The Right has a lesson that has to be learned, for the misery they have caused this country over the last 9 years.
#BoycottTheGOP
#SendTheGOPPacking
17
I almost hate to say it, but I agree with nearly all of the criticism and warning Brooks issues in this article. Yes, all but the isolated academic left has rejected Marxism. Yes, we need reform of capitalism, and no, there is no other viable economic system as a whole. Yes, to the extent that Trump fails, the left will have a big opening. And yes, there is a risk that a left-wing demagogue (it won't be Sanders) seizes the day and screws everything up by promising the moon and delivering crumbs.
14
80% of Americans can't adequately describe what capitalism is, let alone embrace it or reject it.
What is certain, on the other hand, is that at least 80% of Americans are addicted to immediate gratification consumerism, i.e. the accumulation of things (aka bling, swag, loot, gear) purchased, stolen or otherwise obtained, which are then used as decoration to comport oneself and project a certain aesthetic package as a means of distinguishing oneself both as an individual and also as a member of a hierarchical group, according to the dictates of their animal drives multiplied by cultural parameters.
That's capitalism?
I have not added up how many suckers there must be in the world given one born every minute, or second, but I now know that they add up to being able to elect a man like Trump (and W. and Reagan before him) while all of the low-tax YUPPY 20%ers who had no problem with Slick Willy or his wife spend their obscene incomes (but they worked so hard in school!) on CO2 belching luxury lifestyles (as much as they can afford and then some), then assuage any feelings of guilt about class injustice or complicity in our imminent extinction by voting for the party that let the Wall Street bankers off scott free and enables the multi-tentacled global economy to gorge (which gets Republicans elected; see Edsall yesterday- damn the robots, full speed ahead!) because LGBTQ, abortion, a few crumbs for the poor- who cry wee wee wee all the way home.
A pox on both parties.
17
"Tribalism is in the air, on the left as well as on the right."
What?
Please don't attempt to speak for "the left," David. Who the heck are you talking to, to give you the idea that *anyone* wants "the economic authoritarianism of a North American version of Hugo Chávez?" You're the one who repeatedly refers to so-called leftists as "they."
If you're wondering who is engaged in "us vs. them" thinking, look no further than your own column.
27
We have plenty of "demagogic sectarian rhetoric" now and it's not coming from the left. What I am looking for is a way to restrain and then replace a racist liar who is as close to a fascist and Hugo Chavez as I ever hope ( or fear ) to see in the Presidency.
16
I get David's predicament here. He's dismayed that his party has been hijacked by imbeciles, racists and flat-earthers, and he wants desperately to prove that it's not something inherently wrong with the right. An understandable impulse, given the circumstances, but a mistaken one nevertheless. Fascists and anti-fascists are not two sides of the same coin.
34
Dear David Brooks,
I just got back from a stint with Doctors Without Borders in Ivory Coast. Ivory Coast is not a rich country.
Since it appears you lack actual first-hand knowledge yourself, let me assure you: “The problems with capitalism” are NOT “mostly with the plight of the working class in rich countries.” It also causes plenty of problems for the working class in poor (and middle-income!) countries, too!
35
I love your work, David, but how you exaggerate! Hugo Chavez, really? I consider myself far left and I never hear arguments like you cite.
17
Capitalism run amok as in US today is Cancer, sure to invade, consume, destroy any body politic which allows its uncontrolled growth.
8
It seems nowadays that David Brooks is mostly writing to convince himself that these false equivalencies are true and the danger from the left is as great or greater than the current horrors from the right.
No, Mr Brooks, we don't want to become Venezuela; we want to be more like Scandinavia, or at least Canada. We want research and science driven policy; not tweets and propaganda. We want liberalism; not crony-capitalism.
51
The comments of Mr Brooks are well meaning, but off target. Unlike Conservatism in America, "the left" does not have a group think. There are many voices and many ideas with competing visions. Maybe thats why the left is not as effective as the right - maybe also because the real progressives have been branded as "unAmerican" and "commies" by the Rich-people funded mainstream media and propaganda machines for far too long. Additionally, the left has never given way to xenophobia and racism to the way the roght has.
The main handicap for the left is the abandonement by their natural constituencies - the white blue collar/ rural people - who are indeed so driven by God/ guns and gays that they cannot see that their own economic interests align with the left - not the right.
Hopefully it will change - or the demograpgic changes will reduce that handicap for the left.
Either way, American left has a LONG way to go before they turn into the xenophobic, mindless zombies that the American right has devolved into.
19
So now that it's finally starting to look like a fair fight, Mr. Brooks clutches his pearls and points to Hugo Chavez.
Where were you, Mr. Brooks, when the GOP was hoodwinking whites and Christians with wedge issues while they were selling off the middle-class for parts with globalism and trickle-down economics? The socialist backlash you fear is a direct consequence of the GOP's summary rejection of every moderate proposal put forward by President Obama.
39
“Politicians these days have decided they don’t need the thinkers anymore.” Thank you! That perfectly defines the Republican party of 2018.
9
More open border snake oil. If Costco was open to anyone, no more membership fee's it would become just another Walmart.
2
Identity politics is a problem; the polarization is real, but it’s asymmetrical. The right side of the political spectrum is much more polarized and insular than the left. This is nowhere more starkly illustrated than by a 2010 Stanford poll indicating that almost half of Republicans (49%) would be “somewhat or very unhappy” if their child married someone of the opposite party, but only one-third of Democrats expressed similar reservations. A 2014 Pew poll reinforces these findings: half of the “consistently conservative” want to live where most people share their political views, but barely one third (35%) of the “consistently liberal” have similar wishes. Less than half of the consistently liberal, but five-eights of the consistently conservative say that most of their friends share their political views. Too many on the right are content to live within the echo chamber of “Fox Nation,” a term that always vaguely smacked of treason to me.
12
I always find these essays by conservative writers on the vulnerabilities and flaws of the left/democrats/progressivism ironic and even offensive when their own house is now so rotten with craven corruption that it risks destroying the values and norms that have sustained this republic for generations. When your party finds its spine and deals with the soulless grifter it elected into the white house then you can proceed to diagnose other parties or factions.
I recognize the spotlight on the failure of the GOP makes you weary but get used to it. You have a long way to go and your party has earned every bit of it.
19
Can we please dispense with the tired right-wing dog-whistle trope of "identity politics"? What is really referred to by this, of course, is the rise in political presence and power of those who were previously restricted from meaningful participation in our democracy, and thus the bringing of their own concerns and outlook to the public policy table. The unsettling of a world where the outlook and priorities of white heterosexual males were the heavily enforced default for not just our politics, but our entire social structure.
For non-white, female, and non-hetero citizens though, there has never been anything available but "identity politics", since it was their identities in these categories that served as the grounds for their exclusion. For white males like Brooks, and the other taking heads of the US right, to disparage "identity politics" as if they had had no hand in creating it (indeed, the only hand) is tantamount to once again attempting to reestablish discrimination against non-"mainstream" white hetero males as the centerpiece of our politics and society.
20
Mr. Brooks, why don't you speak up clearly: the Republican Party has become dangerously corrupt and so hypocritical that people concerned about the future of our democracy cannot vote for Republicans who tolerate Trump.
Tribalism, the Left or Right do not matter -- not until Trump and his dangerous supporters have been sent packing and a new generation of patriots is taking over that will put country over party, reestablish the rule of law and that will not be content to run our democratic institutions into the ground.
There is no excuse for tolerating an incompetent President who gets caught lying on average 6 times a day and who is blindly supported by a Republican Congress ready to tear down our legal institutions. The current race to the gutter by Trump and his supporters needs to be stopped with top priority – and for the love of our country.
11
Capitalism, or whatever you want to call it, works because it mirrors good old Mother Nature, but boy what a Mother! She cares not for the individual, which is merely grist for her machine. We humans have a slightly different viewpoint so we modify/limit her worst tendencies. But don’t think she doesn’t redistribute. Take a forest fire, lemmings over a cliff, flood, etc. as examples. We humans “eliminate the class” but still do not escape our animal greed. Happy Mother’s Day!
2
It's basically over for Progressives and the results of NOV 2018 election will prove it..
The BLUE WAVE is just a pipe dream- a liberal talking point and at best another reason to orchestrate a drum circle or poetry slam.
Just like Lord of the Rings, the Dwarfs "dug too deep"- Well the DNC cast too wide a net and hauled in too many radical leftists.. Moderate Democrats, the people who voted for Obama twice- simply walked away out of frustration while Chuck and Nancy talked about Amnesty for over 1.5 million illegal immigrants and free health care for Syrian refugees.
The age of Nationalism started with Trump and it will be the political mainstay for the next 50 years.
4
It is true that Identity Politics has become a feature of progressive politics mostly in academia and social media and mostly it is just annoying. Movement Politics is doing important work too. Black Lives Matter and #metoo, no matter how much I disagree with their tactics have and are shining a long overdue harsh spotlight on police brutality and sexual harassment.
There is little evidence that identity politics has infected mainstream Democratic politics. There is nothing like the freedom caucus on the Democratic side of the aisle and Sanders and Warren are economic progressives in the Dean Baker mold.
I still think, and fervently hope that his vision will win the day in the Democratic Party.
3
The ascendance of the progressive left is necessary to remove GOP "populism'. The regressive politics of the GOP must be put to bed. The Greeks had a saying, "moderation in all things". It is time to do the Greek thing.
1
As a Clintonian overseas and devout anti-Trumpian, i'm very embarrassed to see how Trump is taking advantage of the two-Korean situation to his profit. N again dismayed to recall how Obama administration was silly to do nothing with Korean circumstances.
Mr. Brooks, we do have other models to compare ourselves to, you know. Conservatives always trots out the "we are best" because they compare themselves to second or third world countries.
Growing up in a very poor Norway, before oil, I knew that we were an egalitarian, socialistic society. Now that they are rich, have many billionaires, privatization of once publicly run utilities etc., we still care for our most vulnerable and don't blame them for their poverty or illnesses. We understand that giving them support gives the rest of us more security and peace of mind in case it happens to us.
It will take the US many years before it grows up and becomes a more humane society. I could call it growing pains, but I do believe that we are putting obstacles in our own way.
23
Mr. Brooks writes: "The problems with capitalism are more discrete -- mostly with the plight of the working class in rich countries." I would argue that the problems with capitalism are more discrete -- mostly with the plight of the working class in one particular rich country -- the US.
10
The "American Left" are receptive to universal health care at least in rhetoric. If they were serious about the policy specifics, they could make it a cross-class issue. Those who work but cannot afford health care are in jobs intimately affecting every other class, e.g., daycare, food processing, domestic help. Sadly the "American left" are against cross-class anything, and might just ruin rather than help the chance with universal health care.
1
"global capitalism has produced the greatest reduction in poverty in human history."
I would argue that capitalism didn't specifically produce this. Capitalism produces a lot of wealth but it naturally congregates among the most wealthy. What brought the greatest reduction in poverty is the labor movement which forced the wealthy to share the spoils of capitalism more equally. Without the labor movement we would still be stuck back in the robber barron era where people were working for pennies/hour (in modern terms), and for 6 days/week. A lot of these impoverished workers fought and died so the rest of us can have things like the 2 day weekend, the minimum wage, generally safe working conditions, etc.
Please give credit where credit is due.
15
You can actually make the argument that identity politics has to some degree been forced on the left because of the exclusions practiced by a predominantly white male power structure. To get the vote of minorities and independent-minded women, they have had to appeal to their sense of exclusion.
But the idea that the Left MUST proceed with identity politics, or will invariably degenerate into them if they regain power, seems specious to me.
A real sizable majority of Progressives in government--with backing from whites who've rejected Trump's demagoguery and pandering to "whiteness", could support the agenda you outlined for redistribution FOR EVERYONE, rather than have to play different groups off against each other.
If all CEOs pay could be restricted, and all workers limited to a four hour work weeks, and everyone guaranteed a basic income, then where will tribalism be then?
The thing you hear over and over from people who are against progressive change is that its never done fairly--which to them means everyone being treated EXACTLY the same. But the reforms Brooks proposes WOULD treat everyone exactly the same.
So why couldn't they work, even as they diminished tribalism?
4
As a lifelong Main Street Democrat, I buy into all of it -- the universal healthcare, near to full employment, soaking the rich like we did in the 1960s to create the glory days of economic boom for all, leveling out the extremes of income. If only I hear Democrats say just two things:
1. We must fund the schools to hold kids back and help them so they can advance in grade, and:
2. Making a buck is a good thing, and as many of us as possible should do it.
I've been listening, and I don't hear a whisper of it yet. Especially not from the leadership.
5
Always edifying to have conservative explanations of progressive politics. To have the benefit of a (dire) prediction is a bonus.
It is quite evident that a number of trends and beliefs are at work in our culture, both on the right and left. And clearly, Unfettered Laissez Faire capitalist practice, narrowly focused on enrichment of firm managers and shareholders, has produced a crippling situation. The associated Cult of Unfettered Individual Prerogative, so effectively sold to us by the Spawn of Mt. Pelerin and the Sons of Wichita, has fetishized the private and emptied budgets of spending for the common good. And the Individual Prerogative has indeed encouraged attitudes of small-group priority on the right and left--draining citizen esteem for national welfare, badly skewing the processes of governance and placing our ideas of democracy and rule of law at risk.
We are in desperate need of renewal: of public spirit, of a national commitment to investment in human resources and infrastructure, and of revived understanding of how this whole thing started, and the dire consequences if it is allowed to fail.
No, the revival of the left won't be a Marxian one, but the gruff old guy did suggest a fundamental approach that we could ponder and adapt: From each according to ability; to each according to need. And we have to stop thinking of "the needy" as permanently so: Invest in human resources so as to stimulate ability, and thus draw more from those who benefit.
8
Real progressive differ from conservatives in facing data, history and logic. Here are 10 myths conservative espouse:
1. Significantly (say, 10% or more) 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 0.50) has usually encouraged entrepreneurship thus helping the economy.
7. Our ratio of our corporate taxes actually paid to GDP was, before the tax cuts, 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.
6
Brooks the Ridiculous strikes again.
Which foreign country’s politics presaged the course of the Republican Party 30 years ago, David? How is it, then, that Venezuela is a model for the American left? Why could it not be, say, Denmark?
Brooks makes no attempt to tie Sanders’s economic policy or Warren’s legislative record to “identity politics”. He just make a giant hand wave saying in effect, “trust me, it can happen here”.
The tired identity politics of the 90s was a byproduct of neoliberalism. Having abandoned an economic message of inclusion and promotion of workers’ rights, the Democratic Party had to look to equality among groups. Since neoliberalism offered nothing to the working stiff, it was natural to seek cultural community.
If Brooks knew anything about the history of progressivism or its present, he’d know it necessarily requires conflict. The 40-hour week took decades to become law. Corporations can be depended on to fight anything good for consumers and workers. (Find me just one counterexample.) We’ll be stuck working 5 days a week with 2 weeks a year off until we change the law, over the objections of the 1%.
Class warfare? Yup. Welcome to the 21st century. The game’s been on for 30 years. Americans are only now recognizing it.
13
Well...this is a better offering from Brooks than you typically get.
He's about half right.
One thing Steve Bannon said is, words to the effect, that if the Democratic Party keeps hitting "identity politics" [I'll] own them - and he's right.
The only way for the Dems to win elections is by the insertion of mass traction economic demands within the identity groups. You want identity groups? Fine. The unifying cry should be [insert identity group here] for $15 minimum wage. Then, let them be what identity group they will. At that point, its all good, as they say.
The Dems have to have this. They cannot win without it.
Re: national sovereignty/EU type multilateral organizations, Brooks is seriously mistaken to the point of confusion. To have as one of the mass traction demands to nationalize the Fed (long since infiltrated by either EU or predecessor organizations) may be nationalist but why shouldn't the organization (phony baloney tho it is) that purports to govern the American economy work for the American Economy instead of be under the thumb of foreign bankers? What is wrong with this? This is not misplaced nationalism. What is wrong with the Fed issuing, say, $5 Trillion in zero interest century bonds to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure? Nothing! That's the kind of nationalism we can all live with very nicely, thank you.
At any rate, this is what the Dems need to do, otherwise, they will keep losing, both in 2018, 2020, and the foreseeable future.
1
Thought is, first and foremost, action. The task of philosophy, as Marx put it, is not to interpret reality. Its task is to change it. David Brooks keeps his “philosophical” distance from life. Like many others on the left and on the right, he has no new ideas. He cannot think beyond the old ideas. He is not thinking in terms of change. Incapacity to act has a depressing effect on humans. It is not surprising that the picture Brooks presents is one of despondency and despair. But one has to remember, the picture tells us nothing about reality but only about Brooks and the prevailing mood at the NYTimes. Indeed, contemporary politicians do not seek new ideas. Our public intellectuals cannot supply them either. They have stayed too long in their comfortable niche and can only repeat old and tired truths. They have no new visions. The good news is that we do not have to listen and follow them. Our time is full of opportunities. The growing weakness of the establishment presents the greatest opportunity. New and constructive forces will fill the vacuum left behind by the demise of the establishment. As we should all know well by now, history does not end, despite what Francis Fukuyama would have us believe. It constantly moves forward, offering us an important choice: either to march forward with it or to end up in its proverbial dustbin.
3
Yes, "tribalism is alive" on both the right and the left, and the prospects for the future that Mr. Brooks sketches are worrisome. But in the present, moderation is still alive and fairly healthy, though threatened. Obama was still our President less than two years ago. The Democratic caucuses in the House and Senate are largely center left in orientation, and there are still some Republican office holders swimming against the authoritarian tide in their party. Many state governors, of both parties, are pragmatic and moderate in their views. If the trends Mr. Brooks describes continue into the future, perhaps that will lead to a Europeanization of our politics -- parties on the extreme left and right, but also one or more center parties (possibly bridging our current major parties) that we can hope would appeal to larger segments of the population, assuming that there are still enough of us left to resist tribal urges.
2
Progressives, in this brave new world, could be a little more reflective and should also be proud of that identification. Future Progressives would be wise to incorporate Primum Non Nocere (First, do no harm) when considering the way forward
Mr. Brooks props up his claim that the left is becoming xenophobic by a misleading citation of a Bernie Sanders interview. If you follow the link Brooks's article provides, you find that the proposal that Sanders "derides" is open borders. This is a proposal that Trumplodytes sometimes accuse the left of making, but that almost no office-holder on the left (or right) actually makes.
4
Where is this scarcity mentality coming from? Is it simply airborne?
As a recent retiree, I can say that most of my friends and I, comfortable in our own homes, reach out by volunteering to improve the lives of others. Even those people see a route to improvement, rather than scarcity.
In fact, in an economy with very low unemployment, it's hard to find a scarcity mentality, even in a poor state like SC.
My goodness, bringing up the Venezuelan experience as a " "relevant example" was taking things way, way too far. Yes, authoritarianism can come from both the right and left. We learned that last century. I don't think the American "left" (I use that term advisedly) is fertile ground for authoritarianism. David must have spent the day reading about "national liberation movements" in the 50s and 60s.
4
"The second task would be to ensure economic security for all. This would involve raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, providing universal basic income and having the federal government provide a paying job to all who want one."
Two benefits of this would be that Medicaid and SNAP benefits (which many on the right view as a giveaway to the undeserving) would be greatly reduced. By earning more and paying their own way, those of lower economic status would doing exactly what the right extols: pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Unfortunately, this means that Democrats would have to have control over both houses and the Oval Office because what the GOP wants is more for their big money donors. Their pontification about the virtues of hard work is and has been a lot of hot air.
6
Wow. With a turn of phrase, Mr. Brooks makes Bernie Sanders out to be a “nationalist” like Trump.
If you go to the Vox interview cited, Senator Sanders makes an argument against his interviewer’s assertion that U.S. “open borders” would be necessary if one prioritized attacking global poverty, since poor Americans are still better off than the poor of less developed countries. Sanders makes the case that one must simultaneously attack American poverty and develop foreign policies that prioritize improving the wages, social benefits and conditions of the poor in the countries where they live, instead of policies that would level workers everywhere to a low standard.
It’s tough to present this argument as equivalent to the ethnic or national tribalism of the right, but David tries to do it.
In fact, nothing could be more community building, and more expansive in its embrace, than the Sanders/Warren type of leftism.
9
No "leftist" aspires to become Venezuela or wants Democratic Socialism. We like to have fully democratic system with no effort to suppress votes, to capitalism with sensible regulations, to progressive tax system that does not benefit only the 1% of us, to guaranteed income for those among us who struggling in the changing economy, to affordable education for our children and health care for every one of us. These are achievable goals and one major reason we can not achieve them are people like David Brooks with opposition to welfare of majority of the population and blind faith in unfettered capitalism.
10
Hoshiar--I fully agree with you from a standpoint of sentiment. Regrettably, my view of U.S. history has led me to believe that after we have made positive strides, those with money and power manage to lobby, hence, compromise and weaken that power. A notable recent example would be the Consumer Protection Agency.
1
I savor columns and especially the enlightened commentary from readers. On PBS' new series, "Civilization"-on religion, that it was designed to rationalize those in power. Whether it was Louis (number?), France, "I am the State", it is often religious orthodoxy that legitimizes the hierarchy. Recently, a Hillsdale College economist spoke on CSPN that an individual's worth is what the market will bear, a brutal reality for those who have lost jobs; churches were the most ardent supporters of the Confederacy(slavery). We have learned virtues are more important and a broader moral conscience will be our future, i.e. the dignity of humanity, human needs met, a social contract where economic rights become part of our Constitution. But it starts with a hierarchy, the recognition that the State is after all, us, the guarantor of liberty and justice. It is an art, management science as well that requires ongoing vigilance against our more selfish motives. Examine China vs. India (Parliamentary Democracy where no one is in charge), 60 years ago. What has each accomplished and how far have each come? The difference in progress in China in comparison is staggering.
I think an issue that should be adopted by Democrats is free universal job retraining. Free community collage is a step in the right direction. People out of work would be supported while they attend government funded retraining. It would include moving expenses if that was necessary to get someone from where there were no jobs and training to places where there were jobs and training.
It has been often found that the retraining doesn't lead to better jobs. There was an article about a midwestern city where there were massive layoffs and those who went to retraining actually became worse off. This transition of people losing jobs is far too important to be left to what job may or may not be available. College isn't much better. It is a terrible word but management is important in everything but government. What are societies needs, immediate, intermediate, long term? Develop plan, strategy, implement. That is what is missing in market capitalism and in essence why this country is in decline.
1
There is only one party an d political thought that has become radicalized in our country. And that , of course are the conservatives and the Republicans. Most Democrats and liberals are practicing practical ideas. And they don't have to fit into a philosophy.
The minimum wage is not a war on free enterprise, but a practical solution to a social problem is an example of an idea not dependent on a philosophy. Conservatives and liberals may different on the a mount but most would accept the principle.
Another example is infrastructure. It maybe that no one except possibly a few libertarians would suggest that government t doesn't have a role in creating, monitoring, and maintaining most infrastructure, such as roads, sewage, water and telecommunications. It's a matter of degree. Don't overthink this philosophy idea.
2
Spend a week in Cuba, then tell us how awesome and groovie communism is. And no, you are not allowed to live like a tourist there, but as a local.
1
Take a look at Puerto Rico and Cuba and compare. Cuba also has hurricanes and why are they not in such a decrepit state? What are the differences in preparation planned for such contingencies and why is this possible on one country and not another?
4
Spend a week in India, then tell us about the travails of democracy.
The so-called communist states of the 20th century were authoritarian. Marx foretold of a stateless world, so what is a communist state if not a tautological impossibility?
But that’s neither here nor there. Progressivism offers ways to harness capitalism for the good of us all. It derigs the game, stops the rich from plundering the nations wealth and exploiting its people.
3
Live a week in somalia and tell us how great a "small government" country is - or Saudi Arabia for a theocracy. Cuba is not the ideals of the American left - try SWEDEN ...
5
Mr. Brooks seems to willfully ignore the growing body of evidence that authoritarianism (https://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism) was a key predicter in Trump support and that, increasingly, the partisan polarization in our country aligns authoritarianism explicitly with the right and openess with the left (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/opinion/trump-authoritarianism-republ....
6
Though I disagree with some of Brooks’ pronouncements (in this piece that a US social democrat election victory will lead to a Venezuela-like tyranny) I absolutely thirst to read his articles since he provides such wonderful threads to other articles. Two and a half cheers to Mr Brooks as The NY Times would call him.
3
The state has always played an important role in the economy. After the fall of the Berlin wall the neo-liberal ideology became dominant. It would like to see a world dominated by companies while the governments are very small and almost powerless. This has turned democracy into a powerless farce and fueled all kinds of illegal and legalized corruption.
The new left wants to push the balance back towards the middle - where the state once again plays an important role. How that will be implemented is still an open question: Trump's inconsistent trade policy is a good illustration how difficult it can be to translate a gut feeling into a sensible policy.
Brooks believes that that will lead to Manichaeism and mentions Chavez for illustration. But Chavez was forced into a Manichaean position by US sponsored coups and obstruction. That reduced his freedom to experiment and to correct mistakes. It is unfortunate that Brooks seems to be calling for a similar obstructionism towards the new left.
5
Rabbit Hill
Robert Lawson
Quote “ There is enough for all”
2
As usual David is wrong overall, makes ridicules assumptions, and wraps up with absurd projections based in his need to put the left down. When the facts are that his party has gone heywire from stem to stern. This is true quite literally as Trump and his cabinet destroy our public institutions in an absolutely insane response to their own delusional thinking.
6
I'm sick of Brooks's paranoid fantasy of an impending Marxist takeover by the left as he forever enables and justifies the most dictatorial, authoritarian, plutocratic, kleptocratic, and antidemocratic acts of his beloved Republicans. Brooks wishes to pretend that he lost his political party because of "Trumpian populism" when most of the Republicans he so admires are more than happy to go along with Trump because his rhetoric is a natural extension of the Republican Southern Strategy while his populism is a total sham. Trump is nothing but a gift to big money Republicans like the Koch brothers. Brooks has always has been a coward, and so he remains. He would rather attack some nonexistent Marxist movement then confront the destruction of American democracy that those like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have caused. Brooks never mentions how the likes of Mark Meadows and Devin Nunes are doing anything they can to protect an authoritarian narcissistic lunatic, and everything possible to destroy an independent judiciary, the DOJ, and the very idea of a rule of law in America. If I seem bitter, I am. I'm watching the country I love destroyed by Brooks's beloved Republicans as they keep picking my pockets. With the passage of the last Republican Tax Bill all the money I've invested for decades in things like the Social Security Trust fund has been stolen and given to a bunch of billionaire Republican donors. Brooks doesn't write about any of this. To do so would require integrity.
11
No more five-time draft dodgers or armchair generals. I'm looking for a Progressive wave led by practical, fair-minded veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or the battles for civil rights.
The trillions wasted in Afghanistan and Iraq could have been put to productive use and made us a much better country than we are today. No poorly equipped schools that are without heat in the winter. No poorly paid teachers. No crumbling infrastructure. And no wasteful sacrifice of young Americans.
6
Pervasive social insecurity plagues and dissolves the middle class and the poor as our government abandons us. No health care, backward sliding wages since Reagan, extreme wealth redistribution to the rich etc. has got the vast majority of this country's citizens freaking out about their survival and impulsing to their tribal orientations of our left and right political extremes.
Only when more humane and universal social securities can be legislated, will our nation's sense of desperation subside, and diminish our current survivalist tribal tendencies. Survival of America is at hand- either The Balcanized States Of America, or, more hopefully- The United States Of America will be our future trend.
3
How long does it need to be said?: Capitalism and markets are not the same thing. Brooks makes this specious equation at the start, rending the rest of the piece "mere dicta" if not plain silly.
Maybe he could explain just what "Capital" is, and how it is accumulated, in it's origin and it's replication. But I ask too much.
2
The future in Conservatism: it will have to be reigned in once again by a 21st Century version of Teddy Roosevelt. The lower grungy 98% will have to be protected from the rapacious 1% and the conniving other 1%. We will all then enjoy a moment of hope and security until Conservatism (read: U.S. aggressive money culture) manages to wriggle itself free from reasonable constraints and terrorize the populous once again.
4
I don't see nationalism gaining any real traction on the left. This is a small subset, I don't see it going anywhere.
I think the left will gain some power here and there, but I just don't see the left, which has been totally unsuccessful at winning elections, breaking that cycle to the extent needed to gain any serious power. Certainly not the type of power needed to enact the type of big idealistic economic policies that you describe
I think we will see more of the same in the U.S. I really don't see us breaking out of the cycles, the philosophies, power structures, and resultant policies that we have had for a long long time.
Trump is a once in a life time wierdo, who also happens to be a genuine political genius. But once trump is gone, if he doesn't bring Armageddon in some form, then things slowly will go back to how they were. I don't see the significant net force that will bring about any serious change.
Identity politics is also force that tends to keep things at the status quo. When you talk to young liberals, you realize how much energy there is behind identity politics, huge! But the right will always win the identity politics game. The dark side, the hate that exists in all of us is such a powerful motivator. The right has been and will be successful at tapping into it to hold onto power. Yes there are a finite number of white males, but whiteness can be a class and is not necessarily limited to the color of ones skin.
Just a couple observations David on the problems of capitalism and the future of the left:
When oligarchies run a capitalist economy and associated politics and when wealth gets as concentrated as it is today in the upper 10%, you have a modern version of feudalism, not capitalism. And when you have warring elites, usually the case, but especially bad now, you have anarcho-capitalism.
Only a small percentage of Americans own any capital and almost no one, globally speaking, owns capital. If you have no significant capital, you have no say, given that it is money that does the talking. I.e., we participate in capitalism as passive objects. This also means you have no democracy...since most of us cant pay, we cant play.
Capitalism is a game of zeroes and ones played out in 1, 3 and 5 year spreadsheets. The future of the species however is dependent on ecological realities with a vastly longer timeline. Most of these ecological realities or impacts are seen as irrelevant in most corporate operations and are simply externalized as costs to be born by the commons. I.e., eco and social probs are just chucked out there for our children to "solve" in some distant future.
This is quite a motivator for most of us. The train wreck of money-created fake "populism" (white nationalism bordering on fascism) is proving itself disastrous to our survival. After the wreckage is cleared, there will be a large left and we may have a future of fact-based politics.
3
First, Identity Politics was invented by misogynists, slavers, racists, and the anti-LGBT., not by the left. There is no moral equivalency between those that espouse hate, fear, violence and greed, and those that fight for love, courage, sharing, and peace. People that talk about metaphorical lynchings usually had no problem with the real thing.
About half of the far left is anarchists. Authoritarianism is their biggest enemy. They may yell "shame" at you repeatedly, but they are deeply opposed to using state violence to impose behavior of any kind. And even the more traditional socialists who they occasionally team up with are more akin to the anarchists than Soviet style Leninists. Brooks' warnings about left authoritarianism is mostly fantasy, probably designed to give centrist Democrats another excuse to attack what should be their base.
Second, I have gone from being a natural anarchist, then through a phase as a capitalist (reading Adam Smith then taking capitalist economics in college), to reading the collected works of Marx. (Marx never actually described socialism, just said that rotated capitalist crises would eventually put the workers in charge.)
After this journey, I have come to realize we probably need a new system that uses a combination of markets, socialist investment in humans, and the anarchists' radical faith in democracy.
The alternative is a theocratic corporate state.
Another World is Inevitable.
Make it a nice place to live.
Build a Human Economy.
4
While globalization may have resulted in a worldwide reduction in poverty, the concentration of wealth - with one per cent garnering 82% of the wealth - needs to be confronted and resolved structurally. This is an issue that will, with global warming, haunt the next generations unless something is done now, not with an eye on the next election cycles but for the long term. The American left is largely in agreement on the issues, and as Paul Krugman has pointed out in this paper, is not something that requires so much new ideas as employment of established ideas.
Sorry, but I didn't read the article to its end - the link through my Times subscription is not working properly.
2
Brooks mentioned Marx. According to Marx all economies eventually must reach their final stage, which is communism. His theory involved laws of development which possess an irresistible force. Therefore, our economy will become communist eventually because capitalism isn't the final stage, just as feudalism had to give way to capitalism, which was the next stage in the development. In capitalism you still have class conflict. The communistic stage is the end stage in which there can be no class conflict because there are no classes. If you believe all that, the answer to Mr. Brook's question is answered: the progressives will have no function because there will no economic class for them to represent. Personally, I don't believe it.
Mr. Brooks should stick to the conservatisms he understands and be wary of ludicrous Venezuelan comparisons of reds under beds.
Three things should be understood about the U.S.: It has the worst inequality, the second-lowest taxes, and the meanest social programs among advanced countries of the OECD.
It should also be noted that employment, housing, training, education, health care, old age pensions are basic human rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These are not just aspirational goals but policy guides that have largely been realized in the social democratic countries like Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway etc. (And in these social democracies unionized labour is a full partner in corporate governance while in the U.S. unions are shattered and workers maltreated.)
Mr. Brooks, the future of the American left lies in American workers getting half or less of what European workers receive. For instance Bernie suggests two weeks paid vacation while in Europe it is five to eight weeks.
Social democratic taxes on the top 20 per cent could eliminate child poverty in the U.S.
3
Once again, a conservative intellectual mistakes what he wants to be true for what is actually true. Brooks believes the future of the American left is basically social democracy, on the grounds that socialism scares him and he doesn't like it. Alright, I guess, but that doesn't actually mean you know anything at all about the leftward trends in this country or how it'll turn out.
3
Hate to say it, but the left is closer to the environment that collapsed Russia than anything progressive. If you want Russia, vote Democratic.
1
Gorbachev in his book, "Perestroika" wrote the collapse of the Soviet Union had more to do with the core morality of the people than to the structure. That collapse was well aided by segments of the economy (health, industry) the desire to privatize to enrich future plutocrats and oligarchs. Far too many citizens were in a state of stupor, an empty headed alcoholism.
2
Just when I thought David Brooks was going to stick to his topic of how the Left and the Right define political economy, just when I thought he was going to delve into the unsolved mysteries and hidden risks of 21st Century capitalism, just when I thought he was going to write something he hadn't written before, he broke my heart by reverting to the mean:
What's wrong with the American Left is identity politics. Everything else the American Left advocates is A-okay, but that old devil, identity politics--boo, hiss, boo, hiss. (After all, rich, white, conservative columnists have never even *heard* of identity politiics.)
What Benghazi was to Trent Gowdy, identity politics is to David Brooks.
As I stop listening to Trent Gowdy when he brings up Benghazi, so I stop listening to David Brooks when he brings up identity politics. Noise is only noise.
1
Yes, we need some type of social democracy where we learn, early on, that we must participate and contribute actively in civics, as we the people are the government, and what we call now the government is really the administration we elect to serve, and do our daily business. It stands to reason that, if we choose a capitalistic system, where capital always bears labor, sensible regulations must be in place to minimize the abuses of those holding power (our administration or the corporate world). Taxing financial transactions must be part of the deal, however contrarian to the Milton Friedman philosophy of 'freedom' (license, really) from any suitable control to cut down the inequalities. If poverty is a creation of civilization, with the global economy and revolutionary changes in technology, and digital prowess, we ought to be able to beat it as well. This calls for solidarity and justice, the only road towards social justice and peace. A tribal attitude, usually instinctual and based on loyalty, must be exposed so our subconscious biases can be dealt with via education. This is a long and arduous job, but it is up to us to solve our differences...instead of kicking things down the road (as is current practice).
