Interesting that Buttigieg has "massive support" from educated people. Too bad we live in the era of "my natural born stupidity has just as much value as your store-bought smart."
13
ya I'll add my 2cents. Biden in Hillary in drag. No way another centrist, neoliberal, MIC believer smiling senile old white man is gonna win against Trump as Hillary proved. Kamala, Cory are long shots. Bernie has got a good chance cause elders listen to their children and not visa versa and the educated youth like Bernie. Not sure about Warren but maybe. Warren is my 1st choice. She's as progressive as Bernie and, like Trump republican leaders, the centrist old school Dems will follower her lead is she's got the legs to win the Primaries. Bernie will ask his followers to join progressive Warren and centrist losers of the primary need to get southern conservative blacks/Latina women on board. The males, those that still have the right to vote, will follower their woman folk. If the Dems go with a centrist I'm gonna go Green.
16
As I said in another comment, arguing that sometimes there is a practical necessity of pursuing your goal in stages, the key is to think of Biden as a "placeholder" or a "***PIVOT***". Normally I repudiate torpid "incrementalism" that mostly reinforces the status quo (probably a fair characterization of Biden), but the current situation absolutely forces me to focus on the prospect of 2016 being repeated.
Can we survive a trump re-election? Frankly, I don't think I could bear it. And frankly -as I said in a different comment- it makes sense to contemplate the impact on the younger generation of 8 years of their youth and/or young adulthood under an 8 year Trump administration. Sometimes you really have to play the long game, including losing a battle to win a war. I'm nearly 50, and couldn't be more disappointed in the national politics throughout my adult life. But this has tempered my idealism in the direction of a kind of resigned Machiavellian sense of prudence. Step outside your own narrow wants and interests and think of the long term national survival. Trump is pure poison, and our immediate happiness is the unsalvageable limb that must be amputated for ultimate survival.
Like MLK said, we may not reach the Promised Land, but having glimpsed it can ease, or at least preserve however tenuously, the path for posterity. If we allow trump 4 more years, that path is gone. Start with Biden to get trump out, then eventually sweep Biden aside too. Likely the only way.
14
Pick a fascist dictatorship by 2025 or pick Joe. That's your choice. He's not a perfect guy, but he can beat Trump and thats. all. that. matters. Keep your eye on the ball, Democrats.
13
Both the Democrats and the Republicans express the interests of the privileged. The working class in this country must form its own party. Why not? We're the majority. The major problem is that the leadership of the AFL-CIO has been the pockets of big business for decades. How low do things have to sink before this house of cards comes tumbling down? Can the autocrats play those betrayals to a disastrous end like Hitler did in 1933? Who knows?
3
Biden is not ahead. That poll didn't poll anyone under 50.
Rigged? Or just stupid & misleading?
Doesn't matter, but isn't it amazing how few of our pundits bothered to check.
11
Republicans, in an actuarial death spiral, turned to the Southern Strategy to enlist new Republican voters who had little common cause with traditional Republicansm, but were vulnerable on several fronts: racism, evangelicalism, and prioritizing money. with these disaffected former Democrats, the Republicans could hope to scrape up enough votes to win elections, and it's worked, at least so far. but they're banking on the same voters time and again, very little replacement is happening, and actuarial realities are again catching up with them. all they have left is an angry and primarily ignorant core sponsored by the true Republican constituents: the very wealthy. the Republican Party of old is already gone, replaced by a rebranded Tea Party with strong fascist leanings. this is about electoral arithmetic and manipulation, not so-called elites.
6
Once again, it's the media "staging" the story, by whom it elects to cover most.
In 2016, it ate up Trump's theatrics-- "great ratings!"-- & marginalized Bernie.
Now it's setting up the "old guys grudge match" between Biden & Sanders, at the expense of everybody else.
I also wonder why Warren is being ignored, & I don't like the answers that occur to me- she'll make a great president, if people get behind her early. This is Not going to be a "wait and see" nomination--look how fast Biden's getting press support, with Bernie set up as his either/or foil.
Pick who you think is best now, & get in there fast with your donations & support-- don't wait till your "pick" is sidelined early, & your only choice left is Biden.
10
It's not a pose!
the favorable response towards this comment from both the readership as well as the NYT portend well for Biden. The editorial endorsement is his to lose.
