Brooks wanted the US to oversee the world. The world that rejected communism did not want to be overseen by Brooks. Many Americans also did not want to be global cops forever. It was nothing like an agreed international order. Few actually agreed to that.
People worldwide did not agree to abandon their religions, and adopt materialistic individualism, of the extreme US conservative style.
"Democracy" does not mean they must do it our way or else. It does not mean they must elect someone who thinks just like Brooks. That isn't "reasonable" either. It is arrogant and presumptuous.
It isn't that "The United States is no longer willing to occupy the commanding heights and oversee global order." The US proved unable to do so. Neocons tried. They killed vast numbers trying, and spent trillions, and destroyed countries, true "I am become death" attributed to nuclear weapons. It did not work. They failed.
"It’s not clear the foreign policy and defense apparatus believes anymore in its own abilities to establish order, or that the American public has any confidence in U.S. effectiveness as a global actor" because we learned, except for Brooks apparently.
The Soviet side collapsed. We did not "win." They lost. We had our own problems before, and in the glory of our presumed win we've made those problems worse.
The guys like Brooks wanted the US to oversee the world. The world that rejected communism did not want to be overseen by Brooks. Many Americans also did not want to be global cops forever. It was nothing like an agreed international order. Few actually agreed to that.
People worldwide did not agree to abandon their religions, and adopt materialistic individualism, of the extreme US conservative style.
"Democracy" does not mean they must do it our way or else. It does not mean they must elect someone who thinks just like Brooks. That isn't "reasonable" either. It is arrogant and presumptuous.
It isn't that "The United States is no longer willing to occupy the commanding heights and oversee global order." The US proved unable to do so. Neocons tried. They killed vast numbers trying, and spent trillions, and destroyed countries, true "I am become death" attributed to nuclear weapons. It did not work. They failed.
"It’s not clear the foreign policy and defense apparatus believes anymore in its own abilities to establish order, or that the American public has any confidence in U.S. effectiveness as a global actor" because we learned, except for Brooks apparently.
20
@Mark Thomason
Clawson
"We did not "win." They lost."
A distinction without a difference. There's absolutely no doubt that the open, capitalist, pluralist, Western democratic system triumphed in what was 45 struggle against that of the totalitarian, communist Soviet system. You may be ashamed of this but it remains a fact.
Clawson
"We did not "win." They lost."
A distinction without a difference. There's absolutely no doubt that the open, capitalist, pluralist, Western democratic system triumphed in what was 45 struggle against that of the totalitarian, communist Soviet system. You may be ashamed of this but it remains a fact.
1
@Mark Thomason
I am quite certain that Chinese or Russian leaders rarely lose sleep when Sudanese are slaughtered, Rwandans are clubbed and cut down with machetes, Afghani women and children are raped, Iraqi fathers are shot in the back of the head for betraying Hussein, and on it goes.
I, too, find the liberal ideal seductive: turn your gaze away from the world, call home your media and freelance journalists, and focus only on the injustice within our borders. But I have been alive long enough to know that tomorrow or the week after, some humanitarian crisis will call us forward. You see a difference. Those who put on a uniform to enforce the rule of law do not. You argue that freedom is only for Americans or those who can crawl to the other side of tyranny. And those who've held the hand of Chinese graduate of the "cultural revolution" know who callous and cowardly that point of view really is.
The armchair is comfortable. Going to war is not the answer. Calling out a commentator like Brooks as some kind of war-monger is silly and disingenuous.
If Progressive Americans really want to ignore the world, I will take the alternative. Start by giving away your automobile and half your clothing.
I am quite certain that Chinese or Russian leaders rarely lose sleep when Sudanese are slaughtered, Rwandans are clubbed and cut down with machetes, Afghani women and children are raped, Iraqi fathers are shot in the back of the head for betraying Hussein, and on it goes.
I, too, find the liberal ideal seductive: turn your gaze away from the world, call home your media and freelance journalists, and focus only on the injustice within our borders. But I have been alive long enough to know that tomorrow or the week after, some humanitarian crisis will call us forward. You see a difference. Those who put on a uniform to enforce the rule of law do not. You argue that freedom is only for Americans or those who can crawl to the other side of tyranny. And those who've held the hand of Chinese graduate of the "cultural revolution" know who callous and cowardly that point of view really is.
The armchair is comfortable. Going to war is not the answer. Calling out a commentator like Brooks as some kind of war-monger is silly and disingenuous.
If Progressive Americans really want to ignore the world, I will take the alternative. Start by giving away your automobile and half your clothing.
1
John -- "A distinction without a difference."
It is a huge difference. You haven't been in many serious contests if you don't know the difference between your own strength and the other guy's weakness or mistakes.
In this context, it is a necessary corrective to triumphalist thinking.
It is a huge difference. You haven't been in many serious contests if you don't know the difference between your own strength and the other guy's weakness or mistakes.
In this context, it is a necessary corrective to triumphalist thinking.
"The Democratic establishment no longer determines party positions; it is pulled along by formerly marginal players like Bernie Sanders."
Absolute nonsense. The Republican party may be pulled in all directions by its lunatic fringe but this is singularly not true of the Democratic party which largely stands policy wise where it did when Obama was elected. Even when delivering a one his rambling and rather incoherent Jeremiads, Brooks can't forgo some small dishonesties.
Absolute nonsense. The Republican party may be pulled in all directions by its lunatic fringe but this is singularly not true of the Democratic party which largely stands policy wise where it did when Obama was elected. Even when delivering a one his rambling and rather incoherent Jeremiads, Brooks can't forgo some small dishonesties.
44
Seeking explanations for the growing systemic dysfunctionality- both local and global- as David Brooks seems to be doing through the Francis Fukuyama's "The end of History" thesis is not only questionable for it being a subjective wishful thinking but envisioning the US global leadership role in the post-cold war period of nineties and beyond is again reflective of the fallacious notion of US exceptionalism even after the US itself has ceased to abide by those values that were behind projecting such an image of the country. Again, the collapse of the USSR and its model of socialist governance didn't mean an exhaustion of all the other governance models except the West practised democratic capitalism that itself had lost its substance. The reason thus why the centre of society and polity was supplanted by the peripheral fringes was because the centre itself had ceased to be a binding force it was earlier due to its persuasive command and inclusive vision, and started behaving parochial yielding ground to the fringes.
5
I read and reread and reread Brooks column, and my diagnosis is that all this spiritual malaise comes from a refusal to have one's highest commitment to be to the truth.
Maybe Brooks can take on Abdel Bari Atwan. There is an excerpt of his book at Salon, titled: "America enabled radical Islam: How the CIA, George W. Bush and many others helped create ISIS: We have tried to harness the power of radical Islam for our own interests for decades. ISIS is partially on America"
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/18/america_enabled_radical_islam_how_the_ci...
Suppose Atwan is stating the truth. A whole lot of what mystifies Brooks about the people who sought other forms of meaning now makes sense; and the answer is - let us stop continuing to shoot ourselves in the foot. We admit that there are no good jihadis; we were willing to ally with Stalin to get rid of the Nazi menace - why is it so impossible to ally with Putin, thug but not a Stalin, to get rid of the jihadis?
Or Atwan doesn't have the truth. Whatever the truth is, let us find it, and that knowledge will guide us to our next steps.
Or perhaps the problem is deeper. Perhaps Brooks & his GOP have made it impossible to know the truth, be it climate change or federally funded research on gun violence? If that is truth, then our next step is to make them irrelevant.
Maybe Brooks can take on Abdel Bari Atwan. There is an excerpt of his book at Salon, titled: "America enabled radical Islam: How the CIA, George W. Bush and many others helped create ISIS: We have tried to harness the power of radical Islam for our own interests for decades. ISIS is partially on America"
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/18/america_enabled_radical_islam_how_the_ci...
Suppose Atwan is stating the truth. A whole lot of what mystifies Brooks about the people who sought other forms of meaning now makes sense; and the answer is - let us stop continuing to shoot ourselves in the foot. We admit that there are no good jihadis; we were willing to ally with Stalin to get rid of the Nazi menace - why is it so impossible to ally with Putin, thug but not a Stalin, to get rid of the jihadis?
Or Atwan doesn't have the truth. Whatever the truth is, let us find it, and that knowledge will guide us to our next steps.
Or perhaps the problem is deeper. Perhaps Brooks & his GOP have made it impossible to know the truth, be it climate change or federally funded research on gun violence? If that is truth, then our next step is to make them irrelevant.
29
At least conservatives, however outrageous, still believe in the American mission. The left fantasizes about how much better things might be but rarely sees that things have usually been worse. Raving about Scandinavia is a fatuous diversion from America's centrality to global security and prosperity. Contrary to the rhetoric coming from the administration -- ironic, considering what's transpired since it took office -- democracy isn't marching in a unidirectional manner; and if it is, it's the wrong direction. Our education system shouldn't indoctrinate, but we have to give people a foundation and help them see themselves as rooted in a flawed but nonetheless great tradition.
Note the ubiquity of the following thinking on the left: "Why can't America mind its own business?" Since it's regularly pointed out that Ukraine is Putin's backyard, as if to suggest America look the other way, sharing this is crucial. From February, Robert Kagan: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/02/19-united-...
This column pairs nicely with Nocera's. Everything is a conspiracy and the world is run by elites! People like Seymour Hersh are inducing others to see the world that way. The center right is losing to the far right and the same episodes, though less drastic, are taking place on the left. People are right to doubt convention, but sometimes convention is correct.
The mood is very guillotine-ish.
Note the ubiquity of the following thinking on the left: "Why can't America mind its own business?" Since it's regularly pointed out that Ukraine is Putin's backyard, as if to suggest America look the other way, sharing this is crucial. From February, Robert Kagan: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/02/19-united-...
This column pairs nicely with Nocera's. Everything is a conspiracy and the world is run by elites! People like Seymour Hersh are inducing others to see the world that way. The center right is losing to the far right and the same episodes, though less drastic, are taking place on the left. People are right to doubt convention, but sometimes convention is correct.
The mood is very guillotine-ish.
3
So where is this "mission" you referenced. Is it cast in stone brought down from the mount by a holy man forged by god in stone, or so he claims. Balderdash, we should keep our nose out of other peoples biz. "Conservative" in your context is nothing more than a puffed up bully full of himself and indoctrinated with hubristic tomes from people like Brooks.
What you fail to realize is that there is no west and east. That they are all entangled. We are all dependent on each other, the west on the east and so on. Since times immemorial. We have always risen on each other's backs.
1
There is a sizable body of opinion on the right that has no desire to see America interfere in Ukraine. Robert Kagan is a neocon; he and his ilk gave you the Iraq war and much more besides. Some on the right prefer the view expressed by Jeanne Kirkpatrick (hardly a left-winger) after the Berlin Wall came down: "Now America can go back to being a normal country." Recognizing American limits and being cautious about intervention in other countries is a profoundly conservative viewpoint. Or at least it used to be.
America's "centrality to global security and prosperity" is real, but it's not 1945 anymore. Europe is receiving almost a free ride on security, while we pile up debt. And the American economy is not as dominant as it was in the quarter-century after Word War II. In any case, America's infrastructure is crumbling, income disparity is widening, and young people are having a hard time paying off student loans, buying homes, etc. Some attention to the home front is badly needed.
America's "centrality to global security and prosperity" is real, but it's not 1945 anymore. Europe is receiving almost a free ride on security, while we pile up debt. And the American economy is not as dominant as it was in the quarter-century after Word War II. In any case, America's infrastructure is crumbling, income disparity is widening, and young people are having a hard time paying off student loans, buying homes, etc. Some attention to the home front is badly needed.
1
It is a false equivalence to counterpose, on the Left, not plunging into war on the other side of the world every couple of years, and somewhat joining the rest of the world with our welfare system, vs, on the Right, the ugly, bigoted mob-stoking at home, threats to bomb everyone, the suggestion that Iraq was a pretty good idea and that legislative monkey-wrenching is heroic. No, it is not "Wackos on both sides, whatever do we do?" It is a Democratic Party which, contrary to your assertion, is hewing very much to the middle, and with a good deal of unity, from any sort of wider perspective, closer to Eisenhower than McGovern, while the Republican Party is under the complete control of real, honest-to God extremists, and their most dependable voting bloc is choosing among candidates who are frighteningly unqualified, save their extremism.
If, after your recent apostasy, you were trying to get your phone calls returned from your GOP pals, maybe this apology will do it. I doubt it. They think Paul Ryan is liberal. But you could join up with us. We may be Left in out hearts, but we are OK with moderates. Our tent has flaps on all sides. I bet you would like Hilary.
If, after your recent apostasy, you were trying to get your phone calls returned from your GOP pals, maybe this apology will do it. I doubt it. They think Paul Ryan is liberal. But you could join up with us. We may be Left in out hearts, but we are OK with moderates. Our tent has flaps on all sides. I bet you would like Hilary.
25
"In the 1990s, the central political institutions radiated confidence, derived from an assumed vision of the post-Cold War world. History would be a slow march toward democratic capitalism. Nations would be bound in peaceful associations like the European Union. The United States would oversee a basic international order."
Did anyone actually believe this? If so, they were totally delusional.
Did anyone actually believe this? If so, they were totally delusional.
10
George HW, the only semi-coherent Bush, believed it. How's that for perspective?
I have learned to trust David Brooks and his observations. I am a liberal, and there was a time when I viewed him with a jaundiced eye, but no longer. In this particular case, however, I have to say that the analogy escaped me. Duh...
3
Confidence in global governance is misguided. The U.S. emerged from WWII as the leader of the free world by default. We managed that role so long as the rest of the world, either weakened by the war or never having had that capacity, couldn't challenge that role. Gradually, those challenges emerged, not to lead, but to assert different ideologies and local interests. Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Syria, Afghanistan, and all the other "hotspots" were and are challenges to the U.S. Some, the U.S. could not surmount and forced us to admit defeat. Or are presently challenging and forcing the current conundrum. The policies of the current administration may seem hesitant and halting to Republicans. But I believe that they reflect a long-needed realistic assessment of our own capabilities and the realpolitik in the world today.
I agree with Mr. Brooks' assertion that the fringe in our society has managed to weaken the center, and that we are the worse for it. However, I think that it is wrong-headed to think that we can or more important, should, strive to return to some "historic mission", whatever that is.
I agree with Mr. Brooks' assertion that the fringe in our society has managed to weaken the center, and that we are the worse for it. However, I think that it is wrong-headed to think that we can or more important, should, strive to return to some "historic mission", whatever that is.
9
David Brooks you need to stop talking and start listening. Obviously confused, your world is shaken, yet still you feel a need to talk, preach, and attempt to influence. You are fueled by at a base-level to be correct- even when you are wrong. Such is the way of pride.
David, to use your analogy, basic science tells us it is not size that matters, but mass. The sway of characters like the Kochs, Wall Street, and others is disproportionate and you (perhaps now) realize the fact. It feels wrong, huh?
Democracy MUST be proportionate to the Will of the people, the masses are what matter, not the few- your inner-gut tells you this truth. Your faith tells you, ask and ye shall receive. Stop talking for once, and just read- there are many here who are highly capable of answering.