4
I strongly disagree with Mr. Brooks that tribalism on the left would bring us “economic authoritarianism” like a North American version of Hugo Chavez. The majority of us on the left do not want anything like a state-run economy. What we want is a gentle capitalism that rewards people with equal pay for equal work, that ensures that everyone physically capable of working has a job that pays a living wage, and that takes care of those who cannot work.
No one who works a full-time job should have to take a second job just to make ends meet.
We can start by passing a federal $15/hour minimum wage, and passing Medicare for All. Yes, of course it would be expensive, but how much does the federal government lose every year to the EITC and expensive safety-net programs for the working poor? Of course we would also have to raise taxes on the super-wealthy, but given that I already sacrifice a greater percentage of my yearly income to taxes than they do and get nothing for it, I have a hard time feeling sorry for them.
Yes, it will be a major change, and the super-wealthy may have to learn to live with only one yacht, one vacation home and three cars instead of twice that many of each.
6
"...progressives used to be psychologically averse to nationalism"? Used to be? Progressives are embracing nationalism now? No. No, David. No.
3
Corporate heads, and corporations if you consider corporations people, ARE an identity group. They exist as a distinct entity. Their interests are distinctly different from pretty much anyone else's. Their interests are in profit and power. Plus, they pay to have their interests lobbied for. Unions are also a group that has a certain interest and identity. They earn wages. They organize in order to protect themselves from the power of the profit makers. Corporate capitalists in general try to exploit them.
Economic groups are the original identity groups. It used to be aristocrats with titles keeping serfs or peasants or shopkeepers in their places.
That is not to say that all people of wealth and power are Republican. Some people don't vote for their own economic purposes. They vote for democratic purposes. Corporate and rich types generally belong to the identity group labeled "Selfish." People of lower income who vote Republican belong to the identity group labeled "chumps." They have been taught to regard minority groups and immigrants as the source of their discontent. and the well-intentioned as bleeding heart liberals or criminals. Thus are the chumps made tools of the rich.
3
I wish Mr. Brooks understood that thorough discussions of economic issues will involve discussions identity. Just one example: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-a...
I'm disappointed some of the left have chosen nationalism, but overall I believe they have to be the extremist and in no way the majority.
The only way to be truly progressive is to show maturity in trust, and to build solidarity between nations, encourage trading of material goods, culture, ideas, and policies that aim for the improvement of the majority of lives.
Evolution and time have continually proved that people are stronger when we accept our differences and move together as a whole for the betterment of everyone rather than regress to tribalism, which closes us off to ideas and leads to more fascist realities...
The total story is that neither the political Left or business owner "right" wants precise merit or work based rewards in our society, because this this would mean that their elites and or special patronage groups would no longer be able to get undeserved wealth and power. Note that while conservatives and corporations don't want to give workers the real value of their production in wages, that the Left does not want that to occur either! Recall the decades of democrats saying they 'cared', but their behind the scenes foot dragging to get the minimum wage raised to even 1968 levels, and their orchestration of wage-killing mass legal/illegal immigration and their complicity in many millions of jobs going to China! And then note the solutions to this inequality (they colluded to create) that the Left offers. Not related to production or merit give-aways like guaranteed income, and all manner of government redistribution programs so they can maintain a Stalin-like dictatorial control over a populace that has to remain loyal to them because it is so desperate and dependent on them for survival.
It's not capitalism or no capitalism. It's not the choices presented in this column. It's ideology or pragmatism. Hacker & Pierson describe the US successful economy as a "mixed" economy, and that's well-defined enuf for me. But we can't retreat from a values-based discussion.
What we have to reject in capitalism is the notion that the free market is the unregulated market. Republicans have been allowed to define it thus by virtue of Democratic retreat from any values-based discussion. No, a market is truly free when it's open to access for all, a necessarily regulated market. The trick, of course, is to find the right balance vis regulation.
Finding an alternative to Sanders/Warren liberalism is an urgent necessity for Democrats. This is their big moment. They can either find the pragmatic progressivism of the future or they can concede another round of gridlock to the truly power-oriented groups who want to bowl everyone over with their ideologies. Support a truth and love platform, where all legitimate views are respected.
3
"that global capitalism has produced the greatest reduction in poverty in human history."
===
This is a complete lie promoted, of course, by capitalists. Capitalism in the 19th century produced little but miserable and dangerous working conditions. Remember the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire? Workers LOCKED IN couldn't get out when the place went up in flames. Recently, Walmart has been accused of locking its night crew inside stores, the pretext being to prevent theft.
In the 20th century, capitalism did produce a middle class, but how did it do this? Out of generosity? Of course not. The American middle class was formed by unions demanding and getting a larger slice of pie. While only about 30% of American workers were in a union at the height of unionism, union efforts to improve their members' working conditions helped non-union workers too because they, in turn, also demanded larger servings of pie.
Under globalism, however, the only thing capitalism has accomplished is to create a fabulously wealthy global one-percent class. China now has almost as many billionaires as the US does.
9
Increasing the social safety has nothing to do with (the collectivist) ideology - which are riddled with death in the name of "progress" or "racial purity." You are not more moral than the other side. So lets focus on healthcare, controlling illegal immigration, and increasing the minimum wage.
1
Trump or Chavez is the mother of all false equivalencies
7
With all due respect, you paint a fairly accurate picture of the Bernie Sanders progressives, but you are entirely wrong about the disappearance of the "moderate" wing of the Democratic Party. The latter today looks very much like the mainstream Democratic Party from 1968 to about 1994, when the Gingrich-led radicalization of the GOP led to an evolving counter movement that has brought us to The Bernie Sanders era. That said, I would argue that a majority of Dems are still far closer to Obama than to Bernie. Hillary was too conservative establishment for the left, but an Obama-style Democratic platform is much more likely after the 2018 and 2020. This is true especially if the Dems want to hold whatever gains they achieve in 2018 and win the general election in 2020. Otherwise, they risk the same overreach of Pelosi's second two years as Speaker, under Obama, which lost them both chambers.
2
With little due respect, the painted picture of Bernie Sanders progressives by our allies in the Democratic Party is reason for our split. You and yours think Pres. O was good?! The inequality skyrocketed under O. Poverty increased under O. Gas 'n Oil drilling increased and fracking was promoted around the globe by HRC.
His education Secretary, Arnie Duncan cratered schools promoting Charters as much, if not more, than DeVos. Obama offered up Soc. Sec. for budget negotiations. He wussed out on Universal HealthCare.
His whole cabinet was hand picked by Wall Street, and he agreed to them. He refused to prosecute Banksters. He made no attempt to legalize Cannabis.
8 extra wars, (not including coups by HRC.) etc. etc....
This acceptance, expectance, of incremental, status quo, don't make waves, here's a crumb, everything is fine, from our center Right Democrats is maddening.
We keep taking steps to the Right. When every negotiation lands in the Rights court. 40yrs. of rightward centrism has brought our country to where it is. Past the tipping point.
But yes, those Bernie progressives are the problem.
Got it.
1
Don't worry about the progressives, Mr. Brooks. How about cleaning your own house, the Republican party. It's filthy.
7
Two things about terminology used here: First, using "the left" just perpetuates the two-sided sporting event metaphor for our politics, which seems both inaccurate and unhelpful. It just makes it easier for controlling interests to divide and control people. Second, "redistribution of wealth" is an unclear way talk about a fair system for allocating the costs of creating and maintaining an economic system with generous opportunity to succeed, or fail. Seems fair to pay more when your efforts using the economic system create success; to pay less when you fail. This is hardly a "redistribution of wealth."
4
When I was studying economics (just before the worshippers of Milton Friedman captured Econ and the B-schools of America) I attended a class in which we debated the Breakup of Ma Bell. The prof's words stayed with me. He said that once a monopoly economy develops it no longer resembles capitalism anymore. Competition is gone-it all becomes static and is manipulated by the guys at the top and any dynamism is gone. I don't welcome the death of capitalism but I think it could die if we don't address the concentrations of power and wealth that have so distorted our society.
I also believe the growing stridency on the left is a reaction to what's happening on the right. As a former "love-peace-understanding" type, I've only recently grasped how much they hate us. (I live in the south and they'll tell you straight up that they envision a future where shooting us will be "necessary"--including and especially the so called religious ones expecting to be "warriors for Christ. " Don't expect lefties to sing kumbayah when the right arms themselves and says we're in the crosshairs.
7
Well said and reasoned, MaryC.
2
I think you should reconsider your assumptions.
1. Wanting a different economic system is not the same as not believing in markets. It just means we want a different kind of market .
2. We still want globalization. We just don't want militarization. Who called for the U.K. to stay in E.U. ? Himt not the right. Bernie Sanders did not decry the idea of more immigration, he refused to have someone else's idea ( open borders ) attributed to him in a way that was intended to be a slur.
3. If by nationalism you mean a reduction in millitary imperialism and a focus on providing aide to countries in need, diplomacy, and a focus on improving relationships in our hemisphere than sure you are right. Otherwise i have no idea what you are talking about.
4. Moderates are not done yet, and will pribably hang on until they are kicked out.
Also Harris/Warren 2020
4
You would reject the humane - a solution to economic inequality and a guarantee of economic security - on "pragmatic policy grounds"? That's why the American experiment has failed: No one, especially in the current administration, is capable of thought, analysis, nuance, and making tough choices.
3
David Brooks- in your plea for "reformed capitalism," which leads you to the fear of nationalism or tribalism on the Left- and which makes you predict that modified capitalism will not work-- you are overlooking the factors on the right which will never allow it- at least in this country. The "haves" in the United States are so powerful and so dedicated to their wealth never being taken away from them through redistribution- they will fight to the death (as they are doing now) to avoid any attempt to modify capitalism. This is probably the only country where limited capitalism cannot take place. So your fears are displaced. Instead of worrying about the "authoritarianism" of the left- worry about the intractability of the right. They are the ones with the power.
8
As long as the left expects all able-bodied and able-minded adult citizens to work at least 30 hours a week, anything else they do can't be wrong. If they stick to the principle that each able adult is responsible for feeding and housing himself and any children he brings into the world, the progressive government can do things to ensure that every adult has a job or other means to work for enough money to provide the basics for their families. They can do it in a capitalist economic system by doing the things capitalism can't or won't do. Since there is no perfect political/economic system, it should be obvious that any system needs adjustments to make it work better for more people.
3
Should the Democratic Party consider creating 2 or 3 "sub-parties" with platforms and branding that would not only clearly define and better empower the constituencies within the party, but also attract Republicans and independents who struggle to embrace either party as is? Think of it as a political party incubator.
From other parts of the country, California appears solidly blue. On the inside California offers a delightful creamy middle made of diverse opinions, arguments, and grudging compromise. It's held together by a cohort of talented but aging politicians led by Governor Jerry Brown.
What's going to happen after the elections this fall? Californians will eventually demand other political colors in their choices, colors that reflect the diversity of their state.
The same goes for the nation. It is time for the Republican party to go, but it needs to be replaced by a new party or parties led by passionate, fair, and reasonable politicians. For the good of the country (and its own good), the Democratic party needs to help make the transition happen.
3
The problem is not the lack of rising income, but the distribution. For 80% of folks things have not improved.
We face similar issues with our budgets, the problem is not that the US has no money, but that we spend a crazy amount on defense spending.
Unfortunately our politicians don't want to talk about the real issues, that in order to improve things for the masses, we need to focus on better education, more research, better infrastructure, and universal health care.
All these things are achievable, and affordable, if we were to acknowledge the fact that 50% of our defense budget still would make us the strongest military in the world - and the other 50% could be used for other things.
9
“On the right, tribalism brings us the ethnic authoritarianism of Donald Trump. On the left, it seems likely to bring us the economic authoritarianism of a North American version of Hugo Chávez.”
“Politicians these days have decided they don’t need the thinkers anymore.”
Brooks is becoming a tribe of one and
by the day a thinker of little use to anybody, let alone politicians. What evidence is there the American left will go the route of a Venezuela? His “They’re just as bad as us“ comparison of American progressives to conservative reactionaries rings hollow with nothing more to back it up than this forced analogy.
7
Social justice, access to health care, less greed, more compassion, no crooks in office, no needless wars and a trustworthy government are ethical and moral principles, not leftist ideas.
11
There will come a day in the US that people with extreme political/religious views will take up arms and there will be violent civil disobedience in the streets.
Trump has proven anything is possible when the rich get richer and the poor, poorer.
Ask the French, they know all about it.
5
Mr. Brooks asserts "that global capitalism has produced the greatest reduction in poverty in human history. The problems with capitalism are...mostly with the plight of the working class in rich countries."
Is Mr. Brooks seriously advocating that American government policy should prioritize the economic welfare of foreign nationals globally above the well being of its own citizens?
2
I think the idea that our society is somehow NOT "privileged vs underprivileged" is disingenuous. The privileged class in every society seeks to exploit the less powerful for its own benefit. The difference between progressives and conservatives is that progressives are cognizant of this power imbalance and seek to correct it in the belief that an equitable society is a stronger society. From what I can tell by their actions, conservatives prefer to let the less powerful be exploited, as if our societal structure was completely fair and equitable, leading to the idea that if you are being exploited it is a result of your own lack of initiative.
Count me as a progressive.
6
Once again, Brooks illustrates why he should stick to a comfy critique of his own party and eschew venturing to discussing the democratic party, which he clearly does not understand well enough to discuss in any accurate manner. Clinton won the nomination by millions of votes and the vast majority of democratic voters are more centrist than radical. The younger democrats supporting reasonable social policy is a good thing and the democrats moving somewhat left is as well, having surged to the right for three decades. In the least, it is good to hear a credible republican finally saying that the democratic party is not full of marxists, which was always annoying, particularly now, in the face of the republican party apparently being overrun with actual neo-fascists. Please, all democratic voters and independents, don't listen to panicked warnings about the democrats from republicans who have let their party go astray. The republicans need to lose it all , simply for a mercy killing, at this point.
8
While I'm glad to see Brooks evolve from the Weekly Standard to thoughtful consideration of progressivism, he continues to deride “identity politics,” lumping white nationalism with the fight for racial and gender equality. Black Lives Matter/Movement for Black Lives is for a progressive tax code, clean air, water, and housing, the Glass-Steagall Act, and direct democratic control of police and schools. The Women's March, the left at Charlottesville, Parkland youth, and striking teachers are the driving force of the left, with a few politicians tailing behind. The democracy of the street and fight for social justice are the only hope for democracy at the ballot box and progressive law-making.
5
I don't believe Mr. Brooks uses the word "Manichaeism" incorrectly. It's true that the religion believed in a fundamental good/evil conflict, but I think the more important element here is that Manichaeism was a blend of all the religions at the time. It attempted to synthesis them into one new religion. So in this context I read his reference as meaning the blending of liberal/conservative/progressive/nationalist/etc. not the "oppressor vs oppressed" meaning related to the dualistic nature of that religion. I see his point, but to me the important, revolutionary aspect of Manichaeism is not the good vs evil foundation but is how it attempted to bring very different people together in one faith. If only we could do that politically today.
4
"1. The belief that the problems of the modern economy are inherent to the capitalist system. "
To the wealthy elite who ride out the never-ending boom and bust cycles of capitalism in style, who get the lion's share of political representation and who are reaping the lion's share of new wealth - there would seem to be no underlying problem with capitalism.
"2. Capitalism will eventually collapse."
The elite never see the end coming, just ask Marie Antoinette - or more recently, HRC.
"3. There is an alternative system."
There has to be, because there is no way the Democratic Party bosses will let the party move to the left. Increased Social Security benefits, a financial transaction tax, single payer - even "liberal" Krugman describes these policies as akin to a belief in fairy dust and unicorns.
The Democratic Party is a dead end to the sort of change this country needs - the Republican Party is even worse.
10
"Nonetheless, I don’t think this is the leftism we will wind up with. Tribalism is in the air, on the left as well as on the right. It is based on a scarcity mentality, the idea that life is a zero-sum war between us and them. It emphasizes division and conflict, not solidarity and cohesion. It draws out the authoritarian tendencies in any movement."
"It’s the same Manichaeism: oppressor versus oppressed, privileged versus underprivileged, hegemon versus victim. Conflict is inevitable. The apocalypse is near. Preserve the purity of the group. Shut down the other side. It’s sectarian politics to the nth degree."
It would be helpful, to those of use less aware, if Mr. Brooks would cite some sources for his assertions. Much of the two above seem overly general. My sense is that there is a profusion of groups on the left, some more, some less organized and formalized; some with more, some with less well-articulated credos and programs. And that there is an accompanying profusion of shades of leftist principles - from 19th C. Marxism to 21st C. progressivism. To charcterize the left in the monolithic way that Mr. Brooks does is misrepresentation. My guess is that the same holds for the right.
3
We would all to well to read Sen. McCain's new book - currently being released. From the excerpts, it seems to take a constructive approach and focus on recovering the essential value of collaboration and compromise to address challenging issues. Much better solution than going further to extremes, yelling louder and lying more. Our future is in our collective hands, so let's collectively work to get it right. Next time a politician of any sort declares a commitment to "fight for ... " or "fight against ..." try asking why it would not be better to "work hard for ..." Turn the dialog from one of "battle cries" into one about "better ways".
3
We can fix our problems (inequality, healthcare, and debt) with a stiff dose of progressive policies tailor-made for this situation of a booming economy:
1. Higher taxes on the top 1%, who now have 40% of the wealth vs. 25% pre-Reagan. This means higher rates, elimination of tax breaks, and higher estate taxes.
2. Freezes or cuts in defense spending.
3. Medicare for All or much expanded ACA subsidies to get everyone covered. So far, about 4 million people have lost health insurance under Trump. We have about 31-32 million uninsured. Europe does healthcare for 1/3 less cost with comparable results. Eventually, healthcare costs will bankrupt the government and many citizens, so we don't have much choice except for the government to step in and push down the costs to European levels.
4. Voting our Republicans who try to stop #1-3.
3
It is touching to learn that David Brooks is so concerned about the future of the American left. Personally, I am more optimistic: I believe that a healthier version of multiculturalism will prevail, and that the spectre of xenophobia and tribalism that Brooks fears will lose.
Brooks cavalierly dismisses the plain fact of inequality, and acts as though all Americans somehow share identical economic interests. For years, he has insisted that America's growing economic inequality is simply an inconvenient, but inevitable, consequence of globalization and of the premium paid to highly-educated workers. A couple days ago, the Times published an eye-opening op-ed piece about the role of monopoly in exacerbating inequality. It is a pity that Brooks did not read it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/01/opinion/monopoly-power-new-gilded-age...
8
The issue is not capitalism vs. Marxism.
The issue is plutocracy versus humanity.
In the 18th and 19th centuries it was slavery versus humanity.
Currently people born are literally enslaved to the institutions of plutocracy, having been born late to a game of Monopoly that was won a long time ago.
Human society is being enslaved by the property rights created by human society for human wellbeing.
This is obviously an enormous disaster for anyone with eyes to see.
Literally every field of human endeavor is being held back by plutocracy - humans are reduced to consumers and laborers, human intelligence and effort are wasted in needless competition for needless profit, and human ignorance and suffering are seen as a resource for the market to exploit.
In the same way that slaves do not attain to their full potential living under slavery, humanity will not attain to its full potential while subjugated to plutocracy.
We are the beneficiaries of our predecessors' efforts to eradicate the barbaric institutions of slavery.
Now it is our turn to eradicate the barbaric institutions of plutocracy, so present and future humans can actually be born free and not enslaved to plutocrats.
reddit.com/r/Autodivestment
8
As usual, Mr. Brooks is wrong. We on the left, and I consider myself on the far left, have never been nationalists and never will succumb to the kind of mindless worship of extremism and nationalism and identity politics of the Trump-loving, Ryan-loving, Reagan-loving, Nixon-loving, Buckley-loving right wing.
5
The "left" has become a meaningless term. And Bernie is not the only "vital" option, despite the propaganda from otherblamers on all sides. But these are excellent suggestions. Good luck getting ***any Republican*** to support these rational measures to halt the redistribution of extreme wealth to the top and to gamblers making billions on "disrupting" living wages and benefits. From Baker as cited:
[all quote->
- impose a tax on financial transactions to weaken Wall Street’s power;
- change monetary policies to give full employment priority;
- shorten the workweek to tighten labor markets; and
- change corporate law to make it easier to cut executive pay.
[end quote]
On the last, it would be good to at least halt the meteoric increases in top executive pay and rewards
"The second task would be to ensure economic security for all. This would involve raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, providing universal basic income and having the federal government provide a paying job to all who want one."
"I would disagree with this agenda on pragmatic policy grounds, but at least it would be humane. It’s a positive, universalist agenda that aims at social solidarity and national cohesion — we’re all in this together."
So the argument? We can't, so we mustn't try, to be humane. Better to hate, attack blame victims?
As for climate change, wake up. It is a huge global problem. If we could only harness the energy of bloviation, what an energy source that would be!
8
Obama tried to engage Republicans in a common effort to deal with the country's problems in a mildly progressive way. Republicans flat out refused and fought anything he tried to do. Parts of the progressive agenda will be adopted only after Republicans are marginalized, so the question for Democrats is how to do this. Clinton tried triangulation, and Obama tried to stay above the fray. Demonization is an alternate strategy.
Those who deny climate change are risking the future of the human race and deserve to be demonized. Those who ignore and vilify expertise -- scientific, diplomatic, factual -- deserve to be demonized. Experts these days are distrusted because they have usually been bought off or neutered by profit seekers, as in the pharmaceutical industry; the solution is not to fire them but rather to protect them from their enemies.
Technically, the market can perhaps be structured to redistribute wealth downward, although it seems to have a built-in tendency to do the opposite (just as it has a built-in tendency to get rid of competition). Politically, such restructuring will be fought and evaded in every way possible. Among them is the claim that any attempt to do this will inevitably end in Venezuela or Cuba rather than Sweden or Germany.
The authoritarianism on the left is a response to the dishonesty of the right with respect to racial dog whistles, voodoo economics, climate change, or that gayness is a choice rather than how some of us are born.
11
The extremes on right and left meet at their farthermost points. Bernie and Betty are not good candidates for non-progressive; they are too ideological and incendiary to be effective leaders, and too unschooled in foreign affairs, military matters, and macro-economics to restore America's place in international undertakings.
For redistribution, tinkering with Wall Street and the workweek are cosmetic. Redistribution is best achieved through the tax code: all annual income from all sources aggregated without distinction; elimination by phase-out all credits and deduction; no caps on income liable to Social Security or Medicare contributions; increased number of tax brackets with percentages reflecting the value of money (the more you have, the less each dollar is worth). A new addition might substitute an asset tax on tangible assets in exchange for the end of the estate tax.
4
Shorten the work week to ' tighten' the labor market? Really? I have lived in two cities in the past year, one in Ohio and one in Florida. Virtually every business in either has help wanted signs and it can take weeks if not months to get journeyman tradesmen to quote a project let alone actually start and complete the work. Raising the minimum wage to $ 15 means reducing even more people to penury than we have today, because prices will necessarily rise to accommodate the increased labor cost.
At the same time, we insist on sending countless high school graduates on to college and student debt, preparing them for careers that either no longer exist or do not pay adequately enough to pay off their debt. We need qualified tradesmen!
Meanwhile, I do agree that our infrastructure is crumbling and we seem to be incapable of mounting any serious effort to repair. I have no idea where we will get the money, or the skilled construction trades, or even if we can satisfy the boundless regulatory morass.
Herein lies the next big crisis facing right and left. God help us.
2
"journeyman tradesmen" used to make over $30/hour with benefits. Paying them a non-living wage so some top guy can laugh all the way to the bank? Skilled labor should receive skilled pay, not substandard wages.
Try the Walmart Walton billionaires. Cheap prices and exporting pollution may work in a way that denies solutions, but that doesn't make it OK.
8
Why can’t we do both? Why can’t we be rich and still hate each other? That’s basically what Democrats are betting on in 2018: Republican peace and prosperity will lose to Trump is yucky.
1
In free-market capitalism, capital generates income for the owners of the capital which in turn is used to create additional capital. This is very good. Sometimes, it can be actually too good. As capital continues to accumulate, its owners find it more and more difficult to deploy it efficiently. The business sector generally must interact with the household sector by selling goods and services or lending to them. When capital accumulates too rapidly, the productive capacity of the business sector can outpace the ability of the household sector to absorb the increasing production.
The capitalists, or if you prefer, job creators use their increasing wealth and income to reinvest, thus increasing the productive capacity of the business they own. They also lend their accumulated wealth to other business as well as other entities after they have exhausted opportunities within business they own. As they seek to deploy ever more capital, excess factories, housing and shopping centers are built and more and more dubious loans are made. This is overinvestment.
For a while consumers can use credit to buy more goods and services than their incomes can sustain. Ultimately, the overinvestment results in a financial crisis that causes unemployment, reductions in factory utilization and bankruptcies all of which reduce the value of investments..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642
2
Mr. Brooks seems to have not as yet come to the realization that we have evolved away from the 20th Century battles over Communism, Capitalism, Facism etc. No one really believes in any of them anymore. We are now back to a simple choice of Democracy vs. Oligarchy. Tass and Fox both issue the same brand of propoganda which is eagerly consumed by dupes in both countries. There is no longer a right or left, Capitalist or Communist. Now there is only truth or lies, free or slave, upright or indecent.
Each individual knows where he or she stands. The old lables just cloud or distort the truth. To support refugees is to support humanity. To protect the environment is to protect our own children. To oppose tyranny is to defend justice. To speak the truth is to offend tyrants but it is also to put yourself at increasing risk.
As Churchill once said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of the others." Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Tim Kaine and Joe Biden are far from perfect, but at least they all stand for Democracy, whether it is left, right or center. The people who now claim to be Republicans do not.
Trump supporters that typically drape themselves in our flag, are working for Putin, Assad, Duterte and other oligarchs. They are destroying the values that their own fathers and grandfathers fought and died to preserve. David Brooks should wake up and smell the coffee. The time for waffleing is over.
6
Conservatives really think everybody thinks like them; that we are all only interested in ourselves. But I have not seen anything from the left that even hints at the extremism from the right. Ever. Because there are no koch bothers funding a massive Marxist takeover of our Nation.
I am as unabashed a liberal as Brooks is a "conservative?" but I realize the importance of the balance between the two camps as the way to insure progress we need and can afford.
The identity politics that the right likes to condemn from the left really revolve around the idea that We the People are all in this together: blacks and whites; poor and rich; city and rural. We are not really free to enjoy the fruits of our National identity until we are all able to enjoy those fruits.
He is right that if the republican party keeps going down the hole it is digging for itself and the rest of US the balance could shift far to the left. That is why it would be very helpful for the continued success of our Nation if some republicans would regain their senses.
Or the balance could just tilt so far to the right that we do indeed become the fascist state we liberals have feared so long.
2
I’m 58 years old. I’ve lived through almost every conceivable national economic condition, save that of a truly devastating depression. I’ve had every job from shipping clerk to truck driver to bar tender to tour guide to top-security cleared congressional staffer to award winning actor to published author. Through all of these years, I have come to realize two very important things about our economy and our politics, and they are: 1.) The economy is a mysterious animal that sometimes, and sometimes does not, respond to the actions of government. 2.) The Democratic Party, at least since the civil rights movement, has been self-conflicted, argumentative with itself, and decent; the Republic party (that’s right, the Republic party, Sarah Sanders), has been assured in its righteousness, self-consoled by greasy bible-thumping hypocrisy, and morally irredeemable.
238
I think it doesn't respond (as predicted) by the government is when such reasoning as:
- magic asterisk to explain away shortfall in projections;
- job creators, especially those with large companies, will invest if taxes are reduced;
- Tax cuts, especially slanted towards the wealthy, will fire away huge economic growth; especially at full/near full employment;
- program design tricks are used to limit deficits to $1 trillion after 10 years and then the following year in a separate package, reverse the tricks.
11
“ The Future of the American Left”. There is no future for the American Left. America was aptly portrayed by no less a luminary than Thomas Piketty in a recent interview given the F.T. as a nation controlled by the wealthy neo liberals on one side and the wealthy neo conservatives on the other. This control is so complete and the results of their reign, coupled with globalization are so devastating that the only solution possible to avoid anarchy is as David gave a cursory nod to that of providing everyone with a “ basic income”. This has been batted around by the “great minds” at Davos for several years as they, realizing the error of their ways, after stealing every penny and every opportunity from the middle class, they look for a solution to save their necks; throwing a few crumbs to the huddled masses seems to be the cheapest way to do it, certainly easier than rolling back the effects of globalization, deregulation and the out right theft that led to the financial crisis.
3
I may be guilty of wishful thinking, but I would not count the middle of both parties out. Americans are tired of cultural unrest, and realize that capitalism combined with social safety net have generally served us well. Thoughtful Republican and Democrats agree with this, and should work to see we provide for the less fortunate while not killing incentives and busting the budget.
3
"Tribalism is in the air, on the left as well as on the right. It is based on a scarcity mentality, the idea that life is a zero-sum war between us and them."
Yes. Tribalism - on both sides - is based on a scarcity mentality. I would add that tribalism is dependent on mental scarcity. Compromise, in all its ugliness and complexity, is essential to democracy.
2
"The goal for most on the left is not replacing capitalism, but reforming it to make it work better for all. That would involve two big tasks. Redistribute wealth and create economic security"
No. Wrong. The goals of reforming capitalism are:
Hold it accountable to something other than a mandatory quarterly profit, to the detriment and destruction of everything else. The mantra of "profit uber alles" must end.
Hold those who run "the market" accountable and restore some semblance of justice to the system (are you listening all of you endless Wells Fargo criminals?).
Restore regulation (laws) and enforcement of those laws to provide some balance against a "winner takes all" capitalist society like the one we now live in.
Restore mechanisms that once existed in this country to allow people to place controls and limits on capitalism (unions, a real news media, real elections, etc.).
Do that and redistributing wealth and providing economic security will take care of themselves.
3
The rich have been short-sighted and self-defeating by their outrageous tax grab, their support of a thoroughly disgraceful president, and the financial corruption of the electoral system. Greed has prevented them from doing their part in providing opportunity for all, the essential component of the American system. They rich have invited, no provoked, an over-reaction, so that many in the other classes of society do not believe in a market economy or even the electoral system. We now need a Franklin Roosevelt, someone who will stop the rich from further destruction of the American way, including self-destruction. As for Mr. Brooks, I would have liked to see him on the ramparts protesting the recent tax bill disaster, as corrupt a bill as ever passed in the United States of America.
3
Abraham Lincoln, in the midst of a savage Civil War and upon appointment of General Hooker to lead his army, learned that Hooker had opined that a winning general could set up as a dictator. Lincoln wrote to Hooker, "What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the Dictatorship." Today, what I ask of Democrats and progressives is electoral success against the American Kleptocracy. I will risk Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
1
This is a thinly veiled hit piece.
Mr. Brooks characterizes those critical of capitalism as being "unfairly minded" and summarizes leftist consensus without any sort of evidence, as though he actually has a barometer for a spectrum of ideology he doesn't participate in whatsoever.
1
Poor Mr. Brooks! What is a principled, intelligent conservative to do in the Age of Trump? Having established your solid bona fides as an anti-Trumper, you now must assure various right-wing theorists and pseudo-intellectuals that you have not become--egads!--a Democrat.
Of course it was the endless bleating about "free markets" and "limited government" by those selfsame hired hands at the Cato Institute, the Club for Growth and the Heritage Foundation that lent a slightly respectable intellectual gloss to the idea of voting for a charlatan like Donald Trump.
Mr. Brooks's answer? Why in today's column you can equate the Democratic Party as solely Bernie Sanders--and then equate Bernie Sanders with Hugo Chavez! Mr. Brooks adds to the endless equation of extreme right-wing views with a presumed equally extreme "left-wing" "Bernie Sanders/ Elizabeth Warren-style progressivism." He then provides a caricature of those views--and assumes they are held by all Democrats. Clever, but utterly specious.
He then equates the mild center-left views of nearly all Democrats with authoritarianism and nationalism--just like the growing anti-democratic forces around the world. Wow! Tarring your former ideological opponents with this sort of brush is an indication of your guilty conscience over the disaster our country faces--in large measure thanks to you and your buddies. Wake up and solidly join the pro-democracy (little "d") forces, Mr. Brooks, before it's too late.
5
The right wing is motivated primarily by greed. The left, above all, seeks justice. These two goals lead to different places. Greed knows no bounds. Justice, by definition, does.
1
First, Brooks says there are no moderate Democrats left.
Then he says:
" It’s become clear, to those on the fair-minded left, that global capitalism has produced the greatest reduction in poverty in human history. "
Sounds like there are plenty of moderate Democrats left if this is his conclusion.
I stopped reading after this point because like so much of what passes for conservative intellectualism today just doesn't make sense or fit in with the reality based universe.
If one equates Bernie Sanders' desire to resurrect New Deal policies with the political left, then American progressives are actually quite pedestrian in their goals. That said, this constitutes a viable answer that address globalization, in contrast to Trump's populism, which is nothing more than an expression of anger and despair toward the modern world.
Admit it David, you can't write an essay about the future of the American Right, because it has already arrived. As I've noted before, conservatism no longer represents anything much anymore.
2
Mr. Brooks, I have a slightly different take on the "redistribution" portion of your argument.
I think that if the rich paid full value for the government services they benefit from, many of our social and financial problems would be over. I did not say that the rich pay little in absolute dollars. Of course, they pay more. What I said was that they are getting a bargain. It takes a lot of government support to amass a fortune these days.
Unfortunately, addressing this issue is certainly to be cast as what you refer to as "Manichaeism". In other words, the extremely wealthy are unlikely to give up the gain that have achieved at the expense of society in general without a fight.
1
I think you underestimate just how much economics underpins the cultural divisions that prevent an alternative leftist response. Economic fear and insecurity prevents the kind of social and political solidarity required for such a response. You also underestimate just how much the plutocracy understands and exploits this very fact. The social and cultural disunion is instrumental to the economic dominance of the few.
What the plutocracy doesn't understand, won't permit itself to understand, is that the extreme concentration of wealth and income to which it is dedicated at the cost of all other values is itself untenable in the long run.
1
A well thought out essay. I sense more sympathy with a coming "progressivism" than the David Brooks of 10 years ago would have acknowledged. I doubt the Democratic party will fill all of its seats with ideological activists. Pragmatists like Conor Lamb, will be important if the party is to be pulled over the threshold in the House. This will create tension within the party but will stop a one-tribe mentality from taking over.
1
The Democratic Party, as the party who sees government as a tool to improve people’s lives, has enough space for all thoughtful people who recognize democracy requires compromise. There are aspects of our civilization that should be conserved and aspects that should be changed through government and parts that should lie outside of the purview of government.
