The social renaissance is indeed happening from the ground up: it's happening because grassroots activists are no longer afraid of talking of 'socialist' ideas like healthcare and education for all.
85
Instead of starting at the local level without much funding, let's restore the funds for public education that have disappeared since Reagan's reign. Give the young (even if they are poor) a civilizing education.
Top down funding for affordable heathcare will in the end save money to be used for better things than insurance company profits.
Let's restore the funding for social services which is what these compassionate weavers are struggling to do. As you describe we have reached a point of too much poverty and desolation in parts of America. The private companies have failed to stop this (in some cases they are the problem) because their goal is inexorably the bottom line.
Let's get behind the weavers with a real social safety net.
150
Fantastic article. The fabric of our society depends on weaving, but weaving is a million small actions, each perhaps small but not insignificant. Weaving is loving, forgiving, understanding when every fiber of you wants to scream and fight the injustice that this other person seems to be oblivious to. Weaving is not empowering evil but fighting evil with kindness and reconciliation. We can not reach consensus when our collective screaming arguments drown out the reason in our positions.
63
Stop into your local Rotary Club and you will join a group of weavers. https://www.rotary.org/en
6
"when 47,000 Americans kill themselves every year and 72,000 more die from drug addiction, isn’t that a silent Pearl Harbor? When the basic norms of decency, civility and truthfulness are under threat...? Aren’t we all called... to do something extra?"
Yes. Let's declare a national emergency. And start by electing Democrats to every office.
32
Yes Sir, many are following your wise recommendation. For example in Bellaire, Tx, there is a group of families that are talking and helping each other. Is a wonderful community with persons from different areas of the world that share the values you mention.
In Countrywalk a neighborhood in Miami, there is a nascent spirit of cooperation between people that almost never discussed common concerns.
We really appreciate your column.
6
The structure of society changed. And that structure changed our culture.
1) Far fewer jobs that allowed one adult to support a partner and several children.
2) Higher home prices and/or homes farther from work requiring a lengthy daily commute.
3) Jobs disappearing altogether or migrating from small and mid-sized towns to big cities.
4) People becoming more migratory in search of work.
It is much harder to be a weaver if you lack time, money, and neighbors who stay around long enough so you get to know each other.
Sure, we can make an effort to do volunteering. But the structure of society that my mom knew was far more conducive to being a weaver.
35
I try to weave as much as I can. I know I could do more. I didn't read this piece as a suggestion that weaving should obviate the need for services that government, I believe, has the responsibility to provide. I read it as bringing to light some generative work being done in local communities. I appreciate the inspiration to kindness and community-building.
9
Yikes. The small business man example doesn't ring true at all. How does a small businessman in a small town end up at "dinner party" with people who "disparage his way of life"? I know small towns, and there just aren't "dinner parties"....maybe school festivals, church bbqs, family reunions, etc., but not "dinner parties". (I mean, there could be.....but so rare!) And if there were a dinner party, the small businessman would be surrounded by like-minded neighbours from his small town; they would not be disparaging his way of life, because it's their own way of life. Or did a feral tribe of San Francisco tech workers jet into this small town in Louisiana just to eat with this guy? And if so, were they disparaging his "way of life" or his political thinking? I don't believe Brooks actually experienced this.
And in any case, the U.S. is so messed up that all these tiny weaver-ing efforts are (wonderful, but...) inconsequential in the face of it all. I was literally driving down the road recently thinking about exactly this. I have lovely neighbours who run a tiny sustainable farm and who hope to develop some kind of "community" in our area. And God bless 'em. But I was reflecting on how useless their efforts are, given the scale of our problems.
19
@KayDay-
Keep trying. It works. Take your ego (don’t try to measure success) out of it. Good luck!
5
Another wonderful and thoughtful essay. Thank you David.
2
Mr. Brooks,
You have just described precisely what the Christian LEFT has been doing for decades...feeding the hungry, offering sanctuary to the oppressed, being fully present to others. The next time you’re in Connecticut, stop by Old Lyme's Congregational church. You will be warmly welcomed.
33
This is the single most impactful thing I’ve read in the NYT since I first subscribed. In 1983.
15
I really enjoyed this article from David. And in some ways, very surprised to read this from a Republican. But my folks and my in-laws all felt this way - and they were Republicans.
The last paragraph is a *glimpse* into one of the challenges. Most of the Republicans I've met, and particularly most of them in Government at some level, will never agree to this. They think of positive relationships with fellow white, evangelical, Republicans. Like minded. Conservatives who most of the time are market focused, free-traders (what happened there?), pursuing their own, individual, achievements. Else, it smells like socialism to them. I'm thinking all the way back to Nixon, and that is exactly how they behaved. And in almost every community I have lived in since, it is usually Democrats that are doing social weaving. Look at those running the shelters, food banks, clothing reuse stores - the base of Maslow's Hierarchy. Look at the ministers, sociologists, teachers, neighborhood activists - who are active in the community weaving. I will remain hopeful that this can truly thrive amongst all citizens and immigrants.
15
Thank you, Mr.Brooks. Respect. Respect people, animals, our shared earth, respect those who are different from me, respect those who disagree with me. it is difficult, but it works.
10
I have been in a 12 Step recovery program for some time now. The program has enabled me to become and stay sober by reducing my ego and taking the focus off me by reaching out and helping others with addictions. There is no judgment in the meetings no matter who attends and each person is allowed to share without being interrupted. This program has been in existence for many years and has saved lives. I see similarities in what you are describing and wish you luck in the Weavers success.
14
My sister and her family live in Portland, Oregon, In her neighborhood they have "Soup Night". Once a month someone hosts Soup Night. They make two soups, one vegetarian and one with meat. Everyone in the neighborhood is invited and most everyone shows up with a bowl and a spoon. (The hosts made the soup;they don't need to clean up, too.) Infants to nonagenarians spend a couple of hours together, catching up and enjoying each other. Kids who grew up at Soup Night consider it one of the best parts of their childhood. All the parents know and look out for all the kids in the neighborhood. People look out for each other. Old people are not alone, they are valued.
This happens across the country, community building over a bowl of soup. You could call it "Souper Weavers". Google "soup night". You can do it. Build a community and enjoy a bowl of soup!
20
Soothing, strong, uplifting and inspiring. Keep writing! Thank you, Mr. Brooks!
6
There have always been weavers: teachers, coaches, nurses, volunteer fire fighters, PTA parents, scout leaders, pastors, grandparents. . . . something else is at work I fear. I wish we could figure out what IT is.
4
I once went to a town meeting in Indianapolis where the Republican candidate argued that we couldn't afford mass transit. people raised their hands to say they couldn't afford cars and the public transportation (bus) didn't extend to where they lived or needed to go. The Republican candidate asked those in the audience if they would be willing to give such people rides. This is exactly what Brooks offers. Little to no help with problems that we need to tackle as a society. There will be a lot more weavers when fewer people are living in the margins of society.
16
Great piece, David! Love to know where the term “radical mutuality” came from originally? Can you point me in the direction I might find that? Thanks!
Translation from the Republican: Don't raise taxes on the rich for social programs.
17
Mr. Brooks, majority of poor people are stuggling to take care of themselves and their families, working 2 or more jobs. Volunteering is not possible. Please tell me what type of and how many hours of volunteer work you do every week.
12
There are many motivations for doing volunteer work- not all altruistic. I try to listen well and dignify everyone who crosses my path. Both are important.
4
The paradox: he says he's worried about corrosive individualism, then goes on to celebrate nobody but individuals. Each "weaver" working on his or her own special project, and getting full credit for the kite festival or whatever unique neighborhood project he or she has brought into being. The individualistic version of community values...
8
Folks, isn't the point of the column SIMPLE? Think of and help others/ other creatures/ the planet, and not just yourself. In other words, volunteer in what interests you and stop contemplating your own navel.
4
Thanks for eloquently presenting these beautiful acts of goodness by our fellow Americans. Your descriptions are models of how to improve our own and others' lives and make our communities stronger. I do agree with many of the comments here which point out the need for state and federal government to address many of the needs these Weavers are responding to. Perhaps the Weavers can act as boots on the ground providing intel to the more structured government efforts.
2
A good column and I mostly agree. I would add though that I understand the phrase “you do you” to be a liberation call for those who suffer from a pathology of other-directed ness to the exclusion of their own feelings and needs. Rabbi Hillel put it best “If I am not for myself who will be for me? If I am only for myself, who am I?”
9
What I fail to understand, is why someone must give up on being themselves to be a so-called weaver. Can I not "do me" and still build and strengthen the fabric of society? Like most David Brooks columns this feels like a vaguely disguised plea for everyone who does not adhere to white, hetero, male, christian norms to just "assimilate" a bit more to the so-called "normal" so we can all just get along. When I tell someone "You do you", I mean be true to yourself, be who you are. I bet a good percentage of those teen suicides that so traumatize the parents at Mr. Brooks' public appearances, might have been prevented if society was a little more accepting of those who differ from Mr. Brooks' 1950s era standards of "normal" had been honestly told by their parents/church/peers, "You be you" we still love you.
8
This column is worth reading and I found much of it to be wise and helpful.
But, I find that many Trump supporters and I speak a different language, and that makes it hard to communicate honestly and effectively. I don't know how to respond when I hear that 'millions of illegal immigrants are flooding across the borders, bringing crime and drugs,' 'there is no such thing as global warming,' 'Trump's inaugural crowd was the biggest ever,' being just a few that come to mind. Just like I don't know how to respond to a person who says '2+2 = 193.' When facts become optional, how do we make any progress?
And I want to be clear, we can disagree about what we think and feel about the facts, but when we don't even agree on what the facts are, where do we start?
10
Engage who you can. Sometimes planting a seed of sanity that comes to fruition years later- or never. Honor everyone and everything in life, anyway.
Honor racists? Misogynist? Climate deniers? Liars? No can do.
Thanks! Such a joy to read about some of the specific things people are doing to make their communities and neighborhoods (and thus their states, countries, etc.) better places. And even more importantly, I suppose, those people's understanding that of course we're all in this together.
3
It might take a village, but when one half of the village is trying desperately to extinguish the fire started by the other half of the village, not a lot more gets accomplished than passing buckets of water.
12
@Norman Dupuis
Both my left wing friends & neighbors and my right wing friends & relatives completely agree with this sentiment.
5
Honest self-reflection can be difficult to achieve due to our vanities and distractions. But recognizing the need too is the necessary first step in addressing those negative aspects of our individual agency. And agency exists factually only in the context of actions taken. Two or more agents asleep have perfect individual liberty. Awaken them and frictions arise. Is that living mutually or by a conformity to whatever? Weavers are not an association but Good Samaritans. Thereby nothing new yet have been priceless social agents throughout history.
Thanks, enjoyed reading Mr. Brooks!
1
Thank you for this. Let’s explore our connections not divisions.
1
I was deeply moved by this and I am committed to being a weaver!
3
If "no man is an island" then this new old idea (selfishness, narcisism and self-absorption are nothing new) of "you do you" is its antithesis.
The problem with it is that it destroys the familial bonds and societal connections which underpin our personal and social lives.
It teaches us to look inwards, ignoring the plight and problems of others. Not only that, but as it stands, it discourages any outward effort or participation.
This eventually leads to the fragmentation, tribalism and divisions mentioned in this article. Worse, it increases injustice, inequality and suffering.
As for myself and my complicity in all this. Guilty as charged...mea culpa indeed. I am guilty of acting in exactly the way described in this article, no doubt just another contributor to the current mess we find ourselves in...
You got right to the heart of it! Excellent article, thank you!
1
I sometimes agree and often disagree with what Mr Brooks has to say but he is always welcome at my table, or to share a beer in my backyard. It is to my continued regret that I have got this far in life before I realized I needed more friends and that if we often disagreed it was often to my betterment
9
Thank your Mr. Brooks
1
Mr. Brooks, this is a beautiful column and you are spot on that we need more social solidarity. But you overlook something critical that we also need - more economic solidarity. Income and wealth inequality tear at our social fabric just as much as rampant individualism. Those at the economic top think they have no responsibility to those at the bottom, while those at the bottom, and increasingly those in the middle, feel they have no access to the opportunities the wealthy have. Social solidarity cannot increase without some movement toward more economic solidarity, too.
12
For generations, women have been weaving networks of support. Listen to them.
8
I agree with you but unfortunately my solution was to leave for Switzerland some 15 years ago.
My problem with American altruism is that it is too individualistic and everyone wants recognition for their contribution. I got tired of the lack of interest in investing in community through local, state and federal government. Americans are fine when one gets credit for helping one another through community efforts (i.e., community, church, philanthropy, individual contact) but ask Americans to make their contribution anonymous and involuntary by being required to fund "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people" (i.e., pay taxes) then they will run away from funding healthcare, infrastructure, good education for everyone, etc..
Relative to education, I'll never forget how my kids got to go to an elite public school because I lived in a top 1% neighbourhood and our property taxes stayed within the local school system. When we dropped off the kids at the school everyone was very nice to each other (weavers) but I think we were nearly all happy to know that our money stayed locally as we had bought our house in a "good school district."
Here in Switzerland, all public schools are funded through the same shared government funding irrespective of neighbourhood. I think the result is a more integrated and harmonious society.
20
"When you cover the sociology beat as I do..."
Can anyone with so distorted a self-image possibly have anything of value to say about the many cancers now riddling the body politic of the country?
3
Yes he does. As an individual he has the right to express his opinion just like you just did. And you have the right to agree, disagree, ignore, respond or not.
4
Irony: a column that basically just explores ways we might get along better is torn apart by commenters, and its author condemned.
Sheesh!
11
@Terrance Malley Perhaps if you were more familiar with the author, you would not have mistaken poetic justice for irony.
2
I don’t know Mr Brooks personally no
1
As a citizen, with the improbable luck of being born to USA citizen Parents, I am grateful and thankful. For the odds are greater by a factor of 20, to not be born in the USA.
Our current President is an abomination for many reasons, but paramount among them is his arrogance and disdain for any other, other. He is the antithesis of a 'Weaver'. His policies and pronouncements encourage USA citizens to scissor cut and stab at, those that Trump scorns.
The better selves need an invitation to be better than the pitiful leaderless antagonism Trump espouses. Let the people lead when our elected leaders lag.
If there comes a day when his divisive and shallow mind ever corrects to actually help others, my wish and prayer is be alive to see it humble him. To witness his face in the pain and agony he has bestowed on those with the misfortune to born somewhere 'else', would be a joyous day indeed, for our Country and World.
5
I completely reject the idea that individualism is incompatible with community involvement. The two are hardly mutually exclusive. Many people live a balance that combines both acts that improve their communities and acts of personal fulfillment. That one does not eschew professional (and perhaps financial) ambition to concentrate solely on community involvement does not negate the value of their good works.
People improve the world in many ways large and small. Not meeting Mr. Brooks' definition of a Weaver doesn't mean his/her life is a moral wasteland of self-absorption.
Gotta good chuckle from the name though. I remember when Weavers meant the blacklisted folk band.
8
Individualism is not incompatible with community involvement. But individualism at the expense of the community is. Just as community involvement or development which oppresses and destroys the individual and individualism is.
2
It takes a village?
I'm really not sure what to make of this column. But, if Brooks really believes what he writes it's hard to understand why he's a Republican.
16
@Martin: I think it's because the one place he won't look for community is... in the community. He won't see a nice neighborhood park, or clean, safe streets. He's looking for some very special individual somewhere on the block, someone unelected and of course unpaid, to credit with bringing people together. On a small scale, of course. This isn't about building a just and pleasant society, a "beloved community" -- it's about finding a collection of unique individuals, suitable for a heartwarming album of photos and articles about what they do in their separate neighborhoods... but not for challenging any Republican legislators on the 2020 elections...
7
I can’t speak for Mr. Brooks but I think he’s a Republican because he simply does not believe in statism. Pure and simple.
1
the thing that seems to have precipitated this me, me thing is the way corporations are given the rights of people and are allowed to contribute to and thereby control the elections. So many of us have been steamrolled over and feel hopeless.
2
Government is the most efficient way for citizens to act in concert to address the needs of society. Everything else is just tinkering at the margins
9
2 Problems: Social Media and Fox News. Both are acid that are disolving the bonds between people.
11
Can't take this saccharine "analysis". Good on Brooks for trying to do his share, but come on, do inspect what horrific contributions the GOP is responsible for in everything that's been wrong. Greed, greed and greed is the mother of all evil and the Republicans have long ago sold their souls, especially during the last 2 years in their blind support of Trump. Communities' well being, lifting people up, educating people our of poverty -- NOT on their list. So start talking about these issues as they are and focus on how to fix your friends in the party that's responsible for this country's social demise since Reagan.
8
Good column David.
1
David is the last moralist in a relativist society. He frames the world as a morality play, as if morality is just one thing, indivisible and agreed upon by all.
Whatever will heal our pain and suffering, it won't be more morality, but more compassion.
3
Thank God for the thousands of AA group weavers.
4
Do you mean like “The Weavers” with Pete Seeger, et al ? The folk singers of the 1950s—“If I Had a Hammer...”
“I want you to join hands all ‘round the world. “
Did you intend the irony?
2
This piece hits the nail on the head. Much of the turmoil within this country stems from a lack of connection with each other. For example, NPR ran a story in 2017 about how Daryl Davis, a black blues musician, convinced 200 Klu Klux Klan members to give up their robes. He did this by simply reaching out to them, at times at great personal risk. No political diatribes or confrontation; just reaching out and listening well. Also: the Weavers sounds like a great movement but I wonder about David's assertion that it cannot be made viral. A Facebook-like app where each subscriber receives support from one other subscriber, but who in turn provides similar support for two other subscribers, would grow exponentially (literally), if it could be made to grow at all. Hmm.
2
Hi David- I thought you might be interested to know about the Immigrant Yarn Project. What started as a response to the divisive rhetoric around immigration has grown into a massive work of public art. With nearly 700 contributors including Secretary Madeleine K. Albright, the IYP is a metaphor for the country, embodied by the crazy, diverse, beautiful people who came
together to make it all happen. We have created a literal nation of weavers celebrating the one thing most of us have in common - an immigration story. Immigrantyarnproject.org.
1
For me and many like me "You do You" expresses precisely the radical acceptance the piece advocates.
2
Columbus Day should be replaced with Interdependence Day.
4
Doin' my share. My SinL is a Trump supporter who will never feel unwelcome in my home since I let her build on so we can all go down hill together. She watches FOX and I roll YouTube like a big boob, but we never butt heads over Trump. We keep that to ourselves out of respect for family first.
I spent a couple of years learning to calm my nervous system to shorten the duration of anxiety and depression episodes, but one thing my therapist said repeatedly. We don't do this alone.
Yes, breathing and changing the subject rather than let obsessive thought intrude can change your mood. but nothing puts it back in place like a face to grace your experience. My husband held my hand as I related to a detective my sexual assault at the hands of strangers ovr the phone. I could have done it alone, but he's a reminder it has been done, and I don't have to let it intrude on my thoughts as unfinished business. I can let it go until the next time it tries to ruin my day.
The reason we often avoid other's hurt is we believe we have to FIX what is broken. That is not helpful. We need to let people be real before us so they know we accept them fully as they are, with pain as well. THAT is what comforts and even can heal.
1
Mr. Brooks, you really should retire from this writing gig. I know, it's cushy and you don't have to work too hard, but you keep writing from a desperately blinkered perspective. Everytime you write some drivel about how important communities are (wow, what keen insight), you utterly neglect to mention how it is your own party, for which you have carried oceans for decades now, that has led us to the national crises we face. Since the GOP's culpability is pointed out to you everytime you write this 'we just gotta help each other out more' garbage (sad that at this point it has to be pointed out to you at all; the evidence is all around you), I can only assume you are a coward or a fool for failing to address (convincingly) how your support of 'conservatism' squares with your support of strong communities.
Editorial essays can be potent food for thought. The NYT often publishes well written, intelligent arguments (even if I don't always agree with them). You have spent the past two+ years suffering a clear ideological crisis within your column inches, with no growth to show for it. Clearly you are wasting your time endlessly spinning the same wheels, and wasting valuable space in the nation's paper of note. Retire, please.
6
@Earth Rocker
Well, either he's a "coward or a fool" for not squaring the contradiction - or his true purpose and function is to enable the right with the idea that it's their individual acts of compassion that count, not their political acts of barbarity.
You know, vote for a pol who cuts food stamps, and come out of the booth in a halo of virtue because you dropped a coin in a Salvation Army bucket on the way to vote...and that's the only kind of giving that counts...
4
@Earth Rocker: Everything you say is true, but I don't think calling him a coward or a fool is quite the thing. What about just pointing out the corrosive cruelty of mainstream Republican policies, the very opposite of community building? If enough people remind him that he will be associated with Republicanism until he explicitly turns against it, maybe we can plant a seed of doubt, and who knows, he might retire after all.
3
I really enjoyed this piece. Suggestion, though -- we see so many "should" and "should nots", so many "you are either this thing or the other" these days -- how about just turning those in to possibilities? For instance, this part of the end of this piece could become:
"...We at Weave illuminate their example, synthesize their values so we understand what it means to be a relationalist and not an individualist. You can do this, too. You can create hubs where these decentralized networks can come together for solidarity and support. You can create a shared Weaver identity."
And rather than an ask, you could say:
"...You can declare your own personal declaration of interdependence and decide to become a Weaver. This is partly about communication. Every time someone is assaulted and stereotyped, the social fabric rips. When you see that person deeply and make him or her feel known, you Weave."
2
Rarely does David write some thing that I feel I need to tare apart and fume at his myopia, his privilege. He wonders off the reservation to not have to talk about politics and who can blame him? Conservatives and the Party of Ideas (Newts) have no answers for what pains us. We have all been forced to try all of them and here we are. Conservative claim to hate big government, not so much because it tell us what to do. How often have you ever meet a Conservative that was shy about telling you what to do? They hate Government because it is big enough to tell them what to do. Tip O'Neil said all politics is local, and it is. The services are delivered locally. Services that keep the local money bags from praying on us. The Payday Loan Sharks, the little towns that fund themselves with traffic fines, Shoddy schools, too many liquor stores and not enough vegetables. Go to the Southwest take the back road into Death Valley National Park or any were down there most everything you will see would not be there if not for the Hoover Dam. Big Government in deed, but do we really want every little corner of America run by their local version of the Bundy Family? I suggest we wouldn't even be America in that case. We are a big country and we need a big government. You don't build the Hoover Dam with a bull doser, a couple of road graters and a dump truck. Oh and we again need some big changes, We tried all your conservative ideas and here we are again.
3
I would hope Mr Brooks reads these comments or at least has an objective surrogate cull them for the content which his columns lack.
It would be a learning experience
4
David Brooks has stated that he never reads the comments. I don’t blame him. He could state, “The sky is blue” and irate liberals would hurry to poke at their devises to express their outrage at his hubris.
1
Mr Brooks, this is the most amazing essay you have ever written! You have outlined for us how to be truly human. My hope is that the young people who have isolated themselves with "social media" (what a misnomer!) begin to see their friends and neighbors as humans, rather than as memes, avatars, and trnctd wrds tppd w thmbs.
Saddest sights I've ever seen were couples having dinner "together" while seated apart, playing with electronic devices. We have lost a great deal of human interaction, and Weaving will snap us back to reality, I hope. Absent deep and sincere Weaving, we must at least know our immediate neighbors by name and see them as real people with all the emotions, feelings, joys, and sorrows that humans around the globe experience from time to time. As humans, they are a reflection of self.
We are all equal: 46 chromosomes in every one of the several gazzzzillion human cells that today are living in various shapes, colors, and cultures around the world....and that is that.
How did humanity become so fractured that hate and war keep us from knowing one another?
2
Brooks is far more correct on this than readers recognize. The baby boomers will be the first generation in recent memory to enter their "golden years" with a high proportion of single people, especially single men who tend to lack the network of friendships that many older, single women are better at maintaining. In many cases, these will be older single people who not only don't belong to a church or other religious organization, they also will not belong to labor unions, veterans' groups, or other civic service organizations that provide an opportunity for community and social contact. A sense of disconnection and not belonging often is a major factor in suicide; we ignore this at our own peril.
2
Mr. Brooks, as one who diminished our attempts at a healthy and strong social fabric, maybe the one thing you should do now is expose the mechanisms of your disdain which rendered us weakened and marginalized. This more than anything would be of the greatest help. We have for decades fought for a more peaceful world, a more inclusive experience, a deeper understanding of each other's lives, a more compassionate approach to interaction and at every attempt you were there minimizing and re-characterizing and misrepresenting our intentions and desires. You were very successful at it, helping turn some very basic and pure hopes into something suspect or juvenile or inappropriate or impossible. If you want to help us now maybe you should expose the ways our arguments should be couched to best counteract the negativity you helped cultivate. Maybe you should express the desires you once had that effectively quashed our attempts at justice.
I want to believe your intentions are true but can you ever believe that what many of us wanted all along was a world that we could live in and be proud of and feel that we weren't isolated in our beliefs? It is honestly difficult when you still express a market based view which cultivates and rewards greed which we see is the root cause of many of our troubles. There are too many things the market does not value which are left undone which we see as a role of government to recognize and address. Can you see that may be correct?
4
@Lucas Lynch "I want to believe your intentions are true"
IMO it doesn't matter whether or not he's sincere - his idea feeds into typical right wing opposition to government that helps people, and will strengthen his right wing public's view that only individual acts count - not their ruinous political acts.
Under cover of a compassionate ethics, he's enabling the destructiveness of his party. He's in every way as bad as the worst of them.
1
David, have you read your own articles? You are fostering our "lack of healthy connection" with your divisive commentary on a certain group of voters in this country.
1
Well I never woulda thunk it. David Brooks, a fine upstanding Republican, is turning into a liberal! Weaving is caring. That's what Democrats do, on a collective level.
What really needs to happen is that we should call out the socially destructive people among us. Ann Coulter and the other hate-spewing bobble heads she consorts with are doing nothing for society. They are using division to titillate and deceive audiences looking for actual solutions. The systemic problems that are too complicated to describe here are what we need to be working on together, rather than throwing rotten tomatoes at each other. Ann Coulter and her phalanx of "nasty conservatives" bear a huge responsibility for the government shutdown and the suffering of hundreds of thousands of federal employes. What was she trying to accomplish except publicity, which for her equals money? These people are vampires sucking the life blood out of our democracy and our humanness. We should stop giving them a platform to do nothing but spew ugliness and rile everyone up (including our clueless president). We should put them in their true place, which is the irrelevant fringe.
2
David, you live in a country where organized theft is the state religion. Americans can’t kill them selves fast enough, so corporation exploit them till they do. Your not talking weavers, your talking band-aids
1
This column reminds me of some (the majority) of Evangelical voters. They did not find it contradictory to believe in “love they neighbor as thyself” and be against those folks having universal healthcare.
4
It takes many villages.
I disagree with:
"In 1960, few people called themselves feminists. By 1980, millions did".
This is about splitting people by gender, just the opposite from creating community. What a stupid idea.
Great column, Mr. Brooks!
1
Thank you.
1
Right. And after Pearl Harbor, we should have all held hands and sung Kumbaya (with separate circles for blacks, Catholics, Jews, and others, of course). Then we could have avoided the intrusion of mobilization, the draft, rationing, and all that other big gubmint socialist stuff.
Brooks’ sense of inadequacy is rooted in his adherence to 19th-century dogma and drivel.
1
Thank you.
1
Gee having spent a lifetime shilling for right wing Koch Brothers Republican neo-fascists, aiding and abetting them in their destruction of the the social fabric with polarizing racist dog whistles, Gingrichian demonization of Democrats and moderates, and our way or the highway GOP obstructionism, David Brooks is now all upset over the Republcan ruination of our society and their successful efforts to reduce Americans to serfs. You can spare us the crocodile tears, Mr. Brooks. Instead of the facile, tendacious, condescending sociological drivel you have been serving up of late, (Trump got your tongue, Mr. Brooks?) why don't you craft a sincere and honest apology to the Amerucan people for helping Republican thieves, liars and criminals ruin our once great country?
4
Go ahead, bandage their psychic wounds, and see where they are when your psychic wounds need bandaging.
On another note. Is this column by David Brooks, the Trump loving republican for life....
Ya sure Dave.
David, which flowery cartoon Tele-tubbies planet are you talking about? Surely not the desperately poor, gang-infested one you saw right across 63rd Street while you were at University of Chicago.
The blood is on your hands, David, and all of those of your ilk. Soon the hens will come home to roost, and you and your ilk will retreat to walled communities in walled houses, shopping for overpriced groceries that get delivered, driving on public roads in the pay as you go express lanes, and going through TSA in special lines for special people like you. Do I sound bitter? I am not, but about 320,000,000 million Americans are, and they will not forget who started this mess in America.
3
Thank you for describing a way to effect a positive change. I'll carry these thoughts with me as I go about my daily life.
1
Brooks says mend our social dysfunction by encouraging small, compassionate acts of individual help.
Many have criticized Brooks for ignoring politics and economics - the role of government in creating a good society, and the role of Republicans and capitalism in wrecking society. A few correctly say his vision is unrealistic - Christian charity has never sufficed. A few - struck by his apparently compassionate response to social suffering - hopefully call on him to recognize this contradiction and become a liberal or even a socialist.
In my view, these criticisms miss the mark. As some have noted, Brooks' idea is a variation on the longstanding, right wing idea that the alleviation of social suffering should be left to individual acts of charity - in pure forms of this view, it is not the role of government to support, nor compel others to support, the poor.
Recognizing this, we see Brooks is not rejecting government - of course, he knows it exists, and, of course, he knows that his ideas find their most receptive audience on the right. So the question becomes, 'how does Brooks' vision influence his right wing public?'
Sure, Brooks' ideas support the right's hostility to government, and the idea that it's not the job of government has to reduce social suffering. But - and this is the point - by saying it is acts of personal decency that 'really' count...this ostensibly compassionate idea gives renewed ethical cover for the worst acts of political barbarism.
3
"A silent Pearl Harbor"
Therein lies much of the problem: the silence. Brooks is right as far as he goes, but we need to take his vision a step further. Despite what it is currently fashionable to espouse, our country was more divided during the Viet Nam War than it is now. Yet, when America landed a man on the moon, the entire nation was thrilled, and all Americans were proud of our country. It was a positive "Pearl Harbor" or, to update the metaphor, a positive 9/11.
We currently have no such collective vision, a common enterprise visible and measurable in a visceral, not just in an abstract statistical, sense. Our culture now looks down, inward at little screens depicting alleged reality instead of upward and outward with vision. More time and energy is spent on (anti!)social media opinions reinforcing one's existing "certainties" and values than in contemplating and pursuing new challenges, than in questioning our assumptions and assumed limits.
In defining problems we have taken the easy, the lazy way out, reducing everything to a bumpersticker: Trump, illegal immigrants, white racism, sexual immorality, etc. How many of us actually know, how many of us actually speak with real people whose views are different, not their self-appointed or media anointed spokespersons? How many of us bother to contemplate and act on a vision where Brooks' weavers are more nuanced, more complex than labels, possibly capable of joining with us in creating a positive Pearl Harbor?
1
That is wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to start. And it will never work because it is so wrong - just another example of false consciousness the ruling class tries to force down the throats of the working stiffs to keep them away from pitchforks. The so ial isolation is but a consequence of economic alienation and exploitation. Making this grossly unfair society safer for the rich by using the poor with "weaving" and other such nonsense is, of course, a grand idea worthy of the Aspen Institute, but unless the grotesque I equality is reduced pitchforks will always look.
2
Another version of "1000 points of light", which is code for the government will not help you in any way, and don't even bother to think that healthcare, clean air and water, or anything is your birthright. Those are for rich people. The rest of you get to help each other with the meager resources you have. Hallelujah! We are all happy enslaved people! Thanks, David
3
@RAH
"Another version of "1000 points of light", which is code for the government will not help you in any way"
For Brooks' audience it's code for, 'Eliminate the poor via the voting booth, and you'll still be virtuous so long as you give a can of beans to a food bank.'
1
Yes, yes, let’s encourage local action that builds community. And I agree that stereotyping and demonizing others is dispiriting and harms us, as individuals and as a larger community. Glad you are any day now going to call out the Republican Party for its cowardice in not confronting Trump and all the harm he is doing. Because there are still major systemic issues that the U.S. needs to address, like unnecessary tax cuts for the very rich, way too costly medical care that can bankrupt ordinary folks, a prison system that targets men of colour, and the fetishness that allows military weapons to be much too available leading to too many mass killings. These are systemic crises in how America as a society governs and organizes itself. They also need to be convincingly addressed, as your local Weavers are probably telling you.
