Trump and the Republicans are leading us to Communism. They could care less about what he does with Russia as long as it is Anti-Mexican, Islamist or whoever comes here illegally and even legally.
1
David seems to be fully invested in wishful thinking.
8
Brooks wants to bring the racism and inequalities right down to local government -- anyone remember the "draft boards" of the 1960's? Rich, connected? You don't go to Viet Nam with those "bone spurs".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where doe Brooks think those nasty GOP Evangelicals come from if not the "local level"?
12
when my kid talks a certain way, I tell him....If I want to see Star Trek, I'll turn on the TV. Did mr. brooks get this info from tea leaves or a crystal ball?
3
"All politics is local."
At this moment in our history, it would be hard to write a more maddeningly irrelevant column. Until we restore some semblance of a NATION based on the rule of law and fundamental human rights, and are served by a President, an Administration, and a Congressional majority that actually believe in such basic principles as honesty, decency, and competence, mushy talk about a localist revolution is far worse than a pipe dream. Before you produce this kind of feel-good drivel, you might give some thought to how sweet life was for localists in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union or Mao's China or Sadam's Iraq. Or how the localist revolution is faring right now in Putin's Russia.
13
And when "localism" turns into parochialism? The kindly face you put on this can rapidly turn ugly and tyrannical, despite your best intentions. The worst racist and homophobic excesses in this nation's history have occurred when eruptions of localized biogtry get empowered and are unrestrained from the state or federal level.
10
Mr. Brooks-you have a megaphone. You have a podium. The NY Times is a highly respected compendium of educated and advance thinking writers and journalists. My question to you is why are you not using your voice to right our ship sailing in troubled U.S. waters? Do you think there is infinite time and justice will prevail? I'm astonished and saddened that the people who have the power-congress people, senators, governors, Times columnists, past presidents- do not feel the urgency to implore our country to come to it's senses and reject our current direction of government. Your usual homilizing is getting stale. Please use your grand stand to shout the needed messages to save this country as if tomorrow we will no longer be a Democratic Republic.
8
"Localist Revolution" means no furriners gonna mess with my field workers, my rich/poor schools, my voting restrictions, my stacked courts, my police codes, my separate water fountains…
8
Mr. Brooks, do you spend your spare time watching Frank Capra movies and sighing? I wish the world you evoke could really exist in our time, but though it came closer in some ways, it didn't really exist in Frank Capra's time, either.
6
Localism is just another way of saying 'divide and conquer'. That is just what the Trump-Putin-Koch Horsemen want to happen. Then they pick off the weak and unprotected one by one:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
We must fight the Oligarchs (Trusts, as Teddy R. called them) with the tools to hand. And if the only tool is the imperfect Federal Government then we must make it work. Hiding in a hole of Localism is the philosophy of despair.
10
Pollyanna is alive and well and masquerading as David Brooks.
6
Leave it to David Brooks to sweat the small stuff while the country is burning around his ears in Washington.
8
I cherish the idea of localism. It's a connection. You experience an immediate and direct link to your neighbors and to your community.
But let's be realistic. States like Wyoming, the Dakotas, Idaho, Montana, to name a few, have disproportionate leverage over the concept of making decisions at home. Consider gerrymandering and voter suppression, both of which determine top down power structures.
The (un) United States are way too big for our britches. I don't want people, yes my fellow Americans, in Iowa, Nebraska and Texas influencing policy that has impact on my daily existence. So David, if you have a magic formula--because lets face it, you're an intellectual with pie n the sky ideas--come up with solutions that match your fantasies.
3
You ain’t from around these parts, are you?
8
Nonsense.
There is only one multicolored multiethnic multifaith multi national origin biological DNA genetic evolutionary fit human race species that began in Africa 300,000 years ago. We are designed by our nature and nurture to crave fat, salt, sugar, water, habitat, sex and kin by any means necessary including conflict and cooperation.
We were black and tribal in the past and we will be black and tribal in the future as the climate changes and warms. There is more genetic diversity in one African village or ethnic group than all of the rest of the human race combined. Indeed the humans who left Africa carry the near incestuous genetic bottleneck markers of a population that nearly became extinct.
3
Ah yes. This localism will do wonders at combatting local warming!
13
If only Mr. Brooks could use the same language as the rest of us perhaps we could have a dialogue but as it stands now I think I will need a newspeak dictionary to get anywhere with this and the newspeak dictionary has gone out of print and David has the only remaining copy.
4
Yeah. Great point. Could also note that thousands of towns and cities across the Mediterranean were doing okay—indeed, enjoying pax Romana!—during the reigns of Caligula and Nero.
Something to think about during this slow news week.
10
As an elected officer in a small town in the West, I can attest that we have the same problems as anyplace else, big or small, it is just that we have them on a more human scale. The sociopath, suppliant, perpetrator, or victim is someone's daughter, grandfather, brother, or wife, and we generally know them.
Our Council is equal parts bigoted, corrupt, gullible , and naive. To most of them, Trump looks like a man in charge of his own destiny. They don't feel like that. Two generations ago, self-reliance was still the school of rural leadership. Now we can't afford, or are not allowed, to do anything but rubber stamp the debt instruments and technical assistance that comes from the state capitol or the feds or the multinationals vis-a-vis our water, sewer, sanitation, police, fire, etc. We only manage the face of our client-hood.
Brooks sees what has yet to have the value sucked out of it and imagines it is a local repository of virtue. It is simply a lack of 'development', against which we have no effective defense. Please, David, fight the battle where you are.
8
You seriously think conservatives are open to developing close working relationships with liberals face-to-face at the local level in Red States like Alabama? That would be funny if it were not so frightening.
If Localism takes over, then I would imagine that our Nation will fracture even more than it already has. Without shared National values, how do we encourage the free movement of people, business/work, and ideas across regional, state and local borders? I doubt I would have been able to live and work in the many local places that I have these many years without some shared National identity, goals, and solutions to problems.
Perhaps this idea sounds great if you live in a Big City. For the rest of us, I guess we get to move? Maybe that's the ultimate unintended outcome here? Big Cities abandon Fly Over Country for good? Thanks a bunch.
No, I would rather we not give up on our Nation; thanks very much.
2
What you are talking about here is not the birth of localism, but the death of nationalism. A national identity is a shared set of ideas and values that we all share. And as Thomas Paine clearly understood 242 years ago, the press bears a great burden in helping people understand what those shared ideals are, and what it means to be an American (and not a British citizen, or a Russian citizen for that matter).
Frankly, I don't think you can have localism without nationalism. If anything good is going to come out of this ridiculous presidency, it's that it's forcing us to have the first real debate about who we are as a country in a post-9/11 world. Up until now, our understanding of our nationalism has been dominated by "the Greatest Generation" and the Baby Boomers. But the 20th century is disappearing in the rearview mirror, and the influence of these generations is also fading. Time for the press (including yourself, David) to get to the work of finding our national identity for the new century, without throwing up your hands and retreating to the argument that we can only trust what we know, or that we're too divided to make any sense of it.
And while you're at it, the press should try to figure out what their new identity will be in the 21st century. Less corporate? More diverse? More independent? More engaged with the public? Here's a hint: if you figure out one, you'll figure out the other.
5
local would be ok for many places except that the Republicans altered the laws to take money from states like Massachusetts and New York. I'm from Massachusetts and I resent my tax dollars being handed over to the Koch brothers and their ilk. to solve local problems you need to hang on to your local money
3
i think it was lincoln that said"united we stand divided we fall" localism will make us medieval fiefdoms. 50 of them.
3
Can't help but notice the line about laws being "passed after a long debate, like ... tax reform." If that's a reference to the GOP tax cuts, that's some revisionist history there: https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/01/politics/senate-vote-still-writing-tax-bi... .
2
Just want to say this is some of the best writing I've read in a while. Thanks, I feel renewed and my hope recharged.
Well, I agree with the localism piece. I see it in action here in my community with the way many support public schools, engage in public service. And yet, we have candidates who would not abandon Trump and his boorish behavior for anything.
7
[The local person asks Fred or Mary what they need in order to have a home. ]
More often than not, neither Fred nor Mary really knows why they lost their home.
1
Define "local", is it at the neighborhood, city, county or state level? Out here in the wild west any progressive change done at the city level is quickly deemed illegal by the state and quickly thrown out. "We" don't want no pesky federalies telling us what to do. But, you there in the City of Salt, don't you be making no laws protecting the environment, minorities or "the other".
1
All over the country, cities have written laws to protect some of their vulnerable citizens. Before the week is out, state legislatures have over-ruled them. On a slightly larger scale, some states have tried to do the same thing--and before the week is out, the feds have gone to court to over-rule them.
Localism thrives in broken countries--it's very powerful in parts of Africa, the Middle East (Yemen, anybody?) and those "nations" bordering China and Russia (Tibet, anybody?).
And, of course, we are now seeing localism in Germany (Bavaria, anybody?) and Italy (North v. South v. Sicily, anybody?).
Despite the fevered dreams of conservatives, the United States has never resembled a Norman Rockwell painting, or a Thorton Wilder play, or a Frank Capra movie, and this idiotic notion that we should revert to a past that never existed is the tragi-comic history of the Republican Party. It does the country nothing but harm.
5
I get tired of David Brooks and his tendency to categorize everything. Localists are now his flawless ones. Does he not see that everywhere you go people are flawed.? Greed can get ahold of locals. All the human traits are divided equally. Corruption can exist in local utility companies. Theft can reside in a local grocery store. Bullying can thrive at a local charter school. Those who believe in caring for others aren’t identified by their zip code. Whistleblowers can emerge under less than ideal conditions. He keeps striving to identify the good ones in the good place.
2
Communal power is an excellent way to spread the news, that seeking to change our ways is effective, and efficient, to see the ultimate results, a just society and, therefore, peace and ability to enjoy the fruits of our courage and efforts and perseverance. A true democracy is when it's people take upon themselves the government, and tell the fellows voted in for it's administration that their employ is incumbent upon the service provided. No more McConnells, Ryans and Trumps, hypocrites now in a self-serving position, contrary to their sworn oath to true politics, the art of the possible, to find the best time and space, always with limited resources, to provide us with the goods and services we need and deserve. Let the localist revolution begin. Let a compulsive voting choose the best, most honest, and capable individuals, to become our willing 'servants' to enhance this republic. And oust the current crop of misfits, undeserving of our trust.
Localism brought us the Civil War and the state of Mississippi's current restrictions on abortion - despite Roe vs. Wade. Localism is not an answer - it fragments the cohesiveness needed to make America whole again - a whole, healthy democracy despite our differences.
6
So is Mr. Brooks proposing that we don't need a federal government? Let each local or state entity have complete say over civil rights? Allow segregation if local citizens so desire? Let a majority of local citizens decide what happens to outsiders who happen to wander in? Have the right to declare war against neighboring city-states?
Mr. Brooks envisions a situation where conservatives and liberals work out problems, "their lives ... enmeshed in caring face-to-face relationships." I see them instead in bloody face-to-face confrontations. We need a strong federal government to guarantee our rights as citizens.
4
What you describe as localism is a combination of communitarianism and federalism, neither of which are new, and have always been there. In fact, the GOP has chronically disenfranchised these movements by dismantling governments at all levels.
As for liberalism and conservatism, there was never any such thing. Liberal and conservative are descriptors for individual personalities, and it translates to the question: are you open to considering new information and new ideas, or are you locked into a closed, dogmatic brain. The liberal state of mind is necessary to learn anything new you haven't considered before. When a group becomes conservative, it usually means the group is full of closed-minded people who wish to go back to some old way of doing things.
For over 30 years, the surging radical Reaganesque dismantle-ist group branded itself as "conservative" and pretended there was something called "conservative news [sic]" an oxymoron.
1
Mr. Brooks, a philosopher, seems to live in an alternate universe. His writings are so far from reality. We are facing an international crisis here: a cold blooded murderer is trying to take over the world power by giving his empty brain, puppet step by step directions to aid and abet him. The whole should be on pins and needles now and be united to stop Putin/Trump.
I really don’t give two hoots about localism at this point. What’s happening in the world gives me sleepless nights. The US is heading toward anarchy with a traitor in the Oval Office.
2
David Brooks is one of the 'kindest', most hopeful, optimistic, emotionally generous journalists out there today. And he identifies as a political conservative. I admire his faith in Americans. But even he is being beaten to a pulp by the critters who have crawled out from under the Republican rocks.
1
I've pointed out repeatedly that "localism" is just one aspect of the type of society that emerges when a much larger and more complex society collapses.
The collapse comes, as Joseph Tainter explains in "Collapse of Complex Societies", because the cost of managing or controlling complexity becomes too onerous or impractical, and because the society is buffeted by an increasing number of shocks and stresses due to its sheer size and sprawl. Look anywhere around the globe to see this happening right now in all developed countries.
The symptoms of collapse Brooks declines to examine are not as rosy as Elders and Networkers might hope: the breakdown of national authority and control, decline of the political center, lack of large (national) infrastructure projects, conversion of public spaces and lands to private use, abandonment or neglect of publc buildings and monuments, decline in long distance trade and emphasis on local self sufficiency, a substantial and abrupt decline in population, loss of common elements of social structure and culture, a variety of hostile and competing political factions (pp. 19-21).
This is a natural process, not a historical fluke: Tainter documents it in nearly two dozen complex socieities. The coming global society of 9 billion people will be no exception.
Mr. Brooks, it is good to hear some good news locally. However, with authoritarian rising world wide and even in the United States, the world and the human race are in jeopardy. Recent news in Turkey and Israel are alarming. The performance of the US president in Europe has demonstrated amply that we are no longer championing for truth, freedom, and liberty. The time is getting late. People of conscious must raise the alarm now and seek solution when we can. Doing any less is morally indefensible.
I grew up in New England so am a firm believer in town hall meetings and local government. But, if you want to see the down side of localism, take a look at Roseland Indiana and so many other towns with long histories of extremely corrupt local governments. Local governments can often fly under the radar of the news media... so if we have a resurgence of localism in government, we seriously need a resurgence of local journalism!
6
In the European Union they have a name for localism in a good sense: subsidiarity. It is one of the governing principles of the Union.
Just look it up.
Of course, there is a dark side to localism, as there is to everything human....
The bulk of commenters seem to dismiss the column out of hand, equating localism for nothing but a provincialism that has meant only misery to people in these places.
The solutions to our country’s current crisis will seem like paradox’s with our current understanding. I could imagine an important part of the solution will be more intimate communities that can help provide meaning to people’s lives and work. That could be as important as any national program, perhaps even more so.
At the same time, let’s be aware of the traps of state or local control, which are well represented by other commenters. The benefits and risks of localism do not need to go together. Like I said, the solutions will seem like paradoxes based on current understanding.
I agree with Mr. Brooks that local community can solve many needs, but perhaps it is less about government and more about local consumerism. That would mean local farmer markets, buying at local restaurants instead of restaurant chains, local coffee shops rather than Starbucks. It would include the Maker movement to repair things instead of replacing things. The barter system should be part of it. It is a different mentality, and the millennials seem to understand this mentality well.
About 100 years ago our country was local. The economy and the political parties were rooted in local and regional parts of the country. Many were corrupt. Powerful local "bosses" held sway over local machines that were usually the handmaidens of large companies that gave the orders from the shadows. This changed as "reform" candidates moved up into the Federal government and passed laws giving citizens some power to over-ride the bosses. The government grew apace, but so did the companies. Now our Federal government has become more corrupt that the local bosses ever were. Going back to local may not be the answer. We have to change at all levels and get our system back into the hands of real citizens.
Excellent piece. I'm actually grateful to the election of President Trump after which, in order to continue some kind of engaged political life, I focussed purely on local issues. I was able to manage the campaign of a friend who is now an excellent city councillor. Only 50 or so votes separated the middle five candidates, so every single vote made a difference. I've become active in local initiatives to shape development and improve pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. Our local politics, though often contentious, are not partisan. It goes without saying that we need a strong, informed, and well-funded state and federal government, but our daily reality is all around us. Potholes are the biggest danger most of us face and they can be fixed. The world as delivered by TV, especially cable news, is shaped by editorial staff who want ratings. It is not the world most of us actually live. The big issues -- healthcare, infrastructure, economic hardship, environment -- all need to be addressed at levels in addition to local. We know that. But until we can find a way to create a functional government with a clear mandate for change and reform, it is going to have to be localities where improvements actually occur.
A fairly sunny, optimistic view of localism as a power for good. But the deterioration of the federal system can result in decreased centralized power by an unwieldy bureaucracy constrained by commonly understood rules and laws to an increase in power concentrated within one person or a small clique, constrained only by their whims. Of course, we’re bearing witness to that on the federal level now, too.
In a world of giants like the EU and China, your solution is to go smaller and local... Brilliant!
What we need is TRANSPARENCY. Federal or local, the problem always are the hidden deals that favor a few "but you have to have that to move things along". Try to fix that, make everybody accountable, and things will be better, everywhere.
Localism - in a country of huge multinational corporations and $800B military budgets - is life in the crevices. That is, at best a benign form of survivalism. Until it is crushed.
For along time, I have told my students that the politics that matters most to their daily lives is really local or state -- most taxes, regulations, even civil rights protections, etc. come from our state capitol, not Congress and certainly not from the president of the United States.
Sometimes like you Mr. brooks I wish I could disappear into Brigadoon and disappear for a hundred years, but I don't and neither do you.
Water and air circulate around the world carrying our pollution across boundaries. We share the mess and problems with resources between us and if there are solutions we must find them both locally and as a global community. Denying this only puts our head in the sand, while our butts are kicked. Sorry censors. Even hear on the internet we must be careful what we say.
3
Mr. Brooks, it might surprise you to realize that your preferred Republican party which runs like a madman on so-called conservative values has a big problem with localism, at least as far as it relates to us here in Austin. The state legislatures here, heavily Republican, has overruled our home rules on several occasions, most recently with our tree ordinances designed to preserve green space and our plastic bag ban which cleaned up our lakes, streams and public places. They seem to love local rule until they want to punish someone for doing things that counter their political prejudices.
8
@kendali
You are correct. And local control was once a conservative principle.
Also, Texas businesses were the strongest organized voices against the “bathroom bill” last session.
And on the national level the revenue neutral carbon tax was proposed by a bunch of old line corporatist Republican types.
Three reasons to rethink the factual bases for the narratives that inform our thinking. I doubt we can spin our way back to a fact based world.
David,
Local politics can be as ugly as national politics at times. What we really need to do is focus on the drivers - the actors who determine where we are going. Right now, it's the big corporations. For a while after the Depression and WWII is was the little guys. We need to get control of the corps, ala Teddy Roosevelt, and agree that it's one for all and all for one. That requires having faith in one another. Trump drives us in exactly the wrong direction. I thank him for pointing that out. Now it's time to get rid of him and move in a better direction.
Ah, David. Clearly, you have never lived in a small town in a small state. If you had, you would know that the empathetic, caring solution finding, and the rational do-ism you describe is just a wish. It is not reality. It is not the apple pie cooling on the windowsill, or Grandma offering shelter to the homeless kind of town or community.
It is government by ineptitude. It is communal hostility to outsiders. It is underfunded institutions. It is resistance to change, and fear of the new. It is populated by the under reducated and under employed. Once proud and vibrant it is blind to its own reality. That's the real Localism and it is not a good thing.
5
Might be helpful if Mr. Brooks went back and re-read Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" which tells that tale of a town that exemplifies perfectly the localism he describes. But he way want to remove his rose colored glasses before doing so.
7
One problem with localism: There have been and still are people in this country who would very much like to take their brand of "localism" and, using the power of the Federal government, force it down the throats of everyone else. That's what happened in the lead up to the shooting phase of the Civil War with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which was the real first shot, though symbolic, of the Civil War.
Let's hear some examples of "localism" success stories.
If there are any, then doesn't it makes sense to do the same nationally? In that case the whole argument here falls apart.
I do not share Mr. Brooks' optimism about localism. Some matters can only be resolved at the federal level--and should be. Otherwise, people will have very different rights in red states as compared to blue states.
Matters such as air and water pollution can only be addressed at the federal level. Air and water don't stop at state boundaries.
Ditto big issues such as tariffs. They must be country-wide or not at all. In this case, not at all, or not larger than previously, would be preferable as some states are already feeling the effect of potentially losing business. Businesses are already looking to manufacture more overseas rather than less.
Local entities cannot control airplanes, auto safety and many other matters that are daily concerns. Should every state have its own standard for these issues? Surely not.
I think Mr. Brooks is stretching too far in finding ways to skirt the unaccountability in Congress and the White House these days.
1
What a great idea. And to level the playing field, let's do away with corporations and other businesses that have a national scope. Or, let localities -- neighborhoods -- formulate their own regulations, which they can impose on national corporations like Union Pacific Railroad, Archer Daniels Midland, Pacific Gas and Electric, Exxon and Amazon.
1
I think the Federal and State governments still have a role here, in facilitating (or hindering) locals in their efforts. Also, my experiences in local politics (zoning/roads/neighborhood issues, and new school construction) is that people can still become mobilized over narrow self-interest to the detriment of the greater good. I saw that people are swayed by spurious issues by those who are promoting their own agendas/interests in a very cynical way.
This article starts off wrong by including state governments in its definition of localism. With some exceptions, state governments are just smaller versions of federal government, and they often try to overrule local governments in the same way that the federal government tries to overrule state governments.
Another problem is that local governments are being starved of funds. In small towns and to lesser extent in cities, people have to buy online to get many of the products they need, but they don't get tax money back from those purchases.
Mr. Brooks makes some good points, but local government still needs support (or at least not sabotage) from federal and state governments.
1
With every article David Brooks is sounding more like Obama the Community Organizer. Before you get too misty eyed and romanticize about localism think about Sam Brownback, his plans didn't work out so well. Localism can be just as ineffective as nationalism if certain local peoples are excluded from the process and the local good old boys rule.
1
Localism is: not in my backyard
1
David sees localism as an answer but ignores the effects of big money being spent by a handful of very wealthy individuals to influence local elections and sway local opinion. The Supreme Court ruled that money is free speech, in which case it's clear that some people have a lot more opportunity to speak than others. David has consistently avoided discussing the ways in which the rich and powerful have used their wealth to influence opinion, and the tools which conservatives have handed them - from Reagan repealing the fairness doctrine to Citizens United to Super Pacs.
Republicans have made clear that they want a plutocracy, where one dollar equals one vote and their conservative supreme court nominees have played a role in aiding and abetting that goal.
In Texas, at least, localism means local control because Business can usually have their way with a town but if they can't then localism is abandoned and the State of Texas dictates what the locals have to do, which is usually the wishes of business. Austin Texas is a constant victim of this fallacy / philosophy.
Well Mr. Brooks, as the late great Abraham Lincoln said, all revolutions is local. Seriously tough, the biggest problem at all levels is the corruption. They're not being held accountable and they're doing everything they can to avoid the truth, often with collusion from private entities. In my experience this is not limited to any one political party. I'm still interested in your help or someone's help getting on a ballot or getting some direction on what to do. As you would say, I'm "going the way of Portugal" over here. It's no laughing matter. Let's talk sometime. The sooner the better.
Localism is fine for wealthy communities. But what about the people that live in the areas that can't afford to live there, but live nearby, working at low level jobs , perhaps taking care of the lawns an manual chores in the wealthy community. Probably taking care of their pools and public parks while having none of their own.
The localists probably received a tax cut to further their comfort, the poor, not so much.
Of course the localist doesn't need healthcare or public schools. You get the idea.
Localism can quickly give rise to a return to restrictions of civil rights. Either we are One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and JUSTICE for All or we are not.
3
What is the difference between localism and tribalism?
Decades ago, a Chinese-American professor relocated to a small college in PA. The townspeople did not want him to buy a house in their town. Subsequently, that inspired his daughter to get a law degree from U Pitt. Long story short, the town finally accepted him. And other minority teachers have benefitted from his trendsetting.
The 60s and the 70s came and went, we thought that would never happen again. Alas, the Deep South never got the memo. Worse, instead of spreading the opening of the American mind from North to South, all sort of racism and other regression-isms rear their ugly head under Trump. But the cancer has always been present. Trump & the GOP just help to metastasize it.
An unenlightened localism is no better than NIMBYism. Just slapping some ism will not solve the problem of greed, hatred, envy and ignorance. Globalism or localism, or somewhere in between, kindness and compassion must drive commonality and generosity
1
A couple of thoughts:
1) Here in Boston, we've seen localism go ugly. And I don't just mean the bussing crisis of the 1970s. The Boston suburb of Arlington, MA organized in the 1980s to block the Red Line from expanding to their the town because they didn't want "those" people from Roxbury and Dorchester coming in. Today, residents of Arlington constantly complain about all the bus connections they have to take to get to work, life comes at you fast.
2) While the commonwealth has some of the most progressive laws when it comes to affordable housing, Boston suburbs fight tooth and nail against the development of affordable housing. The City of Boston has been somewhat proactive in building new housing in order to meet demand, the suburbs have been steadfast against new development. And then we wonder why housing is so expensive here.
3) Localism leads to opportunity hoarding, as wealthy suburban towns use policies to prevent less well off communities from accessing resources and opportunities. These wealthy communities grow richer at the expense of poorer suburbs (where the majority of the poor reside) and the central cities. The use of exclusionary zoning essentially distorts a property's market value to the wealthy's advantage.
6
13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
CCC
WPA
Social Security
Medicare
The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways
The federal Environmental Protection Act (approved by Nixon)
Regular Army and Reserves (as opposed to nothing but good old state militias)
The list goes on and on ....
Just to name a few ...
Just to name a few ...
5
If localism is so great, then why are companies like Walmart and McDonald's so successful. How does localism address issues like global warming or airborne pollution, or clean water? How does localism solve the problem when communities don't have the resources to implement solutions that would work?