David, to use your analogy, basic science tells us it is not size that matters, but mass. The sway of characters like the Kochs, Wall Street, and others is disproportionate and you (perhaps now) realize the fact. It feels wrong, huh?
Democracy MUST be proportionate to the Will of the people, the masses are what matter, not the few- your inner-gut tells you this truth. Your faith tells you, ask and ye shall receive. Stop talking for once, and just read- there are many here who are highly capable of answering.
9
Don't generalize the descent of your own creed into a retarded and dangerous craze - so-called American conservatism - and pretend this was a common phenomenon. Because it is not. There are plentiful intelligent, measured and reasonable policy wonks out there, but they are overwhelmingly moderates or liberals.
It's time to acknowledge that your 'coming to your senses' was a wrong turn that led you away from reason and enlightenment, instead of constructing grand theories of cultural decline in a search for excuses.
It's time to acknowledge that your 'coming to your senses' was a wrong turn that led you away from reason and enlightenment, instead of constructing grand theories of cultural decline in a search for excuses.
16
David, I believe the problem was spawned with the statement that "government is the problem". Whether he believed it or not, Reagan gave birth to the open disdain and hatred of government on the right, which has now taken over the conservative cause. Tired of being misled by career politicians promising to "correct" the size of the federal government, the right is now looking to outsiders to completely destroy it with their unknowing, unthinking, uncaring philosophy. This is pretty easily explained. In the real world, as it has always been and always will be, you reap what you sow.
20
True. Reagan's statement that "government is the problem" deserves more attention as an incredibly toxic statement that has been turned into a withering assault on our civic institutions. That simple statement is Reagan's greatest -- and most indefensible -- legacy.
Gravity continues to keep our solar system in harmony, meanwhile on earth man has acted to elevate and spread the voices, ideas and messages of the most fringe cults, sects and semi-human of fanatics. These fringe, uncivilized players have always existed, always will, and have periods of limited influence before being beaten back by humanity, but technology has changed the game.
Technology and social media bring barbarism and threats to civilization into our homes. Technology provides ISIS, Putin, Iran, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, End-of-Day Evangelicals, Republican anarchists and others a platform that never existed before and that platform enables, spreads and magnifies their chaos. From a dark cave, any warped mind with a cellphone can now spread his evil demons around the world and find, inspire and unite with warped minds in other caves.
The institutions that hold societies together with conviction and meaning, and promote civilization itself, still exist; their gravitational pull however have been diminished and put on equal footing to compete with the proponents of chaos. A voice of chaos and disrespect echos "you lie!" within the US Capital building, a cherished symbol of our values and democracy. The voice of hate garnering more attention than the message of the president.
If we want less chaos we need to regulate technology that enables it. Something not likely to happen in the US where our 1st Amendment is sacred and SCOTUS believes money is speech.
Technology and social media bring barbarism and threats to civilization into our homes. Technology provides ISIS, Putin, Iran, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, End-of-Day Evangelicals, Republican anarchists and others a platform that never existed before and that platform enables, spreads and magnifies their chaos. From a dark cave, any warped mind with a cellphone can now spread his evil demons around the world and find, inspire and unite with warped minds in other caves.
The institutions that hold societies together with conviction and meaning, and promote civilization itself, still exist; their gravitational pull however have been diminished and put on equal footing to compete with the proponents of chaos. A voice of chaos and disrespect echos "you lie!" within the US Capital building, a cherished symbol of our values and democracy. The voice of hate garnering more attention than the message of the president.
If we want less chaos we need to regulate technology that enables it. Something not likely to happen in the US where our 1st Amendment is sacred and SCOTUS believes money is speech.
3
We as a country could not ask for a more "charismatic and persuasive" leader than President Obama, yet some Americans still seem content to "play with their gadgets" rather than become informed and engaged in civic affairs. However, in my opinion, the large, enthusiastic crowds that Bernie Sanders continues to attract, and his impressive amount of money from small donations is encouraging and is counter to Mr. Brooks' thesis. Can Progressivism become the "sun" at the center of our political sphere? Yes, it can. Go Bernie!
12
Not unlike the problems within the Republican Party you wrote about last week, this "age of outsiders" has been brewing for awhile. As simplistic as it may sound I think the proverbial gas on the fire has been the ascendency of 24 hour news outlets and talk radio hosts who dress up like leaders without qualifications or responsibility. They have garnered influence over a loud and angry portion of our fellow citizens. The fireside chat that brought our grandparents together around the radio has been replaced by separate campfires burning hot.
287
katberd: You are absolutely correct! Just this morning I read in the news that people interviewed in the "rural South" admit they get their news from 24/7 talk radio like Limbaugh and his ilk! And this morning I rec'd a "forward" from an acquaintance with the email showing "to undisclosed recipients" - a "forward" completely untrue, but nevertheless read and believed because it is in print! Very discouraging!!
2
Well said! Do you have any idea of how to recreate the fireside chat? Western Protestant Democracy is the beacon. Look at refugees fleeing disorder generated by these outsiders. Where do they want to live? Germany, Sweden, Holland even the USA, but we are too far away.
Precisely right, katberd. The beneficiaries of the Citizens United decision are perfectly situated to take full advantage of these conduits to promulgate their self serving lies directly to the target audience without fear of contradiction. And then to fan the flames. The next President will likely nominate a few Justices to the Supreme Court, which is something we should all consider very carefully.
1
The GOP is the problem as it has become more and more of a religious organization than one of governing They insist on enacting their failed economic policies. They insist that the rich are so deserving of their wealth that they should be absolved of a progressive tax system. They believe that only those controlling capital deserve to be paid. They believe that compromise is an act of treason to the Conservative faith. 50% of the electorate believe in these things!
Internationally, containment was once considered the best option for the middle east. Obama's approach is that of containment within the limits of the condition left there by W's unfunded wars. We should stick with containment and force Europe and Asia to increase their share of funding to limited international operations.
Internationally, containment was once considered the best option for the middle east. Obama's approach is that of containment within the limits of the condition left there by W's unfunded wars. We should stick with containment and force Europe and Asia to increase their share of funding to limited international operations.
5
Perhaps we should refer back to Gibbon and how the Romans handed off their responsibilities for their dirty work with the end result being decline and fall.
3
Mr. Brooks grasp of world events is a tenuous as his grasp of physics. As with most of his fellow pundits, he indulges in false equivalency by asserting that Sanders is somehow the left wing version of Trump. He erroneously extends the chaos of the Middle East, unleashed by the disastrous invasion of Iraq, to China, Russia, and the rest of the world. I see a different trend. The latest election of leaders in France, Australia, England, and most recently, Canada are a rejection of a conservatism that failed to serve its citizens. If we elect any of the republican candidates that person will find themselves with few allies.
20
Given the elections in Canada yesterday, let's at least give a shout out to our neighbors, namely across all parties in Canada, fully one third of all the candidates running for election were women. The misogynistic Republican party in the US stands out in stark contrast.
15
The dysfunction in both Houses is due to the fecklessness of their leaders. In the House, Boehner has been unwilling to test the power of the right by putting up bills that serve the country but are opposed by the right. The Senate has given to each senator the power to hold bills hostages, to threaten filibusters to get his/her way and, thus, nullifying the rights of the majority. Once again, leaders from both parties have been unwilling to test these obstructers by challenging them on their threats. I don't know what bills would come out of a Congress that would remove the abuse of power of the minority, but issues and problems would be discussed and voted upon.
In the Middle East, it was the naive conception of the myth of democracy which caused precisely what Brooks laments, the destruction of the center of gravity. In this case, what held in
check the factions, religious, tribal or
fundamentalist, were the holders of power, the various dictators who in their cruelty dominated the various regions. The cause is not malaise but the lack of practical wisdom of those who lead us.
In the Middle East, it was the naive conception of the myth of democracy which caused precisely what Brooks laments, the destruction of the center of gravity. In this case, what held in
check the factions, religious, tribal or
fundamentalist, were the holders of power, the various dictators who in their cruelty dominated the various regions. The cause is not malaise but the lack of practical wisdom of those who lead us.
11
David, you have only hinted at the problem. And have you offered no solution.
Here is the problem: An increasingly damaged planet is crying out for sweeping and permanent change in the way we humans view our relationship to it.
The solution: Our survival cannot take place without reinvention in all of the areas of our religious, social, economic and political thought.
We are being called to experience a metamorphosis, a change in the way we think. If we resist, we may be a human experiment that did not work.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
Here is the problem: An increasingly damaged planet is crying out for sweeping and permanent change in the way we humans view our relationship to it.
The solution: Our survival cannot take place without reinvention in all of the areas of our religious, social, economic and political thought.
We are being called to experience a metamorphosis, a change in the way we think. If we resist, we may be a human experiment that did not work.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
9
We are eating ourselves. What reflective and empathetic person would be interested in joining the new version of political blood sport? Where do we teach politics as political philosophy grounded in the study of human nature and the best possible polity, rather than the study of how political power itself is gathered and used? Why has our press fallen into the same faults as our politicians? Many of your columns address these and similar issues, but I am not sure there is a positive answer, unless a true existential challenge forces us to focus on common goals, rather than fringe benefits. Even that may not suffice.
3
The fundamental problem here, and one that intellectuals like David Brooks are simply incapable of understanding, has a much longer global history than the "since 2000" timeline outlined in this essay. David forgets how intensely violent the 1960s and 70s were, with one political assassination after the other and with hotbeds like Vietnam, Indonesia, and Argentina humming along in the background.
It feels more intense now because the global pressure has indeed been building, and it has been building since the early 19th century. The reason is that in 1800 there were less than a billion homo sapiens on this planet, a number that was already leading to serious environmental consequences. Today there are over 7 billion of these highly resource intensive primates battling for the earth's resources, and its now on course to add another billion every 20 years.
If you want to understand politics and human behavior, then David's essay will make much more sense to you if you begin with these simple biological facts...
It feels more intense now because the global pressure has indeed been building, and it has been building since the early 19th century. The reason is that in 1800 there were less than a billion homo sapiens on this planet, a number that was already leading to serious environmental consequences. Today there are over 7 billion of these highly resource intensive primates battling for the earth's resources, and its now on course to add another billion every 20 years.
If you want to understand politics and human behavior, then David's essay will make much more sense to you if you begin with these simple biological facts...
10
A theory in search of phenomena to explain...
The several troubling international developments you cite have little to do with one another and precisely nothing to do with failures of American leadership.
And once again you grossly mischaracterize Bernie Sanders as a fringe candidate. What unites Sanders and his followers is a belief in and love for liberal democracy, a belief that through an orderly, democratic process, institutions can be made better, more effective, better able to meet the needs of the American people and better able to set an inspiring example for the rest of the world.
The several troubling international developments you cite have little to do with one another and precisely nothing to do with failures of American leadership.
And once again you grossly mischaracterize Bernie Sanders as a fringe candidate. What unites Sanders and his followers is a belief in and love for liberal democracy, a belief that through an orderly, democratic process, institutions can be made better, more effective, better able to meet the needs of the American people and better able to set an inspiring example for the rest of the world.
24
"or that the American public has any confidence in U.S. effectiveness as a global actor"
David, at least you understand where American thinking is at regarding folks like George W. Bush "deciding" what is good for the rest of the world.
We are absolutely certain that he was clueless, and, evidence mounts daily we are right. And, we thought that at the time.
YOU, on the other hand, thought he was the center of a gravitational gravitas.
It is not the American people who were wrong.
David, at least you understand where American thinking is at regarding folks like George W. Bush "deciding" what is good for the rest of the world.
We are absolutely certain that he was clueless, and, evidence mounts daily we are right. And, we thought that at the time.
YOU, on the other hand, thought he was the center of a gravitational gravitas.
It is not the American people who were wrong.
22
Perhaps, just perhaps, people are simply weary of the noise of political rantings. It is now just another form of reality TV and raucous social media blather.
6
So why do they prefer patent unconstitutional nonsense?
I don't know what spirituality Mr. Brooks thinks we need, but I would settle for simple morality, clearly missing in the liars and thieves who tore up our economy.
"E Pluribus Unum" has given way to "Caveat Emptor" as the only principle to follow. No wonder the center cannot hold.
And with apologies to Yeats, is Cruz the 'rough beast' ? This column's metaphor barely held together.
"E Pluribus Unum" has given way to "Caveat Emptor" as the only principle to follow. No wonder the center cannot hold.
And with apologies to Yeats, is Cruz the 'rough beast' ? This column's metaphor barely held together.
11
But isn't it lack of economic opportunity that fuels much of the fanaticism?
13
Thanks for the reference to Yeats. I am discussing "The Second Coming" today in class.
1
Bernie Sanders has been a United States Representative and United States Senator since 1991. He has more elected government experience than Hillary Clinton. How exactly is this marginal, David?
Here's a theory, David. Much simpler than yours. Try it on for size.
Republicans do not like their "mainstream" candidates because they're all bad candidates.
Oops. Can't get a column out of that. Can't get the Koch brothers to support it. Never mind.
Here's a theory, David. Much simpler than yours. Try it on for size.
Republicans do not like their "mainstream" candidates because they're all bad candidates.
Oops. Can't get a column out of that. Can't get the Koch brothers to support it. Never mind.
38
"Sensing a loss of confidence in the center, strong-willed people on the edges step forward to take control." " Mass stupidity and greed led to a financial collapse and deprived capitalism of its moral swagger. "Say hello to President Ted Cruz."
Say what, Mr. Brooks? The world is burning and so we have to give into those on the fringes?
About the only thing I agree with in your bleak column is this: the longer people retreat into playing with their devices and "losing interest in greater striving," the more your dire predictions could come to pass.
Which means only one thing: show up at the polls and take back our country from the maniacs who would hasten the total decline of our Republic as we know it. It's said every time a column like this is written, "we get the government we deserve."
Every vote counts, including the ones not cast.
Say what, Mr. Brooks? The world is burning and so we have to give into those on the fringes?
About the only thing I agree with in your bleak column is this: the longer people retreat into playing with their devices and "losing interest in greater striving," the more your dire predictions could come to pass.
Which means only one thing: show up at the polls and take back our country from the maniacs who would hasten the total decline of our Republic as we know it. It's said every time a column like this is written, "we get the government we deserve."
Every vote counts, including the ones not cast.
13
"Mass stupidity and greed led to a financial collapse and deprived capitalism of its moral swagger." Really? Didn't the CEO of Goldman Sachs say he was doing "God's work"? Has anybody of note from that massive destruction been held accountable? As a culture we have done little to push back against the runaway greed and even less to promote honesty, decency and fairness.
Where else could we possibly land when for decades we have been a culture constantly promoting self worth as something that can be achieved through the accumulation of more shiny things?
Where else could we possibly land when for decades we have been a culture constantly promoting self worth as something that can be achieved through the accumulation of more shiny things?