What I see, currently, is a loss of appreciation on both sides for the underlying principle of liberal democracy; an acknowledgment by all citizens that we will inherently disagree but compromise is possible and necessary.
2
"The problems with capitalism are more discrete — mostly with the plight of the working class in rich countries."
There is genuine concern for the working class in rich countries on the left, but there is particular concern for the working class in an America where the gun lobby wants to sell as many guns as it can to as many people as they can and part of its pitch is guns are needed to stop liberal, tyrannical elites. That pitch is made all the more effective when the American working classes believe the economic rug is being pulled out from under it that same perceived liberal elite.
If the American working class is helped, then hopefully more trust is gained and that could lead to both sides to sitting down at the table and negotiating sane gun policy.
1
The entire premise of this essay is just plain wrong. It's built on the same trope that leads media outlets to treat both sides as similar or having equally viable arguments in relation to a political question. The problem is it's not supported by any evidence, which Brooks makes clear in his essay by describing the current American right as it is today and then taking giant leaps to describe the left as some sort nascent Venezuela-like movement. The Democrat party is the political center. It has been for at least the last 20-30 years. They are the only party actually attempting to address tough issues with pragmatic solutions. The majority of Republicans can't even agree on objective reality. Let's start there.
5
I don't think that one can simply assume that all sides blindly adhere to a zero-sum mindset without at least mentioning the huge body of work devoted to parsing the possible outcomes of competition for scarce resources. Without getting into the complexities of game theory, which side would be more accepting of the idea that zero-sum activity does not necessarily lead to inequality of wealth which itself can only be dealt with in 1 of 2 ways, violent revolution or actual "trickling down" of economic benefits? Before the zero-sum fray begins, agreement by all players on rules of the game can at least lessen the impact that comes from some of the competitors having a pre-game advantage over others. Because it assumes that all players make logical decisions while playing the game, co-operative game theory is obviously not the total solution to the social devastation caused by free-market capitalism, but hey, it's a start!
When I read David Brooks column, I see a man who is essentially still "out of touch" with what is really going on in his country and the rest of the world. The "left" as he labels it exists because they see the reality of a system that is obviously and arrogantly getting more and more tilted in favor of the wealthy much of that created by "Citizens United" and other SC decisions that allow that same group to buy politicians to strictly serve their interests and no one else. This present government is probably one of the most corrupt in the history of America, yet, those with any critical thinking skills at all are supposed to assume that is not really that important to the future of the country? Clearly, present day Republicans and many corporate democrats don't really think this is a problem.
Well David, let us see how all this plays out in the mid-term elections since if Republicans happen to maintain control of the Congress, in order to pay for their enormous tax cuts to their rich friends and corporations and babble about the increased deficit, the first thing on their agenda will be to gut, social security, medicare and medicaid.
That's when we will see how that future of the American "Left" unfolds.
4
As usual, Brooks underestimates the force of economics on politics. True, people often don't perceive where there best interests lie because of ideological/tribalist biases (E.g., the government is always more inefficient than private enterprise, so providing medical insurance is best left to the private sector.) But that doesn't mean genuine economic insecurity has had little effect on political choices. {E.g. the long-term impact of the 2008 recession on attitudes toward immigration.) Moreover, Brooks is incorrect in imputing antagonism to internationalism to the Left in general. True, Sanders has often gotten trade wrong (though less so in interviews than in public speeches). But Brooks provides no evidence that "Left-wing hostility toward European Union-type multilateral organizations is at record highs." It's the Republican right that has turned decisively against internationalism--witness, Republican silence on Trump's savaging of the State Department and his refusal to negotiate trade with China multilaterally. Blaming both sides for the same failing is a nice rhetorical move to bolster your reputation for fair-mindedness. The problem is that it often relies on error.
5
Remove the pick ax from your own eye before you worry about the eyelash that may befall your brother's.
It is Republican politics and policy that has sundered the republic: The data-blind, idealogical failure to see that governments often are the key creator of value in an economy from funding long term research, to funding infrastructure to industrial policy. Time and again, these are major movers of the economy (microchips, Internet, GPS, Freeways, most bio-tech breakthroughs, space industry and it goes on and on). It is then the turn over to the market that boosts power. Industrial policy kept the German middle class in place and caused China to rise. Open, well funded public education created the conditions for the rise of our tech economy.
Republicans cut all that, equated industrial policy with socialism and ran against the idea of government AND the public good itself. You've been winning on this since Reagan and you can pretty much correlate our decline with it. Reagan brought down the Soviet Union quickly and America slowly so that the Koch's and Mercers may feast on the slowly rotting carcass.
Now Brooks is worried about the mayhem that will result as the carcass collapses. Yes, it is a worry indeed. The patient may have lung cancer, but first acknowledge that it was the almost 40 years of smoking that created the problem. Stop smoking first.
9
Always a pleasure to read your lucid writing. Looking through reader commentary I note we liberals continue to be much better at elucidating problems than solving them. Moving significant income and wealth back to the bottom 80 percent will prove to be a momentous challenge. Just finding and eliminating the "bogey man" won't get us there.
David Brooks writing about the future of the Democrats is a lot like asking a barefoot Baptist what the Pope is going to do about the traditionalist movement in the Catholic Church.
4
Mr. Brooks’s column points out that the current array of economic and political ‘isms’ are not always distinguishable as left—right, populist—elite or democratic—authoritarian. Witness the authoritarian government and hybrid socialist/capitalist economic system of China. The incompetence of Trump and his Republicans underscores the urgency for America to right itself, define where it wants to be and forge ahead. However, as of today, the prospects are not encouraging.
3
The best piece of "evidence" David Brooks can muster to support his claim that American liberals support "the old xenophobia" is an out-of-context quote from three years ago by a politician who isn't even a member of the American liberal party. That says all you need to know about how disingenuous and strained the claims he makes in this essay are.
3
Wow, fantastic piece!
FDR was a Progressive Democrat, but hardly a Marxist. We just want a better New Deal.
6
Perhaps the title of this piece should be, “what would happen if the American Left went as Crazy as the American Right”.
3
Venezuela is a false comparison. The real reason it went down the tubes is: A.) oil prices plummeted, B.) antagonism toward the U.S., which is THE market not to shut out.
We are that market. Will can not shut ourselves out of ourselces. Our economy is not dependent on one natural resource.
But it’s good to see Mr. Brooks finally throwing in the towel and admitting the future belongs to the Progressives. Conservatism is done. Stick a fork in it.
3
It might be more relevant to look at history. Reagan pushed thru a huge tax cut and then came to terms with his own stupidity and raised taxes 6 times. Bush I voiced that stupidity with "Read my lips..... and raised taxes. Clinton, well Clinton did alright I guess because his heart was in the right place even though a different body part wasn't. Bush II personified stupidity too many times to mention in a space limited by the number of characters. The gentility of Obama was maligned by Fox News, Republicans, and the author of this article. And, the times pays him well, I suspect.
3
Lies versus the truth, nazis versus the rule of law. A belief that providing for a just society where health care is a right and people are paid a living wage is hardly the doctrine of Hugo Chavez.
The Constitution was written by lawyers and by slave-owning plantation proprietors. The word slavery is not in the document. The difference between good and evil was clear then, just as it is clear now.
The so called conservatives today have taken the path of evil, lies, racism, and exclusion.
3
David, your cluelessness about people who are not like you continues unabated. You are seemingly incapable of comprehending the American left, so you translate it into something you can begin by damning with faint praise before unloading entirely. The only good thing that can be said about this is that it is not a tweet.
3
Respectfully, I think the date on this essay is a typo. It says May 3, 2018 - - I think you meant 1932. Please issue a correction.
4
Language prostitution began long ago. Once generally accepted, it was easily refined by politicos, as we traversed the continuum from the 2x4 that was no longer 2" x 4" to acceptance of the anti-abortion movement as the "right-to-life" movement -- including by NPR, PBS, and the Times -- to "alternative facts". As Roger from Seattle comments [excerpt], "The signs are subtle, but we on the left need to beware. Note how the goal of 'universal healthcare' has been altered in some quarters to 'single-payer healthcare.' This is a significant shift. The traditional phrasing emphasizes the provision and availability of care, while the modification focuses on how it's funded."
Brooks' column is like Michael Hayden's piece several days ago: a reasonable analysis of the problem, but adding nothing to a discussion of solutions. Real-world solutions predicated on current social and political realities are needed, not moral statements about how things should be. The only way to get solutions is by discussing the possibilities more and more, even if that involves disagreement and pain. Wringing our hands and bemoaning "them" might make one feel good, but will accomplish nothing in the way of making progress. Solutions do, of course, need good analyses as a sound basis for discussion, and Brooks' and Hayden's contributions are helpful. However, they are just a beginning, likely the easy part. As with life in general, when it comes to reassembling our broken nation, there aint no free lunch.
1
David, you continue to use Sanders and Warren as your negative progressive brush that provides a false equivalence between Conservative and Progressive. What we have now is an immoral president, a lying leader, backed by conservatives to get what they want at any cost, an authoritarian regime that benefits the rich. Progressives promote the notion that a USA style government should take better care of all its people with health care, education, environment, social safety nets - as examples - and that one way to achieve this is to spread the wealth, not continually increase the inequality gap. These are not competing ideologies on an equal playing surface and thus equally "bad". Sometime you will have to talk about values, the values of a society that says that there are, certain inalienable rights. Rights that cannot be alienated, as they are now being alienated. Which approach, modern day Conservatism or modern day Progressivism, has the moral high ground here, or the goal of better serving all of its citizens? It's not that complicated.
12
You may have your various fantasies of "the left," but, in fact, there are many, very obvious solution. First, let everyone vote. Second, eliminate gerrymandering (no politician should be anywhere near the process of creating the boundaries of election districts). Third, end "Citizens United" and other ways that the wealthy and corporations hijack the country. Fourth, tax capital gains at the same level as the salaries of workers. Fifth, eliminate the hugely expensive "tax incentives" going to corporations and to wealthy farmers. And, finally, provide universal health care--that can be done at half the cost, everyone else does. You can forget about your silly "tribes."
8
"Identity politics" is such a red herring here. I, for one, and I think most people on the left, support women's rights, black rights, gay rights, etc. because I believe in UNIVERSAL rights.
7
Somehow, what conservative Brooks thinks about progressivism doesn't really matter. I would think he would rather work on helping his associates get their cratered house in order.
For capitalism to survive, it must evolve. To this point, it has. More successfully in Europe, due to the success of the right in the US as characterizing any progressive reforms as “socialism”. And there is the ongoing obsession with quarterly profit reports and the fear that progressivism will tank the stock market.
But the big issue is this- if the US does not get away from being an ungovernable kleptocracy soon, by having moderate income redistribution policies, we are going to capitulate control of world affairs to the Chinese. It’s that simple.
6
Quite a leap by Mr. Brooks there, implying that since the Republicans ended up with Trump that the Democrats will end up falling in behind an equally extreme and unstable individual like Hugo Chavez. It sounds more like "oh yea, well so are you" than any rational analysis.
5
I'm grateful for Mr Brooks and others putting out a message of caution to progressives. Right now, people on the left are swimming in a sea of righteousness, bouyed up by the endless supply of gaffes and insults from Trump and his defenders. It's not hard to see how, once those supports are removed, progressives are likely to sink. I suggest political leaders on the left look for more solid ground, something rooted in common purpose and values, rather than anger and righteousness.
David,there is only major political party in America that believes in authoritarianism as a governing regime, and that is the Trump party. Democrats are just that, democratic. Whether Hugo Chavez or Donald Trump, authoritarians believe in cronyism above all else, i.e., take care of your friends, punish your enemies. That is the governing philosophy of the party of Trump and where the country is headed if Trump and his Tea Party cultists are allowed to continue setting policy. We absolutely need a political revolution in this country again, like we had in 1932, with FDR. It is time for Democrats to reclaim the country as a democracy.
4
It's not whether the progressive movement will get it right but that the conservative movement consistently gets it wrong. The hidden code words in the conservative agenda are the strong, authoritarian father figure who protects us, the notion that if you are not successful, economically, emotionally or otherwise, it is because you lack the personal disciple and morality to succeed, and if you are not like me in how you look, speak, worship or otherwise, you are an "other." These strains drive all the wedge issues at their core.
Whatever our future in policy and therefore how we express ourselves as a society, that we ditch these social thought frames and, starting with the idea we are all in this together, build what we both want and need as a social and societal platform.
Or as my grandmother put it, "Fat chance."
1
America's government type is NO longer Representative Repulic or Democracy to use a rather inept term. America's government type as seen in the Presidency of Trump is Capitalism.
Socialism or social ideas are not and never will be Communist. Communism calls for overthrow by force and violence and ONLY force and violence.
Our country needs food, lodgings, and safe water for everyone. Free Higher Education for those who qualify and will be willing to pay back the government investment in their education by working for the people at the behest of the government. Free Health Care provided for all by some of the same individuals who benefit from the free education.
We need to set up skill groups and Habitat for Humanity like programs using our drop-outs and those who have left high school and will serve for three year stints on our crumbling infrastructure, setting up city farms, building homes and cleaning watersheds.
THESE are the basic needs of the current America.
We do not need Trump, his cronies and toadies, his sycophants and supporters trying to shove his "I am not of the Elite lie" down our throats anymore.
We must remove the Elite from power by grasping the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and rise up, non-violently, so that America's future is not about the Elites but about True Americans.
We're talking about a return to the FDR-style progressivism that the right has spent decades chipping away. I don't get the comparisons to Chavez-style socialism. It's not at all about an outright rejection of the existing system. It's about fixing it as we have done before... when America was great... err... uhh... ya know?
1
To compare the American Left, and in particular the newly energized brand of progressivism espoused by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, to Hugo Chavez, and say that it is moving towards some kind of leftist authortarianism is absurd. You are projecting, David. Just because the American Right has collapsed into Trumpian Complicity, doesn’t mean you can falsely equivocate it with the Left, credibly anyway. It’s a huge speculative stretch.
4
I wish the conclusions to Brooks' op-eds were as good as his introductions.
In this case, Brooks seems incapable of examining the greievances that can drive tribal responses but are not necessarily tribal in themselves.
Concerning tribalism/nationalism, part of the anger is at a global or regional quasi-governments that are far removed from the damage their policies can do. This is anti-democratic, even if those polices are the best available, and it inhibits finding practical ways to address those grievances.
Concerning identity politics, it's hard to move toward the end of bigotry and discriminattion without idenitfying and admitting the range and degree of the problems . It's hard to determine what level and type of immigration is best for the country as a whole, if we only look at national-level numbers and not at individual lives.
Your getting closer, Mr. Brooks, but you have a long ways to go. (Then so do we all, on occasion.)
The political system in the US won't have significant improvement until a figure of enormous charisma and skill emerges, and probably would also have to coincide with a period of unifying historical crisis... FDR is the closest past example. It may not happen. Until then, the polarization, nonsense and injustice will move forward on its own momentum, shaping the parties regardless of all else.
Progressives do have a small yet important immunity. Both conservatives and progressives aim for a moral ideal. But at the underlying everything, conservatives can reach for it by saying "No"--conserve what you can--while progressives know that they can't, that we need something new and well crafted.
The question that Marx posed is still more relevant to us than ever, can a society where income inequality is so extreme ever be truly unified? All the fixes you mention for this income inequality concern this question and acknowledge its truth and power to divide us. The haves will always seek to protect their influence and power disregarding the fact that their selfishness will eventually be their undoing. Capitalism mixed with socialism can indeed direct resources down ward, but will the rich who have so much power now agree to this?
Both the "left" and the "right" described by Mr. Brooks seem to have assigned traditional "main stream" policies to the scrap heap. Doing so augurs poorly for the USA.
Neither side he identifies seems to pay the slightest attention either to affordability or to sustainability of its political programmes. In fact, neither side appears to be at all interested in financial costs or inter generational equities of their proposals
To the right, "cutting taxes" seems to be the only thing that counts. And to the left, it seems to be "more spending on 'needed' programmes".
"Bread and circuses" did not lead to a happy ending 2 millennia ago. "Bread or circuses" will not likely lead to a happy ending now.
The future appears grim; but neither right nor left seems to care about the future while focusing only on the next election.
O tempora; o mores.
Maybe what we are seeing in the early stages of a new left.
In the early stages, we are still identifying the problems, and searching for solutions. Perhaps we have already identified the problems, and some possible solutions. But in these early stages there is not yet a consensus. Yet I do not see a real threat of Authoritarianism as a shortcut to addressing these problems. What I do see is the working out of a local-global compromise, where the boundaries of local cultures are respected, as they participate in the global economy. This may sometimes manifest as a sort of nationalism. But it is really about preserving local customs, and yes - it is about identity politics. What's wrong with that?
1
'OF the People, BY the People, FOR the People' said the first of our GOP presidents. And conservative money market tropes aside, following that principle, we need more people in the House of Representatives. The number 435 was locked in place by the Apportionment Act, after the census of 1910, when the US population was 91 million. That means by Lincoln's standards 230 million Americans are either under-represented today or not represented at all
Talk about statewide gerrymandering: how about countrywide? There should be 1534 legislators in the House today, right now, enough to send streams of fresh creative thinking through DC Swamp every two years. Enough to loosen the Mercer's, the Koch's and the Trumpettes wealthy grip on our national programming. Come November, vote out the Cons, all of them. Let's get back to the traditional constitutional processes our first GOP president promised on the hallowed grounds of Gettysburg.
-
4
“Tribalism is in the air, on the left as well as on the right. It is based on a scarcity mentality, the idea that life is a zero-sum war between us and them. It emphasizes division and conflict, not solidarity and cohesion. It draws out the authoritarian tendencies in any movement. On the right, tribalism brings us the ethnic authoritarianism of Donald Trump. On the left, it seems likely to bring us the economic authoritarianism of a North American version of Hugo Chávez.”
This a righ-biased view of the left. The left doesn’t see this as a zero-sum game where the right has to loose in order for the left to win. The left sees the right as fellow citizens who have put democracy, the country, and possibly the world in danger and want to do whatever we can to protect and improve the lives of us all.
This is a different between the left and right - the right really want to just win.
6
I understand facts are a difficult obstacle for right wing propaganda writers.
In Canada Provincial governments are very powerful and have oversight on health education welfare and municipal affairs. The governments of two of our economic dynamos British Columbia and Alberta are democratic socialist. Both Provinces have large segments of the population which are conservative to far right and both provinces are peaceful and prosperous and are not polarized. Both provinces are diverse and welcoming of newcomers.
The truth of left wing governance can be found in Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton and in their towns and villages. Democratic socialism unites and it is the right that divides. That is the truth based on facts not the lies of the plutocrats who maintain power by preventing us from talking to one another.
11
I found this the most important part: "Tribalism is in the air, on the left as well as on the right. It is based on a scarcity mentality, the idea that life is a zero-sum war between us and them."
I truly believe that this really underlies so many of our problems. Racism, classism, you name it. It comes down to this.
We need to refuse to play the game. We don't have to choose between black and white, rich and poor, or even between young and old. Putting that into practice is HARD, but playing into this old game only gets us more of the same.
Progressives need to put forth the best they have, and then work to not lock out ideas that do not come from them. It's particularly hard when the other side will not work with you at all, but that does not mean you give up.
Affordable Care has survived this long because it incorporated a lot of good ideas, and means to pay for itself. So have SS, Medicare, Medicaid. We can do this, and we must.
Next stop? Taking care of planet. Feeding everyone. Less war. There is a lot on the agenda, work enough for everyone. Let's get cracking.
1
I do not agree with Brooks end analysis of the future for progressives. He does not address the inequality that the tax cut made. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer. And as a bonus, the wealth of the rich was generated via increasing the national debt. This was done via bad tax policy, not increased minimum wage or cash welfare give-a-ways.
To maintain growth and increase income for the working classes, tax policy must be designed to eliminate debt, not increase it. Infrastructure needs investment for improvement, not minimum maintenance. Tax policy that promotes growth via interest deductions and business incentives promote job growth.
1
WHAT American Left? Today's Democrats are to the right of Richard Nixon.
3
brooks' style is to try to tell the world what people that he disagrees with are saying and always from the perspective of distorting and minimizing what those people are actually saying
3
And the false equivalences continue at full throttle.
Conservatives are corrupted, so progressives WILL BE corrupted. Both things are the same, even when the right got there way faster.
Sigh...
6
This would involve raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, providing universal basic income and having the federal government provide a paying job to all who want one.
__
1. What would that do to the cost of living nationally, esp., in the big cities?
2. While we do need modest inflation, inflation would skyrocket AND only the top 25% in the country could qualify for loans/mortgages. Remember the 12%+ interest rates on homes in the 70s v the price of homes today?
3. A shorter work week? See 1 & 2.
4. Have the federal government provide a paying job to all who want one? Once hired join the union. See #5
5. Universal basic income? Raise EVERYONE's TAXES to pay for those who don't want to work.
Eventually the progressives are going to run so far LEFT there will be no more sunset but a sunrise RIGHT behind them...
2
Um these are David Brooks paper tigers of a leftist agenda. Sure they are ideas out there. But so is the idea that the moon is made of cheese. That didn’t mean that Democrats if they return to power will act on them. We aren’t stupid bogey men on the left. Just as I assume most rightist aren’t mindless Trumpists or Tea Party zealots. I hope I’m not wrong in that assumption.
This is an absolutely ludicrous piece. Brooks first argues that Marxism has no real foothold on the left, which is true outside of a few left wing-nuts. Then he argues that when Democrats take back power, they are doomed to succumb to some kind of Marxist, planned-economy dictatorship.
Why? Because since Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party has been captured by moneyed interests trying to use the government to destroy regulatory protections for citizens, then turn around and use the government to cut their taxes and protect monopolies and oligopolies to maximize their profits. Brooks argues that because this happened on the right, it MUST happen on the left.
That is a fallacy. I recently read an article in Pacific Standard stating that Both Parties/Sides of the Political Spectrum Have Become Tribal and Are Ignoring Facts and Evidence. It went on to state that when polled, conservatives support liberal economic policies, but vote for Republicans because of tribal loyalty. On the other hand, liberals espouse liberal economic policies but support Democrats because of tribal loyalty. Ergo, both sides are tribal and bad, QED. Um, wait, what?
After all, facts have a well-known liberal bias.
6
The past, present and future of the conservative American right rests in an aging and shrinking European Christian American majority base.
A white majority with a below replacement level birthrate along with a decreasing life expectancy due to alcoholism, drug addiction, depression and suicide. The white identity politics that delivered 57%, 59% and 58 % of white voters to McCain/Palin, Romney / Ryan and Trump/Pence. Trump is the voice of white rejection and resentment.
The past, present and future of the liberal progressive American left rests in a growing and young non-European Christian white minority plus a simliar white minority.
The notion that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were moderate left liberals is a laughable farce. Clinton and Obama were both well too the partisan political right of FDR and LBJ as expected but Ike and Nixon as well.
4
Brooks chides the Left for being too tough on the rich, as if the poor and the middle class aren't fighting for their lives right now against a corporatist, oligarchic state.
The situation is very serious but here's Brooks saying, "Oh you Lefties. Playing the class card again eh?"
5
Exactly right, thank you
1
Brooks seems to be trying to find a new political home since his old GOP has been, since Nixon and Reagan, slowly but steadily transformed from the Grand Old Party of Lincoln to the now Gross Old Party of Trump and his baggage of mainly white male racists, xenophobes, misogynists, sexual preditors and evangelical hypocrites.
Sadly, he just can't quite admit that the political home he is seeking is defined as progressive Democrat.
He needs to just admit it, do it and embrace it. It is so much more in line with both his ideals and what our Constitution's Preamble says our government is all about.
Truth be known, Brooks has not changed. Sadly his Party has.
Come on over Brooks. I did. It took 30 years of not admitting what was happening but since finally admitting it, I have never looked back. The GOP is now the antithesis of what our Founders envisioned and what America is supposed to be all about.
Unless it changes and changes fast, it will soon be going the way of the dinosaurs. Brooks is better than that.
All this from a conservative Never Trumper who thinks the Dems should stop talking about abortion rights. Without the access to safe abortions, no woman will ever be equal.
2
Usually conveniently forgotten by the left:
--The top 1% earners pay 40% of all U.S. taxes collected.
--The top 10% earners pay 71% of all U.S. taxes collected.
--Over 45% of all U.S. households pay NO TAXES.
Shouldn't we be somewhat appreciative there exists the 1% and the 10%????? Hello, hello?
2
Wake up!!!
Much of the way that kind of money is made is by paying their labor poorly and putting share holders above consumers and their own labor force. Get real.
3
David, bless his heart, is the only Republican I can hear. Is he still a Republican? Anyway, not sure he is an authority on the left.
As a lefty, who has never gotten his way, I like to keep it simple. It's all about taxes. You can go off about race or whatever, but until we reverse the regressive taxation that has gripped this country, no one among the 99.9$ will be winners.
The progressive tax structure of a bygone era built the American middle class. But, ever since Ronald Reagan, Republicans have been selling anti-governmental tax cutting that has created international billionaires while destroying our country.
It's the economic theory stupid. It's the economic theory stupid. It's the economic theory stupid. It's the economic theory stupid. It's the economic theory stupid. It's the economic theory stupid.
Government is good. It can get good things done. It can help our economy even as it helps people. Down with Republicanism, forever.
3
There is nobody so blind as a Republican who cannot see. The next time the NYTs would like to assail Social Democracy or Socialism, while the GOP elephants run feral in the White House, I would be so very grateful if they could print a column by Bernie or a Scandinavian thinker. Having David Brooks tell me who I am is almost as bad as enduring the daily Trump.
5
Gosh, the Left's agenda will be a failure for the exact reasons Mr. Brooks has been castigating it for years. What a coincidence!
ALL democrats must stay united to defeat every single republican in 2018.
4
"At least it would be more humane" you say of a socialist agenda.
Well David just let that thought revolve in your academic mind for a while.
In the world of people humane trumps any cruelty you wish to imagine as a policy for animals or people.
2
Reading David Brooks talk about what Democrats think is like listening to your eccentric friend who is sure she knows what her dog is thinking.
4
"...moderate liberalism of Bill Clinton and EVEN Barack Obama". This puzzles me. I think of Obama as pretty conservative, coming from the Ivy League and all. Puzzling that Brooks says "even".
As to the rest, Brooks can't help but get defensive about the right, even with Trump and all the other crooks in this administration and Congress.
1
A reasonable argument by Brook. I've been a Dem all my life and am disappointed in the lack of vision, strategy and cohesiveness of the current Dem Party. The R's are simply the most corrupt gang of lying thugs imaginable in American politics, with trump at the top of the garbage heep.
Capitalism - they predatory version currently practiced in America is abusive, cutthroat and has no place in modern society. It's basic value of greed, maximizing short term profits that benefit a few, at all costs is savagery for people, all life and the natural world. The way we do capitalsim is clearly destroying life - all life.
The elephant standing in the middle in so many of these "rooms" is clear to many - we are running our economies in ways that is completely unsustainable, using up all resources for short term growth in profits and leaving nothing for our children. The other elephant is -= you guessed it - CLIMATE CHANGE. The science is 99% clear, this is civilization snd major life threatening, and Brooks, like so many others in the media simply "forgets" to even mention this. The way we do capitalism in America is destroying life on earth. Period. Shall we talk about it or make believe it doesn't exist? Shall we keep on doing what we've been doing and expect a different outcome?
2
Let's, for a moment, assume that politics can be reduced to a linear left-right continuum that goes from 0 to 100. Please every American citizen on that continuum, a sort of histogram. I would assert that the histogram is a bell curve centered at 50.
Unfortunately, if you plot politicians and "people who are vocal" on that histogram, it is bimodal, with peaks at, perhaps, 20 and 80. And this is what leads to our current environment of tribalism, dysfunction, angst, stress, and outright hatred of "the other".
What we need, in my opinion, is a political party centered on 50, and for the "sane moderates" of our country to come in and start loudly calling balls and strikes on the issues, news, and events of our time. And vote. Punish the extremists on both sides, and yes, there are extremists and loudmouths on both sides.
4
Mr. Brooks missed one source of the pending authoritarianism: the technological oligarchies. Liberals, particularly young liberals, seem to be barely bothered at all by tech companies taking gigantic monopoly interests in our economy and beginning to make governments a politicians obsolete. Tech companies take something that sounds cool (our programming is free or open source!) but use all that coolness for extraordinary profit, stock valuation and power all the while gutting formerly important industries and ridding people of sources of income and personal self worth. And it seems to me that many people look forward to the technological utopia where AI controls everything leaving us isolated, alone and out of control of our own lives.
As much as a generally like Mr. Brooks' editorials I disagree seriously with this one. Progressives like myself are not anti-capitalism. We are for responsible capitalism where corporations and small businesses respect the rights of workers that also includes a livable wage. If you cannot live on the wages of our labor why work? Responsible capitalism also respects the needs of the environment which for me translates into our needs for clean air to breathe, clean water to drink and foods that are as free from contaminants as much as possible. I also believe that government has a role to play is setting the agenda for our society to help define who we a re and where do we wish to go in the future and how do we get there. to leave these ideas to business is a fools errand. Business will make decisions that a re good for business regardless of what may be good for society. This is the role of regulation. Regulation creates balance and helps ensure domestic tranquillity. To try and equate progressive thinkers with what is going on in Venezuela is insulting. I, for one, would not agree with the manner in which the Venezuelan people have suffered under poor governance and twisted ideology. Conservatives cannot win the day because of their anachronistic thinking and a desire to serve the wealthy class at the same time promote a regressive social policy.
3
It isn’t complicated. In order for capitalism to work well it has to be regulated. Republican religion of deregulation and supply side economics is a scam.
Corporations are not people, money is not speech no matter what republicans tell you.
It is amazing to me that republicans put up such flawed candidates like trump and bush they win. They put up good candidates like McCain and Romney they lose.
2
There must be some reason that white privileged Republicans -- whose party controls most state houses, the White House and Congress -- feel victimized and threatened by everybody, despite economic stability and growth.
Whatever that is -- and Donald is a master of it -- it eclipses rational thought. Why else wouldn't people blame those in power?
1
The problem for the American Left is that too much of it is based upon inaccurate and incomplete data.
The movement is based upon the "failure" of capitalism, and how Americans are "suffering."
We are retired. In the past two years we took a cruise, went to Disneyworld, and have traveled in the United States. We have been to malls.
Know what? All of those places are packed with people (all of whom, it seems, have iphones). We see ordinary families everywhere, spending money. Restaurants? More of them than ever. Almost everything at a mall is superfluous. You could get along without any of it, yet we can hardly find parking spaces. We also know people who have chosen not to work, (one of whom quit his job at Boeing) to live the free life, and can actually even raise children using social services.
There are problems with our capitalism, and the recent tax law is a glaring one. We always have to be on guard with capitalism not because there is some evil capitalist in charge but because we are all "in charge," and each of our small, insignificant effects add up.
But things aren't as bad as the far leftists want us to believe they are. So when push comes to shove, and the Sanders/Warren people start advocating policies to make things be not awful they are going to find passive resistance--things are not that awful for enough people. In fact, for many liberals and Democrats, things are going pretty well.
The basis for the far left's "movement" is inaccurate.
1
Traditional 19th Century Liberalism which was Enlightened Conservatism never made its way from Britain to the United States. Russell Kirk, one of the Americans who embraced Enlightened Conservatism was admired, but not respected. The contemporary Republican Party is fragmented into nativists, militarists, and local pockets of racists. Trump has enough support among the Republicans in Congress to advance the populist agenda which is nativist. He may face opposition among Republicans in Congress, but he has a sizeable number of faithful followers who are not dismayed by his personal faults. And, they vote. The Democrats are fragmented and leaderless. Trump’s 7/24 optics and tweeter has them off balance. The anti-intellectualism in America has become the key to political power.
Flaws in Mr. Brooks' logic:
1. While there may be good reasons to question the use of markets, markets are not equivalent to capitalism, therefore your statement that "there is no alternative" cannot rest on asserting that markets are merely tools. Capitalism is more than the use of markets.
2. Putting aside the flaw in your failing to explain how Chavez was an "economic authoritarian[]", describing Venezuela under Chavez in that way requires you to explain why an economic system in which a tiny minority controls the economy instead (capitalism) is not similarly "economic authoritarianism." In essence, you have employed a circular definitional fallacy by defining---without proving---leftist economic thought as authoritarian and then using that definition to claim the left is becoming authoritarian.
3. One Bernie statement in favor of the US nation state does not an authoritarian movement make. What makes you think the first social democrat (that's basically what he is, if you understand the distinction) to gain actual political relevance in decades somehow represents the entire current of leftist US thought, as opposed to simply having energized a swath of people who never thought socialism could find acceptance here?
4. You fail to explain how "identity politics" fuels authoritarianism; class warfare has always been about the oppressor and the oppressed--have you never read Marx? Show me when in history the rich have willingly voted away their wealth.
This is precisely the type of argument that got us into this mess: Democrats are going to bring Venezuelan policies to America! Never mind that neither the Clintons, Obama, Kerry or Gore ever advocated doing anything of the sort. But many bought that myth and now see Democrats as the avenue to economic destruction (used to be moral destruction, too, but Trump took that issue off the table). Conor Lamb won in PA. Doug Jones won in AL. Millions of dollars were donated by Democrats to those candidates, who are about as far from Hugo Chavez as one can be. I usually find Mr. Brooks' writing to be fair, but equating Democrats with a South American dictator is both untrue and inflammatory; something I'd expect to hear on Fox News or from Sarah Palin.
3
Dear David,
Welcome to the responsible, policy-savvy Left. I know you are homeless after the hijacking of the Republican Party. As a Democrat, I'm happy to welcome you into our big tent.
I agree with you that there is an important risk of populist, nationalist, zero-sum politics on the left. Your voice, like that of Dean Baker, can help us promote a politics that reforms markets-- instead of eliminating them-- so that they serve the vast majority of people better.
You forgot to mention the most important thing: Big corporations need to operate within the constraints of capitalism. That means when they fail, they don't get bailed out. When they commit fraud, their executives are prosecuted. None of this happened in The Great Recession. Big corporations profess to love capitalism until they need socialism to rescue them from their bad behavior.
3
If I were a young investor I'd channel my money into sports, entertainment & recreation as the future for profiting off human misery, bodily needs & essentials will rapidly disappear as a new generation takes the helm.
Stay debt free young man & woman & create a new world. The days of multi-hundred dollar pills are coming to an end.
1
Flaws in Mr. Brooks' logic:
1. While there may be good reasons to question the use of markets, markets are not equivalent to capitalism, therefore your statement that "there is no alternative" cannot rest on asserting that markets are merely tools. Capitalism is more than the use of markets.
2. Putting aside the flaw in your failing to explain how Chavez was an "economic authoritarian[]", describing Venezuela under Chavez in that way requires you to explain why an economic system in which a tiny minority controls the economy instead (capitalism) is not similarly "economic authoritarianism." In essence, you have employed a circular definitional fallacy by defining---without proving---leftist economic thought as authoritarian and then using that definition to claim the left is becoming authoritarian.
3. One Bernie statement in favor of the US nation state does not an authoritarian movement make. What makes you think the first social democrat (that's basically what he is, if you understand the distinction) to gain actual political relevance in decades somehow represents the entire current of leftist US thought, as opposed to simply having energized a swath of people who never thought socialism could find acceptance here?