David still clings to the belief that he can save conservative ideology from the actual conservative movement, whose members are largely people for whom the old social order works. Despite the now irrefutable proof that the first, and perhaps only, priority of the conservative Republican gov't was to end the "redistribution of wealth", lower taxes, and shred the safety net, Brooks still refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong for all the Obama years when he justified Republican opposition to Obama. These politicians were determined not to let "liberalism" succeed, because it's taken them nearly a century to undo the appreciation and achievements of Federal gov't initiatives that Roosevelt initiated.
David's attempt to equate the failure of liberalism's popularity with the public - attributable in no small part to right wing media - with the failure of integrity in character and ideas conservatives have displayed is a sly stab at "both sides are wrong".
No David. One side has failed us. Republican "Localists" at the state level are failing their constituents. The gap between rich and poor is growing. We are regressing.
2
Seems to me that many of the comments on Brooks’s views on localism are on its limits and dysfunctionality.
In an age of complexity and accelerating change we need effective local AND national approaches.
Thomas L Friedman writes on localism and how complex adaptive coalitions can make a difference.
Brooks often seems to be searching for the silver bullet. There isn’t one. Complexity usually means we need to focus on multiple levels.
2
Having worked in contracting for federal, state, and local governments, Brooks is wrong. The smaller you go, the more corruption there is. Local reporters are not covering corruption in smaller cities/towns. There is essentially no oversight.
5
I spent most of my life working in local government. What David is oblivious to is that the same attacks wielded against the Federal government are also wielded against state and local government by the same belief set.
It is true that in smaller cities the media attention is far less, but the cries of Conservatives and Libertarians is the same: Any government is an evil and taxation is theft.
5
This sounds remarkably like subsidiarity , a principle of Catholic social teaching.
1
All politics is small-town politics, is what they say, and as a retired county employee, I have seen this firsthand, and I have seen real progress at county and city levels that did not come from state or federal impetus. That said, some degree of the localism we are seeing is in response to receiving no help at all from the Feds. Thanks to Trump, the grassroots is rising. We see it at all levels, including among professionals who are finding workarounds to the barriers erected by our government. Individually, we are doing our best to retain and expand upon progress we made in the past, no thanks at all to the GOP.
4
How would localism help us address what is likely to be seen as the most imminent and consequential problem of our time- climate change?
Localism is a great way to combat local problems, but for global problems, we’re going to need an ideology that focuses on a bigger scale.
2
This strikes me as a "think tank" column -- a nice idea that ignores the real world in which the idea eventually would have to reside.
In many parts of the country (my state included) localism germinates on blue islands floating in a red sea. It may involve everything from a separate minimum wage to anti-discrimination laws, to provisions that a percentage of tax-funded construction projects be handled by local contractors, to regulations on absentee-owned short-term rental properties. Localities pass ordinances that are popular locally, and the ideas are aborted soon after birth by ultra-red state legislatures that pass pre-emption laws. In my state it has happened to Memphis, Nashville and Chattanooga. In Texas it has happened to Austin. In North Carolina it happened to Charlotte. Locals have come to feel, with much justification, that if they favor something, the state legislature will oppose it, not with any regard for merit but just because. Mr. Brooks, please step outside your think tank bubble once in a while and see how people actually have to live.
8
Actually, localism looks more like the takeover of the Texas School Book Commission than a barn raising.
4
The virtue of localism in any instance depends upon the virtue of the particular locality.
3
Mr. Brooks writes well. Clearly. Focuses on important issues and problems. His efforts, all too often, are inadvertently flawed since his style all too easily can be understood as if the selected word(s), their placement and meaning(s) are actually what they are imputed to represent. Just as a map does not represent the territory it graphically presents the word-any word- is not actually IT. "Localism," a term, concept, process, outcome, and much, much more to many people and systems is not inherently positive, " intimate and personalistic." IT enabled THEN, as well as NOW, dehumanization. Exclusion. Discimination. Corruption. Complicity. Complacency. Lynchings for public entertainment! Child labor.Starvation.Enslavement. Institutionalized distrust. Disrespect! Religiosity in name only! Setting up the complexity of socio-political reality into a binary banality of "liberalism and conservatism" is misleading. By choice or by chance! What does/can "localism" mean in a culture enabling personal unaccountability by selected and elected policymakers, as well as active- "ismated"- volunteers, who voice and carry out harmfulness in both known as well as hidden ways? An inadequately met challenge is how to transmute this semantic-surrealistic mantra into viable,sustainable, equitable well being, for ALL. Sharing needed human and nonhuman resources for operating levels and qualities of menschlichkeit in a WE-THEY contemporary violating world.Locally.Nationally, as well as globally.
1
Now while Citizens United nationalizes the power of shareholders and investors far from any locality . . .
2
This time I disagree with you David. Localism is fine when everyone believes in the fine ideals we have all come to cherish. But localism is what has produced the Alt-Right, and the Roy Moores of this world. By taking away the over-arching ideals of what it means to be an American, you free-up the bigots, and the racists, and the homophobes, to say what they want in their little corner of the world. Just the other day on NPR we heard a story where a town with a substantial Hispanic minority is shutting out that minority on all decisions - because they can and because no one is willing to stop them. Localism equals tribalism and we can see where that got the rest of the world. This time, David, you are wrong.
5
Yes! You got it, Jay.
Love David B., although while he aspires to encourage our better angels, his essay here completely misses the point. There is a place for both local, one on one, problem solving. Yet, localism still too often gives local cultures permission for awful regressive and barbaric racism, bigotry, and misogyny. Localism too often permits those who wish to drop their industrial and animal waste poison effluent into our rivers and drinking water to so so, then enjoy the country club and town boards.
It is only when we also have government that is competent to understand and protect constitutional rights and with the scale to enforce them that our society can survive its own growth to a give those better angels a chance. That, dear David, is the role that, so far in our history, can only been done adequately by the Feds.
Befuddled and outflanked by events, as happens to him every year or so, Brooks is trying on a new conceptual carapace. Now it's the desideratum of localism as opposed to federal power.
In describing the relational difference between the two, Brooks says that federal power is "impersonal, uniform, abstract and rule-oriented". Local power is "personalistic, relational [Hey, David, you already used up that word!], affectionate, irregular and based on a shared history of reciprocity and trust".
Wow! What claptrap! What Brooks maligns as federal power sounds like blind justice and the rule of law. What he extols as local power is newly fumigated Alabama stuff.
Localism allows wealthy towns to solve their own, relatively minimal, problems while ignoring those in the surrounding, un-wealthy towns where the people who clean their houses, nanny their children, and deliver their packages live.
3
Nice try David but this is promoting something that quite frankly has failed. It isn't the concept of localism that is bad, it is the idea that localism will produce the kind of revolutions you talk about. The truth is, if localism worked, the states that decry the federal government and crow about local control and so forth are places that are the most hurting and the most angry in the current setup. The southern states, for example, were known, not for innovation, for good schools, for new ideas, but rather for a poorly educated work force whose jobs were low paying and where there were continual cycles of poverty and hopelessness. The states now practicing "localism' have slashed spending on teachers, and face an education system in crisis...
And the reality is, the young people are still leaving for the cities and will continue to, 'silicon prairie', "rural tech" and the like are pipe dreams because localism can't create those kind of jobs.
Ironically, where localism is going to work is in the big stats, when the religious right and the GOP succeed in rolling back Roe Vs Wade, carve out huge exemptions for religious bigotry and roll back LGBT rights, it is going to be localism that provides havens where this won't be allowed, and the states that support this horrible oppression will find themselves even more isolated and desolate.
Localism should exist in tension with federalism, but as a source of solving major issues it often is more a source of the opposite.
2
In North Carolina, local governments only have powers explicitly given to them by state government. As our General Assembly is dominated by Republicans, towns and counties led by Democrats get slapped when they innovate. The old truism that Republicans preferred governance to take place as close as possible to the citizens is true no longer.
3
@Mia Burroughs
The same is true here in your neighbor state of Georgia. Those Republican state elected officials who are of the troglodyte variety (MAGA) pander to the virtues of "local control" ad nauseum--except when they don't like what progressive-minded local governments choose to do.
2
Mr. Brooks, you forget that local politics already dominates most of our civic life. National discourse, while loud and ever-present, rarely impacts the day-to-day life of the people that live in the country. Part of the "dysfunction" on the national level you mention is by design - we certainly don't want a tyranny of the majority dictating fly-by-night laws that only benefit a small minority of people right? *cough*tax reform*cough*
Laws are implemented by people, and when laws are designed to be inclusive and try (albeit not perfectly) to solve complex issues, the local people that implement the laws can have more flexibility and permission to show compassion. For myriad reasons, conservatives lost their compassion, say, around 1968... unless it happens to them or another member of their "clan".
Localism is alive and thriving, and it's no coincidence to find the biggest hubs in the bluest areas.
1
Mr. Brooks should really get out of the comfort of his limousine and go in small towns in middle America and look at the reality of life in those towns. The majority of their inhabitants wouldn’t be able to survive without some type of federal program, be it farm subsidies, disability benefits, social security, welfare, or food stamps. Wait until your friends in the Republican Party get rid of those programs, Mr. Brooks, and watch how quickly all these small towns die - not from a lack of innovation but from starvation.
5
David, when localists develop the internet, harness nuclear power, and develop vaccines in their garage, we will believe you.
3
"Localism" is not really local in this age of the internet. I just read that a Russian oligarch spent $1.25 million a month to pay for Trump rallies in local areas and to blast anti-Democratic messages into people's homes all over the country. Don't think that influenced us at the local level? you're engaging in a fantasy and a dangerous one at that.
2
Mr. Brooks,
I know you love local and hate federal, like all good Republicans do, but do you really think it's OK to let Kansas, being a local-not-Federal entity, refuse to teach evolution to its students, just because the right wing there has seized the school board?
4
Mr. Brooks, could you take some time off, travel around the country (see how poor Kentuckians are faring, i.e.), think about the real perils facing this country, make decision about where you stand in the struggle for the soul of America, THEN come back and start writing articles of real consequence regarding REAL LIFE solutions that face us TODAY. Localism? Really? Have you read the paper you work for in the last week? Our president is, at the very least, promoting Russian misinformation (see Hurd ), The GOP is cravenly covering for him (see Goldberg) and you are, once again, talking about a dreamy abstraction that "might be the coming wave". Localism may be useful for minor projects, but it is naive to think it can handle the major problems we face as a COUNTRY (climate change, trade, income inequality, stagnant wages, etc.). In fact, "localism" is one of the MAJOR problems we face in re: education. Please sir, use your talents as a writer and take a STAND. These are PERILOUS TIMES. It is past time for hand wringing and abstract solutions which are (I will generously call) half measures. HISTORY IS WATCHING.
1
By 500 CE, the western Roman Empire had collapsed, and the rule of law retreated behind city walls. Some called this the dawn of the Dark Ages; some called it localism.
Yes, as Brooks observes, localism functions relatively well—for locals. As “The Big Sort” documents, as a nation we have rarely been more segregated, with all the good and bad that entails. But woe to the immigrant or refugee.
And yes, as Brooks observes, locals will address homelessness by asking Fred and Mary what they need in order to have a home. And by escorting Juan and Diamonique to the edge of town, and establishing zoning and vagrancy laws to keep them out. More generally, locals adopt policies to ensure that the adverse consequences of their policies are felt only by those on the other side of the town’s borders.
Localism is tribalism as painted by Normal Rockwell.
That said, localism is better than atomism. Throughout the developed world we’re observing the demise of the liberal order and the rise of us-vs.them tribalism. Looking on the good side: at least people continue to express a modicum of solidarity with their tribe; we haven’t devolved into every man for himself—yet.
3
Several years ago we were at a dinner party where a city councilman was also a guest. The subject of homeless people came up. He was telling us how much money was being wasted and every program was failing. I asked him if it wouldn't be better to ask the homeless what they needed, instead of us, sitting in a beautiful house, deciding on the programs. He got quite annoyed with the question, "We know better than they do, what they need."
Top-down decision making has been at every level of society, from the family, to the work place, to the government. This decision making process is what changing.
It's naive to think local goverence is any different. It has been our nation's fundamental view, that the few people with super-vision should decide. But, a new perspective of an individual nested inside cities, states, nations, earth, solar system... tells us decisions must appreciate all levels. That is where we're going, not local only, not federal only. It is imperative we include what Earth is telling us in every decision too.
Without a systemic process we will continue to get the results we're getting, chaos and disintegration.
3
If localism were to proliferate, what would make us the "United" States of America? Would there be any commonalities, equal opportunities or equal justice? Tribalism is usually quite limited to the self described qualifications of membership.
1
Isn’t localism just another word for sectionalism, the ideology that led us to the Civil War? The mentality that allowed the North to view slavery as merely the South’s “peculiar institution”?
History has shown that our strength has come in moments where we could put our country above our section—whether our state or our locality. The first American political cartoon, Ben Franklin’s “Join or Die” snake, initially circulated during the French and Indian War, appealed to that sense of mutually beneficial cooperation. This image was recycled during the run up to the Revolutionary War, as a way to convince the colonies that unity of purpose was their greatest weapon. And, of course, our country’s ultimate collaborative effort was that 4-month project in 1787 that yielded the United States Constitution. These are just a few examples that have defined as a nation; they are not the only ones, by far.
Granted, Mr. Brooks, localism has its place. And idealizing localism is a tempting remedy for a nation falling prey to a more dangerous “-ism”: solipsism. But retreating further and further into a parochial state of mind is not the answer to this time of national crisis. Rather, we must remember that our best work came during times when our compelling interests as a nation coincided with a spirit of local community interest, concern, and activism. Going back to these moments, knowing we did do it and God willing, can again, is how we truly make—no, keep—America great.
3
Dear Mr. Brooks:
Ah, to live in a utopian society, where—as Garrison Keillor says—“all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average,” and there are no corrupt politicians, power is shared equally, and justice reigns.
Unfortunately, people are a mixture of good and bad, which means that localism is equally subject to the same corruption and abuse of power that we see on a national stage.
Perhaps, in a small-scale, highly homogenous society, consensus may be more easily reached, but America is marked by its diversity, and when one group takes power to itself, its self-interest all too often results in ignoring and demonizing the views of others.
I fear you dwell among the lotus-eaters and can no longer see America at all.
2
"Politicians in Washington are miserable, hurling ideological abstractions at one another, but mayors and governors are fulfilled, producing tangible results."
How about the environment -women's rights - healthcare and all those other existential issues that require a coordination of our collective resources for the common good?
Duh!
3
"...while national politics takes place through the filter of the media circus,..."
It gives me pause that local TV stations are now being purchased by the same crazy-agenda driven type as FOX "news"....
The (media) circus will be coming to town...
3
While localism is good as far as sanctuary cities are concerned, I feel like it could also be a backdoor for the kind of white supremacist tone policing that’s increasing.
For instance, consider the so called “Becky” phenomenon. It seems like each week we have another Sidewalk Susie, BBQ Becky, or Permit Patty. And just last week, we had another one in Boston who used both racism and classism to try to shame a neighbor into observing a code regarding noise, which like all such codes is just a means to suppress people of color.
So while localism is desirable in some cases, we need to make sure we don’t ever give up our right to use the power of social media to relentlessly mob, shame, and tag these deplorable people who deign to enforce local standards against people of color. It’s bad enough that people of color are already being disproportionately targeted by the police for crimes like murder, robbery, burglary, and traffic violations.
Are we really going to let a bunch of white private citizens get into this sad game too?
No! Absolutely not! So while localism in small doses and certain cases is good, we need to stop it dead in its tracks when it amounts to gentrification, and harm to people of color.
And I hope the Times keeps its coverage of these heinous incidents up. These are truly National News Events, that deserve the coverage they’re getting if we’re to scare other would be Becky’s from oppressing people of color and protecting their white privilege.
I misspoke. And it wasn't a would vs. wouldn't. Jason Kander, not Kinder, is running for mayor. And he ran against Roy Blunt, not Greitens. My apologies.
It was this sort of attitude that brought us the Klan and lynchings and segregation and bigotry. The people who "hold sway in the town because" they're rich. Poor people are always voiceless and are always the victims of "the elders." I'm beginning to wonder - strike that - I'm beginning to conclude that David Brooks is just regurgitating what other people say hoping it might stick or that he'd be applauded. I don't think he has a moral or ethical center. He's a conservative: "Oh, for the good ole days." We abandoned the "good ole days" because they weren't so good. It's the people over 60 who have driven this country in the ditch. The older generations are ripping this country apart. Being old doesn't make you wise.
5
This is the columnist’s theme. Recently in relation to Mr. Trump’s nomination for the Supreme Court Justice, that only [community/village] can foster geniuses or talents and promote them to applicable sectors in the society, was indicated in his column. It is, in a way, true that, either in the national or the local, a lone genius has no place to live in; so, flying back in time to a desert of the biblical or some such sphere, may be the only choice, I guess. ***** Concretely, selon moi, this column mentions the localism as favorable for three points: 1) more practically operational; 2) less data based; 3) more humane. Overall, the localism being discussed here is good in seeking the local community’s interests and benefits most, which accord with the locally shared experiences. Conversely, however, there would be a creation of exclusivism. ***** In a random localism, for example, the elders will *not*, very likely, pursue the objective legality, when a local individual, named L, is about to face a legal sanction for L’s having lied about a new comer, named N, as committing a crime. More likely, the whole community might be gathered on a consensus to ‘save’ L, because it is just a lie, which should not ruine the L’s future. Consequentially, N will be falsely made to ba a criminal by many locals’ fake testimonies. This may seem extreme, but, the point here is that the localism would produce its own system, solely based on its self-made rules as justifiable to preserve.
No Mr. Brooks, Trump rule will not go away; his horrendous effect on all facets of our lives is here to stay. The Republican Party, Fox News, and the base evil of conservative talk radio permeates local structures to the very core. The soul of the US is being sucked away by the above institutions with Trump as their chief Dementor.
4
@NoDak
I feel your pain. NoDak, but do not give up. If you, they win. This country is being tested for the first time since the Depression. It will be very tough but we must stay the course.
2
Mr. Brooks is forgetting that Jim Crow grew and thrived due to local vs. national control. As William Faulkner said in 1929 (not a direct quote) just leave the South alone and we will be the ones to right the wrongs of the Southern treatment of Negros.
2
The Conor Lamb campaign was a good example of localism.
In his victory speech, Conor Lamb said, "We fought to find common ground, and we found it." He found it in jobs, education, healthcare, retirement security, and the opioid crisis—the issues that mattered most to the people in his district. https://youtu.be/I_ZyLppT25g https://conorlamb.com/priorities/
There were no litmus tests, no angry denunciations, just kitchen-table talks where people spilled out their fears and hopes. In the process, he drew many Trump voters into his column. Voters found in him someone they could trust—who, they believed, would work for them in Washington.
Lamb avoided the hot-button, divisive issues of the day, such as guns, Trump or immigration. By focusing instead on local concerns, he demonstrated that he was committed to solving problems, not to waging partisan or cultural warfare.
If Dems hope to retake the House, they must win some rural and suburban districts currently represented by Republicans. Yes, the high-profile issues are important, but winning the House and saving our democracy are MORE important. And local issues are the key.
To those liberals who feel that Conor Lamb is too conservative, I offer this recent tweet by Paul Krugman, describing Lamb as follows: "If we had a Congress run by 'conservatives' like that, we'd have higher taxes on the rich, universal health care, and reinvigorated unions. And you know, that might just happen." http://tinyurl.com/y9cu462o
2
To quote Tip O'Neal, "all politics is local."
A federal act is difficult & distant ... implementation is a bumpy road, whereas a city, county or state act is here and now.
Let us never forget where we were born and raised.
PARuss
I started as a Walkout,became an Illuminator and am now an Elder in my small community.I belong to a group of Elders which has made some important changes in our community. But I am no fool."Localism" is never going to give health care to most of our citizens.It is not going to ensure they have enough money to retire on and ,in this area,we are headed for a disaster.In my state of California it is estimated that 70% off the homeless population are mentally ill.I used to work in the community mental health system which Pete Wilson destroyed in the 90's.A mental health system which,if it still existed,could have ameliorated much of the problem.
Asking "Fred or Mary what they need to have a home"...are you kidding!Fixing the waterways and dams in this state requires federal and state involvement.The list goes on and on.The problem in this community is too much "emotionalism" and not enough "rationalism".The 2nd amendment is never going to cure the cancers ,provide a living wage,guarantee a livable retirement or save most of the members of my community from the ravages of natural disasters.Donald Trump with his rambling appeals to "emotionalism", couldn't(or could?) care less about them.Your column is a thinly disguised appeal to the heartless conservatism which you have been pushing for years.It is almost insulting.
3
The history of 'localism' in the United States is of one that frequently denies human rights and promotes tribalism. Perhaps Mr. Brooks should retake his history classes...and remove his rose colored glasses.
2
Oh, my, where to start. Take Anniston, Alabama. Localism has rendered that city government an abject failure, making DC look like a well-functioning machine in contrast.
We escaped. How wonderful to live in a place where fistfights don’t break out in city council meetings. And where collaboration between all levels of government is deemed necessary. And where big problems need a dose of big government—like the huge firefighting planes and helos this week that probably saved our neighborhood from going up in flames.
Localism is fine, but not nearly enough for any Fred and Mary.
1
"Localism" is, Mr Brooks, pretty much the way communities in which pre--agricultural humans evolved functioned, except community change was not as formalized as was done in the TEDx talk which he fancies, nor were there likely separate groups of people: Illuminators, Elders, and Walk Outs, lol.
Unfortunately, the sustainability of localism depends on a robust ecosystem, not degraded by the over-proliferation of a single species - homo sapiens. In order to support 6 or 7 billion homo sapiens on the earth, it is necessary to create multiple grids of inter-connection, and a rules-based structure, to prevent a rapid return to a human population between 2 million and 2 billion. As we are learning, rules don't always work well 6-7 billion is unsustainable - the laws of ecology apply to invasive species (us) sooner or later.
Mr Brooks naivete is touching. I suggest he read Jared Diamond, and educate himself on why and how the anthropocene epoch came to be. A hint: to support 6-7 billion homo sapiens on the earth, it was necessary to destroy the robust ecosystem in which the species evolved. Science and technology (made possible) and mitigated the damage, however they cannot undo fundamental biological facts. I doubt localism will help us decide who gets to turn up their air conditioners, and who swelters and eventually succumbs to the heat. Who would of thought we were committing slow suicide by prospering and progressing so marvelously?
From today's NYT:
"With a new Supreme Court justice on the way, anti-abortion groups sense a unique moment to achieve their goal, and they’re mobilizing forces at the local level."
1
With all our gadgets and technological conveniences, with all our material affluence, rates of suicide, drug abuse, psychopathology, reported loneliness, etc. in modern society remain high. Trying to forge the "good society," social change movements have advocated liberalism, conservatism, socialism, populism, and religious fundamentalism. To no avail. I think the answer is to forget about the big systems and ideologies. Life satisfaction, a sense of place, ecological responsibility, and what E. F. Schumacher called 'right livelihood' will never be found within the context of mass society. What David Brooks is calling 'localism' I call communitarianism.
Steven Welzer
East Windsor NJ
Like any excellent columnist, you are carefully avoiding the history most of your readers weren’t taught.
This nation operated under “Localism”, aka dual federalism, until the 14th Amendment was given real backbone by the FDR and Warren Supreme Court.
The major issue that made One Nation the operating principle was civil rights.
“Localist” control permitted total disenfranchisement of anyone the Local Community wished, and segregation: of schools, buses, movie theaters, restaurants, housing, pricing, hotels, everything.
Localism was the motto of the lynch mob, biased cops (still a problem) slow response to fire/rescue calls where “they” lived.
Localism also meant corruption: the one-party communities where voters who did not vote the party line, early and often, couldn’t get a government job, while no-show jobs and no-bid contracts went to the “right” people.
I am sorry, as a Democrat, of my party’s history - through the 1980s in my state’s capital city.
From Lincoln to FDR, Democrats, the ol’ boy Dixicrats ran the South.
Beginning with Truman’s integration of the armed forces, and changed for the current era by the Civil Rights Act of ‘64, the South and demagogue-controllable Bible Belt, changed their allegiance to the GOP, the party of business and wealth, which became the party of Localism.
We’re experiencing a good deal of Localism under Trump’s destruction of the federal government - do YOU really want a country with no EPA, Civil Rights, FBI? Medicare?
6
Localism is great - until towns/cities start running up against state laws specifically prohibiting them from passing laws more restrictive (as in gun rights) or inclusive (like gay marriage) - than the corresponding state's laws.
1
Localism really refers to self-government based on the sovereignty of the people - that is, if it is to have any enduring value. Walter Karp described it best here (circa 1968): http://www.wnyc.org/story/walter-karp/. What he is talking about is slightly different, and more important, than what the entrepreneurial catch-phrases that Brooks employs ,e.g. Walk Outs, etc., suggest.
Problem with this approach is that things always get a lot messier when the localists always waddle up to the federal or state troughs to pay for all their brilliant localist ideas. Not as elegant analysis as others below, but not as prolix as well.
In surfing, localism means kicking people out of the water who don't regularly surf there.
1
Localism at root means fragmentation and drawing apart. It is a reaction and growing apart from repressive ideas of the past, and a rejection of globalist and national-bicoastal-elite ideologies, and the politicians, celebrities, academics, and media propagandists who used these ideologies as vehicles for their own financial and apparent power aggrandizement, now vanishing before their eyes.
That's what the rejection of Hillary and her crew and her enormous symbolic and ideological baggage means. The bicoastal elites epitomized by Mr. Friedman and Mr. Brooks still don't really believe it. It is equivalent to losing their identity and self-worth, shattering, and the world will never be the same.