18
This article might have been more appropriately titled "the demise of compromise." Here, Mr. Brooks laments the loss of the gravitation within the central political establishment, and suggests that a lack of conviction in the beliefs of the people within the system must be the root cause. I disagree with this assessment. Instead, I suggest that it is an excess of self confidence in the rightness in ones own beliefs that is the root cause of the change in gravity. As time goes on, we see an endless escalation of rhetoric and stronger polarization with each passing moment. And, with each escalation of rhetoric, the discourse loses a little bit of strength. In such a polarized environment, the gravity invariably shifts towards those who hold on tightest to their principles. In such an environment, it is no wonder that centrists find themselves sapped of political momentum. It is unfortunate that such polarization has come at such a dangerous time, as the need for consensus is greater than it has ever been. However, it is my opinion that both sides are not equal here. Hillary Clinton has believed in compromise for most of her political career, and has bent over backwards in order to form consensus. Her willingness to negotiate has been met with consistent hostility from the other side of the aisle, and consternation from her side as well. Bernie Sanders has long understood that negotiating with Republicans is often folly. It seems that Ms. Clinton is coming around to this view.
6
Please be careful about what you wish for. A charismatic leader who claims to offer us a path to spiritual and patriotic renewal could prove to be an American Putin. Tyrants need scapegoats. The current targets of far-right Presidential wanna-bes are immigrants, Muslims and the mythical "taker-class." I worry that power can be won and grow by focusing blame for our complex troubles on such stereotyped groups. We need a respected leader who can motivate the fearful majority to accept and engage in the hard work of running an indispensable constitutional democracy.
238
We had such leaders 4 generations ago when the 'outsiders' took over almost all of Europe and Asia. The Anglo-Saxons persisted with leaders Roosevelt & Churchill aided by lesser evil 'outsiders' in Russia & China, when worse 'outsiders' over stepped themselves.
I fear another great war sometime after 2020. Cycle theory predicts this will occur between 2020-2025 (see 'The Fourth Turning'). Hopefully Hillary will have the skills of FDR to contain our 'outsiders' & exterminate the others.
I fear another great war sometime after 2020. Cycle theory predicts this will occur between 2020-2025 (see 'The Fourth Turning'). Hopefully Hillary will have the skills of FDR to contain our 'outsiders' & exterminate the others.
I agree with Jean from Wilmington DE.
The last charismatic leader we had was Ronald Reagan. The memory of those alive at the time is either that he embodied the pure American (easily seen in the persona of a white male who shilled for 20-Mule team Borax in western clothes), or that he was the political equivalent of the "Man Behind The Curtain" in The Wizard of Oz.
Those who adore him think that all things good from January 1981 to January 1989 came to the U.S. of A. because of his unrelenting patriotism and unrelenting free markets. They don't like to know that he raised taxes, reached out in dirty back-water guns for money deals with the Iranians so as to support a democratic-crushing regime in Nicaragua that was also killing American religious. He was also a pseudo-religious spouting, non-church attending, divorced "Christian" beloved by the religious right.
Be careful, people. Such a charismatic savior could easily rise up to be a great combo of Ronnie and his Democratic Party equivalent, Huey Long of LA in the 1920s/30s.
The last charismatic leader we had was Ronald Reagan. The memory of those alive at the time is either that he embodied the pure American (easily seen in the persona of a white male who shilled for 20-Mule team Borax in western clothes), or that he was the political equivalent of the "Man Behind The Curtain" in The Wizard of Oz.
Those who adore him think that all things good from January 1981 to January 1989 came to the U.S. of A. because of his unrelenting patriotism and unrelenting free markets. They don't like to know that he raised taxes, reached out in dirty back-water guns for money deals with the Iranians so as to support a democratic-crushing regime in Nicaragua that was also killing American religious. He was also a pseudo-religious spouting, non-church attending, divorced "Christian" beloved by the religious right.
Be careful, people. Such a charismatic savior could easily rise up to be a great combo of Ronnie and his Democratic Party equivalent, Huey Long of LA in the 1920s/30s.
Reading between David's lines indicates to me that David sees this as a distinct possibility and is therefore trying to steer the conversation toward the middle where it belongs. My fear is that all of the potentially "good" leaders will withdraw into the private worlds they have created for themselves and avoid public involvement.
Mr. Brooks finally meets distopic psychosis eye to eye. Instead of blaming conservative Republican ideology (old as dirt) that uses talk radio for political education, he blames everybody. He wrings his hands because he wants all conservative Republican's to be reasonable and hide their hate and distain.
8
The United States you are describing would prefer common aims over individualistic, and it is difficult to say how or why or when that conviction bled out of our culture.
"We're all in this together" has become "Every man for himself". Almost every argument is framed in personal rights and freedoms and liberties; and debates as basic to life, like abortion, are about a woman's right versus a child's right--the tie-breaker was to blame it on a repressive male culture. People earn millions of dollars and multiples of what the average worker takes home, ultimately with no personal capital at risk as employees of shareholder-owned corporations. It, too, is about "me first"; and it places rot at the far end of the rainbow.
We do not apply the "village" to raising each other's kids, because doing so would invite suspicions about motivations. Teenagers raise their hands and pursue a change in their very gender (something which is not possible in any true way), and parents, doctors and health care providers meekly comply.
We know there is truth. But we are in charge of our destinies now. It is not pretty, and it will not end well.
"We're all in this together" has become "Every man for himself". Almost every argument is framed in personal rights and freedoms and liberties; and debates as basic to life, like abortion, are about a woman's right versus a child's right--the tie-breaker was to blame it on a repressive male culture. People earn millions of dollars and multiples of what the average worker takes home, ultimately with no personal capital at risk as employees of shareholder-owned corporations. It, too, is about "me first"; and it places rot at the far end of the rainbow.
We do not apply the "village" to raising each other's kids, because doing so would invite suspicions about motivations. Teenagers raise their hands and pursue a change in their very gender (something which is not possible in any true way), and parents, doctors and health care providers meekly comply.
We know there is truth. But we are in charge of our destinies now. It is not pretty, and it will not end well.
32
This shift is thanks to the radical capitalists and the anti-government anarchists that David Brooks thinks are "establishment Republicans" that should be telling the rest of us what to do. Remember the republicans want to drown our government in the bath tub - Brooks is usually ok with that.
"Some leader has to be able to digest the lessons of the last 15 years and offer a revised charismatic and persuasive sense of America’s historic mission."
And the Chinese don't have a historic mission?
And the Russians don't have a historic mission?
What about the French, British, and yes, the German historic missions?
Don't you see the foolishness in this?
Russia and China may not be acting as you would like, but they are not irrational murderers, as is the Islamic State. They are acting to counter years of insults to their nations and to find ways to build up their economies. In a sense they have both been trying to restore pride and stability since WWII. Unfortunately in the modern world economic stability has come from acquiring and holding on to spheres of influence where raw materials and commodities can be had at favorable prices. We've done this as has the British and others. Finding a balance and a stable set of boundaries around the world is not easy, but is also not suicidal or irrational.
Giving in somewhat to China and Russia, who merely want a fair balance with the US and other advanced economies, can help stabilize the world. Once all of these civilized rational states adjust to each other, they can calm down and eliminate the suicide crazies and get on with life.
Why do you see perpetual war as the world's future? People are just looking for Friday to come around after a hard week of work. Not too bad a way to live!
And the Chinese don't have a historic mission?
And the Russians don't have a historic mission?
What about the French, British, and yes, the German historic missions?
Don't you see the foolishness in this?
Russia and China may not be acting as you would like, but they are not irrational murderers, as is the Islamic State. They are acting to counter years of insults to their nations and to find ways to build up their economies. In a sense they have both been trying to restore pride and stability since WWII. Unfortunately in the modern world economic stability has come from acquiring and holding on to spheres of influence where raw materials and commodities can be had at favorable prices. We've done this as has the British and others. Finding a balance and a stable set of boundaries around the world is not easy, but is also not suicidal or irrational.
Giving in somewhat to China and Russia, who merely want a fair balance with the US and other advanced economies, can help stabilize the world. Once all of these civilized rational states adjust to each other, they can calm down and eliminate the suicide crazies and get on with life.
Why do you see perpetual war as the world's future? People are just looking for Friday to come around after a hard week of work. Not too bad a way to live!
125
If "some leader" were to present a "persuasive" and "charismatic" vision of America's "mission," he or she would be little more than a right-wing demagogue. And we see several of those in the making on the Republican side.
It would be smarter to refer not to America's historic mission but to America's democratic experiment, which is still underway, and to America's democratic promise, which we are still trying to fulfill.
But, as we all know, anyone who gets elected with the intent to fulfill America's democratic promise is attacked by Republicans relentlessly, shamelessly, and mercilessly right from the start.
It would be smarter to refer not to America's historic mission but to America's democratic experiment, which is still underway, and to America's democratic promise, which we are still trying to fulfill.
But, as we all know, anyone who gets elected with the intent to fulfill America's democratic promise is attacked by Republicans relentlessly, shamelessly, and mercilessly right from the start.
9
I tend to agree with this. Truthfully, I saw all of the symptoms, but never thought of it like this. That said, I come away from the article with the same quandary that I had before, regarding the best path for America. It is a shame that religion is a greater problem than a solution in this mess.
1
The primary problem is that the elites have gone off the rails and failed to be good stewards of the public trust. They were the original radicals.
This began with Reagan and the GOP embracing the southern strategy (racism, radical anti-governmentism, bigotry, sedition) then embracing religious fundamentalist. But the really big derailment was when they started preaching voo-doo economics and then actually started pursuing it: tax breaks for the rich, outsourcing for the workers.
Its been 35 years of this rubbish coming mainly from the right but infecting the Democratic elites too.
If you are an elite or member of the establishment, and David Brooks is, then you have to be wondering what's wrong with the masses.
The masses have been patient but wondering the same about the elites.
If you are a member of the elite or the establishment, you should know, the people want new elites. Ones that aren't so self serving. They want elites and an establishment that works for the public good.
Case in point is the assault on the middle class.
Everyone knows that the middle class is the bedrock for a successful country. Everyone knows that it is where virtue lies. The rich don't need virtue and the poor can't afford it. Expanding the middle class in both directions is the best thing for any society. But for nearly 40 years now the establishment and the elites have been radicalized into pursuing their self enrichment at the expense of the public and especially the middle class.
This began with Reagan and the GOP embracing the southern strategy (racism, radical anti-governmentism, bigotry, sedition) then embracing religious fundamentalist. But the really big derailment was when they started preaching voo-doo economics and then actually started pursuing it: tax breaks for the rich, outsourcing for the workers.
Its been 35 years of this rubbish coming mainly from the right but infecting the Democratic elites too.
If you are an elite or member of the establishment, and David Brooks is, then you have to be wondering what's wrong with the masses.
The masses have been patient but wondering the same about the elites.
If you are a member of the elite or the establishment, you should know, the people want new elites. Ones that aren't so self serving. They want elites and an establishment that works for the public good.
Case in point is the assault on the middle class.
Everyone knows that the middle class is the bedrock for a successful country. Everyone knows that it is where virtue lies. The rich don't need virtue and the poor can't afford it. Expanding the middle class in both directions is the best thing for any society. But for nearly 40 years now the establishment and the elites have been radicalized into pursuing their self enrichment at the expense of the public and especially the middle class.
18
What kind of people lie the nation into an unnecessary war?
What kind of people give the rich $5 trillion in tax breaks why actively working to move factories off shore and increasing H1B quotas?
What kind of people spend money but keep it off the books?
What kind of people ?
At this point I can't find anything sane or honest or decent or responsible about the republican establishment at any level. And I was raised in a Republican family and was one for the first 30 years of my life.
Eloquent words, philosophizing or introspection won't save you guys now. That train has left the station. The party is gone already. They just don't realize it yet because its too painful and they're too crazy to have the mental discipline to do so and because gerrymandering has buffered them from the jolts. The question is whether they will bring the rest of the nation with it. The GOP has nothing to offer the country, but they figure if they can lie, smear, and create anger and fear they can kick the can down the road a piece. They'd be doing the country a favor if they would just die already. Then maybe we could see the return of the Whig party or something more responsible on the right.
What kind of people give the rich $5 trillion in tax breaks why actively working to move factories off shore and increasing H1B quotas?
What kind of people spend money but keep it off the books?
What kind of people ?
At this point I can't find anything sane or honest or decent or responsible about the republican establishment at any level. And I was raised in a Republican family and was one for the first 30 years of my life.
Eloquent words, philosophizing or introspection won't save you guys now. That train has left the station. The party is gone already. They just don't realize it yet because its too painful and they're too crazy to have the mental discipline to do so and because gerrymandering has buffered them from the jolts. The question is whether they will bring the rest of the nation with it. The GOP has nothing to offer the country, but they figure if they can lie, smear, and create anger and fear they can kick the can down the road a piece. They'd be doing the country a favor if they would just die already. Then maybe we could see the return of the Whig party or something more responsible on the right.
5
I will steal that quote.
The rich don't need virtue and the poor can't afford it.
The rich don't need virtue and the poor can't afford it.
Science has been debunked as a suspicious, liberal enterprise by the Grand Old Propagandists and the conservative and conned religious masses, who never really felt comfortable with scientific and rational 'cause and effect', preferring the glory of holy wars and the gravity of irrational belief systems.
Why respect heliocentric gravity when Bible Study suggests the Earth is flat and the planets and sun revolve around "God's" Earth and other megalomaniacal religious theories ?
And in madrasas around the world, Muslims skip pesky science classes and simply memorize the Qur'an to become 'scholara' in the Islamic community; after all, the theory of relativity is hard - just say Allahu Akbar and start the jihad against the infidels.
What better way to re-enter the Dark Ages than for conservative power-mongers to ride the destructive, unenlightened coattails of organized religion into modern chaos with Western Christian right-wingers bombing the Middle East into the Dark Ages and Middle Eastern Muslims reciprocating with asymmetric murder and violence randomly sprinkled throughout the West along with an endless tide of Muslim Shariah immigration threatening to swallow western democracy.
And of course, no one any side of global or domestic politics ever mentions the word contraception because it's a religious profanity.
Reason and contraception are the only thing humans have going for them.
Our only human hope is get religious on science and burn those religious textbooks.
Why respect heliocentric gravity when Bible Study suggests the Earth is flat and the planets and sun revolve around "God's" Earth and other megalomaniacal religious theories ?
And in madrasas around the world, Muslims skip pesky science classes and simply memorize the Qur'an to become 'scholara' in the Islamic community; after all, the theory of relativity is hard - just say Allahu Akbar and start the jihad against the infidels.
What better way to re-enter the Dark Ages than for conservative power-mongers to ride the destructive, unenlightened coattails of organized religion into modern chaos with Western Christian right-wingers bombing the Middle East into the Dark Ages and Middle Eastern Muslims reciprocating with asymmetric murder and violence randomly sprinkled throughout the West along with an endless tide of Muslim Shariah immigration threatening to swallow western democracy.
And of course, no one any side of global or domestic politics ever mentions the word contraception because it's a religious profanity.
Reason and contraception are the only thing humans have going for them.
Our only human hope is get religious on science and burn those religious textbooks.
609
I agree with this view, but there is one thing missing; a secular understanding of history. To understand the world, and drive forward, you need not only science, but a rich understanding of history, art, literature and the social sciences. We need balance in the world, and a greater commitment to the concept of community.
1
Well said!
2
Yet, To counteract and nullify misery, sorrow, pain and suffering in the world, powerful yagnas and homas are being conducted during the nine day and night or navratri celebrations, all over India. Tens of thousands of people have come together to meditate in peace and harmony. Prayers for peace and well being of the planet are being sung and chanted in ancient vedic language. These counteracting forces bring balance to the planet. There are more good hearts and souls on the planet than bad, otherwise we would not survive as a species. Our planet will survive no matter what humans do to each other, but its only in cooperation that we as a species, will and can survive.