4. You fail to explain how "identity politics" fuels authoritarianism; class warfare has always been about the oppressor and the oppressed--have you never read Marx? Show me one example in history when the rich have willingly voted away their wealth.
As a proud Democrat, I find advice about how to run our party coming from a Republican, to be particularly, annoyingly, disingenuous the moment it is said.
Dean Baker’s ideas, with the exception of regulating executive pay, read like a plausible, effective method of running the country. Problem is elections are not decided by the mind, but by the gut. In today’s world, parties have to get their support by urging supporters to hate the opposition, and the republicans are good at that. The demos should do the same, and start with wall street, promising to neuter the place and turn it into a regulated utility, coupled with some levies aimed against them. That would indeed rule out the Clinton’s, et al, but they are history anyway.
Clinton and Obama's "moderate liberalism" turned out to be the 'useful idiots' of the crooks, bankers, lobbyists and politicians who have brought us to the current pass.
Brooks loves to write about the left, but he’s got nothing left to say about his own crowd on the right.
2
This Brooks essay is barely readable and miserably fails. For example the wide open undefinable suffix "ism," connoting confusion. Nearly every paragraph has an undefinable "ism."
The other unreadability here is Brook's labeling. For Brooks, people are in the "left" or they represent the "progressive" wing. I find labeling people insulting.
I entitled a book, "New World Hors D'oeuvres" more than two hundred pages long. I could re-typset every paragraph and turn my tale from a prose poem into line structured verses.
Missing in "New World Hors D'oeuvres" are the words, "if," "think," and the suffix "ism." Here is an example of words cleanly written at sea, 1969:
Night watch on the ship's prow
The stars are out in disorder,
Everything ever been seen
By the naked eye is out tonight.
Couple weeks ago I had a brainstorm and removed the determiner, "the," thus:
Every thing
Ever been seen
By naked eye
Is out tonight.
In all of human history, relative to the night sky 'every thing ever been seen, by naked eye draws to the bow of a ship.
Brooksie! You are getting sloppy. Next column try eliminating if, think, the suffix ism and all undefined labels.
On the issue of undefined labels for people, there may be exceptions; for example, a friend's eBay screen name: poetprophetcandidate.
2
What is it about Mr. Brooks? He writes in such an intelligent and reasonable fashion, but as I read is column, I always have this seething anger welling up.
2
Because he bases his conclusions on.... nothing. Just recycling words and tired old judgements.
Wrong as usual, David. The new left is strongly Marxist. There is an alternative and we know it.
I refuse to be lectured by a right winger who supports the current regime of McConnell and Ryan.
Why do you feel the need to bring up Marxism in the 3rd paragraph if for no other reason than to both pander and enrage readers?
If this is the new politics, then Dave, you need to stick within your tribal boundaries. No more luxury, expense paid trips to Italy to write a feel good column.
David, fear not! Hugo Chavez, no! Bernie Sanders, si!
LOL. Seriously? David Brooks, the longest time reactionary, right wing voice on the NYT, is writing about the left "authentically". What hoot. David, we liked it when you were (embarrassingly) pounding the gavel for unqualified, low intelligence, no merit, white, male, Republicans, and, Republican programs designed to destroy the middle class. Might as well go back to that mantra. It worked for you for a long, long, long, long time. Getting off the boat, well, it feels a little queasy to everyone.
1
The cart is well ahead of the horse here.
A segment given to hissy-fits, 'I vote for third party candidates to make a point because Hillary is not pure,' sitting out elections, and given to endless whining and waiting for the savior - has worked rather hard to kill its own future. Their best strategy today is whining. The are not organizing.
Liberalism . . . or what it really means . . . moral and intellectual equivocation . . . clashed with the nihilistic certainty of America's right, and died. Destroying education, environment, and justice are now non-negotiable for republicans.
The socio-culture is against the American left. The forces of ethnic nationalism are now deeply embedded. Half of America thinks Nazis are good, anti-facists are bad. The religious right sits atop the totem, in charge of gutting all institutions they find threatening (starting with education and justice).
What is the left's future when the poor and uneducated vote for tax cuts to the rich, women vote for misogynists and child molesters, Hispanics vote for Trump, and the nation agrees that the sky must be red, the earth blue, and water the consistency of chocolate syrup?
All that American left will get is about 10-20% of American counties, that too, only city. America is not feeling prosperous, and hostile to the left's core proposition: "give me your dollars from now to eternity - so I can fund every hard luck story in America." I.e., future of American left: zero.
Another wedding cake of conservative tropes about "the left" complete with identity politics and a Venezuelan cherry on top. Oh Dave, how you do go on.
1
Well, YAY, "progressivism will win." So sayeth David Brooks...???
Capitalism is not a problem when it is actually practiced. The Wall Street mantra is short term profits over long term gains. This is not capitalism. This is greed. Capitalism would follow a path that leads to maxim sustainable profit, rather than grab the money and run. The ridiculous CEO salaries are definitely not capitalism. Capitalism would recognize that the CEO is an employee and that their salary should be commensurate with their contribution. The present practice is feudalism where a lord and his minions capture control of a corporation (board of directors) and gorge themselves at the trough.
4
Wow; Brooks just essentially defaulted to the current favorite right-wing comeback: Venezuela! Venezuela!!
Too easy, Mr Brooks. Your columns are getting lazy in your attempt to not look seriously at the state of the Republican Party.
VOTE THEM OUT. All of them. I'm done, and "my" Republican is Susan Collins, supposedly sane. She votes with the crazies when it counts and is "concerned" the rest of the time, so I don't believe it anymore.
VOTE THEM OUT.
2
Brooks' strawman rivals the Wizard of Oz!
1
Really David? That's all you've got?
Sorry, but Brooks is little more than an erudite sounding hack. Read the article again. Where is there any substantive thought concerning a better way forward? Just another talking head.
As long as identity politics is defined as my race/group/nationality vs. yours, it will be a problem for the left and a useful tool for the those in power to keep us all distracted while they keep sucking the money and life out of our country. It needs to be replaced by Average Citizens vs. Massive Wealth Entities. The government clearly doesn't work for average citizens, it only works for entities (corporations or individuals) with massive sums of cash. Instead of calling it "wealth redistribution" we should call it, restoring balance.
Ultimately, campaign finance reform is THE ISSUE of our time. Nothing will change until we get the big $ out of politics.
1
Take heart, David. Many millennials love capitalism, they just prefer the healthy version, that's good for everybody, completely different from greedy, sicko robber barons who rob from the poor and give to the rich.
Many young people are returning to the land, as did their hippie grandparents, and are doing it with the aid of technology and with great success.
http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2018/01/30/the-latest-millennial-trend-farming
I have great faith in this generation, I work with many of them who are aspiring and passionate marine scientists and determined to reverse the decades of harm we have done to the oceans.
These people have their heads and their hearts in the right places, and by "right" I sure as hell don't mean Republican.
Bernie Sanders: “Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal.”
David Brooks: “Bernie Sanders in 2015 derided a more open immigration policy as a ‘Koch brothers proposal.’”
// David Brooks is distorting what Bernie Sanders said.
Bernie Sanders is one of most outspoken Senators for DREAMers.
No US Senator has said, “I want open borders.” Brooks wouldn’t smear a Republican Senator for saying, “Open borders? No.”
1
I did not know that there was a left in the U.S.
Excellent article and many excellent comments. What percent of the US do you believe can fully track with what is being said here? It would be a stretch to think 10%. Political policy must be explained at a level that all can understand; this ain’t rocket science. The Dems need to establish a uniform platform of moderate liberalism that appeals to the other 90%. Yes, that means welcoming Trump’s core of “deplorables” that are included in this mix.
Bernie Sanders’ socialism is out, and the moderate liberalism of Bill Clinton and Obama are back in. The economic plight of Trump’s core must be addressed in a manner that is fully understandable and believable. Do this, and most of the core will not complain about being deprived of the uglier traits of Trumpism that they now embrace. Do this, and a clear majority can be attained.
2
"Politicians these days have decided they don’t need the thinkers anymore." true. And my comments to yesterday's Krugman column that we didn't need any new ideas. reflected that. congress only covers their standard policy and never get or want to hear all the great ideas and projects.
As a moderate, I sure hope we get some good thinkers with the skill and the opportunities to get in front of this thing. As to jobs and capitalism and business; the tax bill is an absolute disaster; it will take money out of business and their ability to pay good wages (that are then spent at up and coming businesses ) and their efforts for product development and growth. Long term it is anti business and anti capitalism (takes money out of the system)
No offense to Mr. Brooks, but this column is incredibly naive about the Marxism of the left. In the end, he accurately describes the Marxism now predominant in its hatred of "capitalism": Manichean. As a professor of history at a northeastern university, I can confirm that Neo-Marxist, post-structuralism is not only present, but in control of curriculum, student affairs, and upper administration despite my employer being a Catholic school. Their goal is clear in everything they teach: the overthrow of the heteronormative, cisgendered, homophobic, racist patriarchy.
1
David,
Identity politics is entirely beside the point.
Take student loans, for example. IN the 1960s and 70s, the federally subsidized student loan program was an indispensable part of upward economic movement for millions. Thanks to it, I became a lawyer and my brothers and sister also got solid professional educations.
Now, as a commentator yesterday noted, the federally subsidized student loan program amounts to a way to subsidize rich investors at the huge cost of the young students who get ensnared in it.
In other words, just another example of the have-nots subsidizing the haves.
This is emblematic of what needs to change. Identity politics has nothing at all to do with it.
5
I'll work for and vote for any candidate who espouses the agenda prescribed by Dean Baker as set forth in Mr. Brook's article. I also think most - although by no means all - "identity politics" issues go away under this kind of humane economic system. Now, if we can only find such candidates and also get them to slash our military budget and bring our troops home from Korea and the "forever wars" now occurring in 7 or moe countries, we might actually begin to thrive as a nation.
Juxtaposing the very real authoritarianism the GOP has succumbed to, with a hypothetical authoritarianism that you think the left maybe might fall prey to, is false equivalence.
I'll worry about left wing authoritarianism when it exists, in the meanwhile your time would be better spent opposing what the GOP has become.
4
The left wing policies needed are nothing new and it's been clear for some time what that is.
We need to go back to the policies, rules and regulations we had under the New Deal.
- Monopolies, where they exist are regulated.
- The merger mania is heavily curtailed and businesses, especially banks, which control too much of a market are broken up.
- Demand side Keynesian economics rather than supply-side economics
- Government investment in infrastructure, education, and research
These policies allow capitalism and the free market to function for the good of all. The policies of the past 40 years have become anti-competitive and anti-worker and this is no accident. They were designed to concentrate wealth.
The left can embrace what we once had.
3
Mr. Brooks included a bold faced lie about Sen. Sanders and what he said in 2015. Never have I ever read or heard one thing out of Sen. Sanders mouth about closing borders or stopping immigration. Instead, Sen. Sanders rallies his supporters in the exact opposite direction with emphasis on strong economic policy that benefits both Americans and the world. The same is true about climate change and the environment, making sure to protect our resources so they remain clean and healthy for all.
As a Democrat who votes, I'm getting pretty sick of those voices in the Democratic Party falsifying what other Democratic-leaning leaders say. If our Party is to remain strong, we need put forth policy ideas that attract not only Democratic voters but those who are Independents, as well as moderate Republicans so we can all work together to help change the direction of this Country. These types of "scare tactics" like this Op Ed piece from David Brooks doesn't help.
The first thing we need to change? Go back to the Supreme Court and do our best to amend Citizens United so that Corporations and billionaires aren't the only ones who direct policy decisions. Letting them do this might help their own pockets but it hurts everyone else.
These partisan tactics need to stop if our country is ever going to survive.
5
Hi David, here as a leftist (of which I don't think you actually know any) to say that I have not rejected the basic principles of Marxism as you describe them (though I am not a Marxist, so perhaps consider your grasp of leftist thought).
2
Beneath the relaxed tone, this article is apprehensive. Brooks carefully excludes Marx and places the aims of the "left" into a box of redistribution on the good side, and tribalism on the bad. But what the left really might turn out to be is beyond even me, and unlike Brooks I am as enamored of its hopes as I am not enamored of a world system based on greed and accumulation. Surely the 40% of young Americans who think they prefer socialism are looking not just for a handout. Let's consider qualitative agendas of change--better workplaces, more worker control over their lives, and incomes that make the low jobless rate something to be happy about--and stimulating cooperatives and other forms of mutual ownership. This I think is what the young want. Marx, by the way, wrote primarily about workplace conditions and not revolution. Happy birthday, Karl.
4
The workplace that Marx wrote of has no place in capitalism. We are not all the same. We differ greatly in our intelligence, aptitude, motivation, ability, health and personality. As such, we cannot reasonably expect similar experiences, opportunities nor outcomes.
1
No economic system will work for the greater good until there is systematic population control and sustainable environmental management. The conservative right overtly opposes both, and the liberal left appears to ignore them in propping up the victims. The solution requires a paradigm shift that this nation appears unable and unwilling to accept or initiate in the current polarized political milieu.
1
Brooks misrepresents the principle of scarcity. Scarcity is actually one of the most fundamental principles underpinning all economics. Scarcity therefore underpins all capitalism in general. Humans want everything (non-satiation) but we are resource constrained. We therefore have to make choices and decisions. Freewill as it were. Even when resources are infinitely abundant, which they are not, you still have scarcity. Death is the ultimate proof of scarcity. No one lives forever and you can't take it with you. Time is a scarce resource. More simply though, one can only eat so many doughnuts. At some point, that next doughnut seems unappealing. Your appetite is therefore scarce.
Scarcity is therefore not a zero-sum game and leftist don't perceive it as such. The phenomenon is relative. We're describing something about human behavior rather than defining how humans behave. This is why markets aren't going away. Markets are a description of human interaction rather than the mechanism that makes the interaction essential. So no, capitalism is not going away but neither is Marxism.
Actually, I'm rather insulted Brooks would simplify the leftist goals to minimum wage and universal basic income. By my reckoning, those are only two suggestions on how to achieve the underlying objective: We want a more equitable and just society for all Americans and preferably the world. Like I said, humans only want everything. You used to be better at delivering outcomes though.
David says, "My sense is these ideas have been rejected by most of the left."
I've been rapidly loosing faith in David's sense here. My sense is that the majority of the left does believe that these problems are inherent to capitalism. They may believe that it can be made livable through reform. But they realize that they'll never be able to build institutions that are impervious to capitalism's incessant attempts to undermine said institutions.
3
To paraphrase Mario Cuomo you campaign in extremes you govern in moderation. There is no tribalism on the left and no comparison to Venezuela where the economy collapsed with the drop in oil prices. Reform of capitalism by means of checks and balances is precisely what Bernie Sanders would have campaigned on. Conflating identity politics / culture wars with the economy is entirely a far right doctrine. You cannot name one liberal who embraces such. Opposition to the EU concept on the left is on the grounds of the failures of a common currency and not on culture or immigration.
4
Capitalism with checks and balances is not capitalism. Free markets naturally benefit those with the aggressive personalities and kill or be killed competitive mindset to win.
Glad to hear that progressive economic thinking is turning "nakedly nationalistic." It's about time.
In every country in the world, national governments set the basic terms for the distribution of incomes and wealth. Rich people and big corporations know this, which is why they invest so heavily in buying politicians.
Time for progressives to demand a fairer, more equal division of wealth. Nothing else matters as much to the future well-being of our country, and nothing else will get this progressive's vote this November or two years later.
3
Perhaps it is just the velocity and distance of the pendulum swinging back in the other direction that makes it appear as though liberalism has been/will be hijacked by left wing tribalism.
Given the extreme to which the current version of conservatism has taken the country, even a return to a modest center, at a modest speed --- say, regaining one house of congress and the presidency between now and 2020 --- might very well feel as though we're plunging headlong off the liberal cliff.
I just can never shake the feeling, every time I read a "considered conservative" columnist, that along with losing their moral and ethical center, conservatives have also lost their perspective on what constitutes moderation, all due to the extreme situation we find ourselves in. We are constantly badgered to embrace our poor, oppressed, angry, ignored red hat brothers despite their support for a racist, misogynistic bigot, and constantly warned that any sudden movement away from this could easily blow up into a liberal conflagration.
How about we just recognize what a complete and total disaster Republican governance has been, and work to move back towards a center that, yes, probably marginalizes the MAGA crowd and the Sanders-nistas, but that also represents a return to sanity... and stop with this new version of conservative fear mongering about what could go wrong if we do.
5
Mr. Brooks:
Your fear of the future under the current regime is becoming more palpable with each new column. There is no real "thinking"
evident in this column.
3
Venezuela is NOT communism. Ok, with that being said, capitalism will end, eventually, because it is like a cancer. It is only interested in profit, and any sort of progress is secondary. We have the ability and the means to live in a society where we do not pollute, we give people livable wages, we educate, feed and house everyone, but we don't do this because that would affect the bank accounts of some very rich people. For instance, Jeff Bezos would rather spend his "winnings" in space rather than pay a sizeable amount of his employees, who are on food stamps, a decent living wage. He's threatening not to invest in Seattle because they will tax him to build affordable housing. This is neither sensible nor sustainable. Eventually the drive for profit for profit's sake will have to end or the planet will literally be uninhabitable for us. And if it's uninhabitable we end. So either way it ends.
4
Dear David, I don't know anyone on "the left" who wouldn't support Dean Baker's economic program. You must be referring to Hilary Clinton Democrats, whom I consider centrists and the dominent force in the party.
2
I feel that many people regard the present situation as crony capitalism or a new Gilded Age. Trump's Cabinet members are the deplorables. One is more corrupt than the next. His tax law has benefited himself and the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the middle class. His deregulation program will adversely affect the health of everyday people. Pruitt is attempting to undermine the clean air law to satisfy the donor class. Trump has denied climate change. He appears to be a Manchuriancandidate who is adopting policies that are quite harmful to the United States. Instead of replacing Obama care with a better health plan, Trump and the GOP wish to gut the entire system. By creating a huge defecit, the GOP will use this as an excuse to slash Social Security and Medicare and squander our national wealth on defense. Trump has proposed nothing for the working class. The Democrats should focus on economic issues to improve the lives of average Americans. The GOP, the Tea Party and the so called Freedom Caucus have used their legislative power to increase the wealth of the one percenters. David Brooks has overlooked these issues as he writes about esoteric mindsets.
4
Brooks says, "Moderate Democrats are no longer a force."
That is patently FALSE and Brooks surely knows that. Both of the recent federal victories by Democrats--Lamb in Pennsylvania and Jones in Alabama--were won by moderate Democrats.
Democrats want to win elections as much as any other politician. They have the good sense to run moderate candidates in States and Districts where they will be more competitive than candidates to their left.
Brooks would like us to fear Democrats as much as we fear Republicans. Not buying it!
6
In the area of reforming capitalism, where does overturning Citizens United stand? To me, that should be the first priority-get the dirty money out of politics so that all people have a voice, not just the wealthy.
3
Getting rid of gerrymandering and party primaries would also help a lot.
2
Mr Brooks and other intelligent observers didnt see the threat inherent in Trump because they assumed the electorate didnt want a school yard bully who solved everyone's cognitive dissonance by offering up scapegoats - Mexican immigrants or evil foreign powers. At the same time, Bernie and Elizabeth were doing the same: the rich. The energy on the Right was clearly with the mob, and so it is on the Left. Ours is not the first culture to succumb to this: see our progenitors (so we claim), Greece. The mob doesnt want to hear that their lack of status is because they are less able or less hard working, they want to believe their success was wrongly stolen from them. Disregard at your peril.
BTW: enough tweaks to the market system, and you quickly have a non-market system, so dont be so equanimous about "it can't happen here"
The author again misrepresented the progressive left goals by comparing it to Hugo Chavez. Our role model is social democracy of Western Europe welfare state which provide a decent safety net and a better distribution of income and wealth that is not sustainable and destroying democracy.
4
This is stunningly narrow and reductive. The problems with capitalism are mostly with the plight of the working class in rich countries??? People who are alarmed by climate disruption are clear that capitalism is the only explanation for the self-destructive choice being made by corporate and political 'leaders' to deny reality and obstruct a global, effective response. Capitalism has also created the cultural devastation seen in the lack of funds spent for public education, poor medical care and chaos in our healthcare system (here in the US), insufficient affordable housing everywhere (not just in the major cities), proliferation of part-time jobs with no benefits, and the increasingly routine requirement that employees or consumers agree to binding arbitration (foregoing the right to legal redress) in exchange for employment or services.
At the grass roots level I see as many people fighting the obvious tribalism with targeted efforts to communicate and build relationships across the current political divide as there are people breast-beating for their side. It may not be obvious looking at social media, but there's a strong movement against the tribalism by people who choose not to even engage in social media at all.
I agree the the future of the left is murky, but at the local level there is a great deal of discussion and activity taking place that lies outside anything in this essay.
3
A scan of the comments shows that many on the “left” take great issue with Brooks’ assertions. In defense of those commentators; at least they took the time to read Brooks. I would hope those on the “right” would do the same with the leftist equivalent of Brooks. The country would be much better for it.
2
Republcans have a simple story—cut taxes to put more money in everyone’s pocket, and cut government to reduce its interference with personal freedom. And the heart of conservatism is to protect the status quo, to save the culture. The negative on this side is it creates and sustains great inequality
There is no simple democratic message that counters this narrative. What do democrats stand for? Taking money away from the rich? People whose goal is to get richer don’t want that, especially if it risks hurting the economy. Support for the poor? Are we a charity? Love of illegal immigrants? Who knows?
Liberals need sime theme. Building the infrastructure to remain competitive with China might be one, requiring both physical and educational upgrades. It will also demand more tax revenues and everyone should see some increase Including the poor. Think of the jobs! Maybe we need all those illegals
But whatever—the democrats need some core message. Yes We Can needs to become Here Is The Plan
David Brook, smh...he seems intelligent and speaks well and is actually a very nice man. I just don't know how he comes up with what he does.
American actually had figured it out in the 30s. The Republicans would never do anything for anyone but the rich and white. They have proved it again and again and again. As Martin Amis said, due to their regressive policies, racism, and voter suppression they deserve not a single vote. But, somehow we keep getting fooled.
1
"I just don't know how he comes up with what he does."....What would you do if you found your career welded to Trump and the Republican Party?
Mr. Brooks, if you have ever read Karl Marx you’d be surprised at how wrong you are about the societies that have made an attempt to institute his philosophies. Most of them failed because the West was so threatened they de-stabilized their experiments with provocateurs and propaganda.
From Jason Barker’s article ‘Happy Birthday, Karl Marx’
“To cite Marx, “No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.”
The transition to a new society where relations among people, rather than capital relations, finally determine an individual’s worth is arguably proving to be quite a task. Marx, as I have said, does not offer a one-size-fits-all formula for enacting social change. But he does offer a powerful intellectual acid test for that change. On that basis, we are destined to keep citing him and testing his ideas until the kind of society that he struggled to bring about, and that increasing numbers of us now desire, is finally realized.”
3
Wow. Someone is a negative Norman. Frankly, I'm throwing in with Jon Meacham's vision of the future.
Providing universal health care could be the one resolvable issue that would cut across the political divides and provide a sense of stability to all Americans. Then, the focus could shift to the economy and jobs and the best ways to ensure them. Canada achieves this by doubling the cost of gasoline. So could the United States, and it would benefit our environment as well.
2
Hopefully reality with modify the left's ideals of government solutions, mostly government makes things worse, not better.
"There are only two vibrant political tendencies in America right now: Trumpian populism and Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren-style progressivism."
There is a very simple thing that can change that. Get Rid Of Plurality Voting! If all voters were to rate all candidates, then Republican voters' preferences between Clinton-style, or even less liberal, moderation and Sanders-esque populism will be counted--without weakening Republicans compared to either. If Republican preferences between the wings of the Democratic Party are counted, moderates will cease to be in the wilderness. It all starts with looking at more than just the voters' first choices.
Mr. Brooks's otherwise thoughtful essay loses strength on his reliance on a conservative trope.
"Identity politics," just like "political correctness," is a right-wing dog whistle, aimed at discrediting the left's pursuit of justice for all. The left says, "No, you may not discriminate against anyone, period." In turn, the right hollers, "Identity politics!"
It has about as much credibility as "Bengazi!"
305
what is "thoughtful" about it?
2
Nonsense.
Your description of the left's position:"No, you may not discriminate against anyone, period." is incomplete.
You left out the part where the left 's agenda is to grant extra-constitutional rights to selected favorite populations of people, that are outside the framework of constitutional government.
An example, is to put legislation in place that forces public acceptance of the myth (e.g., unsupported by science) that a man dressed up like a woman, is a woman.
Your intellectual dishonesty is glaring.
13
The intolerance is glaring.
I used to be a moderate Republican. And then in the 80's the Republicans saw a way to gain control of Congress by embracing disenfranchised southern Democrats. Now Dixiecrats are running the Republican Party. Today the Republican mantra has become - the Federal government is the enemy (except for the military) and states rights should always prevail. No new taxes even when our infrastructure us falling apart and definitely no universal healthcare even though it has proven to work everywhere else and our present system is an absurdly expensive mess. Pander to xenophobia and racism because it has a visceral appeal to uneducated voters. Look the other way when Wall Street abuses and distorts capitalism to the point where it degenerates to feudalism. And add to that a denial of science and an embrace of alternate facts. I used to be a moderate Republican. I have not changed what I believe. But in today's lexicon I find that now I am called a progressive???? Wake up Brooks, your party isn't anything like what it used to be.
6
May 5 1818 Karl Marx born in Germany. Today Capitalism on the rocks as two great trading giants exchange menacing glances at each other. If capitalism fails it will not be due to any predictions by Marx but because the market making too many losers and not enough winners. Consumers can no longer afford to consume on credit with higher interest rates. There are alternatives according to Thomas Picketty the French economist about this era of inequality. The free market system works but not for everyone in terms of access to higher education and healthcare. Warren Buffet remarked there is a class-war and his class is winning. That spells trouble as jobs get fewer in this new age of robots and virtual reality. Many have lost faith in government as being part of the problem; if you care to look.
1
Tribalism will make governing difficult for whatever group gains power. For the Democrats identity politics, like pure democracy will end up with a dictatorship of the majority who will then self destruct by infighting over who is more equal. For the Republicans the evangelists will not budge because God is on their side and they will be successful at winning enough offices to be a thorn in the Democrat's programs for the foreseeable future, but they will self-destruct by ignoring behavioral economics until they finally precipitate a true depression. "Tribal" is the word to describe both parties and their subgroups who act like the animals from which we are descended.
Prior to Newt Gingrich, the original flame thrower who engaged in Trump type desecration of fellow legislators who happened to be Democrats, and Fox News who aligned with him and others on the far right, there was occasional harmony which produced legislation beneficial to most Americans.
On the left, there are still many sensible and responsible people who simply want living wage jobs, health care, a clean environment, and high quality education for all as a basic tenet. Even working class Republicans would agree with this premise.
As globalization increases and robots continue to replace humans in labor intensive jobs, new ideas to confront a future crisis need to be brought forward. I can't be done through nationalism or me first.
Spreading the wealth would be a good first step.
2
What the left really wants is for the poor to be dependent on the government for assistance and not be able to fend for themselves. They do not want them to be free of government services but instead receive money which makes them beholden to the liberals of the Democrat party. They are really only looking for their votes to get elected. This is what President Obama tried to do and it backfired on the Democrats.
This is why President Trump got elected. He wanted people to think for themselves and take care of themselves through gainful employment which bolsters a person's self esteem. The economy has improved dramatically and people are once again able to feel a sense of accomplishment. They did it without the help of government aid.
Can we please stop using the phrase "identity politics" and in its place use "civil rights"? Because that is, in fact, what we're talking about when women politicize #metoo and equal pay. That is what we're talking about when African Americans protest police brutality and racially-based shootings. That is exactly what we're talking about when the LGBTQ community protests the denial of transgender military service.
These are not insignificant issues. If we agree the Constitution states "all (people) are created equal", then championing those rights is nothing more than enforcing the law.
Beyond that, if the only "conservative" agenda is to give the donor class and big corporations more tax breaks, then America as we know it will no longer exist. Our government is in place to serve the common good. The common good does not stop at the defense budget. It should also encompass education, healthcare, and infrastructure. If that's the GOP's definition of communism, then the seem to have missed the greatest economic surge in U.S. history right after WWII when all of those things were still important.
6
Well, at least Brooks managed to include a reference to something anathema to conservatives: the idea that "humane" policy is possible and perhaps even -- horrors! -- desireable in a system made up of, you know, human beings.
Unfortunately, the system -- some form or ohwer of capitalism -- is not the problem we face. The problem is the human greed it enshrines.
If you need a system to cogitate on, try "Democratic Socialism". It's the best available compromise, given the human greed it must manage, if you are interested in the actual human beings and not the abstractions Mr. Brooks deals with weekly.
6
The fact that Mr Brooks didn't get the future of the American Right correct now hardly makes him a reliable harbinger of the American Left. The biggest problem with his predictions are that we have actually witnessed the results of 50 years of corporate-coddling crony capitalism, and it isn't pretty. On the other hand, we have never tried the ideas espoused by Baker. Assuming that they would fail because conservative capitalism has failed is flawed logic. Brooks disagrees with these ideas on "pragmatic policy" while ignoring the reality that his conservative policy ideas are not only impractical, but proven failures. It is past time to give true progressivism its shot.
Seeing the left as a zero-sum adherent is also a poor analogy. Sanders was rejected largely because his sums didn't add up and he could not reconcile his populist ideals with his position on gun control, eg, which is very important to the left. Additionally, I do not hear anti-immigrant rhetoric and a call for a new nationalism coming from the left. It is this very divisive tendency that is actually tearing the right apart. Likewise the descent into authoritarianism, which is another problem of the right in this country. Chavez was no less a false populist than Trump; to extrapolate the rise of an authoritarian demagogue of the left based on Venezuela's experience is once again faulty reasoning. If Trumpism continues there my be a Venezuelan-stlye backlash, but right now I can't see it coming from the left.
5
There is a zero sum war between the wealthy & everyone else. It's an ongoing class war that defines people as just another commodity to be used, manipulated and exploited by those with the economic power & political power to do so. There is a basic level of authoritarianism that comes with influence and power, it corrupts all those who embrace a domination based society regardless of the original intent. Right now we are dominated by economic power, I for one will not trade that for the second course outlined by Mr. Brooks and slide into an American version of Hugo Chavez. I hope for the first positive version of a more balanced small c capitalism where wealth is not the only criteria & domination the only objective. I believe the majority of Americans when given an honest chance will want that choice & would embrace it if it actually is allowed to happen.
4
David you may be correct in your prognosis but eventually things settle back toward the middle. As you have observed over the last thirty years (I would argue 40) we have seen the purity politics and economic policies of the right and the devastation it has brought to the 90% of us. One can suspect that a shift left will result in problems for the 10% but eventually we will come back to a middle ground to repeat the scenario all over again.
4
“But as someone who lived through the last 30 years of conservatism, I’m here to tell you…” Translation: “But as someone who has lived in a bubble for the last 30 years, I’m here to tell you…”
Brooks says “tribalism is in the air” – as if to suggest that tribalism is some kind of anomaly. But, “in the course of human events” tribalism is the norm as the Founding Fathers clearly demonstrated when, in the foundational principles of our country, they awarded equality and power to only one tribe: white, propertied, males.
Howard Zinn, in his “Peoples History of the U.S.,” offers a more realistic portrait of human behavior than Brooks is capable of. He says: “Nations are not communities and never have been. The history of any country presented as the history of a family, conceals the fierce conflicts of interest…between conquers and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalism and workers, dominators and dominated in race and sex. And, in such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people…not to be on the side of the executioners.”
“Politicians these days have decided they don’t need the thinkers anymore,” cries Brooks. But “thinking” for Brooks means re-writing history to fit his naïve cosmology, and fabricating elaborate myths about the family of man living in communal harmony while animated by inspiring narratives. All of which, beyond utopian fiction, is an alternative reality.
It’s poor little David vs. big, bad reality.
6
I love you Brooksy, but first you say that over half of millenials reject Capitalism, and then you say in the next paragraph, that you have not concluded most on the left reject Marxist ideas. That's a perfect example of a direct contradiction. Unless of course you were to propose a 3rd economic system, which would be nonsense, because there are two: one that protects individual liberty and the other that preaches about collectivism. Only the first has been shown to work in terms of protecting civil rights, so I'll stick with capitalism, and ignore the Marxist apologists. But the left really does see the market as an enemy! What is a market other than billions of individuals making infinite choices as to what to do with their money? Nothing. So leftist have decided to pick a fight with every single person who wants to buy what they want to buy. Seems silly to me, what's sillier is that they pretend they're virtuous for picking up this fight.
Then he goes on to say the left doesn't want to destroy the market, just regulate it to death. Seems like Marxism thru the back door. You need to stop apologizing for ignorant leftists, and find your way over to Wall Street's Journalism. You talk about redistributing wealth without calling it socialism. It's socialism. You lost me with ethnic authoritarianism of DT. Huh? You do make the right conclusion at the end, but I'm not sure why you rejected it at the beginning. The authoritarian left is the biggest problem we have.
2
The left sees an unregulated, out-of-control casino market, on a playing field tilted towards the already-too wealthy, as the enemy. Rightly. There is no authoritarian left. The ignorance of the authoritarian right - Trump's GOP - is the biggest problem we have.
4
Wrongly. Wealthy are not the enemy, you have been brainwashed by mainstream culture in general, and hollywood in particular. The most pernicious popular view in this country is that the wealthy, the capital generators are the enemy. On the contrary, they are the one's who have, continue to, and will always make this country great and competitive with the rest of the world. If you succeed at taking down your stated enemy, you will wind up much worse off. Lifting people out of poverty is completely different and unrelated from taking the wealthy down. This type of thinking needs to end and Capitalists, unfortunately need to take time out of their already extremely busy day to correct misguided ideas like the one presented above by wcdevins of PA. Let me repeat, the way to get the opposite of what you want is to take your stated enemies down with regulation, redistribution, and the like. This thinking is a cancer on our otherwise healthy society.
The policies that enable the wealthy to control far more than wealth are the enemy. The wealthy may generate capital, but largely only to their benefit. My "stated enemy" is your statement - a typical small-minded straw man creation by a conservative who cannot see past the simplistic of economic "ideas." While the wealthy may not be my enemies, however much they act like it, they are certainly not your friends. The wealthy have had too much for too long. They do not need to be taken down, only taken down a peg. Leveling the playing field is beyond their comprehension. Regulation is the only means capable of making such a change. "Corporate good citizenship" is an oxymoron. Unapologetic capitalists need to see beyond their stultified thinking and get beyond the false equivalence of unregulated corporate-coddling crony Capitalism = Democracy. It doesn't. The end result of unregulated capitalism is the winner-take-all situation we now have. It is the antithesis of Democracy. The current unbalanced situation in the USA is my proof. I'm afraid the brainwashing has occurred on your side of the aisle, not mine. It is not my ideas that are misguided, but yours and those of every other status-quo corporate capitalist cave-dweller who cannot see the wrongheadedness of 50 years of their treasured yet tremendously flawed and ultimately failed policies. When regulation is a cancer the society is already over the cliff.