Mr. Brooks said that he was going to get out into the country, to try to understand, after the election, but he never did. The bicoastals have always had contempt for the countryside, and fear. They will stay in their own localities, comfortably writing and talking to each other. And the disparate tribes out in the countryside will be doing just fine, just as we have been doing since Plymouth Rock.
Mr. Brooks and some other #NeverTrumpers cultivate a fantasy that sensible citizens can turn inward and avoid confronting major political, social and economic problems. History doesn't work that way.
In 1776, many colonial farmers just wanted to get on with the harvest, while the hotheads in Philadelphia had overplayed their hand by taking on the British Empire. Their world completely changed anyhow. In 1861, a majority of Missourians wanted to avoid a war over slavery. They still got the nastiest guerilla conflict in American history, Jesse James included. Many small-town businessmen felt that the economy would eventually recover in the 1930's if people just liquidated and saved. Instead, the New Deal centralized American government in unprecedented ways.
The Obama and Trump presidencies have proved that the conflicts over the "cultural revolution" of the 1960s were never really settled. Many of us enjoyed the respite that the Reagan and Clinton years gave us to pursue our own self interest in a fairly orderly (Brooks might say "Burkean") world, while many minorities and working-class whites felt left out. The current issues over American identity, the place of whites versus minorities in American life, the collapse in the value of unskilled labor and the aging of American institutions cannot be glossed over by local people going about their business. As in 1776, 1861 and 1933, national events are taking over, and some people are going to lose.
2
Sounds great in theory, but harder to pull off when it are the multi-national corps that control everything. The neoliberals wanted this, and now are in deep trouble. Instead of "big government running our lives", it's big corps. What to do now?
Nice idea, until the local community wants to increase the minimum wage, enact anti-discrimination laws, build local broadband/internet systems, limit fracking, and implement other ideas to promote/protect health and general welfare. Then the Monty Python foot of the state descends and squashes it all.
1
"Change in a localist world often looks like a renewal of old forms, which were often more intimate and personalistic than the technocratic structures of the past 50 years. Localism stands for the idea that there is no one set of solutions to diverse national problems. Instead, it brings conservatives and liberals together..."
Yeah David, just like "Separate But Equal" did.
Quit with the horsepoo, buddy.
Recognize the truth that we are truly in trouble.
1
Anyone wishing to complete the process of fracturing our nation need only segment it farther by adopting Brooks’ widespread promotion of “localism”. We would quickly shear off into blue vs red geographic sections, states, counties, cities, towns. We must not lose the very basic concept that we are one united country regardless of the issues that challenge us. Do not give up!
It is inspirational to see that our despair about national politics has not completely destroyed political initiatives at the local level. We have not thrown out all our progress in environmental matters, even though 45 gives us permission to do that. But Conservative talking points have been injected into almost every locale through propaganda and through money that floods into local elections Apparently political trickle-down is more effective than economic trickle-down.
Conservatives have spoken so long about smaller government, but have never paired that with smaller federal taxes. Local governments could be much more effective if more dollars stayed at home.
Some people think government programs are never effective. But usually government programs are drowned in rules to prevent cheating and that prevents us from seeing how a truly humanitarian approach might work. The small-federal-government people control Washington right now and I suppose this period would represent a test case for small government if the GOP had not been Trumped. But if we have a small federal government that does nothing for we the people in terms of providing a safety net then the big dollars must stay at home.
I am a former New Englander inculcated in the New England town meeting form of governance. I am happily a Philadelphian, and I have watched my city struggle to improve and revive. I see that it is correcting longstanding problems with energy, creativity and persistence. We have been fortunate to have public officials who have collaborated with local and state official to achieve tangible results. Most of the good changes have not come from Washington, but from partnerships with stakeholders in the city. I don't think that the federal government has been particularly helpful.
I hope that this is not a concept that David Brooks has just realized?
This ain't populism. That involved action to help people -- not just railing against "elites."
Brooks seems to be finding refuge from the current disaster that afflicts our federal government in a sort of political ludditism. Yes, local governments have their place and their strengths, but the modern world also requires strong and effective national and even global government. Returning to an idealized past where everything can be managed locally is either not a realistic option or one that, if realized, would almost certainly usher in a second dark ages.
8
What you are describing is a variation on the principle of subsidiarity (see writings of Daniel Patrick Moynihan). You frame the discussion in the classic us-against-them argument with them being the federal government. This lack of nuance is a mistake as it allows the discussion to skip problem identification and go directly to solutions or worse, slogans (Reagan's "government is not the solution, it is the problem" ). This prevents us from having the discussion about what is the appropriate role for local organizations, city, state and the federal government in solving a specific problem. All these groups are going to be required in order to solve today's problems. Simplex anecdotal approaches are not going to get us there.
I live in the Houston urban complex and from where I stand, the irrelevant entity is the state whose role seems to be interference in local county and city government.
David Brooks can do better than this.
7
One of the stranger things about Conservatives like Brooks is there are very few Federal regulations on most people's lives. The vast bulk of regulations are local or state.
It was also suggested in the 80s that the coming internet and the globalism it would encourage would likely encourage a localism and parochialism as a backlash.
3
Mr. Brooks should take a look at the article in today's NY Times, "Water Wars of Arizona." It's a case study of localism undermining itself as corporate agriculture moves into localities and destroys the aquifer and ruins the lives of families who don't value government involvement. The issue is not localism (a good in Mr. Brooks's mind) vs. national government involvement (a not so good in Mr. Brooks's mind), but rather what is the larger good for which public policy should be directed and what are the most appropriate means to reach it. Everyone looks out for him- or herself while trashing the commonweal.
10
I usually agree with Mr. Brooks. But he's overlooking one very important part of our constitutional structure. The Federal Constitution says that powers not expressly granted to the Federal Government belongs to the state. One would expect that State Constitutions follow along the same line. They DO NOT. Most State Constitutions typically say that all powers belong to the State UNLESS ceded to localities. This allows state legislatures to overrule the will of localities the same way that the House can overrule the will of the people in DC. Look for example how the state of North Carolina punished and overruled Asheville for passing a LGBT anti discrimination law.
10
Transition Towns was predicting and fostering localism (emphasizing sustainability and resilience) decades ago. They foresaw peak oil but did not foresee communication hopelessness.
Although he may not fit everything mentioned in this opinion piece, but Jason Kinder, the opponent of the resigned Gov. Greitens, is running for mayor of Kansas City where he can probably get more done and reach the needs of more people more rapidly. I think this trend amongst progressive candidates will continue since large cities have a tendency to vote more progressively. It is a way to get around the gerrymandering of state congressional districts and still serve the people justly.
1
I misspoke. It wasn't a would vs. wouldn't. It is Jason Kander, not Kinder, and he ran for Senate against Roy Blunt. My apologies. Hadn't had my coffee yet.
This only works when your local leaders are not ignorant, self-serving, "good ol boy" hicks who crush any dissent under their heel, drive all business opportunities/grants/ projects, etc to cronies, don't tolerate outsiders, etc. Such dysfunction is all too prevalent in sparsely-populated counties and small cities, unfortunately.
12
@Spook
"Such dysfunction is all too prevalent in sparsely-populated counties and small cities, unfortunately."
Hey Spook, I guess you haven't been to NY City lately. The subways are a mess, the city is a mess, the mayor is under investigation, etc. Chicago is the crime capital and is nearly broke. If you think big cities are more 'functional' than small cities, you need to climb out of your bubble.
I grew up in a small town and the "leaders" were not only corrupt, the were shamelessly so. It is a fallacy that local government works better than State or Federal governments. In fact, because of the lack of scrutiny & press coverage, they are worse. Even as bad & spineless as the current Republicans in Congress are, the national press TRIES to keep them from being completely corrupt. Brooks is looking for something out of the 50's, which actually only existed on TV.
15
Localism: Condo boards and neighborhood associations run amok!
6
The Federal Government should, and does, provide a framework within which communities can thrive. Communities choose not to do so because they’ve been taught to hate government. They perceive it as a boot on their neck. But, that’s just silliness. Policies the Federal Government pursues, like clean air and water, are meant to benefit society overall. No reasonable citizen says, yeah, dump your industrial sludge into our waterways. We don’t care. We need those jobs. The government is lying to us—there is, absolutely, such a thing as ‘clean coal’ and we want to dig it up and die of black lung. That’s what my father did and that’s good enough for me!
States already have plenty of autonomy. Look at education, where states have almost total control. You have, on the one hand, Massachusetts, where we spend a lot of money, pay our teachers well, and get excellent results. We have the whole gamut of public, private, and charter schools. Sure, we have ‘zip code’ issues, so we fight among ourselves about who gets funding for what, but education gets funded. Because it matters. Because we compete internationally. Because we attract the best and brightest here, and we’d like to keep it that way.
Then, there’s Kansas. Or, pick any one of your Southern red states. Pathetic. Fine job those localities are doing educating their kids! Snark intended.
You know what I see? Your ‘change agents’ getting fed up and moving to Massachusetts.
4
Trump is holding secret meetings with Putin and acting like a man who could not be more guilty of conspiracy, collusion and treason.
And Brooks, from his ivory tower perch somewhere, gives us this summer ode to localism. It boggles the mind.
10
lConservatives like Mr. Brooks need to study history a bit more critically. We tried "localism". It didn't work. Localism was the predominant system in the Middle Ages. It gave rise to feudalism and local warlords and kings and empires. We see it in popular culture, where an iron-fisted villain (warlord) runs a town and must be driven off by a a hero in a white hat or Bruce Willis. Localism is just the trendy word for systems that cannot stand alone.
2
Mr. Brooks, localism is indeed desirable and essential in public life. But, you bash the central (federal) power structure unfairly, and fail to cite the true culprits, the state governments.
State governments impede localism by ineptly delineating localities, and cripple central government by politically-motivated apportionment of representation.
What constitutes a locality in population conglomerates like metropolitan Los Angeles and Atlanta?
How did we get a dysfunctional, unrepresentative Congress and a tragically-inept, voter-rejected President except by unrepresentative apportionment between and within states?
2
There are weeds growing in the gardens of Localism. Don’t overlook The Posse Comitatus, The John Birch Society, and others of their ilk. If carried to its extremes, localism can bear bitter fruit. Some adherents will reject any hint of nationalism. They will close the doors, arm themselves, and hole up in their own selfish and fearful worlds.
11
With all due respect, put this article in your file marked "The Myths of the Heartland".
6
Republicans are all for local control.... except when they are not. Locals want to let ranchers have free and unfettered access to public lands. That is fine and good. Locals want strict environmental laws............woops, you have no right to do that. Locals want to restrict abortions or restrict voting rights, no problem. Locals want choice and encourage voting by everyone.... not so fast.
3
We live in a time when their is more change in one year in the way we live then most if not all the time we have existed as a species. If we expect to survive for a while longer, our biggest problem is managing these changes.
Balkanizing our efforts will only expedite our extingsion
1
I don’t know about another -ism. For me it is an overthought idea. Solutions to our misery could be quite simple. Remove religion(s) from public life and remove money from politics (public financing).
I am pretty sure we would have a drmatic improvement in our democracy right there.
The one thing I don’t quite know how to deal with is the propaganda which makes some people as dumb as a rock. How to prevent spreading lies and falshoods. Why threats like “lock her up” can’t be prosecuted? Our republic is dying and we just throw up our arms, can’t do anything because freedom of speech?
Freedom to lie is the foundation of propaganda and is what is killing our democracy.
2
David, localism is a euphemism for provincialism. Grow up. The world is changing while you bewail the "Norman Rockwell," narrow-minded "good old days." The salt-of-the earth vote against their own welfare because the refuse to see what's outside their narrow world.
2
I wish David Brooks had been an advocate of "localism" when he advocated the invasion and long-term occupation of Iraq.
5
Still groping around trying to find a coherent point of view while retreating to and pawning off the old Republican mantra of localism. Localism is a tired old Republican tactical propoganda providing the cover of shiny objects distraction while robbing us blind at the national level. In the sixties when I was in high school, when we still had teachers who were allowed to actually teach, my history teacher, Me. Greenberg, taught us how localism is used to divide and conquer. Mr. Brooks, consider a nice long sabbatical while you get your new story together. Being on every side of every issue lately has really made you quite tedious to read and watch.
5
Ever since Trump was elected, David's columns have felt more timid and less relevant to me. He feels like a man in retreat.
5
"Illuminators", "Elders", and "Walk-outs" ... the terminology of our contemporary "Thought Leaders" reads like that one finds in an HG Wells novelistic vision of the future as seen from the 1920s.
2
@Melitides I agree, though my literary reference would be Orwell.
But in fairness to David, he is not a contemporary "Thought Leader"--whatever that might be. He is an old man trying to make sense of a world that has spun far beyond his comprehension. It happens to most of us; it has certainly happened to him.
“Localism” is just another conservative anti-government chant, and a wistful Brooksian plea to recognize “community” as the panacea for all our social ills. It’s vintage Brooks rhapsodizing with simplistic kumbaya solutions (“people are happiest…in caring face-to-face relationships”), and nostalgic romanticized history (those glorious “old forms”). Let’s cue the Brooks soundtrack:
Memories
Light the corners of my mind
Misty water-colored memories
Of the way we were
Let’s resurrect Grovers Corners and Mayberry again!
Reality check David: the storefronts and businesses of those communities are boarded up because your conservative free market forces – like Walmart and Amazon - killed the mom-and-pops, and the factories left town decades ago for SE Asia. The biggest employers are opioid distributors. And the “personalistic, relational, affectionate” power you promote has been destroyed by social media that fractures us into isolated bubbles rather than bringing us together.
And note that Brooks’ communitarianism mentions “Fred or Mary,” but not Daquain, Destiny, Manuel or Lupe.
No doubt there are things that can and should be handled on the local level, but many issues are too complex and too expensive for locals to afford. And, localism can result in an anarchistic patchwork of standards and solutions. And who gets to define “community” and how it gets to affect the larger collective?
Brooks is proposing tribalism over collectivism. Doesn’t sound very unifying to me.
8
Why are you referring to Trump as a populist? He lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes - and that was with low voter turnout.
He's an elitist. He's a fraud - as the GOP already knew going in based on the evidence files in 3 class action lawsuits accusing him of fraud that he settled out of cour. He's been practicing the "Art of the Backroom DEal" for years with Russia. He has repeatedly referred to the free press as his enemy. He even had a reporter manhandled and thrown out of the summit for having a slip of paper that had 4 words written on it, i.e., "Nuclear Test Ban Treaty" which was referred to be his goons as a "threat". And he's insane.
Mr. Brooks often seems to dance around and expirement with "anything other than Progressive" since he can't get away from attaching the reality that his theoretical conservatism is different from the modern cesspool known as the GOP. This is yet another idyllic, non-responsibility accepting attempt to frantically search for some non-logicial salve for the pre-dystopian future his GOP is urgently pursuing. Spare us, sir. Do the right thing...get this filth out of our three branches of federal and state government.
Remember Obama was a grass roots organizer?
Remember also that Bernie's draw by the millions was also a grass roots effort. never mind. You did not get it then and you won't get it now either. You had rather send your children to fight for other countries than involve in local grass roots efforts.
3
Why do we even have an american federal government? No one respects it, no one wants it. america is nothing but two groups of people making each other miserable in turn, with a third group caught in between. It is like a violent family that needs a divorce before someone gets killed in rage.
#calexit - get out before it collapses.
1
We are having a national crisis and this is the best that Brooks can thin of to write about?
How about this-- why not reconsider your essay from last month --4 short weeks ago--about the G7 and a change in Western values--https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/opinion/g7-trump-north-korea-kim-jong...
This is not a values crisis- this is a crisis of a presidency elected by the help of Vladimir Putin. We are under attack by a foreign enemy manipulating our democracy ( manipulating it for years apparently, via the NRA and leadership of the National Prayer Breakfast) and you are writing about cherry pie and local village councils? Where is your mind?
10
Let me see if I understand. If we become localist or are localists this would the the way to go...in a week when there are a tad more important issues highlighted which you would say are less than the weak stuff proferred today. Would suggest if you are out of thoughts, you hang up you spurs and join the ranks of the unemployed.
1
Localism is Brooks benign version of populism.Certainly one can point to many positive aspects of local cooperation.But bear in mind that localism has also has enabled both racist nativists and anti-immigration movements to flourish
4
So, David, perhaps it's time to walk the walk abd resign from this nationally recognized, widely read paper of record. Move to a small town and focus your work on small town issues via the local press....
3
Brooks's ignorance is insulting. Let's take it all the way. Forget the UNITED States of America; let's have feudalism.
Let's have the local yokels decide. Geography should determine your rights as a person/citizen.
Mr. Brooks, please retire.
3
Republicans love to define populism as a society leaning toward fascism. True populism is defined by a society whose interest centers on that of the worker.
Sure thing, David.
Local power can be excellent. But not when the ruling party, your party, bought, paid for, nurtured, promoted and deeply beloved by you, has determined to amass all power unto its national self.
While you spout the party-faithful lines about individual responsibility, state's rights, local power, your corrupt, savage, self-serving leaders are (as you very well know) preparing to literally take over everything.
Examples?
Here in Ohio, land of free thinking Republicans, I have no choice if my neighbors want to put a fracking operation on my land. In fact it will cost me dearly if I merely try to protest.
On the other hand, if one of my neighbors wants to dig up the wetland that has helped restore Lake Erie, and put a gas station on it, there's nothing I can do about that, because your Republican heroes have rescued us from (how's it go?) onerous and burdensome regulation. And drinking water.
Same for abortion. Sorry, America, no can do. Sure, writing-heads like Brooks will go on and on about state's rights and local decision making, but you bet that will last only as long as Republicans control the states.
If there is one group of people on this earth I would not trust with my neighborhood it is you David, and your duplicitous party. You guys are for local as long as you own local. That's all this is.
2
As someone from a small town in upstate New York--a state with "home rule," which means localities outside the city and Long Island have both more power than they need and less help than should--this is preposterously disconnected from reality. The idea that our town or village government is literally or even figuratively "asking Fred or Mary what they need to have a home" is like a third grader's conception of how government works.
It's shocking that someone like David Brooks gets it so wrong about small-town America, given that he was born in... Toronto? Oh wait, but he was raised in Stuyvesant Town... in Manhattan between 14th and 20th streets. But now he lives... on Capitol Hill. Oh, but before that he lived in the small town of... Bethesda, Maryland.
Also FYI that "legacy system" for the public school is segregation, the "grocery story" (hello Times copy editors?) has been put out of business by Wal*Mart and the "investment fund" exists (if at all) because of federal regulation of the securities markets and financial institutions that has allowed relatively unsophisticated local people to participate in a national market without effectively putting their town's pensions on red and letting it riiiiide.
3
Serious question: wasn't George Zimmerman, self-appointed neighborhood watchman, a cautionary tale about the dangers of localism?
4
Somehow, for the past several columns, Mr. Brooks can't see the trees for the forest.
1
That’s sweet. Trump is taking a chainsaw to trees and Brooks is hugging them.
2
The local person asks Fred or Mary what they need in order to have a home.
Or what it would take to get rid of them without killing them.
4
I have to believe in David’s mind he thinks his columns of late serve as a respite to NYT readers from what Trump and the Republican Congress are doing to destroy America. But in my opinion he actually doesn’t want to face the reality of what is happening in our country. He probably thinks by writing columns like this it shows he is trying to rise above it. But this is really the old head in the sand syndrome. Because he doesn’t want to admit that it is conservatives and his Republican party that is causing this damage. Also columns like this smack of “I know better than the rest of us of what will save America.” Localism may save your city or town for a little while. But if the rest of the country is going down the toilet, it’s just a matter of time until your city or town are flushed down too.
Maybe it’s time NYT readers refrain from reading his column until he starts writing about real issues again. Not a boycott. Just a respite.
3
Please tell the powers that be in Bmo that their localism is killing us.
"A local system requires emotional intelligence, too."
This is where the rubber meets the road. Emotional intelligence spawns "I don't care who gets the credit, as long as it happens and positively impacts the community."
I live in a town of 8,000 and within the Village center of 4,000, and our localism greatly benefits from state and federal bigger pockets, which is why cost-share authorities are required and need funding. NY State is a very positive contributor to regional initiatives, even though we have goof balls in the legislature, but they see the positives that occur with local champions. However, our greatest revival occurred after the local population became more liberal and blued the electorate in this red area (Protestant Republicans). If we were still under the old guard politicians, I'd surely bet a paycheck that our town would not be as vibrant as now. They had no vision but to hire their own relatives for decision making jobs. They are nearly gone and nobody looks in that rear-view mirror, nor invites them to speak on their behalf. Want change, bring in new thoughts.
“Localism”, another term for “Tibalism.”
As of this writing this article has garnered 147 comments; the first five trending, all “Trump,” 4,427.
Yet the Bell rings loudly: “People really have faith only in the relationships right around them…how deeply you can connect….local power is personalistic, relational, affectionate…a shared history of reciprocity…people are happiest when their lives are enmeshed in caring face-to-face relationships, building their communities together.”
And with deep thanks, David, there is one word missing from your invitation: LOVE, for almost all of us spent nine months of absolute connectedness (love) in the womb, to emerge in a realm where most of us, to one degree or another, feel disconnected, separated-from, confused, hurt, afraid and angry.
“What’s love got to do with it?” Everything.
What’s love? Here speaking are children, ages 4-8:
Love is when my mommy makes coffee for my daddy and she takes a sip before giving it to him, to make sure the taste is OK…
Love is when you go out to eat and give somebody most of your French fries without making them give you any of theirs…
When someone loves you, the way they say your name is different. You just know that your name is safe in their mouths…
There are two kinds of love. Our love and God's love. But God makes both kinds…
You really shouldn't say I love you unless you mean it. But if you mean it, you should say it a lot; people forget…..
Localism already exists. Liberal and leftist politicians created sanctuary cities.
1
@Olivia Whilst GOP try to
resurrect States Rights
It's easy to spot David Brooks at the organic farmer's market: he's the guy eating organic blueberries and reading Edmund Burke.
3
Heyyy....really solid analysis. And after localism, we can try wishful thinkingism, and then stick-your-head-in-the-sandism. It’s just a bit hard to swallow that after everything that’s happened this week, your response is localism.
4
David: You have stars in your eyes.
Dear David Brooks,
why are you writing about this topic when Trump and perhaps many elected republicans seem to be compromised by Putin and Putin/NRA?
I was looking forward to a thoughtful column from you on the subject,
2
Just LOOK at everything localism did for civil rights and racial justice!!!
3
Another missive from the ghost of Fred Rogers. The nation’s last experience with rampant “localism” erupted into the Civil War. We absolutely need a new national concensus which must begin with evicting that vulgar imbecile from the White House.
1
This is so true. The other related article was that of Tom Friedman last week describing how creative things were are local level even where committees outside of the local govenment would come together to fix the problem. This is why federal government programs should allow flexibility for communities to fix problems in potentially unique ways. We do need to help these activities spread to other hurting rural and urban areas.
My only issue is that this isn't how Trump has been portraying things. Remember his 'american is a wasteland" inaugural speech? now think how people love their schools but think all schools are not working. What if everyone is thinking that? I have been driving through rural areas for decades and within the last 10 years or so they look SO much better and economically viable. And urban people love to experience all the farm to table and B&Bs, etc. In other words, there is such a great story but certain people are using the perception that there isn't anything good and in fact that people are against 'local'. No one is against this.
1
The true localist has an intimate relationship with his/her community's issues, which makes all of the difference.
There's a much deeper level of care when you're helping the guy next door who just got laid off from the auto plant or the one who can't cover the cost of his wife's cancer care. You help him and the family by reaching your hand across the hedge separating your yards, not from a tweet from an ivory tower.
Americans helping Americans is our way, and we'll do it with or without the help of the federal government.
Day after day, Brooks attempts to "make everything OK." Today it's localism (!)
The real problem that caused all of these little mice to go scurrying around daily happened a long time ago. And David Brooks proudly pulled the lever for that one. November 4, 1980. The election of Reagan. The "Gipper" himself" might just say "Oh shut up" You created this.
And now to add insult to injury you are drawing money from the corpse of the civil society you proudly helped destroy.
2
Nationalism was flat required because states were regularly denying constitutional rights. That national law emphasis, while far from unnecessary, is required much less today.
1
Of course, there are some localism downsides: nimbyism, which is a bar to all sorts of valuable reforms, from zoning changes that would permit greater housing density in housing-scarce cities like San Francisco, to car-parking/traffic/transit reforms, to school integration (by class as well as ethnicity/race).
1
Here, our former mayor, has been indicted for corruption, although she was reelected a number of times by the tiny turnout in mayoral elections, which are not held in November but at other odd times during the year. Too often, local really means control by the "good old boys and girls" who have connections. A long time ago, I worked for the Tax Division of the US Dept of Justice....we tried cases all over the US -- because the rationale then was that taxpayers anywhere should be treated the same...so the policies all came from DC, and the local US Attorneys (all political appointees), with very few exceptions (one being the Southern District of NY (ie Manhattan) having any say.
So, again, Brooks glorifies the small town, local people -- who, like almost anything else and sometimes very good and sometimes very bad. He only sees thru rose colored glasses.
3
It appears David is focusing upon localism out of despair over the failure of the present craven GOP Congress. Or, maybe David thinks the whole concept of a federal government is simply a pipe dream in today’s world?
In any event, a focus on localism, however valuable that may be, appears to me to be David putting his head in the sand, in complete despair that anything can be done at the federal level with the present Oligarchy of bonkers billionaires running the show.