1
@Andrew Hall
"Glad you are any day now going to call out the Republican Party for its cowardice in not confronting Trump and all the harm he is doing."
No, no, Andrew, that would be divisive name calling. We must all discover virtue and self-perfection in our own, individual, uncoerced, private, nonpolitical giving way.
You had me at dignity.
You lost me at 'hyperindividualism', an old conservative straw man.
Personal freedom and individual self-expression are not what got us here. Civil rights, feminism, gay rights, the unraveling of sexual abuse by churches etc are all about respecting and protecting individuals instead of institutions and all of them have made this country better and richer.
Selfishness is indeed natural, but some have a wider and others a shorter horizon. Those with the wider horizon, who are helping others so they will be repaid in the long term future, are the weavers.
1
The problem that has no name?
Brooks-- You say that you are moved when someone approaches you at a talk and tells you about a child who has died from an overdose or suicide and you write, " I don't know what to do."
Exactly-- that is your problem. ...and the hole in your moral fabric.
You don't know what to say? You have a news paper column where you can write about anything, in the most important newspaper in the world, and you don't know what to say?
Listen, sir: talk to your republican friends who keep cutting taxes so there are fewer and fewer supports for teen mental health and addiction treatment. Talk to your republican friends about taxes for decent roads and decent schools in poorer areas and more community health centers and more grocery stores in food deserts and real public transit so people can get to a job and day care at work so parents aren't driven to distraction by trying to pay for daycare and heat and food. Talk to your republican friends and tell them it is insanity to have more and more guns .
But you won't. You will keep pandering to republican selfishness. You believe that the wealthy will someday actually like you and your life will be better because you looked the other way. Unequality in our nation is such that a low income person would have to work 80 hours a week to afford a one bedroom apartment.
https://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-worker-cant-afford-one-bedroom-rent-us-2018-6That is insanity.
That is what you should write about.
7
Mr. Brooks suggests the answer to a fundamental question, What should be the priority of our government? Should it be the betterment of all of us in terms of promoting our health, wealth, education and welfare or is it to promote the acquisition of wealth by the few at the expense of the many, to increasingly fund a bloated and wasteful military in order to support misguided foreign provincial wars and to transform the world's beacon of freedom into fortress America? If the answer is the former then why must children's hospitals be compelled to incessantly solicit funds to treat pediatric cancer patients for free? Why must students incur crushing debt in order to prepare themselves for an increasingly uncertain future and why do a significant number of Americans still suffer from food insecurity? I believe that a significant number, if not most American higher wage owners would not mind paying more in taxes if it meant that the result would be to the benefit of the whole.
3
Thank you for this column.
It's crucial during these challenging times to take the time to appreciate the deeper humanity in each other, including those whose views are radically different from our own.
I believe that every human being wants and needs the same basic things: respect, security, love, a sense of purpose and a connection to others. We are 99.9% the same as each other genetically. Emotionally, we are also very close, even if the exterior says otherwise. It's so hard to remember that lately.
4
David's "Weavers" are like George Bush Sr.'s "Thousand Points of Light": good people, local people, who step into the breach and, without waiting for a government program, take it upon themselves to do something for their community. It's a great thing, it's heartwarming, and it makes for a great story.
However, there are limits to what individuals can do. Individuals, even those who come together in groups like those in Habitat for Humanity, can build individual houses, but they can't affect either the high market-rate rents or low wage rates that make housing so unaffordable for so many. Individuals and groups can save addicts from overdosing, but they can't provide the longer-term treatment, both physical and psychological, that strikes at the roots of their addiction. And they certainly can't stem the flow of drugs, either the illicit ones from other countries or the overprescribed ones from big pharma companies like Perdue, which pushed Oxy-Contin on doctors and patients as much as any street pusher.
I believe it was Gandhi who once said, "I give people food to eat and they call me a saint. I ask why they don't have enough to eat and they call me a communist."
As for the original anecdotes of pain, to conflate the rage of a small businessman whose pro-Trump beliefs are mocked by those around him to the pain of parents who have lost a child is ludicrous.
I don't want to devalue Brooks' Weavers. But the best they can do is mitigate our problems; they can't solve them.
9
Great quotation—it’s actually from Dom Hélder Câmara, archbishop of Recife, Brazil.
Now I understand. Mr. Brooks covers the sociology beat. Which is a great excuse for ignoring the political and economic sources of our discontent.
6
Look, I think we start out with a basic coda of respect for our different experiences and lenses. This coda is a two-way operation: 1. You don't tell someone what their morals should be and 2. You don't beat people up when they make honest mistakes. I am talking here of this instinct we now seem to have to want to call someone out for a failing. Yeah, I am guilty of it too.
What do people want? First and foremost, they want to be accepted for how they feel inside. Everyone wants to be visible and accepted and celebrated for their most basic selves. When we create laws and rules that render some of us invisible, you create isolation.
Secondly, everyone wants to have a purpose, a sense of optimism and a sense of connection. Those are also things that get broken when our first impulse is to judge and marginalize or when certain classes are denied opportunities.
THIS is why I am a Democrat. Because I see that the Republican coda is one of dominance and external validation. People have to fall into buckets and stay there. You are in or you are out and there is no empathy, mercy or drive to walk in anyone's shows but your own. Especially if they are designer.
I always am reminded of the suicide rate of gay and lesbian teens and how it went down when marriage equality was passed. If that is not evidence of the importance of government and the role of society in one's wellbeing, I don't know what is....
4
@Gwe Glad you could put all those nasty Republicans into the bucket they deserve. You sure did learn a lot from reading the article.
I read Brooks' opinion piece this morning, "A Nation of Weavers." Now this afternoon, I went to the website referenced within his piece.
Very refreshing and invigorating. Plenty to chew on and plenty of truth worth weighing. Thank you David Brooks. And thank you weavers across America.
I hope I can learn from you.
We live in a very conservative , very rural area. I'm sure that many or even most of my neighbors (you know, those who live within 5 or 10 miles) are Trump supporters or would be if they noticed politics. My friends and most of those I associate with are not. But we all help one another out of the ditch, bring food when someone's sick or has a death in the family, stock up on stuffed animals for the Christmas aid drive, support the food bank in the small town 20 miles away, or whatever else we can do. Maybe what we need is more rural values.
Brooks is right--weavers will save the day. In my neighborhood, we recognized that it was becoming intolerably hot. One of my neighbors, a chemist, figured out that it was because of all of the carbon in the atmosphere--almost 400 ppm. So we banded together to reduce our carbon footprint.
We were able to bring the outdoor temperature down almost 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit--through our entire neighborhood. In only one month--November.
But those people on the next block over, I suspect, are still sweltering.
3
Commenter Bruce Rozenblit, after well describing the reality of Trump, then asks the fundamental question: "Why does anyone pay attention to this guy?"
I would suggest that a substantial part of the answer lies with the vast majority of our people, Left and Right, who have so conflated virtual with reality, so immersed themselves in screen entertainment, so rewarded any medium which confirms what they already believe, that they were primed to elect and continue to play into the ongoing fantasies of an Entertainer-In-Chief, not merely allowing but effectively encouraging him to remain at the center of every story.
2
When Pearl Harbor was attacked, we had a common enemy, and it's not surprising that everyone stood up. Even during the cold war, we generally agreed upon a common enemy (Vietnam notwithstanding). With our rabid contemporary polarities not only can't we agree on a common enemy, we can't always agree on a common ally. The kind of heart-to-heart "weavings" you write about are nothing new. There have always been communities and individuals whose sense of our interconnectedness has built bridges where none existed before. The question is, do these connections do anything to ameliorate the underlying causes of our social dysfunction? Do they provide better education? better health? I suppose in some ways they do, but these are mostly ineffable, and are not deep healing for the fundamental disparity that afflicts us as a society. While I applaud the effort and hope it continues, I also hope it goes hand in hand with an approach to the deeper divisions between people caused by income disparity and its attendant harm.
Well...the right is currently tearing apart a generation of weavers in the United Methodist Church the same way they tore up many mainline churches that deigned to drift left of center. Young people, 50 and under, are exhausted by either putting in 12 hour days at one or many jobs. With no childcare or elder support they must tend to those roles as well. I welcome anyone into my choir, but people have no time, or energy because of a generation of work over leisure and the government programs that force that viewpoint.
2
Just a thought: embracing your individuality doesn't intrinsically mean rejecting connection with others. One can be an individual and still be an active member of a community. The problem comes when a community rejects the individual because they are seen as non-conforming.
5
Every moment we experience is the culmination of all kinds of causes and conditions of the universe. Call it universal karma. As individuals we fool ourselves that we alone are responsible for ourselves, but in reality we are co dependent on each other, Many invisible hands and hearts help us along; we are completely oblivious of them, including even the gut bacteria that help us function.
2
Thank you. This is refreshing amid all of the loud voices of hatred and disgust (including a lot of comments below!). I live in a very mixed economic and increasingly mixed race neighborhood with a lot of great people. When our water main broke this winter a house's basement was flooded with mud. The people who live there are probably poorer than most and reputedly a little weird, and, who knows, probably Trump supporters in a liberal neighborhood. I saw a woman standing outside while the workers city workers were trying to repair things and I went up to talk to her. I must say I was more curious about what was happening with the water and when it would be turned on again. But I talked to my neighbor and learned that their kitchen was in the basement and her family wasn't in the best of health so cleaning it up was going to be hard. She was understandably upset. I decided to buy some ready-made dinner things, like a rotisserie chicken and other things they wouldn't have to cook and took it to their house. The woman started crying she was so touched. We learned each other's name. She dropped a thank you card off at our house and an "other" became a real person to me.
4
Its not 1941 any more. In today's communities, families and individuals are busy working long hours to pay the rising costs of health care, tuition and the other costs of living to be a Weaver.
There is a limit to how much slack a community can pick up in the face of these middle-class realities and continuing reductions in state and federal government participation and resources.
4
I read once that for an idea or behavior to feel like a norm, you only needed to get 11 percent of a population on board. I found that to be very encouraging. Sure - 11 percent of the whole country is huge. But 11 percent of my block? My work place? My church? It seems more doable. If we can commit (or recommit) to caring for each other in these spaces, I wonder if we couldn't turn the ship over time.
Much of this sounds like the beginnings of a presidential campaign... For my tastes it is a little overdone, but valuable none the less.
These are the important two sentences: "Every time you assault and stereotype a person, you’ve ripped the social fabric. Every time you see that person deeply and make him or her feel known, you’ve woven it." Nationally, we have a long way to go.
David, this community building you speak of was a cause for derision directed at candidate Obama during the GOP convention. Not a helpful comment I realize, but the sooner you stop twisting yourself in knots defending GOP policies that have fueled this hyper-individualism, the better you will able to understand that the underlying principles of the post-FDR Democratic party combat the very individualism that you decry.
10
Could not agree more on Brooks's point. Not only does the "You do you" mentality encourage solipsism, it utterly fails people who are born out of step with the prevailing social code. As someone who probably figures somewhere on the invisible wavelengths of the autism spectrum, I can testify that it was not until it dawned on me in high school to pay more attention to the responses my behavior elicited in social settings that I learned to adjust my behavior and gain acceptance in groups. To this day, it doesn't come naturally.
thank you
33
At a time when nation which is facing the threat of growing corporate fascism headed by an ignorant racist named Donald Trump, Mr. Brook talks about building social fabric. The fabric is on fire Mr. Brooks.
6
David, Thanks. This is super inspiring and good luck with WEAVE.
Perhaps one could say, "Don't LEAVE, WEAVE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me mention a 2 minute YouTube video from Emirates, UAE:
"Give in to Giving" (I suggest playing this, over and over, again)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZAz4NCUPck&t=4s
Thanks, so much. You inspire me to give and to receive.
Sometimes, the greater gift is the ability to receive and thank.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." David Brooks turns back The Black Tide by writing here one of his greatest reflections. Alleluia!
2
Out here in flyover country, it used to be mutual aid for the community regardless of politics. Alas, since Reagan, the weavers in the community are the moderates, the few liberals and a few conservatives. The majority of conservatives will help only those that go to their own church, belong to their own group or are close neighbors in the rural areas and have fully embraced the mantra of you are on your own. It has killed most civic organizations and membership has fallen drastically. Sorry David, the weavers have missed rural conservative america
3
I agree that there is such a thing as too much individualism, and we are seeing that in America today.
It's also important to remember that there is such a thing as too much relationalism, and I've seen that first-hand in collectivist cultures in Asia. So we need to turn the dial carefully and keep calibrating.
A really good article from Mr. Brooks.
1
Mr. Brooks: Mr. Bezos replies that he can do more good for humanity by devoting his valuable time not weaving human connection, but giving humanity an escape hatch from the planet. How do you plan to argue against that? Because if you can't convince Bezos, then you morality will remain what the rich tell the poor to do.
1
The fist-clenching Trump supporter of today's dinner party was the fist-clenching Reagan supporter of the 80's dinner party.
In the 80's dinner party, the fist was being clenched to rage against the moochers, the blacks, and the civil rights marchers.
All that fist-clenching first led to deregulation, then poverty in the clencher's own community, and finally more fist-clenching at immigrants.
7
David's statement ... "Relationships do not scale." ... that's a home run!
It explains why relationships cost so much in time ... and thus there are no short cuts.
1
Raw unbridled capitalism doesn’t help matters either. Commoditization of everything, including human relationships. Makes even that transactional. Our POTUS and many others in positions of power are simply symbolic of that sickness in our culture.
3
Thanks David Brooks! This is a wonderful column. In the same spirit of building bridges, I'd love to write a column too, directed at intolerant liberals, called "In Defence of My Trump-loving Neighbors." You see, in my tiny community I have known my neighbors for years and never had to think about their political affiliations. If someone was fun, helpful, responsible and caring, it didn't matter how they voted -- they were just great people. Well, guess what -- they still are. They may have voted the "wrong way" but actually, nothing has changed -- they are still the same kind, helpful, good people that they always were. Rather than looking down their noses at Trump voters, liberals should be trying to find ways to persuade them, or at a bare minimum, to let them feel that we care about them. It's gratifying to feel smug and superior, but it's a lot better to open your mind and actually communicate with and reach someone on the "other side." We're all in this lifetime together -- and we're not going to get another one --- so we should try to make it go well for everyone. Thanks again, David Brooks!
3
@c. clark
Voting matters and change things. It is hypocrisy if you are nice in your immediate community and destroy people and communities in faraway places by means of wars, support of dictators, minority abuses, degradation of habitat etc. You can’t label one as a kind and responsible person if she supports all kinds of abuses through the power of their vote, but are being “nice” at their dinner party.
Am I being “intolerant liberal” by pointing this to you and asking you to understand impact of your voting and your other actions felt outside of your own community?
1
@c. clark If I find a Trump voter who says s/he voted for Trump for what Trump would do to HELP someone other than a person in the voter's in-group, then I'd think we had something to talk about. Until Trump voters begin recognizing that the man they elected is selfish, i won't stop looking down on them and their fealty to selfishness.
@Mr. N
The Japanese poet Basho wrote "Dewdrops, limpid, small And such a lack of judgement shown In where they fall." My friends will hopefully vote differently next time --- but I will not cut them off now. They need to have the other point of view from a friend. And who among us is perfect always?
Brooks is a smart man but he is a columnist and a tv voice, not a sociologist or a preacher, what is he doing making 3 speeches a week about social isolation and trying to comfort grieving parents?
1
The last several articles I've read by Mr. Brooks in the Times have talked about being better people, being kinder, more involved in our communities and with one another. It has been shocking to me how a vast majority of reader's have politicized his editorials, been hyper critical, nasty and frankly seem to have missed the point. It's been disheartening to read these malicious comments. The "fabric has indeed been torn".
4
@Christy I agree and am puzzled by the amount of anger in many of the comments that repeat their discontent at the current political landscape. Perhaps the message of this column is that you may find more contentment if you look around your neighborhood or town and see what you can do to be a part of the fabric of your community. The world goes on while Trump growls and frets and he to will pass.
2
@Christy
No, you are missing the point. Having a kind caring community of neighbors is great, but it doesn't fix a society that is broken because it is comprised of a tiny minority of elites and a vast majority of people who don't have health care, decent jobs, or a decent standard of living. David's weaving initiative will not make one iota of significant change to our society. You know what would make a change? Tax policy, voting initiatives, and a common sense social safety net like every other advanced country has
3
I agree Christy. I don’t always agree with Brooks but as a Liberal myself I cringe when other of those on the left impugn his good heart.
All the columns from Mr. Brooks I've read so far seem to start off at the right place but always end at a place not quite where the original path should have come to; and usually that place is the home of the "good old times".
Mr. Brooks should try to diverge from his "back in my day" mentality to better examine these social issues.
3
". . . The college student in the Midwest who is convinced that she is the only one haunted by compulsive thoughts about her own worthlessness. "
I'm from Wisconsin. I attended college in Wisconsin. I often times was "haunted by compulsive thoughts about my own worthlessness." I still am. And I know many others who have similar thoughts and feelings.
Bottom line - maybe that hand on a shoulder or a soft, warming smile to let someone know they are not alone out there, that someone IS listening could be the first step in building a caring and compassionate exchange of dialogue. Sometimes a person just needs a shoulder to cry on or a compassionate ear to listen, for even just a little while.
2
David,
I applaud your efforts, but when you ask yourself who created this culture of fear, distrust, tribalism, shaming and strife, can you possibly point the finger at anyone but your own industry?
Both sides of the media work tirelessly to vilify the other in order to secure political and ideological victories, but if we’re being honest here, right wing media can’t hold a candle to the propaganda capabilities of the left.
The right wing has Fox, Drudge, Breitbart, and Gary Sinise, the left has everything else. Conservatives lost the culture war decades ago. We’ve been living in the post war matrix created by the left ever since, and they control news, movies, television, music, social networks, universities and even fashion. From the womb to the tomb, Americans are inundated with liberal ideology.
We have reached our current impasse because our culture has moved so far to the left that centrists are considered reactionary. Border security is racist, Katy Perry’s shoes are racist, and jokes are taken as commentary. When anyone dares to step out of line, the media purposefully scans social media feeds for a few disproportionately angry tweets, then they amplify those reactions, thus creating the wave of outrage they were claiming to report.
The left has created a nation of hypersensitive, virtue signaling crybabies who believe that anyone who doesn't share their worldview is the enemy.
How can we possibly unite when the media is doing their best to keep us divided?
4
@Gary Taustine
Sorry Gary, Im not buying your diatribe. No sale!
There was no Culture War to win, because progress, and innovation in thought and interaction was always the path on which MOST humans walked. Exposure to "others" always breaks down the prejudices, and allows for willful intermingling and acceptance over time.
The "Left" has mostly been on the side of normal human progress and social innovation. While the Right, and its pundits, and zealots has not. Its been the REAL Resistance all along. Resistant to "others" deemed less and unworthy of social and economic gains. Resistant to intermingling of the races, especially sexual, marriage and children. Resistant to innovation in business practices, and as society grows larger in numbers and more complex in its needs - how wealth can be better and more equitably shared up and down the lines.
Resistance to the obvious impact we humans, at the very least, have on our immediate environments, and in turn how those "hurts" cascade out to the macro. Resistance to holding Corporations responsible for their predatory behaviors towards consumers, and the larger communities.
The Right doesnt WANT Culture (capital C) it resists it! The Right despises Cultural change - unless its about division and denigration of those deemed less and "other". All while lying to a base that they are part of the IN group...when they are not!
The Right created this alleged "sensitivity" by always seeking to exclude those deemed less!
1
@Gary Taustine Ha ha ha. Exactly the kind of divisive attitude that is the problem.
@Gary Taustine
“Conservatives lost the culture war decades ago”. You mean science prevailed?
This is not new. "Weavers" have always existed, and always will. Without community, without human contact, we don't exist as a species.
The problem is those, be they the small time con-man or the huge multinational corporation, that take advantage of our communitarianism. They use the output of our educational system as a 'human resource.' They use our communal nature to squeeze more work for less pay. They use our attraction to one another to sell products, and to change the standards by which we judge one another worthy--does he have dandruff?, does she have bad breath?, etc.
They take advantage of fundamentally human traits and use them against us. When we judge one another, when we judge ourselves, we assure our loneliness. And loneliness is a state that can be exploited for commercial gain.
3
How do you square a column about community without mentioning its dichotomy with the America First policy by a president who does not care about anyone but himself, who rules only for a base that cares only about ends, means and moral compass be damned?
6
Brooks nails it.
And I would argue a good start is to get off our high horse.
2
I'll admit it; I would probably be one of the people looking down at the Trump supporter at a party, but this does not come from a place of classism. I feel sympathy that his way of life is lost, that so many of his townspeople are addicted to opioids or depressed, but this does not justify his stupid decision to support a dangerous and mentally unstable buffoon that will do NOTHING to help his plight or mine.
We East Coasters are no superior to rural folk just because we may have better education and fancier jobs. There is nothing wrong with working with your hands, or farming, or small town living. What is wrong in my eyes is their support of a racist ignoramus.
Mr Brooks' piece implies that the liberal elite scorn the simple folk living in rural settings just by virtue of their lack of refinement, but this is just not the case.
14
@Anjou What's so brilliant about the GOP machine is that they have convinced these hardworking, worthy Americans that our newsrooms are the enemy and that all Democrats are elitists who look down on them. I just do not understand why they drink the GOP Koolaid. My once moderate sister is now armed to the teeth because the GOP/NRA has convinced her that I (a Democrat) want to take away her right to bear arms. They also have convinced her that FoxNews is okay because all news organizations are biased, which means she no longer can differentiate between Fox's lies and the truth. How they did it is beyond me.
4
@Anjou, Wow, East Coasters aren't all well educated, have fancy jobs and urban! What an "us" and "them" comment. You should look around and talk to your fellow East Coasters who aren't like you and you may learn something that you might have missed in your educational background. I am liberal and didn't get the implication that this article was implying anything about the liberal elite but if the shoe fits . . .
1
@Eleanor Harris
OK. Lets use actual facts.
According to Forbes:
Massachusetts public schools rank #1 in the US,
New Jersey is #2, Connecticut's rank #3,
followed by New Hampshire, then Vermont, then Virginia.
You ~may notice that that's all Northern East Coast.
Wisconsin doesn't even make the top 15.
Admitting you have a problem is always the first step to fixing it.
You don’t know what to say? How about something along these lines:
“This is the cumulative effect of the Republican Party’s hateful rhetoric and anti-social policies, building ever since Goldwater ran for President in the 1960s. Cynically wearing the mask of ‘family values’ and ‘conservatism,’ the GOP has done everything in its power to divide and conquer; and by this time it has succeeded in turning our government into a kleptocracy that continues to transfer more and more wealth and power to the ultrarich, while leaving our cities and towns to rot, with declining infrastructure; expensive and inaccessible health care, along with a declining life expectancy and rising infant mortality; crushing personal and government indebtedness; epidemic gun violence, drug addiction and deaths from overdose - the latter a product of the greed of American pharmaceutical companies and their aggressive marketing of powerful proprietary opioid drugs; ...
And all the Republican Party offers in response is a bunch of dumb red hats; “The Wall”; bible-thumping hypocrisy; and a reality television ‘personality’ who pretends to be a ‘deal making tycoon,’ who could care less about other Americans, and who has surrounded himself with an entourage of extremists, sycophants and tone-deaf billionaires who have no more empathy or understanding of the needs and lives of their fellow Americans.”
Tell them that, while you smugly offer more ‘thoughts and prayers.’
16
Here we go again. David Brooks trying to make sense of things by labeling. The Weavers will rise. Niceness will trickle up. Just like wealth trickled down......except it didn’t.
8
I think the poster child for “me precedes we” is the vile young woman who, the other day, would not move her designer purse from the seat next to her on a crowded NJ commuter train. She lashed out at a person who asked her to move the handbag, calling her “disgusting” and smelly. When she was challenged by a train employee, she tried to claim that her “personal space” was being violated and that this sensitivity to closeness was her “thing.” In other words, she tried to turn a major display of selfishness, incivility, hatred and base brattiness into one of her “issues.” Therefore defendable and hands-off. Thankfully, she was booted from the train. But this kind of ugliness is increasingly common. “You do you” means that too many “yous” think it’s acceptable to vent the unfiltered litter of their psyches.
3
How many Weavers does it take to repeal the 2nd Amendment?
4
@Martha R You will have a civil war first if that is attempted. Then maybe everyone can be nice to each other in the ashes.
1
"The Trump-supporting small-business man in Louisiana who silently clenches his fists in rage as guests at a dinner party disparage his whole way of life." I don't know about his "way of life" but, if he's a Trump supporter, he deserves disparagement. I have no interest in weaving my life with his. At this point, anyone who still supports Trump is not worth my sewing, knitting or weaving.
9
More uplifting twattle.
4
Surprised at the vehemence in some of the comments. It's just a column. He's just giving his opinion. All that intensity drives home his point.
6
100 million Americans live just at or under the poverty line. Rich white people get together in Aspen to spitball ideas on how we can heal society. Their solution? Poor people helping poor people pull themselves up by the boot straps. Give me a break.
8
I regularly read Mr Brooks' pleas for civility and rebuilding our shredded social fabric. As I read them I am torn between the sweet and simple logic of his ideas, which basically come down to nothing more than the Golden Rule, and the reality of life where our most important institutions work overtime to diminish and destroy the foundations we rely on. It's as if we're all being asked to join hands and sing while being bombed. Of course this might be soothing; but shouldn't we also be working to stop the bombing?
Without question, there is a place and a need for the Weavers. At the same time, there is a place and a need for the Resistance, those of us who refuse to accept that 15,000 people in MAGA hats, chanting in support of the megalomaniac who runs our country and seems hell bent on making it his personal fiefdom, should be invited to join hands with us while we sing, as they cheer the bombs falling all around us.
I'm not saying that demeaning these people is the path to righteousness. I'm saying that turning away from the hatred and anger they espouse, their newfound certainty of the rightness of Trump's ideology, is also an act of selfishness and individualism. If my grand children --- both of whom are brown skinned --- are attacked, I don't try to embrace their attackers, I defend them, with my life if need be. There's a time and a place to weave. There's a time and place to fight. This is a time and place for both.
7
It's not that simple. What I consider moral is not the same as what others consider moral. Having grown up in a society where religion defines social status, I can rip the social fabric simply by watching an R rated movie, having a beer or not wearing the right underwear. Just a few months ago, a petition claiming that a Deadpool poster was religiously discriminatory against Mormons garnished quite a lot of support from members of the Mormon church. Talk about a touchy group of people. As such, "You do you" is exactly how I'd like to be treated. I'm my own person, capable of making my own decisions, and unless I'm hurting others, what I do shouldn't matter.
4
@Stephen
It is that simple! Find your own ways of reaching out and help other people/ other creatures/ the planet, just something BESIDES YOURSELF, versus staring at your own navel, ie you do you. That's it.
Concrete, actionable optimism. We need more of it.
It's alarming, and disconcerting, to see how many presumably educated people in this space can't see beyond blaming the other side and trumpeting their own self-righteousness.
5
Mr. Rogers. That is who we need now to once again teach us how to be kind, compassionate and considerate of others who are different from us. We need to remember that just because we may disagree, we are not enemies. Though, it can be challenging since People Who Should Know Better are in high places and set a poor example. But we can do this. We have to do this.
6
David Brooks/ i am truly impressed with this essay/your insight is laudable/i am trying so hard to be more tolerant of others' political views, though it does take time to /thank you.
3
Yes and yes. I agree with much of this. However, our capitalist society often values maximizing profit and getting what you can. It is transactional. It is consistent with Reagan's "rugged individualism." The meritocratic elements of capitalism are laudable. However, to reach the goal of what David Brooks is calling for, we need to step beyond this transactional nature. This isn't just about anecdotes of people connecting. Scaling it nationally is a policy issue. It is funding social programs that we don't personally benefit from. It is being glad to pay the taxes for those programs. It is shaping government to be a shared resource, rather than a necessary evil to be minimized and gotten out of the way.
5
"Weaving" will never overcome the systemic problems our nation faces, the primary one of which we all now live to serve the rich. The wealthy and powerful love things like the gig economy and low taxes because it keeps their costs down, allowing them and their customers (stockholders) to rake in more dough. Do you know how devastating this model is for middle America? We can't afford individual health insurance, let alone college tuition, without borrowing money, and there's not enough income to save for emergencies and/or retirement. America is on it's way to becoming one big old-fashioned mining town in which we miners earn peanuts and are held captive by the mine owners to whom we must pay rent and from whom we must buy food, clothes and medical care that's so expensive we can't extricate ourselves from our situation. No amount of neighborly "weaving" will change these facts.
13
I had a Facebook conversation this weekend with a neighbor, a financial planner who opposed raising taxes on the wealthy, opposed removing the social security cap to better endow the trust fund, and insisted that, if working and middle class people would only live "rationally," they would have sufficient resources to survive and retire. (She had posted elsewhere that lazy people who didn't want to work were draining the nation economically, but I didn't cite that comment in disputing her.)
Her example of a rational American was a retired woman who discovered that she could no longer afford to live in her home state. She moved elsewhere, alone, and was also lauded by the financial planner for not having become bitter. I had a completely different take.
How can we weave community when our financial policies destroy community? How do we create trust and strengthen the social fabric -- fight selfish individualism- when our criteria for rational choice is the willingness to forgo community merely to survive and society does not provide the basic necessities - food, housing, medical care -- that permit us to remain connected and in place. Do we grow empathy, by congratulating a woman for not becoming bitter, but instead going meekly into a world and place set out people who will not forgo one added penny of income to create social security.
I agree that the choice is a moral one. Yet you cannot rebuild community unless the wealthy pay their fair share.
19
Wow, so much cynacism and negativity. You're all right in that kindness is not going to fix the world. But it will make it a better place and create the environment where we can come together and constructively work on underlying problems. Imagine if we had true bipartisan representatives working together for the common good rather than their own narrow interests...
4
As a political scientist this article gives me a headache--as concepts and ideas are thrown around like confetti.
First, I am not sure if Brooks realizes that his diagnosis of the problem, social isolation and social fragmentation, sounds a whole lot like Karl Marx's diagnosis of a Capitalist system.
Second, Brooks solution to the problem, more community, more localism, along with his statement that "We precedes Me" again sounds a lot like a Marxian solution
Brooks would likely say he is drawing from a different intellectual tradition of compassionate conservatism, but as others have noted, it is precisely this Conservatism/Republican party and its support of a highly unregulated Capitalism that has resulted in social isolation.
Last, I don't think Brooks really understands what "you do you" means. It doesn't mean hyper individualism at the expense of community. It means respecting diversity and life choices for a more enriching and tolerant society.
31
Mr. Brooks brings up valid points—we do need to revoke our collective individualism in favor of a greater community mindset. However, I’m afraid that the suicide and drug epidemic come nowhere close to Pearl Harbor’s effect on our national psyche. We need a more drastic event to spur us into coming together again. Unfortunately so, but necessary—I fear only another 9/11 will do what Mr. Brooks is imploring.
1
Thank you for this article. So...grateful.
"you do you" is a vile viral social media meme and the idea of Weavers -- people building a renaissance of healthy connection to each other in American society -- is a Captain America canard. Your moral lens, David Brooks, is one we don't want to look through. The social fabric of our country is ripped and torn and not mendable. We aren't interested in replying to your "ask" and communicating with Weavers. You're touting pie in the sky and waiting around for happy pennies from heaven to rain down upon our dystopian Trump America.
The first core idea was that social isolation is the problem underlying a lot of our other problems.....
unfortunately for Mr. Brooks, this is not the case. Economic and social inequality is the core problem underlying a lot of our other problems. if we all lived in equal states, cities, and yes, your favorite, David, neighborhoods, we would have a lot less social isolation.
Please please please look at facts and information about the real world, and not just your theories that are not scientifically provable to have any causation. If we're a nation of weavers, if 1% of those weavers literally control the other 99%, then so what that we're all weaving. we're living different lives.
One other thing: What can I say to these parents? Say: I will use my platform at the NY Times to promote GOOD PUBLIC POLICY and not waste time talking about weaving classes
11
Me. Brooks, you have been and continue to be part of the problem, not part of the solution. To call for individual declarations of interdependence while ignoring the long campaign of undermining of and frontal attacks on the many institutions of mutual aid and interdependence that sustained our country in your cherished epochs of our history is a typical but particularly egregious hypocrisy.
12
Brooks is looking for a sociological or cultural shift against individualism at a time when even the Supreme Court has ruled to undermine basic voting rights. The two cannot coexist.
I'm far more worried about the very real legalized, systemic disenfranchisement and the sociological, cultural, political and economic alienation and exclusions it causes than whether or not we can capture a what is ultimately a false or idealized notion/feeling of integration or sense of community.