Well, when you need an electrician, call a plumber for his opinion. Thanks anyway, David.
3
The Left will certainly be sure to check in with David Brooks to learn what they should do next.
1
Settle the zero-sum score once and for all. Pay Reparations w/ regard to slavery. Remember, w/o the wealth having been misappropriated from slavery, France would never have enabled our Independence in the first place. And the shunned Whiskey Rebellion for equality would never have served debt as our major tool to elevate the wealthy as our REAL welfare queens. So put THAT in our Preamble's more-perfect-union ORDER, Mr Brooks!
2
I was with you until you compared Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump. Talk about false equivalency. There is so much wrong with that comparison, its hard to know where to begin.
Bernie Sanders said he didn't agree with "open borders", not a "more open immigration policy" as you state here. While "open borders" is definitely a more open immigration policy, opposing open borders does not mean you're opposed to a more open immigration policy and does not make you a xenophobe. Bernie is a staunch supporter of DACA, wants a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and wants regulated immigration moving forward, basically a moderate grand compromise - hardly the "naked nationalistic" thinking and "xenophobia" you're falsely claiming. You should be ashamed.
If this is the best intellectual right-wing critique of the current state of left, you're grasping at straws.
And I'm not even a Bernie fan.
7
Republicans are very good at politics and horrible at governance. Democrats are good at governance and not so good at politics. Regardless of whether it is conservative or liberal, we need good governance right now. Unfortunately, politics wins elections. Until the Republicans totally collapse under the weigh of their own corruption and incompetence we are stuck in Trump world, his disciples will never abandon him.
218
Where is FDR when you need him?
2
Your strategy here seems to be to reduce the left to a stereotype that you imagine it to be and then criticize it for being that. The evidence that you draw upon to make this case is so weak as to be laughable. You've obviously got a predetermined idea of some of version of the left that you don't like, and you continually deploy it, apparently because you cannot cope with the idea that most people on the left are actually quite reasonable.
3
False equivalence.
One can almost pity high-toned Republican pundits like David Brooks who are ashamed that the underbelly of their party has been exposed.
But no, Mr. Brooks, the shocking failures of your GOP are not likely to be replicated by Democrats, and though you might consider Elizabeth Warren a loud lady, she is no Hugo Chavez and is unlikely to wake up one morning transformed into a populist demagogue ... or even into Ivanka.
You dislike Democrats’ “identity politics”? You consider them potentially Marxist and dictatorial? Why? Because we recognize “groups” that your party derides since they’re not white Christian men? Yes, we can be preachy, but we don’t rally together by insulting immigrants, African-Americans, Muslims, homosexuals, children who receive free school lunches, or elderly citizens who rely on Social Security. That’s not part of our schtick.
And you know it.
The most extraordinary fact about your Party isn’t that it elected the rattlesnake, Trump, as President. The Republicans’ most amazing accomplishment has been its LACK OF ANY accomplishments that would actually HELP their constituents deal with healthcare, education, infrastructure, and insure their access to clean water and air. Instead, the Republicans spent eight lazy years insulting (black) Barack Obama, and then found themselves incapable of passing useful legislation.
All they really knew how to do was cook up
hateful resentments. An ugly breakfast.
2
Want to tighten the US labor market let’s start by eliminating the 62 million who voted for Trump - just kidding. Still we’re overdue for another leveler!
1
Ok so the next election is Hugo "Chavez" Jones vs. Donald "The" Trump. Who wins?
Old fashioned Reaganesque right had three components: "family values", hard line foreign policy, and the small government/ low tax policies. They lost all the "family values" battles a decade ago. Their hard line foreign policy lead to Iraq debacle and lost credibility. On the last point, small government/ low taxes, however, they have won big. On that front, any leftist government of the future has a long and tough climb to reverse them, without collapsing the economy. The right wing supreme court will be another big problem. So, we may all wish for the left to win politically, but it would not be a cakewalk doing the actual governing!
2
Chavez vs Trump, thank you Mr. Brooks my nightmare is complete now.
2
A fine column, but it is shocking to me that it has taken Mr. Brooks this long to put it together.
As a committed Liberal, it seems to me that a large number of people have been sharing these exact insights about the risk to the left since at least Trump's election 18 months ago and some for several years before. Surely the conversation at this point has moved beyond identifying the risks so simplistically and is now well into how to hedge against them as we on the left progress?
Brooks warning is well taken, but a commonplace at this point.
Well, David Brooks may be right about the right, but he is on very shaky ground about the left. Yes, conservatism has been hi-jacked. Indeed, it is the right that has turned to the Venezuela model, with Trump as the Chavez wannabe. Because conservatism lacks roots in the liberal enlightenment, it has no commitment to liberal values, the truth (myth is in its blood) or concern for the workers and the poor. Nationalism and fascism are its typical endgame.
I agree with David that some on the left today find nationalism and identity politics appealing. I also agree that both are losers games. But just who is the Hugo Chavez waiting in the wings to take over? The competing camps in the Democratic party have been associated with Hillary and Bernie. Hillary (who for all her many faults is no Hugo Chavez) toyed with identity politics because she thought she could slice and dice her way to electoral victory. In fact, in 2016 this was a recipe for electoral defeat, as it fueled the support for Trump. Perhaps then Bernie is our Hugo Chavez. Problem is, his camp rejects identity politics and instead focuses on just those 'positive' left appeals that David notes - economic security and solidarity.
1
Bernie’s current base might reject Identity Politics (for the most part); but if Sanders (or whoever on the left) is to truly rise as a national leader; the easiest way (and possibly the only way) to do it would be by embracing identity politics.
I would appreciate a column from Mr. Brooks that looks at the "successful" countries of the world as rated by the many UN indices and examine what commonalities they all have. I venture to guess that they would bare scant resemblance to the present US situation.
Caring for the situation of ALL the population, not just those with the most money, for starters. It's being done successfully in many parts of the world, it doesn't require re-inventing the wheel. It does require a will, a will that exists in surplus by the progressive left. It's time for a change.
1
David, you are misinformed about the Global South or the developing world, whatever you wish to call it. Globalization has been disastrous for many populations. Global warming--caused by unfettered capitalism, which does not allow rational thought on the common good, to create regulation that might deter warming--threatens hundreds of millions in South Asia and Africa. Half of Indian children are still malnourished. China is an environmental disaster. That is the triumph of capitalism?
6
Isn't it great that we have a conservative like David Brooks to tell us that our position would be so much better if it were just more like his?
I've watched this country go further and further right for nearly forty years and whenever the left seems poised for a big win those on the right (and corporate interests) always seem to be there saying "Now, now. Let's not be too hasty. The country's not ready for (single payer, higher minimum wage, equal rights for women) and the mainstream Democrats then put forth mushy republican lite candidates that don't really stand for anything other than being re-elected. We've been on a slow slide to fascism for the past four decades and it hasn't worked out well. Can we try a little European style socialism for a change?
8
After his disreputable and ill called for attack upon Abby Hoffman
I find it difficult to take anything he says seriously. This is a most dire position, but for someone who so prizes himself for his smarts - as he asks us to - nothing could have been worse than the corruption of the intellect, let alone any show of compassion for one of the left's most tragic albeit well meaning individuals.
David, as much as I enjoy your columns I wish you would do away with half truths when it comes to leftist countries. I presume your comment on this today was aimed at Hugo Chavez. How are we to know if a leftist agenda would work when as soon as one pops up it is immediately maligned by the press and mauled literally or rhetorically by the U.S. on behalf of of their big donors. We have been doing this since the fifties, through out the America’s and the Middle East, we don’t allow the Left to establish a bulk head that might threaten our extraction industries, preferring to frame it in lies, subvert it through rigging their elections, murdering the “rebels”, or the weapon du jour destroy their economy with sanctions and the aide of international bankers who set them up for failure then strip mine the assets. We make this much more complicated than it need be though. Were we to magically reinstate and enforce the tax rates of the fifties and apply the maxim of Roosevelts New Deal, applying it to needs of the twenty first century it would be like throwing a light switch, we would be living in a new world. The chance of that happening without a blood in the Street revolution are zero as the 1% have a very firm grip on the reigns of power and are able to control the narrative and minds of The American People as well, I see no candidates out there that are game changers they are all in one way or the other tied to special interests. It will get much worse before it gets better.
2
A detailed knowledge of Marxism is evidence of a misspent youth.
I read a lot of Marx in college, and afterwards. I took a seminar on Das Kapital offered by the American Communist Party.
Marx made a lot of mistakes. He was right about two things. The natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth and income at the top. Another tendency is to experience increasingly destructive economic downturns.
This is what did happen until the New Deal. Economic policies of the Roosevelt administration countered these tendencies by raising taxes on the rich, strengthening labor unions, and instituting minimum wage laws, unemployment compensation, and Social Security.
Beginning with the Reagan administration the Republican Party has scaled back New Deal reforms.
As a result, the tendencies Marx noted are returning. The rich get richer, as incomes for most Americans stagnate or decline. Recessions are becoming longer and deeper. They are followed by jobless recoveries, when the per capital gross domestic product grows.
2
Imagine how much better off the lower economic populations of the U.S. would now be had LBJ not upended and rewritten immigration law to let in 1 million+ every year. The U.S. population is 330 million with approximately 100 million immigrants since 1965. This was an evil and cynical thing for both parties to do the working poor and middle class.
1
Two old Russian men walk down the main street in Moscow, awed by the changes they have seen in their lifetimes.
"You know, Sergei," says one, "what is terrible is that everything the government ever told us about Communism was a lie!"
"Yes, Igor", responds his friend, "but what's worse is that everything they told us about Capitalism was the truth!"
3
Immigration conflicts with nearly everything else liberals want to achieve. A diverse work force is more difficult to organize into labor unions than a homogeneous work force. As more non whites move to the United States, more white vote Republican.
By competing for jobs, consumer goods, and places to live, immigrants depress wages and inflate prices. Consequently they raise profits.
Immigration means that jobs are harder to find, harder to keep, and that they pay less while they last.
The immigration Reform Act of 1965 is a major reason for the growing income gap.
David,
The problem with this article is the use of the word Capitalism. We don’t have it.
Go back an re-read Adam Smith.
The fact that I can build a spoon factory in Asia and dump my manufacturing junk into the enviroment, the fact that my workers have no workers comp if they cut off their arm and on and on...
Means that if I try to buld that factory in Indiana that their spoon will cost less even including all the energy costs of shipping it half way around the world.
The left should be ponding the theme of “Real Capitalism” without the shift to places were the free rider problems are legion.
The problem is not Capitalism, it is the lack of the “Real Thing”
Terms matter, specifically define yours before you write an article. Better yet, how about an entire article defining the major terms you use in all your writing so we know what you really mean?
1
The future of the left is clearly right.
The moral foundation of market capitalism: Individuals acting to maximize their own selfish advantages. The market prophet, Adam Smith, was clear about this.
This is supposed in the aggregate to maximize collective benefits, but even Adam Smith understood this is highly suspect, and he spent considerable effort writing about the need for regulation to temper to basic predatory nature of market capitalism. The idea of a "hidden hand" that brings about the greater good clearly is magical, as are all tricks that rely on hidden hands.
Socialism is based on a simple principle: To each according to need, and from each according to ability. Children understand this easily. A child drowning in a pond must be saved by someone who has the ability to do so.
Even Marx--who is not representative of all socialism--said the aim was for the state to wither away. In historical fact, Marxism was kidnapped by Stalinist gangsters, but that wasn't because of Marx's ideas any more than the Inquisition was the fault of Jesus' teachings, which also emphasized the need for those with ability to help those in need. The meek will inherit the earth when those with loaves and fishes share so that all can eat.
Mr. Brooks is limited to tinkering at the edges of our problems because his starting point is based on a belief in the magic of hidden hands. We need to help one another if we are to survive. Greed is leading to extinction on this planet. That's not some magic that is hidden from us.
4
So Mr Brooks says that his beloved GOP is the party of the aging minority. Poor babies. Makes them sound like my old Nanna.
The GOP is the party of old white men, totally lacking in diversity in a diverse world. They have pulled up the drawbridge on the rest of society and used their economic might to stack the deck in their favor. These rich old white men have used their wedge issue to build a voter base of Christian Right hatred for gay rights, womens rights and abortion, the NRA obsession with unfettered gun ownership, and poor white racists desperate to keep " people of color"in their place".
2
The American Left has morphed from a more classic liberalism into radical statist-collectivist progressivism.
As a result, the American Left has no future whatsoever.
The excesses of the Obama administration were, in the aggregate, the straw that broke the camel's back.
The silent majority have been energized by the radical left wing ideologues and the progressives will be routed from American politics for decades to come.
1
Objectivist,
It would be helpful if you could answer the following questions. Please define the silent majority, and include a definition of “flyover country” though you didn’t mention it. How do you define “radical left ideologues”? What are the values that define you?
What were the excesses of the Obama administration in your view? Because to me we weren’t able to accomplish enough. What is it about liberals and progressive liberals that frighten those on the right? As a progressive liberal I don’t understand where the hate originates from some on the right.
Thank you in advance.
1
Anyone who thinks that the Obama administration was a far left socialist operation is standing so far to the right that the center is no longer visible to him. It is the American right engaged in a self-defeating cannibalistic frenzy. Unfortunately, we are all being chewed up in their hateful vision of a grave new world. The silent majority is neither. It is a loud, continually devolving mass of ignorance, bigotry, and racism which needs to be expunged from the American landscape so that the rest of us can move forward.
3
BMU:
Your cheap reference to "hate" in your last sentence spells it out succinctly.
Anything that does not agree with the Left Wing Agenda is "hate".
You and your ilk are entirely intolerant of people who elevate federalism over statism, individual liberty over collectivism, the right to express a personal opinion vs. forced throttling free speech with the Progressive moral compass (as noted above), and the option to choose and donate to causes individually vs. mandated redistributionism.
Not many Marxists on the left that I know of. Most see optimal economic systems balancing free market with adequate governmental controls so that the engine runs smoothly as a car mixes air and fuel. Both Trump and Sanders bases realized that inequality had reached a boiling point and something had to change. Sanders urged government controls...policy shifts to redistribute the booty. Trump dressed up like a working class hero, but shed the costume soon after Halloween and made his Faustian deal with the Conservatives whom he repudiated in the primary campaign. I'd love to see a column by you, Mr. Brooks, admitted that (not you) but your party is the party that wants the few to have all the wealth while the rest of us eat stale Tastykakes.
1
Left wing popularist sound like Trump? Well when Trump is right. Why does the left care more about dreamers than working class Americans? Is it possible to care about both. They are for the 15 dollar mininum wage but are on the ground floor investing in automation replacing those jobs. They hate religion mainly Christian and regularly attack Catholics and Evangelist not realizing atheism and climate change as practise by them are religions.
Maybe we are suffering from a split personality but the future of the left is on the right. It happened before eighty years ago.
Maybe David’s on to something here. The tribes denigrate each other and talk more about how hopeless the other side is rather than shutting up about that stuff and focusing on what can make things better. It’s the trash talk that’s got us focused on what’s bad about each other instead of what can make things better. It’s hard to do, when Fox and “friends” keep lying, but ignore that as much as possible and fight the good fight. Hate and anger just don’t work.
I don't fear the left. David this piece is another case of false equilivancy. For comparison look at the folks who attended the march in Charlottsville vs the marche(s) against gun violence. Just look at the photos and see the physical composition and look at the faces. The right are grimacing and angry shouting blood and soil and the left are joyful and singing.
2
A very telling story happened at Harvard in 2012: a Panel of "experts" on Public Health Policy came up with ways to reform and strengthen Medicare financially for the long-term; it included raising premiums, curtailing benefits, etc. The university administration called their bluff by proposing implementation of this policy first to THEIR OWN health insurance. The faculty went on strike against it. Bottom line: the liberal prescriptions are despised even by the liberals themselves. The American public thus see the Democrat party for what it is: a bunch of hypocrites. At least Rs are practicing what they are preaching. This, the voting public sees and the D;s will pay for it at the poles.
2
Raising premiums and curtailing benefits are the conservative answers to healthcare, not the liberal ones. You really need to get out more. Communism in the old country must have really scared a lot of people "right", didn't it?
1
I love how these right wingers when they finally see the light that THEIR policies failed the American Middle Class and Working Class they say the left will go full Venezuela on our economy. It will bankrupt us blah blah blah.
Venezuela has had the largest economy in the world stepping on it economic neck since they kicked out all the big oil companies that were stealing their oil for pennies on the dollar.
People need to see through all the media and governments lies.
1
There's a simple argument at the bottom of Brooks's analysis: My idealistic and thoughtful conservatism was hijacked by the tribalism of the right. Therefore, your idealistic and thoughtful liberalism (with which I disagree but won't tell you why) is likely to get hijacked by the tribalism of the left. And then you can join me on the sidelines bemoaning what's happened to our parties.
Well, maybe. Misery loves company. But just because there was, for years, something rotten at the core of the mainstream Republican Party that enabled the takeover by the Tea Party and Trumpism it does not follow that the ideological and pragmatic debates among Democrats will lead to the same demise of core liberal principles. Maybe the problem has more to do with conservatism itself, and the tribalism that it has engendered throughout the nation, than with the plight of moderation in both parties that Brooks sees.
396
Do you disagree that there can be something rotten at the core or progressivism? To reframe, is there a beast in all of us? In all groups that needs to be kept in check? Given my response, I would say yes mostly because I have seen it first hand. I loath a 'both sides' argument but ultimately we are talking about groups, humans that are so messy, we are only organized to the extent that we can except our faults and course correct. We are a two party system, and until that is systematically changed we need both parties to admit their faults and shape up. Mostly, because I have conservative friends feeling like they are without a true voice, that's a shame. We need each other to be better. I keep thinking back to how Teddy Roosevelt informed FDR, and ultimately the parties aren't that different in the wide angle view, present microscope moment is exceptional.
5
I'd like to agree with Dagwood because it ought to be true that liberals/progressives act on their core beliefs in the rule of law, justice, and equality, People who understand and uphold the US Constitution and Bill of Rights ought to run our country.
People who don't have no business in leadership positions.
So, if most Democrats act on their beliefs, then I'd say that they can avoid the pratfall suffered by the republicans.
I'm voting Democratic this fall and hoping we get a crop of candidates who are wise enough to champion the working people in all fifty states.
22
Beautifully put, Dagwood. While it's true that the tribalism that Brooks thoughtfully describes could infect the progressive movement as well, there seems to be something in conservatism's DNA that left the Republicans far more susceptible to being swallowed down the tribalism rabbit hole.
8
true progressives (committed to the widest view of the preamble's promise to "promote the general Welfare") would begin with employment/training programs like the roosevelt era WPA and CCC...today's progressive would add the same kind of plan for education, (beginning from k-12, to vocational training and college studies), and health care...the operative words are equal access to equal opportunity...the foundation of "the general Welfare."
regulation of wall street, rather the economic engine of democracy than its master, is, of course, an element, but less to limit its power than to ready and aim it at clear targets.
the lack of cogent planning, the waffling and ranting, is no doubt connected to the drift of the democratic party away from its traditional base, working men and women, toward the embrace of wall street profiteers (anti-social capitalists?) and their k street agents...hi!!ary clinton's loss, for all the blaming, and despite her questionable talents and temperament (see tv day and night) is due precisely to that, the party lost the trust of too many voters who felt abandoned.
so, whoever tries to pick up the pieces, don't! instead, make a simple singular statement of commitment to "the general Welfare," backed up by a litany of indelible, uncompromising pledges thereto....employment, conservation, education and health care. Necessary reforms to allow these will identify themselves and be as much part of the plan as sharpening tools to any task.
"The Republicans seem to be turning themselves into an aging minority party." I had to read that sentence twice, while visualizing the congressional Democrat leadership.
.
"The second task would be to ensure economic security for all. This would involve raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, providing universal basic income and having the federal government provide a paying job to all who want one."
.
The general rejection of this idea. This isn't just a jump off the stupid cliff. It's putting a trampoline on the cliff and Beavis is live Face-booking his jump. "Look at me. Look at me."
"...the federal government provide a paying job to all who want one."
.
Now, the specific reason this won't work. The military has long shed uniformed positions in favor of civilian contractors. The reason being, some jobs will only be around for a limited number years. If the job goes away, what to do with with the people? Retraining? Relocating? $15 an hour. Withholding? Benefits?
.
Has anyone taken pencil to paper and worked this out?
A good book report David, but you can do better.
The left successfully marketed the ever so popular, Social Democratic Welfare State Model, a fine model offering something for everyone. Problem turned out only a few have benefited. The Democrats need to re-group and spruce up there Shangrila fantasy . If they do they'll get back in charge. Trump has no place in this fanatsy.
To paraphrase one of Olympia Dukakis‘s lines in the movie Moonstruck, “What you don’t understand about the Left, David, is a lot!”
I suggest a more productive use of your time and your readers’ attention would be to focus your attention on what’s wrong with the Right — there’s much more there for you to explore and worry about.
2
The DNCC and Nancy Pelosi have been filling my inbox with pleas to vote against Trump's this and the republican congress' that. Their playbook is the 'us and other' construct. Enough! Just stop! David's imagining of the future of the American left will come to fruition only if the DNCC continues talking down to true blues and only eludes to what we know to build a healthy, prosperous America: the evening of wealth, public education that pays a highly professional and educated teaching force (see Finland), a humane health care system (see Denmark) a modern, clean and vibrant infrastructure (see Germany and Japan), an effective and health oriented environmental program (see the rest of the civilized world), And yes, of course this will cost, big time, as well as create jobs and lift all boats. But an 'us and other' DNCC strategy for 2018 and 2020, we all lose.
Any group can devolve into 'us vs. them' and even though its annoying to heed this warning from a Conserviative, it's just true. No group is immune from the imperfections of humanity, as Kant said, "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made." If we were to have a discussion about progressivism, the left and its 'perfection' it would be a short conversation. The extent to which the group can admit its shortcomings, vulnerabilities and get feedback will be the extent that it prevails. I'm concerned about the Nazi/Fascism/Hitler lingo of a devolved conversation. At the end of the day, we are all American as cliche as this sounds. And if the progressive movement can elicit the better angels of the American spirit, if the candidates can be accessible, listen and empathize and essentially truly represent their republic than there is hope. Right now, any 'us vs. them', name calling, xenophobia fueled ignorance, makes us like any unconscious group going to an ultimate destructive end. It will be a more enlightened, awake and group knowing that it is always striving that will survive the current state of endemic corruption of special, anorexic democratic ideals. 2016 gave us this persistently painful wake up call of a Trump Presidency, that democracy is fragile and we still on the precipice with our feet dangling over the edge everyday. So let's take feedback in this article and do better.
78
Thank you! What scares me the most is the thought that if, and maybe when, a left-wing version of Donald Trump comes along, there may be a temptation to "Give 'em a taste of their own medicine." If Donald Trump were to be the ultimate doom of the left, that's how it would come about.
2
But Elaine, what do you do with people who refuse to look at history or data, who lie over and over again, who believe in myths?
How do you deal with them.
3
There is no need to underline, once again, that in any group you can find radicals, moderates and conservatives in its midst. Liberals follow this pattern so it is not reasonable to anticipate the dominance of the most vociferous element. Liberals are not against capitalism. They are against the excesses of capitalism. They think that if you let capitalism go unchecked, it will work only for owners, corporations and investors, leaving workers to languish. To borrow a neglected phrase, they believe in a well-regulated capitalism. They do not think that the "market" is sacrosanct and that it will solve all problems. They believe that government has a role, and responsibility, when the market creates problems and when it goes against the interests of people at large, i.e. pollution created by industry, predatory lending, manipulation of the market, health care. There is no need to insist on a constant opposition. If you don't want a struggle between the have and have-nots, work to make sure that there are no have-nots.
1
Brooks should spend his time and energy assessing the American Right, a subject about which he has some familiarity, and stop appraising the Left, especially on the basis of one chat with one "economist."
The article really is a celebration of the so-called Rockefeller (moderate) Republicans who died out when the Goldwater-Reagan wing triumphed in 1980. Proof: he calls Bill Clinton a liberal, instead of what he truly is - a NEO-liberal. It indicates, if Brooks is correct, that the Democratic Party has migrated to the middle ground vacated by the Republicans.
The "free market" is the essence of an economy, and without it one might just as well have a collective form of economic organization. Brooks should know this even if the economist he quotes does not. THE ESSENCE OF HAS TRANSPIRED IN THE GLOBALIZED ECONOMY IS THE DECLINE OF COMPETITION. Increasingly, monopolies, cartels and oligopolies dominate not only US markets but world markets.
Only an 'economist" would claim that it is silly for people to see the market as the enemy. It is the lack of FREE markets and FREE competition that is the enemy. Capitalism, or any other "ism," will work better when the organization of the economy is not controlled either by a small number of capitalists or a small number of bureaucrats. Given a world population of 7 billion, how many people actually make the decisions that determine our economic welfare?
Make the economy work better? Wealth is created from the BOTTOM UP, Mr. Brooks!
2
In the case of Universal health care, I don't see why a middle ground couldn't be reached:
Inexpensive health insurance with low or no co-pays for PREVENTIVE health care, and the government pays for catastrophic coverage. Medicaid coverage for the poor, Medicare for the elderly. Medicaid and Medicare negotiated drug prices.
The best lesson I've ever learned about negotiations is: The best contract is one where nobody is completely HAPPY with it, but EVERYONE can live with it.
It's a numbers game of costs. How to pay for double the population we now have since the 1960s, when preventive care was the answer as the frontline defense. It just can't provide now an even larger opportunity for greedy doctors and medical facilities to run more wasteful and duplicate expensive tests passed along to taxpayers. The left wants single payer. Well, only 2 nations on the planet have that: Taiwan and Canada - for their tiny populations. The left wants a lot of stuff they can't pay for. The right doesn't want to pay for much of anything but tax breaks for churches and corporations. Then there's the problem that 30 million abled bodied millennials Obama added to Medicaid already serving 40 million elderly and disabled. He knew it was unsustainable. Half of all U.S. births are now paid for by taxpayers via Medicaid. The largest demographic is millennials, all in their prime breeding years. That's also fiscally unsustainable. So, Dems and Pubs are left with only one option: form coalitions to remake the health system so that it finally works and is actually affordable, which it still isn't. ACA just moved deck chairs on the Titanic. Dems won't admit it and Pubs won't devise a better solution that doesn't take away birth control and make those getting Obamacare freebies to pay something for their own health costs. Rinse, repeat. Meanwhile the national debt is $20 trillion and growing, all of which will land on Gen Z now in middle and high school. Because - math.
Regarding Mr. Brooks’ quote from Bernie Sanders on immigration, I believe more context is needed. Ezra Klein, in an interview with Senator Sanders, asked about open borders. Senator Sanders replied that this was a Koch brothers scheme indeed, but he also said: “It would make everybody in America poorer —you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.”
Hardly sounds like a Trump position.
Thank you, New York Times, for providing links to the entire source providing context.
2
For the lefties out there in comment land: the point is not to deride the fact that Brooks is dwelling on the negative - he stated that he would be when he started with the Utopian vision at the beginning. The point is to acknowledge the potential pitfalls so that they can be addressed. There is tremendous tribalism on the left. There are many unrealistic economic assumptions - as shown by support for Chavez on the left for the entire time he was destroying Venezuela. It is only now that he is dead that a significant portion of the left is backtracking and can admit he was partly to blame. If you can acknowledge and address some of your own issues you will be more acceptable to the center.
1
As a Bernie supporter I don't get the reference to his restricting immigration.
On identity politics: Who came up with this phrase? Of course we all "identify" with our ethnic or social group. Always have, always will. But that is the great experiment of the USA: Can we act in concert with others for the common good of all? I believe Bernie was truly shocked when interrupted by the Black Lives Matter women during his campaign speech. Didn't they realize he was on their side?
Democrats seem to have accepted the criticism that they "forgot" the little guy and so lost the 2016 election. Not true, but the uninformed took the bait. What has the GOP done for them? Please read Paul Krugman's column in today's paper.
2
I would argue otherwise: the Democrat Party is going to lose again, and lose BIG, in November. The average Jane, the unaffiliated and undecided, is appalled by the constant attacks on the President and his policy. These attacks are personal, vicious, unfair, and completely political. All the left can think about, it seems, is impeachment. It is atavistic. The common decency of the public is offended by that. It is a known fact that no accomplishment of this (so far) VERY effective Administration (by any independent objective account) is given credit to by the left. I predict the left will lose BIG as a result of independents voting against it in the mid-terms.
1
I appreciate your acknowledgement of the merits of a very progressive agenda. You also make some good points about the dangers in the progressive movement. However, as usual, you demonize "identity" politics instead of recognizing that these conversations are about creating fairness in systems for groups that have always gotten less in any system we have devised (women, African Americans - you know pretty much anyone that wasn't born male, straight and in the middle class).
3
Supply and demand are core elements of every economic system, making it ironic that so many, from the left and right, refuse to apply it to labor. An influx of low-wage labor can either fill a void and improve economic prospects, or depress wages. The latter can occur at any level, but is most damaging at the low-skilled end of the scale. Managing the labor supply through immigration control makes economic sense as long as it is transparent and open to both scientific and citizen input.
1
David Brooks is raining on the energy and enthusiasm of Progressives. I don’t agree with his concluding remarks about destructive tribalism on the left. Wresting power from the wealthy means reforming politics, getting money out of politics; conflict is inevitable.
Interestingly, he outlines ways to reform capitalism, using the “market” (government actions), to shift the flow of income downward (like guaranteed basic income) to create more wealth at the bottom. He sees the result as a more humane economy. Sounds like the current Progressive agenda. Brooks, of course, always wants to be seen as a good guy, meaning he seeks to be on both sides of issues.
It would be nice if these policies/reforms could become common ground, but Brooks knows reform of politics is improbable. His final sentence appears to be a lament that Republican politicians and their financial backers don’t listen to him anymore.
2
Do you really want to redistribute wealth, Mr. Brooks, or just play at it.
Dean Baker's proposals are too amorphous and just nibble at the margins.More direct and consequential: 1.repeal the Bush and Trump tax 'reforms' 2. tax similar incomes at the same rate, i.e. end preferential ('entitlement') rates for capital gain and dividend income. 3. create at least one or two new income tax rates beyond the current high of 37%. Currently when income goes from 165,000 to 315,00, i.e. roughly doubling, the marginal rate increases from 24% to 32%, an increase of 1/3. Yet incomes of 600,000 and 600,000,000
million, a thousand fold difference, both pay the same marginal rate of 37%. An increase of 1/3 here for incomes above-pick your number 2 mil, 5mil, 10 mil-would create a new bracket of 48%. These 3 measures, especially #2 and #3 are both simple, straightforward, and consequential, perhaps their greatest disadvantages.
2
"... global capitalism has produced the greatest reduction in poverty in human history." Of course, but what's your point? We are talking about the future, not the past. The fundamental problem with capitalism is that it is rooted in growth. Unfortunately, eternal growth exists only in the minds of right wing economist, it does not exist Nature. Growth is the Hydra that if not tamed does all of us in. Alternative? We must try. Maybe with the help of technology, AI, etc. But, if we don't even try we are finished. We'll vanish from the planet.
4
Capitalism reduced poverty in some countries, but not in other Latin America and Africa are the victims of capitalism. And even in the countries where it did, it did only through the government intervention not by itself.
2
Capitalism needs to be reformed from the rapacious dog eat dog, to a system of egalitarian social democracy. Where we are not competitors , but stakeholders in our economic system. Business, worker and government all equal negotiating partners in the distribution of the fruits of our labor. The harder you work, the more wealth can be generated, the better education available, the more creative and skilled the worker. Instead of a zombie casino, we can have a productive landscape, not based on zero sum, but on enlightened self interest. Grow up America, get smart.
4
Half the U.S. doesn't pay any federal taxes, no skin in the game. We already have rampant social democracy that isn't working for a an ever ballooning nation of 330 million+. Most high births are at the bottom that pays nothing. The fiscal responsible and low breeding middle and upper are never going to want to become poorer for that.
Really? Dear David, may I suggest that you spend less time reading arcane articles from think tanks left and right and went out in the streets and byways to talk to real people. I am a proud member of the American left. I am a proud American. I am politically active. I believe that what I can't do, we can do.
So what should we do. As a country, as a culture, we should level the playing field both economically and culturally.
We have tried reduced taxes and reduced government and we are quickly descending into a "used to be" country, while our rich get richer and our poor get poorer and opportunity for those on the bottom rung diminishes. We forget that it was public education, and investment in our people and infrastructure that brought about our ascendency in the world. Those were communitarian endeavors--democratic endeavors, and we need a return to those principles. Not individualism, but community is the answer, and me and my fellow "lefties" are of a mind.
Might I suggest before you start taking the moral inventory of the left, that you look at yourself, look at the part the right has played in our current state of affairs, and begin working to clean up your side of the street.
Me and my fellow lefties are happy to "clean up our side of the street" by doing what ever work is necessary to bring about a truly democratic country with equal opportunity for all, through education and strong communities.
4
Mr. Brooks seems to think that capitalism is the same as neoliberalism. But it isn't: even in a capitalist economic system there are alternative paths better than the system that we have now, which has created unprecedented economic inequality.
Reforming capitalism would mean dumping misguided neoliberalist policies such as the deregulation of banks, and bringing government back into the business of reining in capitalism's most predatory practices.
The progressive left wants the government to crack down on abuses like interest rates on payday loans and credit cards just slightly lower than those charged by loan sharks; for-profit colleges that burden less educated people with debt in exchange for a shoddy excuse for education; unconventional gas drilling operations that permanently pollute drinking water while releasing enough methane to accelerate climate change, etc.
The left also wants an end to the authoritarian practices that our government is engaging in now (police shootings of African Americans, tepid enforcement of illegal racial and gender discrimination in employment, militarized response to public protest, spying on activists, etc).
How does any of this indicate authoritarianism coming from the left?
7
It's still all empty talk as long as the DNC is calling the shots.
4
In 2016, Democrats succumbed to the authoritarianism of Hillary Clinton.
2
"coming progressive regime? "
This is the language of a propagandist. "Regime" implies something sinister, imposed, unwanted.
On the contrary
Progressive ideals are in our constitution, if David would stop snarking, then dare to open his eyes.
6
So now David Brooks wants to be regarded as a trusted adviser to the opposition, after promoting for years the Republicanism which is destroying the country?
It would seem nothing but a sexual harassment claim is capable of booting fallen idols from the national stage. The rest of them just keep on talking.
5
Here's one big difference - Donald Trump actually exists, but there is no "North American version of Hugo Chavez" anywhere as far as I can see. This is just an attempt to conjure a boogeyman.
Let's assume you're right, and that global capitalism caused "the greatest reduction of poverty in human history". It certainly wasn't the wealthy who shouldered the burden to make that happen. It was the American middle class who paid the cost for that. The middle class which was systematically hollowed out and offshored into working poverty as opposed to middle class stability.