3
I'm about it in the abstract, but I'm from the South, living in Colorado. If given the option to be racist and bigoted, they will be. They will find ways to be. History has shown this. As much as you like to think people are better morally than they were 100 years ago, you can most definitely find folks in large numbers to prove you wrong. Part of why I left. There are plenty of truly kind, good people there. There are also plenty of truly awful human beings. Now I'm out searching and learning from folks from other places. Ironically, I've encountered nearly as many Texans as natives while living in Colorado. It makes me wonder about migration across the states which is neither here nor there. Point is, there has to be some sort of centralized power to protect every individuals rights, regardless of whatever divisions exist, with enough power to actually protect them. Or it'll be Jim Crow again.
4
As long as most tax $$$ is sent to D.C., "Localism" has zero chance of succeeding in a significant way of change.
1
Oh David, David, David. Wake up.
I live in a small town in Central VT. It took several years, probably four, to vote out members of the town Select Board who were scheming and conniving behind closed doors. I was recently with a gentlemen, retired architect who returned to the town where he grew up from the big city. He is involved with " local politics" and in our discussion with drinks he lamented that "it appears the closed doors and secrecy are returning." I dropped my drink. It does not work David. Trust me
4
Dear David,
Congratulations, you've discovered the tip of the iceberg. And, in very general terms, you've correctly identified it as such. What you've got to do now is go explore the part of it that you can't see from the windows at the Times. It's a lot bigger than it looks. It's not one movement, but a thousand, each rooted in local values and finding local solutions to address systemic problems. And -- here's the kicker -- they see the system as it is and realized it's garbage.
Overturning an established order isn't as simple as opening a farmer's market, although that's part of it. It's about rejecting the hierarchy of unfettered capitalism. Your "Elders" aren't the old White men who run small towns across the south and midwest like a country club, they're the Black folks who've been marching for justice since the 1960s and are still in the street. They're the Natives at Standing Rock who saw yet another land grab by colonizers and took a stand. They're the women who marched on Washington because in the 21st Century, we recognize that the old boys' club is a medieval holdover long past its expiry date.
These are people who recognize that the system truly is rigged against them, and that those with power pit us against each other to maintain it. We've chosen to work together instead. We know who's got our back and who's put a boot in it.
Broad-brush generalities won't cover it, though. You'll need to venture out of the cocoon to really take the measure of this movement.
3
Local oppression is no better than federal oppression. For each party, the best level of government is the one you control.
2
Fabulous, evidence-free magical thinking.
3
I'd be much more convinced of Mr Brooks' opinion on this if he actually cited his experience(s) working in his community on something like building a new fence around the cemetery or holding literacy workshops etc. If he has none, I wish he'd just shut up. Seriously. The people doing these things do not want or need someone pontificating about their work esp if that person is getting coffee musing on the ways things work rather than getting their hands dirty doing it.
2
I think localism is great when combined with a national system. Localism instead of a national system seems to be a false hope and totally impractical now.
It doesn’t seem like localism would work for: Laws, military, transportation systems, Social Security and many other national systems that are in place.
1
As usual, David Brooks challenges me to think in new ways. Such an intriguing piece. I just wish he had addressed the problem that comes from locals embracing a value that the huge majority of the nation feels is destructive, like only teaching creationism in school.
3
"mayors and governors are fulfilled, producing tangible results"
No, not so much. Only in places with lots of money, the few national leaders. That by definition is not where our problems are.
For once, I couldn't agree more with David than I do today. It was once said that all politics is local, but that's obviously not correct - all good politics are local.
However, the time scale for actually effecting change seems longer at the local level than at the federal level, longer even that David things. As an example, as Mayor I recently rescinded the 25% import duty on steel imports to my city in support of our steel usage, but I can't seem to get that to take effect. We'll have to hope that the companies stay in business long enough for my action to work its way through the system.
And the toxic lake on the outskirts of town that I'm trying to have company replace the cover that got blown off in the hurricane? They say no way, the federal government now says they don't have to cover it any more. I tell them that they're killing thousands of ducks, geese, cranes but they say so what? We're not leaving it uncovered to purposefully kill them, killing them is just a side effect of saving money, so it's ok.
Really, so why are large cities more successful now than they have been in decades?
The American myth of the wonderfulness of the farm and small town is unending, but the reality is that America is the land of the large - large businesses, large cities, and, yes, large government.
2
George Wallace was a fan of localism. So are the timber companies, mining and drilling interests and investment banks. Given his own familiarity with the South Side of Chicago, Brooks should be more cautious about localism.
2
I am glad that David Brooks is recognizing the importance of 'local' America, and the possibility of regaining the lost vitality of small towns and inner cities. But the problems to be overcome are immense. In Wisconsin, the Koch and far right agenda has been steadily destroying the once vital and valuable small towns, and further starved the inner cities. Under Scott Walker and the radical republican control of state government, an ever greater loss of local control of decisions has already occurred. Many such decisions must be local to support local life, and have already been taken away. Education, land use, environmental protection, business opportunity and much more have all been taken away by hyper-polarized political force and mega-business. The political process has been hi-jacked by the interests of the anonymous sources of 'dark money', and will not be overcome by a futile effort to simply raise more money to compete by media. The crowded Democratic Primary, to challenge Walker/Koch et al, provides an opportunity to move back toward the Progressive values which once made Wisconsin a respected model. Mike McCabe, in particular, has worked relentlessly at the local level, both rural and urban, to mobilize citizen responsibility and action. I believe that McCabe's candidacy represents a 'Localist Revolution' that David Brooks describes. He, and the NYT should continue to dig deeper.
1
While localism sounds good, there are many drawbacks based on my 15-year experience as a newspaper editor covering local politics, governments and schools in upstate NY. In reality, localism is more often a tool for wealthy and influential citizens to maintain their preferential treatment and power to resist change, no matter the benefit to the wider community. Localism is often petty, mean-spirited and contributes to unequal treatment. Look at our national history of slavery, Jim Crow and housing, schools, police and other local institutions meant to keep browner-skinned people out or under control (just as much in the North as in the South).
You have localism on steroids in New York State, with multiple levels of government - villages, towns each with their own police force and schools, city, county, plus water and sewer districts. So people pay 4 or 5 times the taxes as we do in Charlotte, NC, where the city encompasses most of the county and there's one school district, one water and sewer system and one police force.
The excess government layers in NY state are maintained in the name of localism, but it's really all about protecting the status quo and the local powers-that-be.
5
@Jeanne Schweder
The people in New York (and California, and several other states) pay high state and local taxes because a big chunk of our federal taxes go to pay for people in other states.
Specifically, Blue States pay for red states. I think it is high time those trump supporters start paying for themselves.
#calexit
1
I wonder what David Brooks thinks of Wendell Berry, our most famous localist? I've written about Berry, because a history of localism divorced from race, class and ideological ideas about capitalism or its alternatives tends to distort the "all good" stamp many want to put upon it.
But localism meant racial segregation in the South after the Civil War, and much worse It meant a new kind of feudalism: tenant farming and sharecropping. Migrant farm workers are a poor solution of the ongoing inability of even farm to table organic innovators to solve the problem of low incomes and pay for farm workers. The "I'll Take my Stand" movement of the 1930's was not a pretty sight.
And then there is the history of capitalism which has always created trade and profit centers and poorer periphery areas which supplied the metro regions...still going on: Germany vs. the PIIGS nations.
The American periphery - the South and West - was rescued by the New Deal's national programs: Ag subsidies, public works, and then military bases. There is no such thing on the table today, even though Yanis Varoufakis speaks in Europe and internationally about recycling the surpluses of trade to where it is needed.
Local initiative is good, but insufficient. Red State America is dependent on Federal monies: schools, medical programs and prisons and trickles of start-up capital, like ARC from the Appalachian Regional Commission.
Brooks' flight to localism is a sign of deeper troubles.
2
This morning I heard Sen. Warner from Virginia say that 2,000 of America's 3,100 counties have effectively experienced no job growth over the past decade. He also stated that 75% of the venture capital invested in the U.S. flows to three states: California, New York, and Massachusetts. How can individual communities thrive in conditions such as these? I favor localism, but I wonder whether localists are not swimming against a torrent.
1
Localism is great; I participate in it. But it's very limited and is not a panacea. Lot's of actions taken by other "localities" cross political boundaries and seriously affect my own locality. A key lesson of ecology, whether political or environmental, is that "everything is connected to everything." Pollution floating down a river doesn't recognize Brook's highly theoretical notions of "localism."
4
Localism isn't such a bad idea, but the key for upstream authorities (federal, state, municipal, corporate, etc.) is lending resources to develop neighborhood-based social capital. And those upstream authorities have to be ready to concede power to the neighborhood level. If you want to see how Localism works, the first book you should read is Jane Jacobs' "The Death and Life of Great American Cities."
1
I am hoping localism within a state will fire up its elected officials to make Washington work again for 325M Americans and not just a Trump base or the one percent.
Pay it forward could be the war cry of positive change.
4
I feel bad for Brooks. Its like a conservative searching the dark for something. I mean this localism of course is an old classical conservative saw. We know the benefits but we also know the risks of localism. Tyranny locally born is no less odious to the oppressed than tyranny on a larger scale, but ho hum. Mr. Brooks seems to be searching for something, or anything, that can give a rebirth to his party. He has been talking about whigism and much else these days. Good luck Mr. Brooks but I think this will have to play itself out. After all McConnell has declared political total-war. Once that is done there is no backing out, for either side.
10
With the majority of the tax breaks going to corporations and the rich, what will fuel the localist movement? A tax revolt? The localism you describe seems founded on a desire to help people locally, to do what the government cannot do, will not do, or does not seem to want to do. Homelessness. Health Care. Good schools. A town with clean water, air and property. A non militaristic police force. Common sense gun regulation. People helping people, perhaps even including dreamers and immigrants? Happy People. What are the values exhibited by localism? I am just asking. For I do agree that localism may be a reaction to the perceived failure of government. But what underpins such a movement at a gut level? Is it the desire to regain a personal and communal sense of right and wrong, to at least attempt it as it relates to me, my neighbors, and my town and community? Will we have a tribal revolution? Will people gravitate to those communities that best match their core beliefs? Or are you suggesting a common core of basic values that are shared among the great majority and that people will abandon big government to seek and produce those common core communities? I love the speculation about what constitutes an environment that makes most people "happy". To quote our supreme leader, I guess "We'll see what happens."
2
This debate started with Hamilton and the boys, and it will go on forever. Big vs. small, large interests vs. small, national interests (standing armed services, large land use policies, international diplomacy and trade, infrastructure) vs. local interests (schools, roads, urban/suburban, real estate, merchandising). Brooks brings up an interesting spin, but nothing really revealing. The real issue on function vs. dysfunction is trust and respectful relationships, whether local, state or national; that's an issues as old as humankind.
2
It would be heartening to think local politics could offer a resurgence of democracy, but my experience has taught otherwise.
Local politics are fraught with conflicts of interests, allowing large developers to run roughshod over home issues and grassroots groups: to wit, Walmart super centers and other giant commercial developments cropping up willynilly.
Developers hire experts who are friendly with state and local agencies: they have a history of working together, they speak the same language --- and both view citizen involvement as a nuisance.
4
@Marylouise Lundquist: Not to mention the localism that puts your sister-in-law into a plum job for which she is clearly unqualified, gives government contracts to golf buddies, and gets the police chief fired for giving the mayor's wife a ticket, on and on, ad infinitum.
1
I'll take anything that works, and I'm sure localism can have some of these virtues, and had many successes. But this ultra-romantic view overlooks many potential problems.
(a) It can suffer from highly counter-productive inter-personal feuds, as much as at any other scale; (b) conformity pressures on those who think differently can be immense; (c) there are some very strange local norms. See a recent article on an area which believes menstruating women should be temporarily evicted from the community; (d) there could be little knowledge of useful ideas and resources from other places; (e) the locality could be a lot more dependent on the outer world than it would like to admit; and (f) inversely, there might be significant physical or cultural attractions within the locality that the outer world has a claim to visit, and for which a reasonably open, stewardship responsibility should be maintained. They may not see it that way. Hence interdependence is a fact of life in our society and on our planet. It's there whether locals like it or not. In an emergency, the locality would not want help from elsewhere, or give it to another community when the latter needs it?
2
David Brooks: "The first difference is epistemological."
Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I think that you mistake an increase in local political involvement - which emanates (I believe) from a realization that our current dystopian state of affairs can best be addressed by active participation in local politics because that is where the republic allows for the most direct realization of democracy, and which can counteract some of the damage that is currently being done via gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the like - with a philosophy of small government. But, we are (for now) a nation of 300+ million people and at that scale you need federal participation because if we are to continue as a nation, as a distinguishable national entity, we must also participate in the national community. Otherwise, this reads too much like a preordained excuse for some communities to behave in ways that promote separation, intolerance, conformity, etc, because (to paraphrase): what's right for everyone else isn't right for us.
Many of our challenges as citizens stem from a need to balance local and national participation. There probably is no one systemic answer to these challenges, but declaring an exclusively local approach to be correct prima facie is to embrace a too rigid political philosophy.
1
Gobbledygook, Mr. Brooks. The country is in much deeper trouble than big or techie or small is beautiful, choices, etc.
lease focus! When our nation's core is at risk, the task is to make sure enough citizens see the problem and insist those who can save us will work to do it. Our job is to vote the Republicans out, clean house and try to salvage the Constitution and the amendments so they function as they should. Maybe the answer is more revelations about corruption, Russian influence, but i fear that we cannot fix our government until Trump is gone, preferably soon. It could be time for the 25th amendment to figure, since the Congress won't act on what many of us think of as high crimes and misdemeanors.
5
This paints a pretty romantic picture of a complex concept. In some ways the culture is embracing localism; local foods, local craft beers, locally-made crafts. But there’s class divide there. The national/global economy has made it possible for more people to afford the trappings of middle class consumerism. Emphasizing local-everything is harder when economies of scale play out in small towns. My rural hometown, for example, is struggling to get a new hospital built. The demand is great but the town may be too small to support a full-service facility. Localism can’t deliver needs like that; there’s a strong probability that residents will have to keep driving an hour into Houston to meet their medical needs.
Decentralizing American life sounds great, it would seem to have some great benefits, but it can only go so far. The politics follows the economics.
1
Localism, communitarism, states’ rights all point to the future. Many of our states and regions are like different countries and I can only imagine this trend becoming more entrenched.
Some big cultural issues: reproductive rights, marriage equality, Black Lives Matter, me too, health care, environmental laws, white nationalism, Biblical Law, public land rights, legal cannabis are all addressed differently given different states and regions.
Painful difficulty arises when people don’t fit in with the local zeitgeist. I imagine many young people who haven’t yet “settled down “ will be more free to relocate to regions they feel more affinity with. It will be more difficult for older people because of careers and personal connections. At the same time, people who don’t fit in may find each other and begin to create local advocacy/ support groups on their own behalf’s that can make their lives more tolerable.
Beyond common language and currency few things bond us any longer as one nation and rather than continuing to battle each other I agree with Brooks that localism is the future for our country.
In general, I agree with the potential and relevance of "localism" as you call it here. Local control used to be a major tenet of conservatives. Local solutions are better than command and control solutions from a faraway bureaucracy, which I agree with, and it happens to fit nicely with the idea of small government.
However, there is now a new problem. State governments preempting local laws at the state level. This is especially true here in NC, where numerous local laws have essentially been outlawed by the state legislature (if the local areas are controlled by the opposite political party). Here in NC, it is very much the state GOP asserting control over local policies, and this is also true in other states, though I'm sure Dems do it as well. However, it just goes to show that there were no principles around local control in the GOP; localism was just a way to power.
3
One practical problem with localism is the power that can’t be fought. For instance, Crossett, Arkansas is under the control of billionaires. The fight to keep the water clean for the residents is impossible against the moneyed and powerful. This is just one example of a scenario repeated in so many places. Without any access to a clean environment, when many are fighting cancer and other illnesses, localism has no power. Money and power can overrule the local good people.
4
Most of our current governmental structures are stacked with higher councils able to override lower ones. So the decisions of a neighborhood community group might be negated by a city council, a city council by a state legislature, a state legislature by the federal government.
Such things have happened here in Tennessee where liberal Nashville tries to enact progressive policies only to be slapped down by the conservative state legislature.
So the irony of localism is that still has to be sanctioned by more distant governmental bodies.
5
@Slim Wilson
At times, the opposite is also true. Local malfeasance must be undone by distant, less emotionally involved governments.
Local politics vs. National politics in the U.S.?
I don't see any hope for local politics. The current national scene is this: The internet/technology/bureaucracy encroaching in every aspect of life and routinely we hear that truth is being undermined from domestics, our own citizens, not to mention foreign powers, intelligence agencies, such as the Russian, and really the only next step is for American intelligence agencies to have a commercial run during the next Super Bowl which says that "For the truth you can depend on us, the CIA, the NSA..."
How on earth is local politics to amount to anything more than exactly small, trivial, capable of being swept away at any instant actions when nationally we are told that for all freedom and democracy and vast education the U.S. is actually extremely vulnerable, capable of having the truth undermined by domestics and foreign powers and that our intelligence agencies are working tirelessly on our behalf, that essentially we could possibly have no truth without vast and secretive government intervention into daily life?
I recently went to Yellowstone Park. What a tourist trap--and for largely the wealthy too. You have to drive great distance to just get in there and camping is strictly controlled, you can't just park and sleep in your car for example. You can't even get into the wilderness for a breath of fresh air without a barrage of laws. Locally people are hemmed in. Nationally experts only bring us The Truth.
@Daniel12, if Yellowstone were under local control, it would by now be covered with vacation condos for the wealthy, all wildlife hunted out, wide paved roads, parking lots and stripmalls, and giant-chain box stores next to all ‘attractions’. Far better than pesky regulations from afar, right?
I am a loyal citizen of California, the 5th largest world economy. We have big problems but also big advantages. In our state, healthcare access is provided, we care about the environment, we oppose trump by a huge majority. Climate change is causing terrible problems here but we will survive and find solutions. I'm proud to be a Californian.
3
I wish the local selectmen did not allow a monopoly for the mega cable/IP monopoly. Yes, they did. It limits every person's power the access of affordable, reliable networks. They also immediately outlawed, in a back room vote, to disallow medical cannabis and recreational, although it was voted in by the citizens of the Commonwealth of MA. Our localism on Cape Cod peddles in reverse. All about building a bigger senior center but still no working class daycare. New indoor public, pickleball courts but not a single municipal swimming pool or gym for the underserved population. Public transportation is not a priority, although sorely needed. Oh and the bike path is only on the other side of the tracks. Same with the newly remodeled library. It is on the rich side of town. The east side has a run down, decrepit, moldy building. On and on. Wealthy people are always in control at the local level.
3
Many rural areas have limited economic potential based on the local resources, for example timber in forested areas of the West. If only local input controls how that timber is harvested, the local interests of the timber companies and loggers will overharvest the resource. Where are the cod we used to eat? Overharvested before national interests stopped the last few fish from being eaten. Local decision making is often not in the long-term interest as humans are inevitably greedy. Only national control can try to stop this, but currently greed is definitely winning. Never before have we had national leadership so blatantly greedy.
4
@Zib Hammad Yes. I agree our national leadership has let us down in a big way. It is very important that we all vote this November.
Yes, let's devolve decision making to the lowest possible level of government. This could be a great solution to the divisiveness at the national level. If different parts of the country want to do things in different ways, let them. If Texas does not want the same social safety net and level of services as New York, or does not want to allow abortions, don't force it upon them. Reduce the many Federal subsidies and the taxes to pay for them. Let states and localities decide on and fund the programs they want. Some fundamental values, such as the Bill of Rights, must apply nation wide, but don't force values on the entire country if the entire country does not want them. Let's work together where there is common ground but respect each other's differences.
2
@Heinz Bachmann This is dangerous. In the South, it would very very quickly involve a return to segregation and Jim Crow. And an epidemic of people who are too poor to feed themselves, too poor to shelter themselves, and too poor to move away. You would see discrimination run rampant, hate groups rise up to levels of power not seen in more than a century, and the death rate go through the roof because of lack of access to medical care, clean water, or enough food.
2
This is the second time David Brooks has written on this subject and while I enjoy his sentiments and I think he needs a little bit of a reality check. First, I live in one of those communities that Brooks is writing about and its a wonderful thing to see how our town is being revitalized. I know this is a growing trend but honestly not every town has the physical structure or economic resources to be able to pull it off. Second, we got started from a grant that was available with Obama's stimulus program so we needed federal dollars to get going. Finally, issues like access to healthcare, retirement, environmental issues, and assistance to the poor cannot be done by the local communities alone. So, it's not an either or situation. Ultimately our national government has to be fixed in order for local governments to be able to function successfully. Just ask our local farmers about the impacts of climate change.
8
@Wayne Fuller As to the funding issue, as I see it there are two possible scenarios. Either your own money that you paid to the Feds came back to you, minus the cost of the bureaucracy, or you got money from some other locality that they could have used to start their own renewal. In either of these cases, if the Feds were not getting so much money more regions could afford renewal.
Many of the issues you mention are cross regional, and do require concerted action. However, by working at them at the lowest possible level of government, experimentation on a broader scale is possible and we thereby get a chance to see what works and what does not, as well as allowing people to vote with their feet for the systems they like best.
@mikecody Nothing wrong with taxes if we use them to good purpose. Money that would have stayed in the community would have stayed in the pockets of individuals and they would have never voted to apply for a grant and agree to match funds to renovate downtown. Your idea looks great on paper but it's not how the world works. Pooled dollars, taxes, have power. Individuals who keep money in their pockets just keep the money in their pockets.
@Wayne Fuller - I am not railing against taxes in general, only against them at too high a governmental level. The money that individuals would have kept in their pockets (and I agree that they often would have done so) could have been taxed at the city level if the State and Federal government weren't taking it.
What I am saying is that Concord tax revenues should be kept in Concord as much as possible; Niagara Falls tax revenues should be used by Niagara Falls, etc.
And here I thought our Founders had a built-in localist remedy to prevent more revolutions: representative government based on the number of people and the states in which they lived.
We don't need another revolution. We need to make better use of the one we already had.
6
@Lake Woebegoner PS: I've got a US flag on my fence, too.
Pure misguided fantasy. I would not want to be a part of a majority of the versions of localism that would be available around this country and there are many large scale problems that must be addressed in a non local way. This nostalgic take on small town, home grown, church, less government, moderate style republicanism would create chaos. This country would not be where it eventually got to without a strong inclusive Federal Government coupled with partial localism. But pure localism = tribalism. No thanks.
11
19th century America experienced a moral revival in society characterized by the temperance and abolitionist movements as well as the second and third great awakenings. Although nothing we do is perfect, it is not a stretch to see their profound impact on the course of history helping our country become a super power and by and large a force for good in the world. It would be amazing to see something like this emerge particularly now. Kudos to Mr. Brooks for urging us in this direction.
@underdog - So your idea is to reinstate Jim Crow laws, champion child labor, and take away the right to vote for women? 19th century localism and moral revival was not shared by all.
Interesting, and its working. Last election our Fire Chief made the best poltical comment I've ever heard. "Trump, Washington D.C. The Senate,House, our Governemor state prepresentaives don't give a rip about you, me and us. You, me, the schools, cops, parks/rec, and the fire station are all we've got. Let makes them great, and forget about D.C becasue they don't care about us." Gosh, Chief Bobby is a profit now.
Brooks's definition of localism sounds a lot like what I think of as communitarianism.
Living, as I do, in Mississippi, localism doesn't sound like such a great idea to me.
3
This sounds great for middle and upper class communities, with steady jobs, but how would it work for the poor ones? Haven’t we seen the results of this leading even george W bush to involve conservatives in education, for example, bc in a localism aprroach, many poor children ARE left behind in America. Read $2.00 a Day in America for context...but generally, yes, smaller federal govt is a unifying goal.
1
Localism:
Two references
#1: E F Schumacher, “Small is Beautiful.” Schumacher, a non-statist socialist, harkens back to a small portion of late 19th century anarchists who saw a spiritual (ie profoundly connected to emotional intelligence) foundation as essential for a sustainable society.
#2: The Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity (for those who may be ill-informed, it is as far from the right wing version of libertarianism as can be imagined) - always favor the smallest form of governance; municipal if possible - but it doesn’t negate state, national or international forms of government. Fred and Elaine may have ideas for solving homelessness in the local community, but climate change requires international cooperation.
So David, in your futile, ongoing quest to deny responsiblity for supporting the increasingly deplorable Republicans and contributing to the present sorry state of affairs, perhaps you may finally be ready to acknoweldge your heart resides with the liberal orientation of your parents.
4
Localism stands against the idea that we are one nation, indivisible. Localism allows children in Montgomery County, Maryland to have educations that are a quantum step above the educations that children in Montgomery, Alabama receive.
6
@Martin Kobren No, Montgomery County Maryland has a much better school system because it has a much higher tax base due to the difference in the socioeconomic level between the two places. It is due to money, not local control.
Localism: exclusionary zoning, educational inequities, religious conformity, inadequate infrastructure, dynastic local politics, gated communities closed to outside influence, economic isolation, unfettered abusive policing, stand-your-ground armed conflict, abdication of responsibility for global problems. I'm all right, Jack, and that,s all that matters. Sounds like Jeff Flake's vision of a perfect Snowflake AZ.
3
In the Roman Catholic world, since the Second Vatican Council, localization has been called the principle of subsidiarity, and the current pope is promoting it.
@A Hayes
Well kind-of promoting it, yes?
Show me the local church that has decided women can officiate? Or that birth control might be a good idea? Or that gay people might actually deserve to live?
I am Joe-Super-Pro-Pope these days, but there are clear limits to the feel-goodness of the age and practcial results it is trying to produce.
Here in Austin, localism doesn't work. The state government, controlled by Republicans, doesn't allow Austin to make its own decisions. An examples -- Austin banned Uber for not doing criminal checks of drivers. The state passed a state-wide law which allowed Uber.