1
I've read the article and many of the comments and the thought enters my mind that I've just visited an asylum.
2
I am the same age as David and Obama. Yet I don't feel confused or spiritually hollow, as David is expressing. Perhaps he is having a mid life mini crisis of some sort. Reminds me of the Jehovah's witnesses who rang the door bell last week, when I opened the door briefly, they asked are you scared, are you afraid, are you worried.....I cut them short to say I was happy and content and at no time things were so wonderful in the world.
1
Actually, you've entered a house of mirrors that reflects the asylum we're living in!
The pessimistic tone of the responses to this column matches that of Brooks, himself, despite sharp differences over the cited causes of our current malaise. On one point, however, Brooks and the commenters seem to agree: lack of effective leadership is a critical part of the problem. Strong leaders, though, actually contributed to the problems facing the world.
Economic and political leaders of the capitalist countries played a major role in achieving the rapid economic growth of the last two centuries, an accomplishment that has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, while also triggering the climate change that threatens to destroy that success. Scientists and entrepreneurs engineered the technological revolution that undergirds our affluent lifestyle, but also created the weapons that could incinerate the planet.
Men and women who lead through a focus on progress, the continual improvement of life for all people, remain valuable. But we also desperately need leaders with a different vision, one that does not see our planet as a resource to be exploited only for material gain. Individuals who can inspire us to treasure our world as a precious finite resource, are necessary if our descendants are not to inherit a planet no longer capable of supporting our species.
If this call for new kinds of leaders sounds naive and implausible, all I can say is, it had better not be.
Economic and political leaders of the capitalist countries played a major role in achieving the rapid economic growth of the last two centuries, an accomplishment that has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, while also triggering the climate change that threatens to destroy that success. Scientists and entrepreneurs engineered the technological revolution that undergirds our affluent lifestyle, but also created the weapons that could incinerate the planet.
Men and women who lead through a focus on progress, the continual improvement of life for all people, remain valuable. But we also desperately need leaders with a different vision, one that does not see our planet as a resource to be exploited only for material gain. Individuals who can inspire us to treasure our world as a precious finite resource, are necessary if our descendants are not to inherit a planet no longer capable of supporting our species.
If this call for new kinds of leaders sounds naive and implausible, all I can say is, it had better not be.
133
How can a mere vision of oneness in purpose with Gaia ever be sufficient when the fringe elements David enumerates exist? It is naive and implausible because it is insufficient.
Mr Lee makes reference to an assertion which has come to be regarded as axiomatic - that the economic growth of the last two centuries and reduction in absolute poverty are the result of the capitalist system. Capitalist principles have certainly played a part but the really big influence has been the availability of cheap and plentiful energy. This has enabled a huge leverage of human effort and an enormous increase in prosperity and well-being, but at a cost. This cost has not been recognised by the capitalist system, not because it can't be measured or reasonably estimated but because it is inconvenient for the capitalist model to recognise that many of its endeavours are not profitable for the society in which they are undertaken. The rejection of science by many on the right is not a reflection of intellectual incapacity but of commercial expediency.
1
Leaders that can mobilize a large following don't necessarily have good ideas, of course. How does it happen that leaders arise with good ideas? It would seem likely to me that the successful leader crystallizes the community's aspirations, and what we need to prosper is that the community possess desirable albeit vaguely formed aspirations that the burgeoning leader can draw upon and focus. Suppression of the goals of large groups is more likely to produce unsavory reactive leaders than a salutary change like that of the "bloodless revolution" as occurred with the Magna Carta in England.
Well the stopped clock was right, now the hands of time have moved and the stopped clock will be wrong again for 12 hours. What a load of balderdash. Does he really believe this stuff? "This mission, both nationalist and universal", what conceit,what hubris, we are to act as if we were handed a sword like Excaliber. David, the United States exceptionalism was a function of geography, brutal theft and deceit, and a whole lot of luck. That we did good as a nation is true, but it was not by some grand design or Gods intervention. The winner writes the narrative. We stood on top so we got to write it the way we wanted to. Capitalism has failed many times to allocate resources effectively in this country. We were lucky enough to stick together. But it wasn't the conivening capitalists who put it back together, it was we the people.
425
A great many people have believed "this stuff" and it took the US to unparalleled heights in the past. Leaders with vision, conviction, and heart made this country safe so that everyone (including you) could say what they wanted about pretty much anything, fought to take care of the ones who could not defend themselves and gave everyone the chance to be more than what they were when they were born (if they worked hard).
Today no one wants to be that country any more, work hard, earn what you get, form a family and take care of others. Today it's, 'Ask not what I can do for my country but what can my country do for me." Responsibility is for the other guy.
Mr. Brooks is correct when he says the problem is mental and spiritual. America has no vision, no path, and certainly no goals. The post-Cold War vision Brooks speaks of is lost because we allowed it to be forgotten. We give credibility to the loss of the family unit, provide benefits unending for folks instead of providing a path to a job, make it acceptable to default on debt without consequences, convince kids to go to college to get useless degrees instead of learning crafts or trades where they can invest in a real life, and promote government as the solution to all problems.
Resources allocate correctly if the market functions without intervention. Meddling Government is the problem. Remember, the Government did not build it, the people did (and they are capitalists).
Today no one wants to be that country any more, work hard, earn what you get, form a family and take care of others. Today it's, 'Ask not what I can do for my country but what can my country do for me." Responsibility is for the other guy.
Mr. Brooks is correct when he says the problem is mental and spiritual. America has no vision, no path, and certainly no goals. The post-Cold War vision Brooks speaks of is lost because we allowed it to be forgotten. We give credibility to the loss of the family unit, provide benefits unending for folks instead of providing a path to a job, make it acceptable to default on debt without consequences, convince kids to go to college to get useless degrees instead of learning crafts or trades where they can invest in a real life, and promote government as the solution to all problems.
Resources allocate correctly if the market functions without intervention. Meddling Government is the problem. Remember, the Government did not build it, the people did (and they are capitalists).
5
So, what is the grand vision of we the people? "Trust your luck" is what you seem to be saying, which supports David's point.
There would be no 'we the people' without the American form of government of which capitalism is a part, even with it's flaws.
Try having 'we the people' in Iran, Cuba, China, Russia, et al. Cut off nose to spite face...
Try having 'we the people' in Iran, Cuba, China, Russia, et al. Cut off nose to spite face...
1
Amazing! After all the decades you have spent in the 'belly-of-the-beast' of American politics that you propose a president Ted Cruz should tell us that you are either insincere and playing us for fools, or you don't have a clue.
Which one is it , David Brooks?
Which one is it , David Brooks?
9
Is it time for serious leaders from both parties to come together on national service? Mass culture is being eroded by isolated and fringe social cocoons. That outsiders seem strongest on the right is not surprising - since Reagan and through Gingrich the dominant message has been 'self first, government is the problem'. But the right still, ostensibly, seems to support military service. Most of our strongest international partners on the left and the right, still have national service. Perhaps they recognize the need and value of having national shared experiences to build positive national visions.
1
JP--the Right only supports national military service for the children of others. Look at the Republican "leaders". Can you find a single one, other than the old guys, who served in the military? No. Deferments and dodging galore. As Dick Cheney said, they have more important things to do.
1
If the "primary problem is mental and spiritual" we will need the wisdom of Solomon, the mind of Einstein and a Jedi philosopher to solve what appears unsolvable.
1
I believe it's time to let water seek its own level ... Case in point ... The artificial borders in the Middle East ... One sees the region re-aligning to ethnic and national histories ... Demographics will one day swallow Israel ...
Historically, over centuries, monumental wars, crusades, famine and natural disasters have generally not stood the test of time ... The World Wars, Vietnam Nam, the toppling of the Soviet Union, the constant wars between Japan and China, India and Pakistan ... Iraq is a black hole and we don't even know who the enemy is in Syria ... Africa continues to roil ...
Pick up a paper today and one of 50 years ago and one will see historically similar world disorder and wars ...
Hundreds of millions of lives lost ... For what ...
We can't afford to boil the ocean or play global whack a mole ... Neither financially or in more lost lives ... Stand ready to protect our shores and our allies ... But for heaven sake, rebuild our infrastructure, educate our children get off fossil fuel and pay more attention to the Americas ...
Lastly, be ready to compete in whatever new world order appears in 10 or 20 years ...
Historically, over centuries, monumental wars, crusades, famine and natural disasters have generally not stood the test of time ... The World Wars, Vietnam Nam, the toppling of the Soviet Union, the constant wars between Japan and China, India and Pakistan ... Iraq is a black hole and we don't even know who the enemy is in Syria ... Africa continues to roil ...
Pick up a paper today and one of 50 years ago and one will see historically similar world disorder and wars ...
Hundreds of millions of lives lost ... For what ...
We can't afford to boil the ocean or play global whack a mole ... Neither financially or in more lost lives ... Stand ready to protect our shores and our allies ... But for heaven sake, rebuild our infrastructure, educate our children get off fossil fuel and pay more attention to the Americas ...
Lastly, be ready to compete in whatever new world order appears in 10 or 20 years ...
3
The world, and America in particular, was on a doomed course long before the year 2000.
As you say, "the vision was materialistic and individualistic". That hardly breeds a society of altruistic, compassionate, ethical human beings. It eschews culture and spirituality, and leads us directly into a world of greed and vanity and alienation.
That's where we are now. It will probably take some kind of cataclysm to find our way back.
As you say, "the vision was materialistic and individualistic". That hardly breeds a society of altruistic, compassionate, ethical human beings. It eschews culture and spirituality, and leads us directly into a world of greed and vanity and alienation.
That's where we are now. It will probably take some kind of cataclysm to find our way back.
3
Brooks- Stop looking backwards. There is no there there and knowing Nixon and his buddies should tell you, there never was. Brooks- the young people will reject your call for a revised charismatic and persuasive leader. They have moved on to be less judgmental, less prejudiced, more cooperative, more inventive and creative and are politely waiting for us older ones to get out of the way-- not die, just get out of congress. Only an old person would suggest that Newt Gingrich would be a reasonable answer to the GOP problem of speaker of the house. I can think of a number of non-crazy, non- zealots whose leadership will be great for us-- younger legislators who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan for instance. And others in the heroic leadership of non profits and in education and health care-- while our brilliant senior legislators keep starving them out of needed tax money. I think they have learned the good values of their parents and teachers and the hard lessons of the past 20 years of frustrated progress. They already know climate change is real and guns are bad. They learned it in kindergarden in 1990 while your party kept proclaiming the science wasn't good enough. They learned tolerance and kindness, welcoming and openness of all people while the political and religious leaders kept declaring -- not so fast; be cautious! On TV, you see old Bernie Sanders-- but then you see the young people in the audience-the faces of my son and his friends. We'll be ok.
10
This is a commonplace lament for the collapse of American Hegemony. No – it is not true that the primary problem is mental and spiritual (other than in a meaningless tautological sense) since Hegemony is usually accompanied by the exercise of indulgent self-interest and the practice of Might is Right. The phrase ‘Democratic Capitalism’ is an oxymoron.
Those who are not American (most people in the World) are likely to have a different viewpoint on the demise of American Hegemony than those who are American. Most of us can understand the nature of change and take it as a fact of life. Some of us may hope that the changes will improve the prospects for direct democracy safe from the predations of those ‘few big suns radiating conviction and meaning’ [and indulgent self-interest].
Those who are not American (most people in the World) are likely to have a different viewpoint on the demise of American Hegemony than those who are American. Most of us can understand the nature of change and take it as a fact of life. Some of us may hope that the changes will improve the prospects for direct democracy safe from the predations of those ‘few big suns radiating conviction and meaning’ [and indulgent self-interest].
3
Interesting how the biggest drivers of the issues that David herein bemoans get no mention. If he were to dig deep he might see that the unholy alliance of forces that Ike warned of are a large source of many of the problems that he notes.
3
The incoherent thoughts of the political columnist as he slides into irrelevance.
35
Putin is a thug, no doubt, but he is firmly in touch with reality. As he said at the United Nations speaking of Syria and Iraq: “How can you even now fail to understand what a mess you have made?”
Americans as a whole won't understand that mess until there is a commission of inquiry and prosecution of the perpetrators of the Iraq war. In order to keep the fiction of a two-party system going, Americans have been avoiding facing the truth. Even the simple truth, that G.W. Bush was indeed the President when 9/11 happened, as pointed out by Donald Trump, causes conniptions.
Americans as a whole won't understand that mess until there is a commission of inquiry and prosecution of the perpetrators of the Iraq war. In order to keep the fiction of a two-party system going, Americans have been avoiding facing the truth. Even the simple truth, that G.W. Bush was indeed the President when 9/11 happened, as pointed out by Donald Trump, causes conniptions.
50
Why do you insist on calling Bernie Sanders an outsider? He has been elected and re-elected to political office in one of America's oldest states for over two decades.
Bernie Sanders' views only seem radical in the United States, where the power of the 1% and the right wing news media constantly marginalize any idea that does not support their skewed capitalism and the NeoCon imperialism they call American Exceptionalism. Bernie's economics follow successful models being used in many European countries, especially those of Denmark, whose people enjoy a much better quality of life than the citizens of the US.
It's hard to understand what you consider "outside" about economic and diplomatic policies that work in other advanced nations, while considering trickle down economics, failed austerity policies, long-term international militarism, and ecological irresponsibility as being mainstream idals.
Bernie Sanders' views only seem radical in the United States, where the power of the 1% and the right wing news media constantly marginalize any idea that does not support their skewed capitalism and the NeoCon imperialism they call American Exceptionalism. Bernie's economics follow successful models being used in many European countries, especially those of Denmark, whose people enjoy a much better quality of life than the citizens of the US.
It's hard to understand what you consider "outside" about economic and diplomatic policies that work in other advanced nations, while considering trickle down economics, failed austerity policies, long-term international militarism, and ecological irresponsibility as being mainstream idals.
249
Your comment say it all! Thank you for putting it in so few words.
The primary problem is neither mental nor spiritual in the sense that Brooks is implying.
The neoconservative/neoliberal cabal has led the nation down a path of endless war and endless financial speculation.
The people are tired of having to constantly survive in the modern rat race while intellectual elites like Brooks rail from their pulpits that we are lacking.
"Say hello to President Ted Cruz", Brooks warns the masses.
It's highly unlikely that Cruz, the product of 35 years of feverish right-wing hysteria from the more dedicated zealots of the columnist's preferred party will attain the presidency.
As for "depravity and barbarity", let's ask the relatives of those killed in the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan what they think.
The neoconservative/neoliberal cabal has led the nation down a path of endless war and endless financial speculation.
The people are tired of having to constantly survive in the modern rat race while intellectual elites like Brooks rail from their pulpits that we are lacking.
"Say hello to President Ted Cruz", Brooks warns the masses.
It's highly unlikely that Cruz, the product of 35 years of feverish right-wing hysteria from the more dedicated zealots of the columnist's preferred party will attain the presidency.
As for "depravity and barbarity", let's ask the relatives of those killed in the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan what they think.