Why should we maintain a system which sucks the marrow out of our country for the benefit of the 1%? Why should we be supportive of "business as usual" which, over the last 38 years, has made life for most Americans harder, more precarious, more expensive, and more cruel?
The humane solution isn't just raising the minimum wage to $15. (Had minimum wage kept up with productivity it would actually be over $21/hour right now). It's also creating universal, single-payer healthcare in our nation. It's creating truly affordable, of free, college. It's investment in the environment, infrastructure, and -yes- equality for women, people of color, LGBT, and immigrants.
I'm 38 years old, and my entire life we've been living under a sadistic, trickle-down mentality. I'm sick to death of it- most of us are- and change is coming.
9
When you describe liberals in terms of apparations which thrill celebrity pundits you are lost.
Tribe?
I dislike it when corruption, waste, and inhumanity are intrinsic to our economy.
I particularly care about criminal justice and corrections reform:
A bright 12 year old could come up with a plan that netted us better recidivism rates than 78%. Republicans double down on for-profit prisons which do a worse job for more money.
The average $30,000 per inmate doesn't buy protection from rape and other violence. Many prisons are cruel, hellish, places, and I dispute that inhumanity, even to the worst among us, is acceptable.
I want reform of drug laws and sentencing.
By the testimony of John Ehrlichman, the War on Drugs was a Nixonian invention meant to hobble growing power of black communities. (It worked). Drugs were not such a threat to public safety to justify sentencing which treat use and distribution, more harshly than murder. Decades of propaganda. Tens years given to a 17 year old for selling weed is routine and inexplicable. Millions of ruined lives.
In reality, not tribal theory.
Our Attorney General, doubles down, ears plugged against science and ethics, and insists that prosecutors go for the max, to ensure that the War on Drugs still exacts huge damage and profits for his associates in the prison industry.
Or just to cause suffering?
Am I tribal to care about an honest, ethical, humane, efficient, and smart government?
1
Recidivism arrives in America when men and boys stop committing so much predatory crime. Vicious criminals are not cost effective or socially worthwhile, forcing taxpayers to pony up over and over. We can loosen the reins on pot arrests, as long as they aren't tied to other crimes, especially felony narcotics trafficking, illegal guns, sex and human trafficking, assault, rape and even murder. Peel back the left's rhetoric and many, many drug arrests come tethered to other felonies, often by repeat felons.
Authoritarian rule - authoritarianism - is bad - just plain bad!!
Eventually it ends in destruction, over-reaction, and/or chaos. It certainly always ends up punishing innocents.
Here is the landscape in the USA. About 21% of us are hard wired Right leaning authoritarian psychologically. About 9% Left leaning. The 21% and the 9% are dangerous if either or both get to decide who are leaders are. And they vote like it is a religious obligation!
In the USA the 21% is really very powerful. This 21% is 42% of the votes in 50% EVTO elections!
The GOP - an authoritarian plutocratic agent - owns this 21%. All they need is about 5% of others to swing their way. In 50% EVTO elections that makes for an easy 52% majority win.
If you want to avoid authoritarianism take every election seriously and vote unselfishly and intellectually honestly.
Consider the big picture. And VOTE. We need about 75% EVTO every election everywhere.
I have faith in majority human proclivity to do the right thing for their neighbors - what I don't have is faith in our voting habits. Too cavalier - too lazy.
Too much existentially at stake! VOTE - do your civic duty! And remember a LESSER evil is a LESSER evil! Get over your purity tests - perfection will come I guess but now we need salvation!
2
I can see why you would like the opposite of Trump to be the Left, but we have not had a president on the left who was at all as extreme as Trump. We have not even nominated one who was that crazy. So keep imagining your own reality. People on the left want fairness, truth and justice without corruption and we will continue to work toward it. Call it what you want.
5
One of the few times I agree with David. I’m a progressive gay man who supported HRC. Many Hillary supporters were attacked and villified by the Bernibros. Now the Left blog Daily Kos is supporting a very rich, very famous celebrity with almost zero accomplishments for NY State Governor: NIXON. DK loathes Governor Cuomo. Why? Because he’s a pragmatic progressive! NIXON is not trusted by the LGBT community, Labor doesn’t like her and some Jews find her tsuris. But the Far Left does not care— they have NO idea how apoplectic many Democratic women become when they hear the name Bernie Sanders for his very weak non- suppprt of HRC. Bernie: we never forget. Never!
3
You know NOTHING about the left. Progressives are much smarter and healthier than you think. We are coalescing in a good direction and by harnessing the energy of our youth, we will have some major wins electorally and otherwise, both in the long and short term.
Make no mistake: There is only one source of real threat of authoritarianism: the far-right and its Republican party enablers.
The sooner you, David Brooks, conservative apologist, realize this and denounce your hateful political bedfellows, the better. In fact, that should be the focus of your columns.
7
"What can we say about the coming progressive regime? " Babbling Brooks not only think it's a sure thing, he thinks it will be a "regime". I beg to differ.
It's no sure thing that "progressives" or "leftists" or whatever you're afraid will become a regime will gain the power you fear. Because of gerrymandering, the Koch brothers, Fox News and dare I say foreign meddling, we may get more of the same, I'm afraid. Very afraid.
But I'm not afraid of a "progressive regime" because like Democrats (which most "progressives" are), we liberals (what I call myself) don't act in lockstep and find it hard not to tear each other down and join together to win! And the Democrats in office now barely mention those things you believe will be part of a leftist takeover.
So fear not, Lord Babbling Brooks, your party will likely lose some seats and maybe even a president -- if we're lucky. But because of built in advantages, a brainwashing machine (Fox and Sinclair) and a lack of scruples, I'm afraid this leftist regime has as little chance as a Republican getting past the Pearly Gates.
3
Wow, attributing the rights motivations to the left. And pontificating as if you know. Not one maybe, or could.
And after the pontification dismissing out of hand alternatives. Because...Brooks knows. Perfect example of arrogance and over reach.
2
Identity politics are really simple. Black Americans do not want to be profiled, harrassed and killed by police. Lesbian, bisexual and transgender people do not want to be beaten and killed. Latinos do not want to be deported or see their neighbors deported. All of the above do not want to be discriminated against for jobs. And, since 42 percent of the population seems to be ok with police thuggery, homophobia and ethnic hatred, it really behooves the rest of us to do something about it. Mr. Brooks, in his bubble of privilege, just does not get this, like he doesn't get that his beloved capitalism is destroying the environment.
7
David:
Got your note about my dandelions and lawn maintenance.
Can we talk about the dead tree you didn't cut down that landed on my house? You have several more that need immediate attention. Many of them are leaning over your roof too.
Thanks
Brian
458
Your comment is awesome in its awesomeness.
29
thank YOU Brian.
20
Big smile on my face ...after the laughter subsided. Set me up for the weekend.
A perfect, and ultra-economical response.
19
Mr. Brooks writes: "Tribalism is in the air, on the left as well as on the right. It is based on a scarcity mentality, the idea that life is a zero-sum war between us and them."
The way I see it, the tribalism emerges from failing political systems, while Mr. Brook's diagnosis of its basis is inaccurate. Capitalists across the political spectrum have created artificial scarcity for the majority of us, by hoarding almost all of the profits of increasing productivity. There is no economic or moral justification for any individual or their family accruing wealth that is billions of times greater than the median--it only is achievable in a totalitarian state (Russia is close) or a corrupted distorted elitist democracy (like the current USA and to a lesser degree the EU).
The political parties of the US are major obstacles to rectifying our distorted economic system, explaining the "radical" takeovers of both sides. Soon, modern communication channels may displace these political parties unless they can formulate popular solutions for our chronic societal ills. Recent history suggests they will fail.
Imagine a new grassroots politics arising from the largest tribe of US citizens: those who value a dynamic economy coupled to a fair distribution of wealth through taxation, education, healthcare, and basic security for all, and a responsive democratic government. First, we must cut through the propaganda to clearly see our failed political system.
1
While I agree with Brooks that authoritarianism is a real possibility in today's tribal environment, it is more likely that these currents will come from the right, not the left. In terms of Brooks idea of a left utopia, it is missing a vital piece: Worker self-directed enterprises. The idea has been around for quite a while and its movement is growing. It will eventually compete directly with hierarchical capitalism and offer workers a real choice. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynbgMKclWWc>
1
Brooks writes: "...global capitalism has produced the greatest reduction in poverty in human history. The problems with capitalism are more discrete — mostly with the plight of the working class in rich countries."
I don't think Marx would have disagreed with anything in those two sentences. As I understand it, Marx viewed capitalism as the inevitable, _necessary_ stage after feudalism.
Moreover, the rich countries Brooks is referring to are the ones that are the farthest along the path of capitalism. As our economy becomes increasingly financialized, where capital is no longer factories and machines but financial instruments and bits in a silicon box, labor becomes marginalized. We see the results in the stagnating income of the middle class (in the US), economic and social decay, the destruction of families, the opioid crisis, etc.
Financialized capitalism is eating itself. There has to be an alternative.
5
What Mr. Brooks fails to take into consideration is at this point, everyone who doesn't adhere to the Republican right-conservative agenda is on the "American Left", so the last thing needed is someone from that side telling them what the future looks like -- especially when they've made the present so unbearable.
6
A classic! An aging neocon dinosaur railing against threats and enemies of years past as the world moves beyond his comprehension and brighter days lie ahead.
2
The Right has gone bonkers, an ouroboros of lies and nonsense. The pushback is sanity. If Sanders/ Warren/ Pelosi got out of the way and let a younger generation build some clout and develop some new ideas, we’d all be better off 10-15 years from now. This is not to say that the above trio aren’t good leaders, it’s just that the Democrats need to do some serious brand building to face the challenges ahead. Demographically the GOP is going to implode as Boomers age and there needs to be a sensible “realty based” alternative to fill the void.
Secondly on the nature of the wealthy, it used to be that rich folks would buy a Mercedes, keep it for 10 years, buy one lake house and pass it on to their kids... there was fiscal responsibility and a logical case for conservativism (on the household level) born out of the tough lessons of Great Depression. Today’s wealthy are so wealthy that that type of philosophy is boring. Meddling in democracy is the new “lake house”. If there was ever a segment of society that needed a philosophy adjustment (through increased taxation) it’s the wealthy.
8
It is impossible to detail the faults or benefits of modern capitalism in a single, short essay. Suffice it to say, as an example, I don’t believe that Indians from the subcontinent, the largest democracy in the world, view capitalism with a completely friendly eye.
The conservative talking point, recently beaten to death, that capitalism has “produced the greatest reduction in poverty in human history,” means very little to the man In the street, especially the white man who voted for Trump.
Lastly, the Left is far more diverse that Warren/Sanders. Please, give us some credit for more imagination than that!
3
Yes, capitalism has created a new middle class in India--but it has worsened the lot of the poor by raising prices for essential purchases (food, clothing, shelter) while keeping wages low.
3
Brooks prognosticates that progressives will devolve into the same populist and nationalist tendencies of the right-wing. I disagree fully. Progressives and the right-wing are polar opposites. The right-wing views the losers of capitalism as those not able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps - as lazy, shiftless and happy to be dependent on government largesse. They use hot-button issues like abortion and immigration to stir up their base to get them to vote against their own economic interests. They want to swim against the tide of globalism and deindustrialization, which is both futile and foolishly reactionary.
Unlike the right-wing, in which science and objective fact are devalued and derided, a progressive adheres to Enlightenment values of rationality, science, facts and empirical evidence as a means of improving lives for all. The progressive sees the problems associated with the excesses of capitalism and rather than blaming those left behind as feckless, they seek reforms to address economic inequality. Working people have not shared in the prosperity since the 1970s, and the US is now the most unequal society in the industrialized world. The middle class is now downwardly mobile and this is terrifying.
The corporate tax rate in 1960 was over 50%. In 2018, the corporate tax rate, after loopholes, will amount to about 9%. Progressives see that as dangerous. The right-wing sees it as the deserving getting what is due them. Never the twain shall meet.
4
What "Left"? There hasn't been a true Left in American since the 1919 Palmer Raids.
4
Clearly, Mr. Brooks thinks he has hit on something--in how many opinion pieces now, has he decried "identity politics" on the left. It has become his go-to argument. His side of the spectrum has completely bankrupted itself and since the identity of the right is its one dimensional white, patriarchy, it must be hard to stomach for Mr. Brooks. The fact that so many racial, ethnic, gendered, sexual identity and other "identity" groups on the left are asserting their voices, demanding recognition and a place at the table is simply long overdue. The wisdom and spirit in these movements speaks to a broader human condition that unifies us, politically. It is not the same as the white power monolith of the right which now shows its priorities so clearly in Trumpian ugliness and vulgarity.
2
And just think David, without all the Republican, Trumpism Falsehoods, we could have actually had a Democrat who would have moved right to the Center -- Hillary Clinton. But the lies from the far Right and the far Left (remember how the Right/Trump kept claiming that Hillary stole the nomination from Bernie) gave us "Trump". Don't think for a minute that Sanders or Warren will win anything -- the American people were better than Trump (it's pretty clear he didn't win legitimately) and they are better than Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who I'm afraid, while much more sane than Trump, offer little for Americans in the Center.
3
I think the New York Times should run an op-ed from an avowed leftist about the future of the American right. I imagine that people on the right would object to someone outside of their ideological camp dictating what the right ought to do, likely with great vigor. And for a good reason -- it wouldn't make sense to ask someone who was not committed to the cause nor an expert in the policy discussions made among conservatives to opine about their future.
It might be helpful in general for the New York Times to hire a progressive intellectual columnist to discuss leftist ideas on a more regular basis. I don't feel Mr. Brooks understands progressivism enough to present it at a high level.
8
Does it comfort you, Mr Brooks, to think that the left will degenerate into the swamp of extremism and hypocrisy that the right has become?
In this column, you once again demonstrate your zeal to bring order to a chaotic universe by placing people and ideas into little boxes and applying gross generalizations to each.
That may work on the right. One need look no further than congressional Republicans to find proof that the right thinks that falling into line to present a unified ideological front is more important than examining the merits of that ideology.
The “great minds” who think alike on the right castigate the left for having no “clear message”. I can think of any number of reasons one might want to consider a variety of ideas. For example, while the lemmings on the left are arguing about which direction to take, the lemmings on the right are thundering, as a united front, toward the edge of the cliff.
2
I am a great fan of David's thoughtfulness and compassion, but this is way off the mark. The worthy alternative to American mean-spirited, cut-throat capitalism is not Marxism, and the risk of the US turning into Venezuela by practicing a more just distribution of wealth is not credible. We have vibrant, successful role models exist in Western Europe, and, frankly, in many countries of Asia (Japan, in particular, South Korea as well). There we see successful, prosperous countries that invest in their own people, by providing health care, high quality basic, secondary and higher education for all, out of a recognition that this benefits the entire polity -- including elites and those who are already well off. Look, we are the only industrialized country that doesn't provide health care for all citizens. Our education performance is pathetic by international norms. The US is not competitive with Western Europe, and, increasingly, East and Southeast Asia are leaving us behind. If the dread word "Marxist" is actually getting thrown around. perhaps we could take a measured, considerate look at the actual working policies of our economic peers.
3
"there is no alternative."
Really? In a universe of infinite possibilities? On a planet with more than 200 nation states, more than 7 billion people, thousands of research institutions? You are saying there cannot be a better way? I know conservatives are narrow minded, but come on, Brooks. You make it too easy.
Also, Clinton and Obama are not liberal, moderately or otherwise. They are right of center conservatives. People like you have moved so far to the right that anyone who acts like even a centrists looks like a raging liberal to you.
7
What Marx (ism) predicts is a capitalist world where the wealth is increasing held by a small number of people (bourgeoisie), and less and less by the masses (proletariat). This is exactly what is happening in the world so Marxism will remain relevant.
However, I cant see the end game of Marxism happening in the US, where the proletariat violently overthrows the bourgeoisie and shares all private property and wealth, and I would like to see links to any writer advocating this.
I'm wondering if any academics are actually advocating for lack of private property, or if they are just analyzing how capitalism is creating huge inequalities through "Marxist" eyes.
3
David Brooks ends this piece by suggesting that "The Left" risks turning into an authoritarian Venezuela. He writes, "In Venezuela we saw how a politician used demagogic sectarian rhetoric to establish an authoritarian regime and then destroy a people"
No David, it's actually more like resurrecting the progressive
New Deal policies of Franklin Roosevelt that saved America from the last conservative REPUBLICAN Great Depression. And remember, the conservatives of the then called FDR a godless socialist wannabe dictator. Well, now that "socialist" is now ranked by historians from all stripes next to Lincoln and Washington as our greatest leader. We just want an american FDR 2.0 ,,,,, NOT a Venezuelan Hugo Chavez that you on the right like to shout.
4
You go wrong in your first paragraph. And Harvard, as so often happens these days, should be ashamed of itself.
There is not one thing called "capitalism". Your statement is without meaning. And if that's the question Harvard asked, its meaningless, too.
There is, among others, the most perverse and radical, negative and unsustainable capitalism here, in America.
In the conceited, small minded spirit of Freedom Fries, we have denied the possibility we could learn anything from other, more humane capitalist nations and focused on one thing: concentrating wealth, political influence, and most social benefits at the top 1% of our people.
This can not last. The change will come peacefully or not, but it will come. The students surveyed were correct, our system is designed to produce maximum economic and social dysfunction, and must be modified or collapse.
1
Let’s get this straight. The left’s focus on identity politics will somehow morph into an authoritarian us versus them. But the left’s identity politics is about inclusion of all marginalized groups. So who is the “them” in Brook’s argument? For centuries, the owners of the means of production has promoted conflict within the working classes. Pit blacks against whites, anglos against latinos, Christians against Muslims. Keep the workers fighting amongst themselves, and the owner’s are protected. Howard Zinn had it right. The new Progressive movement, the emerging Obama coalition, will slowly erode the distrust between ethnicities and races, and a sane, creative capitalism will emerge.
2
Only the right wing ideologs jump straight from our current position to 'Venezuela'. Most Democrats would prefer a return to Rooseveltian 'Great Society' economic values.
Ya' know , like the 50's and 60's without the racism and sexism.
A time when America was great - when we built fine infrastructure, were proud to educate our children and had ambition beyond money: all paid for by reasonable, progressive taxation on corporations and individuals.
Like it was before the Koch family gamed the system to create the moral wasteland of DC, inventing corporations as persons and delivering rewards to themselves.
Our desire is to make society more fair and equitable.
2
A couple of years ago, the right-wing propaganda machine was telling its gullible audience that not balancing the budget would turn the U.S. into "Spain and Greece."
Never mind that the root causes of these countries' economic problems were entirely different. The right-wing propaganda machine isn't into nuance but in instilling a "four legs good, two legs bad" mentality in its audience.
Now that balanced budgets are no longer important--at least, that's what the Republicans' actions indicate--the right-wing propaganda machine is telling its audience that the U.S. is in danger of turning into "North Korea or Venezuela."
Again, these are two countries with vastly different histories and current situations, but the right-wing audience, evidently composed of people who slept through their high school history and geography classes and/or haven't opened a book since they marched down the aisle of their high school auditorium, doesn't care. It has another slogan to beat up the mostly center-right Democrats with.
2
Mr Brooks, the fact that you cannot imagine a viable alternative to today's capitalist system does not mean that one cannot exist. I'm sure had you asked a Baron in 12th century Europe, he would have said something similar about feudalism.
Please, the possibilities for the world are not bounded by the imagination of a center-right columnist for the NY Times.
2
Sorry Mr. Brooks, you end your article with "Politicians these days have decided they don't need thinkers anymore" and make several references to "identity politics" but this is a distraction narrative. The only politicians that reject thinking people are conservatives and the extreme right. Identity politics do exist but only in the context of White Identity politics. These are not just my observations, but facts. Republicans have used the term "liberal" as a dirty word for so long it's now ingrained in conservative thinking. Take a look at the EPA who has removed science from the EPA's mandate. It's like the Weather Channel removing meteorologists from their staff. How about the dismal tax law that rewards everyone that doesn't need tax relief. We both know trickle down economics simply doesn't work. And the border wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for. Everyone knows the illegal immigration problem is caused by people overstaying their legal Visas and NOT an invasion across the Southern border. The list goes on and on including the credibility problem the White House and complicit Republicans have as a result of lies in the form of a narrative repeated over and over again. Liberal, progressive thinking has done great things for the nation and were based on factual data. Not ideology absent of compromise and rational thought. Your distracting from the facts with the narrative you present here is part of the problem and certainly not a true assessment.
4
Mr Brooks... Your article is as usual prone to divide all ideas into black and white. Your statement the "moderate Democrats are dead" particularly stands out as an example. After you laid out the agenda of the current democratic party, including softening the Ayn Rand form of capitalism, you go on to state that populism is a tribal entity and that it will shun the "thinkers" to be almost demagogues.
Please....Democrats do lack a cohesive agenda but they very moderate STILL. Seems to me as if they are currently the CONSERVATIVES in the political mix.....in favor of restrained federal budgets(absent huge deficit busting tax cuts), keeping medicare and social security, maintaining global trade relationships, stabilizing allies, keeping the relationships healthy among the branches of government, maintaining ethical government (think Pruitt), appointing the competent to positions of responsibility, etc.
If you truly believe what you say in the NYT then you should be arguing that the Democrats deserve a chance to retake the reins because in fact they are a lot less scary and hue to YOUR principles to a greater degree than your formerly "conservative" colleagues in the GOP.
3
Brooks is engaged in sophistry that elevates ideology rather than speak to a common core, government "of by and for" the people, ALL Americans. The size, power and grotesque inequity of our society is institutionalized in the perks of politics. Who has job security? Politicians. Who has extravagant pay and benefits? Politicians. Who fails repeatedly to resolve tax inequities? Politicians. Who fail to thwart and punish corruption? Politicians. Who fail to stem the flow of low wage workers exploited by employers happy to have desperately poor do menial tasks at absurdly low pay? Politicians. Who fail to provide healthcare, retirement and financial security on the scale they do for themselves? Politicians. Can we throw the bums out? Politicians stand in the way of free and fully accessible voting rights. Why? Just guess...
2
Yet, VOTERS keep those very same career politicians in place, because, as always, the mentality of "mine is better than yours", and "better keep the devil you know" prevails.
Brooks you're about the last person I'd go to for prophetic insight about the future of the American Left and that's not hyperbole. Owing to your fundamental disingenuousness, your role as publicist #1 for modern neo-conservativism and cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq, whose collateral damage includes destabilizing the Middle East, sparking a many decades long War between Sunni and Shi'aa Islam, you are about the last person I'd go to.
And as one would expect you're also wrong about the prospects for the American Left, which while not socialist, are Marxian.
Capital is a remarkable and protean force but it needs to grow or die and left to its own devices—deregulated— and the massive and increasingly leveraged amounts of Capital required just to compete, it leads to monopoly control of the economy.
We are now towards the tail end of a 40 years War of Capital on Labor. A war which has seen inequality soar, the working class in the US and Europe decimated and the middle class cracked open and split into a small upwardly mobile sector and a much larger section in free fall.
People will not fight for socialism, but they will fight for survival and Rights of the type laid out by FDR in his 1944 State of the Union, that is his "Second Bill of Rights."
We're not talking Marxist socialism here, but we are talking "Class struggle" and a kind of Marxian populism.
Brooks, I'll see you on the frontline, or rather, I'll see your back and your sorry behind.
2
According to Mr. Brooks the left's economic goals are now the same as the one of Hugo Chavez?
This is just one of the silliest arguments in an article full of contradictions, one penned in a quite incoherent fashion to boot.
It seems that during the farce and Commedia dell'Arte - sans the Arte - current presidency, only very few conservatives scribes have told truth to power, namely to the Trumpian power of fascism pure.
4
On the same day Donald Trump displayed yet again an absolute disregard for the rule of law, leave it to David Brooks to identify the most pressing current political issue as tribalism on the Left.
Yeah, right.
It's as though we were on the cusp of the Civil War and he described the greatest moral failure of America and the cause of the upcoming war as the North's not integrating freed African Americans quite smoothly enough.
3
The idea that progressive will be xenophobic is absurd. Dreamers and asylum seekers are high on the priority list.
And the idea that identity politics is a leftist creation defies the NRA, White Identity, Tea Party, Neo-Con, 1%, Libertarian, Election PAC, creations of the very same 30 years you have noted.
Do I think we must work to create connections across the chasms of American society, certainly. Will it be an automatic instinct ot the left, no. There is much effort required. But at least the left wants to try and not, like GOP, head for seperate bomb shelters in preperation for the fiascos they have foisted on this county. And will do it all with a gentler capitalist approach, but as an economic theory and not as a religion.
2
David Brooks has always been one of my favorite conservative writers, helping me (as a liberal) better understand the arguments of the right. It seems, however, that he's recently fallen into a trap of he trying to make himself feel better by warning that the same thing that happened to conservatism is going to happen to liberalism. I don't know another liberal who sees the country or the world as he describes here.
2
Like Douthat, Brooks has to take things to the extreme to score any semblance of an intellectual argument. This is not where the majority of Americans live. A clear majority of us want there to be less wealth inequity, more regulations on capitalism and the "robber barons" of today, and much much more acknowledgement that the system is broken and people need health care, education and housing.
7
Tribalism is not the problem, but how expansive it is. If empathy is not your thing, it tends to be a much smaller group. If the only your personal suffering counts, we are a long way's off from common decency. As John Paine remarked: "Man did not enter society to be worse off, or to have fewer rights, but rather to have those rights better secured”. So who is in the business of damaging inalienable rights...."Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.." Hint: It is not progressives. Mr. Brooks gives a half hearted capitulation that the GOP has become dangerously ego-centric, but displays lack of backbone to move in directions found elsewhere in the world.
2
Capitalism is neither a theology nor an ideology; it is a methodology. When the right gets that, if ever, we will stand a chance. As a leftie who favors capitalism, I would suggest we simply start with the idea that since capitalism has proven the greatest generator of wealth and innovation ever, we try to maximize the potential of everyone in order to take advantage of that fact. This means universal health care and a good education, letting the rest of the chips fall where they may.
5
Not here in the real world. Those of us dismayed by Trump and his minions are hardly pushing for Hugo Chavez II.
We prefer reality to make-believe. Real problems don't fall neatly into a left/right divide.
We're supporting candidates for Congress who are LESS ideological, not more; whose solutions are driven by bottom-up citizens rather than paid for by special interests. That some of those ideas seem radical only speaks to how out-of-touch mainstream pundits have become.
3
"It’s a positive, universalist agenda that aims at social solidarity and national cohesion..." How, exactly, does increasing taxes, bureaucracy and "free" money increase social solidarity? So called "progressives" forget that someone has to pay, and there aren't enough rich people to go around. By boosting the incentives for malingering and reducing personal responsibility, it would only increase resentment and anger among middle and working class people. Basically, the Trump phenomenon on steroids.
1
As is often the case with David Brooks' pieces, he both gets something right and misses the critical point. The Left isn't divided between "fair minded" thinkers and Chavez-style nationalists and authoritarians. The divide is between neo-liberals and social democrats.
The neo-liberals helped Republicans bring us the deregulation of the financial services industry, the growth of global monopolies through no anti-trust enforcement, the massive outsourcing of jobs to other countries, the proliferation of independent contractor relationships in the gig economy -- which make employees function like itinerant craftsmen -- and the reduction in tax rates which favor the rich, penalize wages and reward capital gains.
The social democrats want to restore fairness in our taxes, stop the massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the super-rich, ensure that everyone has affordable health care, make huge corporations more accountable to the public, increase competition in the market, and repair our failing infrastructure. Anything bad about this? They seem to be able to do it in Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Finland. For more on that, see Michael Moore's Where to Invade Next?
Brooks gets two things right: Our current system isn't working for most Americans. And identity politics isn’t enough to fix it.
6
The writer fails to mention that our electoral system is based on money - whoever gives the most money to candidates has their interests represented in our laws. Thanks to Citizens United this is now even worse. Progressives like Sanders want this changed, want money out of driving politics so that the common good will be the driver, not exclusively the interests of wealthy people and wealthy corporations.
4
Your description of how the emerging Left ideally should be, at least to a moderate conservative, is a pretty good description of what it actually is, and your cautionary description of how you fear it is, unfortunately, likely to evolve seems contrived. Why the boogie man? Don't be afraid of us liberals, Dave, or a swing to the left. There is nobody on the left with Trump's revolting moral character and reflexive, self-serving dishonesty, and no group with the mindless dogmatism of the right-wing fringe. I think we are capable of handling a pendulum swing in our direction in a somewhat more mature and less, shall we say, criminal way than the Trump Gang. And let's stop labeling it as "identity politics" when repressed minorities demand change.
5
Dean Baker also recommends rolling back some of the overly-generous expansions of "intellectual property rights" (i.e., government protected monopolies) such as the ever-lengthening duration of copyright and ever-more expansive patent protections.
David Brooks is wrong to focus on right and left, when the real polarity is theory and practice. The guiding theory of the right is that our society should be individualist and operate without state interference…in theory, but in practice the government is expected to provide roads, schools, and a legal framework to adjudicate disputes between individuals.
The Guiding theory on the left, on the other hand is that society should be interested in the plight of individuals that are a part of the social fabric and have programs and laws in place to prevent severe disparities in the distribution of well being and wealth. In practice They want roads, schools, and a fair legal system to act as a part of social structuring.
In short for the right and left while theory is different , they reach for very similar solutions and differ only in who is to pick up the tabs, The right thinks that economic expansion will provide corporations with funds that will trickle down to people and the left wants the government to help people that fail to receive any trifle down wealth. To these ends both right and left subscribe to economic engineering desiring similar ends which is why at times it can be very difficult to tell them apart… especially in a time of populism !
The progressive "left" needs rational leaders who aren't afraid of selecting policies from all along the political spectrum. An obvious example is universal health care; rather than promote a sweeping change (which many Americans would resist), a smart Democrat (or Republican, for that matter) would promote a public option, for starters, while encouraging the states to experiment with various approaches that insure all are covered and rising costs are reined in.
Another way of stating this is that we need to draw upon America's long-standing preference for moderate, middle-of-the-road, bipartisan politics. Right now, the extremes on both ends of the liberal-conservative political spectrum are generating all the headlines and sound bites. If the nation is going to reject Trump's populist, divisive nationalism, it will have to arise from the moderate middle, where voters are most comfortable. That is not a cure for extremism but instead a solution that leans progressive on social and cultural issues but exerts fiscal discipline on government and meaningful regulation of reckless, unaccountable capitalism.
3
David is right. For almost 250 years this country has relied on the productive politics of both thinkers and feelers. There have been two battle-cries: Feelers: "To those according to their needs" and Thinkers: "How much money do we have left in the cookie jar?" The problem on the left is that "needs" of those in "need" now contain all their wishes, too. Even our have-nots have what Croesus would dreamed of having. The problem on the right is that they are unable to negotiate a workable mid-point in politics, even among themselves. Their political syllogisms lack a minor premise, so their conclusions are only their own. The Future of the American Left is as gloomy as that of the American Right. But the oncoming gloom wll cover us all. We have lost the dictum to love one another.
2
Sanders and Warren are aging leaders and not the new face of the Democratic party. They are fine remaining in the Senate and pushing their agendas there most especially Warren. Sanders views on trade are no better than Trump's and his opposing the TTP was just a tactic to try to separate himself from Clinton. The demise of the TTP only increases China's power in the global economy. There are a whole range of younger progressive candidates who will emerge as the ticket for the Democrats to regain power and they will be not be easily captured in the us versus them style of this article. They will push to reduce income inequality, embrace diversity which is not the same as the simple notion of identity politics, and most important they will promote investing in children and youth while maintaining Medicare and expanding Social Security. Wait you will see who they are to be but they will not be over 70 years old.
4
What bothers me in "all" the points David made is why no mentioning of what drives economies the most: our politicians. For too many years now our politicians lack caring, compassion, concern for proper income distribution, as well as how the weathly seem to win with their increased tax cuts, concern for less medical coverage but higher premiums. And don't forget the enormous tax savings for corporations. The GOP is the party of themselves, not the people of our country. People is what drives economies, not writing laws saying this needs to be done or that needs to be eliminated. Politicians that should never be sent to Congress is clearly a basic problem with our nation today.
2
First of all, Marx wrote Das Kapital in1867. His thoughts were not completely wrong, but Russia got them completely wrong and the boogeyman of Communism/Socialiam became a public relations campaign. Sure Capitalism, not really the opposite of Communism, worked better, but the idea that an unfettered Adam Smith thing was necessary is just wrong. Better living standards have increased over the whole world in the last century and some places Socialism worked as well as Capitalism. Today we see China, a fully Communist country, doing as well as we did in changing its standard of living without our style of Capitalism. Dogma is in the long run almost always wrong. If we keep a system that fuels itself on greed, and make no mistake that that is what capitalism does, we may have to put more duck tape on the system like we did with Unions to keep a middle class.
I think that there are people who are successful who are driven to make Money and others, just as smart and gifted, who are driven to make Music, say, or Science. Our biology as humans is one of diversity and we have to let all things flourish. No system does that apriori, it takes rethinking and fiddling and problem solving to keep moving forward.
2
China is not a communist country. It is a one-party state with a massive free market- it is Communist in name only. China was dirt poor until it allowed private industry to dominate. So, once again, Communism does not work
" Today we see China, a fully Communist country, doing as well as we did in changing its standard of living without our style of Capitalism. " - You're right, up to a point. China's success hinges in the practice of State Capitalism. The government has its fingers in EVERY important industry and owns its central bank.
The American Left has a very limited future as long as they start off with “impose a tax...”. It’s not the taxes (although they are already onerous) as much as it is the wastefulness of those who control them. Pave the street I live on first and then we can discuss new taxes.
2
Er...the Democratic party is dominated by moderates. Why does Brooks have to keep lying to build his phony narratives.
11
For Mr. Brooks, it is like Scandinavia does not exist. It is definitely an area to be avoided when discussing socialism. Unlike Venezuela. This seems true for all Conservative writers who, like Mr. Brooks, cannot name a real world country where their small government, low tax ideas are successfully implemented. Theory is fine, but without real world examples, it is only talk. Like perpetual motion machines.
11
Time to wake up. Do a search of: Denmark: Not As Socialist (Nor As Successful) As You Think.
What we need is fair taxation and reregulation. For this we need to vote for those who believe in the democratic socialism of Bernie Sanders. The unfair tax cuts must be repealed in order to finance a social safety net and infrastructure. The Trump appointees have to go, as is obvious if we want to stop contributing to environmental damage by fossil fuels and harmful chemicals.
And Facebook is being regulated in Europe, why not here? Also tax havens are being outed with names of the beneficiaries. Imagine all the untaxed money! Bitcoin should be regulated, not adopted by Wall St. banks as a commodity like gold. China stopped mining it. It hogs electricity. It enables drug lords and arms dealers and tax cheats like our president and his cronies.
I could go on and on. Just listen to Bernie and Elizabeth Warren if you want to rescue America.