Brooks wants people to feel unity? Stop undermining their say in the Union.
11
Seems like another attempt to replace reasonable social policy with a volunteer or charity ethos. Sure volunteering and weaving are a great idea and can build better communities. But using charity or volunteers can go only so far and also allows perpetuation of ideas that I personally cannot get behind.
Scorn for single mothers with complex stories.
Lack of support for the unlucky people who get sick or injured and need possibly a lifetime of support.
Trying to get low-income communities to somehow volunteer themselves into a better place, when they lack decent housing, decent schools, decent policing, decent food, and are often working multiple jobs.
Ability to cherry pick your charity cases, people that have your beliefs, have your preferred characteristics, look like you, live near you, have similar backgrounds, aren't immigrants or brown, are sympathetic, are pretty, are sociable.
Ability to ignore the children of people who maybe have made mistakes, leaving them in conditions that will just perpetuate their parents lifestyles.
And people are simply too stingy to spend time and money on others. Sure some people volunteer 40 hours a week, but many just watch TV and look at social media. Does a rich man really donate time, or maybe he should just give 10% more money in taxes .. which could really make a difference.
9
A fine recollection of the utopian/communitarian/egalitarian impulse, and the clarity and simplicity of vision that underpin it. What the world needs now really IS love, sweet love, and in a world that has vastly exceeded the carrying capacity of real community, that does mean that we're in a real pickle.
You correctly note--using jargon that I find very off-putting and bizarre--that "relationships don't scale," and that cultural change does "scale."
But we live in a CAPITALIST culture, and a RIGHTS-BASED culture, and you as a conservative know that "your people" sewed those seeds in the heart of our world, and "your people" will surrender their capital and their rights only when they are pried from their cold, dead hands. (That's an applause line, David, and your people are the ones who rise to their Gucci-shod feet in ecstatic Ten Minutes Joy when such as Heston or Reagan or Trump whip them into capitalist, rights-based frenzy).
I salute the Weavers, working away in the small and hidden, and great and open, spaces in our culture. But my eye is on the Prize: Political revolution, legal change, modification of our deeply-rooted philosophies of property and personhood and community, shared (not horded); available to all (not to the tiny segments of extreme wealth and power who have positioned themselves, like weavers, at critical seats before the Loom of History.
We need to change our politics, so we can humanize our world--and that's scale, David.
7
@Robert These feel-good solutions that Brooks proposes are like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. For once I'd like for him to at least consider that the problem might be soul-crushing corporate capitalism.
5
Who decides what is one's "fair share?"
Brooks puts together an interesting list in his examples: (1) an African-American woman upset that her kids will struggle simply because of their race; (2) a self-loathing college student; and (3) a Trump supporter and businessman enraged that his whole way of life is being disparaged at a dinner party.
What binds the people on the list together is straightforward, they are each unhappy and it is implied that they each feel alone (if only emotionally). Solving that problem would be nice, but do their concerns intersect?
The black mother's indignation is a 200+ year old struggle and I doubt any reasonable person argues in favor of Jim Crow and all the rest. We can't seem to shake it, but we can all agree to keep struggling to do so.
The depressed college student sounds like she might need more than just casual socializing or (respectfully) thoughts/prayers. Maybe professional counseling is in order? Either way, there's no real controversy in supporting her "pursuit of happiness."
The businessman is described as being a Trump supporter, which is apparently somehow related to his "whole way of life" and his "rage." How does his support for Trump intersect with his WHOLE way of life? The answer to that could be problematic. Is it about his "heritage?" Does his "business" require the destruction of the administrative state? Does his way of life have any negative implications for the LGBTQ or women? Parsing what his happiness requires might be very difficult.
11
Thank you for this article. It's a good start. But you (and our Wall Street elite) need to broaden the focus. First, by now I assume you realize that "free" trade has been, quite predictably, a total disaster for our country. Not "in the long run, it's wonderful for all of us"; but rather, in the short, medium and long run, it's a disaster for all Americans but the rich.
Secondly, this absurd focus on our taking care of the hordes of illegal aliens, to the detriment of Americans, must cease. We cannot take care of the entire world's poor. Not possible. We need to focus on our own.
The very same millenials who demand as their entitlement (like the little children that they still are) "Good Jobs for all", are the ones demanding that we open our borders to all. Well, the "all" are uneducated, will remain uneducated, and are unqualified for so-called "good" jobs, and will remain unqualified.
If we pursue an economic path based on ignorance -- free trade and open borders -- good jobs will continue to decline. Competition for bad jobs will continue to skyrocket. Though the weavers will help, for sure, they will not be able to offset the consequences of an unhealthy economy.
Of course these sorts of connections and activities are good. I do some of them myself. My particular favorites are working with local arts groups and a program to assist kids in the child protective services system and their families.
But these kinds of community activities -- remember George H.W. Bush's points of light? - do little to address the underlying rot created by ever-increasing inequality, overt and covert racism, and accelerating environmental/climate change disaster. Dealing with those major threats to our well-being as a society takes string, unpopular, collective action, specifically government action. I don't see Brooks advocating anything like that
Being nice isn't enough.
8
"I start with the pain....The Trump-supporting small-business man in Louisiana who silently clenches his fists in rage as guests at a dinner party disparage his whole way of life."
I can see that, Mr. Brooks. Hard-working businessman. Bunch'a limousine liberals attacking every single god-fearing beloved American thing he believes in. And the good man is outnumbered, ambushed, powerless to say a word.
He's not just in pain, Mr. Brooks. He's a victim, that's what he is - even in a heavily pro-Trump state, where suburban lawns were thick with MAGA and "Trump" signs in 2016...yes, even in a state where the newspapers went for Trump, and the politicians are for Trump, and the big businesses are for Trump, it happens...
...eh, Mr. Brooks? A man can't sit down at a dinner party without getting pig piled by everyone for every Trump-loving, god-fearing things he believes in.
I can just see it all so clear.
8
We have a society where organized money changes the value system of everything it engages with. Success is measured in money.
The ultimate success of an investment in healthcare or education is measured in dollars, not in healthy outcomes or educated students.
I've never understood how conservatives like Mr. Brooks can advocate for unfettered capitalism without acknowledging the difficulties it presents in making every human institution into a business.
Mr. Brooks laments the society-wide symptoms and social ills caused by our economic system but then puts the blame on the "emphasis in our culture on personal freedom, self-interest, self-expression, the idea that life is an individual journey toward personal fulfillment." He can't seem to get this 1960s 'Hippies vs. The Establishment' framework out of his mind.
The suicide and overdose numbers should be alarming to all Americans. They are a signal that something has gone very wrong in our experiment in self-government.
The people who feel disconnected, isolated, and worthless aren't struggling because they can't open their own yoga studio or fulfill some right-wing fantasy of liberal enlightenment. They are isolated and desperate because they are pushed to the margins by every day financial stress and a market-based democracy that elevates the wealthy and profit-makers over everyone else.
8
Yes. Of course. But I'm not understanding why Brooks' observations or organization are different from what Americans have been doing in their neighborhoods and community/religious organizations all along.
1
They're not. Sonewhere along th he way they became rare exceptions and caring stopped being the norm.
I've been volunteering with the same non-profit group for more than 10 years and I get a huge emotional benefit from the personal connections I've made.
David Brooks would probably call me a Weaver.
To Brooks, I say, take that silly name and keep it to yourself. Your analysis of volunteerism and your accompanying "program" is a giant waste of time. You have a national platform. Do something useful with it.
12
I don't understand the intensity of this comment.
1
Brilliant.
Thank you, David Brooks, from a dyed-in-the-wool weaver.
1
To dig a little deeper about weavers check out the following book by Margaret Wheatley and Deborah Frieze....."Walk Out, Walk On." This is right up the alley of what David is talking about.
Thank you, David. I found your piece spot-on and inspirational. I agree with your ask; can you imagine if everyone just started in their own relationships (with not stereotyping, loving and listening, having faith in each other), what a different place our world would be? Yes, many of us need actual support more than tuna casseroles, but let’s start with kindness!
3
Brooks is obviously not moving away from the mainstream of empty phrases uttered about "compassionate conservatism." He claims: if people only realize that human nature is basically social and cooperative, and that too much individualism can be a bad thing, then all our country's social problems will go away without the government having to spend a dime on them. A pipe dream. But a very influential pipe dream since so many powerful interests are committed to promoting it.
A "compassionate" society hitched to a system of predatory capitalism just won't work. It's like trying to teach a hungry tiger to become a vegetarian.
23
The line here about the Trump supporter who is enraged at a dinner really resonates with me, although I would use "humiliated" and "frustrated" in addition to "enraged."
Trump stands for the opposite of what most of us value. He has achieved nothing good (unless you're a one-percenter doing your tax return). Yet he emerged from the midterms in much better shape than he should have.
I don't understand why those who dislike him--my friends and colleagues, among them--have not yet learned that snobbery and scorn towards his supporters only increases his power.
I grew up dirt poor. My parents wouldn't and couldn't buy me decent clothing. I was better off then many in the area because they were at least educated enough that I learned how to navigate the world successfully. It was tough. I still don't have the words to describe the humiliation I'd feel when the refined people in the city I escaped to would make throwaway jokes about rednecks and trailer parks and hicks, etc. None of my classmates made it out of the area because no one on the outside even gave them a chance. No one cares that they're still there--there are no jobs, no decent internet connection, no minimum wage, and on and on.
They're today's Trump supporters.
178
@Ant It's not that I don't understand why they supported Trump based on how they feel; that is clear, reasonable, and understandable. What bothers me, and is something I do not know how to fix, is that they refuse to read and properly educate themselves on the issues they claim are important, and because of that ignorance are easily misled and fooled. I know many Trump supporters well, and they all have their reasons for support. They're not bad reasons at all, but in supporting Trump they have been fooled and have inaccurate expectations, and so far have *shockingly* been let down. Clearly education is the answer, but not formal education. The kind of education one pursues on their own, throughout life; the search for knowledge and truth. As a nation we used to value and respect expertise and experience; we used to understand that being right was more important that feeling good about ones opinion. That's all but gone now with the Trump era.
That's not our only problem, but it's a huge one. And as I said, I have no idea how to fix it, but I sure think it's important.
43
@Ant, I live in a land of bitter Hillary and Bernie supporters, and I hear plenty of anti-Trump rhetoric. I rage about his existence constantly, but mainly to myself and my dogs because really no one wants to hear it anymore. But for all that, I have never heard anyone go on about “rednecks and trailer parks and hicks, etc.” supporting Trump. No one speaks that way here.
What I find frightening (and infuriating) about that man’s ascendency is his riding on the coattails of crazy-fundamentalist Pence, thereby scooping up the (so-called) Christian Right. My own Bible-blinded sibling voted for a president devoid of morals or ethics simply because her minister told her to and because his running mate is a Born Again. It boggles the mind. It terrifies me.
53
@Ant I grew up in one of those towns and we were poor (9 children) but my parents were educated, we had a decent public school system and we were white. My dying town is filled with Trump supporters. I understand what you are saying, but Trump has not, and will not, do anything for these folks and they know it. His appeal is that he expresses the rage they feel at "libs" and "coastal elites" because the economy has changed and their lack of education is an issue in our "new technological economy". Meanwhile, they are conveniently used by the GOP to support tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, refusal to raise the minimum wage, deny climate change, undermine the Affordable Care Act, demonize immigrants and Mexicans etc. It is hard to feel sympathy for people who choose expressing their rage/hatred over a clear-eyed assessment of their situation and potential solutions. It also takes effort, initiative, and risk-taking to propose and implement viable solutions. They aren't getting any help from the outside, certainly not from Trump.
36
Are all those "weavers" going to come together and pay the bill for my emergency room visit? Are they going to clean my diaper at 3:00 AM when I cant go the bathroom myself? ...No...they are not here. I want Medicare-for-all, not a tunafish casserole dropped off after the ambulance drives away.
25
@K I fear you have missed Mr. Brooks' point
@Jon Orloff
I fear he saw it clearly.
4
Folks, stop attacking and build and design the future of our nation and world.
Yes. The feds need to work for all of us. Need to design a better world. So get out the vote. Become a block captain in your neighborhood. Then maybe a precinct committee person.
And without waiting for far away politicians, please join your PTSA. Please visit the Neighborhood House or your church help groups. Please help the >60% who are ‘functionally illiterate” learn to read, include the elderly person down the street in your visits to the grocery store.
In ~ 1977 a local right wing politician in an expensive suit held my throwing up baby for me while I, a single dad, proposed a motion. And when I was elected the chair of the platform committee and other right wing politicians illegally held the platform formation meeting, he countered.
And his wife, Jennifer Dunn, at President Reagan’s inauguration told the just sworn in president about my proposal to eliminate mandatory retirement of all government employees at age 65 and make it only used for clearly medical safety reasons or performance, Reagan grinned and immediately put out his executive order that eliminated mandatory retirement at 65.
And many a government nurse, social worker, and such worked until they had their 20 years and then some.
We can ‘weave’ and protest, tutor and march, food bank volunteer and get out the vote.
It is not “them” that endanger our nation. It is “us” that build or destroy.
54
@Ramon Reiser
Excellent post. Those who disdain Mr. Brooks' idea miss the point of simple kindness. Reaching out leads to communication, empathy, sharing of ideas, working together to resolve problems and influence the direction of government.
Sneering, bickering, blaming, and seeing those with different lifestyles and circumstances as "other" leads to divisiveness, isolation and hate. I, too, boil when the recalcitrant Trump supporter denies evidence in favor of their dreams, but the educated and wealthy who insulate themselves from the rest of society are ignorant, too.
When I am simply kind to a stranger, it makes us both feel better about ourselves and our world. Rudeness and indifference generalizes a feeling of hopelessness and despair.
7
This is good, Mr. Brooks, and the people you describe who are doing the work are great. I hope you will take your newfound clarity of vision and describe when and why politicians, regardless of party, are acting selfishly -- you are, after all, a political commentator.
1
What great imagery - weaving together the fabric of our country, which has been torn asunder. Perhaps we should start by re-weaving the social safety net, which treats Americans as worthy of receiving such basic necessities as food and shelter; the safety net that has been shredded relentlessly by Republicans for generations, with enthusiastic editorial support from none other than our own David Brooks.
9
For those commenters that are astonished that the trump supporter senses that his ‘whole way of life’ is attacked, I understand why he feels that way. I have lived all over the country, including outside a small town on my grandparents’ farm, a college town, a blue collar town, plus a couple of major metropolitan areas, as have a number of family members. The sneering contempt is not new; we’ve tolerated, ignored, and tried to educate coastal and big city people for decades. Farmers are routinely assumed to be dumb. I recall some author theorizing that the ‘heartland’ is becoming more dumb and will continue to decline because the smart people move to the coasts, leaving the less intelligent to procreate together in flyover country. That was beyond insulting, and quite ignorant. Tons of highly intelligent people prefer a quieter life, there are cultural opportunities in many small cities, and many people travel to major cities for them, too. Cars, planes, and trains, you know.
I passionately dislike trump, but you’re part of the problem when you arrogantly dismiss those who live a life you know nothing about.
15
@Louisa Glasson Now wait a second! Many, many urban dwellers are the children or grandchildren of rural families and farmers. A Trump supporter's sensitive feelings should not be considered remotely related to the 14 yr. old who kills themselves or the drug addict killing themselves. Why must I extend any sensitivity toward the ignorance and blindness of the Trump supporter? My father grew up dirt poor, speaking a difference language than the other farmers in his hometown and he was anything but ignorant. Sorry Mr. Brooks, Trump supporters do not require nor do they deserve my understanding.
2
Just as some beliefs are beyond the pale of common decency so are the people who think them and propagate them.
1
Rugged individualism has destroyed this country. The original meaning of the "pursuit of happiness" has been completely lost. The original meaning of that phrase: you can not have personal happiness unless the community you live in also has it's boats rise. There was a moral dimension to it. Kennedy touched on the original meaning when he said; "ask not what your country can do for you..." Obama did again in his misunderstood phrase; "you didn't build that."
8
I really get the sense that David Brooks has a very low opinion of people who do social work. I think he thinks we should all just be 'volunteering' our time. In a recent column he suggested that everyone "once in a lifetime(!)" should work for one year at a non-profit. Like we're a tourist industry for 'real professionals' looking for a moral sabbatical. What non-profits need is more funding to pay liveable wages to employees (to ensure people who do difficult emotional work are able to take good care of themselves) and to see this work as valued and important. Not to have a yearly turnover of people playing around at being a social worker for a year. I really think he just didn't get how most of us live and contribute, and help each other on a daily basis as it is.
21
@Anne I couldn't agree more. While I completely agree with Mr. Brooks that social fragmentation is a huge problem, I find the "thousand points of light" volunteerism approach to be naive at best. As Mr. Brooks notes, there are 72,000 deaths due to addiction a year. Volunteers can surely help to support people in early recovery, but let's not kid ourselves, this epidemic won't be ended by volunteerism.
While I am at it, there is a strong case to be made (as reported in the New York Times) that the opioid epidemic is, at least in part, the result of pharmaceutical companies like Purdue Pharma. The owners of Purdue are great benefactors of the arts and education. By all accounts, their philanthropy has improved communities, but let's be clear, their involvement in community work did nothing to prevent their participation in the worst man-made epidemic of the 21st century.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/health/sacklers-purdue-oxycontin-opioids.html
5
"You do you" does not advocate selfishness. It advocates authenticity - the lack of all pretending. Authenticity is key to interpersonal connection. So if you want to "weave," start with knowing what you are weaving.
"You do you" is not about separation, or individualism. It is about honoring our differences and embracing them. It is about accepting and respecting ourselves and our neighbors as they are and to work from there to a better future. And no, this does not mean harming others to please ourselves, because we cannot not honor our selves if we hurt others.
The people who truly understand who they are know we are all one.
11
i appreciate that we need to treat each other like human beings in this culture. But when you compare the pain of an "African-American woman in Greenville who is indignant because young black kids in her neighborhood face injustice just as gross as she did in 1953." with "The Trump-supporting small-business man in Louisiana who silently clenches his fists in rage as guests at a dinner party disparage his whole way of life." Sorry you have lost me, and I can't trust your analysis. Those two scenarios are substantially different in every way. Nobody ever legislated that Trump voter out of a marriage, out of a job, out of a neighborhood because of who he is. Trump voters cared for nobody's pain when they voted in and now support with screaming epithets, a man and an administration who seem to feel their one job is to demonize vulnerable citizens, and make laws to limit their rights and their hopes. Sorry this is just the same old whataboutism whine. Republicans have ripped our social fabric to shreds using racist dog-whistles in order to consolidate power, and now want a soft, easy, 'we are all one unity' that ignores our historical and present case of deep institutionalized racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. No - stop stacking the courts with those who think voting is a boutique right for well-off whites, that civil rights for Black people are a threat to 'our whole way of life,' that immigrants of color are evil dangers, and that women belong in the kitchen - then we can talk.
317
@Anda I can see that the two examples are substantially different in terms of scope, but I believe that by belittling or rejecting another person's pain is exactly what is exactly what Brooks is talking about and is ripping and dividing the country apart.
11
@Anda Amen! Your commentary is spot on.
9
I don’t think David is writing about the merits of these people’s grievances. More about their feeling of not having a place and of needing to see their humanity in that. If it helps, think of it that even a wrong-doer has the same need for belonging as the rest of us.
9
Decent societies tax more and provide more for their citizens. If everyone in the US had health care, a living wage, enough food and a place to live there would be far less suicides. Stockton, CA is giving several people a universal basic income of $500.00 a month for several months to observe the outcomes. Finland has shown a universal basic income was successful in lifting people up into better jobs, housing and health.
14
@Jacquie There are many benefits to health care, a living wage, etc, but suicide is a very complex issue. You mention Finland; their suicide rates are actually considerably higher than ours in the US.
Just like every other animal, we are a molded and respond to our physical environment.
Our physical environment is sprawling and dangerous if not impossible to traverse on foot (or even bike). Even residential areas. Or the residential areas are so large there's just nowhere else to go on foot.
This alienates us.
And this building environment we've created is dependent on regulations, policies, and politicians. It's not solved by volunteer efforts. We have to force the hand of the powers that be.
2
Thanks for sharing.
I appreciate your desire to learn from weavers, but wish your article's text ( "This is a movement that doesn't know it's a movement") reflected the same humility of your introductory video at the Weave Project website ("There's just a big movement out there of people devoting their energies to healing rifts, to healing divisions, to healing communities...").
And let's be specific: we're not "living with the excesses of 60 years of hyperindividualism" but with other *people,* some of whom have been hyperindividualistic for 60 years. Some work to keep the minimum wage from rising (as it did regularly throughout the '60s and '70s) in order to reward themselves with higher pay and benefits, including higher investment returns for companies that hire thousands of minimum-wage earners. Some work to cut taxes on the wealthiest among us so that their effective tax rates are lower than the secretaries who work for them. Some push funds away from public education teachers and toward the big businesses of textbook publishing and standardized tests.
All the while, the weavers have been there, "showing up for people and keep showing up" as you write, because yes, "we are born into relationships."
Although "for efficiency's sake" is often the reason for keeping minimum wages low, tax rates down, and curriculum standardized (among other things), it's people with and for whom we carry on the business of life. And good relationships aren't "efficient."
6
I suspect that if you surveyed the political persuasion of each of your Weavers, Mr. Brooks, especially those in secular organizations, the vast majority would align with a liberal agenda or left of center independents. That’s certainly so in my community. Now imagine if they all could find some means of joining together to influence policy at the national level. Oh yes, it’s called the Democratic Party.
7
@CMGruen
I live in an area of few liberal souls so I would disagree; I see steadfast and strong support for all manner of organizations, feed my children, homeless outreach, etc. Your 'labeling' and probably your thinking is off base.
1
@tbandc
Could be I'm "projecting," but that's certainly the case in this area. In any event, relying on these "Weavers" for widespread socio-economic changes seems a Brooksian pipe dream.
I look forward to your explanation of how weavers will bring down the price of insulin and albuterol
7
I like where you’re coming from, David, but I can’t help thinking and feeling that with this earnest moral commitment that you’ve posited come not compromise but predictably endless concessions to a political and behavioral example set and sustained over decades by evangelicals and national leadership that simply must not stand. Complacency is not an option.
2
If you start with an assumption that determines your conclusion, you're going to find whatever your assumption says you should find. In this case, social isolation is our problem and social fabric is the solution. That's not a hypothesis. That's a mission statement.
Thanks but knowing my neighbors better isn't going to help change statewide policy outcomes. Communities did get together to advance a number of issues we care about. The Republican held state legislature called an emergency session to limit or rescind community organized action.
Wise up Brooks. The problem is bigger than faith.
8
Politics is not a game for “weavers.” Successful office holders must divide and conquer. So, until we can figure out how to have an election and equitably divide the spoils, the tribalism will continue. There is just too much money and power involved to expect our politicians to enjoin the campaign slogan, “Let’s all just get along!”
2
Our local weavers include Mr. Brooks, who has patched the neighborhood’s tires for 40 years. That kind of touchstone makes a weaver, someone staying around. Another weaver is Augustine with his lunch counter who’s served up costillos and menudo for a quarter century ay the corner of 17 th and Summit, as well as his organic local food counterparts kitty corner from him at Bluebird Cafe. These long time providers give my hood stability and act as town criers.
2
Wonderful thoughts, and article. Thanks David
@Chris Jones
"Wonderful thoughts, and article. Thanks David"
Clap-clap-clap-clap-clap! BUILD the WALL! BUILD the WALL! BUILD the WALL!
The core of the thesis of this article both empathic and recognizable. I believe it to be true. As @Erin B wrote with a great deal of intelligence and wisdom: " Self-sacrifice is by definition unsustainable because eventually you run out of self. It cannot be a substitute for a system of national government." The legitimate rationale for our republic and the underpinnings of the federal government are now being called 'socialist' by the same propagandists who brought us 'death panels.' I urge all Americans of goodwill to reject the right-wing's terminology and not fall into their trap. I noted that Sen. Harris actually brain twisted around in an attempt to deny she was not a Democratic Socialist.
5
So you're pretty much describing liberal/progressive ideals. Helping others in need with no strings attached because it's the right thing to do, rather than adopting the "I got mine, tough luck for you" mentality of today's conservative. We need more villages and fewer rugged individualists.
13
Not easy when we're living in a time where the media promotes and sensationalizes outrage, hate, and worse, over our "differences."
2
So not only does Brooks and all his wealthy buddies think they should not pay taxes they think the rest of us should pick up the slack by working (volunteering) for free.
11
@MDM
Laugh sort of - it is so clear.
"Right now, millions of people all over are responding to the crisis we all feel. We in the news media focus on Donald Trump and do-"
Except you didn't focus on Trump. Did you, Brooks?
Democracy and the Constitution's being mugged - by your party, Brooks - autocratic President of your party, green lighting Senate of your party going along with it.
But let's not talk about politics - now's a good time for a sermon on the little, nonpolitical we can do.
9
Building community and weaving the social fabric against self-interest.
We precedes me.
Shift the culture so that it emphasizes individualism less and relationalism more.
Is David finally turning left?
4
@Mr. N; no, he's trying to distract his readers from remembering how he has abetted the shredding of the social fabric through his support of Republican policies.
5
The Republican Southern Strategy was begun under Ronald Reagan and George H W Bush. It has been the basic recruiting tool of the Republican party ever since then. The strategy is based on a culture of fear (of blacks, Hispanics, and"others"), distrust (of the Federal government, the educated, as evidenced by anti-intellectualism), tribalism ( by evangelicals, non-college educated individuals, anti-abortionist zealots, and gun owners' rights crazies), and Confederates. The resulting strife, conflict, fear and loathing are exactly what the Republican politicians expected.
11
I believe that President Nixon was the brain behind the "southern strategy".
1
As a five month resident of your Deep South each winter, I marvel at the dedication and level of commitment to volunteerism by retirees in my community, many of whom I personally know have no interest in supporting universal healthcare or other beneficial social programs because, well, that smacks of socialism. The same volunteers have no trouble however, assisting the “needy” on their own terms. What gives, America?
8
I am 84 years old and live in Oregon. I have traveled to many countries, and have been most impressed by the behavior of people in Islamic countries. They are taught that "a stranger is a gift from God". There is a sense of community in those countries that we in the U.S. have lost through the years. Most of us in our 80s and 90s were born in smaller towns and knew our neighbors, and helped them when help was needed.
I see much less of that happening now, with so many younger people expecting the government to do it all. I have no objection to realistic expectations of taxes and government programs, but high taxes on the wealthy won't support the free college, free healthcare, etc. demanded by the so-called "Progressives" will not take the place of old-fashioned caring for ones neighbor.
I appreciate your comment, Kitty. I think many younger people are holding two or three “jobs” while the gig economy eats them alive. Most younger people I know don’t have the time or means to be as helpful as they would like to be.
"A silent Pearl Harbor"
Therein lies much of the problem: the silence. Brooks is right as far as he goes, but we need to take his vision a step further. Despite what it is currently fashionable to espouse, our country was more divided during the Viet Nam War than it is now. Yet, when America landed a man on the moon, the entire nation was thrilled, and all Americans were proud of our country. It was a positive "Pearl Harbor" or, to update the metaphor, a positive 9/11.
We currently have no such collective vision, a common enterprise visible and measurable in a visceral, not just in an abstract statistical, sense. Our culture now looks down, inward at little screens depicting alleged reality instead of upward and outward with vision. More time and energy is spent on (anti!)social media opinions reinforcing one's existing "certainties" and values than in contemplating and pursuing new challenges, than in questioning our assumptions and assumed limits.
In defining problems we have taken the easy, the lazy way out, reducing everything to a bumpersticker: Trump, illegal immigrants, white racism, sexual immorality, etc. How many of us actually know, how many of us actually speak with real people whose views are different, not their self-appointed or media anointed spokespersons? How many of us bother to contemplate and act on a vision where Brooks' weavers are more nuanced, more complex than labels, possibly capable of joining with us in creating a positive Pearl Harbor?
5
@Steve Fankuchen
“The entire nation was thrilled....”. Not quite, see Gil Scott-Heron’s “Whitey on the moon”. Otherwise, good points, thanks.
1
Nice ideas. Here's a question. If the US had spent half of the 10,000,000,000,000 dollars that the US has spent over the last decade or so on Mental health instead of bombs and bullets where would we be now?
7
I'm honestly curious which places David Brooks has personally volunteered? Has he volunteered throughout his career for significant amounts of time over a significant period of time? With which populations? Which organizations? What did he do for these organizations? Genuinely curious.
7
I should clarify, I mean volunteering beyond giving speeches and starting websites. Does he have his feet in the real game? Has he worked extensively for a long period of time, say, for a homeless shelter or an organization dedicated to ending sexual violence?
2
David, are you suggesting it takes a village? Isn't that the beginning of creeping socialism? I'm hoping your answers are yes and understand that sometimes a form of socialism is necessary "for the common weal."
8
Let me point out a young Weaver who has an international following: Greta Thunberg skips school every Friday to demonstrate for climate action at Stockholm
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/climate/greta-thunburg.html
In an attack on Thunberg's efforts, Prime Minister Theresa May has dismissed school walkouts in Britain because it “wastes lesson time.”
Let's hear it, David, for such dissenters!
5
Weaving will come ever more organically the more we spread this as well, "We Are the Cosmos - She is Alive" - an update of ancient wisdom in the light of energy science, "Synergetics."
Free series of clips on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHTUmtfbmno&index=1&list=PLOvN8DqSvHng74USIdpgR456wnEoBt1b3
Once Brooks' party succeeds in making all government small enough to drown in a bathtub, volunteer efforts will be all that remains of American civilization. I guess that is what Brooks hopes for, since he seems unwilling or unable to directly address the evil of his party's leadership, policy and agenda.
7
David Brooks' mantra: see no evil-hear no evil-speak no evil. Repeat until Trump goes away.
4
I get the point you are making, but you missed one thing with your word choices. Your comment about the "tribalism" that plagues us misuses the term. My Tribe/Nation is a place that I can connect with others--not just my own people, but others who have also had challenging experiences that may or may not look similar on the surface.
1
The '60s generation did an excellent job of breaking down the traditional, non-questioning concepts of family, religion, and government. Not surprisingly, they did not do a great job at the much, much harder process of creating alternative structures to fulfill the human needs that traditions has embodied. To a great extent, this was accomplished through an emphasis on individualism. Though there was much preaching and actual organizing of collectivity, this was done as an individual choice, a voluntary thing, not as a collective obligation one did as belonging to a cohort of one sort or another. In recent decades the Right has adopted this paradigm, declaring individuals failures if they cannot "make it", no allowance given to circumstance and collective hinderances.
To reaffirm and recreate America as a collective enterprise intended to promote the common good, both Left and Right need to back off from the negative "us vs. them" paradigm and work to define and develope commonality, rejecting the ubiquitous assumption promoted by the media that just because "what bleeds leads", that bleeding represents not just importance but substantive reality.
6
America has always been very individualistic. It's a big cultural difference between us and most other countries. Read a little 19th century American literature Mr. Brooks and you'll see that we've mellowed quite a bit on individualism.
The opioid crisis resulted from the mistaken idea that opioids were safe if used for pain relief combined with good old, unrestrained, amoral marketing. Individualism or lack thereof had nothing to do with it, except as it effects our health care system and business culture. Individualism might be a cause for adolescent suicide, but that's far from clear. Some east Asian societies, the least individualistic societies, also have high rates of adolescent suicide.
3
I am a relative newcomer from a much more "communal" society, so my observations are that Americans are much more individualistic and self-reliant than other societies. It is rooted in a way the country was populated and is a result of a "natural selection" of some sort. In the past religion probably played the counter-weight to this tendency, teaching members of congregations to love and help their neighbor. Harsh conditions of the frontier also could have forced some level of cooperation. In the modern society these forces weakened, and new ones did not come by.
This individualistic ethos has its positive sides, making us the envy of the world when it comes to economic achievements. But at the same time it does not allow us to create a safety net for the weak, of a kind modern society is expected to have.
It may change as new generations adopt a more liberal view of the society goals and priorities. But it is not going to be a fast process.
6
The notion of interdependence, being in right relationship, and "I need others to survive" is a perfect segue to how humanity's moral and cultural shift needs to go beyond each other to expand even further—to mending our relationship to all of the other living beings on this planet with whose lives we are inextricably linked, including the earth itself. We need to protect all of life for all of us to survive and thrive, and humans are only one species.
3
People will do what is in their nature. It is very hard to overcome the self preservation and self interest we are born with.