88
Our major parties have failed us, remaining true only to those moguls who put them in office in the first place.
We need a new People's Party, folks. Turn off the TV, Quit the pundits. Mute the current crop of pols and look elsewhere for leaders who will serve the people.
We need a new People's Party, folks. Turn off the TV, Quit the pundits. Mute the current crop of pols and look elsewhere for leaders who will serve the people.
1
"Where is this all heading?" I would ask: Where is this column heading?
Perhaps it's me, but I found this a disjointed series of sociolo-political musings of David's mind stated as fact.
and btw, a politician has "digested the lessons" as so fervently desired by Mr. Brooks in his concluding argument. I'm afraid to tell him: it's Bernie.
Perhaps it's me, but I found this a disjointed series of sociolo-political musings of David's mind stated as fact.
and btw, a politician has "digested the lessons" as so fervently desired by Mr. Brooks in his concluding argument. I'm afraid to tell him: it's Bernie.
51
Mr. Brooks gets lost when he claims that "The United States would oversee a basic international order". This would have been acceptable if it had concerned a kind of moral leadership.
Unfortunately, Brooks and many others in the US have interpreted this so that the US (5% of the world population) would become a kind of dictator setting the rules in the world. It is that kind of arrogance that led to the Iraq invasion in 2003 and to many other attempts to overthrow governments that were considered insufficiently obedient to the wishes of Washington.
The world is a dynamic place and the relative power of countries is constantly shifting. Better get used to it. Leading those shifts towards a peaceful outcome requires statesmanship and it is there that US leadership would be very welcome. Unfortunately the US seems only obsessed with maintaining its own position. One may criticize the Chinese for some of their nationalistic policies, but US policies to exclude China, such as TIPP, are just as harmful.
Unfortunately, Brooks and many others in the US have interpreted this so that the US (5% of the world population) would become a kind of dictator setting the rules in the world. It is that kind of arrogance that led to the Iraq invasion in 2003 and to many other attempts to overthrow governments that were considered insufficiently obedient to the wishes of Washington.
The world is a dynamic place and the relative power of countries is constantly shifting. Better get used to it. Leading those shifts towards a peaceful outcome requires statesmanship and it is there that US leadership would be very welcome. Unfortunately the US seems only obsessed with maintaining its own position. One may criticize the Chinese for some of their nationalistic policies, but US policies to exclude China, such as TIPP, are just as harmful.
24
"...if you give individuals access to education and opportunity..." is exactly what I have not seen the Republicans do in the state legislatures across the country. They have been the antithesis of equal opportunity and their policies are responsible for the growing inequality of life for the bottom 80% of Americans.
99
Yours is an opinion without factual basis. The very worst, most violent and dysfunctional public education systems exist in large cities run for decades by Democrats. Over the past fifty years Equal Opportunity's Democrat proponents have managed to lower both expectations and achievements of students, faculty and administrators and all for only quadruple the cost!
Bob, perhaps where you live. Out here in the midwest, particularly in rural districts, the Republican's method has been to fiscally starve the school districts into under performance and then claim the public system is failing. In our district, a starting teacher makes 25k per year (latest union contract) and the top teachers make around 60k per year, not exactly the kind of wages that attract teachers to the profession and not a munificent sum. Your comment is also an opinion without factual basis unless you are describing the charleston school districts.
There is no dispute the masses love confidence men. Why shouldn't they? They perceive their lives miserable and here comes someone radiating confidence. That is why those self-help and real-estate gurus rack in millions by giving "free" advice.
But nothing is free, my friend. Once upon a time, there was a failed business man parlaying his family name into a governorship. He projected Texan size confidence even though he was a North East prep school product. His easy demeanor even gained him the presidency, twice. And America has to pay for it ever since.
Such is the debilitating effect of gravitating toward the confidence men. So, go ahead, go for a Trump or even a Cruz. That guarantees a feel good triumph for a moment but also guarantees another decade of hardship
But nothing is free, my friend. Once upon a time, there was a failed business man parlaying his family name into a governorship. He projected Texan size confidence even though he was a North East prep school product. His easy demeanor even gained him the presidency, twice. And America has to pay for it ever since.
Such is the debilitating effect of gravitating toward the confidence men. So, go ahead, go for a Trump or even a Cruz. That guarantees a feel good triumph for a moment but also guarantees another decade of hardship
108
The problem with Demagogues is that their handlers/enablers think they can control them to do their bidding. then a Hitler rises; or a pol pot -- and who knows in the future? Any society built on fear and hatred, on love of power must eventually collapse. And it takes a public to fall for their pitch to get it all rolling. The big question is, which way will Americans lean this time around? Whose “story” will we buy?
1
Brooks lives in a different world than most humans. The U.S. lost the moral high ground decades ago. Vietnam, too many covert operations to count, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, etc. Do we have 800 bases around the World, or a thousand? As a free nation, we are mostly kept in the dark about our killing abroad. Introspection--zero. Didn't we just intentionally bomb a hospital in Afghanistan killing 22 people? How is that moral or an act of leadership. Is that the model the fanatics in the rest of the World should follow?
Targeted Killing. Obama promised transparency and then fell silent. Thousands of innocent civilians killed. The administration could care less. Most Americans accept no responsibility. Endless war. A trillion thrown at supposed security/defense a year. For who knows what.
It is an illusion to believe the U.S. offers anything other Nations should follow. The more advanced countries provide all citizens with healthcare, free education, subsidized family leave, excellent public transit, beautiful public spaces.
The answer is not spiritual. It is reality. And for now, America's reality is quite dismal.
Targeted Killing. Obama promised transparency and then fell silent. Thousands of innocent civilians killed. The administration could care less. Most Americans accept no responsibility. Endless war. A trillion thrown at supposed security/defense a year. For who knows what.
It is an illusion to believe the U.S. offers anything other Nations should follow. The more advanced countries provide all citizens with healthcare, free education, subsidized family leave, excellent public transit, beautiful public spaces.
The answer is not spiritual. It is reality. And for now, America's reality is quite dismal.
185
David, you are correct that our current crisis is spiritual - but wrong about the kind of spirituality that will be required to save ourselves and the planet.
An embrace of materialism tends to leave a person well-fed but hollow. Some attempt to address this sense of emptiness through escapes into alcohol and narcotics, others through perpetual distraction within a glittering yet mind-numbing consumer culture, others through the relentless pursuit of money and power, and others via an immersion in totalitarian forms of religion and politics.
David, for as long as I have read you, you have been an advocate for both this insatiable pursuit of riches and an evangelical form of militarism. Your celebration of 'creative destruction', in all its ghastly permutations, has rendered you wealthy and influential - even as it has left the rest of us poorer, bloodied, and exhausted.
There are many forms of addictions in life, but perhaps the most pernicious is the addiction to remaining relevant. Conservatives like yourself apparently lust for an America that is perpetually relevant. Others like myself, while acknowledging this nation's responsibility to contribute to the planet, prefer an America that humbly leads by example, and is dedicated to the ideal of self-realization - of the innate potential within each of us for happiness, of an authentic sense of community here at home, and of that more perfect union that our Framers committed us to so long ago.
An embrace of materialism tends to leave a person well-fed but hollow. Some attempt to address this sense of emptiness through escapes into alcohol and narcotics, others through perpetual distraction within a glittering yet mind-numbing consumer culture, others through the relentless pursuit of money and power, and others via an immersion in totalitarian forms of religion and politics.
David, for as long as I have read you, you have been an advocate for both this insatiable pursuit of riches and an evangelical form of militarism. Your celebration of 'creative destruction', in all its ghastly permutations, has rendered you wealthy and influential - even as it has left the rest of us poorer, bloodied, and exhausted.
There are many forms of addictions in life, but perhaps the most pernicious is the addiction to remaining relevant. Conservatives like yourself apparently lust for an America that is perpetually relevant. Others like myself, while acknowledging this nation's responsibility to contribute to the planet, prefer an America that humbly leads by example, and is dedicated to the ideal of self-realization - of the innate potential within each of us for happiness, of an authentic sense of community here at home, and of that more perfect union that our Framers committed us to so long ago.
288
"Conservatives like yourself apparently lust for an America that is perpetually relevant. Others like myself, while acknowledging this nation's responsibility to contribute to the planet, prefer an America that humbly leads by example, and is dedicated to the ideal of self-realization.."
Matthew, I want badly to agree with you here. Were it that we could simply be one among many countries all working together for a better planet. Alas, history reveals that, while she makes more than her fair share of mistakes, America's simply required to be something bigger than you'd like.
Consider your "ideals of self-realization" comment - I'd argue America's place in the world is the very thing that enables us to strive for these ideals in the first place. She fills a vacuum that, if vacated, would lead to a very different world for all of us. One we might not like very much.
I'm not a gung-ho "Go America!" guy, by the way. At all. I'd just rather it be a country like ours (warts & all) playing the lead in a world that requires such a role be filled.
Matthew, I want badly to agree with you here. Were it that we could simply be one among many countries all working together for a better planet. Alas, history reveals that, while she makes more than her fair share of mistakes, America's simply required to be something bigger than you'd like.
Consider your "ideals of self-realization" comment - I'd argue America's place in the world is the very thing that enables us to strive for these ideals in the first place. She fills a vacuum that, if vacated, would lead to a very different world for all of us. One we might not like very much.
I'm not a gung-ho "Go America!" guy, by the way. At all. I'd just rather it be a country like ours (warts & all) playing the lead in a world that requires such a role be filled.
So David Brooks argues in favor of centralized, all powerful government, exerting power over the periphery the way that the sun controls the orbits of the planets.
He then argues the virtues of religious fanaticism, comparing modern democracy and capitalism unfavorably to it, saying basically that superstition-based extremism is a superior model for getting people inspired to your cause.
Never mind that these are diametrically opposed to everything Brooks has stood for during his career, in addition to simply containing no sense or coherence. Just another column from David Brooks, deepening the mystery of why anyone takes him seriously.
He then argues the virtues of religious fanaticism, comparing modern democracy and capitalism unfavorably to it, saying basically that superstition-based extremism is a superior model for getting people inspired to your cause.
Never mind that these are diametrically opposed to everything Brooks has stood for during his career, in addition to simply containing no sense or coherence. Just another column from David Brooks, deepening the mystery of why anyone takes him seriously.
80
"It would offer a goal more profound than material comfort."
Yep! Here we go again. The delusional Mr Brooks, who supports a party that aims to keep the enormous, and growing inequalities in society's material wealth, says that's not what's important. Surprise, surprise. The problem is not outsiders taking over it's that insiders protect their own. A greater fraction of the population feel disenfranchised and left out. Mr Brooks and his friends bear a major part of the responsibility for this and arguing it's all because we no longer have a great world-dominating bellicose American Empire is not convincing.
Wake up! You have found the enemy and it's you!
Yep! Here we go again. The delusional Mr Brooks, who supports a party that aims to keep the enormous, and growing inequalities in society's material wealth, says that's not what's important. Surprise, surprise. The problem is not outsiders taking over it's that insiders protect their own. A greater fraction of the population feel disenfranchised and left out. Mr Brooks and his friends bear a major part of the responsibility for this and arguing it's all because we no longer have a great world-dominating bellicose American Empire is not convincing.
Wake up! You have found the enemy and it's you!
421
Our key problem is spiritual, in that we solved problems by projecting images that the problems were being solved rather than actually solving them. This spiritual problem is called hypocrisy or dishonesty.
The reasonable person admires the Emperor's wardrobe because to doubt what everybody claims to see puts the social order at risk. But a social order based on seeing what is not there and not seeing what is there, is always at risk. Even though such orders can be horribly durable (Japan and Germany kept fighting long after it was obvious they had lost, and we did the same in Vietnam), they can also fall apart unexpectedly.
Reasonable Catholics protected the Church by keeping the extent of priestly pederasty a secret. A partially segregated United States proclaimed itself the defender of human rights. Dubya's Iraq adventure was based on his faith in his capacity of understanding and action, not on his lack of faith or loss of confidence. The adventure did not fail because it was opposed by strong-willed people on the edges, but rather because it was not interested in the reality of what it was doing and spent its energy projecting images that turned out to be inaccurate.
We cover everything with a thick layer of bull and then wonder why what is going on under the bull surprises us. Our foreign policy and defense apparatus never had the ability to establish order, but used to have the ability to establish an image of order. The image doesnt work any more.
The reasonable person admires the Emperor's wardrobe because to doubt what everybody claims to see puts the social order at risk. But a social order based on seeing what is not there and not seeing what is there, is always at risk. Even though such orders can be horribly durable (Japan and Germany kept fighting long after it was obvious they had lost, and we did the same in Vietnam), they can also fall apart unexpectedly.
Reasonable Catholics protected the Church by keeping the extent of priestly pederasty a secret. A partially segregated United States proclaimed itself the defender of human rights. Dubya's Iraq adventure was based on his faith in his capacity of understanding and action, not on his lack of faith or loss of confidence. The adventure did not fail because it was opposed by strong-willed people on the edges, but rather because it was not interested in the reality of what it was doing and spent its energy projecting images that turned out to be inaccurate.
We cover everything with a thick layer of bull and then wonder why what is going on under the bull surprises us. Our foreign policy and defense apparatus never had the ability to establish order, but used to have the ability to establish an image of order. The image doesnt work any more.
38
Sometimes the center is so rotten that revolution results: 18th century France, Tsarist Russia in 1918. Occasionally, the political system manages a self correction: the New Deal which may have saved American capitalism from itself. Sen. Sanders supporters may see his policies as reaffirmation of core Democratic principles, not as an outlier.
I can only look at Brooks' call for a spiritual movement both "nationalist and universal," to be nonsense. Americans must put their own house in order before we can lead others.
I can only look at Brooks' call for a spiritual movement both "nationalist and universal," to be nonsense. Americans must put their own house in order before we can lead others.
277
Mega Greed that clear thinking blocks,
That opened the Pandora's Box,
Equilibrium shattered
While Cheney/Bush nattered
With methods that sanity mocks.
A Tea Party the Kochs financed
And other billionaires enhanced
Wild, out of control,
Without sense or soul,
With madness and bigotry danced.
And Brooks sees Sanders common sense
Platform as far too intense?
With climate change looming
And bank bubbles booming
Inequality that's immense?
That opened the Pandora's Box,
Equilibrium shattered
While Cheney/Bush nattered
With methods that sanity mocks.
A Tea Party the Kochs financed
And other billionaires enhanced
Wild, out of control,
Without sense or soul,
With madness and bigotry danced.
And Brooks sees Sanders common sense
Platform as far too intense?
With climate change looming
And bank bubbles booming
Inequality that's immense?
220
best yet.
"Mass stupidity and greed..."
Indeed! But, at the end of WW II, Americans were not either stupid or greedy; we were the world's Good Guys! What happened?
It has been decades of marketing/advertising lying and brainwashing Americans specifically to be stupid and greedy because such people buy more junk they don't need and don't want.
It began in 1918 with the use of Freudian ideas to persuade women to smoke cigarettes in public; which they had not previously been doing to any great extent.
Don't blame the people so much as the liars and thieves who buy the congress so they can be free of strict regulation of advertising!
Truth in advertising is long gone and truth in 'news broadcasting' is more recently gone as well.