4
The change Brooks predicts, and then rejects, is inevitable. The nation's minority populations consistently grow while the ruling majority population (the white tribal faction) declines. The redistribution of wealth, or attack on the obscene wealth of the very few by taxation, will result from changing voter patterns. The change will not occur because of altered political or philosophical theories. It will happen when the majority exerts its power at the polls. Anachronistic Supreme Court Justices may delay the change for a decade or so, but they cannot stop the inevitable.
3
The changes Brook predicts, and then rejects, are inevitable. Our minority population grows annually, while the ruling minority population declines. Redistribution of wealth, or greater distribution of wealth by way of taxation, will take place not because of the political or philosophical ideas of the left or right. It will happen when the new majority forces it to happen at the polls (after a decade or so of resistance by SCOTUS).
Dear Mr Brooks,
You were doing such a good job until you came to Chavez and Venezuela! Lately, I have been very impressed with your ability to put down conservative shibboleths. But isn't the knee-jerk comparison an old habit too? More Red Scares. Venezuela is a country with a specific history and petroleum-dependent economy that have no parallels in the US.
I agree that we on the left should focus on material issues and not identitarian ones. That is a debate that will take place.
9
Brooks's breathtaking leap from a "humane", "positive,universalist agenda" proposed by the left to the horrors of the failed Venezuelan state lost me. "Tribalism", that squishy, ill-defined, but latest "go to" rationale to explain all manner of societal problems, is the apparent culprit that would inevitably lead New York to resemble Caracas.
Why doesn't the columnist precisely state what those "pragmatic policy grounds" are that result in his disagreement with those leftist policies which he, a conservative, praises? Instead he retreats to the impossibility of creating a more fair, just, and humane society thereunder based upon the intrusion of the ever lurking bogeyman, "tribalism".
I have the feeling that I've been subjected to a clever bait and switch.
4
Where is this pie in the sky thinking coming from? Moderate democrats trounced Bernie Sanders. Where is a filibuster-proof leftist Senate coming from? Why do you think people will all of a sudden get elected who aren't beholden to those who fund them? I kind of hope you're right, but I assume you're wrong.
4
I simply don't see it. Who in the Democratic pipeline demonstrates this Chavez-like tendency? The GOP has certainly become a caricature of itself. The Dems? Cynthia Nixon? Down by 25 points to centrist Cuomo. Lamb? Booker? Warren? Sanders? These are hardly Social Democratic Nationalists. However, I do sense a zero sum game. Everything has blowback, just not easily quantifiable blowback. For example, it's not that BitCoin is a fraud. BitCoin makes it clear that most of our concepts of value are fraudulent. It's all a trader's game with no connection to value.
Or... Fossil fuels made us the masters of the planet. Everything we've built, as a modern society, is connected to burning carbon. Do you honestly believe that there isn't blowback from this?
Or this...
“The businessman is only tolerable so long as his gains can be held to bear some relation to what, roughly and in some sense, his activities have contributed to society.” -Keynes.
5
This column is very wide of the mark. First, there are still many moderate and even conservative Dems, both rank-and-file and in Congress. The DNCC is trying to run more moderates and helping them against more progressive candidates. Nothing mentioned here or by Dems involves wealth redistribution.
There are several necessary changes Dems should support as a group this election: 1)tax earned income at the same rate as income earned by capital. 2) capitalism is based upon competition. Few producers, and worse yet monopolies, reduce competition, harming consumers and taking us out of a capitalist regime. We need to stop the competition-killing mergers. This will also increase innovation, 3)we have to give Medicare/Medicaid the same bargaining power on pharmaceutical prices which other governments enjoy and which makes drugs cost far less in Canada and Europe than here -- really the drug companies can charge whatever they wish, 4)we have to ensure that capable students aren't kept from college for financial reasons -- either their families finances or that of their community, where a small tax base means rotten schools, 5)we need to stop the Nimbyism of restrictive zoning and construction rules which prices young families out of home ownership, 6) we need to go back to fixed pensions for more workers -- retirees are going to be caught horribly short, 7} raise the federal minimum wage to about $12, 8)infra-structure spending, 9)universal healthcare, 10)job re-training
6
Very nice but all those things cost money and taxpayers do not want to pay higher taxes. Politicians don't win elections by promising higher taxes.
Right now, military spending amounts of about 55% of the money collected from income taxes. No other nation spends as much on its military or goes around the world looking for enemies to fight against.
Many of our major problems are directly traceable to American intervention in the Middle East.
Divert even 10% of the military budget to human needs (or better yet, reduce the military budget to meet actual defensive needs with no interventions except in case of a 1930s-1940s attempt by some rogue nation to conquer the world militarily), and there will be plenty of money.
Sadly written truth.
“Politicians have decided they don’t need the thinkers anymore.”
Why?
Because, the electorate are not thinkers and the elite monied interests own the politicians.
Many; not all politicians, are currently in love with an ignorant electorate and money.
Vote for the politicians who love a thinking electorate and do not want to be extorted by the elite.
2
If there was anything like an "American Left", it might have sprouted legs AFTER the Bernie defeat in '16. Crickets. Liberalism has migrated to the right since and including Bill Clinton. Want to win elections? Become Republican Lite. Now? Nelson Rockefeller and Nixon were more "liberal" than most Dems. The left/liberal wing was betrayed by the HRC types who always signed on for more war (Iraq) and begged to be a valet service for the money minders aka Goldman Sachs.
It didn't matter if it was Trump or Hillary, you'd always get consensus for more war and a Goldman Sachs banker in the WH.
The 'Left" such as it was, was always a beneficiary of real hunger and extreme poverty. As that reality has been conquered for most in North America, the left can handle their worry beads on such topics as trans-gender bathrooms and fake concern about the "warming planet" biz. Yawn.
1
Here we go again with Mr. Brooks and his finger pointing and name-calling.
This worn out Manichaeism you criticize is exactly what you are doing here, again. It's the Left versus the Right.
Put it in geological terms like East versus West.
And when you do, remember that if you go keep going East you will eventually arrive at the West.
Poor Venezuela is about as comparable to our situation here as a cracked acorn is to a tree.
They produce almost nothing- except crude oil- and now about 30% less of that just so far this year.
Theirs is a freak economy, the limping hybrid result of generations of lazy and selfish plutocrats content with living high on the hog from petroleum profits, while the poor got pork bellies and hocks.
But what really struck me is when you surrender yourself to the return of progressive governance saying,
"...but at least it would be humane."
There is nothing wrong with tribalism, if we are willing to acknowledge that we are all members of the human tribe.
3
In consideration of Marx's 200th birthday on May 5th you should have tried reading him first Mr Brooks. It may have helped you get a better grip on his labor theory of value. And learn that his writings include an analysis of tribalism as a tool of suppression - a la "divide and conquer".
In addition, he enhances the dryness of the many long passages with a great sense of humor.
5
Americans should think of Canada as a model of what the United States should be. We have universal health care, the prohibition to carry firearms, and affordable university education. Corporations are not allowed to make contributions to political parties. We also value multiculturalism and welcome immigrants and refugees. Perhaps the USA will one day give a legal status to the Spanish language and become officially bilingual, like Canada.
8
Who pays the the bill for the major portion of Canada's defense?
1
I think Canada and its two democratic socialist governments illustrate how completely off base the right wing propagandist David Brooks is. Our greatest political dispute at present is between British Columbia and Alberta and the dispute is about balancing the economy and the environment. Our left knows what the greatest needs are at the moment and the debate is wider and recognizes the real needs we all have.
America is a debate between liberal neoliberals like Krugman and Warren and those whose ethics are strictly based on materialism like Ryan and Trump.
In our last federal election the centrist Liberals recognized that only the left had viable solutions and adopted democratic socialist solutions to Canada's problems.
This is the 21st century and only the left recognizes that only democracy and a citizen centered economic system will pull us out of an economic system that is out of balance. The economy is there to serve us and not our duty to serve the economy.
It is alarming to me that we have yet to understand Swift's 300 year old Modest Proposal.
I for one do not find it ironic that Canada's Prime Minister must decide which of Canada's two democratic socialist Provincial Prime Minister is correct in the pipeline debate and that it is the internal debate on Canada's left that is far more important than anything that is debated between left and right.
That is why the USA is so polarized , your debate is about nothingness. The right has nothing to offer but death.
5
It seems David cannot escape his “conservative” mindset - he now views what he calls “progressives” as dog eat dog, zero-sum, winners versus losers, tribaliists. Sounds like the GOP to me.
The “identity politics” of Sanders and Warren is not about us versus them, it’s about the value of diversity, the advantage of multiple perspectives, of recognition of different approaches, two heads are better than one. A recognition born of a belief in dignity for all.
The capitalism of Sanders and Warren is not dog eat dog, zero sum. It’s about providing opportunity, and using wealth to solve the Country’s problems instead of funding dynasties and off-shore accounts.
It’s about government by the people, for the people. ALL the people.
The major obstacle facing this approach is control of Congress and the White House and over half the States by big money. Not all the rich, but a few self centered, short sighted, completely bonkers billionaires out to install their very own heaven-sent vision of Theocracy.
Sanders and Warren have shown the way and shown it is politically viable. The Dems have to stop bickering and get on with it.
3
Brooks' argument went off the rails in the second half, when he couldn't resist tying the social democrat strength of Bernie Sanders to Hugo Chavez. I agree that identity politics is gumming up the works of social movements today, but it serves more, as Adolph Reed put it, as the left wing of neoliberalism. Confessing to your "privilege" is an exercise in ego renewal.
As for the Left, there are plenty of folks out there working for both local and global economic and environmental justice.
1
Brooks fears a North American Chavez, but he doesn't seem to notice we're currently ruled by a Corporate Commisariat that plans and operates the economy with the iron discipline and utter disregard for external opinion of the 1925 Soviet Union.
We have 4 or 5 big cartels running each of our industries: telecommunications (soon to be 3), food, publishing, autos . . . look at any sector of our economy and you'll find more collusion than competition.
And all of it is aimed at supplying our "job creators" with the cheapest "labor inputs" possible.
Yes, capitalism has raised incomes in China and Viet Nam, but it's done that by lowering incomes for Americans. And while that 90% savings in costs for Apple and Eddie Bauer has lowered prices for American consumers by 5 or 10%, it's mostly just stuffed more money into the already full play rooms of the pornstar bribing billionaires who each pay our 'Pecedent' $200,000 every year in dues for Mar A Lago whether they ever go there or not.
2
By "identity politics" do you mean pointing out white male privilege? That privilege is the ultimate "identity politics"
2
Both the Left and the Right have their deficits and contradictions. But, as Arthur Schlesinger put it (I don't mean his son; I mean Schelesinger Sr), the left has ideals and beliefs.
Schlesinger said that the conventional Right in America had no real goal or policy to better America. Rather, the Right was an aggregation of very rich ego-centric people who wanted to craft policies that would exalt themsevles and make them even richer.
PROOF POSITIVE: People on the right often fight anti trust legislation or the enforcement of anti trust laws. Whereas Adam Smith heralded the virtues of competition, American billionaires use government to help only themselves.
Why do you think all gun control is shot down by the NRA -- its because for those guys the carnage in the streets is no consequence. (And if you are so certain that the second amendment ensures your right to guns, read it and have some skill in analyzing English -- the second Amendment is written in an exceptionally awkward fashion)
The time for the LEFT has arrived. Every day, in media, in business and in medicine we see the growing poison of more and more economic power in fewer and fewer hands. New York City used to have a dozen daily papers. Look at where we are now.
Also, the people are infinitely poorer than most of the talking heads can begin to conceive. There is a vast underclass that is ignored in much the same way it was ingored when Michael Harrington wrote the Other America.
I doubt whether Mr Brooks has ever heard of Grant Notley. In 1984 Grant Notley was killed in a plane crash and left behind two people he had mentored in the remote town of Fairview Alberta. One was his daughter the current Prime Minister of Alberta Rachel Notley and the other was Jordan Peterson the clinical psychologist and youtube superstar.
Rachel Notley's democratic socialist government has never let ideology get in the way of the desires of the people of Alberta. Alberta is Canada's most right wing province and Notley and her democratic socialist government has provided Alberta with the democracy and the peace and good governance that the GOP has shown it cannot supply to America's citizens.
I must admit to being a fan of Jordan Peterson but when I read David Brooks was a fan of Peterson because he reminded Brooks of William F. Buckley Jr I was sure there was some mistake. I believe Buckley was the epitome of the disease Peterson is trying to eradicate. When Peterson enumerates the pathologies of the young men on the alt-right, the racism, misogyny,anger,fascism, and sense of entitlement I see William F. Buckley Jr.
From where I am now there does now seem to be a 21st century American left but the 21st American right seems ready to deliver the final coup de grace to America and what it once stood for.
2
the left has great ideas... but they are not practical because the left likes zoning out housing in their nice urban enclaves. we can't have a shortened work week without more workers. it works in cities loaded with young people.. but who is going to the carry the load.. the business owners who will be working more to keep their businesses open so they can pay the high real estate prices that are demanded by a smaller and smaller supply. I love the thought process of the left.. the vision is beautiful.. but the carnage of life and animal kingdom shows the true nature of species.. we cannot evolve past that.. I am sorry.. it is a pipe dream.. once a species has kids they become a protective grizzly... that is why as liberals age with jobs they move right... the govt. forces you that way as it gets deeper and deeper into your life as your trying to get farther and farther from them and everything else.
Just like the media didn't see the tribalism brewing on the right they don't see some of the things brewing on the left like a return to environmentalism.
Many leftists are seeing that our planet as a whole is heading for disaster if with can't fix the environmental situation and over population. Terms like "zero population growth" and "forced abortions" and "one child policies" used to be uttered only by the far left fringes. People are beginning to discusses how many people can planet earth accommodate and how will we meet those goals in the not so distant future.
3
Here he goes again, another false symmetry between the right and the left, he does it all the time, can't get out of his right of center mindset.
1
Thanks for Damning Progressives with faint praise.
Social Democracy is so radical that allies like Denmark and Germany are organized along their views. Social Democracy is not Marxist, Stalinist or whatever Communist dictator you care to name.
It does not mean an end to private property or entrepreneurship, but it does promise some governmental protection of individuals against predation or caprice by employers, bankers and big corporations. It does promise a more level playing field for our children to develop and rise to advance their lives based upon their talent, skills and individual effort instead of what family or zip code they happened to be born into.
Mr Brooks, the Progressive movement used to be seen among Republicans in times past. Today's Democrats and Republicans have very little in common with their historic roots- Andrews Jackson & Johnson would not be welcome among the Left and Eisenhower, Theodore Roosevelt or Lincoln would not be welcome among those on the right. The Clintonists would not welcome a Henry Wallace- a former Democratic Vice President- or quite possibly Franklin Roosevelt.
As with Mr Corbyn's Labour Party slogan goes:
For the many- not the few.
It would be nice to hear Brooks, Douthat and Stephens make the arguments to their center right brethren that maybe, just maybe, there would be a better answer for all in working with the center left.
David, If you want an end to the "same Manichaeism," (and isn't that a tired turn of phrase,) it's time you persuaded your natural partners that erecting higher barricades to the Dreader Others To The Left is exactly what gave you Trump. The reason there is so little good faith to go around is because your "team" has been acting in such bad faith, seemingly forever. Gorsuch, anybody?
Fix your own house first, then you can talk about mine.
2
Thank you. This made me laugh.
1
David is angry that his vision of a conservative utopia never materialized. It's because the basic tenants of the right wing conservative movement are intolerance and winner take all.
Now he wants to drag the left, progressivism through the same mud his conservative movement has been wallowing in for decades.
Not going to happen David.
In the end, we know liberalism will win. Always has. Always will. It may take some time and blood letting to get there, but truth, equality and "being humane" will win in the end.
1
Haha! The "basic tenants" of the right-wing conservative movement are those that pay the highest rent!
I'm sorry but I don't know anyone on the left who favors anything like authoritarian nationalism. They want to raise the bottom in terms of wages, and they want to move to a single payer health care system. And they want these things for a very practical reason: they will make the country stronger, wealthier and healthier. Getting more purchasing power in the hands of the poor working class will help everyone, even the rich.
And raising the specter of Hugo Chavez is a cheap rhetorical maneuver. No one on the American left idolizes him. He was a corrupt megalomaniac. You're selling the left way short in this column David.
6
Roger from Seattle comments ([excerpt], "The signs are subtle, but we on the left need to beware. Note how the goal of 'universal healthcare' has been altered in some quarters to 'single-payer healthcare.' This is a significant shift. The traditional phrasing emphasizes the provision and availability of care, while the modification focuses on how it's funded."
Language prostitution began long ago. Once generally accepted, it was easily refined by politicos, as we traversed the continuum from the 2x4 that was no longer 2" x 4" to acceptance of the anti-abortion movement as the "right-to-life" movement -- including by NPR, PBS, and the Times -- to "alternative facts".
Brooks' column is like Michael Hayden's piece several days ago: a reasonable analysis of the problem, but adding nothing to a discussion of solutions. Real-world solutions predicated on current social and political realities are needed, not moral statements about how things should be. The only way to get solutions is by discussing the possibilities more and more, even if that involves disagreement and pain. Wringing our hands and bemoaning "them" might make one feel good, but will accomplish nothing in the way of making progress. Solutions do, of course, need good analyses as a sound basis for discussion, and Brooks' and Hayden's contributions are helpful. However, they are just a beginning, likely the easy part. As with life in general, when it comes to reassembling our broken nation, there aint no free lunch.
1
Immediately following the analysis that there are moderate and sane policies that "can be structured to redistribute wealth downward" and "ensure economic security for all," Brooks writes, "I would disagree with this agenda on pragmatic policy grounds, but at least it would be humane."
WHAT? Policies are humane, and yet he'll have to disagree with them? What pragmatic policy grounds are there that will make Brooks disagree? If, as you think they are humane and sane, then, as a pundit your job is to start promoting it.
This is a perfect sign of insanity when a pundit notes that a set of policies are humane and yet opposes them. This is how immoderate right wing nuts act. Et tu Brooks?
4
"Policies are humane, and yet he'll have to disagree with them? What pragmatic policy grounds are there that will make Brooks disagree?"
The risk of hyperinflation, for one...
Nuance of any kind is dead it appears. You're engaging in identity politics, a social justice warrior, virtue signaling, or culturally appropriating. I hear these phrases over and over and over, handed out as ideological labels because people are too lazy to address an argument.
1
First, we must deal with the immediate threat posed by tribalism and fascism. Most of the tribalism currently seen on the left is a reaction to the emergence of fascism. (Register and vote!)
Second, we must deal with the undemocratic focus on political process and winning at all cost which allow the Republican party to be an in-power minority party. Things like voter suppression, gerrymandering and dark money need to be minimized. (Register and vote!)
Then, we can address the most basic questions posed here. I would begin with universal basic income and trust busting.
1
Economically, the vast majority of people on the left don't want communism or anything close to it. They just want to get back to something like the New Deal policies that spawned America's most stable era of widespread prosperity. It's really not such a radical idea.
5
Sour grapes, Mr. Brooks?
"...I’m sure many of my left-wing friends believe that that sort of tribal us/them mentality won’t hijack and corrupt their own movement. But as someone who lived through the last 30 years of conservatism, I’m here to tell you, it can. Politicians these days have decided they don’t need the thinkers anymore."
This is the world you helped create Mr. Brooks - conservatism doesn't need you now, so of course you're being cast aside.
Every excuse you made for the inexcusable, every false equivalence you made, every straw-man argument you tossed out, every expression of 'concern' for those poor beleaguered souls out there in flyover country - the people conservatives targeted with appeals to racism, religious bigotry, xenophobia, anti-government hysteria... all led to Donald Trump.
Heckuva job, Mr. Brooks.
The conservatism that has wrapped itself around Trump has no need for thinkers any more. All they want is blind obedience.
Marxism? Isn't that old bogeyman getting just a little tired? Capitalism - isn't its price getting a little too high lately?
So excuse me if I ignore your warnings about authoritarianism from the left. The tendencies are there - you'll find them wherever humans are found. But, consider how the left handles its authoritarians versus the right. No comparison.
What you portray as tribalism on the Left is growing recognition of the peril from the Right, and the need to unite against it. Nothing more, nothing less will do.
4
Nice false equivalency. In your view, the only way wealth should be distributed is the way is already is-- from the bottom to the top. And then, I'm sure you'll also approve of slashing the social safety net because, you know, the debt.
After the horrors of this administration, I'll take my chances that the American left will give us a better future than the dystopian, lying right, but you're free to make up stories about why they're equally terrible.
3
Brooks is a little crazy. He's a Hillary moderate. So am I. Here's hoping the moderates win. Gradual change gives us the best chance and gradual change is best done from the true center (which right now is Obama and Hillary).
I can always count on "Gemli", "Socrates", Walter Rhett "hen3ry" ( and a dwindling few others) to set the tone for suburb discourse and analysis. Thanks again for keeping this space an intelligent place.
Thanks for more of your views on the future of the American left. I find it condescending, simplistic and ill-informed. I wonder why you don't spend more time discussing the future of your own brand of conservatism. It would be refreshing to read a thoughtful auto-critique of how you and the politics and people you supported help give rise to Trump and his supporters.
2
As usual with Mr. Brooks, he lays out the facts reasonably well, then comes to a conclusion that has nothing to do without them.
2
All I know is my investments are shrinking in value.
As entertaining as it is to live through the chaos of Donald Trump's presidency, my next thought is "Who will be the next president?" It seems we are at a genuine inflection point.
1
False equivalency has become the last refuge of scoundrels sir.
1
Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren are unelectable, as was Ms. Clinton. The margin was so thin. My gut, combined with anecdotal and polling evidence, says the many who would have voted for any Democrat—or Independent—more honest and ethical than HRC would have elected Joe Biden president. Sigh.
David almost always starts his articles with a false premise, "51% are against capitalism"...
David, they are against corrupt practices that seem to be pervasive with so many Republican donors.
Workers don't have to be servants for Capitalism to succeed, yet the Right-wing seem to believe workers are just chattle.
Treat workers with respect and dignity, and you will see that most people really do support a capitalistic economic system, with an uncorrupted Democratic political system.
How about a republican party that doesn't lie, David?
1
All I will say is Brooke's narrow definition of the "left." What about gender? what about race? Oddly, those who feel marginalized trend toward the left. Why is that Mr. Brooks? The idea that you would speak for the disenfranchised is problematic at the very least. Your motives are not about helping them but purely about discrediting the left because you cannot openly criticize the right. You are all about people owning their actions. Yet., when do you take responsibility?
Sorry David, you miss the spirit of Progressives. I think of Woody Guthrie and John Steinbeck, 1930's, Dustbowl, Oakies fleeing West, and he wrote and sang a song that united the country then and now, "This land is your land, this land is my land, from California to the New York Island...". (Song was published in 1940.) The spirit of the left , historically, in all its manifestations, in spite of all of its miss heard messages, always sought the greater good for all Americans. You are right that tribalism is in the air. But are there issues whose allegiances by a majority of Americans will deflate the egos of the self-righteous right? I think so. South Park and AR-15 and 14 year old girls shot in the back and Republicans saying keep AR-15s available for all; that practice and attitude should anger a majority of Americans. Bonuses for the 1 % and a rise in healthcare costs for the 99% and rent rises for the poor. Republicans protect POTUS and say adultery is OK. Republicans will not commit to pledging to not distribute stolen data about an opponent, nor disseminate that data. The issue is which Americans reflect best the founding ideals of America sans the Institution and Culture of Slavery. Which party is concerned about human rights?; "Liberty and justice for all".
1
I am no fan of Hugo Chavez and his Bolivarian Revolution, but the outright lies lies about Venezuela are just breathtaking. The man left the media in the hands of the swine who supported the attempted coup d'etat against him, and was elected time after time in elections certified by international observers.
More recently, private companies withheld food and medicine from distribution, and the demonstrations against the Maduro government came to an abrupt halt after the referendum on the National Assembly, strongly suggesting that someone had just cut the money being used to pay the "peaceful (Hah!) demonstrators" off. Not that the United States would ever do such a thing, Heavens, no!
2
Wealth will curry favor and enjoy advantage. However, smart wealth will educated everyone and advance ideas and enterprise lifting the bulk of society. Smart money will send underserved kids to Yale and Harvard and make sure everyone has healthcare and food security. Ultra smart money will be global and diplomatic inviting all faiths to comingle. The smartest money will not be racist nor bigoted and make every attempt possible to integrate races and cultures in public spaces, schools, universities and housing.
David Brooks as usual has it wrong or tends to hyperbole. There isn't really a "left" in America. The proposed policies of our left are considered basic universal ideas and not even up for discussion in other industrialized countries such as universal healthcare, focus on public transit, strong social safety net and strong public funding of education. To think the US will end up like Venezuela is ridiculous.
So many of our supposed problems could be solved through more fair and redistributive tax policies. For example, public school pensions are seen to be a major issues in California projected to bankrupt local schools and growing to over $90 billion by 2030. The Zuckerbergs alone are worth over 100 billion. The California economy is $2.8 trillion redistributing .3% of that for 10 years would solve the "crisis".
This article does touch on something that has concerned me since the election. (Actually, since Brexit.)
With the rise of populism the left may fall prey to not the progressive ideals I believe in, but the rather embrace the backward looking, xenophobic, protectionist left. There is no doubt America needs a good swing to the leftwards (guaranteed affordable healthcare! equal pay for equal work! higher minimum wage! affordable housing! a better funded education system etc!!) but let’s make sure we keep moving forward and embrace our global community.
Because the right now has complete control of government including a very authoritarian executive branch, Mr. Brooks believes a Hugo Chavez will take over the left. This may sow fear into conventional Democrats, but the left has had an example of what it wants for a long time. Not Kennedy, Clinton or even Obama---An FDR, better yet an Eleanor, is what we seek.
2
Brooks started off OK but got completely derailed by his ever-present need false equivalence without which he cannot make any argument.
The American left is primarily focused on egalitarian policy goals like universal healthcare, paid family leave, criminal justice reform and free college that will lift everyone. This is especially true of the Warren-Sanders left which is least focused on identity politics. It is the Clintonite center-left that prefers to some extent focus more on identity issues rather than on economic reforms that go against the interests of the high-end Democratic donor groups. To the extent that identity politics is a serious issue, the danger is primarily coming from the racist Trumpian right.
Mr. Brooks - although I share some of your concerns that liberal thinking could perversely infected with xenophobic nationalism, my experiences suggest otherwise. I am involved with liberal and progressives at the grass-roots level never hear anyone espousing these sentiments.
Most often we talk about the need for a capitalist system that provides for the poor, weak and dispossessed.
A capitalist system that finally admits that health care is in fact a right for every citizen of this nation.
A capitalist system that redistributes income more evenly by employing a truly progressive tax system.
A capitalist system that is allows everyone to achieve their own goals regardless of color, gender or religious beliefs.
A capitalist system that welcomes immigrants and refugees as people that add to our nation's greatness and not as parasites willing to lower incomes.
A capitalist system that shows it has not only a head, but also a heart.
A third "big task" that Brooks fails to discuss is to make medical care in this country affordable for all. Medicare for all or single payer would remove the added terror of financial ruin to those who face huge costs for treatment and drugs when confronted with life threatening illness.
1
" On the right, tribalism brings us the ethnic authoritarianism of Donald Trump. On the left, it seems likely to bring us the economic authoritarianism of a North American version of Hugo Chávez"
Say what? In each and every recent political polemic, Mr. Brooks absolutely must create a demogogic, authoritarian equivalent on the Democratic side of the discussion in order to hold forth on some moderate point-of-view that he presents to off set the painfully outrageous conduct of the conservative Trumpian Republican party.. Since when are Democratic party objectives such as clean air and water regulations, voting rights laws, fair practices in the work place, examples of economic authoritarianism, Hugo Chavez style?
Oh Please!
2
"Politicians have decided they don't need thinkers anymore." This is not a surprise, as politics under not just Trump, but Republican dominance wherever it exists, has devolved into a brutal zero-sum game where you first grab everything that isn't nailed down, then turn your guns on your fellow citizens who happen to have different political beliefs. And, what many have discovered is that it's pleasurable for them to lay a little hurt on the other side. No need for well-honed intellectual constructs when the taste of victory and revenge is in your mouth.
I understand that Mr. Brooks wants to return to a more civilized time. I'd like to as well--it's the way we do big and great things in this country. But warnings to the Left about not being beastly are going to fall on a lot of deaf ears after they have observed the smash and grab that infects Trumpian Republicanism.
"Mr. Brooks fails..." is the basic sentiment in most of the comments because again he does not understand the problem of the right and his party. When all is said and done the basic goal of the right has been to retain and safeguard the power in the hands of the people that currently hold the power. There is no effort made for the rest of the people to become anything more than they currently are. To retain power they have manipulated enough people and institutions so that their motives are never fully revealed as they create a narrative that obscures the truth. To this end they will even support a character as repugnant as Trump who was the only candidate that could illicit the turnout to defeat Hillary.
The left possesses a more honest, truthful mission - fairness, equality and freedom and if those core desires are violated the people will respond. President Obama got a lot of negative feedback from the left when he made decisions that weren't to the mission's end. Where is similar outrage on the right now? Based upon the outrage the right gave of Obama's abuses, it should be deafening from the right for Trump's abuses.
Conservative voters cast their ballots to hold power. Liberal voters cast ballots in support of someone who they believe can make a difference.
1
Perhaps Mr. Brooks will turn out to be correct that the left will fall victim to authoritarianism and ignorance just as the right has. However, the mere fact that the right has done so -- after 30 years of systematic self-selection for fear, intolerance, ignorance, and xenophobia -- does not count as evidence for his proposition.
There has been no equivalent self-selection on whatever passes for the left in America, and there is no equivalent billion-dollar media apparatus driving it.
1
This column's worth is more in its provocation to think than in actual fact. What disturbed me about it was the attempts to categorize the Right and the Left so glibly. Since I am on the Left, I cannot fully state or understand the motivation or values of the Right...especially the acceptance of the far right fringe. And I adamantly deny that the Left is entrenched in Tribalism. Even in the pursuit of a kinder financial balance, I have found that the solutions and aims of the Left embrace more humanitarian and inclusive solutions. Whereas the philosophies of the Right have topsy-turvied our nation dramatically and emphasized the "other". Trump, the Liar President, has been honest about one thing...his disdain for the "other"...and has defined the Tribe on the Right. He has at various times identified the media, the Democrats, women and specific people as THE ENEMY. And then blamed them for anything that doesn't fit his world view (which is the Donald world). Those who embrace him regardless of the values, or lack thereof, he demonstrates have built the dividing social wall between their tribe and everyone else.
Hopefully, our current situation is just a tempest that will pass, and that the better angels of our hearts and souls can scrub the stains of our current era from the fabric of our nation and make it whole again.
Mr. Brooks, you're starting to make sense, but your fingernails are still dug into the cliff. What "pragmatic" issues do you see that are somehow destructive of doing intelligent policy?
For instance, why do you not mention genuinely progressive income tax? We had one for years (post-WW II), and both society and the economy blossomed during that time.
Inherited wealth, past some point, is an evil -- let's have a good death tax (that's an accurate term, just manipulated by GOP message massagers), a progressive income tax, and good social services.
Also, let's break up the military-industrial complex, which is in fact an enemy: the biggest, most dangerous, threat to our actual defense and security is wasteful spending on incompetent weapons (F35, Ford-class carriers, etc.) Spend that money on programs that actually defend OR actually improve the social base that generates the funds for defense.
You're right, we don't need Marx. We do need compassion and good sense. You're part way there on both counts.
2
I don't think the revolution is at hand, or that America is about to become Venezuela. The "Tribalism" that every political commentator wants to hang their hat on as an explanation for today's political state is a fun idea, but far from reality. What we are seeing is the culmination of Reagan's dream, and Bill Clinton's failure. As someone some where once said, "It's about the money, stupid!"
Together those two leaders set the table for our politics today. Reagan successfully crushed union power and the Democratic Party allowed him to do it. Clinton abandoned the poor. Both men allowed their parties to grow by feeding off the rich and powerful. Suddenly American CEO's became billionaires, and our "social safety net" became the joke of the 21st century. The most productive, wealthy nation in the world was discovered to have a weak growing underbelly of poor, uneducated, second class citizens left behind by the middle class miracle, and no one wanted to deal with that issue. Politicians have allowed the very wealthy to prey on the lower classes as if they were sub-citizens, and throwaway people. I think America has reached another breaking point as we did during the Viet Nam War when citizens suddenly realized that the government and the political structure no longer represented their interests; not ever a little.
1
Mr. Brooks,
You were doing fine until i got to this little gem:
"On the left, it seems likely to bring us the economic authoritarianism of a North American version of Hugo Chávez."
From then on it was downhill.
Please don't equate a single American with anything to do with that character Chavez. Progressives (like myself) have only one watchword: Fairness. Fairness in having a job which pays a livable wage; fairness in chances to go to a college and come out of it without owing thousands; fairness in having political representatives which answer to the people they represent and not special interests; fairness in the stewardship of the environment; fairness in the obedience to and the application of the law; fairness in health maintenance.
"Progressive" seems to be quietly becoming the newest right wing epithet, since many of us use that term rather than liberal in defining ourselves, In fact most all of us just want a government that works the way it was designed to work. Alas, it's been hijacked by some pretty mean—and completely clueless—people.
The vast majority of Americans are actually centrist, as you know. Whether conservative or liberal/progressive, the sense of fairness in our dealings with each other is common to most of us. When it goes awry, as it has over the last 35 years, you can count on a reaction at some point.
1
Identity politics are rabid on both sides of the political spectrum. From he worries of cultural appropriation to the racism that underlies our fear of immigrants and the age old problems we have in treating our black citizens fairly, we have fostered a total failure to act as a community.
But... that is not what will cause us to fail, unless we let it all distract us enough. What will let us fail is the accumulation of power and wealth into few hands while limiting opportunity at every other level of society. Bifurcation of opportunity - giving the jobs to people elsewhere and AI and robots here while accruing the wealth in a few spots - is what will open the door to the kind of social unrest that invites in authoritarians.
We are not addressing how we can handle a nation that aggregates more wealth into one family - the Waltons were at one point that family - than is owned by the entire bottom third 100 million people in our country. And we are doubling down on that, giving corporations the ability to take their tax break and use it to pay off shareholders.
What will the new left look like? If we are lucky, like FDR. If we are unlucky, like any other civil war globally.
It's impossible to know what the left will do until we see how far the right collapses and what remains of the libertarian, free-market, monied interests that paid for what morphed into the Tea Party/Trump GOP.
Even as the GOP descends, they will retain at least a working half of the Supreme Court. Citizens United will remain. Money will still pour into elections. Heller will remain. Barring Russian money, the NRA will remain a major force. So to the other hot buttons of abortion and white Evangelical Christianity. And nothing happening suggests the right will disown the particularly nasty campaigns that have been their path to power.
Moreover, the debt and damage the GOP has again led us into economically is just beginning to make itself felt. The damage to our image worldwide will haunt. And we haven't even mentioned the damage to our institutions done in one year from Justice to the environment to science to education.
So the question is what will the right do as the GOP collapses. Republicans, in defiance of law and logic, continue to support Trump. The left is trying to limit the damage. Until this Trump nightmare is over, we can't guess what an awakened left will do.