3
Another column where you wander off into the wilderness for 40 years looking for some orthogonal political model to the current dysfunctional national political one. What you describe in a local political system behaves the same way it did 5, 10, or 50 years ago. The draw is that it's not the stagnant national model. Face the music. Take off the rose-colored glasses. Comey had a simple, direct message. Vote Democratic. Save the Republican party through a round a chemotherapy in order to save the party. Where is your bold message?
3
Again, the irony: a conservative singing the praises of local solutions while spending a lifetime identifying himself with an ideology that has paved the way for tyrannical corporatism on a massive scale.
4
Local govt is not a panacea. There is much more graft because there are closer connections between politicians and conflicts of interest. It also led to government sponsored racism, high levels of medically uninsured, illegality of private matters such as sexual orientation and whether to terminate a pregnancy. It took the federal government to reign in these problems.
2
Will localism help solve or make worse global warming? That should be the first test, as global warming is by far the most critical issue we face.
7
In a vast complex country such as capitalistic USA I sincerely doubt that localism would work.
One needs a set of common sense rules covering all the States of the Union to protect the vast majority of Americans from the rapacious top 1% .
Especially given the profound socio-economicc differences between blu States and red States , where localism would severely damage the vastly corrupted and religiously impacted red States , creating a severe impairement in the wellfare of those citizens .
3
Mr. Brooks is just now finding out about localism? This has been a concept at least since the 1980s, and probably has its roots in the social revolution of the late 1960s. In any case, can we please stop using the word flip? It's all over the place since Trump stumbled onto the scene. (Brooks: "Localism is truly a revolution. It literally means flipping the power structure.") Flip has a mob-like connotation; it means, according to Merriam-Webster, "to cooperate in the prosecution of a criminal case against an associate." We now live in the "To Flip or not to Flip" era. It is a crude, unkind, soiled word. More than any other word it signifies what Trump-think has contributed to the spirit of the our times.
1
The Republican Party have disappointed David Brooks, and he can't bring himself to support the Democrat Party, so he casts around for something -- anything -- to connect to. This is what he settled on. The act of a desperate man.
5
Localism is great, unless you are in the minority and the locals don't like you. It was national, not local action, that began the process of ending the local and legal racial discrimination in the South. We need a blend of national and local government to bring out the best for all United States citizens.
7
Yeah, maybe. But localism also means the mayor gives a deal to his buddy, while turning a blind eye while the black folks get unfairly evicted-- 'cause it's based on relationships and not rules. It means that the town upstream dumps their sewage in the water because it's cheaper than building a sewage treatment plant. It's about driving the homeless person to the city and saying, "don't come back" to "solve" the homeless problem.
We need both local action and oversight at the state and national levels to coordinate the rules governing relationships between the localities. Otherwise, what happens at the local level is only as good as the locals, and you may just get a race to the bottom.
8
"Localism is the belief that power should be wielded as much as possible at the neighborhood, city, and state levels."
Sounds good but only in a framework of national policy that sets standards and offers support.
Horror examples from 25 days in my USA, New England + Albany, New York.
The most horrible all, to take a bus from Albany, NY to South Station (destination Logan).
Albany bus station primitive, surroundings even worse - boarded up buildings, pavement revealing 1800s cobblestones. No local interest there.
The bus, primitive. Workers used duct tape to make the bus "serviceable", took 2 h. I board the bus, seemingly a 1950s model in terrible condition. No seat belts. And in the back an outhouse for a bathroom, An open steel tank.
Greyhound has no interest in providing decent service. Only legislation at the national level would work to require seat belts and modern toilet. In Europe national law (SE, DK, others) require seat belts and that they BE USED. Clearly there are no US regulations about bathrooms.
Then bump, bump, bump on Mass tpk parking lot. No local answer there.
Modern renewable energy requires city or higher regulation and innovation. Not in my NY State where Governor Cuomo vetoed solid-waste incineration. Springfield displays horrible landfills the American norm.
One city did what you champion, West Palm Beach FL had Danish Babcock & Wilcox build Danish incinerator. No more landfills there!
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
2
@Larry Lundgren (footnote explaining the bus story.)
A comment writer, Concerned Citizen Anywheresville used to write replies and we also exchanged Emails. CC or "hen" Swedish for he/she read a comment in which I noted that I often use Swedish Bus4You, to commute Göteborg -LInköping ofte. CC ridiculed me, telling me that in the USA only poor people ride buses so bus service does not need to be very good. CC wrote, "I drive from Ohio maybe to Florida, no problem, why should I take a bus?"
I replied to CC pointing out that people get older (I am 86), and may no longer be able to drive or rent a car (Logan official age limit 80, I rent from Enterprise). in my case in Sweden I want to be able to work (translator) and I can easily do that on Bus4You - single row seating on one side, best imaginable seats, and Swedish E4 and RV40 are smooth as a pool table so no bump bump.
Probably you well off readers never take an intercity bus so you have no idea what we "poor" experience. I close by noting that a family member drove me from Albany, NY to Saco, ME and back and I never saw an Intercity bus from MA to Saco.
Quite simply, intercity travel in the NE is not first world.
Larry L.
Mr. Brooks place of employment is New York state. Is he suggesting that our state government is not corrupt?
1
That's sweet. Nice.
Realize that millions of California locals fate aer often determined by the decisions of thousands of locals in Wyoming.
ALL politics is local.
4
David Brooks has never met a problem that small, local, non-government supported self help groups couldn't solve.
Remember, folks, that Republicans think government is the problem. Their hero, St. Ronnie the Dim, said that. Our Mr. Brooks is just one of Reagan disciples.
So they hunger for control of government to show to you that it won't work (as long as they are in charge anyway).
5
"The federal policymaker asks, “What can we do about homelessness?” The local person asks Fred or Mary what they need in order to have a home." Um. Not really. The local ... government (not person) asks "how can we get the homeless person to move to the next town or a few further down?"
3
Brooks:
You need to qualify your "local" as towns and cities only -- not rural areas. Having read the recent Fallows' book (which you strongly recommended) rural areas are not going to be the places where your type of localism can survive and thrive.
The small rural US 'die-out' does not bode well for the future. It suggests a landscape of drug addicted, vigilante, and white tribal take-no-prisoners outposts.
2
This column feels like fiddling while Rome burns. Maybe talking about our unfolding national disaster feels boring, but I don’t see how US localities can hope to thrive long-term in a nation in decline.
3
This all sounds wonderful. But I live in a small town. The localist world isn't quite the paradise you seem to think.
Localism, in part by MAPS, has transformed Oklahoma City.
https://www.okc.gov/government/maps-3/maps-history
Or we could give feudalism another try, think of all the nice castles we could build, we already have gated communities and private police forces.
2
This reads like some desire to return to the Mythical America portrayed in 1950’s America television: a wonderful time of close, loving families, helpful neighbors, and small tight, Christian communities. That myth might have been true for a few white middle class families, but for most everybody else it was entertaining dream.
6
Charter schools are NOT a success story. Localism is Public Schools. Sorry.
2
What a load of baloney is this column?
It paints a picture of America trying various systems, none of which work and then moving on.
His dog whistle talk about the failure of federal power failures is GOP code for lets get rid of social safety nets, but lets keep gerrymandering, imposing our extreme religious views of gays, minorities and women, and lets make sure big money rules policy.
Localism is great for planning applications and zoning, but that's about it. Does it really make sense much beyond that. Look at the mess we see in the disparity of educational standards, policing, civil rights and medical care when local states get involved.
Localism just enables the big money from federal level to Gerrymander at a local level. Come and see it real time in North Carolina
Mr Brooks is perhaps looking forward to a future of Localism where States Rights are given the primacy envisaged by his hero, President Reagan.
2
"It literally means flipping the power structure."
Right! Flip the power grid switch off and see what localism can do for you.
2
We really need both fed and local. The city council doesn't put up a better weather satellite or find cures for cancers.
1
Localism at it’s best??
Try relocating to Ct.
Localism is all we have to make the system bend to the needs of communities. We were gutted and cut up in pieces by thiefs,
Gov.Rowland , and Treasurer Sylvester were the worse.
Took funds out of pensions and never returned them.
So yes localism is our survival tool.
Central Ct. has some gems.
1
“Get off my lawn!” is problematic as a basis of national government in the twenty first century.
1
I have always found it interesting that those who proclaim States Rights - localism promulgated in the 18th century for the express purpose of perpetuating slavery - stop at the level of the state. Why not county, why not city, why not village, why not individual baker of wedding cakes? Wait…that last one is OK, although it did take the approval of the highest court of that intrusive Federal Government to make it so.
Mr. Brooks, have you ever been escorted to the state line by a southern state trooper who “didn’t want your kind here”?Localism is fine when you are one of the locals and/or the locality is enlightened. Otherwise in this country, it is best to just pass on through and be happy an intrusive Federal Government has your back should things get unpleasantly xenophobic, I mean local.
14
In many Southern states, the local level functions to hinder justice and progress; help its own elites and do the bidding of the local 1%.
David, i’m ALl for this, month reactionary state governments are busy passing state laws allowing the state state ver turn left coal ordinances they don’t like.
Here in Texas the State Legislature has overturned the anti-fracking law passed in Denton and also the plastic bag ban passed by Austin. And just yesterday in Missouri the State Legislature rolled back the $10.00 minimum wage in St. Louis to $7.70.
As long as the states won’t let local communities govern themselves, your definition of local needs to Ben expanded to the state level.
Good essay. I would add that localism works best in small communities, not so much in large cities which tend to breed impersonality.
What liberals and conservatives fail to grasp is that population growth is changing America, destroying what made America great and replacing it with dysfunctional cities.
Driving through LA is a nightmare for me. Traffic often comes to a standstill. The city is often covered with smog. Much of Southern California is running out of water because of too many people crowding into a desert.
We have to realize that we live on a finite planet with a finite level of resources.
Too many people are destroying the planet.
We need a one-child policy like that of China, or at least incentives for small families. We have run out of room. In the past, we could always go west and set up new communities. But West of California lies the Pacific Ocean.
We also need to end illegal immigration. Yes we should do it humanely. But population growth leads to stagnant wages, to shortages of medical care, to people dying because they don't have access to cancer screenings.
We need change, but that change needs to recognize that there are limits to growth.
2
“We’ve tried liberalism and conservatism and now we’re trying populism. ” Really? Has David Brooks taken a knee to Trump? When things are so insane that we are forced to watch Trump trash NATO, NAFTA, the EU, Japan, South Korea, human decency and then listen to any propaganda spun to distract us from the danger we are threatened with? Maybe “now we are trying” absolutely anything that permits Republicans to hand America over to Russia?
Has Brooks learned anything about the NRA Putin connections? Localists in the NRA do not support their own “leadership”. Localists who started the “Tea Party” and the “freedom Caucus” and “Norquist Pledge” are the Kochs and the Mercers other neo-Nazi oligarchs, not grass roots localists. They are all propaganda machines that exploit the racism and the basest impulses of the weak.
Maybe we should try ostracism, exclusion, refusal to serve or associate with the criminals who extol cruelty, victimization, and inhumanity? Maybe we should act like fascist “localists” all fine people.
3
I guess because his conservatism is a failure, liberalism is apparently repugnant, & the populism he helped shepherd in is not to his taste, he wants to find another ism. Lets just make all the little fiefdoms bigger - yeah that’l work.
1
Elders? Walkouts? Illuminators? Are we talking about communities or some kind of weird cult?
2
David -
I'm glad to see that you are accepting comments from your readers this evening. I notice that you do not always allow readers to comment. Your previous column, is one example.
I mention this because I no longer read your column but I do continue to read the reader comments. They tend to be more relevant and offer greater insight into politics and life than your columns. You sir, seem to make no effort to leave your bubble.
After following your columns, and your PBS work, where you declared that you never read comments from your readers, I have grown to see you as a gosh-by-golly, saccharin Republican apologist offering little relevance or insight.
Read your column? Maybe I'll start to do that again when you offer something meaningful. Like an apology.
7
Localism is lipstick on the pig of America First.
1
If only we could abandon our automobiles and go back to riding horses, and meeting in the town square, for, say, a sassperillie together.
Sheesh!
3
Localism also led to blacks being treated as second class citizens, being discriminated against, being tortured, being hanged. My, My, oh that comfy cozy home town America.
4
Mr. Brooks predicts localism is ascendant. “Localism is thriving — as a philosophy and a way of doing things — because the national government is dysfunctional while many towns are reviving.” Sounds optimistic, right? What cues this localism? Not healthcare, where local hospitals are closing in droves, as the capitalist owners seek profits at the expense of patients. Not wages, which have been stagnant for two generations. Not worker rights, because states are at the forefront of shredding union protections. Not the right to vote, which GOP legislators are eroding so their minority party can nonetheless compete in elections. The only ism that interests me is neoliberalism, and the only interesting outcome is it’s death, before its’ laissez faire greed strangles us all.
2
“My mother would say to me, ‘Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.’ To this day, especially in times of disaster, I remember my mother’s words, and I am always comforted by realizing that there are still so many helpers — so many caring people in this world.” Fred Rogers.
3
Lancaster Pa. has had much recent success in such Localism. If a return to Localism takes hold all over the Country, then we will need to question whether or not we should be paying the Congress and the Administration to oversee the nation. They are not doing the job now.
So I say let's reduce our taxes by their very generous budgets by paying less in taxes. Those saved taxes can go directly to the communities to fund needed improvements in Education, Infrastructure and Healthcare. By investing in these improvements new jobs will be created thereby improving local economies. Who needs the Federal Government to solve all problems.
1
Localism has merit, but what about the shared endeavors we can only sustain as a nation? I am thinking of our public lands. If we turn them over, even to the states (some are constitutionally mandated to balance their budget and often sell state lands to achieve it), we will lose this shared inheritance.
A localist government surrounding a unique national or global heritage site wants a mine to provide jobs. And there goes Yosemite, and the like.
2
@Matt Agree. Both have important roles. The federal government will work better once the current GOP is extinct, rational conservatives form a new party that believes all government is not the enemy (it is us!) and Trump is gone.
The weakness of oligarchies is too few people making decisions. The strength of democracy is many people making decisions. Localism brings the combined intelligence of many to the table.
Free enterprise does this even more, bringing decision making to the individual.
I'm involved in local politics, and David Brooks has overstated the benefits. There are a couple of problems with it.
The first is the lack of newspapers. Journalism as an industry is now so bankrupt at the local level that most newspapers just don't have the money to cover local issues, and no, that coverage isn't being taken up by independent, unpaid bloggers. Nor do most working people have the time or interest to go to meetings. Depending on the dynamics of the place, local issues can be as hyper-partisan as they are at the national level, although the fact that people run into one another at the grocery store, and are not paid off by lobbyists for their results, tends to make the debates calmer.
Second, there is the competency gap. How do you get good people to run for office, and when they do win, how do they get up to speed quickly? In my town, the policy is largely left to the staff, who, on the planning side, have salaries paid out of development fees. Think there might be a little bias to issue permits there?
This doesn't mean that David Brooks and people like James Fallows are wrong in saying there is innovation at the local level. There is. The problems are smaller than at the state and national level, there are fewer vested interests arrayed around them, and because there are tens of thousands of municipalities and other forms of local government, we can try new things. The one element missing is money, and for that we need to reform our tax policy.
6
While I see lots of new examples of cities and even state governments moving forward with new ideas, I think Mr. Brooks gives short shrift to the federal government.
Where would we be if the federal government had not united the people against Germany and Japan in WWII? Where would we be had the federal government not initiated the GI Bill after WWII? Where would we be had the federal government not pushed the country educationally, racially and on the international level politically during the 60's?
The problem, in general, is that the federal government lost its way from the 70's on. The major legislative initiatives since then only served to undermine local economies, the civil rights movement and education, to name a few.
It takes a country, really, to insure the welfare of all of its people. Until the federal government gets in sync with the local governments again, we're just going to be spinning our wheels, or worse.
5
Localism has much to recommend it.
Perhaps that is why Republicans at the national and state levels are so anxious to prohibit next level governments from enacting tougher pollution controls, prevent restrictions on firearms, and limit local ability to raise revenues to improve infrastructure, education and other programs desired by the local populous.
7
In my experience, when power and decisions are localized, tribes flourish. Why is that a bad thing? Because tribes develop that warm fuzzy sense of belonging -- and also often develop a slow-simmering and deep disregard for the "other." If there's no oversight, you get well funded K-12 schools a mile from poorly funded ones, and fancy grocery stores a few miles from a neighborhood with only a 7-11. The feds can and should provide carrots and sticks to localities to minimize the damage of uncaring tribalism.
12
This sounds like a nice dream. Young people aren't moving to the towns from the center, they're doing the opposite.
Here in California, our state is run by a geographic minority who dictate every last detail of governing from above to thousands of towns and small cities where they have never set foot. No detail is too small to avoid the regulatory zeal of the urban legislators in the state assembly. We have a huge revenue surplus, yet they keep raising taxes and the roads are clogged with traffic and full of potholes. Public transit is limited to the urban areas.
1
@Paul In my eastern state it's the opposite - because of the size of the legislature (huge), rural areas have a disproportionate hold on the legislature and tend to blame urban areas for problems which are societal, not because they're urban areas. What bothers me about David's whole premise - local good because local - is an issue that both your state and mine show: if everything is local, then who cares about folks who aren't local. Neither big daddy feds (a definition that was something your past governor later president used to win his election) nor local is best views of government are close to the American ideal of We the People - all of us, in it together, solving problems for ALL of us - are best when we come together and solve issues by compromise and looking out through ALL our interests as Americans.
David:
Come visit the Hilltowns of Western Massachusetts - a band of forty or so small towns that have been living local for a long time - since before there was a USA. This has sustained because the region has been underserved by Interstates and broadband. I am sure there are comparable regions throughout the country.
I am aware, though working in local government and non-profits, that there is a problem in locally based assistance, in that our taxes go out, but are coming back less and less. Local taxes go up, people don’t move in - and in extreme cases, lose their homes in tax takings.
The political base is small. Boston, our capital, is so very distant. Forget D.C. in this era.
You are correct that the ability to know a lot of the townspeople is a benefit in governing and providing. But as a national “trend”, our sustainability will be hampered by the “one percenters” getting the financial breaks from our ever more isolated governments.
2
I certainly agree with Mr. Brooks that we all can and should take part in the politics of our own local communities, and there are viable arguments for a smaller government. But we cannot ignore that we are a 50-state nation, ideally governed under one Constitution. When a young girl in Georgia is not allowed access to the medical marijuana to control her epilepsy, but marijuana is sold for both medical and recreational use in dozens of other states, national legislation is needed. When a woman in California need only make an appointment for an abortion, but a woman in Mississippi is thwarted at every turn, national legislation is needed. Here's something that will curl a lot of reader's hair - in my little community, and actually state-wide, it's still a big deal when alcohol ordinances are decided, even tho my state has been "wet" for decades. Officials and business owners argue over beer vs wine vs liquor, weekday hours of operation, Sunday sales, distances from schools and churches. Prohibition was repealed in the US 85 years ago, and prohibition is now considered a major scourge of the 20th century.
Let my local officials decide the millage rate, the local school budget, and which potholes need priority. When the telegraph, the automobile, air travel and computer (with it's so-called social media) came along, we became neighbors to every human being held by gravity on our planet. Not realizing this will be our end.
7
I remember watching a televised town hall when George W Bush was running against Al Gore and an audience member from Florida complained to GWB that his child's classroom lacked a desk for him on his first day of school, as if that was an issue appropriate for a future President to resolve.
I wondered at the time if that guy had ever attended a PTA meeting or been involved in School Board elections, because it seemed symptomatic of the media and cultural shift in focus that "Washington is the source of all good (or evil, depending on one's view)" to the exclusion of the local day-to-day governance issues which have much more direct impact on people's lives.
3
Let's face it, we're at a Tipping Point. One of the commenters was relating to science fiction Star Trek and Martin's Game of Thrones. I can think of a different comparison, rather dystopic. We are now at a place where we can make one of two choices...we can either end up like Star Trek or we can end up like Blade Runner.
2
What Mr. Brooks is describing is the normal process that always takes place between real world of budgets, boilers, and boosters making collective sense out of the abstractions/ideals of governing bodies. As Mr. Brooks points out, writing ideals and implementing realities are very different processes. However, the sense making process becomes infinitely more difficult when the values and goals of governing bodies are in direct opposition to the values and goals being pursued by local entities. What we see playing out today in Washington, at the state level, and in the courts, are goals and values that do not represent the kinds of the thinking and action necessary for the innovations suggested in this article.
8
NYT readers are technocrats and wannabe technocrats, David. They always believe that experts know best, and that the best solution is to give the expert as much scope and power as possible. Thus, the best government is the most centralized, because there is always one best solution, the solution of the expert. Of course, these are the same people who have trouble imagining how the world might be different off of the island of Manhattan, that Brooklyn constitutes a strange and wonderfully different world. Localism has often been a topic of consideration in the EU, and in the UK, which has a highly centralized government. They like to label it Subsidiarity, which is the idea that government services are best provided by the lowest possible layer of government, so that those services can be customized to local circumstances. This is yet another topic, embraced by the left outside of the US years and decades ago, where the Democratic party cannot get beyond the mindset of the 1960s, where civil rights was advanced in part by taking power from states and cities. There is a cost to over-centralized government. Top down policies from Washington are high on the list of things Americans dislike about the Democratic party. Universal medical care and anti-poverty programs implemented at the local level would be far more popular than those delivered by Washington bureaucrats -- Look at how much more popular Obamacare is wherever it has been rebranded and customized by the state.
5
@Tom
So, for example, rural Appalachia should have its own universal medical care and anti-poverty programs and everything will work out for the best? Where does the financing come from? As to Obamacare being rebranded and becoming this more popular I think it was the other way around. When Obama's name was taken off of his program and it was properly referred to as the "Affordable Care Act" that is when people loved it. After all, they didn't want to accept the idea that the "illegal Kenyan-born Muslim" had come up with something that benefitted them. And I think a lot of its popularity depends on how it is customized by the state, although any version of it is likely to be better than what they had before.
1
@Tom Ironic that you suggest it was because of local (actually, state level) action that Obamacare was popular, ignoring that without the national initiative it would not exist. And I'd suggest it is only because the federal government – despite best efforts of both the Trump admin and Obamacare opponents who want to kill it in the states – still has existing standards that the system in place today is popular to the extent it is. Not because of it being "rebranded and customized by the state" but because the standards are still set by the feds. Medicaid, in its many forms from covering many to not covering many who are in need, is a perfect example of how "rebranded and customized by the state" is a failure if the feds simply become a source of $$$ to be under state control, which thourgh "block grants" is what those currently in power want to turn it completely into. Then it will be popular with the politicians who control the cookie jar and those who don't need the services and don't care how the actual users are treated.
Where I reside the local politics and forums and selectmen are all of a certain age and generation. The early baby boomers mostly. They are unwilling to share the reins of local power. Change proceeds at a glacial pace, if at all. That is until these elders get sick or have major health afflictions. I've volunteered on many town boards and I am always the youngest in the room and I am not a spring chicken. What localism needs is more mentoring and fellowship. These oldsters need to consider stepping aside to let a younger set of minds and bodies be part of the process. Or the process will dissolve and be entirely lost, with no new blood or enthusiasm to pick up the pace and or balance. BTW, I call a lot of these older, municipal participants PIPs or previously important people. They retire and still have to throw their weight around somehow. Not always in the best interest of the younger generations.
6
This localism has great merit. I hope it gains traction. Perhaps this country is too big to be ruled from Washington, as evidenced by the fact that the behavior of our elected leaders has nothing to do with "the good of America" or even their constituents -- it is based on solipsism and the
ability to enrich themselves financially.
My local mayor and commission members don't have young men and women in shiny blue suits following them around all day making them feel vastly more important than they are. The leadership of this country has finally become the physical manifestation of the Peter Principle. Today it's being reported that Solar energy is now less expensive than coal and we have a leader who's waving the coal miners' flag. Oy. And it Dallas it's 107 degrees today. Think Local needs to be our slogan from now on.
2
@Lois Ouch,Lois, you wrote "ruled" rather than "governed" but you bring up an idea that I read about back in the 1980s I believe. A study concluded that the US had become too big and complex to be governed from Washington and should be broken up into self-governing regions.
@Lois Yet that leader you're pointing to was elected by folks who are held up as the epitome of local, not the mainstream. How more local can you get than Trump playing to coal miners, whose livelyhood is local as you can get, restricted to a few areas of this vast country. I'd suggest not being local is not the issue, but being beholden to the few special interests is.
In WI Republicans who control state government and who always preached local control as opposed to Federal control have passed laws to contravene local city laws. These included gun control, environmental protection, minmum wage, even zoning laws.
So Brooks should look to his own party for thwarting localism.
9
Localism is a fine thing. The main drawback is that the principal taxation powers lie at the Federal and State levels which means the local authorities must spend all their time begging for funds to do the work that the higher levels of government are unwilling to do.
9
When Republicans lose power at the Federal and State levels, cities and counties will be the last battleground for ideas which Americans overwhelmingly reject such as unrestricted gun rights, making abortion impossible for women who need it, attacks on citizens of minority communities with the tacit support of local law enforcement authorities, among other things. David writes: "Localism stands for the idea that there is no one set of solutions to diverse national problems. Instead, it brings conservatives and liberals together around the thought that people are happiest when their lives are enmeshed in caring face-to-face relationships, building their communities together." Localism is not about innovation or taking all viewpoints into consideration. It is and it will be a new form of conservative dominance, to ensure that only their worldview prevails. A very dangerous idea!
9
Localism does work in some places for some people. Unfortunately some of the local leaders follow national ideas that will run their localities into the ground. No tax or low taxes sounds great until you have the current problems in SC that their teachers have suffered with negative income for over 15 years. The result is massive teacher shortage.