It is the role of the government to supply and support all deserving individuals who fall on hard times. Charity should not be material but spiritual.
I stated the word “ deserving “ because it is also in the nature or many people to do the least they can get away with. Cuba,North Korea, Venezuela are the example of that. Countries not working hard enough, because getting equal pay and services anyhow will do that. Weaving will not change that.
1
Seems like only yesterday we had a presidential candidate with a similar message, something about 'it takes a village . . .'
Legend has it that this candidate's message was so popular that she won her election by a wide margin, but had her victory taken away from her via some bureaucratic machination instituted in the name of 'fairness'.
In 1962 Pete Seeger's folk group, The Weavers, were banned from an appearance on the Jack Paar Show for refusing to sign a loyalty oath. And we just kept on pushing.
I believe the vast majority of Americans get this message. We are not all Michael Flynn, so base that we would abuse the trust of the American people by surreptitiously attempting to sell nuclear secrets to Saudi Arabia without going through proper channel.
We cannot afford to take one eye off that small minority who lust for false power. They are few, but they are dangerous in their genius at being self-serving. But we must keep the other eye on our brother, and when ever we can, must lend him a hand.
12
"These different kinds of pain share a common thread: our lack of healthy connection to each other, our inability to see the full dignity of each other, and the resulting culture of fear, distrust, tribalism, shaming and strife."
I really hope that one day, Mr. Brooks will understand that he can go one level deeper in this analysis. He believes, wrongly--though not by any fault of his own--that this cultural malaise is the disease itself. But it is not. This cultural malaise is a byproduct of the system that he so touts as perfection: Capitalism. Marx predicted this 150 years ago. Capitalism causes alienation. Alienation from production (ownership of the thing created). Alienation from fellow workers (community).
Please, David... please, take it one step further. You could be a great ally in creating the world we so desperately need to create. You are so close. You have identified the symptoms--and they are horrible. But you have confused the symptoms for the disease.
11
The people who feel most connected to their community and are the most trusting of other groups are by and large those who are members of religious communities. Church goers voted for Hilary and moderate republicans in the 2016 primaries. Those who do not attend services voted for the "outsider" "burn it all to the ground" candidates of Trump and Sanders. The media likes to rip on religious people because of the conservative views of some denominations, but being a part of a community with people of all ages, abilities, etc fosters compassion.
3
@E B,
Could you cite a source for the "Church goers voted for Hilary" assertion?
Absent data, many might suppose that "Church goers" voted for Trump.
3
@Michael
I'm just talking about the primary votes. I can't find the source I had read previously linking church attendance to Clinton vs Sanders support, but if you look at a map of which states she won in the primaries it matches very well with the states that have the highest church attendance. Also a January 2016 Pew poll showed 51% of non-religious people favoring Sanders compared with 42% favoring Clinton.
Pew conducted a research survey from December 2015 through April 2016 and found that 66% of weekly church goers did not support Trump while 15% were steady supporters. For people who rarely attended 50% did not support Trump while 28% were steady supporters.
The logic of it makes sense, people who are engaged in their communities and trust in institutions are more likely to support establishment candidates who have the support of a broad swatch of society and are proposing incremental change. People like Clinton and Kasich. Angry, disconnected (mostly white men) voters went with the "outsiders" of Trump and Sanders.
@E B
"Those who do not attend services voted for the "outsider" "burn it all to the ground" candidates of Trump..."
Trump voters don't attend services? Did you read that somewhere, or are you just making things up to support your claim?
Anyway, it's false - 80+ percent of Evangelicals voted for Trump.
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/how-religion-got-trump
Being "part of a religious community...fosters compassion"? Guess it depends on how you define compassion. Compassion for those in your community, or compassion for those outside it? Compassion as a feeling you have, or compassion in votes that help or hurt the poor and powerless.
3
One of my favorite films is "The Searchers" directed by John Ford. Ethan Edwards, the protagonist, arrives at his brother's ranch in west Texas alone 3 years after the Civil War ended. He is an individualist. He is on the outside of the communities of ranchers, Texas Rangers and Comanches. At the end of the film, he rides off alone. The others still have their communities and he has nothing. Even in one of the mythic films of the rugged individualist and the American West, the community and the warmth of the hearth counts and the rugged individual has nothing. Why we celebrate these misanthropes is beyond me.
2
Large corporations have to be part of the weaving or the weaving will fail. Moving a factory somewhere else is a tear in the weaving, which will have to be mended somehow by someone. It benefits corporations to pretend to be part of the weaving and to devote some resources to this pretense, because it obscures their real goals.
The tears in the social fabric of communities from factories and good jobs moving and not being replaced are part of what got us Trump, who sold himself as a master weaver. Unless corporations, all corporations, are induced to be part of building the social fabric, they will continue to tear it. A corporate ethos used to do this to an extent, but that ethos is gone for many, wiped out by shareholder value. Unions used to do this. Governments used to do this, with high taxes and regulations.
A large and destructive sort of social isolation is to be isolated from work, from earning a living. Mr. Brooks avoids dealing with it. The social isolation caused when a town's main factory closes up is shared by all the newly unemployed and will quickly damage the rest of their social fabric. The tear is not mended by charity, which only makes it more bearable.
Corporations by their very nature resist being woven into communities. Mr. Brooks has no answer to this -- except to hide from the problem and frame his thinking so it cannot be spoken. He deeply outrages those who are seeking real answers, while his fellow hiders value his insights.
17
I'm not so sure this is a moral problem; it seems more like an emotional intelligence problem to me. Many people wouldn't know how to do this "weaving" if they tried. Some, like me, are just introverts, and while we may be very much "there" for those close to us, the idea of reaching out to total strangers is panic inducing. Others have grown up in a bubble of technology and have difficulty talking to people face to face at all (I see this all the time in the students I deal with). Connection and relationship skills are learned at home. It begins there, so to me the most bang for the buck might well be to concentrate on parenting skills classes.
4
If people took the sayings "There but for the grace of God go you or I" and "Walk a mile in my shoes" to heart, much would change. Our society has been on the "individualist" track since the pilgrims decided this land belonged to them and not the Native Americans. As a young country we have much to learn. When will we look to older established cultures and realize they have much to teach us.
4
@sg
Thanks. This is super inspiring and good luck with WEAVE.
Perhaps one could say, "Don't LEAVE, WEAVE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note a 2 minute YouTube video from Emirates, UAE:
"Give in to Giving" (I suggest playing , over and over, again)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZAz4NCUPck&t=4s
Thanks, so much. You inspire me to give and to receive.
Often, the greater gift is the ability to receive and thank.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
@sg it is not a United States issue. It is a global issue:
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/individualistic-practices-and-values-increasing-around-the-world.html
David Brooks makes some sound comments. as a liberal I see the moral snobbish of we liberals. we seem to think everything can be resolved by a political solution. however being caring and open hearted will not solve economic and political systems that make wealth disparity and hopelessness worse. by only emphasizing political solutions or by only emphasizing compassionate local solutions, we delude ourselves. both are needed. I am confused that someone as intelligent and seemingly sensitive as Brooks cannot do both.
5
Let's expand social security so Weavers can devote more time to volunteering in their communities.
11
I don't know how you tackle the problem without acknowledging truth and understand your obligations for reconciliation.
I saw the moral case the conservatives used to justify the unjustifiable not only GOP populists who used privilege as a basis to tear the country apart but Democratic neoliberals like Bill Clinton who learned from the GOP that because the omnipresent cacophony of America life an attention span of a picosecond leaves America open to all sorts of lies and propaganda.
For those that don't know Chicago, Englewood is separated from the University of Chicago by Cottage Grove which is not the widest blvd in America but its east sidewalk is light years from a great University sometimes known as Nerdistan.
When Nerdistan talks the world listens but even as communities like Englewood talk in plain simple English and Englewood has its fair share of people with wisdom and understanding the mavens of world economics, medicine, law, philosophy and theology don't know how to listen and understand what is being said as they they spend their time trying to let the world know that it is from God's mouth to their ears that the words to make this an ever greater planet are communicated.
I remember when the Weavers were forced into exile because they had the audacity to suggest the world would be great when we shared our knowledge of a common humanity when to do so was so UnAmerican.
4
It's not the pain or what causes it, it's the lack of resiliency skills. People lean on others because they don't have resources within themselves. In children this is normal. For adults to continue the dependency becomes a crutch, and those who would rule us like us on crutches. Ideally we consciously develop enough resourcefulness to not need others. And then we come back from that Nirvana of independence not because we need others but because they need us.
@Robert David South Unfortunately, what you say is not supported by any research. Those who live embedded social lives are healthier and live longer. Communities with healthy civic organizations and widespread interconnections have less crime and more content individuals. Your comments are not only purely ideological but run counter to evidence.
4
@Robert David South
I agree with Tracy. We know from Mediterranean (e.g., Italian) families that people who live in homes with multiple generations are healthier and live longer.
3
I fail to see why many of the comments are political in nature. Those on the left and the right are missing the point.
We weavers are equal opportunity connectors. When we are having coffee or a beer with you, listening to your concerns, we are hearing you and not judging and you feel it. We are the people holding your hand when you are alone in your hospital bed. We are the ones you are thinking about who might be a designated guardian for your children, who lift up the homeless, who don't care what your political leanings are. Think about it. We may have offered to take in your kids should the need arise. We are the community builders. We are nearby. Please think about it.
10
"We’re living with the excesses of 60 years of hyperindividualism."
True. But hyper-individualism is not an independent variable. It is not some kind of evil spirit that possesses and obsesses us, like the demon in "The Exorcist." Hyper-individualism is a survival mechanism made necessary by predatory capitalism. When Saint Ronnie declared "It's morning in America" way back in the '80s, it was the beginning of a long, dark night for many if not most Americans. All of our lives have been deeply impacted by "creative destruction" and corporate greed.
Not to understand that is not to understand why Trump is now the 45th president of the United States. It's ridiculous to condemn Trump without realizing the factors that have brought him to power.
39
@Donald Seekins -
"Hyper-individualism is a survival mechanism made necessary by predatory capitalism."
I was composing a comment in my head when I read your post, and this single sentence encapsulates my thoughts perfectly.
Funny how people like Brooks call for a communitarian culture until it comes to economic issues, which he mentions not once as far as can see. As long as "weavers" have to selflessly take an economic hit for their good work, and still have to compete with higher earning "rippers" for vital resources like housing, what can you possibly expect the trend to be?
14
I always enjoy reading Mr. Books and was intrigued when he stated:" we're living with the excesses of 60 years of hyper individualism". Hyper individualism sure sounds like the mantra of the conservative Republican party over the last 60 years. What comes to mind is the Reagan era slogan: pull yourself up by your bootstraps in contrast to Kennedy's "ask not what your country can. . ." Form the conservative side, it sure sounds like its always been up to the individual to just take care of themselves (get a job, work hard, get an education pull yourself out of poverty and dont rely on anyone else(government) to help you reach your dreams and goals as that's the only way you'll ever get ahead in a capitalistic society . . . maybe its the Republicans and many of the conservatives, in general, who have embraced the philosophy of selfishness that inhibits the ideals of the weavers in improving the moral climate of all of us.
27
@Kenneth Tabish: Exactly. Many conservatives (Paul Ryan, for instance) really like Ayn Rand.
5
If we're going to be telling everybody how to behave, and get over hyperindividualism, here's another suggestion: people should stop changing the subject and turning the expression of genuine political disagreement with their views into a matter of personal insult directed at them individually. Maybe the rest of us should be doing what Brooks suggests, and let the "What are you looking at?" type of people set the terms of public discussion; or maybe we could actually suggest they accept some responsibility too, to base their interactions on reason and self-possession, and not their clenched-fist instinct to make everything about them personally.
3
I know many of these weavers. They carry the others as long as they can until it starts to feel burdensome-because it is. There is no time or peace left for themselves. And then they develop feelings of shame and guilt that they have come to view as burdensome something or someone they truly love and cherish and want to help. 'How have I become so selfish and cynical, become just like everyone else?' they think to themselves? And this cycles. They either eventually break away to save themselves or slowly grind down. Self sacrifice is by definition unsustainable because eventually you run out of self. It cannot be a substitute for a system of national government.
13
@Erin B
You make good observations, but I disagree with you on the "burnout' part. I'm one of those weavers and when I get burned out, I go to the beach for a few days and vegetate. It is very regenerative. By nature, I have a huge supportive social network, so this is never lacking for me. Instead, I find isolation and walking/running by the sea for just a few days to be fully regenerative.
2
@Mike: Yes, but some weavers are lower-pay social workers or personal caregivers who can't afford rejuvenating trips. Even relatively inexpensive ones to the coast for a few days is out of reach for many people. I think it's true that many people are burnt out by the (legitimate) needs of others.
7
I can get close to a few individuals of my choosing but that's it. The idea of being "woven into a social fabric" gives me the willies. I'm a died-in-the-wool introvert. Heard of it? Not everyone wants to be connected in a million mostly-superficial directions. There is room in the world for us quiet loners, too. We're not hurting anyone!
14
@Trilby Sure, not everybody is a people person, but I don't think Brooks is saying we have to become party animals, or extroverted -- being compassionate and nice when you do have an interaction with a stranger is already better than how many people treat each other these days!
14
Pow! This article appeared in my brief this a.m. after a church meeting last night where one of the leaders said she wanted to start 'Shepherding" groups--def a kind of weaving. People caring about people, taking the time to check in, to listen and to meet needs. Church/life is about so much more that 'showing up', esp in this culture. The richness and the relationships we seek require us to take risks, and to risk genuinely caring for each other. We bemoan the lack of community because we have given up our ability, or perhaps forgotten how to create, community. People point to empty pews and talk about the decline in church attendance, and then are fearful to invite others to fill those seats, to become part of the family. My greatest concern as a minister is how to foster genuine relationship between people, and certainly with the God who (I believe) created us to do exactly that--form radical relationships with each other rooted in radical, sometimes unreasonable, and even impossible, love. I'm sending this article to our head Shepherd so she knows how essential her idea is, not just for our church, but for our whole upstate community.
5
"Honesty" seems like an old-fashioned and out-of-date concept but where is it honored in these times? Not in any interview or debate I hear. Advocacy without candor and honesty is not honorable. Nothing can get better until people can make an honest effort to understand the essence of the arguments of opposing views. Honor facts in context and stop giving weight to opinion and beliefs unless they have a basis in facts and information from a credible source.
Media should start promoting logical thinking and point out logical fallacies where they find them.
1
A very much needed, human spirit-touching column.Thank you.Some additional considerations. To become sensitive to and wary of the "either/or" semantic trap. Reality, however defined and experienced, is about ranges. Continua. Reality's dimensions represent types, levels, and qualities. We can choose to focus on what is suitable for our own identity, self-created as well as added onto by others, interacting with our behaviors; given who we are. Who we are not and may never be. As well as, in the future, who we may yet become, given all of life's unexpecteds! Which includes opportunities for change-making. Our enabled NOW culture makes it all too easy to overlook that changes, temporary or more permanent ones, are most often incremental. If at first what we choose to do, in order to make a difference which makes a difference, is not achieved, for known, unknown or unknowable reasons, we can embrace the labeled-experienced "failure," as a gift. An opportunity to "fail better" the next time.The time after. "Failure blindness" is a barrier to choosing to begin.Taking the first step, in our WE-THEY daily, violating culture.As is willful blindness about what is which should never exist; willful deafness to the experienced, existential pains of others, including of those already muted; willful ignorance about valid facts. in a culture drowning in numbers amidst increasing innumeracy, descriptions are presented as adequate explanations, and knowing passes for understanding. Weave on!
2
Healing and healthy living needs healthy relationships . It needs people to connect .
I have lived in a few apartment complexes and was amazed at the total lack of connection that defines American life now as opposed to what I knew from around 20 yrs ago. Which was likely nothing compared to local networks from 50 years ago.
The tribalism that our completely selfish politicians have built up is just devastating to building healthy local communities —— but without the local community and the help that it can provide individuals start to disintegrate.
And I mean that literally - all folks should spend a week in your local ER to see the results of this disintegration- the addicts , the abuse , the overdoses , the frail elderly who are abandoned , the little ones leading horrible lives .... the list goes on and on.
A friends wedding 10 years back in West Virginia where the local church took care of all the needs of the day showed me what can be done by a community - I believe the cost to the couple was just around a 1000 dollars as the venue and food was all taken care of by their Community .
The elderly are dying from lack of friendships and compassion . Our youth would not be depressed and addicted to everything under the sun if all the 30 something’s were out mentoring them.
The entire opioid addiction crisis reflects a lack of social structure and the curse of the 2 income Trap and abundant single parenthood that defines life now.
We can change .
4
I agree with Mr. Brooks on the need for the Weavers in our communities. But there is more to the story.
Our Government is responsible to make sure that everyone here has equal treatment within the The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Tax Code. Government has the responsibility to all of its citizens, not to just the wealthy and Corporations.
Since Regan was elected the Government's responsibilities of serving All of the People has gone down hill. The only President since Regan who embraced the fact that the playing level needs to be the Government's responsibility was a Community Organizer named Obama.
And his attempts were thwarted by Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and Paul Ryan, as well as the GOP and the entire Republican Congress. Yet despite that Obama was able to get some very important work done. ACA, DACA and the Justice Department's renewed efforts to make sure that the mission of the Department was Justice for All and the restoration of our reputation with the rest of the World Leaders and countries.
Because of the Trump Administration, McConnell and his Senate (obviously not ours), and the Republicans in the House we have not only lost world standing but the belief that in America we do right by those who have been wronged or had the bad luck to be born into poverty. It is hard to pick yourself up by the bootstraps when you don't have any boots.
Brooks is one of the lucky ones. He had bootstraps to begin with.
25
Mr. Brooks states that we have come to the point where our communities are falling apart because of our celebrated American individualism but that isn't even half the story. The country has essentially lived under Republican policies since the early 80s. The common good for the average middle-class American has been replaced with "what is good for the investor class is the common good". Rich people don't want community, they want lawyers who will sue the community when they don't get what they want. Since the 1970s, according to the Harvard Business Review, wages have stagnated, increasing far less than 1% a year (0.2%). Meanwhile, the cost of health care and education have skyrocketed. How many people can realistically be Weavers? The middle class is exhausted and the Republican party's response is to give tax cuts to the rich. The GOP attacks and demonizes immigrants as the reason for the decline in wages and the middle class. Address these issues Mr. Brooks and if you are really serious, you should leave the Republican party. Republicans like you, are living under a fantasy that the GOP is the "party of Lincoln". Lincoln would disagree. Do the nation a favor and form another viable political party. Our communities will thank you.
32
@Michelle Thank you, Michelle! Your comments about Brooks' latest 'can't we all just be friends' essay is right on the money. And I do mean money.
Perhaps Brooks has exhausted his depository of negative adjectives and adverbs about Trump, but still can't allow himself to apply such accurate terminology to the factual record of Republican Leaders' decades-long embrace and promotion of rich against poor and corporation against worker.
Trump is the poster-child of those Republican values. Brooks just can't bring himself to print that truth.
2
If politics is not in the mix people are generally pretty great with each other. I made it a point at my gym to become friends with a Trump supporter, oil company worker, who carries a gun. I'm against all three. He's adorable: great sense of humor, great at teasing me. He's from the South and carries a palpable sense of respect for all, and also a palpable sense that he'll defend Trump, guns and oil refineries. So where are he and I? It is much better than if I had chosen to dislike him. But the gut wrenching reality is he'll vote for Trump which just makes me cry. He'll pack a gun which breaks my heart. And as a partially retired worker he'll go into his job at the oil refinery which pollutes our already filthy air here in the Salt Lake Valley. Do I just weap?
7
Remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Basic biological deeds come first, then safety, and only then do we get to love and relationships. Of course it's not entirely that simple. Relationships can contribute to achieving biological and safety needs.
But being hungry, frightened, unemployed, homeless, or very sick makes it very hard to participate in the community. Desperation forces us to turn inwards and focus on ourselves and our immediate families. That's where an effective social safety net comes in; first must come food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and secure employment at a wage that pays the bills. One doesn't have to be totally secure and sitting pretty to connect and contribute at least something, but it makes it a heck of a lot easier.
15
This is all true, but there are many lonely people whose basic needs are being met. I don’t think that the author is making an argument for this being a substitute for the material help so many need (at least, not in the context of this article). We all know that if a baby gets adequate food and shelter but is not held and soothed they can die from failure to thrive. Meals on Wheels is not just food but a person who shows up with food regularly, and the person is an important component of that assistance. It’s not either/or, and if Brooks weren’t a conservative I don’t think people would be so quick to demand that he solve both problems with one editorial.
2
@writeon1 " ...secure employment at a wage that pays the bills."...thank you...one may be employed full time and not afford a one or two bedroom apartment and car payments/repairs/insurance at the same time (not to mention food, health care and other necessities)...
1
@writeon1
If I were you, I'd forget Maslow. Most of us who see how patronizing his conclusions are, and how half baked as well. The unintended implication of his thought and even your extrapolation from it is this: Folks who are well off, care more and love better than those who are poor and disenfranchised. Turn that upside down. Works at least as well.
1
It's not every day I post, "Yep, totally agree" with a conservative columnist.
But this editorial matches my experience. After the 2016 election, I went deep within, and what I found disturbed me. I and my progressive friends had gone over-the-top, aided by social media. We had become scornful, prejudiced haters, and we were partly to blame for the election.
So began the halting, difficult path toward change. It started at home: my thoughts and actions and, especially, my (sneering, smartypants) speech. I had already left my liberal bubble city; next I needed to leave my Facebook feed.
I began talking more with people who come from different religious and political backgrounds. Honestly, I still disagree most of the time, but somehow my brain and heart have cracked open a bit.
My media consumption had to change. Goodbye, social media—all of it. I broke up with the 24/7 news cycle and the Outrage Machine it supports.
This opened space for healing & helping. I began writing for local newspapers. Volunteering with local orgs & schools. Chit-chatting with tellers instead of using bank apps; shopping local more.
Helping save a local farmers market. Spending more time in nature. Helping kids do the same.
Now I'm partnering with a children's camp to promote positive values (kidmadecamp.com) and get kids interested in journalism, creativity, sustainability, & ethical entrepreneurship.
I guess that's being a "weaver"? For me it's been magical.
18
If you want to find everyday weavers who "walk the walk," attend a few AA meetings. There you'll see people who have hit bottom -- and even more people who have been through that and keep coming back to help those in dire need.
It works.
6
Mr. Brooks - I agree with your diagnosis.
But your prescription is inadequate.
In the past, moral missteps have been ameliorated only by codifying changes in our political system, economic system, or justice system (emancipation, civil rights act, suffrage, etc.). That's what we need to do now, too. But I'm not creative enough to imagine specifically what changes to laws, economic incentives, tax codes, etc. would be required to make major progress from individualism towards relationism.
When you feel inspired, please put some thought into how, specifically, you think this might be achieved.
5
Someday David Brooks should write about Fox News and its effect on attempts to weave a better society. Its mission since the mid-90s is to paint Democrats as misguided at best and evil at worst. Senator McCaskill said wherever she campaigned in Missouri last year Fox News was on TV spinning its negativity. The result is a culture of "fear, distrust, tribalism, shaming and strife" where nothing Democrats do is good, compromise is a dirty word, and climate change is a hoax (70% of its coverage is given to climate denialists.) Mr. Brooks downplays the role politics should play in our daily life, but politics is paramount; it is through laws that we "create a shared moral ecology."
Currently, laws protect the powerful so much that weavers can make change only at the margins. Take carbon pollution. Weavers might insulate their neighbors' windows but without a global treaty and outlawing dangerous pollution this planet will warm beyond 2 degrees C, warmer than the climate within which civilization evolved. But Mr. Brooks is apoplectic at the thought that people might band together and pass a Green New Deal to limit carbon pollution. He is only comfortable with centralized corporate power and centralized media power dictating the punitive terms of our lives; he's not really into the power of weavers to band together and make a difference for all people.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/23/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism
21
Republican politicians have repeatedly shredded the social fabric to get elected and then proceeded to rend it further to stay in office. Nixon and Reagan did this with the southern strategy, which has since become the cornerstone for building, maintaining and activating a white GOP majority that focuses on tribal identity and excluding blacks, hispanics and other minorities from the full benefits of American citizenship as well as rolling back women's rights to abortion and birth control. Many of us grew up believing conservatism was the practice of identifying and holding onto the best of what formed us and held us together as we embraced a partnership with the progressives who brought the new that necessarily changed us and moved us forward. That partnership is thoroughly broken. I cannot and will not weave hatred into my community. I cannot and will not weave anti-science climate denial into my community. I cannot and will not weave misogyny, racism and xenophobia into my community. If you want to weave community with me, come and work with me to repair the breach that slavery and racism and misogyny created in our community, come and work with me to repair the breach that xenophobia and hatred of brown bodied immigrants has ripped through our community, come and work with me to repair the breach that white male privilege and the enduring poverty of America's outcasts has ripped through our community. Otherwise just stay away.
33
This column is a fine example of why I read David Brooks. It's why I'll continue to do so. Thank you, Mr. Brooks.
12
This is the first piece of hope. Thank you, David Brooks.
6
Sweet sentiments. Our political discourse however reveals the moral rot you speak against. Immigrants, non-white people, and liberals are seen by so many on the far right (and not so far) as being personifications of evil.
Just this week the attack on socialism, to wild cheers served up another dose of 'me first.' Barely understanding what the term means, the President found another whistle to blow in order to summon his base to his side.
David Brooks will never find credibility until he sees rot in his side of the political isle. He hasn't seen it yet.
12
Yes, we have a moral problem - stemming from a national religion that has become evermore idolatrous, and lacking of true meaning.
I am a Christian by upbringing - formerly devout, but then I put away childish things. Now I pursue the Buddha - and how very much more sophisticated Buddhism is.
American Christianity has largely deteriorated into a nearly fascist militant nationalism. White American Christians, in my lifetime, have been, in their majority, supporters of the party of war, incarceration, environmental destruction, and the blaming of the poor for their poverty. They claim Christ but have no bother to follow the Christ. Instead, armed with self-righteousness, they point their boney fingers to send people to jail like no other country, or to bomb like no other country, or to deny global warming and pray for armageddon.
Putrefied Christianity is, I believe, a fundamental problem in the U.S. It is up to the shepherds of these flocks to examine their own souls. Burn the Bible. It is NOT the literal "Word of God". Just isn't. Seek, instead, the Living Loving Lord.
11
Aristotle or Rousseau?
The former might say we spend life building towards an authentic self by a lifelong process of learning. The latter might say we are born 'who we are' and spend life trying to tear down social constraints that take away from it.
Maybe we need to update that old idea from philosophy class, and-- as Mr. Brooks suggests-- talk to one another and listen.
For example, I'm probably arrogant. I have a tendency to dismiss or make fun of quotes from social media.
"i think u R totally,,, 110% wrong!!!! u need 2 wake up......"
I consider myself enlightened and educated. I'm not supposed to jump to conclusions or buy into stereotypes! Yet how often do I reflexively dismiss such comments as mindless or stupid?
Maybe I should stop looking down my nose at emoticons, poor grammar, and made up punctuation. Maybe those on social media could put away the smartphones and talk to someone face to face.
Definitely agree: the more we talk to one another, the better our chances at finding out what we have in common. If we're going to heal the divisions in our country, seems a good place to start.
Only if we listen with an open mind though. If we just pretend to listen while thinking of what we will say next-- our passionate "red" or "blue" replies-- I can't see how that would help. Bitter partisan politics might be a symptom of deeper societal problems, not the cause.
5
My ask of Mr Brooks is that he own up to his own complicity in our current starts of affairs. For 16 years as a Times contributor, he has used his column to promote false equivalency,
minimize the conservative demonization of anyone Not Like Them, mock liberalism, turn a blind eye to racism, and encourage the cynicism he nominally decries. His Olympian pronouncements from the “sociological beat” have become more than a little tiresome.
13
@Paul
Perhaps David Brooks is doing a little something we call ... "learning."
And if so, it would indeed be nice to read a column in which he thoughtfully takes on his own role in the current mess.
1
@Grassfed Beef Definitely a nicer way of putting it!
Good grief! Why is everyone piling on David Brooks. He expresses his impatience and frustration with politicians. The many things he is charged with not doing are beyond his control.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge emerged from his dark night of the soul with the understanding that he--and all humans--need to "do the work at hand." He meant what David is saying, i.e., do what you can within the scope of your abilities and relationships to create meaning in your life.
His idea of asserting a 'declaration of interdependence' is a strategy to avoid the objectification of "the other" that Martin Buber wrote of. Buber and Victor Frankel were tying to understand how the objectification of others led to the Nazi concentration camps. They pinpoint the fracture in the social order as being the result of NOT seeing and understanding humans as they are but turning them into "its" that can be used, restricted, and, ultimately exterminated.
Clearly, the posts thus far make clear that people are M-A-D, as they should be. David is simply lighting a way for turning anger into actions that anyone can take.
11
Weavers? You mean, in many cases, like Community Organizers? Like Obama was early in his career? That function he fulfilled for which so many have maligned him?
19
480,000 people die from cigarette smoking every year.
88,000 die from alcoholism.
47,000 Americans kill themselves every year
72,000 more die from drug addiction
13,286 die from guns in non-suicides
It looks to me like we should be worrying more about cigarettes and alcohol than drug addictions, suicides, and guns. Why do we keep ignoring the smoking and alcohol deaths? Follow the money...
1
@Dianne Friedman this comment is not only off-topic, but also extremely misleading. It's just the kind of confrontational and heated, extremist discussion that Brooks is lamenting.
Just to point out some of the issues with what you posted: the people dying of causes related to smoking do so many, many years later. While smoking "kills", it does so slowly. Also, much has been done in recent years to fight tobacco companies and educate people on the dangers of smoking, and banning smoking in public. A lot of progress has been made.
On the other hand, suicides and drug overdoses happen suddenly, mostly to young people with their whole lives ahead of them, and tear communities apart. The problem is escalating and there is no solution in sight -- it will only get worse.
Comparing these to the smoking deaths doesn't any make sense, and is not constructive.
There is something awfully suspicious when Conservatives like David write about the obvious and pretend that somehow just because they discovered compassion it does not already exist. A renaissance really ? A lazy thought indeed. FYI Ordinary people have been and will continue through their heroic and mundane actions keeping communities together . Also, notice how he deftly weaves in a plug for his project at Aspen Institute. Aha..
8
@Scott Whenever a conservative discovers compassion, it's a good thing. Why tear it down?
And whenever a liberal discovers that they don't have a monopoly on compassion? Also a good thing.
1
David thanks for writing about acts of mercy.
6
I keep asking the same question whenever I manage to get through a Brooks article. What country is he referring to and what is there history? Because here, in the United States, David Brooks and his GOP have done every thing they can to destroy the fabric of society. Why doesn't he write about that?
9
As a long time builder of “weaving” organizations- the All Stars Project, the East Side Institute, and the biannual Performing the World Conference - I was thrilled and touched to read this piece.
Moral development is critical for human development, as is radical acceptance of ourselves and others. Building bridges across borders and across the partisan divide is urgently necessary if we are to survive.
I applaud your efforts and embrace the many, many people doing good work to ensure a future for our species (and all living creatures).
The current hyper-partisan rhetoric and ideology tries mightily hard to pull us apart but we are all human beings with the same essential wants and needs.
4
So, in other words, David: It takes a village.
222
@James Tallant
So, in other words, James: Life is simple and all we need is a slogan. I am afraid I didn't read HR Clinton's book (though I respect her and voted for her) but I did read a book called "The Joys of Motherhood" about a woman who moves from the village to the city (Lagos, Nigeria).
In the village everyone knows your place and you are not leaving it. Your place depends on what your grandfather did, where your family fit into the village. It ain't a democracy. You do not fall in love with a boy from another tribe. Your family will kill him. Just ask Isis. "Romeo and Juliet" is about villages. Should you be a slave because your family was, for generations?
We need to look at "villages" as they actually were/are. They weren't all peaches and cream. And they certainly are not simple.
2
Brooks uses the nation's response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 as a historical parallel of how we could and should act in these trouble times. But is it apt? What if, instead,he used the bombing of Fort Sumter in 1861 as the parallel? Would he still write about "weaving" the society together? Would he be so understanding of the small business owner who "silently clinches his fist in rage" as guests at a dinner party disparage his white supremacist, homophobic views. Would he be so sympathetic to the coal executive who is frustrated that he is ridiculed for his self-serving climate change denial? No, Mr. Brooks the issue now is not one of weaving, but deciding which side are you on? Are you for or against slavery?
10
The comparison is extremely flawed and unhelpful, because 1861 and the injustice of slavery is nothing like the political situation and inequality today - not even on the same chart.