Indeed! But, at the end of WW II, Americans were not either stupid or greedy; we were the world's Good Guys! What happened?
It has been decades of marketing/advertising lying and brainwashing Americans specifically to be stupid and greedy because such people buy more junk they don't need and don't want.
It began in 1918 with the use of Freudian ideas to persuade women to smoke cigarettes in public; which they had not previously been doing to any great extent.
Don't blame the people so much as the liars and thieves who buy the congress so they can be free of strict regulation of advertising!
Truth in advertising is long gone and truth in 'news broadcasting' is more recently gone as well.
69
While the outsiders are ascendant, I would posit that the reason for the collapse of the centers of power in the Middle East was not a spiritual deficiency. It was the very material removal of the autocrats who were the power centers The egregious decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein and subsequent splintering of Iraq into three fragments,two sectarian and one ethnic, was the absolute lynchpin event. It coupled with the advent of social media, led to the paradigm of the Arab Spring. Much as the printing press eroded and eventually destroyed the autocratic power of the Church, social media provided the same impetus for the removal or challenge to strongmen in the Middle East. When the "centre" could not hold it was replaced by those with the most "passionate intensity". In the Middle East those have always Muslims.The Sunni-Shia schism was the focal point of that intensity and a central cause of the omnipresent conflict in today's Middle East.
24
@don shipp
It is difficult to watch Americans, and often Liberal freedom-loving Americans, spit in the direction of Middle Eastern nations and wish them under the heel of murderous autocrats. We once stood up for freedom, believing it the way forward for mankind; and now we want to turn away from trouble and tiptoe back behind the safety of two oceans while we police our border for troublemakers.
Intervening in Iraq was once the same impulse as allowing immigrants to flood our country. Both carry huge costs. And it is interesting to hear Liberals call one impulse pious and the other bloodthirsty.
That is what David is describing: our inability to agree on common human goals. But anything that Brooks writes falls short, because he wants us back at the Center. For the average NYTimes commenter, it is all or nothing. A zero sum game. Bernie Sanders or go home.
The readership here should pull out a mirror.
It is difficult to watch Americans, and often Liberal freedom-loving Americans, spit in the direction of Middle Eastern nations and wish them under the heel of murderous autocrats. We once stood up for freedom, believing it the way forward for mankind; and now we want to turn away from trouble and tiptoe back behind the safety of two oceans while we police our border for troublemakers.
Intervening in Iraq was once the same impulse as allowing immigrants to flood our country. Both carry huge costs. And it is interesting to hear Liberals call one impulse pious and the other bloodthirsty.
That is what David is describing: our inability to agree on common human goals. But anything that Brooks writes falls short, because he wants us back at the Center. For the average NYTimes commenter, it is all or nothing. A zero sum game. Bernie Sanders or go home.
The readership here should pull out a mirror.
1
Stuart, I find two false assumptions in your response. First, I totally reject the idea of altruism in our invaison of Iraq. It was a geo political power play pure and simple. Secondly, It's not a question of "wishing them under the heel of murderous autocrats" its a question of the legitimate use and limits of American power.
@don shipp
Obama apologists don't get a permanent pass on anything that happens in the Middle East and blame it on the Bush Administration. I am quite sure that the Taliban involvement in Afghanistan, the formation of al Qaeda, and the subsequent acts both here and there had something to do with larger and more troubling changes afoot in the Sunni world.
It's easy to second guess the past, and had we not prevailed in WWII there would be lots of opportunities for that, also. Korea? Yes, should not have gone. Vietnam? Yes, President Kennedy, bad idea.
I find the Middle East deeply troubling. I also know if we tried to pivot and explore for more oil on the Northern Slope or in the tar sands that a whole pile of Progressives would pull out signs about the plover or ground water or no use of petroleum whatsoever under any circumstances.
There will be no peace in the world while unstable nations sit atop the principal energy supply. You can wish us all into solar homes and cars or you can remain engaged with the world. As the most advanced economy, and plans to expand our social safety net in all directions, I would not be so quick to beat a retreat without a Plan B.
Obama apologists don't get a permanent pass on anything that happens in the Middle East and blame it on the Bush Administration. I am quite sure that the Taliban involvement in Afghanistan, the formation of al Qaeda, and the subsequent acts both here and there had something to do with larger and more troubling changes afoot in the Sunni world.
It's easy to second guess the past, and had we not prevailed in WWII there would be lots of opportunities for that, also. Korea? Yes, should not have gone. Vietnam? Yes, President Kennedy, bad idea.
I find the Middle East deeply troubling. I also know if we tried to pivot and explore for more oil on the Northern Slope or in the tar sands that a whole pile of Progressives would pull out signs about the plover or ground water or no use of petroleum whatsoever under any circumstances.
There will be no peace in the world while unstable nations sit atop the principal energy supply. You can wish us all into solar homes and cars or you can remain engaged with the world. As the most advanced economy, and plans to expand our social safety net in all directions, I would not be so quick to beat a retreat without a Plan B.
1
"...if you give individuals access to education and opportunity..." Mr. Brooks, you write this sentence in the context of America's global example as leading other nations on the same road to acquisitiveness, to materialism, to, well, American exceptionalism." You remain captive to this country's flawed narrative. We have never been a country of "equal opportunity." We are a collective of tribe and factionalism, a resentful and rage-filled camp. You wail about the loosening of the center that gives way to the extremism at both poles. A recent example is the diminution of the American presidency. Barack Obama has mostly governed in the strait jacket imposed upon him by a Congress sent to Washington by the ignorant, the backward, the somnolent whose basic ideas of government and its distributive power were overturned by a black man. This wildfire of anger has caught a great portion of the American house; the awful result could be your "President Ted Cruz." America these past 35 years has wobbled out of orbit. We elected an actor because he glowed. We elected a fool after a stolen election (2000). Republicans, very long ago, once grudgingly accepted compromise as the thread holding the tapestry of nation-building together. Now they've abandoned the good of country for that of party, of acid ideology. Mr. Brooks, other countries see our duplicity with our own citizens. "It works there," they sneer. "Why not here?"
341
"As every schoolchild knows, the gravitational pull of the sun helps hold the planets in their orbits. Gravity from the center lends coherence to the whole solar system.
I mention this because that’s how our political and social systems used to work, but no longer do."
Clearly, this is an attractive analogy for anyone who believes in strong political leaders that imitate flaming balls of gas. Here's a more earth-bound and human alternative comparison:
The man-star with the greatest gravitational pull at the peak of the decadent French monarchy was Louis XIV, the "Sun King," who reigned from 1643 to 1715. Back then, no one could possibly claim that the "central establishment" of rigid inherited hierarchy was "weakened by its hollowness of meaning." Louis meant everything and controlled everything. But the central establishment was weakened by its own hollowness all the same, as Louis spent lavishly on endless foreign wars and on subsidizing the luxuries of a tiny elite. By the time the Sun King mercifully burnt out, France was bankrupt and its influence in Europe was severely curtailed.
Because we still have some semblance of checks and balances in this country, when we recently endured our very own Sun President, he had to go away after eight years.
If David Brooks, who supported that Sun President until the bitter end, wonders why outsiders are so popular now, it's because his model causes pain and suffering every time it's tried. Leaders aren't actually suns.
I mention this because that’s how our political and social systems used to work, but no longer do."
Clearly, this is an attractive analogy for anyone who believes in strong political leaders that imitate flaming balls of gas. Here's a more earth-bound and human alternative comparison:
The man-star with the greatest gravitational pull at the peak of the decadent French monarchy was Louis XIV, the "Sun King," who reigned from 1643 to 1715. Back then, no one could possibly claim that the "central establishment" of rigid inherited hierarchy was "weakened by its hollowness of meaning." Louis meant everything and controlled everything. But the central establishment was weakened by its own hollowness all the same, as Louis spent lavishly on endless foreign wars and on subsidizing the luxuries of a tiny elite. By the time the Sun King mercifully burnt out, France was bankrupt and its influence in Europe was severely curtailed.
Because we still have some semblance of checks and balances in this country, when we recently endured our very own Sun President, he had to go away after eight years.
If David Brooks, who supported that Sun President until the bitter end, wonders why outsiders are so popular now, it's because his model causes pain and suffering every time it's tried. Leaders aren't actually suns.
111
Much of the post-War world has been led by America and its actions, and it makes a difference when corporations in the greatest democracy are given equal footing with actual people, as well as when corporations are assigned consciences, endorsing the changed ' greed is good ' raison d'etre that MBA's learn are the all-encompassing corporate charters; should anyone stray from that quarterly path, Waaah Street will quickly correct deviation, requiring more job cuts.
Making things insanely worse has been a misled SCOTUS that believes the people leading such entities should have unlimited power in the political arena through their ability to fund candidates, so that candidates no longer need a political party, they just need a sponsor to which they will genuflect, to whose cause they will show fealty - it's should not be amazing that such causes requiring fealty almost always involve dismembering some part of government regulation/oversight that the financial titans find burdensome.
Though, worst of all, has been a season of Congressional insanity, where the actual business of democracy (which has always been compromise) following the home-grown worst global financial crisis in 3 generations and epic Mideast misadventures, has been deliberately hamstrung in Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass fashion where intransigence is endorsed, and democratic compromise vilified.
The income/wealth inequality has created a vicious circle that has corrupted (fatally ?) the greatest democracy.
Making things insanely worse has been a misled SCOTUS that believes the people leading such entities should have unlimited power in the political arena through their ability to fund candidates, so that candidates no longer need a political party, they just need a sponsor to which they will genuflect, to whose cause they will show fealty - it's should not be amazing that such causes requiring fealty almost always involve dismembering some part of government regulation/oversight that the financial titans find burdensome.
Though, worst of all, has been a season of Congressional insanity, where the actual business of democracy (which has always been compromise) following the home-grown worst global financial crisis in 3 generations and epic Mideast misadventures, has been deliberately hamstrung in Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass fashion where intransigence is endorsed, and democratic compromise vilified.
The income/wealth inequality has created a vicious circle that has corrupted (fatally ?) the greatest democracy.
70
Does Brooks even realize he's hi-lighting the problems that come with the 500 largest corporations being told ' our only job is making money (every last possible nickel) with the lowest possible payroll costs, never mind if our founders wanted to provide jobs and livelihoods to a community ' - the MBA/banker credo ?
Is Brooks realizing the rot this has caused as the directors of those 500-1000 largest companies ' spread the gospel ' in their own communities and amongst their off-spring ?
Is Brooks acknowledging what happens when an activist SCOTUS reaches down to gut a Voting Rights Act extension that passed a GOP-led Senate 98-0 and a GOP-led House 390-33, then was signed by a GOP'er prez less than 10 years before:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/Washington/2006-07-27-bush-votingrig...
Corporate ethics matter because they set a standard for what is permissible in the public square; the change of those ethics to embracing only what's good for the bottom line - what corporations can get away with by paying a token fine if they get caught - is the public face of the change in private lives of the ultra-wealthy from a time when they limited themselves to doing " what's best for the country/in the public's interest " instead of leveraging every possible advantage to their own benefit.
The change of a single vote at SCOTUS is a good beginning to reversing our situation :)
Is Brooks realizing the rot this has caused as the directors of those 500-1000 largest companies ' spread the gospel ' in their own communities and amongst their off-spring ?
Is Brooks acknowledging what happens when an activist SCOTUS reaches down to gut a Voting Rights Act extension that passed a GOP-led Senate 98-0 and a GOP-led House 390-33, then was signed by a GOP'er prez less than 10 years before:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/Washington/2006-07-27-bush-votingrig...
Corporate ethics matter because they set a standard for what is permissible in the public square; the change of those ethics to embracing only what's good for the bottom line - what corporations can get away with by paying a token fine if they get caught - is the public face of the change in private lives of the ultra-wealthy from a time when they limited themselves to doing " what's best for the country/in the public's interest " instead of leveraging every possible advantage to their own benefit.
The change of a single vote at SCOTUS is a good beginning to reversing our situation :)
1
The "Age of the Outsiders" is not as complex as Brooks's arcane argument suggests.
To paraphrase Brooks, "As every schoolchild knows, the gravitational pull of privilege enriches a few big suns, while the other bodies in orbit become increasingly desperate and impoverished." Most "outsiders" are just trying to survive.
Brooks suggests that "reasonableness" has been "trampled" by dark and less temperate behavior. "Reasonableness" is code for the smooth work of the world's white collar criminals, won plunder Earth's resources, accumulate unconscionable wealth and then ask others to be "reasonable" as they question the "world order" that is dispensed from "the commanding heights" Brooks claims as American territory.
The disorder Brooks cites is the unruly harvest of the seeds we have sown.
To paraphrase Brooks, "As every schoolchild knows, the gravitational pull of privilege enriches a few big suns, while the other bodies in orbit become increasingly desperate and impoverished." Most "outsiders" are just trying to survive.
Brooks suggests that "reasonableness" has been "trampled" by dark and less temperate behavior. "Reasonableness" is code for the smooth work of the world's white collar criminals, won plunder Earth's resources, accumulate unconscionable wealth and then ask others to be "reasonable" as they question the "world order" that is dispensed from "the commanding heights" Brooks claims as American territory.
The disorder Brooks cites is the unruly harvest of the seeds we have sown.
54
David, I was completely absorbed by your winsome words and penetrating reflections on the human condition since 2000. Too, I'd love to see the sign of the "W" become a global, detestable icon like the hammer and sickle, but as I was contemplating on your thoughts, Hiroshima entered my mind.
I wouldn't be here if the bomb wasn't dropped. My father, (in the US Army) was supposed to be in the first wave of the invasion of Japan. I heard his life expectancy was seven seconds.
It's been calculated that anywhere from two tho seven million people: US soldiers, Japanese soldiers and civilians were to die. The Japanese instructed their citizens to attack Americans with anything they could find in order to protect the honor of Emperor Hirohito.
I could go on and on about slavery and the civil war, Attila the hun and early practices of human cannibalism but I think the issue is, before 2000 we never considered, Isis, zero percent interest rates or Donald Trump's hair blowing across the White House lawn!
Thank you for this editorial.
I wouldn't be here if the bomb wasn't dropped. My father, (in the US Army) was supposed to be in the first wave of the invasion of Japan. I heard his life expectancy was seven seconds.
It's been calculated that anywhere from two tho seven million people: US soldiers, Japanese soldiers and civilians were to die. The Japanese instructed their citizens to attack Americans with anything they could find in order to protect the honor of Emperor Hirohito.
I could go on and on about slavery and the civil war, Attila the hun and early practices of human cannibalism but I think the issue is, before 2000 we never considered, Isis, zero percent interest rates or Donald Trump's hair blowing across the White House lawn!
Thank you for this editorial.