Localism also does not work for everyone. The poor are ignored for the most part. Sure the are private shelters and programs, but they do not have the massive dollars to change anything but what happens tomorrow.
Charleston is an example. On the surface there are lots of shinny good. Some high paying jobs, great places to eat, etc. However there is the problem that many if not most of the jobs are low paying minimum wage. Localism will not solve this problem mostly because the people in charge don't care.
4
@Charleston Yank You're right, entrenched special interests are as powerful on the local level as on the levels above. No matter what level, they are the biggest problem in moving this country forward.
I have seen no clearer testimony to the power of the localism described in this column than that presented in Our Towns, by James and Deborah Fallows. That book made me look at my own community, nestled between a modern and focused community college and a major state honors university, and ask in what direction we might go.
1
All very good points about the pit-falls and dangers of localism, but while the federal government is temporarily deranged and non-functional, many states and cities and town are moving ahead on their own repaving, cleaning up their water supplies, improving their schools. Just as the EU is turning away from us for the time being and looking elsewhere for solutions and markets. My mother used to say: This, too, will pass. Let's hope so and soon.
2
Brooks seems to be referring to a fundamental principle of
Catholic social teaching---Subsidiarity. The Wikipedia entry starts this way
"Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority."
Of course there are many things that have to go to the highest centralized competent authority--health care, social security etc--these are matters of political prudence.
My suspicion is that Brooks would eschew this kind of prudence.
4
@Dick I agree that Mr. Brooks may well be closing in on the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. If so, we all need to recognize that this principle, as practiced in Catholic circles, is carefully monitored by a hierarchy that is most jealous of its status and allows little variation, on the part of the faithful, from orthodox ideas or behaviors. Some call that kind of exercise of authority "bullying." When subsidiarity is applied in the secular world, people face similar bullying tactics from local powerhouses like churches, businesses, or the financial elite. This is the danger always inherent in what Brooks calls localism and this writer calls subsidiarity. We see this dark side of localism every day; it is a feature, not a bug.
2
Yes, localism, participation, and small town government and administration are important and need to be encouraged. But modern America, and beyond, is a world populated by a whole series of non-local governments called corporations that—literally—are so powerful that they negotiate defacto, sometimes dejure, international treaties with foreign governments. These are international governments, in function and in fact. The conservative local fantasy, even when eloquently expressed, as by Mr. Brooks, ain’t gonna cut it. While Mr. Brooks does not claim it’s a wholesale solution to major structural problems, present-day localism, as desirable as it is, cannot address the larger questions of what to do about corporate governments and their power, these groups are neither elected nor representative.
9
The localist revolution may well be coming to America, not by design, but necessity if and when the nationalist power that has held the country together crumbles. Thoughts will then turn to that which we imagine we can control.
As warm and friendly as Brooks makes this sound, it is a far cry from the reality we will find ourselves in. Personally, I think it will test our mettle as nothing has before, but if we are to come out of it and move into a forward thinking future we can't stay there.
The localist revolution must evolve to include the totality of all we have learned about ourselves and our world and move to include that in our model. If we don't, we will find ourselves in a post apocalyptic scrabble for survival in which 'local' becomes an ever smaller tribe with an ever increasing paranoia and commensurate arsenal.
History tells us we have been here many times before - have started over and worked our way out of our caves into the light again only to lapse and fall back.
It's my hope and dream this time will be different. I'm willing to come back next time around and join that work in progress.
6
@Memi von Gaza
You beat me to it. We became centralized in the 20th century because of the total failure of local and state government.
I’m glad you brought up homelessness. The main causes of homelessness, high cost of housing, mental illness and drug/alcohol abuse, can be traced to federal policies that were upended by Republicans. The cutoff of federal funding for low income housing and the closing of federally funded residential mental health facilities opened the flood gates bringing thousands to the streets, including a surge of women and youth not seen before. I serve lunch to the homeless and poor and putting a human face on the problem has been a gift to me. But not one of them is living in our spare bedroom. Give our communities some money and we can really do something to house them.
3
This article is appealing because it recognizes the bright spots, some positive changes, happening in communities that have the right leaders and the ability to apply innovative approaches to local problems. But I suspect that this hopeful take on localism is informed by observations of communities that are not in crisis with lingering high unemployment, an opioid crisis, dwindling local finances or inadequate healthcare resources.
I don't think Brooks is proposing a localist approach as a solution to our larger problems, many of which affect communities and can't be addressed without national resources.
We need an integration, a hybrid model, of a functional national government and the thriving localism that Brooks has observed in his travels around the country. Politicians must recognize the diversity of local needs and the safety net it must provide, with all those positive aspects of localism that Brooks has described and that can indeed promote healthy communities and even inform future public policies.
Communities cannot do it on their own. We need national leaders that will place the needs of Americans first and we need local leaders to promote candidates that will change the dysfunctional mess that has become our national government.
4
Citizens need to come to grips with the fact that the United States is on the verge of becoming a dictatorship where political philosophy is irrelevant.
Before engaging in historical and theoretical discussions of conservatism, liberalism populism, and "localism", it would be far more valuable to describe for Americans the way our government has been subverted by a super-rich right wing oligarchy. Most Americans have yet to understand that the United States underwent a right wing coup in 2016. The electoral farce was based on Republican gerrymandering and systematic voter suppression combined with extensive and proven Russian hacking and widespread disinformation. The mysterious Electoral College majority gave Trump the Oval Office with only 70,000 votes spread over three key states. Clinton had a popular majority of 3 million.
Trump was slipped into office with a mere 24% of the potential US electorate. If there were ever a need for a wake-up call in America it is now. Trump has revealed himself to be a complete puppet of Vladimir Putin and he now clearly threatens the security of our nation.
Editorials should be sounding alarm bells about the need to register to vote, to get out the vote, and to overcome the voter apathy that has led in large measure to the disease of Trumpism.
12
“We’ve tried liberalism and conservatism and now we’re trying populism.” No, actually, we’re not trying populism. We’re trying dictatorship and a rather large majority of the Republican Party likes it. Or so the poll numbers say. In the current environment of the decay and death of the American republic, the very idea of localism is fatuous.
5
Local rule condoned slavery. It promulgated apartheid and turned a blind eye to lynching. Local rule ignored Brown vs Board of Education until the Federal government enforced it. Local rule denies Federal Medicaid benefits to it's poorest citizens in many states only to spite them for political gain. Local rule makes having an abortion a legal nightmare for patients and Doctors in many jurisdictions. Conservatives hate the Federal government, but not if you are black, brown, poor or pregnant.
5
I've got a great idea. Why don't we try local initiatives which we will call 1000 Points of Light.
4
Thanks goodness for local governments like Flint Michigan, innovating with its water infrastructure! Thank goodness for local election boards, keeping people with dangerous ideas from voting!
Horrible crimes are hidden more easily far from the "center".
5
You just need to google "bankrupt cities usa" and you'll be convinced that the smaller the government the more likely it is amateurish.
Local government without strong regulation is a recipe for disaster.
5
I swear Brooks only continues to write columns to show us how many synonyms for basic adjectives he can use while detailing topics that paint rose-tinted pictures completely out of touch with the reality of the current American political situation.
Even in small, seemingly liberal/progressive towns, the politics and tactics of the current administration are pervasive. The rebuilding of a coherent and functional federal government may begin at local levels, but certainly will never be fixed by cocooning ourselves in our own local systems.
Believing that every town turning into itself will create a better political situation is based on the assumption that diversity of ideologies and beliefs as well as of culture and race are present in every locality in the United States. While this may be true of some communities, it is certainly not true of all. This kind of political insulation and homogeneity is something we’re currently striving to combat in the United States.
4
Take a look at how “localism” is working for us here in Maine and other poor states with Trump-wannabe governors. The theory is great; we’re stuck here, though, for at least another five months.
1
So what happens when my local "Walk-Out" decides the best way to deal with the homeless is to either kick them out or jail them and my local community agrees? In David's cozy little local nirvana, who is there to protect them?
2
It sounds to me like Mr Brooks is hunting for something good in the his party today - after a mortally embarrassing Trump week with NATO and Russia - and came up with the old saw: small federal government.
But why run this column today - when Trump just announced that he invited the former KGB Chief responsible for hacking our democratic elections to the White House near the midterm elections. With the federal government in clear and present danger from its president and his bosom compatriot, it's NOT the day talk about localism.
10
Sinclair Radio Group is acquiring and homegenizing local radio to promote a conservative populist agenda. I hope someone on the Dems side invests competitively, otherwise a huge media asset will be turned, and may become an irretrievably negative force in localist politics.
2
Mr. Brooks, ever the optimist, paints a rosy solution to our present dysfunction. Sadly, localism will not protect our borders, reduce drug-related crime, instill virtue or patriotism in our young people, or guarantee our safety in a hostile world. It will not diminish the red sea of debt at the national, state, and local levels.
The American experiment is dying, slowly but surely, killed by the cancer of leftism. I'm not sure at what Kubler Ross state of thinking about our demise you are at, but eventually we will all get to acceptance.
1
@MFW
The American experiment is dying - but not slowly. It is crumbling rapidly under the pressure of right wing corporatist money that has been used to drive moderates out of the Republican Party and systematically subvert the electoral system. The Supreme Court opened the sluice gates for the Kochs, Adelsons, Mercers, Wynn's and their ilk to buy the GOP and convert our government into a one-party state. The Fox News propaganda machine is reflected 100% in this comment that blames "liberals" for decades of Republican refusal to obey the Constitution. Sad.
75
@MFW
Sure, leftits are responsible for electing a president who lies every minute, over 4,000 lies so far, can’t tell the truth.
Enjoy leftist Medicare and Social Security because you may not have for long.
5
Mr. Brooks is just now finding out about localism? This has been a concept at least since the 1980s, and probably has its roots in the social revolution of the late 1960s. In any case, can we please stop using the word flip? It's all over the place since Trump stumbled onto the scene. (Brooks: "Localism is truly a revolution. It literally means flipping the power structure.") Flip has a mob-like connotation; it means, according to Merriam-Webster, "to cooperate in the prosecution of a criminal case against an associate." We now live in the "To Flip or not to Flip" era. It is a crude, unkind, soiled word. More than any other word it signifies want Trump-think has contributed to the spirit of the our times.
1
This is very sad commentary. Remember when, irrespective of religious differences in Iraq, or its history under Sadam Hussein, George W Bush used the occasion of 9-11 to invade and to bring freedom to Iraq. David cheerled that disastrous, adolescent nightmare.
This fantasy as our country melts down is irrelevant escapist fare. The problem with what little democracy left is that there has never been a national election authority or a national education system with standards. We've ended up with scant democracy and a ill-informed, poorly educated public. We have too much localism. Anymore, and we have no more nation.
4
Brooks keeps getting things so wrong! Yes-Obamacare had a year of discussion but the middle of the night, no one can see the bill, approach to tax changes was NOT after discussion or meaningful review. Please do not conflate the good the democrats try to do-with all its flaws- with the devastation the republicans bring to so many ordinary Americans. Brooks never really steps up and faces the rack and ruin of the republicans and their irrational and untrustworthy leadership in the white house and Congress.
5
Where do you live Brooks?
Where I live our taxes are extremely high, our schools expensive and failing, our roads and bridges awful, our politicians corrupt, crime and gangs are high, health care poor and expensive, racial profiling extensive, poverty prevalent .
Same things go for county and state.
But, yes, let's go local where things might or might not get done.
3
I believe that our biggest problem is that we are being bullied. Are we really so enamored of the second amendment? Nope! We are being bullied by the assault weapon supporters. Do we really want this invasion of clamoring victims from central America? Nope! We are being bullied by the "American guilt" crowd.
The fact is that our leaders need our permission to go off on their little tangents. They don't have it. As a consequence, we have leaders like Trump. Or we could have had Sanders. Same difference.
Quit the false equivalence game, Mr. Brooks, by finally recognizing that gerrymanded congressional districts keep an imbalance in our electoral system.
For every victory you see at a local level, the federal system ensures that popular votes in urban and suburban places get swamped by rural voters.
While localism can be a good thing, the demise of our federal system swamps whatever gains are made locally. All one has to do to prove this point is to see the results of republicans in charge of Congress and the presidency due to our gerrymandered system.
2
We are a huge country! Of course a federal government cannot be responsive to the needs of individuals except by just laws, and compassion for those whom we don't see as 'worthy'. Local reflects national, unfortunately. Some of it is good, some of it bad and some, we just don't agree with.
When you go down the ladder, Federal to State, to county, to township, to individual and divide each step into divisions, e.g. departments, committees, heads of departments, heads of committees, it doesn't just mean a job for everyone, it means a dilution of information, confusion, collusion and corruption. Maybe we just need to CHANGE. Rewrite the constitution, give local leaders more say. Governors more voice in the federal system, County leaders more say in state issues. And heads of states (countries), more say in the world. (and less power in the country and more an executive than a king.)
No one is better than David Brooks at ignoring the cruelty of Capitalism. A very high percentage of major initiatives are driven by the values of Capitalism. Look at Bezos, leading a company famous for low wages and poor benefits. Look at the urban gentrification completely committed to the high income professional capitalist class. What is characterized as "successes" are corporate ventures that direct the positive proceeds to a very select few. The massive affordable housing crisis promoted by the money class manipulating zoning and other regulation structures sits next to a complex of rapidly growing homelessness and very poor housing conditions for so many tens of millions who do happen to have a roof over their heads, leaky as it is. Preposterous beyond description are the national economic statistics that exist for no other reason than the perpetuation of bourgeois society via a complete distortion of the personal economic reality the common person faces.
7
I am all for localism, but David Brooks's depiction of it is too rosy. True, local politics is not polarized or impersonal in the same way as national politics. But accomplishing anything significant at the local level usually requires resources, which usually entails dealing with county and state politicians (I live in New Jersey). And local politics is often controlled by a very small coterie of politicians and by real estate developers. Certainly some towns in America, such as Burlington, Vermont and Greenville, SC, have accomplished great things in recent years, but many communities are just plain stuck. So I support localism, but it is not the simple cure-all that David Brooks seems to think it is.
7
Wendell Berry has been writing about “localism” for decades. Any serious dive into this subject should begin with his writings on the subject. His idea of localism includes these ideas:
1. Humans are limited creatures. The scope of their power over others ought to be no larger than their ability to love a person. Affection is a necessary component of management and culture.
2. We cannot save the planet unless we care for every local place, every piece of land. Global solutions to global warming cannot work without care for each local environment.
3. Localism requires a local economy. Walmart’s and industry colonize local communities. Local economies need protection.
To paraphrase Wendell Berry, people who believe it is true to say that it takes a village to raise a child must also agree that it takes a local economy and culture to raise a village.
8
It’s a nice fairytale replete with organic markets, charter schools and crowdsourcing campaigns. And in Brooks’s view the best decisions will always be made by locals in their infinite wisdom.
Charter schools that won’t teach evolution, or teach the “lost cause” version of the Civil War, or the junk science of the danger of inoculations , or fracking, the while they leave the failing students to the public schools.
How about crowdsourcing campaigns to fund statues to Robert E. Lee or memorials to the Rosenbergs?
As for the organic markets, I’m all for the 3 of them that are about to be swept away by Whole Foods and Amazon.
Perhaps the local NYC citizens can Crowdsource a campaign to replace the 84 year old steam pipes that routinely blow up streets in Manhattan.
Yes and let’s make sure the local businessmen decide what environmental regulations ought to be abandoned in order to make their logging operations more profitable.
With a corrupt and nonsensical Federal Government that abandons science and encourages the notion of a “deep state” we are well on our way to achieving a dystopian idiocracy of local crackpots who distrust whatever solutions that the Federal Government has in place or proposes.
27
I agree with Mr. Brooks. But here's the challenge: While nearly 60% of Americans voted in the 2016 Presidential election, average turnout in local races in our major cities hovers around 15%; I have lived in communities where it drops as low as 10%. I know from experience as a campaign consultant that most people find local government boring - there are no decisions about defense, foreign policy, immigration or trigger issues like abortion. But, too often, these non-voters are the ones voicing the loudest complaints about their local elected officials. Go figure!
1
There is so much wrong in the things that David writes about in this column I don't even know where to begin. For one people gravitated to large cities for quality of life it's well-known and documented and follows mathematical principles. Secondly with the disappearance of jobs in local areas due to automation they're going to become weaker not stronger. While the idea of localism might have some Merit it is not going to replace the need for an effective federal government.
the real issue is what is going to happen to capitalism when there's no jobs there for a vast majority of people. It's about jobs or about a new kind of economy not dependent on the structures of capitalism. Take your choice. Neither Republicans Or Democrats are dealing with it.
6
@David You're the first person in some time to recognize a problem generations in the making due to mechanization (farms) automation and robots (factories) and now self driving vehicles and AI (everyone else).
Clearly not a political problem.
5
There may be hope for small cities, although I have doubts about that. The real problem areas in the USA are the small town that are losing population and caught in a downward spiral.
We are in a good period for our economy nationally, but the areas I'm talking about are not doing well. People are hurting and that makes them vulnerable. The news media have taken to looking at the rural population as rare beasts and the stories are appalling.
Unfortunately, these empty spaces that are getting emptier have too much political power in our system. It's romantic to think that localism will fix our broken politics. It's futile to think that localism can fix deteriorating economies.
2
Why is it so hard to do the right thing? Religious or not why is it so hard to practice the golden rule? Simple basic ideas. Until we can do that human kind will not be able to move forward.
On another note: Fight to overturn Citizens United.
12
"The federal government assumed greater and greater control of American life."
I do not believe Brooks believes too fervently in this column about "local revolution." But he and his party do devoutly believe every word in his claim that the federal government "...assumed greater and greater control of American life." Which is GOP code for saying: too much Social Security, too much unemployment insurance, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid and more.
It is the same 'ol, same 'ol devotion with Brooks just dressed up in a new GOP disguise - 'local revolution'. Budget deficits from Social Security - BAD. Budget deficits from corporate tax cuts - GOOD.
19
@daniel wilton Good comment. I know many people who hate the Federal government and think that it assumed too much power. Exactly what powers/activities do states rights people object to? -- around here it is usually telling the state that everyone (including Black people) should be allowed to vote and that all children should go to good schools.
6
Clearly Mr Brooks has never lived in a small town in a rural area. Some years ago our selectmen broke out into a fistfight at our yearly Town Meeting; made state news.
I DREAD Town Meetings.
And localism only makes sense within a larger framework of civil rights and environmental rights. I do not want my civil rights abrogated when I travel to another state, nor do I want another state's pollution affecting my health. There are good reasons for larger gov't, despite what Repubs would have you believe.
68
Promotion of localism is promotion of economic and political reaction, however unwitting, however nicely it helps some devise Pollyanish anecdotes.
Localism won't compensate for market deficiencies, won't adequately fund schooling in poor school districts, won't fund (or provide) provide better safety nets or drives because of the race to the bottom, can't help regulate the national economy because of "fallacies of composition" ( like cutting spending in a downturn), translates local homogeneity into segregation and social exclusion. It divides and conquers population, subjecting them to unfettered power of mobile and large producers.
It exacerbates our descend into a second Gilded Age, worse than the first because of less favorable economic competitiveness with nation beyond our border, devoid even of aggregate, if upwardly skewed, economic growth.
11
Until/unless tax revenues go from the approximate 70:20:10 percent division between federal, state & local governments to maybe more like a 33 1/3 split, or until currencies, local or otherwise (crypto?) that work around the mandated withholding tax system come into common use; localism will be hamstrung in bringing about effective self-management to a communities’ more intractable problems. No money, no power. Does anybody really think the feds will willing give up their tax revenue?
6
The rule of law is under attack. We need one law for all our citizens and for that we need a Congress that stops the horror of one law for the rich and one for the poor. No amount of localism will compensate for the fact that we have turned our back on justice and the squalid mindset of the Randian pillagers reigns. There are no longer any men of character in Congress, and we need at least that to survive as a country, however much else is handed over to local, sensible, always aqabble-free “tiny towns”.
14
We can all agree that the Federal government (in particular, the Congress) is pretty much dysfunctional and probably will remain so for an extended period of time. That means that most governmental innovation/activity has shifted to the states which can be good or bad depending on the state.
I have not noticed a shift to the local (town/city or county) level. In my limited observation I would say that if someone proposes bringing in a very large new job creator (i.e. car manufacturing plant), then the city fathers and everyone else falls all over themselves in rejoicing and gratitude (and give huge tax concessions). Otherwise the reaction will be different. Just about any other suggested change will be met with hysterical concern about "property values." That seems to be the standard approach to opposing anything -- start yelling about property values.
Some of these little towns have a lot of people who don't have much to do except watch their neighbors. If someone does something they don't like they call either the police or the city planning board (who decide questions of zoning and building).
As many of the other commenters (such as Emile) mentioned there are a lot of negatives about the local level. And there is often a lot of politics (not just electoral politics but one on one interpersonal politics). If the locals do something new and innovative that is wonderful but I am not expecting it in the towns that I know about.
10
Oh yes, the giant corporations will love having to deal with each little hamlet and the regulations they want to impose. But wait, they can play them off against each other to pay zero taxes and zero worker protection!
Ornstein predicts that by 2040 half the population will live in just 8 states, mainly on the coast where they are going to be concentrated in giant megalopolises. We're already mostly there. Brooks' notion is a fantasy for the bulk of the American population.
The greater Washington region is subject to three states and an increasing number of counties (as the exurban population spreads). In a sense it would be good for the region to declare independence from these competing local jurisdictions and form itself to a single unified entity for governing purposes. Maybe that's the way we really ought to be going. A different form of localism. But Jimmy Stewart it won't be.
6
I can vouch heartily for localism. Here in Switzerland the canton system ensures that almost all the important functions of government stay local. You deal with your 'geminde' , or local government office exclusively and the central government is almost invisible. The result is a country that works with quality of life off the scales.
9
"Localism," i.e., local laws, is a long-discredited myth. It gave the United States "local" solutions to national issues, for example, laws prohibiting mixed race marriages. Improvement lags if it ever comes. Localism makes knowing the law impossible. It allows for 1000 Michael Browns, Freddie Grays and Eric Garners each year when 19,000 police departments carry out the law.
"Subsidiarity," i.e., laws are carried out as close to the people as possible with possible local adjustments provided in law, is a better approach that is used in the European Union and in some of its federal member states. The laws are consistent and knowable. In Germany, there are not 10 Michael Browns each year for there are but 19 police departments that can be supervised. In Germany, local administration is guaranteed in the constitution, but not local legislation.
17
What this great Journalist writes brings me back to my convictions a Realist, Post WW 2 western Democracies have practiced introducing the Social Democratic Welfare State model to it citizens. A great model as it offers something for everyone. Some small populated Nordic countries we sight as examples of it's success, and stats show these populations have cradle to grave benefits. The model if one studies it is based on federal governments delivering these promises. Try as governments have grown and grown they can't make it work and people know it is why as Brooks points out localism is emerging. Our own lawmakers are looked upon as Political hacks truly dysfunctional. I can remember Tip O'Neil sitting down with President Reagan and working things out. All we now are inundated with every day is impeachment and corruption. I grew up with corruption in Illinois called The Democratic machine it was harmless and we lived with it. Today corruption is in the hands of very powerful influential select few. Any wonder we hibernate in gated communities or seek a safe neighborhood.
4
This is a re-iteration of the "Transition Town" movement that began some 15 years ago in England thanks to Rob Hopkins, Sophie Banks, et al. (Find several Ted Talks given by Rob ) 'Transitioning' into the new future of no oil and greater toxicity is best done by local initiatives : people talking with people : people solving problems with their neighbors.
This what we are doing in Brewster (Cape Cod), Massachusetts as the Great Cape Tiny Village. Let's hope that Transition Towns and Tiny Villages spread like "an idea whose time has come".
3
While there are some advantages to localism, one big negative is that in such a system large companies and oligarchs would play these cities off against each other and set the rules to their advantage. These large companies would become the new national power center, effectively, running these communities.
4
I would add that corporations act like a form of government already. Think of the towns that exist or came to be because a large business operated there. Mining towns especially can be seen to function as if the Company was/is actually the law and government. Thus we eventually have small kingdoms, where the owner(s) of a company/corporation are the kings.
8
Southern textile towns are another example of localities that were literally owned by the corporation. Paternalism thrived there - improvements might be made (we've decided you're all getting an electric light!), but there was no doubt at all as to who was in control.
Sounds intriguing, but it's just baloney.
While local government can be innovative and have an immediate impact on the lives of citizens, local government is at the bottom of the government food chain. Cities, towns, villages and school districts all depend of state and federal funding that restricts local control of just how the funds are spent. Voters often won't approve taxes and bonding when those issues are required to be put on the ballot. Voters often vote against mayors and members of the local governing boards who propose tax increases.
States often restrict the power of local government to take action on specific matters. Remember that the infamous North Carolina bathroom law contained a provision forbidding cities from enacting minimum wage ordinances. Texas passed a similar measure. Conservative Republicans have passed or tried to pass similar measures in other states as well.
Local governments are balkanized. The states and the federal government pick the winners when cities, town and school districts compete. Too often the competition is just a race to the bottom. That is why we have white flight, 24-7 retail and local tax exemptions for corporations.
States use their power to take control of local government. Michigan has appointed administrators to take control of Detroit, Flint and several other cities and their public schools.
Life at the bottom of the food chain is just not as attractive as Mr. Brooks would have us believe.
34
Excellent column. Judging from the comments so far, my opinion is in the minority. But I don't think the point should be to provide example after example of what cannot be solved locally. The point is to rise above the fray for a moment and consider how problems could or should be addressed. I have found it demoralizing to go to a local action meeting of some type and have the whole discussion revolve around who will contact which politician at the state or national level. Surely we in the local community have more of a role than that. Let's not abdicate. And if you say I am merely talking theory, fine. Let's talk theory. Maybe it will help point the way toward a better future.