However, while back then taking a stand was important, there is no question in my mind that it would have been better to de-escalate tension in 1861 and avoid the civil war and its 620,000 dead (2 percent of the population of the US at the time -- today, 2% of the population is around 6 million), and find a way to end slavery by non-violent means -- something like the civil rights movement in the 1960s. I'm not sure if that would have been possible.
@gus I think you missed the point, Gus. Mr. Brooks introduced the rhetorical device of using an all-or-nothing historical reference to try to change the condition of the debate; I was just correcting that.
The Civil Rights movement, as laudable as it was and is, didn't require an in-or-out position for most people. One could sympathize with the demands for civil rights without having to ride a freedom bus.
And there were no time strictures. If you wanted to guarantee people the right to vote, you could wait 20, 30, or as we are now approaching, 40 years
However, if you look at what the world faces in terms of global climate change and the obstruction of any response to it by Brook's allies, I would argue we don't have that time. We need to work out a strategy and act on it now.
Thus the 1861 analogy is much more apt than the 1961 one. And may I remind you that it was the South that fired on Fort Sumter, not the North.
When you're born with rose-colored glasses permanently installed over your eyes, it's hard to see reality in real time.
Mr. Brooks has suddenly become impatient with politicians, they're so self-absorbed, selfish, and motivated by money, power and status. Who woulda thought?
Brooks should notice that these politicians are mostly GOP, older, white men for whom the poor, women and minorities are either invisible or objects of scorn.
Most Americans are just the detritus of a savage capitalism, victims of a government which idolizes and propagandizes individualism, which means that you're on your own and if you aren't rich, well-connected, white and preferably male, you won't get very far.
If you're sick, just go away and die because healthcare is a profit-making industry. Any argument for universal healthcare is branded falsely as totalitarian socialism by GOP politicians who won't raise the minimum wage but give trillions to the rich, and who lie, cheat, steal and shut down government to remain in power.
Why has Brooks never noticed his own party looting his country?
I guess if you can't do something, and don't know a lot first hand, you can give speeches a couple times a week to people who already do know. Those are the people caught up in the evils brought by bad government and no regulation that the GOP has inflicted on all of us.
10
OK, we get it, the situation in our country is very bad. Now tell us what the government's role should be in fixing it.
@Grandpa Bob
I think his point is that we should not look to government to have a role here. We should look to ourselves.
4
@Grandpa Bob I think David Brooks' point is that it needs to be a grass-roots change!
As a progressive Democrat, I find it fascinating that many liberal readers of Brooks' columns in these pages vilify him constantly and consistently. These self-righteous liberals are as bad as the Republicans they love to excoriate.
Here's an idea for my fellow liberals: live your creed. Open your hearts and minds to people whose worldview is different from yours. You do NOT have a lock on the truth. A little less snark and a little more humility would be both welcome and salutary.
11
The greatest failure of the American Left has been its failure to create alternatives to the faith communities that offer lifelong cradle-to-grave mutual support to religious Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and other such groups. It's not for lack of trying, either. I've read about their efforts going back to the 19th century. To me, it shows that humanism is not enough.
4
How do you propose to bring along the millions of potential 'weavers' who mocked President Obama as a 'community organizer' beginning with the unrelenting snide taunts of the likes of Sarah Palin in 2018?
Those folks are still around and more energized than ever to reject the concept of mending our social fabric preferring instead to embrace the societal framework of their own self interests, fear of 'the other' and tribalism. Their beliefs are further incited and condoned by a shameless leader who stands for the polar opposite of community building?
Is there really any hope for the reparations of what has already been torn apart? It may only begin to be a successful widespread movement with the enlightenment of future generations. Realistically this may be our only hope to sew together the threads again.
1
The subtext: why do we need federal safety net programs, meager as they are, when communities can and should step up and provide for their own?
I guess we can't have both. But the federal government must direct more funding to the military.
"Ain't goin' to study war no more."
--Pete Seeger (of The Weavers)
5
@Puffin "The subtext: why do we need federal safety net programs..." You have seen through Brooks's weepy rhetoric, all the way through to the other side.
One thinks of Pope: "It is the slaver kills, and not the bite."
We have a method of "weaving" that is efficient, cost effective and does not rely on serendipity or hope: 'to provide for the general welfare", it's right in your revered constitution.
5
Nobody knows what’s best for everyone, or anyone, people don’t even know what’s best for themselves. If they did, they wouldn’t get fat, smoke, drive too fast, get drunk, fail tests. Almost nobody can sit in silence, be still, and surely can’t turn off the loop of thought running through their heads.
You want change, change yourself. Saying it's all the fault of bad government is like sending 'thoughts and prayers', a dodge to avoid doing anything personally.
4
It’s called living for the common good—not really an old idea. Ayn Rand’s philosophy which was embraced by just about every conservative changed everything. Selfishness was cool. Hedge fund dictates of making money regardless of the negative social consequences. Milton Friedman was another culprit in this change. Good to see Brooks leave his ivory tower to see how the other half lives. He is part of the problem and not part of the solution
5
@thomas Jordon David Brooks has been seeing for quite some time now.
Every clergy in America should make this a sermon.
As should every mayor, school board member and county commissioner, scout leader, high school coach, and police chief. Not as sermon, but as epilogue for addresses they make.
Start from the bottom up.
2
An important topic and you have defined the two key issues:
Issue 1: Social isolation and building community and weaving the social fabric
Issue 2: We don’t just have a sociological problem; we have a moral problem.
You seem to suggest that the solution is simply to solve issue 1 by “Renewal is building, relationship by relationship, community by community.” That will not suffice. Your quote of Charles Péguy provides the correct solution: “The revolution is moral or not at all.”
4
How do we take the success the Weavers are having on the local level and make it national? The answer is simple, David. Vote Democrat from now on.
4
AS mentioned by another commenter, Jimmy Carter builds houses and still teaches at Sunday school.
THAT was a president who could actually build a house. The one we now have couldn't even manage to open the door of a bus on that Access Hollywood video.
6
It was too bad that Jimmy Carter couldn’t be a good president. Sweaters, lights out and a malaise speech did not help.
"A silent Pearl Harbor"
Therein lies much of the problem: the silence. Brooks is right as far as he goes, but we need to take his vision a step further. Despite what it is currently fashionable to espouse, our country was more divided during the Viet Nam War than it is now. Yet, when America landed a man on the moon, the entire nation was thrilled, and all Americans were proud of our country. It was a positive "Pearl Harbor" or, to update the metaphor, a positive 9/11.
We currently have no such collective vision, a common enterprise visible and measurable in a visceral, not just in an abstract statistical, sense. Our culture now looks down, inward at little screens depicting alleged reality instead of upward and outward with vision. More time and energy is spent on (anti!)social media opinions reinforcing one's existing "certainties" and values than in contemplating and pursuing new challenges, than in questioning our assumptions and assumed limits.
In defining problems we have taken the easy, the lazy way out, reducing everything to a bumpersticker: Trump, illegal immigrants, white racism, sexual immorality, etc. How many of us actually know, how many of us actually speak with real people whose views are different, not their self-appointed or media anointed spokespersons? How many of us bother to contemplate and act on a vision where Brooks' weavers are more nuanced, more complex than labels, possibly capable of joining with us in creating a positive Pearl Harbor?
2
This is a beautiful essay, one which examines society’s pains and offers an important way to address them. Thus, it’s too profound to be thought of as a puff piece. And I congratulate—and thank—David for that.
Yet when he writes, “But it has also changed my moral lens. I’ve become so impatient with the politicians I cover! They are so self-absorbed!,” I truly can’t help but think of the conspicuous LACK of essays David has composed regarding our habitually lying and divisive Commander in Chief. What about all the pain that he is causing? Why hasn’t David turned his moral lens on him, and enlightened us about Trump’s behavior and its “resulting culture of fear, distrust, tribalism, shaming and strife”? I don’t ask these questions flippantly, but sincerely. Surely Trump’s moral (or immoral) example is worth your time, and our’s.
8
@Professor62 Perhaps he hasn't bothered to write those Op Eds because everyone else under the sun, and certainly everyone else at The Times, writes gazillions of 'em?
I hope David Brooks reads at least some of the most popular reader comments and then perhaps he would get some ideas as to which direction he pursues his characteristic evangelism. I personally believe his proselytizing helps not many but himself.
2
I work with Weavers every day. All the amazing nonprofits, people that make a living by giving -- of themselves. People that go out when it is 10 degrees, looking for the homeless to get them to shelter. People that sit and hold the hand of a parent when their child has been brought into the hospital after an overdose. People who spend their free time sorting donated food for the hungry. The Weavers aren't new, and now we need them more than ever.
5
We were a larger nation of weavers until the notions of anti-government and small government took hold in the Republican Party. This is the purest form of anti-Weavernism. Do not help citizens; ever. Anyone who needs help is a pariah and must be denigrated and demeanedcat all costs. The power of helping others is too threatening to fiscal malarkey. Billionaires know best. They need nothing; particularly government and cannot weave at all. Their skills are much more deadly. They have suceeded beyond their wildest dreams as the merchants of anti- weaving; sabotaging shared struggles as the center of weaving together prosperity and health for all.
6
Agree with the few who have noted that Weavers are everywhere and have been for a while, and are vastly underestimated/counted here. I think if you are a good person, you are inevitably a Weaver in some way. It's an instinct to take care of others, reach out, solve common problems, be civil/respectful, and listen - if you are a good person. I have lived in many diverse places - NYC, DC, Miami, NC, MA, CT (small towns and gritty cities), and have been among Weavers (and good people) everywhere. I always aim to be one myself. I am so tired of all the editorials (including those by DB) who put people in giant generalized buckets - all White people, all brown/black people, all educated "elite", all women, all single women, all men, all liberals, all millenials or baby boomers, all etc. - and bemoan the sins of those entire groups. There are so many of us in all of those groups that are unique, good people. Weave on!
9
@Jane Bond perhaps David Brooks is turning over a new leaf? In my experience it takes time. Trying to crumble the stereotypes and step away from the outrage machine isn't going to happen overnight (it's taken me 2.5 years and I feel like I'm still at the beginning).
Anyway, maybe he won't be writing so much labeling, generalizing stuff now that he's going through this weaving process.
Learning how to relate to the problems of others at advanced adult age may be more than a little late.
As a "war baby", I walked a mile and a half to school with a dozen or more neighbouring children from the age of 5.
And almost all the kids in the area got together to play "baseball" (slow pitch) at our local school yard almost every weekday evening in the summer from the age of 8 or 9 through to our early teens.
In short, we learned: to listen, to interact and to be sensitive to the concerns of our peers.
All that seems to have changed. Today, my mother would be scorned (or charged) for letting her children "free range" without appropriate adult supervision. Today, kids seem to spent a great deal of their time staring into a smart phone on the way to and from school rather than conversing.
So, when (and how)) do today's kids learn social skills and person to person interaction? [I don't mean how to post a "viral" photo or tweet as examples of "personal interaction".]
It seemed to me from reading the article that the "weavers" cited were mostly older people who had learned inter personal skills long ago and who could empathize. And the people with problems that needed help were mainly younger people.
In 10 or 20 years, where will the knowledge of interpersonal relationships necessary to become a "weaver" come from? Watching Youtube videos?
15
@formerpolitician The older people have to teach the younger people.
The older people also have to wrench the technology out of our own hands, and out of the hands of our children. The interpersonal skills required cannot come from phones, tablets, computers, and gaming consoles.
So if you aren't involved in your local community, schools, kids' organizations, mentorships? Get on out there and get the job done.
If you're one of the old people, you've got a job to do. Alas, we can't count on the kids' parents to magically accomplish all this by themselves. Many of them are overwhelmed, addicted, etc, too.
The truth is I am aging. The community we raised our kids in and they left for better paying jobs is helping. This community we commute from for decades and complained about endlessly is taking very good care of us. We just didn't have time to appreciate it during our work lives.
Think about this; we are on first name basis at the YMCA, yoga classes, basketball court, community swimming pool, coffee shop, bakery, fish market, community center, senior center, and the grocery store. The smiles and greetings are endless. Friendship is the healthiest habit in your senior years.
11
@concord63
As a senior citizen (or whatever euphemism is applicable these days), I envy you. You have the spunk and the spirit to get out; to go and do. Otherwise those first name relationships could never have developed.
Hence, my admiration arises from envy: a negative emotion turned positive.
2
@concord63
So, where exactly is it that you live?
Weavers vs. Rippers: With deep regret, my money is on the Rippers. Having lived in both rural and metropolitan areas, in the wired and wireless age, I find the rippers on the accent. During my rural years, my neighbors and I were interdependent, town council meetings were well attended anyone who chose to speak was heard, we were all aware of being citizens. In contrast Metro residents live for years not knowing their neighbors, unconcerned by local or city government, they live in semi-isolation, and anonymously. all this is exacerbated by computers and personal phones; we don't need anybody, we are self contained, there is little need to reach out, to help thy neighbor, to relate to others, we are self contained and self absorbed. Sorry Weavers, to my deep regret you are outnumbered.
5
@naha Harry great comment. As people move to more urban areas (the suburbs are castigated as environment killers and rural areas populations are maligned as enclaves of gun toting, uneducated, bible thumping, drug infested lunatics) the rippers will win. I like subdivision living, at least I know my neighbors! I was reared in a rural area, and we knew everyone.
Less so as the world becomes more urbanized.
@naha Harry Sounds like a cry for help. I hope you get out there and weave something in your own messed-up community. I'm trying to do that here in mine.
Are we outnumbered? Too bad. The resistance was outnumbered against the Nazis. Eventually, sanity won.
@naha Harry May I ask you on which side you see yourself? "Be the change you wish for."
Get the money out of politics and all else will heal. If Congress looks out for their constituents instead of the big donors they will vote in good conscience to solve many of these problems. While what you suggest is good and right, you are just distracting people from the root of many of the problems.
2
For years I have dismissed David Brooks as a mouthpiece for politicians I didn't like. I'd say this heartfelt oped atones for that.
I'd also say that many of the buts in the comments have solutions in the weaver. Too busy to weave? Ask someone to help you. The tree top may be rotted, but with a strong grassroots movement, we can replace those rotted treetops (politicians).
If anything good is to come out of this age, it will come because we work together. Because we ignore those who say "it can't be done". In many respects we have more tools and mentors than we've ever had. So we can be hopeful as long as we demand fairness for humanity and our earth.
3
Great article. I've always known how personal interactions are more important than almost anything in making my community stronger. It's important to be reminded.
6
@DLR Totally agree. For me it's been helpful to do little things like quit social media, and run errands in realtime, where I meet people who (gasp) aren't exactly like me. We chitchat in line at the bank. That sort of old-fashioned stuff. Very helpful!
It is all very well to be a weaver. I have spent years as a volunteer in a variety of ways to hopefully help make my community better. You are right that one on one is always best. Yet as others have pointed out, the grassroots can only do so much when the top of the tree is rotting.
We need to go beyond the philosophy and discussions that are the purview of the well to do and get our leaders to implement change for those who do not have the time or energy to discuss but need help to live a decent life.
9
I enjoyed reading your article today.
I think of myself as a Weaver Mr. Brooks. What I've learned is that first - I had to change me. I had to look at my own unconscious biases, beliefs, and limiting patterns of behavior and change. It was through this process that I started to understand what you're talking about. In many ways, it's a change of heart that's needed right now. The more each of us changes, we then have a beneficial social contagion affect on others. There's much research recently showing us that emotions and beliefs are exchanged in networks of human connectivity. Once this change of heart happens, we're more available to work together and to solve the complex issues facing our country. So I'm in. And I encourage others to find a way shift to more tolerance, balance, and genuine compassion for others too. It's worth the trip.
Thank you for the important work you're doing.
7
Who can really disagree with the advice in this article? It makes sense and we all should be doing this to some degree. BUT, as so many people in these comments have pointed out, most people are stretched to the limit and stressed out of their minds with money worries. Unless you are retired with a good income, or wealthy already, most cannot do what Mr. Brooks is suggesting- there is no energy left.
I believe we had this type of country before the vulture capitalists and the mega corporations swooped in to close all of the community main street businesses and factories by lowering wages, moving jobs overseas, etc for the almighty profit, which they will not share.
Remember the main streets with the hardware store, the shoe store, the deli, the cobbler, the dress shop and the tailor, the vegetable and fruit man, the butcher, the specialty bakers, etc, etc?? That is a community where people support each other and know each other. What about the rationing coupons during WWII and the Victory Gardens, and saving and reusing all sorts of stuff for the war effort. I don't want a war, but I want those values where people freely sacrificed for something other than themselves. What a country.
16
@Itsnotrocketscience, you are right. I'm old enough to remember those times. Society certainly wasn't perfect, but there was a growing recognition that social ills like racism and discrimination needed to be stopped, and here was definitely more of a "social fabric" in the sense that people looked out for each other more than they do now.
But slowly a certain political party and its philosophy of "You're on your own" took hold. Government---one of our most tangible forms of "we"---began to be depicted as The Enemy, and unregulated Capitalism and $$$ became our great, all-powerful god. When you live in a society with those values, the sense of your own individual lack of worth is palpable.
I do hope that those who now put forth the admirable ethos of The Weavers have abandoned the aforementioned political party and are now willing to embrace the concept of a government that WE empower to create an environment where ALL of us are able to be the best we can be. And yes, Mr. Brooks, I'm looking at you.
3
Interesting piece and of course we all long for a city where we an be supportive of each other and actually have time to do the activities associated with being a weaver. We just recently stood up to Amazon which was doing their best to destroy any type of life we were attempting to live.
If we had good corporate citizens we might be able to do all the things that need to be done to create a society that brings out the best in us on a daily basis instead of worrying that we are going to lose our jobs, pensions and medical care.
The Aspen Institute only cares about the elites anything they say is questionable for the average person. Look at the diversity at the Institute, whites only need to apply that tells a lot about who they are as an institution.
4
Thank you David Brooks from Mount Mansfield Villages (MMV), "weavers" in Vermont!
We are currently putting together a 'Village' of elders from 3 local communities who want to remain in our homes, live independently and remain connected to our communities
as we age.
Since this is a non-profit membership organization staffed by volunteers the MMV community itself crosses generational lines - thus inter-generational Weavers!
5
We need mandatory 1-2 years national service (military or other, so long as it is not a religious mission) between the ages of 18 and 26. I didn't have a choice about the military, but I never regretted my time, either. Perhaps that is why I found myself in retirement volunteering clearing trails in the forests and in a community college helping people with math. I've been given a great deal by this country, and I need to be giving back. The irony, of course, is that I seem to be getting more out of it than I'm giving.
7
I had a clarifying moment many years ago, when I was sitting in my office feeling a familiar kind of meaninglessness and restlessness, despite my busy life. I realized in that moment that the point of my life was to try to love better -- myself and every other person I encountered. That moment of clarity has served me well since then and has been supported by my understanding that that is what Jesus, and every other mature spiritual master, has advised us to do. While it was my encounter with the gospel message that enabled me to at least strive to "love my neighbor as myself" I am curious about the various influences that have enabled these weavers to see themselves in the other and look forward to hearing more on this from David Brooks.
8
Cities and towns have not fallen apart due to hyperindividualism. They fell apart due to structural changes in the economy and the loss of manufacturing and transportation jobs.
I am really, really getting tired of the failure of david Brooks to come to grips with the reality of what has been happening in this country for 50 years.
13
Mr Brooks,
Read the book, "Braiding Sweet Grass". by Robin Wall Kimmerer. She is a practicing "weaver" of people and the Earth. She is a Native American who can teach us how to back away from Ayn Rand and Capitalism run amok. If we take our blinders off when we are looking at children, adults and the beings of the natural world we will see that weaving isn't that difficult. Its other name is authentic caring about other besides yourself. My grandmother called it simply being neighborly. In her generations neighbors had a very different definition than today. The Buddha called it compassion. Jesus called it empathy with do unto others as you would want them to do unto you. There are many role models who suggest the role of weavers to us by their actions. The great individual freedom of choice is do we care about others or not.
8
A few years ago I moved to a semi-rural community where I hoped to spend the rest of my life. Within a couple of months, I discovered the homeowners were in a pitched battle with each other that had gone on for years. I could have moved, but instead, I committed to changing the culture if I could.
Three years have passed and I now feel comfortably at home in a community of good friends who willingly work together and rarely, if ever, fight. I didn't do all the heavy lifting, but I did encourage three simple principles:
1. Easy socializing -- we work hardest to get people acquainted with each other through events, meals, celebrations, sports and anything else that attracts crowds.
2. Effective collaboration -- when we take on shared projects benefiting our community, we follow the well-established guidelines of good collaborations that limit confrontations and reward cooperation.
3. Regular recognition -- those who give back to the community in any way are publicly thanked and recognized for their generosity. This attracts even more contributors.
We're not a perfect community, but we function a thousand times better than Congress.
11
I often disagree with David Brooks, but absolutely agree with him on this. Contrary to the great mythologies we’ve spun to buck up our own egos, rugged individualism is not what built this country. It was not, and is not, individuals with titanic egos who are the “creators” of all that is good and grand. To be sure, singular individuals can be the key catalyst and visionary that germinate and champion an idea and propel it to reality, but they never accomplish it by them selves.
It was not enough for Harriet Tubman to lead slaves out of the South herself, she depended on a network of like-minded individuals to aid her on her many dangerous journeys. It was not enough for Harriet Beecher Stowe simply to be sympathetic to the cause within herself, it was publication of her novel that shared those ideas and bonded public sentiments in the North against slavery. It was not enough for Fredrick Douglass to be an accomplished former slave, it was his oratory that brought people together in common cause.
No titan of industry, social reformer, or visionary of any kind accomplishes anything by themselves, and it is one of the great lies of our era that elevates that as an ideal.
From inception, this nation was built by peopled banded together in common cause to advance their goals and dreams. To be sure, they were exceptionally rugged individuals, but they only survived and thrived by cooperating together as communities. That spirit of community must be rewoven.
11
This hits me right where I live. Almost 40 years ago I launched myself on what I thought was going to be a pretty traditional life husband children house in the suburbs . I taught myself active listening and became a volunteer on a local parental stress hotline . I started teaching French at a local school part time . Well happenstance intervened. I lost my husband in an accident which pretty much blew up those plans. With a bit of luck since then I've had a long pretty successful life by my own metrics. I feel privileged to have raised our three sons by myself and call them decent human beings. But at age 70 I'm now faced with an almost impossible situation trying to navigate Health Systems and caregiver assistance for my 96 year-old mother. it is intensely frustrating heartbreaking and is entirely unnecessary. I also have a partner who is 12 years older than me and has health issues. I feel like I'm pedaling just about as fast as I can trying to just get through everyday life. And guess what? Housing prices have made it so that I essentially have opened my doors to my sons whenever they might need it because the kind of opportunities available to me and their late father are pretty much gone. This applies to employment as well. So while I applaud your sensibility and certainly appreciate the obvious compassion that you display, the idea that I might possibly do something for myself is pretty much laughable.
13
I am employed as a Weaver, helping people find community and connection at a typically liberal Unitarian Universalist Church, and the author’s politics don’t seem relevant to me. He is right, people are suffering and lonely. The social safety net will never replace our need for personal connections, we need to support both.
Anyone can be a Weaver - it takes showing up repeatedly but you don’t have to devote your life to it. You make a lot of first, tentative connections with the understanding that trust takes time. You make fewer second connections but you keep at it and you encourage others to do the same. Community is co-created by those who show up.
5
Get with the program, Mr Brooks.
According to many of your readers, the only thing that will bring us together is getting rid of Trump supporters.
No one quite says how.
After that, we can all hold hands.
7
@Talbot: I think you missed the point: Your so-called Trump supporters are among us all. I suggest that you stop talking like that and just try listening. If your "hearing" is good, you just might be surprised by the common ground we all stand on.
2
@Talbot That is a lie. Nobodyon the Blue Side is talking about getting rid of Trump supporters. Indeed, in 2016, Trump supporters were talking about rounding up Democrats once Trump took office.
We talk about beating Trump and, frankly, many of us find Trump supporters to be obnoxious Know-Nothings. I know that I do.
But nobody is talking about getting rid of you.
1
Yes, Mr. Brooks is a conservative, but he's also open-minded and insighful. Shedding light on a positive and completely voluntary development in our society made me feel, good, hopeful and positive - something that is not in the mainstream.
Criticizing him and his column is narrow-minded and easy. How about telling your own 'weaver' story instead?
Mine is volunteering at a job program writing resumes (some clients have never had one), matching people to job openings, conducting mock interviews and coaching them throughout the entire process: from applying to accepting and starting a new job.
Here's what will happen next: There will be negative comments about my post from people who are sitting on the sidelines and watching those of us who are trying to 'weave'.
These by-standers will criticize me but will not cite their own 'weaving' simply because the can't because they don't.
7
@Flic B. It’s the hypocrisy that enrages people. The hypocrisy of a party that denigrated a community organizer and his wife despite their obvious goodness and decency - no indictments in 8 years. That blamed an entire demographic for a drug crisis that nearly destroyed entire communities while now asking for sympathy for a drud crisis that is currently ravaging their people. That fetishized the very same rugged individualism that has proven to be toxic. That has brought a charlatan to the greatest office in the world.
Yes, hypocrisy is toxic and we must get past it. But Brooke’s is an imperfect messenger.
Anything from the Aspen Institute should be scrutinized for how it mystifies the continuance of elite dominance and decisions about "social change" that in fact, supports the continuance of elite interests.
Read Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World.
David, I appreciate you trying to make a positive impact. And I very much appreciate everyone who peeks under the surface to see the structural arrangements that work against anyone who is not of the 1% having any chance of a connected life of social and economic health.
"Weavers?" Marginalized communities have been doing this all along amongst themselves. We should listen to them.
14
I am pleased to read this column; however, I recall reading columns from a few years ago where I was left frustrated by the seeming lack of recognition of what was happening in this country by a political party that appeared altogether too comfortable with the deal made with the devil. I am not certain this column 3 years ago would have made a difference in where our country is now, but it would have been interesting to see it then rather than now.
9
So, some liberals invited one of their Trump-voting neighbors to their dinner party; how nice. Why is he clenching his fists in silent rage rather than calmly explaining his point of view? Is it perhaps because certain media outlets and "personalities" have taught him outrage as a default reaction to political disagreements? Anyway, David Brooks makes some important points here; we need to be able to connect with other people socially and to build a better world.
2
@Alice
Well having an honest discussion about race,class might be the beginning vs pretending that these issues don't exist. Voter suppression, hunger, homeless ,poor schools
Without real acknowledgement of daily reality nothing will ever change.
2
M.Brooks is definitely an excellent person ! Bright , fully sensitive. It seems that in his article he answer to Morris Berman very lucid work : Dark Ages America.
A must read in this book the first chapter : Liquid Modernity. A perfect explanation of the topic that M.Brooks elaborate in his article !
3
I don't usually agree with you, but if I'm being honest, I have to say this was inspirational. Thanks for a great article.
13
Thank you, David, for looking for and finding what Americans are doing to heal the painful ripping apart we have experienced these past two years. It was about a year ago that I read in another one of your columns (I believe) about the volunteer organization, Better Angels, which brings together people from both sides of the political spectrum to learn the skills needed for civil, respectful discussion of the important issues of the day. I joined Better Angels and now I moderate workshops toward this end. There are numerous grassroots efforts in the direction of reconciliation, I am grateful to note. Thank you for bringing this one to public attention.
Edwina, Washington State
12
Mr. Brooks talks about the benefits we could achieve by energetically reaching out to others. He then relates some inspirational stories of those who have achieved a lot of good by doing this. These kind of good works are helped, of course, by a willingness to reach across tribal boundaries or, better yet, ignore them.
Sadly, several of the comments that our readers rated the highest would seek to disqualify Mr. Brooks from even telling this story—because for them he is a member of the wrong tribe! Guys, even if all you care about is advancing the interest of your own tribe, don't you realize that maybe the biggest thing that enabled President Trump's razor-thin election in 2016 was the inability of Democrats to extend their appeal to members of the disaffected middle class, who then became easy prey for Trump? Yes, I know, his own tribal appeals and his thinly-veiled racism also were a huge help.
If you don't want a repeat of this in 2020 we better wake up and figure out how to transcend these boundaries and bring people together, rather than dividing them.
12
@Jerry Schulz
"would seek to disqualify Mr. Brooks from even telling this story—"
Name one that wants to shut up Brooks "because...he is a member of the wrong tribe." You can't.
"These... good works are helped...by a willingness to reach across tribal boundaries or, better yet, ignore them."
Brooks is not "reach[ing] across tribal boundaries." His true audience is Republicans, whom he aids and abets with a creed of 'little personal acts of kindness' for when they go into the voting booth to support major political acts of cruelty.
"[R]each[ing] across tribal boundaries?" Don't think so, Jerry - by likening the argument to the spread of Christianity (a few people's ideas/practices spread), Brooks makes his ethics an act of faith - beyond discussion with anyone outside the right wing tribe.
1
How many more weavers would there be if people weren't struggling to survive? The Republicans are weaving The Emperor's New Clothes , and Trump's base pretends to see it.
15
We have an ex-president who is a weaver. Jimmy Carter builds houses for those less fortunate. And he teaches Sunday school at his neighborhood church. Would that we could find and elect this kind of person again.
28
@kathleen cairns
Ironically, Carter actually DOES know how to build a house - and Trump can't even drive, Trump can't even go from point A to point B without a chauffer.
2
@kathleen cairns: Except that as President, Carter was less than affective. Still & all, I'm glad that we've had him for as long as we have. I take inspiration from him, as do many others.
3
@dede.heath
The Camp David Accord between Egypt and Israel should count for something.
1
Thank you for this. I am often shocked by the impunity with which NYT readers eviscerate those with whom they disagree. It is as though we believe we read and write in a vacuum. And we are not in a vacuum; we are interconnected. Water is Life! This includes the tears of human experience. Sometimes I think that every comments thread has been usurped by internet trolls. Or worse, that trolldom has usurped our capacity for reflection. But I know you are correct, David Brooks: the weavers are where it's at. Thank you again for reminding me not to have my head turned by internet nonsense.
11
@Steve Slayton Many of the brave individualists you imagine as founders were slaveholders, others diverted taxing power from Parliament and appropriated immense reaches of land and natural resources, to themselves. It's hard, really, to imagine more extreme examples of income and wealth redistribution. The destruction of Detroit was more the result of political corruption, venal and incompetent corporate management, and the nonsensical belief -- even by mainstream liberal economists -- that market wages were properly calibrated to the level of low wage countries. I hope Roger Federer enjoys Monaco, in the company of the very few others who may join him.
1
Weaving is altruism. For the good of the tribe (e.g., your religious or social group, your local community, your state, the nation, or all humanity).
We need more of it, and more recognition that selfishness (and politicians that pander to people's selfish fears) harms the larger society.
Nice column Mr. Brooks!
3
Oh good, that wonderful band we all love, "The Thousand Points of Light" is back! Only now, they've come up with a pithier name!
Yikes.
3
If sarcasm is all you have to offer, why post?
I wonder what a single mother in the Bronx would make of this column. Assuming, of course, she had time to read it between her two low-paying jobs and her child-care obligations. Maybe she could read the column while while she was weaving.
What do conservatives drink, or smoke, or inject, that makes them constantly lectures us on the values of community & volunteerism? Do they think that single mother in the Bronx doesn't know about those values? Do they think that mother in the Bronx is opposed to community & volunteerism?
It is 2019, and the United States has worse economic inequality than any other developed country on the planet, is the only developed country without universal health care, and allows 50,000 of its citizens to kill themselves every year by overdosing on drugs.
And a millionaire conservative columnist suggests we take up weaving. Do we laugh or do we weep?
14
@camorrista Thank you for writing this. I wish David Brooks would read it.
1
I hear you!
As a native of Flint, I hate to break the news to David Brooks that this approach does NOT work. I've never seen a group of more determined, hard working residents than those in Flint. And their efforts have been useless in the face of monumental problems caused by massive, powerful corporations and well-funded Republican policies. Sorry, but the fantasy land that Brooks creates in these half-baked, touchy feely columns is undercut by reality all over American.
8
Flint is certainly a great travesty of this time. And I agree with you that we need a government that protects those social goods that are the requirements of the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But perhaps Mr. Brooks is correct in suggesting that the grassroots realm is how we reclaim such governmental structures (well, perhaps Mr. Brooks is not saying this, but I am). We need to find ourselves interconnected so we can vote together for those who support our experience.