No one in my orbit 35-and under likes Biden. If the Dems select Biden, I'd rather have Trump again.
ps- african american did not vote in 2016
1
You nailed it, Mr. Brooks.
4
Why is the desire to maintain a habitable planet "radical"?? If people like you, who should know better, give in the Trumpy practice of insulting perfectly reasonable people, then there's no point in the free press.
8
Mr. Brooks ,how can you stay a Republican supporter?
They don’t disrupt they corrupt.You can stand for what was
Republican values but those cannot be found in today’s party.
The party of Trump destroys any thing we have valued since I
Was young.The independents are available and the Democrats
Have an exciting group running.Get out of their cesspool and
Their candidate from the sewer.
6
I'd be cautious judging anything from comment threads. Let's examine what we know.
Sen. Sanders was given and took a free hour on the Trump propaganda cable network a/k/a Fraud Noise/Murdoch land. He is their sought after "Democratic" (he's a socialist independent) opponent. Do you think they fear him, or do they see him as a loser? I expect they'd give Mayor Pete a free hour too, but not Warren, Harris, Biden or Booker. Mark those facts.
The Trump campaign and the megaphone of GOP and far right propagandists spreading dirt and lies about our candidates are in full throat operation. So far, they give Sanders and the Mayor B. a free pass. Why, if they could win? Mr. Biden and son, Ms. Harris, Ms. Warren regularly are attacked and mocked ("Pocahontas", "Disrespectful" "Sleepy" etc.).
Say what you want about that con man, grifter, wanna-be dictator Trump. He's from my neck of the woods in metro New York and he's street wise. He's having 60 minute confabs with Putin. They're deciding which Democrat gets smeared online and I guarantee it won't be Bernie.
Brooks gets it right. A mainstream Democrat to save our country from this existential threat.
2
How do you define elite?
2
No mention of Professor Elizabeth Warren?
2
Baloney. Regular Americans want the same things. We have a government that does not respond to what the people want and has not for half a century, according to a peer-reviewed study from Princeton researchers a few years ago. Trump promised those things but he was lying. Let's see if Democrats are lying too. Your thought that it is the coastal elites is pure fantasy and does not align with the facts. You are fantasizing.
6
I'm a white working class voter over 50 for Bernie. Hang mass incarceration around Bidens neck.
6
I struggle to identify those uneducated “deplorable “ type Trump voters you discuss. Contrary to your assertions, and you are certainly not alone, almost every Trump voter I know, is college educated and most of these people have graduate and /or professional degrees. How do you square this ? Some are even ivy grads and have read the NYT all of their literate lives. Sacred bleu !
4
People liked Obama.
But he was a sell out. He did not end the wars, he did not close Guantanamo, he continued drone strikes, he increased attacks on whistleblowers. He appointed, as a foregone conclusion, Hillary as his heir, overlooking the logical choice, Biden, who would have beaten Trump. Even Hillary did.
It seems the country wants some liberal change, which Obama would not deliver, but not quite more radical social change, such as a woman president. Maybe things have shifted.
But we should bear in mind that lately the Republicans only win by cheating. Bush won by a corrupt Supreme Court, then a Cheney engineered war for a second term. Trump won by traitorously using Russian help. Bush was a horribly unpopular president as is Trump.
Theses elections are really the Democrats to lose lately.
However, I would vote for anyone other than Trump as I would have voted for anyone other than Bush--two of the greatest losers we have ever seen as president.
Watching Nixon on old tapes makes Nixon seem like a genius compared to this buffoon.
9
The only thing on the November 2020 ballot is going to be American Democracy itself. Do you want to keep it, or do you want Trump?...it doesn't get any more binary than that.
7
Which Biden policies are progressive, David?
6
Money corrupts. The elites approach politics like it’s a buffet. They sip their Chablis and congratulate themselves, but Madame Defarge keeps knitting.
6
If yet another millionaire columnist is seriously advocating for Joe Biden, that's good enough for me.
I'll definitely vote for a different Democrat.
7
AOC says it really well here. Please spare a little over 2 minutes of your time to see something refreshing an honest, even if you think she's horrid (she's not):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wGZc8ZjFY4
Enough the the elites stuff. I really like David Brooks, and I know he's trying hard, but he still doesn't seem to have absorbed what it's like to be one paycheck away from disaster. Knowing that does *not* make one elitist. It makes one informed and, if one cares and wants to help, compassion.