10
What this respondent fails to recognize was the propaganda element of the 7 second figure he cites. The casualty expectations were used as a reason to experiment on a countries population that was to be kind, not like us. Japan was a beaten country. There ability to wage war, even repel a mass invasion like Normandy was extremely limited. Now to the atomic bomb, why was it necessary to experiment on human beings. Pick a rural area close enough to Tokyo so the Emperor and his buds could see the vision of the atomic sun. Then offer peace. And why the second bomb so quickly after the first? Again, simply an experiment in terror or maybe just cause we could. And the seven second rule, approximately 6500 soldiers died on the original landing at Normandy in the first(longest day)day. This amounts to about .12 per second. So how would an obliterated country like Japan have a kill probability of 10 x as great as the German war machine? I think it is time we drop the charade we did it to save American soldiers lives, we did it to show we could, and that all those German scientists we grabbed were the smartest guys in the room
Japan was not obliterated and they still had a strong army. The Japanese believed that the Emperor had a divine power over his country. He surrendered only after the Russians declared war. Still many in the Japanese army were so fanatical, they planned a coup instead of surrender.
Germany had 85% of their forces against the Russians. They had a relatively small garrison at Normandy. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Germany had 85% of their forces against the Russians. They had a relatively small garrison at Normandy. You're comparing apples and oranges.
3
I am going to save this article, because it is one of the most succinct and accurate views of the character of The Age we are in that I have read so far. On a cursory level, it shows the radical difference between the world of this generation and the world of the past generation.
5
Well maybe, or perhaps it is just the ranting of a delusional columnist who is attempting to cover the fact he failed to see the flaws of American exceptionalism is so often cites.
2
Comparing what happens in politics in US and elsewhere to the gravity of the solar system is a stretch, according to DB the world order is collapsing domestically and globally his reasoning for that is spiritual and is rooted back in the 90ies, what about the effect of the supreme’s court election of 2000, the two wars waged by president Bush, the divisive campaign of Karl Rove of 2004 and the collapsing of the financial Market in 2008. These are the main reason why voters are angry with Washington GOP establishment and this anger extends to the pundit’s establishment which Mr. Brooks belongs to.
54
The U.S. is still full of men and women who would make far better Presidents than any of the presently announced candidates. Mayor Bloomberg is one of them.
24
Pop sociology from Mr. Brooks. Undefined terms, misty ruminations, and an undisguised plug for reactionary Cruz.
408
I don't think Brooks was plugging Ted Cruz. I believe that he is abhorred by the Republican establishment. He was giving an example of where all this insanity might be going. There is no equivalency on the Democratic side.
2
Ah, but they are fearless and speak the truth! Whereas Jeb "Whoever" is same-o, same-o. As long as his father is alive, he is forced to do what he is doing: standing at the base with a bat hanging lose in one hand, looking at the crowd in amazement with his mouth open drooling, waiting for some kind of signal from his brother who is wanted by the World Court in the Hague!
44
David ascribes to us an enveloping lassitude and loss of purpose that in reality is due to the convictions of our president, the gravitational body at the center of our nation that SHOULD be holding the rest of the system in balance. It’s not a general lassitude that has caused us to cast aside the reins of global guidance but the rejection by one man of a charge we’ve accepted for the better part of a century. And that lassitude can change with election of someone else who requires that we maintain a prohibitive military and that we use it for war only as a last resort but the threat of it as a stabilizing force constantly.
We elected then reelected a man whose assumptions about America’s place and role in the world reject tradition because our society gave him little incentive to build a life based on such assumptions. He is an intelligent, sophisticated man who can appear to conform without actually conforming.
I’m not as leery as David about the future because I just don’t buy the indications he sees as representing a march toward an “Age of Exhaustion”. We’re just another president away from rebuilding and reimposing stability. I expect to vote for Jeb Bush to be that president; but, frankly, I think Hillary would do fine in this regard as well. The defense establishment will do as it’s told.
The “Outsiders” wouldn’t be at all relevant to this discussion if it weren’t for the weakness at the very center. Fortunately for all of us, that weakness isn’t permanent.
We elected then reelected a man whose assumptions about America’s place and role in the world reject tradition because our society gave him little incentive to build a life based on such assumptions. He is an intelligent, sophisticated man who can appear to conform without actually conforming.
I’m not as leery as David about the future because I just don’t buy the indications he sees as representing a march toward an “Age of Exhaustion”. We’re just another president away from rebuilding and reimposing stability. I expect to vote for Jeb Bush to be that president; but, frankly, I think Hillary would do fine in this regard as well. The defense establishment will do as it’s told.
The “Outsiders” wouldn’t be at all relevant to this discussion if it weren’t for the weakness at the very center. Fortunately for all of us, that weakness isn’t permanent.
2
Richard Luettgen appears to be a Republican. And I am a Democrat. Still, I agree with everything he says except for voting for Jeb Bush. It's the pop sociology of David Brooks that I find most annoying. Folks love to read such sweeping, generalities; but you cannot do a well balanced sweep of the world's trajectory in such a short space and over such a short period of time--less than eight years! While I am not happy with Obama's international positions, it may be that he's given us a needed time out. The world will have a clearer idea of the true belligerents and perhaps a better idea of how to approach the problems they pose.
2
This is nonsense. The idea that a "prohibitive military" can "impose stability" has been refuted by reality for decades. I is a species of what C. Wright Mills called "crackpot realism". Doesn't the fact that most of Jeb Bush's advisers are from the same circle of deluded visionaries that gave us the ongoing fiasco in Iraq give you pause? Or do you think that "shock and awe" was such a rousing success that we should go back there and do it all over again, while attempting the same in Syria, Afghanistan (graveyard of empires) and God knows where else, while global warming, the biggest threat to the world --- ourselves included --- is ignored or denied for the short-term (very short term) benefit of Exxon-Mobil and the Koch brothers.
5
Richard has a storied history on this site for his highly inaccurate predictions. 18 months ago, he had already committed his vote to Chris Christie.
6
"But the big loss of central confidence is in global governance. The United States is no longer willing to occupy the commanding heights and oversee global order. "
Would that it were, Mr. Brooks. It's sad the the right clings to the notion -- appealing as it may be -- that, in this day and age, a single player can exert the influence necessary to bring order to a fractious world. Have we learned nothing from our naive and bumbling meddling in Iran and Afghanistan?
Would that it were, Mr. Brooks. It's sad the the right clings to the notion -- appealing as it may be -- that, in this day and age, a single player can exert the influence necessary to bring order to a fractious world. Have we learned nothing from our naive and bumbling meddling in Iran and Afghanistan?
109
The problem is that the "Global order" the US was trying to oversee wasn't being attempted for any truly noble reasons but simply to make it easier for American businesses to operate with impunity in other countries. Interestingly, as these formerly American businesses have become successful in their foreign ventures they have turned their backs on their country of origin and do their best to avoid taxes here. Many of their CEOs have homes in other countries and money stashed in foreign banks so if the US goes down the tubes they will simply be elsewhere. I understand that the Bush family has invested heavily in Paraguay, and they are not the only ones with potential plans to leave. When and if the new revolution comes these people will simply hop in their private jets or use their mega-yachts to depart these shores and the rest of us be damned!
1
Your use of oxymorons, such as democratic capitalism, is intriguing here as you seem to have recognised, but I sense that recognition also lacks conviction. People are rejecting the Establishment, because of the crisis the crisis of the last few decades, not just that of the last few years. The neoliberal economic order, established after the cold war, might have brought an extra dollar of income some of the fourth world poor, but it also immiserated millions of others accustomed to higher standards of living, just to gratify the egos of a few thousand silicon entrepreneurs and wealth extracting Wall Street parasites.
Democratic capitalism was what we had in the good old days, when working people had unions, which gave them a voice in economic and political affairs. Sadly, we are governed now by people who have no conscience, empathy, or morals. They are simply out to get while the getting is good, with no organised opposition from their betters beneath their boot heels. That is as true of those on the fringes as it is of those in the centers of power.
Democratic capitalism was what we had in the good old days, when working people had unions, which gave them a voice in economic and political affairs. Sadly, we are governed now by people who have no conscience, empathy, or morals. They are simply out to get while the getting is good, with no organised opposition from their betters beneath their boot heels. That is as true of those on the fringes as it is of those in the centers of power.
41
"Democratic capitalism was what we had in the good old days, when working people had unions, which gave them a voice in economic and political affairs. "
That might be better described as Democratic Socialism.
Go Bernie!
That might be better described as Democratic Socialism.
Go Bernie!
3
"As every schoolchild knows, the gravitational pull of the sun helps hold the planets in their orbits. Gravity from the center lends coherence to the whole solar system." They are taught that - which is wrong - because it's easier to understand than Einstein's General Relativity theory which explains the sun's apparent grip as a result of the curvature of space-time. Oh - and the sun isn't at the center but rather at the focus for the planet's mostly elliptical orbits.
Try explaining that to a schoolchild or even to most American adults who lack basic scientific knowledge, or especially presidential candidate Ben Carson who believes the earth to be 5000 years old. That he could be taken seriously demonstrates the gross scientific ignorance of the American electorate.
Aside from that, what Brooks describes in the 1990's was first described by Francis Fukuyama in his classic book "The End of History and the Last Man."
Everything with the world was going to be peachy keen after the collapse of the evil Soviet Empire. Then came 9/11 and it was clear that history wasn't over - not by a long shot. Brooks wants leadership - some enlightened individual who will lead the world and the US out of this mess.
There isn't any. The mess will end when it ends; and future historians will write it ended because of so and so; just as they write of the decline of the Roman empire - still debated and still haven't figured that one out either.
Try explaining that to a schoolchild or even to most American adults who lack basic scientific knowledge, or especially presidential candidate Ben Carson who believes the earth to be 5000 years old. That he could be taken seriously demonstrates the gross scientific ignorance of the American electorate.
Aside from that, what Brooks describes in the 1990's was first described by Francis Fukuyama in his classic book "The End of History and the Last Man."
Everything with the world was going to be peachy keen after the collapse of the evil Soviet Empire. Then came 9/11 and it was clear that history wasn't over - not by a long shot. Brooks wants leadership - some enlightened individual who will lead the world and the US out of this mess.
There isn't any. The mess will end when it ends; and future historians will write it ended because of so and so; just as they write of the decline of the Roman empire - still debated and still haven't figured that one out either.
44
Fukuyama, Brooks, Douthat are all Neocons.
They trace their origins to Leo Strauss. Strauss was a poli-sci prof run out of Germany by the Nazis. As German his concept of politics is framed by ideology & his relies on the Nietzsche.
Nietzsche said eventually all men would study philosophy, that would trigger atheism. Atheism would end fear of God, without that ordinary men would become decadent ending civilization. But Nietzsche also believed some are "supermen":men who are atheist & still not be decadent.
Strauss' idea was that societies should be ruled by the Philosopher-Supermen & that they use religiosity to control the masses in order to steer society from decadence. Strauss didn't care which religion the superman use, any could work, so w/ neocons you see orthodox Jews holding hands w/ fundamentalist Christians & falangist Catholics. So neocons have a utilitarian view of religion. They espouse it not for what it believes, but for its utility for controlling ordinary people, whom they insist need to be controlled.
By mid1960s Univ of Chicago Neocons graduated into the GOP. Soon wealthy GOP foundations began seeding money & infiltrating established religions to jerk them & their members to the right: the Dem & Religion project is one (targeting mainline protestants), the Catholic League another example targeting Catholicism.
Domestic Neocons, such as Brooks, loathe to admit they are Neocons, let alone the supermen. The Foreign policy Neocons aren't as shy.
They trace their origins to Leo Strauss. Strauss was a poli-sci prof run out of Germany by the Nazis. As German his concept of politics is framed by ideology & his relies on the Nietzsche.
Nietzsche said eventually all men would study philosophy, that would trigger atheism. Atheism would end fear of God, without that ordinary men would become decadent ending civilization. But Nietzsche also believed some are "supermen":men who are atheist & still not be decadent.
Strauss' idea was that societies should be ruled by the Philosopher-Supermen & that they use religiosity to control the masses in order to steer society from decadence. Strauss didn't care which religion the superman use, any could work, so w/ neocons you see orthodox Jews holding hands w/ fundamentalist Christians & falangist Catholics. So neocons have a utilitarian view of religion. They espouse it not for what it believes, but for its utility for controlling ordinary people, whom they insist need to be controlled.
By mid1960s Univ of Chicago Neocons graduated into the GOP. Soon wealthy GOP foundations began seeding money & infiltrating established religions to jerk them & their members to the right: the Dem & Religion project is one (targeting mainline protestants), the Catholic League another example targeting Catholicism.
Domestic Neocons, such as Brooks, loathe to admit they are Neocons, let alone the supermen. The Foreign policy Neocons aren't as shy.
5
In 1992 Canadian philosopher John Ralston Saul published Voltaire's Bastards (the Dictatorship of Reason in the West).
It was a best seller then it is a must read now.
https://www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/voltaires-bastards-the-dictat...
It was a best seller then it is a must read now.
https://www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/voltaires-bastards-the-dictat...
1
David Brooks should realize that burned out American voters are desperately seeking a leader who can restore what we perceive as the natural order of things with a proud America on top once again. Our national confidence took a major hit with the 9/11 terrorist attacks and things haven't been quite been the same since. 9/11 proved to the rest of the world that America was vulnerable after all. It's been downhill rollercoaster ride ever since. This is why outsider presidential candidates like Donald Trump are so appealing. Mainstream establishment politicians make canned speeches promising wonderful things like "hope and change" and then can't deliver after they're elected. Who's to say that an outsider presidential candidate can't do a better job if one of them gets the nomination and goes on to win it all?
2
America will never be "on top once again" unless we get our own house in order. Why would any country want to be like America when we are headed in such a wrong direction. Who wants to follow a country where more and more people feel they must own guns to protect themselves from their fellow citizens, who claim to be pro-life but don't care if children go hungry, live in homes where they are neglected or beaten, and then condemn them for not being hardworking, ambitious and studious, where people go to church on Sunday and listen to sermons on the "Golden Rule" and then treat others with contempt and disdain. One commenter to this paper this morning said that those who could "afford" it could have medical care and all others could just depend on "charity." Unfortunately there aren't enough Mother Theresas in the US, but under the proposed Republican system maybe Doctors Without Borders could come here!
2
THE AGE OF THE OUTSIDERS MAKES SENSE BUT CAN BE SPLIT . . .
...into two groups: the uneducated and unwashed who see "the Donald" and Ben Carson as their saviors ... and the educated and far more sophisticated who fully understand the complexity of our many problems who may not vote for the Bernie (for pragmatic reasons) and will settle for Mrs. Clinton even though she is beholden to the banks.
And, let's be forthright: the GOP has destroyed the viability of Congress. Just compare the Republicans to the Democrats vis-a-vis intelligence, integrity and willing to compromise.
As the Tea Party right wing extremists have usurped the GOP via the Koch bro's, Exxon/Mobil, and... It is far from a grassroots movement thanks to Murdock and Ailes via their friends at fox.
O'Really? Yes, for sure.
...into two groups: the uneducated and unwashed who see "the Donald" and Ben Carson as their saviors ... and the educated and far more sophisticated who fully understand the complexity of our many problems who may not vote for the Bernie (for pragmatic reasons) and will settle for Mrs. Clinton even though she is beholden to the banks.
And, let's be forthright: the GOP has destroyed the viability of Congress. Just compare the Republicans to the Democrats vis-a-vis intelligence, integrity and willing to compromise.
As the Tea Party right wing extremists have usurped the GOP via the Koch bro's, Exxon/Mobil, and... It is far from a grassroots movement thanks to Murdock and Ailes via their friends at fox.
O'Really? Yes, for sure.