Today, politicians in both our parties are simply protecting the rights of corporations to pursue profit. Flint is the frontline in this war that values dollars over people. I think there is a neoliberal checklist that needs to be created, and those politicians that support a rising stock market over rising wages must be weeded out of their offices: they have forgotten what being a public servant means. As we move towards the endless stumping of Dem hopefuls, I will be voting on one issue: Does the candidate understand that charter schools are the privatization of public education? And how does she/he feel about that? This issue finds many on the wrong side of history, including Podesta, Duncan, and Booker.
Soon we will all be paying private corporations for clean water. Many powerful people are poisoning the wellspring of democracy, that is our shared social goods. I applaud Mr. Brooks article; I think it points us back to our shared sense of good: water, air, etc.
3
@James
"[T]he fantasy land that Brooks creates in these half-baked, touchy feely columns is undercut by reality all over American."
Brooks knows people vote. That's who his 'little acts of kindness' ethics is for - his radical right wing public who can rationalize the most destructive acts of political cruelty under cover of 'helping where it counts.'
The "reality" is that's who Brooks is talking to, and that's the function and purpose of his column - to help the radical right rationalize its ongoing demolition of US society.
1
Nice column, David. At our best, we are a good and generous people. We just need to re-learn what has made us who we are. Barn raisings may have gone out of style but the impetus to work together remains, I think.
8
David Brooks, I love you. I'm 79. My whole career was being immersed with Weavers - in community arts, in community advocacy, in pre-gentrified New York City's Lower East Side (your birthplace) and nationally, in 27 states and the U.S. Caribbean. I have personally felt the decline of connection in the past decade or so. It's very painful to me. Your examples give me inspiration. I recently moved back to Canada where I was born. I've not yet found the Weavers but now I will reach out more! Thanks for a great column.
8
Yes, "we don’t just have a sociological problem; we have a moral problem," but Mr. Brooks, you fail to include the "political problem" that is so indelibly interwoven with those that the sociological and moral find it very difficult to exert enough influence on their own to turn the cultural tide.
When the president, who for better and for worse most dominantly projects and moderates the national conversation, is someone of such moral vacuousness as Donald Trump, we are all as boats pulling against a very hard current. Yes, it is important that we gather and weave as best we can for our very survival, but make no mistake: until we throw Mr. Trump and at least a goodly number of his enablers out of office in 2020, we will be fighting a rear-guard action—crucial and helpful anecdotally for the people it does reach, but needlessly difficult in accomplishing the large scale transformation so clearly necessary in a country torn asunder by its most influential figure.
8
I love today’s column, David. If only many, many more of us could follow your theme, “to live in right relation with others and to serve the community good.” Unfortunately, too many of the comments I’ve just read seem to be written by rippers who don’t recognize themselves but instead try to tear your wisdom apart. I don’t mean weavers can’t have disagreements, and talk things out, but nasty attacks are unhelpful. You inspire me to try harder to follow the weavers’ dream.
10
I will take Mr Brooks seriously when he honestly confronts the fact that he has spent his career defending the opposite of what he celebrates here. When he honestly admits the racism of the southern strategy, when he honestly admits that Reagan's "government isn't the solution, it's the problem" it was a deliberate attack on the common good, a deliberate attempt to atomize the nation and keep us from forming the bonds that he now celebrates. He, and the party he defended his whole writing career, deliberately created the problems he now laments, and he never, so far as I know, admits the role he played in creating those problems.
17
@AW
I agree that Brooks should confront the past -- his own and that of his party.
None of which renders his current column untrue. It's a good piece. And if local people "weave" in our own communities, we can learn how to bridge difference. Obviously Washington DC is not going to do that for us.
About 20 years ago, knowing our family needed more than getting ahead in a hypercompetitive suburb, we joined a Unitarian Universalist church. Many beliefs and none, many cultural Jews, Christians and others who disliked the narrowness of their upbringing, joined in caring for each other and working to help undo some of the damage and sorrow of the world. Small steps but meaningful. Start somewhere and stick with it. Find something larger than yourself and stick with it. Imperfect but enough.
6
On a grander scale, as Mr. Brooks hopes happens, a nation of “weavers” is called Socialism.
I question whether Mr. Brooks realizes it. I hope he does, but I fear that as long as he espouses the raw capitalist philosophy of his party, he is whistling in the wind.
10
@DJ
If that’s your tale of what he says
...that we all need to embrace socialism or the baddy capitalists are gonna getcha
...you have completely missed the point
What makes the weavers powerful is they are not dogmatic
They are mutually dependent, and happily so
1
When I attended Architecture School in the 1960's and 70's and for the first 15 years I practiced, my work was done manually. We each had a drawing board and every drawing was unique. Even in offices with rigorous standards, we could identify the draftsperson--a smiley face hidden in the concrete or a special flourish at the 'R'. There was pride in ownership. When I had a question or needed information, I got up from my board and conversed with colleagues at their boards. We shared--or weaved--our insights and skills into buildings.
All that has changed since the digital age began. Computer aided design programs have made drawings available simultaneously to everyone. The collegiality in the profession has dissipated. The isolation you wrote about has its basis in how we work. I am pessimistic that a sense of community can ever be recovered.
6
Hi, David, somehow I thought your background was sociology but as I was wrong. You graduated from U of Chicago with a degree in History. And that explains part of puzzle that you didn't what to say to the parents whose children were lost to suicide or drug OD.
While those two phenomena have entered the social consciousness, those of us in the trenches have witnessed them all too often! Back in the 80s, I was a volunteer at a hotline with walk-in services. The desperations and midnight cries were evident at the fringe of society. Being in the heart of the city, yes, we have seen homelessness and abject wretchedness too. After a while, volunteer burnouts are not uncommon.
Wistfully, one might wonder if your career and philosophy might have taken a different turn had you been exposed to the human condition instead of interning for Buckley.
While we all love to theorize in the Ivory Tower and think tanks, sometimes doing a beat with the 1st responders and social workers in the trenches can make you open the eyes like Socrates coming out of the cave for the 1st time
11
Man o man Mr. Brooks, the audacity of your hypocrisy astounds me. The man your party elected is the ANTITHESIS of what you write about from whatever gilded tower you use to pontificate from. The problems that we need to solve take honesty, intelligence & cooperation, again look at whom YOUR party has elected in relation to those adjectives. Until the 38% wakes up to the fact that they now support treason as a quality they like in THEIR president.there can be NO cooperation from us of the opposite ideology, until the own their grand mistake & show a little cognizance. We can not afford to cooperate until they & their ilk are removed from power & the great experiment our Founding Fathers envisioned is restored. And that includes that angry white male waking up to the fact that his privileged "Racist ideology is the one that threatens the way of life our founders envisioned for ALL of us.
10
@joel
And this divisiveness helps whom, exactly? And how?
It doesn't.
A prominent conservative is publicly revealing his own path toward becoming more compassionate. This would be a good time to gently encourage him further down the path.
Maybe he won't get all the way to socialism or impeaching Trump, but that's OK. Some of his readers will.
"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world."
Jesus is the Weaver-in-Chief. The first ripping happened at the very beginning. Ever since God has been working His plan to re-weave people into fellowship with Himself. We're designed to be very self-forgetfully focused on finding our satisfaction in contemplation of the One Glorious, Everlasting, Being.
Yes, this sounds like churchy stuff. And churches are full of flawed, self-centered, conniving, mean-spirited people.
Nonetheless, the Word at the center, the revelation from God, is that we are to allow ourselves to be made-over by the Son of God and receive the kind of life that makes love and self-sacrifice possible -- the rebirth we need to see ourselves become the best weavers we can be (... and love Him the more for it). Stones don't come alive by themselves, but God's love can make hearts of stone live for more than just self.
3
People of Florida are pleading with those from Illinois, New York, California etc, the high tax States, NOT to move to Florida. Floridians are afraid that you will vote for the same kind of people that ruined your state and that caused you to move away. Stay where you are unless you are prepared to abandon the failed ways of Democratic goofs
1
Lessee...California, a thriving state with massive economic engines in manufacturing, agriculture, high tech, entertainment, and defense. By itself, one of the world’s largest economies. Florida meanwhile is becoming literally submerged while its leaders deny climate change. Which state is being ruined?
16
Funny they all move back when they can no longer take care of themselves and have no one to help them. I have seen that so many times. Their kids are up here and can't run down every time they are needed.
Welcome to "socialism" David.
The state that elected Rick Scott? Someone who headed a company that committed the largest Medicaid fraud in history? Some weaver.
2
I'm actually momentarily dumbstruck by Mr. Brooks. How can you be so close to correctly grasping the world around you and yet fail so miserably in your broad assessment of it? Everything you advocate here is "liberalism". Everything you acknowledge is wrong in this country emanates from the right. Hyperindividualism? A lack of understanding of our interdependence (which exists, whether you support it or not)? The tendency to willfully misrepresent the other side and overstate our differences so that no middle ground can ever exist?
Mr. Brooks, an organized effort to address all these problems is afoot. It is the political party and the political movement against which you have aligned yourself. No charity work or well-meaning grass roots effort will overcome the damage your party causes. You say "social scientists will tell you that people are motivated by money, power, etc." This is false. YOUR social scientists will say that. Conservatives will say that. Progressives understand too well everything you are saying in this piece, and I imagine they all join me in astonishment that you cannot take that last step and recognize that the most potent mobilization of will is political organization and concerted action. You can write as many fluff pieces as you want, and volunteer at all the soup kitchens. As long as you support the Ripper Party (which cannot honestly be distinguished from the President), that is what you are. That is all you are. And that is all that matters.
13
David,
Your continual refusal to address the right-wing propaganda machine, makes it seem as if you are just a hypocrite.
There is no progress with an endless spew of character assassination and name calling.
Much of it from those that you seem to hang out.
To suggest solutions before fully understanding the problem; is an exercise in futility. Stop the hate.
E pluris unum.
8
@Fred Armstrong
"Your continual refusal to address the right-wing propaganda machine-"
'Fraid Brooks IS a vital part of the "right-wing propaganda machine" - his ethics functions to gives Republicans a way to think of themselves as virtuous even as they continue their political and social demolition of the republic.
1
@Fred Armstrong. Oh Mr. Armstrong don't you see? The message in this column IS stop the hate. You see hate on the right only? Better get your vision checked, or at least swivel your head around and be honest about what comes from the left. There's a great abundance of character assassination and name-calling coming from all directions. Until you are able to accept this truth, you are a big part of the problem.
1
@J. Harmon Smith
"[D]on't you see? The message in this column IS stop the hate."
No, Smith. The message in this column IS 'Republicans, keep voting right wing because it's your little, nonpolitical acts of compassion that count, not your big, political acts of barbarism.'
1
"...Meanwhile, back at the White House, the Grand Grim Ripper is ripping and tearing and shredding -- and frightfully unraveling."
4
David: You may want to have a conversation with your own editorial board. Time and time again your paper has given voice to those who hate the South, blame someone else's race, support segregation in one form or another, etc. Recently, your paper gave voice to a gay priest who claimed, without support, that 75% of all Catholic priests are also gay. Did your editorial board pause to consider what straight Catholic parishioners like me might think of that? Your paper does as much if not more to separate us into identity groups each with it own selfish and self-centered concerns than any other media outlet. You might want to clean your own yard before complaining about what's over your fence.
1
Too bad Mr. Brooks never answers these comments--particularly those of gemli and Socrates.
1
Or we might all do well to pay attention to what many religious folks say is a “commandment” from “God” to “love thy neighbor as thyself.”
4
Well put, Mr. Brooks!
1
Thank you, David!
2
So Brooks, are you telling us you have renounced your membership in and support of the republicans?
8
I seem to remember Hillary used to talk about “it takes a village”
Republicans had all sorts of fun mocking her for that.
Now we have a Republican president who mocked a NY Times reporter because he has a disability, calls racists at the Charlottesville march “fine people” and who confessed on video tape to sexually assaulting women.
Ok, so I’ll give a pass to David’s upset person in Louisiana.
But when will David also see there is right and wrong?
How do we get to a place where we can be mutually supportive when about half the country - Republicans just like David - have an opening bid of wanting to deprive rights to the other half?
5
@Blue While I don't share all of David Brooks' views, I'm aware that he has had humanitarian instincts for years, that his views have a far greater complexity and sophistication than his critics have here implied. To dismiss his views outright because he has sided with some Republican policies in the past that we don't embrace is to miss the fact that he has often been a thoughtful voice for constructive change. I sense that almost all who have responded to his column share his desire for a sense of community, and I would submit that notwithstanding David Brooks' disappointment concerning his recent encounters with politicians, there is one presidential candidate who might be the kind of "Weaver" that he is looking for, Amy Klobuchar who quickly united Republicans and Democrats to rebuild the bridge that had collapsed in Minnesota. She has used this as an example of how she would like our country to move forward.
2
@Harrison Howard
"To dismiss his views outright because he has sided with some Republican policies in the past...is to miss the fact that he has often been a thoughtful voice for constructive change."
First, you can't point to a post that dismisses his view because he's right wing - almost all point to the contradiction between his liberal rhetoric and right wing politics.
On the other hand, I'LL dismiss his views outright - not because they ignore politics, but because they're entirely cognizant of politics: essentially, Brooks' ethics functions to enable the right wing - his right wing, Howard - to vote for things that tear up society, but with the idea that 'it's personal acts that count.'
1
My small experience with weaving has come with playing Pickleball---Due to some physical issues, I was forced to switch from playing tennis to this Pickleball--Talk about a transition from ribbing to weaving--Tennis is an exclusive sport--they pay attention to levels of skill, they frown on noise of any kind, and are always competitive. I found in almost every venue I have played Pickleball an entirely different culture--very inviting and inclusive---with a constant rotation of players at all skill levels that actually enjoy rotating out to rest and just talk with your neighbor.As an introvert, who spent a career in ribbing environments, what a change of pace. I know my example may sound somewhat mundane, but, the sociological abstractions in Mr. Brooks columns that I intellectually understand, became very real to me playing this simple game. I should add, since my introduction to the sport, I find myself, at my late age, more prone now to weaving than ribbing. What additional note...not to denigrate the skill levels of more advanced players---they are really good and great to watch---but even at these levels, they skillfully group themselves together to play competitively and are quite open to playing with lower level players.
2
Dear David. You can become a Weaver or you can start to organise weavers. I am afraid that you se your self as an organiser and that you will try to give the weavers better conditions to become weavers. That is a bad idea and will soon integrate the weavers in a political system. After that you will have no weavers but micro hr personel/politicians occupied with meetings were they have to make important decisions on who is going to the hospital on monday and watch children on friday. Let the civil society be and focus to improve moral in media and politics. The civil society is better of whitout socialmanagement journalism. Kalle
1
Brooks now claims he covers sociology which is a euphemism for the social engineering at the soul of his Republican Party. He's Charles Murray with a NYT column. And then Brooks cries for politesse which is merely an attempt to stifle the outrage to the threats from within: Trump, the GOP and apologists like Brooks.
4
Liberalism is going nowhere. Doomed to failure and a guarantee Trump will win in 2020
Didn’t face failure in 2018. Can’t wait to hear from you in 2020
Once again, David Brooks writes a column that champions liberal values. Once again, his narrow, bitter liberal critics can only find fault with it.
4
@BarrowK
Once again, liberal critics point out that Brooks' liberal-sounding creed is the opposite of his right wing party's illiberal policies.
Once again, Brooks' right wing apologists ignore the substance of liberal criticisms, and complain about their "find[ing] fault."
1
No, we like the “championing liberal values” part. We just want to hear how he squares this with the Republican Party? “Weavers” certainly did not elect Donald Trump.
1
@BarrowK. Sadly true.
David your free enterprise leave no prisoners economic model defeats everything you wish here.
Good luck
3
Mr. Brooks speaks volumes when the primary thrust of his critique of "hyperindividualism" consists of disparaging "personal freedom, self-interest, self-expression, the idea that life is an individual journey toward personal fulfillment".
In other words, Mr. Brooks' supposed revolution is not really a moral revolution, at all, but more of the same neoliberalism and neofeudalism that demands conformity to a social ideal in which the individual is expected to bear all responsibility for failure to meet that ideal and rejects the idea that systemic, institutionalised cultures constrain the environment in which the individual's merit is expressible and assessable.
This version of hyperindividualism, couples with productivism (the idea that the individual's highest moral goal is to be economically productive), proprietarism (the idea that anything which can be owned must be owned), transactionalism (the idea that anything which can be sold must be sold), and factorialism (the idea that standardisation, interchangeability, and mass production must be applied to all aspects of life, what Ralph Borsodi called "the factory system of production") to produce the defining ideology of Western culture in the current era—industrialised Neoliberalism-Neofeudalism.
The goal of humanity should be human well-being and self-actualisation. These goals are best accomplished by celebrating and encouraging diversity. Relationships, after all, can only thrive between and among individuals.
1
I respect and admirer Weavers. Having had a handicapped son, I met quite a few who helped care for him and put joy in his life. It seems that that Mr Brooks wants to mobilize their essence and spread it throughout the nation.
In that regard I see the Weavers as fireflies, creating small transient patches of light in the darkness. And it's in that darkness that most things happen.
Instead of trying to mobilize the Weaver essence, I wish Mr Brooks would use his energy to convince his conservative peers that broad programs that help everyone in our community, like universal health care and fighting global warming, are not the tools of the devil.
7
As Martin Luther King said, "We may have come on different ships, but we are in the same boat now."
7
@penney albany
I believe that was the Rev. Jesse Jackson, but either way, it's a good quote!
Unfortunately, Mr. Brooks' laudatory "weaving" is an etherial wish which will remain so because of our innate, polarizing, survival instincts. Those instincts result in polarization within whatever power groups one chooses and feels comforted by, political right, left, etc..
I cannot help but think that social media and our polarized media landscape have a lot to do with our national ills. Local weavers interact with people, not devices. They interact with thoughtfulness, emotional intelligence, and passion instead of 140 character sound bites. How we can scale this to the national level? I don't know.
4
I'm currently reading Bowling Alone about the collapse of community and the loss of "social capital" in the US. This column refers to the same things. I can see myself and my neighborhood in the words. I realize I need to do a better job of reaching out to neighbors and our community in general. There is so much to do and each of us needs to start somewhere. Maybe Brooks is right and a national reawakening of community and "radical mutuality" really can begin locally. It has to. It's obvious that we don't have the moral leadership nationally to make it happen any other way. The political system is so broken that even simple problems with known solutions can't be solved and our common national necessities go unmentioned.
3
Is completely agree with the idea that social isolation is a gigantic problem in modern life. We evolved to be social animals, and the isolation many of us suffer is clearly destructive.
Let’s be careful that we don’t confusion clinical depression with sadness, as so many people do. Suicide is rarely caused by individuals who are sad because of one of life’s speed bumps. People who commit suicide do because they are deeply depressed, not just sad.
Reducing isolation will certainly help the depressed connect with resources that will correctly treat their depression, but it requires different mechanisms from the sorts of day-to-day connections that benefit those simply going through a tough patch of life. The differences are important, and we need to pay attention to them.
1
Why must we always talk around the Baby Boom generation instead of calling them by name when it is appropriate? Why is it the issue of responsibility always conveniently glossed over and rendered vague or mysterious when it comes to this group? This isn’t simply about blame, it’s about understanding the problems associated with “hyperindividualism,” where they come from, and why they are worse than ever. The “me” generation made it culturally fashionable to destroy institutions and put “me” in front of “we.” That is an anomaly in American history, but most people in my generation (X) and younger don’t even realize it because it’s all we’ve known. The Weaver idea is great. It would also be great if we could also have an honest conversation about the people who have actively worked to destroy our fabric and and why.
4
@Joe P
Even if it didn't start there, you might want to begin with Maggie Thatcher and her dummy, Saint Ronnie.
What gets me most about this column is That Mr Brooks succinctly identifies the problem-Me vs We-, then says that We is the proper path, yet is deeply committed to the Party of Me.
1
@Joe P. Unless you just want to have a gossip session and talk behind others' backs, why not have an honest conversation WITH the people "who have actively worked to destroy our fabric and why." By the way, how will you identify the culprits among this massive and diverse generation with birthdates spread over almost two decades?
Trump supporters deserve whatever disrespect or ostracism they receive. They are intelligent and adult yet they choose to move our country toward authoritarianism and racism. They don’t deserve excuses, rationalizations, or understanding from the rest of us. Forgiveness maybe — when they ask for it.
5
Mr Brooks,
I usually find your columns somewhat annoying, but I am changing my tune!
This column, and Jan 29, "Kindness is a Skill" both really moved me.
One question though: how many "Weavers" are Republicans?
8
@Sally Higgins. First, Sally, please think about the devisiveness of your comment. To answer your question, lots of us are weavers. We donate generously to charity (and please don't knee-jerk to the disproven myth that Rs are richer ), we are family and community-connected like so many Americans, through service clubs, public- and non-profit boards, and tons of other volunteer work. We all -- you and I too -- are more alike than different.
1
Hmmm, I recallthat Hillary Clinton once wrote a book about this, called "It Takes a Village to Raise a Child." (The title comes from an African proverb.) That sounds pretty much like Brooks's "weavers."
And I also recall that back then, Conservatives like Brooks vilified her for promoting "Socialist" ideals.
In fact, Conservatives still vilify Socialist "weavers."
18
I was raised in small-farm-town Nebraska with exactly the “Weaver” mentality. I never knew anyone growing up who *wouldn’t* help his or her neighbor. We all stuck together, even when some of my friends went to the Catholic school in town while most of us were in public school, for example.
Mr. Brooks deftly weaves his tale of community spirit without ever directly talking about what’s going on at the highest levels (and at the state and local level, too, but that varies across the country) of government, but the implication is clear: It’s up to us as individuals to form these bonds and help each other out. In other words, who needs good governance?
Reminds me of a Christian blog post I read right after the 2016 election. Here it is:
https://purposeontheprairie.wordpress.com/2016/11/10/dont-give-trump-so-much-credit-america/
David, she beat you to it—this is essentially all the same themes as your opinion piece, minus the direct reference to Donald Trump. This line sums it up, “Trump does not have the power to mold our families, that is our flat-out our responsibility.”
When I read that—on Nov. 10, 2016—I thought, “Oh, my God; this is not going to end well.” How do you square your “Weaver” mentality with the facts that speak for themselves. Racial, anti-semitic, anti-muslim, anti-LGBT attacks are at all-time highs—look it up. And since you’re a journalist that makes you, “An enemy of the people,” to quote DJT. It all starts at the top, David. Stop ignoring it.
7
Darn, what's Brooks been reading now? He just can't stand to own the undeniable. The Republican culture war is tearing the country apart.
6
"Culture changes when a small group of people, often on the margins of society, find a better way to live, and other people begin to-"
Please wake up from your little Christian daydream, David - it's time to paste a compassionate smile on your face while giving a speech on why cutting welfare benefits will be good for the poor.
5
“We’re living with the excesses of 60 years of hyperindividualism”: David, I’m thinking you’re talking about the decades leading up to the American Revolution....
1
David, I would like to hear the full story of your conversion in your next column. What was your moral lens? What were the stimuli that worked within you to change the contours of that lens? What is your moral lens today? I would like to hear your story of conversion not how I should reflect the stories of those persons in this column.
1
If I have to listen to Brooks wax poetic about “weavers” and “mutuality” and “interdependence” at the very moment when multinational corporations have, with the help of their well paid GOP stooges and technoservants, managed to worm their greedy little fingers into every nook and cranny of everyday life, I am going to scream! I’m sorry, but the political viciousness of the GOP which Brooks has been hawking for years turns these otherwise laudable sentiments into sentimental pabulum. He helps heartless men lay waste to our social order, then hands me a broom to help sweep it up? The gall.
13
David Brooks is a modern-day prophet. As was Isaiah, the 8th-century BC prophet, in his time.
ISAIAH 58:12:
"Your ancient ruins shall be rebuilt;
you shall raise up the foundations of many generations;
you shall be called the repairer of the breach,
the restorer of streets to live in."
TODAY, and EVERY DAY, A WEAVER IN OUR MIDST:
Retired Episcopal Bishop Steven Charleston, a member of the Choctaw nation, in his Facebook meditation this morning:
"We will be faithful to our calling, Spirit of God, no matter what the days to come may bring. We will not cease to speak with civility, even when the debate grows difficult. We will not succumb to fear nor will we use fear as our own weapon. We will speak as honestly as we can, without twisting the truth to serve our purpose. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with people from all walks of life, excluding none. We will preserve the freedom of all and defend the dignity of every human being. We will be faithful to our calling, great Spirit, as servants of your grace and workers in the fields of hope." (Steven Charleston)
1
This is our problem. The United States of ME. What good comes from a million billionaires? David Brooks best column ever.
2
David Brooks just articulated the genuine emergency the USA is facing...opioid addiction, and it's not something a border wall, fence, bollard, drone patrol, satellite or 2000 mile long surveillance camera network will fix - because it is home grown.
President Trump should hang his orange head in shame for ignoring this catastrophic drug-overdose epidemic consuming the nation. This requires compassion, understanding, collective reasoning and applied smarts to remedy...skill sets absent in this undisciplined, self-serving administration of Donald J. Trump.
2
In the past I read Brooks for insights and thoughtful opinions. Now I read the title and go straight to the comments, which sadly confirm that Brooks is loosing it.
What happened Brooks? Your conservative reasoning seems to have worsened to less than a tepid blurb to flat out disingenuous or hysterical.
As most readers of the times we value opposing views but they must be grounded in reality. Brooks take a breath, look around and empathize with the less fortunate.
4
The US is one giant bum fight. Some rich folks throw some pitifully small amount of money out, and then tell the bums to fight for it. The citizens love it too. They love all the reality TV which is really just bum fights and many love the bum fight president who came from bum fight TV. We are a nation of bums fighting over tiny amounts of money that the wealthy throw at us. It must be very entertaining to them.
All hail the wealthy for they let us beat each other to a pulp for money that won't change anything.
Brooks knows this and it is why he is part of what got us here. His sophistry is cruel.
5
David writes about a trump supporting businessman who felt his life being mocked at at dinner party he attended. What in the world does that mean?
It could mean anything. A woman at the party could be talking about kissing her girlfriend. Or actually kissing her girlfriend/partner in front of him. It could be someone saying Trump's racist wall needs to resisted. It could mean that people were saying someone working hard all their life to run a small business is a shallow narrow minded fool. Though that would more likely be the sentiments of David's friends when they let their hair down out of earshot of people they would actually not spend time around. Though in fairness to them, except for a few exceptions, they know better than to articulate things quite that crudely.
5
I commend Mr. Brooks for his work and his idealism. Heaven knows we need something higher to aspire to than individualism and tribalism, which are causing much trouble and misery in our nation and our world. The heroes of this or any era are usually not those who dominate the headlines. They are good people who are willing to give of themselves to help their communities and those who most need it.
2
There's as much to be said bad about the ideal of community as there is about the ideal of individualism. Ask someone who was gay in a rural community in the 1990's whether they want to be accountable to their community of homophobes, or if they'd rather not be interdependent on them. It's open to the defender of community to say, "That's not really expressing the ideal of community," because it's bad, I guess. But it's open to the defender of individualism to make the same move: that the ability to not pay taxes or to not be accountable in any way to others--a form of privilege--isn't really what we mean by individualism, but instead is just self-centered egoism.
Community is a very unattractive ideal without a strong degree of individualism. Communities are a lot more pernicious when people are entirely dependent on others and lack all-purpose means to go their own way when they disagree with their fellow community members.
People have different degrees of preference for having strong community ties, just as people have different degrees of preference for living individualistic lives. The difference is that those who take a non-individualist path are no threat to individualists, as long as they lack the power to coerce or sanction those not in association with them. But individualists are a threat to community, because communities need members, hence the screeds (small-c) communitarians levy against individualists. Go join a community if you want, says the individualist!
@Pierce Randall: Perhaps, maybe, possibly, to truly attain the status of an individual, one needs to feel connected to what she/he contributes to the community? The necessity of that contribution being individual is real, but without the community there is no contribution. I think the individual versus community dichotomy is false, and that Mr. Brooks article should not be so handily reduced to such.
Today is my 81st birthday and again I hope to live until our country recognizes the need for civility and kindness. We have forgotten our need for a social contract and it has led to a nation of haters.
Thank you for the thoughtful column and the work you are doing.
6
I'll comment on the first few "Reader Picks" from the usual suspects who never can get past hard-nosed political explanations for everything that ails us a society.
I'm on the left and I fully understand the need for full voting rights, an end to gerrymandering, spending our tax dollars (of which the super wealthy should pay more) in ways that work to uplift the masses of poor and middle Americans.
But, there is a path to get there.
Martin Luther King didn't sit around like the critics of Mr. Brooks and say I want all my demands met now!
No, he worked backwards from the goal.
He spoke, more eloquently than perhaps any American before him, about the soul of the nation. About the human heart and moral imperatives.
He touched people's souls. With words helping the oppressed see themselves as children of God- spurring them and countless other Americans to take brave action, even if it meant personal danger.
Brooks wants us to see ourselves differently, to internalize the sacred in ourselves and to recognize it in others. King's writings call us to a higher place, a more reasonable, loving "we" that can't be apart from political action. It is the first step to radical realization of our political connections.
Words matter.
We need lofty ones that remind us we are good, capable love and positive change.
Where is the person who can remind us as did King. That's the first step.
(Note-NYT. Replies don't show under the comment in the app. Where this belongs. Fix!)
7
Mr. Brooks, you indicated here that you cover "the sociology beat". I love your columns that focus on that. I wince at many comments, where the writer skewers you with comments addressed to David Brooks, Republican. I listen to you on PBS and on NPR. You often share your concerns and disappointment about what's happening among Republicans.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about what's going right among individuals and small groups throughout our country. Thanks for your work with Weave. Thanks for this column and others, which may, if we can just listen and build on the good, help change norms. I yearn for that.
I believe we are in a national emergency as profound as Pearl Harbor. I love it when anyone focuses on the kindness and generosity I see all around me.
I yearn for less polarization, more weaving, more acknowledgement of the powerful good that's taking place all over America. We can all contribute to that. I'll focus more on recognizing it and applauding it and adding what I can to it in my own realm.
3
David you say "We’re living with the excesses of 60 years of hyperindividualism. " But hasnt that been the GOP message starting with Ronald Reagan. Labor unions build relationships amongst workers and they unite in common goals, good working conditions and a fair wage. Reagan stereotyped them and demonized them and ultimately destroyed them. He placed corporatism and capitalism over community. The Republicans have not stopped since and have moved to destroy not build and strengthen communities
Right now we have a government that is not embodying the values of deep hospitality, showing up for people and keep showing up. Mitch McConnell has abandoned "we the people" for his own hyperindividualism, his own self interest and for power. We have a president who would be king for his own self financial enrichment.
But there is a movement in this country right now although far from perfect that is trying to help others, to strengthen our communities, to give all people a sense of dignity and that their lives matter, it's called progressivism. Try it, you might like it.
9
@Steve “I guess my ask is that you declare your own personal declaration of interdependence and decide to become a Weaver instead of a ripper. This is partly about communication. Every time you assault and stereotype a person, you’ve ripped the social fabric. Every time you see that person deeply and make him or her feel known, you’ve woven it.” Try it, you might like it.
And this is why our country desperately needs Amy Klobuchar as President. Her entire adult life has been dedicated to individuals at the grass root level and her politics is one that of a happy warrior....standing on principle, always, but always reaching out to all as well.
2
@mike
I'm excited about Amy Klobuchar (her speech on the Mississippi gave me chills, pardon the pun). I am also excited about many of the other Democratic candidates. They have ideas and energy and purpose. They feel like weavers in a time when they are sorely needed. For the first time in two years, I feel optimistic.
Society is not broken through a lack of social connections.
Society is broken through an explosion of hyper connections, driven by statistical correlations that enhance a "densification" of connections with like minded people.
Tribalism is what has driven societies since the beginning of time.
This is a sermon, and updated version of the parable of the Good Samaritan, where the one who reached out to the mugged traveller and. Rescued and helped to heal him, was the one who had compassion on him. While the priest and lawyer who saw and then ignored him, were on their way to important meetings to pass resolutions condemning violence and demonizing their opponents.
Another historical example of ‘weaving’ in addition to the feminist movement may be the way abolition began: in a small group of clergy and others in Ohio. The were in a prayer meeting. No big money, no grand plans, but determination, perhaps even helplessness, and prayer. They started a fire!
4
Thank you for your thoughts today. You raise valid and important points. In reading the comments of other readers, I’m not sure why you are personally targeted with their frustrations. Seems to me you are going above and beyond most folks in trying to truly recognize, understand, and bring to light the isolation caused by hyperindividualism. I experience all the frustrations of fellow readers, but give you credit for trying to do something positive about this pervasive and corrosive societal issue. We need much more coverage and front page reporting on all of this.