Now that is true Christianity. Give it a shot (see the Gospels). (Speaking as a secular humanist who likes Jesus's message ...)
8
“We underestimated how hollow and intellectually spent the Republican establishment had become...”
We underestimated how greedy, morally bankrupt, hollow and intellectually spent the Republican establishment had become...
There, fixed that for you.
3
Mr. Brooks, "Highly educated coastal progressives live privileged, affluent lives"? Really? I consider myself well-educated, I live on the east coast, and I would call myself a progressive. But I am certainly not living a privileged, affluent life. Where do these demographic descriptions and divides come from? What do I do now? Move away from the coast? Become a conservative? Get dumb? Stop caring about the oppressed because I'm apparently just a poser? Maybe you need to come up with a category for the nuanced among us who don't fit into either of your two camps.
8
People that think of themselves as elites are usually the opposite. Hilary Clinton thought she was an elite and she is home making popcorn with her “elite” husband Bill and Trump is in the White House. The elites are the young men who served and died for this country.
3
It’s all for show, as the DNC will gift the super delegates to Biden on Super Tuesday.
That’s your candidate.
Might as well get behind the band wagon now since the DNC has already selected the candidate for you.
2
If you were expected to come up with $1500 a month for health insurance and had spent the last twenty years of your life caring for grandchildren because there weren’t any other affordable options, you would be supporting Elizabeth or Bernie. But then, while I was fixing turkey fifty ways to get through a slim week, you were a sophomore in college. We are the same age.
6
We Dems now, as of today, have 22 people running for President.
This is ridiculous and will guarantee Trump's re election.
Biden is HRC part II.... no different, same background.
I doubt he's "learned" anything different during the Obama years or the past two Trump years.
I am for Bernie, with some reservations, but would happily vote for Elizabeth Warren, if given the chance.
9
First, you will have to convince me and others, why we should listen to the resident Republican, who, if my memory serves me correctly, supported Marco Rubio in the last go around?
3
As someone who grew up and lived part of my adult life in what Republicans to endearing call socialist Europe, I am already sick and tired of the constant articles and and news channels with their daily Who Is Up, Who Is Down reports among the over twenty candidates running for election.
For heavens sake, the next general election is still 21 month away, yet as a pretty lefty citizen I want to puke when my e-mail box is overflowing with "Money Makes Our Election Go Around" requests from the DNCC, and numerous requests from the candidates.
Once when the ones I favour come out much later as potential frontrunners in the pack, I'll gladly contribute the max a private citizen can donate to their campaign.
To me the biggest problem in this country is the fact that elections are not publicly financed as in all other advanced countries, the latter also curtailing election to three months.
9
These "elites" have little or no bearing on how people vote. Most people, of any political persuasion, listen to these elites' pontifications but wind up voting what their gut tells them. 2016 is a perfect example. Hillary, though anointed by the elites, rubbed just enough voters the wrong way. Trump, scratched the itch that a whole lot of people had. He was, I hate to say, a tonic to the Republicans. We, as a nation, fell under the sway of a made up persona just to reject the same names being put forth as the only choice. Think about it, how many past elections had the name Clinton or Bush. That's why DJT was elected. And now we get to clean up the mess he's made. The saving grace is that DJT has angered so many voters that that mistake won't reoccur. Hopefully.
4
Pundits constantly refer to "democrats". What is a democrat? I
believe voters decide elections, not parties.
The article didn't mention that voters are now much more aware that campaigns are funded mainly by big money interests and corporations. Younger voters are in debt and feel forgotten. They are angry and they are right to be angry, since their concerns are not represented by any of these candidates that take this rotten money. The DNC has to sit up and take notice or there is going to be another horrible shock in 2020.
3
"...Democrats said the party would be better off moving to the center than to the left." What a ridiculous assessment. A move to the left IS a move to the center. Republicans are so far to the right at this stage that any move to moderation is considered a radical swing to the left. It is time to stop using education and rational policy positions based on fact as if it is identifiable with an unconnected "elite."