4
Our welfare system was originally local—town-level officials decided who was deserving of support and who wasn’t. The obvious possibilities for bias and outright corruption were part of the push for federalization in the 60s.
Probably some mix of national and local could produce an effective, yet checked & balanced, system?
4
Thanks for spotlighting the core reason where democracy really works: Involvement.
But David you skipped over a big problem. In conservative states like Louisiana, state government controls much of what the local towns can do - including raising taxes to address improvements.
5
David Brooks is such a Romantic. Localism is good for some things, but cease with the Norman Rockwell pictures of simple, decent, smart people practicing respectful democracy. A lot of localism leans more toward Bad Day at Black Rock, where only the unexpected arrival of the stranger Spencer Tracy saves the little localized-power town from itself.
My husband and I have had a second home in an idyllic small town in Sullivan County in upstate New York for 15 years. We have learned that corrupt politicians emerge at every level of government. In small towns, because those who are in power are always "beloved figures" coming from families who have been there forever, they're nearly impossible to vote out of office. You want your tax dollars to pay for the relatives of the Town Supervisor to have part-time jobs with benefits? Live in a small town. You want your Town Board full of part-timers to have Cadillac health insurance? Get yourself a house in a small town. You want to make a call about the a problem on the road in front of your house and be ignored because you're good for nothing but paying taxes? Get yourself a house in a small town. As for the enormous problems that confront us in the 21st century--global warming, environmental destruction on a massive scale, the erosion of civil rights, and. more recently, the Russian hacking of our whole election system, tell me exactly what "localism" can do about any of these things?
234
@Emile Very true! I would add that Brooks forgets that the necessary condition for fair and effective local government under the rule of law is fair and effective central government under the rule of law.
7
@Emile Completely accurate, but just think, if we got rid of the football coach paying half the local police department out of the school budget to do "security" at sparsely attended high school football scrimmages, we'd lose the "personalistic, relational, affectionate, irregular... shared history of reciprocity" that lets that football coach get away with blowing a 0.16 every other Friday with nothing more than maybe the occasional stay in the drunk tank if he looks like he might really hurt himself.
Everyone's enamored of ad hoc government until their zoning appeal is decided by a bunch of guys who just attended the same Lions Club BBQ as the landlord whose illegally subdivided house is clogging up the street with twice the number of tenants' cars the area is zoned for. There's a reason that the state and federal governments are "impersonal, uniform, abstract and rule-oriented." Because that's what a government of laws is.
"second home"- isn't that precious!
None of which works without MONEY and JOBS. Having taken that power away over 50 years, that must first be restored. The only entity with that kind of sway now is Federal.
6
I've long questioned how great localism really is. In the first place, the greatest reduction of human poverty in history - from about 1990 to today - was a result of globalism. Yes, that is correct - thanks to the shipping container and evil multinational corporations the smallest slice of humanity in history lives in life-threatening poverty. Second, my fellow progressives think they're going to get all this progressive stuff passed at the local level when I think the opposite is just as likely. Localism seems to be just nostalgia for an imaginary golden age that never existed, when we used to raise chickens and everybody was very tolerant of minorities.
38
What I remember of The Past when we were all raising chickens is that very few were tolerant of minorities, and sought to use those chicken feathers with tar to run them out of town.
Localism would be most empowered if the ordinary working people who live in these communities had the money to live and prosper that they deserve as real assets to the nation at large. Any kind of ism that is adopted by the country has to be facilitated on a national scale. If Localism is the solution, which policies on a federal level would support it best? Simply rejecting the current state of affairs is not enough.
4
Remember when federal (national) troops were needed to integrate schools at the local level? Reflect on the feudal-type power (Downton Abbey in the UK, but also small-town America) at the local level. Migration to find jobs, regulations that cross local borders to protect water and air, immigration . . . need I go on about the need to balance local and national power (2 Senators from Texas and Wyoming -- have the locals -- especially rural America -- too much power already?).
I empathize with the goal in this essay -- find an alternative to the horrible situation in Trump's administration and in the Republican modus operandi in general.
But surely here is no one or any easy answer. Democracy is complicated. Some devolution to lower levels of government could help, some assertion of positive national authority could help, too. But better candidates for office (we are beginning to see some arise recently), some backbone in incumbents, less public relations spin and more dealing with issues, op-ed writers digging deeper rather than looking for clever hooks, serious tax-reform, laws limiting money in politics, more quality education preparing our young to read critically and to understand their privileges and responsibilities, support for labor unions to give the "locals" a chance to assert themselves and have real deliberations with the managers and bosses.
We are in a crisis and we all need to search for explanations and answers. Thank you, Mr. Brooks, for trying.
12
This is a broader umbrella than it sounds like; it includes both the legacy of New England town hall meetings, and sheriff's departments controlled by the Klan. It also includes big-city government and neighborhood associations, differences in scale that are as extreme as local government vs national government (consider that about 1/40 of all Americans live in New York City, and that this "localism" is structurally equivalent to a town government of a few dozein in rural Wyoming).
That said, at root: yes. Responsiveness is simpler with shorter and more local systems. You don't want a federal fire department, or Parks and Rec program, or pothole repair program, simply because the mechanisms become so unwieldy.
THAT said, we need to be careful about where localism has taken us in the past, enshrining injustice as "local custom" and creating little dynasties and fiefdoms (or not so little, as corrupt big-city machine politics were intensely local. To me the big question is how we can bind the national standards for justice and fairness (incompletely enacted) that have evolved since the Civil Rights era with local responsibility and knowledge. Part of this is retelling our national story honestly, so that our local stories are not founded on the kind of patent lies that (locally grounded) segregationsism and "it's a family issue, we can't interfere" defenses of abuse of women were based in. But it's worth examining how local and national work together elsewhere.
21
Localism, a close cousin to volunteerism, is something which America always has had, and it works nicely to complement state and national programs and policies.
The problem is that localism is not efficient enough on a large scale to offset indifferent state governments, let alone a national government which is antagonistic towards helping low-income, disabled or elderly persons to live decent, dignified lives.
The present federal government is totally controlled by a Republican Party which has kept its old big-business bias and added a very new fascination with having an all-powerful, imperial presidency.
Throw in dashes of racism, xenophobia and an obsession to dominate working-class citizens, and we have the life imposed upon ordinary folks in Donald Trump’s America.
10
There isn't a single example in this article of Localism solving a problem. "Fred and Mary" may be helped out by the local food pantry or the homeless shelter, but If they need assisted living for a couple of decades, Localism isn't going to be nearly enough. And if they're mentally ill and don't smell very good and are living rough, the locals are likely to see them as candidates for relocation to someplace NIMBY. Issues like extreme income inequality or the absence of hospitals in rural communities require national solutions.
If we want some serious ideas about solving social and economic problems, the Democratic Socialists of America website is more useful than a David Brooks column. Some of their ideas may turn out to be impractically utopian, but they address real problems with suggestions for real solutions. I was particularly impressed by their interest in reaching out to faith communities on social justice issues, a type of bridge building that the left has a hard time doing. That's the kind of localism that might scale up to solve national problems.
51
In some David Brooks columns, small-town America is gasping its last breath, stripped of resources, in thrall to a con man, and in need to an infusion of federal attention. In today's were invited to localist Nirvana where the Illuminators, Walk Outs and Elders will ensure a thriving, democratic future. Modern life is a complex enterprise. Some things can't be reduced to the dimension of a TED talk. As a woman, for example, I'd be leery of trusting localism with my access to healthcare and right to equality.
29
@Maggie Mae Agree. In my experience and observation, it's much easier on the local level for majoritarian rule to prevail without observance of and real recourse to constitutional protections, because of fewer effective checks and balances, local repression of free expression and difference, community "norms," influence of preachers, etc. I never heard the term "city dads," "too much government" used as a cover for unequal or nonexistent enforcement of the law, willful ignoring of the separation of church and state, and the subsurface chill of being seen to be different or non-native until I moved to a small community.
6
Localism? How about call that management, pure and simple? Folks living in a community discern and address necessities, in order to get results, OK?
Politics are on the way out and management is in; not just a change of phraseology, we now have "localism, but a state of facts. More people are trained in management and more town and city managers are getting pretty nice results at what they do; the approval rating of American mayors/city managers being in the 75-80% bracket while Congress is in the low teens?
Management will eventually replace politics as we know it for it addresses necessities, it deals with facts, it is free of religious dogma, it is constructive and results are measurable, it is simple. The law of parsimony favors management over politicking, dialogue over ideological bickering, modesty over grandstanding. And that's that.
2
@Nicholas You overlook the tendency for managers in government to be party apparatchiks. It's nowhere near the objective and neutral science you assert.
5
@Rocky But,that is not management you are referring to. Management is not a name only, it is not just to be in charge, boss people around. This is the great misconception about management. Management is all about results. To obtain them one must plan, organize, staff, direct, control, motivate. A constant working on the soul and needs of the scope. But then again, people baptize things and processes as they please. Language is important. Otherwise it wouldn't matter, or it would, take your pick. I was facetious, using a meme of the day...
Localism is anti-political, a retreat from the idea that big problems need big solutions and taht progress can come through people debating and trying to influence big decisions.
Indeed, there is no such thing as a local problem. The nation state determines almost every aspectc of ourlives. Little Town Assembly cannot decide how many immigrants will come into the country and take up residence in Little Town. It can decide federal income taxes. And it cannot determine whether young men will be sent to fight foreign wars.
Localism always rears its head in pundit papers when there is a crisis of national politics. Fukuyama has been a big advocate of local involvement as a way of preserving the social fabric and creating a sense of community. In journalism there was a strong "communitarian" movement in the 1990s - a move by local news media to get locals "involved" in running their communities by holding town hall meetings and covering them.
The nation state is the only important political unit, as it has been for the past 300 years. The retreat into localism is an evasion.
5
@John MacCormak Imo, nation states have given way in power to extra-national organized crime - oligarchs, grifters, gangsters and kleptocrats allied with the stateless mobile wealthy - of which many politicians and governments are wittingly or unwittingly a part. Nations are handy refuges, pawns and dodges for this controlling class, which includes the big banking houses, "multi-national" (read extra-national) corporates (including media, all-important to influence and control), and the real deep state. Dark matter in the universe.
It gives new meaning to "the business of America is business." - Calvin Coolidge, Reagan's idol
Yeah, local development and financing of medical technologies like MRI (you know, the ones that our terrific best in the world healthcare system make so cheap). thankfully, the disintegration of healthcare financing that regards the term for insurance as a lifetime will allow latitudinal insurance in which young people, oblivious to what's coming, refuse to pay for the care of the old folks (forgetting if they're lucky, they'll get old, too). local solutions are gonna be great for grass-roots medical care. why towns will just start their own medical schools so that there can be small town medicine based on small town biology.
2
Interesting but—have you ever lived in a small town? In the west and Midwest they are run (college towns excepted) by entrenched locals primarily interested in back-room real estate deals which they use to create and expand their personal wealth. They do do not welcome newcomers who might upset the applecart.
26
@Carmine unfortunately in most communities this is accurate
1
Most current enterprises need to be big. Car manufacturers, "chip" / electronics manufacturers / collection of information about medications etc. Doing all that engineering twice is impossibly expensive. Mobility of people is valuable. Large business playing a large number of localities against each other gives them even bigger power. Some local power is great, but we clear need large government.
5
Localism is not a new concept if you bring into discussion the cantonal structure in Switzerland. A canton and the municipalities and smaller villages that comprise a canton have the local political power to decide on all governance issues. Though it is easy to lump cantons with traditional states in other countries, that might be a mistake. Cantons have far more sovereignty than in other countries with a federal structure. This helps local cantons and municipalities to decide on most issues. Of course, the homogeneity of the population helps but cantons have adapted quite well to immigration and modern needs. I think we should study this socio-political architecture and extract the best from it.
5
Vermont reminds me of the Swiss Canton structure.
Btw Vermont is a great state.
But as all places in America today oxycontin addictions are rampant.
9
@Shashank Garg
True, I think there are a lot of lessons from the Swiss experience that can be applied elsewhere. I'm not sure it's the homogeneity so much that helps. There is a strong civic sense here with lots of associations and groups that build a sense of community. (Approx. 30% of Swiss residents are foreigners, many long term.) Referendums (direct democracy) are very common and are a way for the people to have a direct say on federal initiatives.
5
True enough, as far as it goes, but the problem is the relation of parts to the whole—local communities to global humanity. Perhaps the best way to organize humanity would be to have the municipality be the primary social body—for the sorts of reasons Mr Brooks cites. Economic, cultural and political life would be centered in the towns & cities in which people actually live their daily lives. Restoring civilization to civitas would mean truly restoring civilization. The problem is that no local community could be, or would want to be, self-sufficient; no life could be STRICTLY local. Communities would be, as they always have been, interdependent.
But the world might be organized in circles of belonging that radiate out from each municipality, embracing other municipalities to form states/provinces, regions, & nations. This doesn’t sound very different from how we’re currently organized, but giving primacy to local communities would decentralize states & the global power structure, & thus change everything. What if the world agreed that the local community offered the best opportunity for real political participation and the mutual provision between individuals that is the basis of every life & all social fabric? And what if that principle of all for one & one for all were applied to a world of local communities, each focused as much as possible on providing for its own well-being, but enhancing its own life with trade & mutual provision with other towns, & mutual security?
2
More generalizations from Mr. Brooks looking for simple principles like scientists who look to discover simple laws underlying the structure of the universe.
Social sciences have been searching for such principles for years without much success. The absence of such simple universal principles is the reason social science is called a soft science or is often derided as not a science at all.
Mr. Brooks has been reading and talking to social scientists for years and is certainly well educated in social group theory backed up with reams of empirical studies. But as many other readers have demonstrated, localism often breaks down and results in corruption or if the locals are really unlucky, warlordism. Or even where everyone is heard, competing interests lead to paralysis.
For example, there is a housing crisis in Los Angeles and many other California cities. Everyone knows what must be done, except they don’t want new, middle income - forget about low income - housing built in their neighborhoods. Furthermore, there are height restrictions still on the books from many years ago limiting how many stories buildings can be. That is why Los Angeles has built out, not up.
It is more likely the zoning solutions will eventually have to be imposed at the state level to break the log jam in the cities.
11
@Maurie Beck. I totally agree with the point that localism in the simplistic way Brooks talks about it is a myth. Local politics and decision-making can be very conflict driven. It only runs smoothly hen those in power locally drive the agenda, shutting out other voices.
5
"Localism is the belief that power should be wielded as much as possible at the neighborhood, city and state levels. " Tell that to Wal-Mart, Wells Fargo, Amazon, Walt Disney, Home Depot, and so on. These companies are not going to let localism triumph at their expense; as it becomes popular, they will do their own kind of localism, just as people who seek to rebel against fashion or ignore it become the basis of the latest fashions. Their localism will look like localism and sell itself as localism, but the money and control will be national or international. Restaurants and bakeries give you food like mama used to make, but mama did not have a doctorate in nutrition science or tweak her recipes with focus groups for maximum appeal and minimum preparation cost.
The big business answer to localism is to create consumers who cannot tell the difference and do not realize that there is a contradiction between home cooked meals and the national restaurant chains and frozen entree brands that purport to provide them. This pseudo-localism is everywhere and is a form of pseudo-event; we are bombarded by it to keep us numb and not noticing that behind the hometown image is an international juggernaut. And now we are numb enough to think Trump is a role model.
13
Localism (as Mr Brooks so affectionately calls it) may have the look of local beautification projects with flags and flower baskets all the way up and down Main Street, but what it's mostly about is more effectively tapping into the state and federal tax payer dollars ever urgently required to fund local infrastructure, educational and health care needs. Other less seemly purposes behind Mr Brooks' so called Localist Revolution (a revolution as old as feudalism if not much, much older) include the burning desire of local big fish to guard their personal assets against outsiders with even sharper ideas than theirs' and the burning desire of somewhat less well heeled locals to protect their fragile beings from the very sight of strangers, especially those stranger of a markedly different hue and/or who may well be following some thoroughly incomprehensible, if not fundamentally malign, creed.
15
"Local power is personalistic, relational, affectionate, irregular and based on a shared history of reciprocity and trust." There are many reasons for embracing a power structure based on these values. But just as quickly, we need to remember that reciprocity and trust are often based as much on exclusion as on inclusion, sometimes brutally so. We need both. Generalized norms of fairness, based on admittedly abstract principles, and personal relations, based on local, long-term, and idiosyncratic association. Celebrating localism without respecting a larger context risks, and too often enables, invisible cruelties.
8
I disagree with the slant. Per se there is nothing wrong with what Brooks says but it seems to me there is a sly diversion going on. The information age we live in has made decision making on a grand scale of the utmost importance. Monopolies are taking over where they, arguably, should not while, otoh, we are told we should have a large network of bill payers at the local level to pay our medical bills instead of a "single" payer.
Consider your "local" cable company.
What good does it do to reduce my carbon footprint if another locality is increasing it at the behest of a lobbyist in Washington?
The onset of midterms has me thinking that progressives need to be very focused on a consensus platform which plays at the national level, even if it isn't ideal at the local level.
For example, posit a platform that does away with a tangle of welfare by substituting a "living wage" paired with a 'work visa-guest worker visa' ' program for immigrants which would attract more red state voters.
I'd be sweating the big stuff at this stage.
12
''We’ve tried Liberalism and conservatism and now we’re trying populism.'' We haven't tried Liberalism in quite some time. We certainly have tried republican lite often enough.
At any rate, localism is fine, and usually works if everyone is on the same page. What that means, is that there are ''traditions and ways of life'' that have been passed down and etched into the consciousness. If people disagree, then they are welcome to move away. If they don't move away, then they are shunned in all likelihood. Many ''laws'' are bent, not enforced, or disregarded altogether if it does not fit into the nice cookie-cutter image that the local community wants to portray.
I can give the obvious example of gay rights, where if suddenly town folk have found religion and can't possibly serve someone that goes against their ''values''. There are other things that are much more subtle, but all lead to expelling.
This is essentially the philosophy that republicans try to implement on a national or state wide level. (let alone the local)
So, I am all for mothers and fathers being those stable monikers within the local community (which you refer to often Mr. Brooks), so long as they come in difference colors, sexual backgrounds and religions. (or no religion at all)
The rainbow has beautiful colors.
25
Every American holds multiple citizenships: nation, state, county, city, borough, neighborhood, block. Most of those are "local" by distance. Citizenship starts at home and is the version we experience firsthand every day.
Our republic consists of a whole bunch of localities.
Together we'd been united by common core values, culture, and history; far beyond mere geography. "E Pluribus Unum": from many, one.
Mr. Brooks is right to remind us of the importance of active citizenship in all of the communities we belong to, largest to smallest.
We'll do best to engage at all scales, with eyes toward the values that unite us at all of them.
11
@John in Kentucky: Some Americans also consider themselves to be citizens of the world. It’s fine to be acting locally when it comes to addressing local problems; but today we definitely need to be thinking globally if we don’t want to drown or risk incineration.
11
A balance needs to be struck between power to govern at local, intermediate and national levels – otherwise, we risk sinking into increasingly tribal, atomistic protocols for governing and defining the fence posts within which we conduct our lives. We’re seeing this tendency strengthening throughout the world, and the risks are non-trivial.
David’s primary journalistic concern always has been “community”; and that has value. But we should be focusing on how to expand the boundaries of communities on some things so they become more general. The community that binds our people must be a national one.
Intense “Localist” revolutions exacerbate differences in the name of “community” – they don’t bring us together, where efforts to address shared priorities can be effectively concentrated.
Cohering as a people despite our immense diversity is much harder than cohering as a town or a city; but it’s MORE important to succeed at it, because it’s at national and even supra-national levels that truly great things can be accomplished. No city or even state will ever colonize Mars alone, or eliminate poverty alone, or effectively defend our shores or our cybernetic pathways alone.
David’s column leaves us with the impression that power, to be effective, must be pushed down aggressively to be responsive to human needs. I disagree because such needs exist at different levels. Power must be effectively APPORTIONED, depending on its purpose, between national, state and local levels.
18
@Richard
Fair enough mate, and I agree with you (rare) for the most part, however I would quibble only on one thing. Power and the law must coexist in an equitable fashion for all and of course, not just for all of one kind.
The devil is always in the details me friend.
3
@Richard Luettgen I think this is the first of RL's comments I have "recommended". Credit where due, it is coherent, logical and incisive, an apt response to Brook's pollyannaism, expressed this week as a simplistic, fantasy "localism" (which has a long history of entrenching racism and exclusion where practiced in many localities). And, to his credit, RL, for the first time in memory, didn't blame all possible dysfunctions on liberals. Given his history, I can't imagine how that was omitted, but Bravo, RL. You rose above the usual.
1
Localism is like a detective looking at a shredded body with a magnifying glass as a huge pterodactyl silently circles overhead.
You are on the right track, a great leader is capable of comprehending the issues from all perspectives. Unfortunately we don't have a habit of electing omniscient beings.
We can find leaders who at least approach things from an objective and knowledgeable perspective, but to be honest, I don't believe that is our national electorate desires presidential candidates with that quality.
4
Our founding parents tried to balance the power of centralization with the freedom of localism. We've been working at balancing that tension ever since. In this fractured environment, it seems that with your platform, focusing on "and" options, rather than "either/or" perspectives could engage people more positively.
2
How did that localism work in Flint, Michigan when the Republican governor bypassed the locals and sent someone to manage the city? Not so well.
138
Text from a future history book:
"Most historians agree that the patterns that would lead to the breakup of the United States and the subsequent collapse of the unified States themselves began with the diffusion of national power and functional authority and its simultaneous concentration in municipal and county governments...."
Hopefully this will not lead to things like,
"Escalating tensions over water rights between the rival city-states of Los Angeles and San Francisco into a small-scale nuclear exchange of no more than fifty warheads that nevertheless reduced much of the former State of California to a the sea of black glass it remains today is considered to be the first true nuclear war."
My own home in Seattle is pretty water rich. I wonder if we'll get invaded and colonized to water someone's almond groves.
"I for one welcome our new Californian overlords...."
5
@MCK "... and New Hampshire governor Meldrim Thompson has requested nuclear weapons to use against the state of Maine in regards to their fishing dispute…"
Some things never change.
1
There are glimmers of hope with localism and getting involved in local government or organizations. Doing so makes you appreciate the difficult choices that must be made and compromises necessary. That being said, localism is not replacement for centralized federal governance. At worse, it's an admission that the US is too big and divided to succeed or be effectively governed.
It's too early to wave the white flag. The majority of Americans want many of the same things but unfortunately the majority doesn't rule in the US.
2
I would argue the argument isn't for or against big or small government. What's needed at all levels is GOOD government. As you say, some decisions are better made at the local level, where leaders have knowledge of local conditions (assuming they can overcome local, partisan politics).
There is an essential role for the national government: defense, a stable monetary system independent of intereference from the nation's chief executive, and health care for all.
Our country's founders intended a number of definitions for the"...pursuit of happiness" described in the Declaration of Independence. Some scholars believe the founders meant that happiness included the right to a healthy life.
How can we, as a nation, not provide the basic human need of a healthy body? Why is it that people with the financial resources have access to healthcare while those who don't cannot afford insurance or access to medical care?
Slowly the Congress and President Trump are eviscerating the Affordable Care Act. But what are they replacing it with? Why are the citizens of some states going to have access to health care, but citizens in other states will go without?
We are the only developed country that doesn't have universal health care. Shame on us.
10
Austin has long suffered at the hands of the Texas legislature, where the extraction-industry lobby carries more weight than citizens and science.
In just one example, while Monmouth NJ bans plastic straws, the State of Texas recently declared that Austin can no longer prohibit the use of plastic shopping bags.
David Brooks "localist revolution" is important but the loss of local control is anything but small potatoes.
8
"the State of Texas recently declared that Austin can no longer prohibit the use of plastic shopping bags."
Sounds familiar: right-wingers in the state governments cracking down on liberal cities. I've heard of it happening in North Carolina, too, with the state government bullying Charlotte. Fortunately it hasn't happened here in Georgia, because the current governor realizes that the cities generate whatever wealth the state has. But he has to leave office in November (term limits) and I dread who might replace him.
9
Localism has always existed and it is one of the reasons that Trump got elected. Many people here in western Kansas don’t care for the junk that is spewed at the national level so they just make a protest vote and then go about their local business of helping the poor, no matter the race, and helping the school district. In my small county there is plenty of low income housing and programs to feed the hungry. School districts work hard to integrate all kids and help the struggling students. You wouldn’t expect these things in Trump country but the way locals view their community differs a great deal from how they view the federal government. It is almost like there is no connection.
2
@Anthony why not have programs that remove the chance a kid will go hungry?
Interesting column.
I see this happening but i see it in tribes instead of the optimistic paragraph that Brooks ends with as liberals and conservatives work together. i have taken refuge in my neighborhood and in my circle of friends because less than 5% of the people who live around me support Trump and support his destruction of our country. I vacation in areas where I can avoid constant interaction with Trump supporters because seeing their support of this fraud as president is not something I want to see while on vacation.
With the craziness taking place at the national level, my self-built bubble is where i want to spend 90% of my time.
2
There has never been a thriving, vigorous, successful country that did not have a strong central government. For a long time now I have been waiting and waiting for those conservatives who oppose a strong Federal Government to provide an example to support their contention that states rights and more localized government is somehow superior and more desirable. But no, they repeat the mantra that states rights and a weak Federal Government is better, as if repeating this supposition would somehow make it true. Never do they provide examples to support their case. I suspect that there are no such examples, and rather, their position is just another way in disguise to once more fight the Civil War. I am reminded that our Constitution begins with the preamble....We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...Why do suppose the founders chose to begin the Constitution with those words?