4
Pearl Harbor came after the New Deal. FDR knit us together and that unity produced the enormous effort and success of WWII.
Today, Republicans have attacked and attacked and attacked to divide our nation. Willie Horton. Swift boating. Lock her up.
David, you need to become a Democrat, or at least an independent.
6
@memosyne Way to not get a single word David wrote here today.
Marvelous epideictic communication (look it up), in an age crying for it. I do have questions regarding evidence. “Weaving” always is ongoing, as are movements that destroy community. I have my suspicions that “the past” had greater weaving movements than today, implied by Mr. Brooks, and I certainly have my doubts that there was some “golden age” of weaving (not implied by Brooks), which McConnell’s tribe apparently believe, as evidenced by their actions. But weaving efforts have a long history in the country and Mr. Brooks’ bringing them to our attention is admirable.
“Weaving” is a concept that sensitizes us to our humanity. It should also sensitize us to the inhumanity around us, including the hyper-capitalism threatening us—not all capitalism, which is simply a word for doing business with each other. Hyper-capitalism is a degenerate, inhumane way of doing business. Perhaps we should call it, not weaving, but “plastering,” a stifling of the loom of doing business together. Sure, let’s get to weaving—America, and many other countries, are good at it (some are better—some much better). But there’s little other than anecdotal evidence that there’s more of it now than there has ever been and Mr. Brooks’ is a marvelous moral appeal that there should be more.
Tellingly, we also need to know who’s plastering, who’s ruining the fabric? Let’s weave. Let’s wash out the plaster.
1
United Stares of America is in transition and it’s having a difficult time . It’s not easy to shed a culture based on individualism . Any attempt to institute measures to assist others by government is met with a forceful slogan - socialism - designed to scare people and retain the status quo .
The good news , today’s younger generation is beginning to look past the brain washing and understand free enterprise capitalism is not mutually exclusive with democratic socialism .
5
Beautiful, David. Thanks, and count me in.
2
I wish I could be as hopeful as David Brooks that the empathy which the Weavers show for others at the local level can "scale" to the national level. But it seems that technology, instead, is most effective in scaling up fear rather than empathy. Which isn't unsurprising given that, as Donald Trump insightfully noted and put to good use, fear is the most powerful human motivator.
So we have Muslims who should be banned from the country because ... well, you know, they either are "radical Islamic fundamentalists' or they are at least sympathetic to those beliefs. And Mexicans bring drugs over the border and rape and murder while other brown people from south of the border threaten to invade us and live off welfare and sully our culture. Then, of course, there are own home grown citizens who, once they are labelled "criminals," not only deserve what is, typically, harsh punishment but also deserve to be outcasts for life.
In other words, opening the heart is relatively easy for neighbors and members of one's "tribe" but until we are able to open our heart to those whom Christ called the "least of" us, it is not likely that David Brooks' vision will ever come to pass.
2
"We don’t have anything as dramatic as Pearl Harbor..."
Only if you are not paying attention, Mr. Brooks. We have a sociopath in the White House who is doing everything possible to destroy democracy and the rule of law. His Vice President smiles and nods silently while approving every evil act. We have a Senate Majority Leader who has completely destroyed the civil and honorable behavior that institution previously stood for.
This is the most serious challenge to democracy in my 66 years on earth, and it is urgent that all Americans take action to stop the madness. (Squeezing shoulders is not quite enough).
8
You say that you give speeches a couple of times a week in different parts of the country. You often make claims like this. Could you be more specific and tell us when and where you make these speeches and your upcoming appearances?
1
Thank you, for putting together the "Weavers" and for the editorial.
It seems to me that there are people who actively seek to keep us tribal, fragmented, and working against each other. It also seems to me that there is more of this on the right wing than the left, but then again I self-identify as a leftward-leaning centerist. From where I sit, the radical views on the left tend to stay on the fringes while the radical views on the right have become mainstream. Maybe my vision is biased, but maybe it isn't.
I hope that your weaving is able to overcome the intentional toxic tribalism, and convince those who have bought into it to opt out. It seems like that is the case. Good. We need to get over it before it wrecks our society.
Meanwhile, watch out for the leaders. Once you show up on their radar, you become a target. They've been doing this for a long time, and their playbook is full of dirty tricks.
2
What I love about this article has been the question David raises about where our collective moral framework originates, and the responses to that question. What I've heard is that for more liberal-leaning readers, moral standards originate in the laws of the land. More conservative readers see that as government legislating everything we are to do or to say. They think moral standards governing our collective conscience should originate from churches and/or a law higher than the land. More liberal readers see that as theocracy.
Sounds like a chicken-and-egg question sociologists should know something about.
If a country can't produce people who know that individual ambition doesn't justify unmitigated greed and rape of nations and environments, how will it populate a government that can legislate this outcome? Is that the situation we're in now?
1
Perhaps we could start by eliminating the religious and philosophic dualism that has ordered Western Civilization into camps of us and them. Replace the cursing God of Genesis with the Prodigal's father who waits with open arms. Vote the religious fundamentalists and their ilk out of office. Eliminate dark money havens and shell corporations. Ban private dark and corporate monies from election campaigns and make elections about issues not personalities. Spend monies on people rather than fake wars. Now, dear reader, do you think David would support this? Support government for people?
4
Deaths by suicide and drugs. I know. I know. There are laws against counting deaths by bullets. Or, was it by guns?
2
Please read the Karl Polanyi book, The Great Transformation.
Perfect example - went to a Lunar New Year party at the Japanese American National Museum in January, watching all the families engage with the activities but NO ONE speaking to, interacting with ANYONE OUTSIDE THEIR CIRCLE... Everyone isolated in their own little family/friend unit and there were 100's at the event....
1
More sleight of hand from David Brooks. He neglects to mention that while we’re off “weaving”, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell and their right wing cohort will be “ripping” the fabric of society until the principles on which this nation was founded have been torn asunder.
6
I don't think it's the excesses of 'hyper individualism', but of 'hyper liberalism' we have been suffering from. The social fabric is indeed torn, rotted. There is no right & wrong, no objective truth. Instead we have situational ethics, 'my' truth & 'your' truth, and the dictatorship of relativism as Pope Benedict XVI called it. We have seen the collapse of religious practice, family life, traditional values, and the onslaught of sexual revolution/liberation, the end of monogamy and the beginning of men marrying men and women marrying women, diseases and other 'unintended consequences', woman disposing of inconvenient babies before or after birth, & inconvenient sick people choosing 'assisted suicide'. Without values starting with the old-fashioned God & family, the weaving of the social fabric falls apart. We have horrible problems stemming from despair: drug & alcohol addiction, homelessness, divorce, suicide, assisted suicide, abortion & infanticide, young boys loaded up on behaviour meds, mass shootings, young girls loaded up on artificial birth control and STD vaccines, both sexes loaded up on hormones of the other sex because they don't know who or what they are. The family has been sacrificed for the community, and David Brooks is telling us this is where the future lies, this is where the big fix is. I believe he is wrong. The family is the cornerstone of our society, or was, and without it there is no foundation to build a healthy society.
Thank you Mr Brooks for your thoughts, standing up for interconnectendenss! I love your thinking and I follow your wisdom on Friday’s Newshour with Mark Shields. I miss you when you are not there, but I know you are somewhere CONNECTING. I am a democrat and I respect your opinions and wisdom even if sometimes they differ from my own .
As a Family Therapist, retired, but still connecting, I agree 100% with what you say about being a “ Weaver” and not a ripper!
Please let me know if there is a chapter of Weavers here in my home town, Portland, Oregon.
Thanks!
1
Happy to see you doing this work.
Five quick thoughts and a book reco:
The ethos you are expressing is part and parcel of the progressive tradition, expressed quite forcefully in one of your heroes, Jane Addams, and her collaborator and in some ways student, John Dewey. That's the past, but let's not romanticize it too much. Jim Crow and abandoned urban and rural slums are America's past as well.
Second, you are in complete resonance with Greg Boyle's Homeboy Industries project of radical kinship.
Third, one way for business owners to build a meaningful social fabric across time is to will their business to existing, loyal employees to run as a cooperative. For a profit, but for the people who have made that company a longstanding business in a local community.
Fourth, you know as well as I that Plato diagnosed one of the problems with human beings is that those who want power are precisely the ones who should not have it, and those who have it, the virtuous, shy away from it. Why don't you run for office and save your party from its lunatic descent? You're a good guy who I have hugely fundamental disagreements with about political economy but I am all for healing our atomism and nihilism through communities that build character.
Finally, with your distrust of centralized government and your call for multiple beloved communities you are sounding like a 19th century anarcho-syndicalist!
Check out MacIntyre's Dependent Rational Animals. You'll love it.
Thanks, David.
2
It's all very true and good, except the tired MAGA trope of utopia after Pearl Harbor. I'm sure this plays well in many parts of Ohio and Louisiana, but maybe not for anyone who wasn't white (nor Italian, nor German, nor Jewish, nor Catholic, etc.). Over 100,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans who were subject to "stereotype(s), abuse(s), impugn motives and lie(s)" by their government AND neighbors, then forced into concentration camps with machine guns pointed inside—not outside—the gates.
Your argument is too objective and too light on blame. There are sides. The majority of "fear, distrust, tribalism, shaming and strife" is largely still coming from that same side as it did right after Pearl Harbor. While compassion is a righteous cause in any community, courage to call out the victims and oppressors is also needed now.
1
The pendulum of democracy is broken by the corrosive effect of money in politics and you Mr. Brooks are as guilt as the political class in enabling this to go on.
4
The weavers are trying to out back together what Jeff Bezos and his ilk are destroying. I think Bezos is winning.
And why is this?
We reject the tribalism that was the hallmark of religious types and understand more we are connected and not so different.
RE: What can I say to these parents?
"I support the Global War on Terror and expect you to hate and fear China, like I said to in my last op-ed.""
1
Liberals demonize their political opponents.
They stereotype and label their political opponents andwork up their supporters to the extent that wearing a MAGA hat expressing support for the President is seen as justification for violence.
It’s hard to have a conversation with people that would rather call you names than put forth an intellectual argument.
I agree with Brooks' sentiments and solutions as far as addressing the symptoms of societal breakdown are concerned. However, as is typical, his diagnosis of the root problem is incorrect. This is entirely a sociological problem and not a moral one. Brooks once again is trying to make the real world fit his conservative lens, when the data suggest otherwise.
What gave us Trump, poor neighborhoods where kids are playing with broken bottles, and poor rural areas with skyrocketing opiate abuse rates is not some moral lack of character, but rather misinformed masses that really believe things that are patently false. The truth of how to address issues as mentioned as well as a host of other societal ills is obfuscated by monied interests that excel at keeping far too many people in the dark as to the real nature of society's problems. They blame "socialists", Democrats, immorality, etc. for such (as Brooks does here with the latter), and missing the point that only structural change can permanently fix these problems.
That structural change is costly. It requires tax dollars to do, and will need all of us in the upper quantile to do our share. However more importantly, it starts with addressing the facts of the root cause of such concerns, namely that those that live in particular zip codes don't have equal opportunities as others. This is statistical fact that needs to be addressed.
Public schools. Infrastructure. Science. Start there.
4
We have an increase in sociological and moral problems because people have increasingly separated themselves from the love and protection of God. This is demonstrated in the dramatic decrease in church attendance in the last several years. If one has a relationship with God and fellowship with a local congregation, you are never alone.
@Aaron Adams Well, too many evangelicals model exactly the wrong kind of behavior and ethics. They want a wall, don't mind imprisoning children in cages and want only conservative judges who will overturn Roe v Wade. They don't care about the damage done to larger society by said judges, and politicians they support.
Wonderful piece, David. You might add a corollary to weave--share. What if we all thought about sharing some part of what we have--knowledge, connections, resources--as a moral imperative, and critical to our sense of accomplishment?
1
I only object to the opioid reference....where was concern when it was the "crack epidemic" in the 80's? Otherwise, better late than never, unless some parts of the beloved community continue to be excluded.
3
One thing I've done to become more involved in my community is get off Facebook. For the past year, the time I used to spend in the digital world (now more and more an advertising world) is spent volunteering and even i such simple ways as walking down the street where I purposely say Hello to everyone I encounter.
You too can make time for Weaving - it's there when you get off social media!
5
Those re-acting solely with indignation at right wing hypocrisy aren’t wrong but they are missing a valuable point. Community ties are weakening. Increased concerns about safety and the emergence of digital culture keep our families inside and our neighborhoods quiet. A new economy keeps workers moving between companies and jobs with less continuity. Our civic associations are in decline- of all kinds (faith, union, HOAs, and other). The progress of time always brings changes and trade offs. This decline in community ties has been matched with increases in equality and tolerance. But encouraging and joining those sustaining community common places is worth it.
Also these comments are excellent demonstrations of a modern tragedy- the belief that any idea expressed by your political opponent is dead on arrival. We can’t write off half of America. People are complex. The total morality of a person is nuanced. Growth and redemption is possible.
4
Bottom up and not top down is what built this country. Now it will be rebuilt and gaps closed to really be democratic that it is now. The new social renaissance will be closer to democracy than where we are currently.
2
I’m sure there are many people who would willingly and joyfully volunteer in their neighborhoods and communities, check on their neighbors, run errands for the homebound, etc. if they didn’t have to work punishing hours at job (or more than one) to make ends meet, pay rent/mortgage, while worrying about what could happen if anyone in the family gets sick, or any other disaster strikes. Emotional support and casseroles are nice, but don’t help much when you can’t afford to live in your neighborhood because you got laid off and can’t afford to stay. Or pick your calamity.
7
I understand your perspective, but I think David's point is focusing on the small things everyone has time to do. If you start small, say letting someone go ahead of you in traffic, holding the door, connecting with a co-worker, it builds. We all have time for the small kindnesses that, over time, build community.
5
It is impossible to disagree with the aims of people determined to build community - weaving is an apt metaphor. And goes against he masive materialism which has become the chief characteristic of our culture.
But -- there are gargantuan problems facing us, related to poverty and lack of opportunity for many, and it is not sufficient for individual Weavers ply their skills.
Government should be committed to the general welfare - of each community, of the country of the hemisphere and of the world.
Our current Administration and the radical right forces that support it IS ripping up the social fabric. Opposing a workable national health care initiative, removing environmental protections, tearing the US out of world alliances -- these are massively destructive tactics.
There are are more strategies, including legal ones, aimed at restricting the ability of smaller entities to stand up to make themselves heard, to acquire information, and push for changes.
We need government to assure the basics: safe water to drink, clean air to breathe, or food to eat. A large, mostly urban population relies on government to oversee these critical aspects of a life. They are a bit difficult to arrange on your own.
As an overarching symbol of the failure of governments overall to meet the challenges of weaving the social fabric, we face global warming. 1000 Pearl Harbors in the next 10 years is a modest estimate. An unlivable planet in 100?
Time for a party change. Mr. Brooks?
8
David
A good column and we need some creative thinking. “Weavers” is helpful
That said, and I know you are sometimes impatient with the left, but I know you know and remember that Pearl Harbor meant devastation for the Japanese population in the United States. It is exactly in this type of article that we need to remember
If we are going to be “weavers” then we need to have active memories and understand situations faced by others and our own history
And I still want a good solid safety net. One does not preclude the other.
6
"We don’t have anything as dramatic as Pearl Harbor, but when 47,000 Americans kill themselves every year"
That is the 2,403 deaths at Pearl Harbor about every two weeks, EVERY two weeks, year after year.
7
I would like to live in a society where volunteerism, while encouraged, is not necessary because everyone has access to health care, shelter, food, education, and a job.
If entire communities must rely on the goodness of a few people, it is a crisis, not an opportunity for inspiration.
12
@Lisa
I agree. here in Canada, there is a universal "umbrella", provided by the govt ., We don't have the constant worries and insecurities , that i notice in America .
There are provinces that are poorer and outlying Northern areas that are hard to service but most Canadians want all of their fellow citizens to be supported in time of need.
Local organizations supplement welfare cheques, such as the food bank, Mission Services, and Children's aid.
Low-cost housing is also provided by most municipalities.
We have medicare for all and next on the agenda is childcare for all and pharmacare for all.
Most of us are used to paying taxes for a safe and secure country .
We wish all the best for our neighbours across the border and marvel that the richest country in the world does not value the precious lives of each and every citizen.
2
Mr. Brooks; You have stumbled on the difference in world view between hyper-individualism/hyper-capitalism and a more community minded approach. The former eventually leads to unhappiness (the current state in the US) and the latter to happiness (Scandinavia.) If happiness is a worthy goal - I think it is the ONLY goal - then the conclusions are clear.
I wonder: have you softened your conservative approach?
9
Dear Mr. Books,
Whole cloth cannot be made with only weft. This column is all about the weft. Where's the warp? Because conservative ideology has destroyed the warp, thread by thread.
22
For the past 10 years or so, I have become increasingly involved in exactly what you describe. Hospice, reading aloud, Senior rides - volunteering on many levels and many ways. This is not about tooting my own horn. It is about the immense pleasure I derive from doing for others, meeting unlikely and fascinating (and lonely!) people that I would certainly never have previously encountered. I am 79 and these have easily been the most rewarding and fascinating years of my life. Would that I had fully appreciated the joy of such community far earlier! We will not solve our current ills by policy initiatives - only by getting involved on an individual and community basis, listening, loving and interacting. Bread on the waters for sure. Thanks so much for writing this and being so involved.
12
As with most sermons, it's hard to find fault with the generalizations this one contains, which are exhortations to change individual behavior and emphasize one-on-one interactions. The problem with this is that "it emphasizes individualism less and relationalism more." Yes, he says exactly that and means it as a feature, not a bug. But
whenever Mr. Brooks deprecates "individualism" -- and he's been doing it a lot -- it makes me nervous that he'll throw the baby out with the bath water. He uses it as a synonym for selfishness and fails to distinguish it from individual autonomy, curiosity and critical thinking. These are all attributes of the educated individual mind. They have made the West the dominant civilization and well-positioned to bring peace to the world.
3
Spiritual solutions to economic and social problems exist. It does in fact, begin with each of us.
4
The future of this country—this planet, actually—is based on two things: cooperation and sharing.
The endless cycles of depression and anger and frustration are all on account of the the world's preoccupation with competition, a concept perfected by the US and then injected into the rest of the planet like a virus.
Sharing is things like universal health care. Most of the civilized western world understands this. Why can't we?
The Trump forces—the hard right members of Congress and the Trump "base"—want things to go back to the 1950s, when they didn't want to deal with anyone who wasn't rich and white. Their own interests—and only theirs—were protected then. Fear is at the base of the fire which stokes the greed and self-centeredness. As long as they can keep blaming things on immigrants and the poor and call for "smaller government," we will continue to suffer the epidemic pain talked about in this article. (Don't forget constant dropping of the word "socialism" which has no real meaning to the GOP.)
The only solution is that rest of us, who want true freedom, will have to outvote those who want the system to stay the way that it is.
2
As many have pointed out, compassion is vital but inadequate - politics is necessary.
But...it's worse than that - Brooks' ethics gives the US right a way to pull the lever for heinous political acts...with a virtuous smile on their lips because they're 'compassionate and doing good in the way that counts.'
'Yea, I voted for less money for homeless shelters this winter - but then I walked outside and I personally laid my old coat across the shoulders of a curled up woman freezing to death on the curb. It felt good to be so virtuous.'
No point in arguing it with Brooks - this is a quasi-religious, faith-based ethics: though it predicts success, the vision of small acts of goodness spreading is a faith. And faith does not depend on evidence or argument.
7
As a community organizer for LGBTQ Christians in NYC, David Brooks is exactly right. There is no outside organization or policy that can create the healing effects and social empowerment extremely marginalized people need. We have a deeply spiritual problem in this country. We are spiritually bankrupt. Only we the people can fix that. LGBTQ Christians have been rejected by their own people of faith, and our spiritual needs cannot be met by secular organizations like GLAAD and HRC, which are rightfully dedicated to advancing our freedom to exist. But to whom do we turn to build our exiled community and rediscover the faith we were told is not for us? We turn to each other, pure and simple.
2
I guess the problem here is that Mr. Brooks is preaching to the choir, but the choir sees him as the Visiting Heretic. (But wouldn't we all be offended if the NYT didn't offer some conservative columnists?)
As a former preacher myself, I'd say that readers could ask themselves first whether they've incorporated some Weaving into their lives before they start automatically clicking on the Recommend button.
Among my friends there are Those Who Volunteer and those who don't. I myself find tutoring to be intellectually stimulating and rewarding: there are millions of kids and classrooms that educated NYT readers/commenters could contribute something to, not to mention the teachers needing support. Some of my fellow weavers aren't volunteers per se but part of the local community that gets together to speak Spanish. Most of them are either travel extensively in Latin America or they're from those countries, so there's Weaving going both locally and internationally.
There's no way of knowing whether society is more or less "hyper-individualistic" than it ever has been. But today's column has taught me a word that applies a beautiful metaphor to a wide, flexible concept. We have to incorporate "Weaving" into our lifestyles in (yes!) individualistic and even selfish ways, or it'll just be more tedious routine. To come at it from a slightly different angle, Mr. Brooks is challenging us enrich our lives by adding Weaving, in a small way or a major way, to our everyday lives.
4
Hmmm maybe our corporations/top 1% can be 'weavers' and 'share an ethos that puts relationship over self' by paying their fair share of taxes so that WE can all have, Medicare, a $35 Minimum wage and free college.
6
Mr. Brooks, very good topic for discussion. Ask yourself, what divided families, friends and neighbors?
Television.
I have recently considered the polarized nature of our nation, divided by Television along party lines and having cultivated hatred and anger through visual sensationalism.
How do we aid the weavers to weave the nation? Promote turning off the Televisions so we can cool off and relate to each other again.
Why should we Americans fight each other when we can marginalize the nation's common foe?
4
@PATRICK Television?
Hey Patrick there is a new invention that makes Television look like Clara Barton.
It's called the internet. Guess you haven't gotten into that yet. Lucky you.
Optimism is a necessary component to having energy for positive change, and I appreciate your optimism, Mr. Brooks—and your core goodness.
2
The comments section is an eye opener. Just three questions here.
America was founded by brave generations of individualists who wanted not much more from the government other than roads, defense, libraries, and a mail service. Is redistribution of wealth what made America a mighty democracy?
And if we increase taxes on the wealthy to 80% at the high-end, how many wealthy people will leave the United States? All it takes is 5% of them to leave for the net tax benefit to be obliterated. Not a political opinion – just math. After all, why did Roger Federer move to Monaco?
As for all the comments stressing the importance of unions, I was born just outside Detroit. Look no further to see the impact of legislating above-market wages. Detroit was literally demolished. Everyone in my extended family fled. Were unions really a net positive in this tragedy?
2
@Steve Slayton
Steve... I grew up in Detroit also, Redford HS. Worked in auto plants. The history of the Detroit "tragedy" is rooted in the hubris of the Auto Companies and the execs who dismissed Peter Drucker's pointed warnings about the Japanese Auto Companies in the late 50's- they were going to eat Detroit's breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Which they pretty much did. The "accelerating pace of change" (APC) was not understood or recognized at the time - think Moores law. The Auto industry was the first and biggest industry to be massively impacted by APC. It is what's powering robotics, cellphones, 5G, AI, nano-tech, bio-tech, etc, etc, etc. APC is accelerating the time scales that everything is happening on.
THE deep driver now and into the future is the APC. This technology "genie" is unleashed on the world. Can't be put back in the bottle. It will continue to develop lots and lots and lots of new and better things. The challenge is that these technologies tend to be adopted by groups that had the recent new stuff - concentrating the usage and value impact. This leaves most to play catchup - if you have access and can afford to. Many don't or can't. The conditions are sown for building disenfranchisement and resentment. Voila. Our thinking about the problems and the solutions need to be deeper, broader and more inclusive.
@Gene Amen, Gene. In 1996 the prius began running on tokyo roads. It arrived here in 2001, a year after the honda insight. In 2003 (press conf toronto) GM said it would never built a hybrid. Who knew???
We won't get strong and healthy communities without a level playing field and a strong safety net. We won't get a government that can sustain a level playing field and a safety net without communities. It's not one or the other. It's both.
We've got to do both. Work hard on both. Start now.
6
BRAVO and YES!! my nature has always been that of a Weaver. I have always embraced the philosophy you describe, and here’s to making our Weaver’s Web grow!!
5
Thank you David. In my opinion and perspective of the world you are exactly right. It's about our communities.
We are pack animals and live best when we have our people around us. We thrive when we are supported and when we can love and support others.
We always seem our best when there is a crisis and our help is needed. Maybe an alien invasion would be a good idea for humanity.
In lieu of that we might pay attention to the words of a new presidential candidate who is getting very little attention, but who is espousing your words. Her name is Marianne Williamson.
I realize you are a busy person, but you might listen to her message. We are probably not ready for her, but she too, is spot on.
Thank you, Mr. Brooks for this lovely piece. Your central premise echoes that of The Book of Joy in which the Dalai Lama and Bishop Desmond Tutu discuss the path to joy. They believe that humans are fundamentally good, that we are hard-wired to connect with one another, and that in so-doing, we find our greatest joy. The person who is excessively self-focused, is by definition detached and isolated, which leads to anger, frustration and hate; an apt description of our current president's persona. But in reaching out to others, we find and give comfort, develop compassion, and experience the joys inherent in giving, sharing and belonging.
2
My daughter died three weeks ago from an accidental opioid overdose. She was in no way socially isolated - she HAD many friends and DID live in a supportive community of "weavers" who were all compassionate and helping each other as best they could. What would have saved her was affordable health care and a responsibly regulated pharmaceutical industry, i.e. government interventions.
29
I'm very sorry, Nancy.
Strangers grieve with you.
Thank you for pointing out the bankruptcy of Brooks immoral right-wing kleptocracy.
A nation run by corporations and Robber Barons is not much of a society.
16
@Socrates
Because Corporations are NOT PEOPLE.
1
@Socrates Thank you. It's just heartbreaking.
1
i applaud your call for people to care more for each other, to help bandage each others psychic wounds and to keep others from - literally - jumping off a bridge. But these actions too often only stop the person from jumping off the bridge today. Tomorrow that person will be back on the bridge railing again. The chronic despair has at least a few sources. One factor for young people cannot visualize bright futures. Jobs that pay well -- the main source of hope especially for those with limited abilities or education - have dried up and will not return. A second factor is the social degeneration due to family breakdown. Two parents are needed to raise kids. There are successful single parents who heroically raise well-rounded kids but mostly single-parent families produce kids who are less successful. A third factor is the yawning economic gap of economic inequality. I think too many young people look at the world and just don't see much out there for them. If solutions emerge to deal with the three problems I just listed, we would not need to repeatedly bandage so many walking wounded.
7
Smacks of the same Thousand Points of Light nonsense that assuages Conservative dismantling of the social safety net. We are a wealthy country. We have a right for our taxes to not feed endless war profiteering, and to redirect funding to health care for all, education that doesn’t plunge our kids into debt, and infrastructure investments including a coherent approach to cope with the changes in climate that have been criminally ignored by conservatives. I’m exhausted by our limited, centrist to right political spectrum, and am cheering for a true progressive to gain the presidency; one who is not an aged white male. I am one, and I’m cheering for a woman to lead.
14
I'm not sure I understand how someone who exactly two years ago lamented "Americans used to move a lot to seize opportunities and transform their lives. But the rate of Americans who are migrating across state lines has plummeted by 51 percent from the levels of the 1950s and 1960s" and argued in any number of columns that this lack of daring was the cause of American stagnation can now celebrate the "weavers" who declare "We’re not moving away from that. We’re not going to be just another family that abandoned this place." Did I miss some public change of heart in the intervening period?
14
David: It’s time for you to change from being a columnist to being a social and spiritual leader. We - especially our children - need that kind of leadership far more than we need political leadership. You’ve been preparing for such a change all your life. The impact you’re currently having is important, but as a full-time spiritual leader who puts a leader’s face on weaver movements every day, and stays in the news, and gives us inspiration to follow your example, your impact would be immeasurable.
6
There is an organization that has been adhering to these principles for eighty plus years with little fanfare and held together with hope,love and the shared commonality of its fellowship and would be a wonderful template for those looking for a better way. But it's name might put some people off. It is the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous and has in it's non judgemental and all inclusive manor changed and saved lives with its gentle Weaving.
4
You are a courageous reporter and honest man, Mr. Brooks. Thank you for risking yourself once again. It's easy for people to disprove or dismiss a message from the heart... But perhaps the message still gets through. Keep writing!
6
It seems to me you are describing in part the accomplishments of FDR and Johnson's Great Society programs. But these programs need renewal. The caps on Social Security contributions need to be lifted to include all income. We need to improve and expand Medicare to create a healthcare system that covers all people. We need to teach civics again in our schools so we can see tyrants coming around the corner and stop them in their tracks. Anything that increases respect for all people weaves us together. Equal rights. Voting rights. A living wage. Truth in advertising. Truth from politicians. And finally we need to end crony capitalism. We need social capitalism...a system where workers get a seat on the board of directors...a system where the costs of production are paid by the company and not by society...a system where we care for the planet because we're not leaving any time soon. Our economic system must put community above the individual. We save ourselves by saving something bigger than ourselves. Do unto others people. Peace.
9
The latest words these days are mindfulness and self-care. Where does the idea of"self-care" come from? Perhaps the fact that no one is going to be there to care about you so you better do it yourself. Being mindful does exactly what for you? Does it replace the absence of touch? When I was teaching art to high school students when talking about someone important to them the phrase "always there for me" was the most common. Sad to say you get none of these things looking at a rectangular screen. Weaving is difficult. If you don't believe me try setting up a loom.
1
Is it possible to achieve this weaving with including only individuals? Do not corporations have to operate under some of the same notions that Brooks applies here to individuals?
If, in order to achieve enough prevalence in order for our society to be a weaving one corporations have to be participating, there are individuals pushing for that, too. There is a nascent movement about to push corporations to have responsibilities to workers and community in addition to shareholders. I see these pushes as a part of Brooks' weaving in our society.
1
I'm not a religious attendee so when I drive by churches with the parking lot full of cars I often wonder, "Does this building hold people who really want to love their neighbors -all of their neighbors regardless of religion, political affiliation, or sexual preference?"
My understanding was that the church/synagogues/mosques are places where weavers are present, but now I must admit, I don't see the evidence.
4
@djembedrummer, don't drive by. Stop in and see. I've found it hard to attend church since my husband died two years ago - I miss him most keenly there because worship was central to all he was and did. People there were happy to be with others on the road of life. There was talk of how the "church" supported this work and that cause in the community, but in truth it was the people who made that possible by their involvement and presence. They were kind to me without prying, let me participate as I chose and leave without a trace of having been there. But I was and am comforted that these places still exist, where people can come together to find help along the way, to join in service to each other and the larger community, to be reminded that hope endures in the world as a powerful force. Such groups are not perfect but they are good. I'll bet there is at least one such near you.
I do not have much chance to go out into my community aside from errands for my home. When I go shopping, if a child looks at me, I smile and wave. If a child is wailing in public, and the parent looks harried, I will see if any of my silly voices will help distract the little one from their upset. Sometimes it does, and that's enough.
Community is best expressed in how we build it and maintain it. One of the tenets of democratic socialism is that we help enable community by taking care of our neighbors as well as ourselves.
It's important to build up default human dignity if we want to truly weave. I urge you to think long and hard about which political party is more intent on building people up and bringing them together, and which one is more intent on breaking people down and driving them apart.
I am tired of living in a society where so many of our efforts to build community are destroyed by the urges of some moneyed interests to make even more money. It is beyond wearying.
9
A recent book by two sociologists addresses the topic of relationality in great detail: Pierpaolo Donati and Margaret S. Archer, The Relational Subject (Cambridge University Press, 2015). They provide a philosophical and sociological alternative to individualism in social theory. They highlight the concept of "relational goods" -- trust, friendship, love, mutual caring -- that people value. They explain why in the conditions of high modernity such goods are valuable. They connect the sociological developments to morality, just as you do in your column. They see development of relational subjects as a generative mechanism that holds promise these days. In disagreeing with the comment by Errol, they show how motivations other than selfishness operate to generate relationships. I think Mr. Brooks, you would find the book very, very interesting.
1
Problems that come to mind are: The fact that corporations have the same legal rights as people. Corporations have a mandate for profit. Some do philanthropic things, but only as they please. Mostly it is just rampant capitalism where the game is all about money. Related to this is our media, crammed with ads that center on pleasure and profit. Our society has become based on pleasure, consumerism and profit. But there need to be more pursuits than that that the public sees and understands.