138
David, I agree there is an angst that comes from a dearth of a national philosophy and true spirituality in this country. However, the 1%, hedge fund managers, and investment bankers enjoy the status quo.
Yes, Jeb Bush looks wan compared to Donald Trump. Jeb Bush would look wan next to a heifer cow.
President Ted Cruz? That ain't gonna happen. It's easy to overestimate the intelligence of the American people. But Mrs. Clinton is going to look like the adult in the room vis-a-vis Cruz or Rubio or Fiorina.
Also, when Trump drops out and plays his followers for chumps, that is going to let a massive mount of air out of the GOP, furthering the attractiveness of Mrs. Clinton. She's not perfect, but looks good in contrast.
Yes, Jeb Bush looks wan compared to Donald Trump. Jeb Bush would look wan next to a heifer cow.
President Ted Cruz? That ain't gonna happen. It's easy to overestimate the intelligence of the American people. But Mrs. Clinton is going to look like the adult in the room vis-a-vis Cruz or Rubio or Fiorina.
Also, when Trump drops out and plays his followers for chumps, that is going to let a massive mount of air out of the GOP, furthering the attractiveness of Mrs. Clinton. She's not perfect, but looks good in contrast.
33
I am getting pretty tired of these columns in the ol' Grey Lady that espouse our supposed economic and social superiority at every turn even though it's demonstrably true that our capitalist "democratic" system is on par both morally and economically with China and Russia. Maybe we have a slight edge in political theater, but that will be eroded away soon enough. Of course, we can always proclaim any flaws and hiccups in the current system to be "spiritual" in nature, and generally a problem residing in the electorate, and not the cynical nature of our very narrow democracy, and even narrower economic policy.
20
Hollowness, and excellent word to describe the current lot of politicians. As for looking for a 'leader', well such a thing has passed its time. All you have today are thugs and untruthful dishonest politicians. David, you have high expectations in an age that does not want to be bothered with such, too busy at the 'screens'. So, yes, the next big thing should be a leader. Perhaps we are waiting for the Anti-Christ, which we have been promised will appear.
2
Yes! Perhaps we'll see Herman Cain revise his plaintive call for "999" and reveal his improved vision of "666". The GOP is once again offering candidates promising to take the goat by the horns and shovel hay with pitchforks, so who could be surprised? I doubt, however, that even Lucifer would at this point consider running for office. This lot reminds me more of Tom Riddle than Cerberus or Charon.
If one takes the view that the Tea Party is really a 3rd political party which caucuses with the Republicans, then the dysfunction is not so hard to explain.
The real danger for the USA is the lack of willingness to compromise, whether by the elected or the electorate.
Perhaps that intellectual self-segregation is the inevitable outcome of such a multi-cultural society.
The real danger for the USA is the lack of willingness to compromise, whether by the elected or the electorate.
Perhaps that intellectual self-segregation is the inevitable outcome of such a multi-cultural society.
16
Bernie Sanders is not an "outsider." He's a U.S. Senator. Comparing him to Donald Trump is ridiculous.
899
Brooks is a rich man, rich men don't like Bernie Sanders.
23
@Fran Kubelik
The thin-skinned Liberal is unable to appreciate that a once united Democratic Party has no more interest in Sanders than Republicans have in Trump. He has been treated by the Democratic faithful as a pariah, and the fact that you jump on Brooks over some technicality grievance is Exhibit A of his piece.
Alot of Centrist readers, like myself, are just as dismayed about Trump. The standard talking point of a Democrat is that Republicans are deniers and haters and phobics. It is offensive, and you say in three lines more than you know.
The thin-skinned Liberal is unable to appreciate that a once united Democratic Party has no more interest in Sanders than Republicans have in Trump. He has been treated by the Democratic faithful as a pariah, and the fact that you jump on Brooks over some technicality grievance is Exhibit A of his piece.
Alot of Centrist readers, like myself, are just as dismayed about Trump. The standard talking point of a Democrat is that Republicans are deniers and haters and phobics. It is offensive, and you say in three lines more than you know.
4
Sanders: mayor, congressman, senator; hardly an outsider!
17
"Some leader has to be able to digest the lessons of the last 15 years and offer a revised charismatic and persuasive sense of America’s historic mission."
One assumes that the "historic mission" is to inspire democracy, brotherhood, and tolerance throughout the world. History indicates that mission is a myth. Perhaps we could get to the place of real world moral leadership if we acknowledged that myth along with our actions in undermining democratic movements and installing and supporting brutal dictators who would do our bidding. (Until they bolted and we had to remove them.) After our own terribly bloody civil war to end slavery, slavery was quietly allowed to return in the form of Jim Crow, and the racism continues in other even more subtle forms.
You can't keep secrets anymore, even from yourself.
One assumes that the "historic mission" is to inspire democracy, brotherhood, and tolerance throughout the world. History indicates that mission is a myth. Perhaps we could get to the place of real world moral leadership if we acknowledged that myth along with our actions in undermining democratic movements and installing and supporting brutal dictators who would do our bidding. (Until they bolted and we had to remove them.) After our own terribly bloody civil war to end slavery, slavery was quietly allowed to return in the form of Jim Crow, and the racism continues in other even more subtle forms.
You can't keep secrets anymore, even from yourself.
29
A trip to Planet Brooks! What an odd and inapt metaphor to describe the political process. And how particularly unilluminating the weekly replay of the spirituality meme.
29
A pretty convincing analysis of the problems (both global, & within our bedraggled republic) -- a lot of us, in both parties & among those simply frustrated with both parties alike, are of much the same opinion.
And the lack, as you say, really *is* mental & spiritual (rather than merely a problem of armed might, or even econemic inequality). At just the moment when the human race becomes globalized sufficiently to address global problems, the old gravitational centers ... fray & cease to produce stability.
No single candidate for the presidency is either personally gifted enough, nor able to wrench the system back into a functional state. The Congress itself is, by majority judgment, a mere shadow of its more efficient prior versions.
We are clearly awaiting leaders -- women & men sufficiently convincing to enough voters to win office; & sufficiently wise & savvy, not to fall prey to bombast from the media luminaries, or mere wealth & payoffs from the donors. We will all know, sooner than we may wish, whether such leaders, possessing the "gravitational heft" you discuss, are able to rise above all the noisy tumult. Good luck to us, the unnerved & (sadly) rather uninvolved electorate!
And the lack, as you say, really *is* mental & spiritual (rather than merely a problem of armed might, or even econemic inequality). At just the moment when the human race becomes globalized sufficiently to address global problems, the old gravitational centers ... fray & cease to produce stability.
No single candidate for the presidency is either personally gifted enough, nor able to wrench the system back into a functional state. The Congress itself is, by majority judgment, a mere shadow of its more efficient prior versions.
We are clearly awaiting leaders -- women & men sufficiently convincing to enough voters to win office; & sufficiently wise & savvy, not to fall prey to bombast from the media luminaries, or mere wealth & payoffs from the donors. We will all know, sooner than we may wish, whether such leaders, possessing the "gravitational heft" you discuss, are able to rise above all the noisy tumult. Good luck to us, the unnerved & (sadly) rather uninvolved electorate!
9
Focus on that "greed and stupidity." That was your party, David, not mine. Then your party (the leadership, not even just the "fringes") set itself the goal of opposing every initiative of President Obama, (with the single exception of the TPP).
Obama is being a realist and is keeping his eyes on the long view. The U.S. has to come to terms with the fact that if China and India etc. get richer, then the relative status of the U.S. in the world can only go down. We shouldn't despair over that fact, as it means that poverty is diminishing.
As for the Middle EAst - they are apparently entering a period of "religious wars" very similar to the ones in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries (described by S. Pinker, in his book "The Better Angles of our Nature" as the most destructive, in terms of the proportions of the population killed, in the entire history of human civilization). Obama understands that there is no possible constructive roll we can play in that mess.
Why don't you just denounce the GoP and turn your talents toward the party that has some hope of remaining sane. And don't disparage Sanders - he is the one reminding us that we have a choice to avoid ever-increasing inequality.
Obama is being a realist and is keeping his eyes on the long view. The U.S. has to come to terms with the fact that if China and India etc. get richer, then the relative status of the U.S. in the world can only go down. We shouldn't despair over that fact, as it means that poverty is diminishing.
As for the Middle EAst - they are apparently entering a period of "religious wars" very similar to the ones in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries (described by S. Pinker, in his book "The Better Angles of our Nature" as the most destructive, in terms of the proportions of the population killed, in the entire history of human civilization). Obama understands that there is no possible constructive roll we can play in that mess.
Why don't you just denounce the GoP and turn your talents toward the party that has some hope of remaining sane. And don't disparage Sanders - he is the one reminding us that we have a choice to avoid ever-increasing inequality.
625
I am also working on the 30 Years War (Peter Wilson). The American paucity of knowledge about Europe and Christianity is frightening considering the scope of that war and its effect on Founders' belief systems.
4
Thanks for the good reference on "Better Angels", which I have now ordered and plan to read.
Faux conservative, faux pro-life fetal fetishists, Benghazi fraudsters, and shock & awe authoritarians are enabled & encouraged by the MSM. Longing for some charismatic, persuasive, outsider "leader" with good hair instead of examining policy proposals & governance skills gets us to Trump or worse.
There has never been a time that we haven’t sought to tear each other apart. Sects have battled sects throughout recorded history, and likely well before. Every sect has responded with gusto against the perceived fanaticism of others who didn’t share their view.
The moral teachings of the Bible were supposed to show us a better way, albeit through examples of genocide, rape and murder that it recommends on every page. It’s now used as a deed for one sect to steal land from another, to substitute theocratic brutality for the rule of law, and to justify murdering the innocent in the name of peace.
The world has shrunk to the point that there is no distance between Us and Them. Technology for mass destruction is no longer in the hands of the few, but available to all. Carnivorous capitalism has warmed the globe beyond the tipping point, and every storm is now the storm of the century. Religion makes misogyny mainstream and homophobia holy. Politics is a contact sport, no more real than professional wrestling, and cheered on by a media that is now a carnival barker rather than a voice of reason.
We may have thought that humanity was the epitome of life on earth, evolving toward some perfect form and destined to last forever. But it turns out that we may have an expiration date, and we’re starting to smell. When we get done with the planet, even the cockroaches may not survive.
The moral teachings of the Bible were supposed to show us a better way, albeit through examples of genocide, rape and murder that it recommends on every page. It’s now used as a deed for one sect to steal land from another, to substitute theocratic brutality for the rule of law, and to justify murdering the innocent in the name of peace.
The world has shrunk to the point that there is no distance between Us and Them. Technology for mass destruction is no longer in the hands of the few, but available to all. Carnivorous capitalism has warmed the globe beyond the tipping point, and every storm is now the storm of the century. Religion makes misogyny mainstream and homophobia holy. Politics is a contact sport, no more real than professional wrestling, and cheered on by a media that is now a carnival barker rather than a voice of reason.
We may have thought that humanity was the epitome of life on earth, evolving toward some perfect form and destined to last forever. But it turns out that we may have an expiration date, and we’re starting to smell. When we get done with the planet, even the cockroaches may not survive.
473
No, the bible does not recommend genocide, rape and murder on every page. How utterly absurd to make such a statement. Man, gemli, your analyses are usually so sharp and insightful, but, when it comes to religion you go off the rails. I know Sam Harris is your paladin, but remember that the guy is a vicious religious bigot and Islamaphobe.
I always read your counter to every Brooks article, and I usually say right on. But, really, find a way to quell your anger at us believers; you might discover alliances you hadn't dreamed of.
I always read your counter to every Brooks article, and I usually say right on. But, really, find a way to quell your anger at us believers; you might discover alliances you hadn't dreamed of.
5
Nicely put, but fear not, the cockroaches will survive.
As for Brooks' astronomical introduction, analogy and metaphor have their place, and likening Donald Trump to a killer asteroid may not be far off the mark. But then he leaves science behind in pursuit of the spiritual/philosophical answer to it all, which many of us know is 42.
He claims the west has failed at "countering fanaticism with gusto". That's not true. What happened was a rogue comet in his own peculiar orbit decided to chase down fanaticism in the wrong places, resulting in a black hole of arrogance, with a super gravitational field of ignorance that sucked most of the daylight from our view of the world. In the resulting attempt to take giant leaps backwards in history we became mired in tar-pits of our own greed and superstition. The result is the confusion and seeming lack of moral compass and noble direction Brooks alludes to, though he gets there on a different path, atop a different mule.
So yes, we may indeed have a "best used by" date, but Mother Nature always recycles. Who knows, maybe some bright morning a cockroach will awake to discover he's turned into Gregor Samsa.
As for Brooks' astronomical introduction, analogy and metaphor have their place, and likening Donald Trump to a killer asteroid may not be far off the mark. But then he leaves science behind in pursuit of the spiritual/philosophical answer to it all, which many of us know is 42.
He claims the west has failed at "countering fanaticism with gusto". That's not true. What happened was a rogue comet in his own peculiar orbit decided to chase down fanaticism in the wrong places, resulting in a black hole of arrogance, with a super gravitational field of ignorance that sucked most of the daylight from our view of the world. In the resulting attempt to take giant leaps backwards in history we became mired in tar-pits of our own greed and superstition. The result is the confusion and seeming lack of moral compass and noble direction Brooks alludes to, though he gets there on a different path, atop a different mule.
So yes, we may indeed have a "best used by" date, but Mother Nature always recycles. Who knows, maybe some bright morning a cockroach will awake to discover he's turned into Gregor Samsa.
6
And that's putting it mildly.
2
Every idea should come with its own set of lead weights! Ties to reality were necessary for hunter-gathers to advance, but gradually in modern society, ideas have been turned against themselves and our expanding world of technology and science is haunted by myths. Concentric despair is common.
It is the reflection of a world uneasy with the concentration of wealth. Too often, wealth brings greater tyranny. Walmart's Walton families are among the world's richest persons as their workers have notices on break boards for SNAP (food stamp) applications. Spree killings increase gun profits, without stopping the mounting carnage. Luxury condos ban the homeless from their door steps. We protest sleeping facilities for children who walked hundred of miles as too expensive.
The new wealth triggers worsening instincts! The problem is what's inside, in our hearts and minds!
It is the reflection of a world uneasy with the concentration of wealth. Too often, wealth brings greater tyranny. Walmart's Walton families are among the world's richest persons as their workers have notices on break boards for SNAP (food stamp) applications. Spree killings increase gun profits, without stopping the mounting carnage. Luxury condos ban the homeless from their door steps. We protest sleeping facilities for children who walked hundred of miles as too expensive.
The new wealth triggers worsening instincts! The problem is what's inside, in our hearts and minds!
141
My favorite metaphor, borrowed from slavery, where it expressed a proverb, is the blind mule. The proverb: "The blind mule ain't afraid of darkness" has 100s of interpretations.
Ralph Ellison identified one: The blind mule can not see its own "moral evasion."
We are being led by blind mules!
Ralph Ellison identified one: The blind mule can not see its own "moral evasion."
We are being led by blind mules!
9
A "secular life" can include anything the secular individual wants rather than a religious ideology that objects to the behavior of "non-believers" who prefer not telling others how to behave, except for not wanting government or schools controlled by religious groups