44
False hope. In the red state where I currently live and the red state where I previously lived, localism is quickly and efficiently stamped out in the Republican legislatures regardless of whether it is a conservative or liberal idea or a consensus of the residence. I have seen a Republican legislature pass bills specifically to rescind a county passed law that passed within the county by a 75:25 margin and other counties were eager to pass. I have seen a Republican legislature pass a law that overrode every county land use planning ordinance to satisfy just one Republican legislator so he could build a home closer to the lake. Sorry, David, out here in red country, any sign that localism is either a) successful by consensus between local republicans and democrats or b) heaven forbid, a liberal idea that was agreed to by the populace, will promptly get overridden in state law or struck down by the supermajority conservative courts.
169
@tom Nice dose of reality, sir. ALEC and the REDMAP gerrymandering, plus a deliberate plan as outlined in the Powell memorandum has made most "red states" like GOP junk food franchises. No "localism" capable of wresting power from super rich donor financed GOP machinations to have big business and the upper 1% rig the system for less than 10,000 families in as many states as possible . Mr. Brooks seems to always return to his imagines memory of a Leave It To Beaver, Mayberry happy locals caring for each other. New Hollywood studio, Brooks, Capra, and Disney. First film production, The Return of the Cheshire Cat.
5
I agree with much of what has been said here. But "localism" would only be truly effective if there is a parallel conversation about the role of federal government. Otherwise "localism" is too easily corrupted and provides no assurance for individual basic individual rights. Instead, what should federal government provide? Hints are there in the Preamble to the Constitution, but no one really ays attention to that anymore. How about if the Federal government actually provide for defense (in a meaningful form, not necessarily the exaggerated form we imagine it at present), welfare (real welfare, like health, education, etc), liberty (as in equal basic rights for all Americans). Problem is, federal politics rarely address any of those issues in a real way. Combine those federal basics with localism, and we'd be in much better shape as a country.
2
Ah, the romantic theme of localism. It must just fill the heart when vacationing in coastal towns, and seem so real. Ive felt that way myself, eating local truffles and thinking, why doesn't everyone live like this, all the time? It does feel profound.
But what gets you in that balcony, watching the waves at sunset? Could it come from profiting from almost every power system in place today?
Here's a man whose career has been, and is, of promoting values which have taken the shape and form of the present day Republican party and its president. Lately, without saying so, he's taking a break from that, and enjoying the produce in the farmer's market, in some expensive town.
Who knew? But small local wines are often as good as the famous big ones in the wine magazines! We should do everything like that!
That career has been very grand and as big as it gets, in terms of producing big ideas. But in the big city, we're unhappy with the suffering. Our rents and health insurance aren't small. Nobody knows which direction we're headed, but big conservative policies and values, have led us to an ugly moment in time, which frightens us deeply.
We do not need to make small our aspirations, simply because the grand conservative philosophy has made its way to an indecent and poisonous end. Its time for other big ideas, and for very big things to happen, and most of us are praying for that, wishing that we too, could afford a romantic vacation in some lovely village.
80
Sounds to me that a Universal Basic Income would be an appropriate policy fit in an era of localism. It would provide people with the no strings attached ability to work on projects that they regard as truly worthy of doing. Any chance we'll soon hear Mr. Brooks come out in favor of UBI?
8
@vcbowie
Ha! When our planet freezes over?
6
@Rima Regas. But don’t be silly. Mr. Brooks has already come out for a Universal Basic Income. The amount is roughly $21 million a year, the average basic income for the CEOs of Fortune 500 corporations.
Everybody getting together to solve local sewage problems, and to celebrate a harvest-fest is nice and will continue to make the successful TV series.
However, power is where the money is and the money is not local, in Main Street in Smallville.
Money is big government. Power is big government. There might be a localist revolution which might improve the quality of life for a few, but this is not a panacea for what ails.
11
I'm very involved in my local community and I agree that this kind of involvement strengthens bonds and tears down traditional walls.
However, if the guy at the top is cutting funds, demonizing people and trying his best to make it as difficult as possible for decent people to live their small, quiet lives, that trickles down to even our cities and towns.
There are a lot of small towns with manufacturing facilities who may work well on a local level, but unnecessary tariffs are going to change that in a heartbeat.
58
What's more local then the roads you drive on? The whole point of infrastructure spending was to allow local governments to identify and resolve specific problems in specific towns. Full employment and the taxes they generate, but the Republicans would never give that kind of money to Obama. He'd be applauded and they couldn't have that. Then they came to power and could steal this great idea, this forward thinking, immensely needed, win win legislation that would help the very people who would thank you for the job while they pay their taxes. We used to call them hard working, middle class Americans. And that's where the problem comes in. When the Republicans are in power, the power remains with the 1%.
61
You are in denial, Mr. Brooks.
Once again you write about something inconsequential, in this case "localism" when the world is collapsing around us.
The impact of the actions of Trump, McConnell, Ryan, Gorsuch and now Kavanaugh have been devastating, and are about to get a lot worse.
Trump and his quisling Republicans added $1.5 trillion to the deficit.
Now the Republicans announced they are cutting benefits for veterans, they want to cut Social Security and Medicare. Trump is destroying the ACA, and not replacing it with something cheaper and better.
What a surprise.
The tax cut that was supposed to give workers a wage increase?
Didn't happen because corporations spent the savings on stock buybacks.
The infrastructure plan Trump promised?
Didn't happen.
Won't happen.
Localism will be crushed -- and I mean crushed -- by these extremely impactful actions by the federal government.
And now Trump, after he has has torn through Europe and insulted the EU, Merkel, Trudeau, NATO, May, or our "foes" as he likes to call them, Trump continues to kiss up to Putin, probably because Putin has something on him and also because Putin is the only way Trump and the Republicans can hold on to power.
In fact, just today the House GOP refused to boost funding for election security.
But go ahead, Mr. Brooks, keep reassuring yourself that there is a pony in this pile somewhere.
350
@V Brooks is completely out of touch with reality with this piece. Brooks totally overlooks basic human nature in his call for a return to some undefined form of tribal living. If we allow each locality to decide for themselves what to do without federal standards a lot of self centered negative outcomes will result. Local thinking does not always know what is best for its people, never mind the impact on neighboring regions. Here is what happens if you take this line of thinking to its extreme:
What happens to the environment if one region of the country decides to allow the polluting of the air, its waterways? And what will happen if small town America decides to allow the over fishing of those waterways? And who is to decide what region to favor in disputes between regions? Who will build and maintain the highway system that connects them? And without pooling our resources what small region will be able to solve big health related problems regarding widespread diseases, epidemics. etc.
And what will happen if one locality decides not to be generous to the disadvantaged, the poor? Will these people migrate to more generous localities? And can these localities ever compete against the rest of the world in commerce and business if we do not work together to pool our resources?
Localism is another way to say that one is for the dissolution of the United States into a collection of inferior nation states. We will all be impoverished by it.
1
What Brooks is describing is the Catholic principle of subsidiarity: “Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority.”
This is excellent and the most important and revolutionary idea ever expressed in the NYT. No one less than Noam Chomsky endorses it. I have noticed a few younger people (millennials) developing this idea. I must say it is one of few positive developments, perhaps the only positive development, I can see in our contemporary political scene.
6
@JamesEric I don’t know where you got that quote, but readers not familiar with subsidiarity might think there’s no difference between it and right wing libertarianism. They are as far apart as can be imagined.
Subsidiarity says, with any issue, start by seeing if it can be handled at the local level. However, if after careful consideration, it cannot. (E g climate change) then there is absolutely no problem wtih going all the way to the international level.
8
@Don Salmon I completely agree with your understanding of subsidiarity.
Localism may be a more potent force than the GOP is prepared to reckon with. Most of the Red States are frankly dysfunctional sinkholes for Federal spending even while their primary political force derives from resistance to Federal mandates.
If we return Federal social spending to the states on a per capita basis, Blue States will have sufficient revenues to support their vision of society, as will Red States.
It is not an ideal way to deal with more global cocerns like climate change, but the truth is that many Red States are quietly realizing the potential of alternative energy sources. The buying power of Blue States will cause auto makers and others to standardize around more stringent emissions standards required by a large group of states following California.
More than 150 years of Federal mandates have stunted the Deep South and much of the rural West into a permanent state of rebellion, causing their economies and communities to stagnate.
Given the disproportionate voice given the smaller and rural states by the Constitution, this stagnation is threatening the national political system.
1
There is no such thing as a perfect system and sometimes localism is the best thing that can happen and sometimes it is the worst.
Our largest city Toronto owes most of its success to a federal government that made Toronto one of the three best cities on the planet. For Toronto's long time residents things are not going all that well and Toronto's city council and Ontario's government attest to the fact that Toronto's citizens are not well served by Toronto's global success and localism threatens the 60 years of continued prosperity and global relevance.
Toronto's urban core is a great place to live and work but is affordable.
Much like America Toronto's local government and its Provincial government are there to disrupt Toronto's growth and prosperity.
If I use the dictionary definition of middle class as those in the class between the aristocracy and the working class Toronto's core is the ideal middle class city but for those without the education, the skills and the obsession for "financial" and "social" success Toronto is a Herculean task demanding far more than most of us can endure.
Most of Ontario's population lives in the Greater Toronto Area and most of its members of the Provincial parliament belong to a party committed to making Toronto fail and although Toronto's core is politically progressive the majority sent to council sport Make Toronto Great Again hats.
I remember the working class neighbourhood of Toronto when a single family home did not cost 1.5M
3
Remember revenue sharing Mr. Brooks? It was something that was ended when Ronald Reagan was in office. Remember when there was real bipartisanship, when people didn't retreat to their corners but got together instead to produce something that could benefit every person? That used to happen before the GOP decided that winning at any cost meant clobbering the losers once the election was over and then, after that making their rules the only rules.
The GOP has been the party of huge temper tantrums since 2008. They didn't want Obama to succeed. They didn't want to improve health care. They don't want to have an educated, healthy, happy, productive population in America. Localism and other isms mean nothing when the word from DC is cut, cut, cut the taxes and cut the programs, and block initiatives that won't force people to work (even when they can't or shouldn't).
How about thinking of this ism instead; imperialism? It describes Trump and the GOP attitudes perfectly.
176
Let me tell you, in none of the places I have lived has my local government been "... relational, affectionate,.. and based on a shared history of reciprocity and trust."
"Irregular" however I recognize.
I've seen local governments of varying quality, but sadly the common denominator is that they have been in thrall to the developers.
153
"Localism," at this point, is only a euphemism or a cop-out for failing at democracy. We had slavery all the while pretending to be a democracy. Then, then we no longer had slavery and we've been wrestling with the democracy part and how to maintain an economy that yields wild profits all at the same time. We've failed with every type of experiment when greed has gotten the better of the "Robber Baron" class. Someone wrote that we've been going in 75 year cycles. That's about right.
In this day and age, going back to self-contained regions just isn't going to happen. World economies are inter-dependent, and just on that basis, it can't happen without a major adverse event (say, Trump and Putin are successful).
The future, at some point, will be more like the universe Gene Roddenberry showed us in his science fiction series, or, if we are unable to remove Trump for office and, G-d forbid, he gets reelected, we will end up with George R. R. Martin's The Expanse.
All will depend on whether we can reach deep down inside and find the honor and pride of ridding ourselves of the white supremacist, hypercapitalist, oligarchic and treasonous elements among us.
Trump didn't get here all of a sudden, for no reason. He won't leave until he and the GOP are pushed out and locked up. It's time for some of his appointees to leave, and start us on the way back. Will they?
---
Facing #Treason, Trump Appointees Should Shed Their Savior Complex
https://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2Wk
89
Indeed: Localing while the Republic burns.
1
"Building our communities together" sounds wonderful. And localism does work well in stable communities with the basics intact; economic opportunity, quality education, health care, etc. In those places there is enough.
But what about communities that don't have enough,that have been affected by economic trauma, red-lining, pollution (Flint), inadequate funding for schools, etc, etc. The neediness rises faster than the local elders can cope with. America is at its best when the federal government works to support those in need when local govt is overwhelmed or unable to follow the rule of law.
That's what FEMA and the CDC do when locals are overwhelmed by natural disaster or a health crisis.
That's what the federal government did in the 1960s when the freedom riders were fighting the Jim crow segregation in the southeast. Without a capable and constitutional federal government then Alabama and Mississippi might still be segregated today.
We all function best with accountability - states also need the accountability of a functioning federal government.
Localism might sound good currently, given the state of our federal government at this time. But it could also be a step down the road towards the break-up of our union. It's not impossible, the once powerful Soviet Union broke apart.
30
@Lostgirl Agreed, the locals have to be ready to help the neighbor village if we are to have a country.
1
Scope matters.
Fine grained localism without functional larger entities can easily turn into another way to increase inequality.
I take care of my school district, you take care of yours may work well for some choices but when applied to funding? Not so much.
I worry about the environment regulations of my town/city/state you worry about yours? Air, water, and climate won't respect local boundaries.
Even at the State level there are problema. What would all those Red states do if they didn't have Blue states to subsidize their version of localism?
Localism can be great, but it is limited. If we want to have a functional country, we have to act like a functional country, and govern like a functional country.
Mayors alone can't fix what is broken in America.
235
You may be right, David, but we suspect that before 'localism' becomes the be all and end all, that this current bout of tribalism (it ain't populism) will express itself in regionalism, like what plutocrats have financed in California:
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/07/18/us/ap-us-three-californias.html
Localism is too inconvenient for plutocrats, who, as you point out, tired of dealing with D.C. awhile back (along with the attendant press scrutiny of getting the people's business done) and found they could more easily corrupt - um, er, 'lobby' - the pols and regulators in state capitals.
Cheaper prices, less publicity.
Thus we have red states like Texas, where localism is over-ruled by Austin regarding fracking regulation, ordinances against plastic bags, and local laws requiring employers provide for sick days:
https://www.npr.org/2016/04/06/473244707/from-fracking-bans-to-paid-sick...
We predict more of this regionalism, cast as 'big government bad, city government bad, state government just right' from GOP'ers.
1 of 2
21
@R. Law - 2 of 2
At any rate, as soon as GOP'ers have enough state legislatures, they will be calling a Constitutional Convention, no doubt replacing all the Founding Principles we still recognize with the wisdom of ALEC, Koch Bros. Inc., and the membership rules/regulations that all members in good standing of Trumpster International clubs recognize regarding dinner attire and who is not allowed into the dining areas:
https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/27/prewrite-convention-states-relat...
In copying the dictator oligarchs they envy, our plutocrats will be needing to collapse down our current economy - after all, the Russian oligarchs that His Unhinged Unraveling Unfitness slobbers and drools over live in a country whose entire economic output is only slightly larger than that of New York State.
15
"...A national system rewards rational intelligence." I stopped reading after I saw that.
What kind of "rational intelligence" do you see coming from Washington, D.C., Mr. Brooks? From Capitol Hill? From 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? From the Supreme Court?
You've been writing around subjects for some time. It's as if you suffered a debilitating injury three years ago after Donald Trump set his sights on Washington. Perhaps it was the moment that the yellow-haired one said he could "shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not be arrested." It's like one of your hind legs was taken off by a big cat and you've been limping ever since.
You seem to want, very badly, a return to the warm, comforting cocoon of an era bygone in which everyone in town knew everyone else. Those insular communities stagnated and were left behind by technological innovations. A meaner, selfish brand of politics (Nixon's "benign neglect"; Reagan's "government is the problem") forced fearful folks to turn inward, shuddering at the prospect of growing up in a larger world that swallows the unsophisticated.
You have retreated to a place, Mr. Brooks, that is as far from the centers of power as it is possible to be. Wholesome, mainstream, down-to-earth Americans; Sarah Palin's "real Americans"? Or just plain folks.
America is peeling like an onion. And Vladimir Putin in Moscow is doing the peeling. There's still time for you to sharpen your sword and hop back on the horse.
Small-time America won't save us.
361
@Soxared, '04, '07, '13
"What kind of "rational intelligence" do you see coming from Washington, D.C., Mr. Brooks? From Capitol Hill? From 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? From the Supreme Court?"
or from David Brooks for that matter? Each column, he lectures us (the unwashed masses) about this and that all the while avoiding his contribution to and ongoing complicity in the downfall of America. He must be so proud,
@Soxared, '04, '07, '13: You're far too critical of The Babbler. He's supposed to write a column supporting one of our two major political parties. What is supposed to do, face up to its abysmal failure?
1
After working for the Feds and Industry it sounds like it is already happening.
"Localism is the belief that power should be wielded as much as possible at the neighborhood, city and state levels. Localism is thriving — as a philosophy and a way of doing things — because the national government is dysfunctional while many towns are reviving."
Dear David,
A long time ago we our founders had this novel idea of government called federalism. It wouldn't matter if the national-level government was too dysfunctional because they didn't have a lot of influence at the state level and below. That left communities to do the "localism" thing in the first place. Maybe you should try to convince our dysfunctional and power-hungry political/pundit class in Washington to get back to federalism so the "localism" aspect of our lives has a chance to develop and flourish.
1
Nothing new here Mr. Brooks. All politics, economics, cultural and social influences are predominately local. State and Federal efforts have historically been initiated to serve the greater good when a paucity of effort and or resources are available to provide for folks on the local level.
3
This is an uplifting and noble-sounding column. Too bad it makes little sense in a country that is, well, a country. And, all it takes is looking at the Kobachs of the country to know that localism is not all that attractive in many cases. Ultimately, "localism" in the form of the Electoral College, gerrymandering, and voter suppression has done tremendous harm to the republic.
143
@Mark Reber Yours is an excellent response.
Localism is fine in theory, but in actual practice, not so much. For example, I’m a lifelong Democrat living in Ruby Red Kansas. What’s a bleeding heart middle aged Women supposed to do, other than Move ??? I will never fit in here, and I really don’t even wish to do so any longer. I’m just counting down the months until WE can retire and move to Seattle. Beating your head against a wall eventually causes concussions. Better to save your money and dream of retirement. If I could offer just one piece of advice to younger folks : Life is too short to live in a place you hate. Do everything you can to find YOUR happy place, then GET THERE. Get roommates, get extra Jobs, Just DO IT. Don’t waste your life, or settle. Please.
113
@Phyliss Dalmatian
Sage advice, Phyliss. You are not alone in this red state experience.
My spouse and I had a similar experience, living in a red-state bubble for a few years in the early 80s. We used to refer to our (distant) NPR station as our "Radio Free America" station. It was a breath of fresh air.
Hang in there.
3
@Phyliss Dalmatian
I grew up on a small family farm in rural Alberta. I couldn't wait to get out. Even university in Edmonton wasn't far enough away and ditched it all to see the world for two long glorious years.
When I came back I was a different person and realized what I had hated was not the place nor the people, but my helplessness in the face of insurmountable forces I thought would shape my life in ways I could not stomach. What I learned in my walkabout was although I had no control over the kind of people and places I found myself in, I still had full control of my own trajectory in life. I cam back to Edmonton, and made a living as a free lance artist for a lifetime in a place I and many others had considered beneath us.
I talk to the old and young red necks now, have worked with my share of them. They are not all what they believe in and neither am I. If for some reason Seattle doesn't work out, don't waste the rest of your life hating the place you're in. Life really is too short for that.
@Phyliss Dalmatian - we left Kansas after ten brutal years, I 1000% agree with you. In the time we lived there, the GOP raised taxes on typical middle-class folks via increased property taxes, taxes on groceries, etc. and then proceeded to gut funding for the lauded public school system. One day we woke up and said “why bother?” and left for the Rockies.
Life is way too short to live somewhere that doesn’t reflect your values. My advice to young people looking for jobs and adventure is Chicago - the greatest city in the world!
Localism? I grew up with it, as did many readers.
American Legion baseball. H.S. sports. Marry
your first sweetheart. Feel the pressure of not going to church. Representational art, fine. Abstract? What? I sometimes yearn backwards for that mythical Rockwell life, but only when I tire of thinking globally, historically, philosophically.
It is good to go out and do small good. For the
homeless. Young people. I was a teacher. That is "small," a public "service," not professional in America. But I think I did good, small. I also went to gun shops and bait shops. I wasn't looking for a weapon. I used, not weapons or masterpieces, but sturdy, reliable rifles and shotguns. I stayed "local." Mowed lawns, shoveled snow. Coached freshman basketball. I wanted to be "local."
But that life is irresponsible now, a nice hideout
for good but fearful people, given to quietism as
long as they felt they were contributing to the
common good. Honorable, but ineffectual given
cyber mind, corporate power, Wall St., etc.
David, you seem interested, in this piece, in good
behavior and modest ambition and intellect.
It is good that you doubt yourself. But an impulse now to live with a controlled, at least modest ethic and response to terrific greed, lying, cynicism, political corruption and gross insensitivity to other than one's "local," "locale," is pulling back into a shell. We are under siege, big time. Gotta go big!
Radical, if need be.
151
The headline picture says it all really. I am back in the U.S. on a temporary assignment in central Michigan. Here, the locals seem content to drive enormous vehicles, eat fast-food and plaster the American flag (or some cheesy rendition of it) on everything. It's a place where there was once a working economy. It's a place that desperately seeks an identity, but it's all an illusion. There is nothing particularly patriotic or exceptional about this place. I was raised believing that improperly displaying the American flag on everything is actually disrespectful. And, of course, it's Trump country. It's depressing.
I think the only thing that will truly make this part of the country happy is when the U.S. picks a fight with another country and military welfare complex can, once again, become the de facto jobs-creation program of the republican party. Nothing brings Americans together more than going to some foreign land and killing people there for no good reason.
166
Generals and Majors always
Seem so unhappy 'less they got a war.
1
@mrfreeze6 I just returned from a two-week visit to relatives in the Midwest. It's not only the weather that is suffocating, but also the social, cultural and political climate. Happy to get back to the West Coast where I can breath free.
1
Small town wisdom from another guy who lives and works in New York City. "Limousine liberal" is the classic conservative put down of well-to-do "progressives." Perhaps Mr Brooks is a member of another species of the out-of-touch, the "Limousine localist."
39
Mr. Brooks, I really don't know what you are talking about in this OpEd! localism is exactly what is occurring now and the results are obvious, it doesn't work. Everyone is retreating to their corner of the universe promulgating a disconnection and mistrust of our institutions, and one another. You are trying to put the genie back into a bottle that existed a couple of centuries ago when most people farmed their own land for subsistence.
David, you cannot avoid the elephant in the room any longer much as you have done since the emergence of Trump. Conservatism and the Republican Party in their current form do not work. They are robber Barons and operate to sew the seeds of our demise. They function to pit American against American in hopes of enriching themselves. unfortunately, they have succeeded in convincing 40% of the population that this is normal. This is not normal Mr. Brooks and your complitcity by writing this type of drivel is maddening.
130
Brooks is describing a movement the country needs now. Here's another way to look at it. https://commonwealthmagazine.org/health-care/democrats-have-a-lot-to-lea...
6
In the Age of Trump, these little fantasies, though pleasant enough, are distractions from the elephant-in-the-room problem our country faces. I imagine Brooks would say that he's had his say about Trump, and he'd just as soon not think about him. "What am I supposed to do, write about Trump in every column?" Well, some other conservatives, like Jennifer Rubin and Michael Gerson, have for themselves answered that question in the affirmative. I believe that's actually the right...the moral...answer.
50
Localism has the potential to solve some unique local issues. But localism is a pretty name for Jim Crow laws. Localism is a pretty way of implementing programs for the "worthy poor" or the"right people", " worthy" and "right" being a very fluid concepts.
I'm not dismissing the value of people working together for a community. But picking winners and losers in those communities with no recourse for those losers is dangerous on the individual and, eventually, the community.
Growing up (white) in the Jim Crow South I am witness to the bad side of localism, not only for black Americans, but for the entire region for more than a century.
The only check and balance for out of control localism is federal protection of every American citizen.
103
Localism? As a kid from the Bronx I was shipped out to the Deep South after basic training. First thing I saw at the train depot was the “Whites Only” porcelain sign at the drinking fountain. Well, I thought, if that’s the way down here I’ll have to respect it. Needless to say I was deeply ashamed for accomdating “local culture”.
79
Traditional Proverb: The further away the government, the less people trust or like it.
That said, corruption in city hall is simply done by people you know, it is still very hurtful and unfair, and by all means, I'd say un-American if it weren't for the fact such corruption is rampant everywhere I have ever been and is truly American.
Where I live we started a thriving farmers market and performing arts program in the local school, the latter funded by neoliberal Portland foundations. This is a rurally isolated and generationally impoverished area of about 12,000 people, and having grown up in Vermont, I can say to you all, Norman Rockwell is dead.
There's no there there in small towns anymore, and rural folk are hopelessly dependent on the modern technological systems that support our lives exactly like suburban and urban folk. Rural folk simply live in less density.
Localism was a fine idea for the time when people didn't live in their phones because nowadays, you can be right next to someone and be completely unattached to them as if they simply didn't exist. There's no coming back to the good old days, and no, we will never make America great again.
50
Mr. Brooks ignores the dark side of "localism." Does he not remember the inequalities promoted and tolerated under the banner of "states rights?" And he ignores the successes of liberalism. Has he forgotten successful federal programs enacted under the New Deal & Great Society?
106
@Stephen Pascale
I take David's localism to be more akin to what James and Deborah Fallows and spouse documented in The Atlantic and their book "Our Towns."
If there is a resurgence of localism it will only be because our "more perfect union" has been literally decimated and we have no other choice. By the looks of the comments here, your readers do not agree with you, Mr. Brooks. You sound truly defeated. More's the pity. We need every reasoned, articulate voice for national unity we can get. Here. Now. Where did you go?
37