The public discourse needs to include science, education, understanding government and democracy, ethics, mental and physical health, and the knowledge that unless we have healthy and knowledgeable population, we cannot have a strong democracy.
The young democratic presidential candidates will give us a chance at new discourse in politics. Trump will be way out in leftfield, in another age, unable to compete. They need to treat him as a non entity, and they need to raise the level of discourse and thrash out the details of the way forward for the country. They are capable of this and can make this a fascinating period if they avoid lowering the discourse to Trump or his base, put aside fears, and stick to what can be accomplished, what is good for the country and the future. I am hopeful that they can and will put the country on the right path.
8
First I would hope we can take this beyond politics. (Aside: David you are correct about "hyper-Trumpism" in the media which contributes to the problem.) I believe we saw experienced that Pearl Harbor day spirit post 9/11. But so much of our lives are driven into separation, individualism, isolation. We've lost balance. The common bond or thread has been strained to a breaking point. It may take several generations of weavers to restore the balance. It's not about converting people to one viewpoint or another. It's about respecting each other's thoughts and views and being open to learning and change. We should pattern ourselves more on Lincoln. Debate and discussion is more about understanding than overwhelming the other. And helping each other.
8
Great column David. I am sorry to see so many comments questioning your sincerity. You have changed over the years and some of your readers have not. The Weavers ( a good word for it) represent our last best hope to move our civilization in a more positive and fruitful direction. Anyone who has served in the military or participated in team sports knows you are only as good as the guy next to you and you don't win or accomplish anything by yourself.
11
I share Mr. Brooks' admiration for the "weavers". However, I think he is incorrect about their motivations. He wrote:
"But Weavers are not motivated by any of these things (selfish interests). They want to live in right relation with others and to serve the community good."
I disagree. I think weavers are good people motivated by their selfish interests. I don't think they are motivated by a desire to serve the community good. I explain....
I think weavers are a social version of Adam Smith's invisible hand which in economic activity generates public good resulting from selfish economic behavior. Similarly, weavers pursue their selfish interests. They are good people with good hearts who therefore get a substantial amount of personal satisfaction from helping others. If they were trying to accomplish a better community, they would be very disappointed because their tiny amount of personal service to other persons is like trying to fill a swimming pool one teaspoon at a time.....and the swimming pool even leaks!
Adam Smith claimed that the invisible hand accomplishes more economic good for the community than is actually accomplished by trying to intentionally design the economy to serve the community.
Similarly, the weavers accomplish more good for the community that is accomplished by those claiming to be socially conscious people whose purpose is to serve the community, people like politicians and political activists.
1
I was fortunate enough to be raised by two parents that volunteered in our community and took care of their parents with love and dignity. They’re example gave me a basis for understanding that when you give to others without the need for compensation or recognition the consequence is a sense of profound peace and at times joy. It takes courage and vulnerability to get outside of your own self and reach out to others, but it is possible. Thank you for your work in this area.
3
Remarkable. I read an essay that expresses optimism, talks about the need for human connection, and tells us of people who are actually making a difference. I then go to the comments section expecting to read things like "day maker" and Thank you, Mr. Brooks" and find that the reactions of many of my fellow, left leaning NYT's readers are caustic, hostile and accusatory. And here I've always felt that if we can't hold out the hand of hope and reconciliation, no one can.
20
@the desperate man
How do you think we are making it during this horrific time in our lives....that being this administration? We hold together. we have faith in each other. We help out of neighbors because the government has left us poor of wallet but not poor of spirit. Yes, some of the responses are not what you would like to hear, but they are the truth for those of us who are struggling to keep ourselves and our neighbors from going under. Praying each day for some human kindness in the form of health care without exclusions. Praying that we won't need two or three jobs to pay our bills. I could go on, but the point is that those of us struggling weave every day or we wouldn't be able to survive.
5
@the desperate man Agree. And thank you Mr. Brooks.
@zizzi
Thanks for defending those not smitten by Brook's inspirational remarks about "weaving" a better social life.
This debate does seem to portray a "glass half-full versus half-empty" point of view. Interestingly, I do recall reading how Republican's tend to be a "glass half-full" type (because they subscribe to a belief in individuality and the power of one to solve a problem), while leftists tend to be "glass half empty" because they are more concerned about justice, fairness, and the condition of the planet, and see the improvements that need to be made, but government won't do what is required, so it is easy to despair.
I think the problem David is discussing could be solved individually (just get out of your self, and be social, is all it takes)...but there is some magical thinking about this too.
Let's get our medical care worked out so everybody is covered, a wealth dividend distributed so no one wonders when money will be had, and housing so we don't need to survive on the street, then with this foundation, begin a conversation about well-being and helping others as a way to solve the ills of society.
I believe these "relationalists" have always been here and keep an otherwise rip-off, or "winner gets all," type of ultra selfish society barely functional and afloat. Yet, while those relationalist communities may be localized and based on a one-on-one and small-group/neighborhood level context, as Brooks observes, I believe he's envisioning a more communal, socialist, and traditional form of society when he's dreaming of a "national" level of weaving, aka a relationalist cultural movement, which might not coincide well with his conservative leaning. In relationalism just like in socialism, I believe everyone assumes the role of everyone else's keeper. To me, this what Brooks would call a "movement" would work best in the current (allegedly) "decentralized," spontaneous style of a case by case story sharing and gradual social convergence into a collective national consciousness. The government or a larger social institution (like school, church, synagogue, mosque, etc.) could instill and nourish this relationalist mantra and moral awakening and activism but one should be wary of the backlash or resistance to hyper anti-socilaists. I still have to wonder, though, how we could avoid tribalistic and nationalistic thinking. America doesn't exist in a vacuum. We have global, immediate and distant, neighbors. Can these local weavers support the US's effort staying involved/giving a hand to keep "the Rest" from being ripped apart further and keep them healthy and safe? Hmm.
5
Who has time to "weave" when they are scrambling to survive on two or three poorly paid, no-benefits jobs? Weaving a neighborhood requires time to create relationships. Impossible to do that when both adults in a family are working 60-80 hours a week.
Best to keep every non-billionaire at war with every other non-billionaire anyway, best to keep them divided and weak and focused on trivial things, lest they start weaving together the realization that the billionaires are the problem. See Revolution, French.
5
After watching last night's CNN Town Hall, I nominate Amy Klobuchar for Weaver in Chief. She is ready.
4
David describes: “our inability to see the full dignity of each other, and the resulting culture of fear, distrust, tribalism, shaming and strife.”
The problems are not due to “inability” but to brainwashing, which affects about 85-90% of Republicans. They are glued to Fox, and a cacophony of rabid posting on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram. And talk radio. And “Bible” broadcasting.
The cause is media saturated with paranoid alternative facts drowning out all common sense and empathy, And a President championing the whole enterprise.
17
I'm just gonna say it bluntly, when David Brooks writes a column based on unattributed quotes, I don't believe much of it. Sure, he goes on book tours and takes some questions, meets some people, but given the agenda and intellectual dishonesty of much of his work, I think there's a good reason he leave his sources anonymous.
The agenda is rear-guard defense of pathetic GOP, and the weapon is false equivalence and gaslighting. Equating racism with distaste for Trump voters? One reviled for the color of their skin, and the other for the content of their character. Our generation doesn't have anything as dramatic as Pearl Harbor? Of course we have, it happened in your city in 2001. Your political party used that unspeakable tragedy as casus belli in Iraq, a move you supported and which continues to harm veterans and our credibility in the world.
We are coping with another sneak attack even now, as we discover GOP was complicit with foreign agents to influence our elections and elect a madman to destabilize America further. You serve as a rear guard for Trump, and also the advance guard for future dismantling of the "safety net" -- perhaps it can be replaced by the "weavers" you mention, in the private sector?
If other readers have anecdotal evidence of Brooks coming to their town to solve social problems as kind of a freelance philosopher-at-large, please share. I would like to be disabused of my cynicism.
14
Goodness.
This is one of the more uplifting and hopeful columns I have read in a while, then I read these comments / responses and I tilt back towards despair.
It's the same old thing in the comments: cynical and bitter; almost everyone rushing to the political level of analysis of what Brooks is saying.
In my view, Brooks is way beyond the political analysis here. He's talking about solutions to our problems that have NOTHING to do with Trump, or the parties. He's transcending politics here.
Perhaps people who deride and ridicule serious columns like this, and who can't see beyond the political are the real rippers Brooks is talking about.
21
@Tom "Perhaps people who deride and ridicule serious columns like this, and who can't see beyond the political are the real rippers Brooks is talking about."
Absolutely right!
David, you have more experience with politicians than I have, therefore, your impatience with their self-absorption is your experience. Perhaps that comes with the territory by putting themselves on center stage repeatedly. My observation of the past Presidential Election was the choice was between a "Weaver" and a "Ripper". The majority of voters chose the "Weaver" by more than 3 million votes, Secretary Clinton. 45 was the "Ripper", shredding norms, shouting words of hate, and promising to rip up alliances. The Electoral College votes gave the WH to the "Ripper". With her 1996 book with the title taken from a Igho and Yoruba proverb, "It takes a village to raise a child." I do believe Americans prefer "Weavers" to "Rippers", and I cannot account for why this "Ripper" is POTUS. An example of Americans' desire to be better connected with one another was given by Steve Hartman on CBS on 2/15/19. Two year old Samantha Savitz likes going on neighborhood walks and greeting everyone she meets. She is deaf and communicates by sign language. Pleased and frustrated by this infectious little girl, neighbors did not know how to respond Long story short, they got together and hired an instructor and all learned American Sign Language. Steve Hartman concluded his story, saying, "it takes a village to raise a child is alive in this good neighborhood."
8
We have come up with the idea that money gets you stuff and stuff makes all things good. Better stuff makes things better, and in my avocations, the better 'thing' is substituted for the better way. Morality was mostly a shameful thing. Be embarrassed by your sin and don't do it again. It was not anywhere so much a positive act like making connections as much as it was denying behavior. Now this is not enough, we see. Change must come because otherwise, it is literally killing us.
1
David, come on. Society's depression is going to be righted by local helpers? Please.
Compassion have always existed in good times and bad. Compassion and community support is not the missing thread. The missing thread is the social support that has been eroding ever since Reagan crystalized contempt of all government with his "most terrifying words in the English language " propaganda: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Oh really? Please tell that to the cops next time you call 911.
2
For those who denigrate the government, look at the effects of the 35 day shutdown.
Well I loved this article but a quick glance at the comments, and it doesn’t look promising. Why oh why are the left wingers so lacking in self reflection? The rot began in the far right 70s - commenter said. How about a different perspective.. maybe it began in the 60s w/ the advent of ultra individualism. Maybe there were good and bad things about both eras. The problems won’t end as long as we are capitalist, many other commentators say ... how about admitting that capitalism has pulled the entire third world up in the last 30-40 yrs alone? Yes it pulled up the rich as well .. but you want to ignore all the positive effects of a system which undeniably has had benefits? If so then we are not even sitting at the same table to begin a conversation. I’m willing to say the Left has done a lot of great things. Another commenter has zero empathy for how it might feel to be a trump supporter right now - completely maligned by the entire msm a accused on a daily basis of committing atrocities - when in fact they are only seeing true positive aspects of a patriotism that brings all ppl together for an idea rather than a skin deep identity — and can feel the actual good energy of seeing hiring signs everywhere. There are trump
Supporters of all colors and sexual orientations- you rarely hear about them in msm - if you did it would go a long way toward healing. But it seems the Left won’t see what they don’t want to see.
4
David,
We have a leader who demonizes the Democrats, Brown, Black and others. We have the NRA profiting by instilling fear of those others and our mute Congress.
How in this environment can we instill a fabric of unity? Is this not something that should rightfully begin at the top down?
4
Politics aside. Love your neighbor as yourself. Love your enemies.
2
Well I loved this article but a quick glance at the comments, and it doesn’t look promising. Why oh why are the left so lacking in self reflection? The rot began in the far right 70s - commenter said. How about a different perspective.. maybe it began in the 60s w/ the advent of ultra individualism. Maybe there were good and bad things about both eras. The problems won’t end as long as we are capitalist, many other commentators say ... how about admitting that capitalism has pulled the entire third world up in the last 30-40 yrs alone? Yes it pulled up the rich as well .. but you want to ignore all the positive effects of a system which undeniably has had benefits? If so then we are not even sitting at the same table to begin a conversation. I’m willing to say the Left has done a lot of great things. Another commenter has zero empathy for how it might feel to be a trump supporter right now - completely maligned by the entire msm a accused on a daily basis of committing atrocities - when in fact they are only seeing true positive aspects of a patriotism that brings all ppl together for an idea rather than a skin deep identity — and can feel the actual good energy of seeing hiring signs everywhere. There are trump supporters of all colors and sexual orientations- you rarely hear about them in msm - if you did it would go a long way toward healing. But it seems the Left won’t see what they don’t want to see.
1
Wow. David Brooks is channeling America's two most recent one-term presidents. This is Bush's thousand points of light married to Carter's honest caring about other people. If only we actually did the things we say we aspire to.
3
"The Trump-supporting small-business man in Louisiana who silently clenches his fists in rage as guests at a dinner party disparage his whole way of life."
He's a weaver?
If his whole way of life is to support a man and an ideology that celebrate hate, meanness, selfishness, and fear, then maybe he should direct some of that rage energy at what's going on in his life that led him there.
At this point if you're still supporting Trump, you are definitely not into weaving social fabric, unless it's only for you and "your kind".
4
I'm a professional life coach. I volunteer with the non-profit coaching organization "OnetoOne Women Coaching Women."
Our mission is "changing the world one woman at a time."
Our clients are women of modest means and caregivers for wounded veterans.
We're part of the "weaver" community.
3
I hope David takes time to read these letters.
2
When Ronald Reagan announced to protesters in Berkeley: "if it takes a bloodbath, lets get it over with" he followed up with likening students to jungle inhabitants Tarzan and Jane.
Nixon referred to those living in urban areas with sentiments you can find on youtube but are so disgusting the words are not fit for this page.
J. Edgar Hoover, Roy Cohen and Dick Cheney set the tone for the Ford White House with thanks to Donald Rumsfeld but without a doubt, the sentiment of anti social behavior would go to Oliver North and Gordon Liddy inspired to to encroach on the civility and peace which Americans died for in two World Wars, Korea and Vietnam only to be left in tears standing there to find out the Soviet Union was not worthy of one minute of concern as they cooked their books and bluffed their way into our false beliefs.
These people led us to question the strength of a civil society of peace and led us into one dictated by Donald Trump and carried out by Jeff Sessions, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch, Cotton, Cornyn and Grassley. Bolton threatening more incarcerations on Guantanamo. Pompeo backing the deaths of a hundred thousand children in Yemen and all will answer to the children they have locked up in cages.
Now, Mr. Brooks, are the times for your tears.
2
It's good to hear something constructive for a change
2
Wow, David, you have seen the light...no man is an island and the way to happiness is service above self working for the common good. It is about time to join the Democrats, the new Green Deal, and maybe become a Rotarian. Burn your copies of Ayn Rand’s selfish philosophies, drop the GOP “you are on your own” (YO-YO) politics, and support social policies that are for the common good, the environment, our global security, and economy. Make the leap, David...you have been on the mercurial edge for a long time.
9
David Brooks predictably laments the social disintegration of the last sixty years, beginning in — you guessed it — 1960. The age of Aquarius and the Me Generation, right? Everybody (every Republican) knows that.
Why can’t we return to the friendly, comfortable, white male-dominated 1950s, when women wore aprons and baked cakes for church, when gays huddled tight in the closets, and blacks were firmly second-class citizens?
Mr. Brooks. The 1960s revolutions that you lament were powered by cooperative, political movements that claimed civil rights for African Americans, gay men and women (hear of Stonewall?), and women. These rebellions were ignited, in part, by the anti-war movement.
Lots of people might call that GOOD. Communal. Fair. Just.
Not you. You want to preach and praise individuals who help stitch their community together through volunteer work. You like these people. They pull themselves and their communities up by their own bootstraps without getting paid. Without requesting government assistance to improve schools and provide lunches to those two little girls playing with broken glass.
Preach on. Then find a mirror and look hard at yourself. You belong heart and soul to the party of anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-environment, anti-gay, racist Donald Trump, a party shaped by vicious George Wallace, greedy and cheery Ronald Reagan, deceitful George Bush (WMDs) and friends. You keep trying to wash your hands of it.
Won’t work.
8
I want to believe you that you’re done tearing people down and want to invite us all to join you in building a more inclusive society in this time of turmoil.
But everything about your history of false equivalence tells me by next week you’ll be using Jussie Smollett as the next Covington kids wedge to lecture the left about its intolerance even as the right calls for Ilhan Omar’s destruction for speaking 1/1000th of the nonsense that Trump spews.
I guess I should just hope your continue to live an example your words can’t live up to.
1
"The Trump-supporting small-business man in Louisiana who silently clenches his fists in rage as guests at a dinner party disparage his whole way of life."
Mr. Brooks, please don't engage in the normalization of false equivalency of Trump; and his supporter's racist, homophobic, jingoistic and ultimately anti-democratic lunacy. Do you really have sympathy for this imaginary fellow?
I don't, and it's my guess 99% of readers here don't either. I stopped reading your sanctimony at this sentence.
5
Congratulations, Mr. Brooks. Please join us, as a Democrat.
We welcome you, and won’t judge your past.
Seriously.
2
And I thought that Norman Vincent Peale was dead. But lo and behold he has morphed into David Brooks. Like Peale, its easy to preach the good life if you are living the sweet life.
3
“We in the news media focus on Donald Trump and don’t cover them,”
David
Trump is part of the problem!
3
Politics aside, love your neighbor as your self.
2
Enough morality stories, David. Your columns are often bromides about how to be good, which makes you a useful tool to the powerful.
These times demand courage to confront a powerful enemy with specific allegations and a commitment to confrontation, not a book of virtues. You have earned nothing but sinecures in your decade long tenure at the Times. You have become a palace reporter. Make enemies or get out of the way for those who are able to do so.
4
Yes, people like David Brooks are reviving the art of pulp Utopian fantasy.
1
Ahhh yes 60 years ago was 1959. Pre Civil Rights act--was that supposed to be good time for All Americans or just the white males?
Or by the 1960s do you mean DJT was only an up-and-coming real estate failure--well before he got into reality TV cause it didn't exist?
Or by the 1960s do you mean when a family of 4, 5, 6 could live on one middle class income?
Or by the 1960s do you mean when The Fairness Doctrine was still alive and well?
Or by the 1960s do you mean it was better before SCOTUS said 'separate but equal' is not at all equal?
Mr. Brooks, on what planet are you living? How much Soma did you take before writing this fantasy piece?
1
Those who care about relationship should check out the work of Rev. Bill Stanfield and his Metanoia organization in North Charleston, South Carolina.
1
Mr. Brooks: "A couple times . . . ."
Really??? Not in your column, surely. I misread. I'll see the print edition.
No. It didn't read, " A couple of times . . . ." there either.
Oh well. I noticed "alright" in a headline in a Financial Times opinion piece last week.
And so it goes.
David Brooks -- the supposedly "conservative columnist" sits on the sidelines as Republican Party has descended into some kind of right wing corporate-driven fascism and, instead, he sounds like he wants to be in the Green Party in Germany. Brooks shrinks from being the kind of voice he could actually be using his platform at the Times to call for an actual, real Republican revival. The country needs a voice calling for a return to responsible conservatism. Instead, Brooks piddles -- presenting himself as some kind of idiosynchratic public philosopher. What a load of rubbish --
David. We need you -- get with it.
4
“...our inability to see the full dignity of each other, and the resulting culture of fear, distrust, tribalism, shaming and strife...We precedes me...I’ve become so impatient with the politicians I cover! They are so self-absorbed! ...When we stereotype, abuse, impugn motives and lie about each other, we’ve ripped the social fabric and encouraged more ugliness...Every time you assault and stereotype a person, you’ve ripped the social fabric.”
Trump is a ripper, not a weaver.
5
In my 82 years, the community care I received, diminished as society's mobility increased. It became easier and job-necessary to move away... and neighbors became strangers. Mutual neighbor care further weakened as gov. bailout programs provided the security that was formerly provided by neighbors helping each other, before gov. programs existed. We were poor (one bedroom) as were many neighbors, but we didn't blame the rich in some kind of class "warfare". Mr. Brooks seems on the right track to me.
3
I don't always agree with you, but I appreciate the group, the article, and the sentiment. Keep up the good work(s).
2
David,
You are living in the land of Magical Thinking. You would have made a great Neville Chamberlin.
As the person who commented here said, people are too busy trying to keep their heads above water to have the time to help others.
The problems are structural. Only structural solutions will change the course we are all on.
The problem is the clash between the ideas of the Enlightenment and the new Dark Age. No amount of social weaving is going to resolve that clash.
It is going to take a very ugly time before once of those two ideas becomes dominate again.
It is just as likely at this point that we are descending into a New Dark Age as a re-awakening of The Enlightenment.
5
As to moral purpose, I would add that one of the parties purposely does not promote good, more fiber in its citizens and the other does. The GOP is too beholden to its money interests and power to allow healthcare, education, infrastructure, combating global warming and other socially beneficial and inclusive packages to proceed and go forward. These are issues that can be identified by their promotion of the common good.
As long as the GOP remains in the grasps of its money overlords with its propaganda arm at Fox spewing out its selfish aims, then we will have to rely on these ‘Weavers’ to see us through the day.
In other words, these weavers are good and decent people but they remain an ineffective stopgap which actually requires government intervention to create a better nation.
We cannot avoid or dodge this question as these weavers attempt to apply bandaids to heal the harms caused by the GOP and their policies. Their numbers are too small and the pain caused by the GOP too large.
David, an article on weavers has a nice sentimental touch but the real task is to defeat the cause of our social ills and these ills can be laid nicely and neatly at the feet of the GOP.
6
This morning, I have been reading America's 60 Families by Ferdinand Lundberg, written in 1937. What is stunning for me is imagining a reader in 1937 seeing the descriptions of the overflowing wealth when poverty and suffering was all around and seemingly unending. A modern reader will recognize so many names and the contributions that were made to civic life in universities, parks, museums and other philanthropies. But is it so clear that none of the wealthy did enough and most supported political actions to maintain their excess and advantage. They could have done so much more to support their nation and they all knew that, some where deep down. That is why they needed to live apart and socialize together.
Then I stopped for breakfast and read Brooks' newest discovery of everyday life in America. Imagine 1937 readers now reading Brooks. They would be shocked to see how little has changed. They would say: being kind to your neighbor is enough?
Brooks-- that is your real political-intellectual heritage and what you not-so-secretly aspire to. You think the weavers are quaint and sanctified. No, they are remarkable to exist in a brutal, unequal society, one illness away from disaster. I deeply admire their commitment, drive and optimism. I do not admire your deliberate blindness to your party and what it has imposed on the rest of us, possibly permanently.
15
You can name individualism the situation we are all in, yet the fact is that capitalism makes every one of us a consumer. And consumers inevitably fight each other to consume more and more. Yes, you can call that situation individualism. The word is cute enough
1
Wow, Mr. Brooks, I don’t know where to start, but let me try.
Your idea about relationship building through helping others is not at all new. Volunteerism has gone one throughout our history and continues today, from the abolitionists to those who rush to disaster sites, to people who help at animal shelters and so on.
How can you not address the abdication of our Republican political leaders in the way problems are addressed, at least since the Reagan era.
If society is disorganized and consequently disordered, what resposibility do our political leaders have to provide means to solve problems, using the funds that we taxpayers provide.
You often write qauzy analysis of social issues laced with plenty of ad hoc advice on how we got there and can improve ourselves to fix it, without acknowledging the role or responsibility of elected leaders to respond. I think you must be isolated in a way.
This column today takes the proverbial cake.
4
Yes, Dear Heart, it is a wonder to witness what was once an uptight conservative into a fragrant flowering open heart, the subject keeps shifting like a compass seeking its north, in this,
as you said, the logos is morality and all that defines it.May it weave itself through the hardest hearts, Blessings.
1
"These different kinds of pain share a common thread: our lack of healthy connection to each other, our inability to see the full dignity of each other, and the resulting culture of fear, distrust, tribalism, shaming and strife" ..
No doubt these are all very real, but they hardly represent root cause .. rather, the common tread they share is the tyranny of wealth concentration and a profound deficit in shared prosperity. When the top 1% has greater wealth than the bottom 90% .. when such maldistribution is so extreme and persistent, social maladies are assured.
Social weavership is helpful David, but in the end, it is merely palliative.
5
Lots of insightful comments expressing frustration (understandable in my opinion) with the current state of national and global affairs, in particular our current Executive branch and it's supporters both at the national level (Senate) and the local level (individuals). In expressing such frustration, it may be easier to dismiss the grass roots, manu-e-manu humanity and compassion concept Mr Brooks is advocating as more.or less 'a nice idea but too small to be effective'.
We absolutely need rapid change towards a humanity-friemdly on a national and global scale, but I think the local, small, one-on-one efforts in fostering community and compassion are just as important in facilitating big changes as the big changes themselves. The world is made up of individuals and to David's point, those individuals (ie, 'us') are not all magically going to reverse decades of 'me first' thinking on our own, at least not anywhere quick enough in my opinion. However, each of us working individually to foster compassion and community will undoubtedly turbocharge the reversal.
Thanks David!! Great column, and good work!!!
2
"Relationships do not scale."
I enjoyed reading this piece. The ending was aspirational which is a good thing. Another commenter said life is and will always be hard; I tend to agree. As a character in Amos Oz's A Tale of Love and Darkness said, we need more generosity and compassion.
1
Fear is the root of all evil.
Respect is the root of all good.
We can all start being more respectful, less fearful.
2
People can weave themselves into the fabric. I enrolled in college last year, and am part of a cohort of 18 students on the same path. I found myself a job, and chat with co-workers while working. There's plenty of ways to connect but you have to make a minimal effort to make it happen.
3
Sorry David. Like millions of others, I watch a Trump rally on the nightly news and focus on all those hooting people behind him in their MAGA beanies yelling "Lock Her Up!" Over and over, I keep looking at their faces, their eyes, their angry expressions and wonder what's going on in their brains. It's kind of like watching a zombie movie or some version of the walking dead. Life is short and the the mental capacity of a zombie is limited. Please tell me why I need to "weave" with these people? Is it to "reason"them into a more humanistic or tolerant point of view? To convince them that norms are important and civility is precious? With a nod to Jonathan Swift, and as my teenage daughter might say: "I don't think so".
7
I wholeheartedly agree that we have a societal moral problem, but it is a lot to ask of individuals at the grassroots level to fix it. How can they weave, when government has provided no pattern, yarn, frame, or a room in which to weave without getting shot at? Brooks and other compassionate conservatives talk a good game, but they miss that one major cause of hyperindividualism was the Republican Party. Indeed, "you do you" could be the mantra of the GOP (if you're a white man.) I get that the loss of organized religion to provide moral structure was another cause, but that's not coming back. For American society to heal itself, a collective set of agreed upon categorical moral imperatives needs to emerge. Those moral imperatives have been absent for roughly 20 years, in my experience. They were on the decline long before that. It is up to our political leaders to reestablish our moral code: what truly made America great. This isn't #metoo or Evangelical Christianity or identity politics. It's the moral code that truly drove the founders, Lincoln, et al.—updated for a modern time when racism and sexism are simple unacceptable. If only.
5
While I find Mr. Brooks' ideas commendable, I do believe they miss the main issue: how did our "lack of healthy connection" come about? It was, in my opinion, driven by a lack of necessity -- in earlier times, we needed to band together to survive. As humanity, at least in the West, started generating immense surpluses, we no longer needed to be tightly connected to close groups to survive; many tasks were outsourced to the state, or corporations. But there was collateral damage in this loss: a loss of meaning, common struggle, identity.
Today, the issue with "weaver" projects is that they lack a collective purpose that is urgent enough to be meaningful to large swathes of society.
But who knows? Once the various latent pressures due to inequality, climate change, etc. become acute enough, this may yet change.
2
Thank you, Mr. Brooks, for your thoughtful and heart-connected writing. One of my favorite parables is the Good Samaritan -- this traveler, with his (presumed gender) goods put his own life at risk to be with and help "the other," someone who had been beaten and abandoned on this same dangerous, destitute road, while two others literally crossed to the other side to avoid the social contamination. The Samaritan was a Weaver by your definition -- a Samaritan in Judean territory with relationships, trust, and open hearts & hands -- all against the social norms of the day. We're taught this parable in the Christian tradition so we understand that everyone may need help and (we) must learn to receive it (too), and everyone needs to help everyone (and learn to listen and do so). The family that stayed in Chicago, and your other examples, call to the Good Samaritan tradition and others. "Weavers," it is for e pluribus unum!
A vision of Hope from Mr. Brooks:
"These different kinds of pain share a common thread: our lack of healthy connection to each other, our inability to see the full dignity of each other, and the resulting culture of fear, distrust, tribalism, shaming and strife."
This diagnosis comes from a smart and wise NYT columnist unlike the rest of the progressive cabal. Of course, the conservatives also have their nay-sayers.
Let's join hands with the Weavers irrespective of parties and fine a way to weave a new, tolerant and productive social fabric to replace the rotting carpet now beneath us.
1
Connect this with Paul Collier’s The Future of Capitalism on the importance of recoprocity in markets and business. Something all the way back from. Adam Smith’s Theory if Moral Sentiments
1
It's stunning to read David Brooks' essays exalting community-based programs to repair the "social fabric," while his party is engaged in ripping that social fabric apart. Republicans, whom Brooks has spent his career defending, are enflaming racism and bigotry with their anti-immigrant policies, with their support for racist voter suppression laws, and efforts to oppose ending the war on drugs, which has destroyed communities of color and led America to incarcerate vast numbers of Black men.
Enough with this head fake about "weavers" repairing the social fabric. Stop Trump. Stop the wall. Stop Republicans.
Now.
14
"The African-American woman in Greenville who is indignant because young black kids in her neighborhood face injustice just as gross as she did in 1953. The college student in the Midwest who is convinced that she is the only one haunted by compulsive thoughts about her own worthlessness. The Trump-supporting small-business man in Louisiana who silently clenches his fists in rage as guests at a dinner party disparage his whole way of life."
One of these things is not like the rest. Can you find it?
3
@Russell
Yes, I spotted it immediately. The Trump-supporting small businessman. He's not weaving, he's rending.
David, I notice you mention 47k deaths per year from suicide, but not the gun epidemic. I notice you feel badly for the white Louisiana Trump supporter, but don’t mention that his way of life is about keeping others down so he can feel superior to and control women and minorities. How can we take you seriously when you are unwilling to accept and even mention these fully evident facts that are contrary to your ideology.
9
@JF Generalities and stereotypes do not help when no facts are supplied. The message about the "white Louisiana Trump supporter" is that both sides need to change. Perhaps the way forward is to talk with others about real problems and reaching a common understanding and not leaping to solutions based on ideologies, whether left of right.
@Fred P
I'm sorry to disagree, but It's the Trump supporter that needs to change.
“...How do we take the success the Weavers are having on the local level and make it national...
Well – one of the most actionable ways to bridge weaving with capitalism is to open a small restaurant and employ 25 people or so...
These sorts of endeavors are the tell for millennia to go live in some nabe where all anyone else sees is discarded needles and lives...
Incidentally, about eighty percent of such restaurants fail – all the more reason to keep on trying...
Now, imagine someone trying to open a large establishment that’d employ 25,000 people or so – thereby improving the odds for a thousand or so of these small restaurateurs...
Said more succinctly, David – which came first...
The factory or the food truck...
PS
Free pizza for all, starting first in Brooklyn...
Failing that, progressive-pricing for slices...
1
I think this is great advice, and I will take it to heart:
"I guess my ask is that you declare your own personal declaration of interdependence and decide to become a Weaver instead of a ripper. This is partly about communication. Every time you assault and stereotype a person, you’ve ripped the social fabric. Every time you see that person deeply and make him or her feel known, you’ve woven it."
And I dearly wish that the legion of angry, tunnel-vision comment writers here would do the same. Seriously, you people need to open your eyes and see past the "R" label. There is not a single word in this article that is partisan or political, yet that seems to be all many of you can see.
4
The social fabric is promoted by benevolent policies, or ripped apart by policies that separate the rich from the poor. Have you chosen which side you're on?
1
“We’re living with the excesses of 60 years of hyperindividualism. There’s a lot of emphasis in our culture on personal freedom, self-interest, self-expression, the idea that life is an individual journey toward personal fulfillment. You do you.”
So all those folks worshiping at the altar of Ayn Rand have got it wrong?
2