1
David Brooks, I disagree with two major tenets of your argument. First, "left" objections to free trade aren't a nationalistic argument, they're an argument largely against stealth deregulation, increased big corporate power, and the co-opting of environmental progress and worker protection/support. I'd feel much more comfortable with a TPP, which I think is necessary to maintain balance against Chinese hegemony in the Western Pacific, if it weren't written behind closed doors by corporate lobbyists and their enabling political cronies.
Second, the strident fervor of identity politics would wane if economic justice were to really have a force in this society. MLK recognized that - he saw that financial liberation from Wall Street and DC repression and a reexamination of the manipulative MIC's perpetual war machine were not just necessary but essential to racial justice. We're a "culture" hooked on money and power and violence in many forms, and their fulfillment is most readily served by a capitalism that is exploitatively classist and racist.
There is nothing wrong with our government that reasonably regulating politics won't fix, and nothing wrong with our capitalism that reasonable financial regulation won't cure. But do we have the wisdom and gumption to do it? Or is the American Experiment over?
I was totally supportive of the 2015 Bernie Sanders.
He was correct then to focus his policies on the entire working class; a class that sought the continuum of working folk from every color; he has now morphed into the new liberal agenda with the people who like to call everyone a XENOPHOBE if they oppose open borders.
Now we must listen VERY carefully to every word less we are duped into voting for a Democratic agenda that appeals to future illegal immigrants.
1
As usual, Brooks claims that both sides do it, conflating the
tribal ethnic authoritarianism of the right (Donald Trump) with the economic authoritarianism of the left (Hugo Chávez).
There's one big difference, though. We don't have Chávez and likely never will, but we do have Trump. Brooks doesn't seem to be at all disturbed by this. Trump is the dangerous madman we have, all others are hypothetical.
The American Left as some command control threat to capitalism is pure nonsense. Socialism is just another form of capitalism with the emphasis being on the "social" as opposed to the "capital". The American Right hues to the severest form of capitalism and paints all of those that think otherwise as crude Chavistas that would destroy poor fragile capitalism, that can not thrive but in it's lasses-faire form.
The left-wing authoritarianism seems to be a reaction to the right-wing authoritarianism currently in power, currently in the White House. My fear is that the Democrats will, out of frustration, adopt the Republicans' style of dirty politics.
And they play dirty, from voter suppression to obstructionism to blocking Supreme Court nominees to the breathtaking corruption we are witness to now.
But do not discount the center, David.
What this country needs is an understanding that the public and private sectors are both needed. They serve different functions, benefit one another, and keep each other in check. I want both a healthy public and private sector.
Unfortunately, the Republicans have spent the better part of my lifetime denigrating the public sector, poisoning people's minds about government, and now doing their best to wreck it.
Authoritarianism is never the answer. The answer is in between the right and left.
Re Venezuela, Brooks needs to tell his right wing friends that the regime grew out of an oligarchic crony capitalism in which the rich captured all the gains while the middle class and poor failed to share in the largesse of the country's wealth. That is what fueled the rise of Chavez.
Second, when the rich manage to capture most of the gains, as has occurred in the United States under our version of capitalism, it is indeed a zero sum game in which one class manages to get it all and the rest of us get nearly nothing.
Third, we are not talking about capitalism or the market versus other systems, but of capitalism and the market shorn of their excesses. There is no reason the richest country in the world cannot provide a decent living, health care, education, housing, and food for all who will and can work for it. There are just greedy and frankly racist people who don't want to, and they mostly belong to the GOP.
The problem for the left [or for neoconservatives like Brooks] to be an effective advocate of policies promoting economic equality within the nation is the growing fanaticism for Open Borders.
The more America is opened up to immigration by the other seven billion people on Earth, the more the billionaires of America will prosper and the less the American people will enjoy high wages and low rents. Bernie Sanders had the right instincts in 2015 when he derided Open Borders as a way for the Koch Brothers get even richer. But by 2016, he shut up about that because he realized that the political hopes of the Democrats are so tied to a strategy of importing millions of ringers from abroad to demographically crush the GO
1
Wow. Amazing! The left (known to the rest of us as The Place We Used to Call the Center) is becoming authoritarian. You’ll excuse me if, under the current circumstances, I laughed out loud. The right in America, otherwise known as the Republican Party, has marched steadily towards fascism for nearly two decades. (See Mann and Ornstein, Timothy Snyder, et al.) Yes, let’s deflect attention from where Mr. Brooks’s fellow travelers have been taking us so that we can accuse our progressive political elites of doing the same thing. Bernie Sanders is taking us to the dark side? He’ll become a dictator and turn us into Venezuela? Is Brooks slyly joking? Nope, I don’t think so. Instead he’s been studying for far too long at the Donald Trump College of Feeble and Fatuous Misdirection. It’s hard to stop laughing. Except one wants to cry.
The idea of a left "takeover"is absurd. The most powerful forces in American political life today are greed, fear, bigotry and willful ignorance. The Republican Party has used these to outflank the left and will continue to do so indefinitely.
Masters of wordplay, conservatives have invented three important derogatory terms that the Left stupidly embraced: (1) "Obamacare"; (2)"entitlements"; and (3)"redistribution." Since David Brooks mentions "redistribution" a few times here, let's address that one. "Redistribution" conjures up an socialistic nightmare of the IRS tax man taking your hard-earned dollars and giving them to the undeserving masses. This has been the rationale for relentless Republican (and Democratic) tax cuts, which now (and since the days of Clinton) tax work (earned income) more heavily than dividends and capital gains (investment income)--talk about upward redistribution! However, the purpose of taxes is not redistribution; it is to fund the government and its many programs, such as Medicare (which my elderly conservative parents used to rail against, but now shamefacedly rely on). Progressive taxation is not redistribution, it is fairness and realism in funding our government, which benefits the rich much more than the poor. When Republicans frame taxes as "redistribution," they dishonestly stoke fears, and denigrate the true needs and value of government.
1
I’m a lifelong Democrat. I consider myself a moderate liberal, like Obama and the Clintons.
I find the ideas of the progressive left so frightening that I would actually vote for Trump in 2020, rather than allow Bernie Sanders anywhere near a position of power.
Democrats, don’t take the white male middle class for granted again. You will make yourselves even more irrelevant.
I find David's argument lacking information from the get go. If one goes to the poll results linked in the very first paragraph and follows the subsequent link, millenials reject both capitalism and socialism. However, the core issue for most leftists I know personally across multiple age groups is not an opposition to capitalism, but rather an opposition to the current American style of capitalism that are aided and abetted by laws and policies that are redistributing wealth upward rather than broadly. Proposals for a higher minimum wage and universal income may seem marxist but are really an attempt to revise the upward redistribution.
6
A $15 minimum wage is a place to start. To begin making corporate America (McDonalds, etc.) pay their employees a fair wage, so the government can lessen its role in propping up corporate America by filling in the gap in pay (through "welfare" programs to supplement the meager pay, non-life sustaining wage of its (corporate America's) employees.
1
I understand where David is coming from; however, I respectfully disagree with his thesis that the left in America is tilting toward a "Chavenista" type of governing.
In the end, the party will have to veer more to the left. But veering leftward is not going full speed ahead to unchartered socialist territory.
I think the ultimate destination is more European social democrat.
3
Identity politics is here to stay because the question, "Who am I?" will always occupy a great deal of our thinking. We are hard-wired to need and to seek ever higher, more complete and satisfying answers to that question.
The wise would say we are not only evolving (evolution), but Ivolving (Ivolution), and that our self-consciousness (including social self-consciousness) is a “long-term project” stretching over many lives. From this big picture view, all personal, social, and political struggles ultimately serve only one function – the unfolding of the human potential for truth and love. No matter how contrary or crooked our paths may appear on the outside, the inner journey is ultimately the same for all.
1
We happened to be in NYC this week and had the pleasure of attended a reading by Our Poet Laureate Tracy Smith.
Her main message, or atleast my take away from her poems were we are in this together, and love and thoughtfulness is the answer. We may have ended up divided, as rural versus urban, because of economic advancement forces, but it is the commonalities of raising children and driving roads and breathing air and eating food and a desire for basic honesty that will reinvigorate a shared future.
1
Sometimes David Brooks writes very insightful essays. This is not one of them. It reveals that Mr. Brooks has a deeply flawed view of the history of our culture and has been ideologically captured by an elite view of it. "Fair-minded left"? What in the world is that? Could that be a left that continues to embrace neo-liberal policies of deregulation and privatization as well as enormous tax inequities and maldistribution of wealth? I'm afraid so. His mistakes of fact in this article almost disqualify him as a serious thinker about these issues.
1
"On the right, tribalism brings us the ethnic authoritarianism of Donald Trump. On the left, it seems likely to bring us the economic authoritarianism of a North American version of Hugo Chávez."
So yes, on the one hand we have the actual President of the United States, the figurehead for a current state of moral and intellectual bankruptcy in one of our major parties and on the other we have someone that doesn't exist.
2
The Left can be revived only after the GOP finally drives the country into the dirt and most of the people have had all their comfortableness provided via the New Deal switched out for the film-flam deal.
The Left, not understanding the political environment that they find themselves in and mistaking the U.S. for Sweden, will continue to lose the chess game of politics with Sanders, Warren etc...., but eventually when people get hungry the environment will be right for the Left.
2
This article is so desperate to say something, but what? Progressive "regime?" I guess we know where Brooks stands on that one. Economic "authoritarianism?" And it may come as a surprise to Mr. Brooks, since it doesn't fit in to his narrative, there is little or no evidence that the left has suddenly pro "nationalism." As usual, the man does not make a point. He is his own zero sum game. Immigration policy is about a nation, but Sanders is rational, not nationalistic. We need to do something on this front. What has happened in the past has been a travesty and the result of a failure of policy. Business should not be the sole arbitrator of immigration, under or on top of the table. It just goes on and on: no one is against free trade, but if you do not admit that the markets are far from "free" and are more representative of oligopolies, then you have missed the point entirely. Capitalism needs reform, not a tax cut for the wealthy. Mr. Brooks should try to keep his feet on the earth and deal with the reality before him, rather than going off like in some way he can predict the future by creating his own terms and definitions. He has become so grandiose, you have to wonder. If he just made the connection between the demise of public education and the need for corporations to define who will be allowed to come in to the country, emphasizing high tech people, then he might understand the undercutting of our own culture, economic system, and people.
3
From here on the "far left" I'm just wondering if we can get rich people to pay their fair share in taxes and if we can work together to create a health care system that all Americans can benefit from. Radical, I know!
5
Shall we get real?
What does Mr. Brooks have to say about the 8 years of Obama's presidency? There we had a progressive president, morally upright without being condescending, thoughtful, able to carry on an intelligent conversation, proposing moderate policies to provide health care to the poor and sick, address some of the most blatant environmental problems with workable solutions, and beginning to have rational relations with other countries.
That was obviously a wonderful model. But what did Mr. Brooks do and say during that era? Why does he not reference that now? And exaggerating Sanders and Warren does little to make his point. All they want is a fair deal for those who have been left out by the lobbying by the wealthy and powerful business class.
And Marx was a lot more than just saying capitalism had problems. He engaged in historical thinking about how we all got to be what we are. We not have more sophisticated tools for that. And capitalism is just a name we give for a variety of things from our past that have converged into the world we now have. There are certainly things we can do to move the trajectory in a healthier direction. And having a lot of Democrats in Congress and back in the White House is a good start, while all of us stay involved and make sure we hold all of our representatives to a high standard. Really, this is not that hard.
4
In a highly connected, global economy, there is not much any party can do in terms of the changes discussed here without adopting restrictive trade policies. For example, a dramatic increase in wages will result in higher costs of all products, making them less competitive vs imports which will lead to lower sales and then lower employment for US workers.
1
For once i agree with his thinking. I believe that Democrats may not reverse the course of what's happened to America, as the party is so split between moderate left and extreme left. Sadly this was a part of losing the last election. Extremes on either side of our political system do not bode well for the future of our country.
I don’t see it rolling out like this. We need to understand the cyclic view of economic history to get a grasp of where we are and what comes next. We are at the end of the information and telecommunications age. It is a time of high capital efficiency and low investment which affects working people by not creating sufficient numbers of good jobs. This is about to be followed by a new era that requires significant investment especially in infrastructure for roads, bridges, and water systems. Without that the world more resembles the slowly evolving water war that is becoming the Middle East. With appropriate investment we increase national capacity and lift the middle class. Without it we have a wealthier upper class and a redux of the French Revolution.
2
Venezuela is a lot of things, but liberal doesn't describe them. To me, liberal means respect for the lives of all people and the corresponding responsibility to insure they have access to the necessities for life, freedom broadly defined to include some degree of economic security (you could call it freedom from want), and conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness.
It used to be that conservatives wanted something similar, although they advocated for quite different ways to achieve those goals. I see in this piece some residue of that traditional conservatism.
When people talk about Bernie Sanders being radical, I respond that his proposals would have been pretty centrist back in the 1960s. What has happened is that the nation, and perhaps a good portion of the world, has moved to a different place.
I think investments in public relations by people like the Koch brothers have affected how we think about truth, justice and the American way. It is conservatives who have dropped off the edge of the Earth. The rest of us are hanging on by our fingernails.
5
As usual, David places the weight of the blame on liberals. I think way back in 1992 Newt Gingrich encouraged Republicans to use of words like "enemy" to describe the democrats. Speaker Tom Delay wouldn't do business with any lobbyists who weren't strictly Republican and dedicated himself to cleansing K Street of Democrats.
David also misses the fact that partisan "tribalism" is splitting along the old geography of North and South, with the former notably less tribal than the latter.
5
Capitalism is the best system; but there are different forms of Capitalism. There is managed Capitalism which Europeans call Democratic Socialism such as France or Germany or UK which. There is National democratic Socialism which is growing in Poland Hungary, which tends to be less democratic and more populist. There is totalitarian Socialism, which has little if any democracy such as in China, Russia and rapidly enlarging in Turkey. All these countries have agreed that capitalism is the best system to improve the lives of their citizens. What differs is how these countries deal with democratic principals and manage the capitalism. Trumpism or the New Left of Warren and Sanders both support capitalism, the difference is only how they believe is the best way to distribute the winnings in Capitalism for the benefit of the "people". Everyone knows that what ever system you are in, you do not fight the fed when it comes to the economy. The issue is who do we want controlling the fed.
Therefore the Kochs will keep going door to door to keep the fed supporting their view of capitalism.
3
David, study actual history when you get the chance.
Unregulated capitalism like that that your party prefers, especially a capitalism in which finely honed ethical sensibilities have been traded away in an embrace of mind-numbing, reactionary forms of religion, inevitably bring out a desire for its opposite. This is as inevitable as death and taxes.
You reference Sanders and Warren. Bernie is a democratic socialist while Warren is an authentic change agent and reformer. Neither is a tribalist in the way that you suggest.
An authentic change agent and reformer is exactly what we need. Wanting to reign in a form of capitalism utterly divorced from notions of fairness or long-term sustainability does not make one a socialist. It makes them an adult, a realist, and a reformer.
It is the profound idiocy of the right that has brought us to this awful place, to the age of Trump. You have been a consistent mouthpiece for that idiocy over the years.
Bernie is not a Marxist and Warren is not a socialist - but you have been a consistent apologist for a vampire capitalism-globalism run amok.
What America needs in 2020 is authentic change - not a rounding up of the usual suspects. I suspect that Trump will make that change possible, by wrecking everything he touches before he and Pence leave the building. They are the culmination of the unholy marriage that the GOP has represented, between a rapacious capitalism and an insular, know-nothing religiosity.
17
Brooks is the master of false equivalency, quickly seizing on random examples of voices on the Left to prove his point. Left wing populism sounds nothing like Trumpism. The major difference is most liberal policies seek to benefit everyone, whether you live in a Red or Blue state. Health Care? Let's make it universal. Wealth creation? Let's make sure everyone gets a fair share for their labor, through tax policy and minimum wages. Clean air and drinking water? Let's have that for everyone too.
How can Brooks honestly look at real liberal policies and translate them into his "Us vs. Them," preserve the purity of the group, sectarianism? Apparently by comparing America to Venezuela. Or by taking Bernie Sanders statements on immigration in the last campaign as the true voice of liberals. Most liberals are supportive of the Sanctuary movement and defending immigrants. It doesn't look like a nativist backlash from where I sit.
Harsh, reactive and purist voices exist in any political movement. We should never be naive and drop our vigilance. But the liberal movement has always been a coalition movement, and sorts things out in dialog. This seems to be missing in the Conservative DNA, which makes it hard for conservative commentators to really get how liberals work.
7
Corporate control over Congress, the executive, and the judiciary -- not to mention control over most of the rest of our lives as consumers, patients,voters, etc. -- isn't authoritarian enough for you?
9
Bingo! And in our universities, obviously, too.
To be a long term force for good, the left must wield political power based on ideas that connect long term voter interest and the possible. Whether or not you agree with his assumptions, or his conclusions, there is no denying that David Brooks reminds us how critical it is to look inward under the harsh light of day. The question is, will we do it, and will be act accordingly?
Nice, thoughtful comment. Thanks, and thanks for pointing out the book.
1
A very good article - for the first ten paragraphs. Brooks outlines just what should happen and how the common good might filter back into our governance.
Unfortunately, he then has to walk away from the possibility that progressivism could be as good for us as it is for western Europe.
1
I would disagree with the basic duality. Yes, Bernie Sanders had a moment and attracted young people with his authenticity and issues. Education is too expensive now, and healthcare may be moving out of reach again due to Republican sabotage. But Democrats moving more to the left is a needed balance to the radical rightwing dive of Trump, Mercer, Koch et al. GOP Kleptocracy.
Concepts like environmental protections, educational opportunities, equal rights and investment in infrastructure used to be as Republican as Democratic. The extremists are on the right now.
So-called identity politics are basic civil rights as applied to minorities, LGBT people, immigrants, and those of different or no religious faith. These were basic American rights until white supremacists and plutocrats and evangelicals took over the GOP, tossing out Lincoln's equal principles, Roosevelt's environmental values, the founding fathers' separation of church and state and principles of religious tolerance. No longer does the GOP have any semblance of the law and order party. It has embraced Russia and Putin which would have been unthinkable before the Trump bromance/conspiracy. Planned Parenthood was strongly supported by both parties in the past.
Millennials embrace education, healthcare, economic and civil rights. That's not rejecting capitalism. They are running as and voting for Democrats along a spectrum from center to left.
False equivalences don't apply.
9
Another attempt by David to split the country apart and put down liberalism. He lives comfortably and simple doesn't really understand the plight of the working/middle class. Since 1980, Reagan,started the conservative revolution and the 88% have been slowly squeezed out of comfortable living. In 2016, it has gotten much worse with the threat of killing paid into insurance programs like S.S., Medicare and Medicaid.
David, try writing about the GOP's awful reality and leave the soothsaying to others. Under the GOP since 1980, they have torn apart the country and its people; leaving the US more vulnerable than ever before.
8
I’m a liberal because I believe you should pay for what you get. I believe this because if you don’t pay for what you get, someone else is, and that is not moral. The only time it’s ok to not pay for what you get is when you need something to live, and you cannot pay—then others should help you.
There are three ways people do not pay for what they get today, that ought to be changed:
- burning fossil fuels produces waste that the burner does not pay for. The waste negatively affects everyone—not moral. Easily fixed: carbon tax at point of extraction. And country that does not participate is heavily taxed on all imports
- limited liability is FREE insurance for business owners. Why should anyone get insurance for FREE? No sane insurance company would offer this, why would that American people. LL protection ought to require insurance payments based on portfolio risk and the record of the insured.
- the tough one: inheritance. Children have not earned the money their parents accumulated. It’s not moral that they get and unearned head start in life. There is no simple solution to this, but we could start with a much higher transfer tax on large amounts of money and assets.
Note that none of these taxes have to go to larger government. They could be collected and split back out in equal payments to all tax payers.
Pay for what you get. I’m a liberal because I believe that liberal policies tend to get us closer to that then conservative policies.
6
Inheritance isn't such a tough issue. The problem is not the guy who inherits a farm worth $500,000, the problem is the guy who inherits $500 million. The 400 richest families control more wealth than the rest of us all combined. Limiting inheritance to a very comfortable $20 million would solve the problem.
Marx's fundamental claim is that capitalism is unstable: it functions to siphon the wealth to the already wealthy, impoverishing the remainder of the population.
Even if you are skeptical of any theoretical analysis of economics (as I definitely am), recent experience certainly seems to confirm the correctness of Marx's analysis.
And even if you dislike Marx's "solution" (as I do), that doesn't mean we should do nothing. A properly progressive income tax can (and did until Reagan) redistribute the wealth so as to achieve a distribution of income that is fairly stable.
8
First, I would suggest that Mr. Brooks should try actually reading Marx, before "explaining" his ideas to your readers. If he had, he would know that, according to the Marxist view, profits are not made in the capitalist market, at the point of sale, but rather at the point of production--when the worker is paid less by the boss than the value produced by his labor.
This "Surplus Value" is (according to Marx) the source of all profit. The idea that you can somehow adjust markets to serve the workers reveals a lack of economic understanding.
Yes, the exploitation of the workers' labor is inherent to the capitalist system. And yes, to increase his profits, the capitalist tries to keep wages down, while the workers want more wages which would hurt his profits. What hurts the workers helps the bosses and vice versa. Anything else is bourgeois snake oil.
Perhaps Mr. Brooks should try talking to his fellow journalists who are fighting to organize media outlets and joining unions across the country right now!
Secondly, the working class is not a tribe or a special interest but the great majority of the population. The divisive small tribe or group we have to worry about is the one Mr. Brooks can not see, so safely inside it is he situated--
The small but all powerful US ruling class.
13
Let's be clear, Red. Paying labor a fair wage dose not 'hurt' capitalists, it just reduces their take a little bit.
In the US, that's seen as a tragedy. We want the rich to take all they can and let the whining from below begin. Losers.
Typical of Americans, capitalists honestly believe it is unpatriotic if they fail to grab max cash. Investors don't want to hear about anything but money.
Embarrassingly ugly, outdated and unsafe infrastructure, architecture not even as sophisticated as a decent Lego set, an education system little better than the worst DeVos charter fantasy, hopelessness, drug abuse, violence and despair: not their problem.
They want their money, and they want it now, and everybody else can go pound sand.
We are the England our ancestors fled, and damn proud of it.
1
Dear Mr Brooks
Is this "American Left" thing a straw man of yours?
Why, saying the millennials have rejected capitalism is an oversimplification that is beneath your intellectual capability.
The world is not either/or. While there are a lot of socially conscious people of every age out there, narcissism exists in both populist and capitalist camps. Therefore, there are also socially conscious capitalists like Buffett, Gates et al.
Sometimes it is so complex you have to peel the personality like an onion. Case in point, is Tom Steyer, the guy who is leading the impeach Trump movement all by himself, left or not. Well, he is a venture capitalist billionaire and he is using wealth to fund the left like his right wing counterparts like the Koch bros on the right. However, he is also the one who threatened the Dems about Keystone XL. The truth is that people like him who enjoy to be master of the universe by hijacking causes and manipulating masses.
The right and left dichotomy has been useful except to cover up the authoritarian manipulation of narcissism and NIMBYism.
As you have observed, and rightly so, populism and authoritarianism are a dangerous mix as we have witnessed in Venezuela. And tribalism in Syria, civilization ending.
Today is May 4th. 48 years ago, Ken State happened. Sadly, as Tom Oliphant (I think) has observed, once the students out of the draft, many left. 99 years ago, another student movement erupted in China with its impact still reverberates.
7
“Politicians these days have decided they don’t need the thinkers anymore.”
I hope you’re wrong.
We need thinkers to get us out of this mess and get this country back on track working for all Americans.
We need policy makers who take all socioeconomic classes of society into consideration.
We need passage of the Equal Rights Amendment giving women full protection and autonomy by law.
We need strong social service programs to protect the elderly and disadvantaged.
We need scientists producing and embracing evidence-based research then applying it to promoting a healthier environment.
We need educators restructuring our public school system so that all students across the country, rich or poor, have equal opportunities for high quality education.
We need medical researchers studying and finding cures for decades old diseases that still plague us and new ones that are now emerging,
We need engineers rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure.
We need cyber technology expects safeguarding our institutions and personal information.
We need a strong well regulated efficient military to protect our sovereignty.
We need to halt the privatization of governmental services such as the Veterans Administration.
We need reformers that will get lobbyists and special interest groups out of politics.
We need experts from all fields of study advancing our knowledge and securing leadership roles nationally and internationally.
We need a government that works for us.
18
It is possible that there will be no comeback on the part of the left, but the President and the Republican Congress has bungled so badly over the past year and a half that a Democratic revival of some kind is likely. The question is, what kind of left shall we have: an economic left of infrastructure and healthcare reforms and jobs or a social left of hundreds of separate and at times competing issues? It might be useful for the left-leaning leadership to note that although social liberalism stirs great passions, economic needs create a more cohesive voting force.
14
"There is no alternative" to market-driven economies? I for one argue that the "magic of the market" will not solve all problems. In fact, it is the exponential expansion of markets globally that have created immense wealth for ever fewer people that tap the "mass market". We must finally come to terms with the fact that production and consumption is out of whack, and we produce and waste far too much to sustain the Planet. "Growth" is the mantra for capitalists but mindless consumerism and inequitable distribution of wealth spell the end of this system as we know it...and if we're not careful the end of civilization.
5
"I’m sure many of my left-wing friends believe that that sort of tribal us/them mentality won’t hijack and corrupt their own movement. But as someone who lived through the last 30 years of conservatism, I’m here to tell you, it can."
That happened to conservatism because the Us the leaders were actually protecting (the rich) wasn't the Us they were selling their policies too (the white working class masses). Eventually the white working class masses figured this out. Instead of swinging over to the Dems, though, they swung even more tribal - to Trump.
Even if you grant that the left is tribal at the leadership level, the tribe they're out to help is the tribe they say they're out to help.
6
Because the dems in the blue states sold us down the river. I now vote third party, farther left.
1
I agree. The Davos-DNC doesn't really have me cheering with inspiration.
“Politicians these days have decided they don’t need the thinkers anymore.”
Thinking itself does seem to be losing steam.
It’s as if it has become either too painful or too much work. Whether laziness or chemicals in our environment are to blame, we, the thoughtless, are in a lose lose situation.
7
It's not that people aren't thinking - people are simply exhausted. Both parties are milking us dry. It's like being ground to a pulp between a set of teeth. There are the liberal rich and the conservative rich, and the rest of us. I don't see two party politics speaking to anyone. And Trump did not win the majority vote, so he didn't speak to the majority of the voters, either.
2
Thank you for agreeing that rewriting the rules to redistribute wealth and ensuring economic security for all are positive, universalist agendas that aim at social solidarity and national cohesion. Based on how current Republicans and Conservatives are acting, I would not expect them to do much for either of those aims.
When such a small percentage of the US population owns almost all of the wealth, it’s prudent for those who have power to release more of it. The current situation is one that eventually can cause a revolution. OF course, if people are distracted by their phones, social media, alcohol, tobacco, and their TVs, maybe nothing will happen. But I wouldn’t bet on it.
10
I want morals, ethics and transparency - well run institutions staffed with qualified, with experienced leaders and workers who are not there to destroy what took decades to build. I want a government that is focused on the future not just on tax cuts for donors. I want a receipt for my ballot and poll watchers and hand counted votes
Taxes are the backbone of a civil society. We should proudly pay them and be able to point to what they cover - not villanize our government until we bankrupt ourselves.
69
If we continue on the same trickle down, zero social program policies, now in vogue with the American right,will return to the largely two class system enjoyed prior to the New Deal and WWII.
Until Americans get over their love affair with right wing rhetoric, there is no place for the left. I think for practical political purposes progressivism is basically dead. Look at who controls the federal government and state governments for confirmation.
7
“[Tribalism] emphasizes division and conflict, instead of cohesion and solidarity.”
David Brooks deserves some credit; he is not a true-believer conservative and he’s offering a useful warning to the Left. He is quite clear about the fate of his own conservative politics. My experience (full disclosure: I’m a European-style social democrat) during the past two years supports his concern; the Left is just as capable of being subsumed by rigid ideology as the Right, though you’d have a hard time getting anyone to admit it. The identity politics that began in the 1970s in particular has come at a high price and a sense of “solidarity” and social “cohesion” have been the major casualties.
9
I'm a progressive who'd like to go back to the days of the moderate Republican presidency of Eisenhower. Capitalism worked pretty well then. How about we return to the corporate/individual tax rates of the '60s, re-regulate banks, have a Labor Department and the laws necessary to encourage unions to organize and prosper, spend more of the tax dollars that now go to the military-industrial complex (warned us about it, Eisenhower did) to create a WORLD CLASS public education system, repair our infrastructure, add on a single payer health care system? We'd create more and better jobs, and if workers had more control over their own economic lives, and knew their children would have a good education and health care, a lot of the divisiveness between races would be reduced because competition for limited resources would be reduced. A smaller military would make us less apt to engage in military adventurism, another idea that Eisenhower would approve, I think.
25
The money is no longer going primarily to the military. It is going to entitlement programs. Medicaid in its first year cost a billion dollars. It has now come to exceed 500 billion.
No doubt we spend too much on defense. But defense is no longer the elephant.
Agreed, as long as we also return to Ike’s welfare programs, federal spending on social programs, labor laws/minimum wage and spending patterns.
But if we cut defense, and stop all these wars (now Yemen) we also cut down on the number of traumatized and injured veterans. Factor that in. We should close most of our bases. We can bring those guys home and get them busy working on restoring our infrastructure. The military has turned the US into a third world country. We should also cut subsidies to churches, who are middlemen, and send that money directly to the poor who need it. I don't want to pay for a new church roof.
Markets are not tools, but physical or virtual spaces where economic transactions take place. A scale for weighing produce is a tool; algorithms driving trades are tools; derivatives are tools. Access and the ability to manipulate these tools are the result of relationships between people and things, which are part of a historical process: world wars, colonialism, cold war, globalization of production, so and so forth. If the pre and post 2008 impotence to regulate the financial 'market' is any indication, these relationships are anything but malleable. Perhaps this is the important lesson to take away from Marx, rather than going on like a stuck record about the relative strengths and weaknesses of abstract terms such as markets or states as sites of resource allocation.
3
After the 2016 election one NYT commenter said the immigration question boiled down to whether America was a meritocracy for Americans or a meritocracy for the world.
That seems more useful than framing the question in terms of nationalism.
Is it possible to identify levels and kinds of immigration that tend to benefit the economy without depressing wages, because there aren’t enough citizens willing to do some kinds of work or with the experience and ability to do other specific kinds of work? Can we determine if there are other levels and kinds of immigration that tend to depress wages because there are enough citizens willing and able to do the specific kinds of work in question?
If so, why don’t we, and split the difference between America as a meritocracy for the world and as a meritocracy for Americans in a way that makes sense?
I know it’s complicated. Matching up immigration policies one to one with existing unfilled jobs probably wouldn’t work. Immigrants are said to often be bright, industrious, and inventive people who create new jobs in their businesses.
But it’s hard to believe we can’t adjust policies so that the work generally gets done and done well; but wages rise and either prices rise or profits fall correspondingly in sectors of the economy where immigration has helped depress wages. We need to do it if we can.
Why do we need to be a meritocracy? Why can other countries produce a fair social system for all people, regardless of whether they have to prove that they deserve it? The US has become as paralyzing as Russia in the days of the serfs. It is stifling us all to death, unless we can pass some yuppie test.
1
For years I’ve assumed from the context that when people say “meritocracy” they mean people are chosen for competitive jobs and schools based on their merit rather than on their color or gender or who their parents are.
This is the first time I’ve heard the term applied this way. Does the word not mean what I think it means?
if the market is so wonderful in solving the problems, why do we have such program as public school, medicare, Medicaid, labor regulations, antimonopoly laws. If capitalism is so great, why it haven't solved the problems addressed by these laws and programs?
9
Public schools are a sop to liberals to continue their indoctrination. The others have no place in a free market.
1
We don't have capitalism in this country, Mr. Brooks, we have kleptocrats and a kleptocracy.
You make unbelievably specious arguments here, especially comparing the American left to Hugo Chavez.
For once I wish you'd address the problems we face, including:
Infrastructure
Medical costs and care
Pharmaceutical costs
Education and teacher salaries
Student loan costs
Family leave
Minimum wage
Incarceration
Opioid crisis
Income inequality
Why not look at the enlightened Scandinavian countries and compare our left to the political system in those countries? Those people are happiest, according to polls, have a better standard of living than we do, and even Trump wants us to have more Norwegians emigrate from Norway.
The vilification of all things left in this country has been going on for decades now. This includes unions, Medicare and Medicaid, the EPA. The right had a moderate in President Obama, a man who was right of center, who Republicans vilified.
Well, now the left is sick of trying to compromise with unreasonable politicians on the right.
What we have in this country is broken, and every day President Trump and his sycophant Republican Congress break us a little more.
88
What a startling revelation by Mr. Brooks - his “sense is that these [Marxist] ideas have been rejected by the left”! Where have you been for the past 50 years, Mr. Brooks.
The best alternative for “the left” is the “social market economy” of many European countries, where even most conservative political parties reject the dog-eat-dog version of capitalism favored by American conservatives. There are. Many, many useful and tested policies which have been demonstrated to work well, such as universal healthcare - there are many flavors to choose from in Europe, such as private insurance centric, as in Switzerland, via a mixed, two track system, such as Germany, to the (somewhat discredited) all-government system of the UK - to giving workers much more rights in large corporations - such as the requirement of worker representation on Boards of Directors in Germany, etc. etc.
To argue that the US left is heading in the direction of Hugo Chavez’s movement in Venezuela shows an abysmal ignorance (or willful right wing propaganda) on the part of Mr. Brooks. Bernie Sanders may be a bit nutty, but even he is more sane than that!
The one element deeply anchored in most other advanced economies, such as the European social markets, is the notion of “solidarity”, which makes social services much more accepted. The US considers that “weak” and dependency inducing, even “un-American”. Until we develop more of a social conscience, we will always lag behind.
8
Mr Brooks, you claim that markets are not necessarily harmful, and that there are really no alternatives. You could not be more wrong.
One of the innovations of the last few decades are markets in various forms of pollution rights. At first glance, it seems to be a great idea--let people or corporations buy and sell the right to pollute, and let "the market" determine the price. On further thought, it becomes clear just how pernicious this new kind of market is. The upshot is that wealthy people can pollute and poor people can't. Yet poor people still suffer the effects of that pollution. And, what's even worse, those polluters now have the right to pollute as a form of property. So, any attempt to stop them (e.g., from polluting in a particularly harmful way) will be legally much more difficult. Thus, by legally construing the right to pollute as a form of property, and by forming a market to trade in those rights, we exacerbate the inequality of our society, even if we do reduce overall levels of pollution.
The manifestly correct way to reduce pollution is to regulate it. Such regulations apply equally to everyone. This is an example of an alternative to markets that will, in fact, work and which do not make the inequality of our society worse.
8