3
I’m so tired of the moniker “elite”. What does it mean? How did it achieve such notoriety? Why is it only applied to educated liberals while those on the right with similar advantages and privilege avoid such labeling? Let’s just stop using it—it’s tired and overused.
8
To my Democratic friends: don't let the coastal elites sucker you. They have lots of brain power, which has helped them become gazillionaires, but little wisdom. They represent themselves as visionaries, but fail to pay heed to Casey Stengel, who advised us to never make predictions - especially about the future.
Then there's the issue of self interest: Do you really think the transformational schemes they have in mind will benefit you? No way. It's all about them; it always is. They will prosper even when their plans go awry.
And their plans will go awry. There are always unintended consequences. (Oops! I just make a prediction about the future.)
Do you really want to entrust the likes of Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg with national policy, with your security?
1
It's the Republican elite that's keeping Trump in office--despite all he's done and continues to do. Disgraceful.
5
Wasn’t Biden rejected when Hillary was rejected?
4
"Radicalization"??
Affordable health care. Facing the reality of climate change already wrecking havoc on framers in the mid-west and threatening sustainable living in Florida and Louisiana. Ensuring the 1% monied control of our polity doesn't undermine our democracy. Safe driving water in Flint and Newark. Restoring the sanctity and possibility of a secure middle class lifestyle. Ending the scourge of rampant mass murder at schools, college campuses and shopping malls. Making sure a criminal con man doesn't sit in the Oval Office and that our Attorney General doesn't serve as the President's personal attorney to protect his criminality?
If these are "radical" ideas, then David Brooks has lost his mind along with his moral compass, if he ever had one.
6
brooks misses the point. He divides the Dems into the "elites" and "mainstream". But the real issue here is with a third group, namely "the establishment." This group transcends political parties. The establishment controls the Democratic Party (and used to control the Republican Party until Trump). They are members of the 1%, some who are socially liberal (Democrats) and some who are socially conservative (Republicans). But they all agree on preserving the status quo which has worked so well for them and with possibly some "incremental" changes to "save them from the pitchforks". They are strongly supported by the 10% including the pundits who are doing well under the status quo - not as well as the 1%, but still way better than the 90%.
8
Republicans came up with a new face in 2016. They won the electoral college and came close in the popular vote (which, at present, is as worthwhile as an apple core.
As a senior citizen, I'm not in favor of yesterday's leftover hash. I want a new face, new ideas, new passion, few strings or IOUs.
The future of this country is not its past. Which, of late, has religious and ethnic hate at its core.
The old candidates had their chance. It got us here.
5
Something I truly despise in our election process is the endorsement of candidates by public unions.
3
Why despise unions? How about despising rich guys like Koch bothers? How about despising the Evangelicals and their hypocritical positions? The Russians? The NRA?
4
Another moral to the story is that we still do not understand the dynamics of social media politics. What captures attention on Twitter does not necessarily translate into what captures attention among likely voters. When social media are better understood for their shortcomings perhaps American democracy will return to some semblance of functionality. If 2020 is as much a disaster for how elections are done as 2016 was, we will be able to finally say 20th century political process is finally dead (having been invented by radio and commercial aviation, if certain historians are indeed correct), but the survivors may end up envying the dead.
3
And both Senator Harris and Elizabeth Warren are gaining in the polls, so let's see if they can overtake both, as I don't like either Biden or Bernie, and am of the far left. And I dislike Bernie the most, simply because the hyprocritcal left is supporting him, and if the left really lived up to their woke ideals, Harris and Warren would be running away from the field. So thank you Mr. Brooks for calling out the liberal elites, with their ablest, privileged, snobbish lifestyle, and I'd like now to see you scold them for not supporting Harris and Warren, the two most truly progressive candates in the race.
11
Excellent perspective. The country is not just "split" it is divided in several important ways that is not reflected in the daily right-left poll numbers.
3
"We underestimated how hollow and intellectually spent the Republican establishment had become, and we didn’t understand the depth of populist alienation."
The Republican establishment isn't hollow or intellectually spent, David. They eagerly abandoned their voting base once Citizens United legalized their special interest bribery, and the voters caught on. Oops.
A similar discovery needs to happen on the liberal side. Joe Biden is a dyed-in-the-wool establishment centrist in the mold of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, cozy to the special interests supporting him; how else did he raise $6.3 million in 24 hours? Small dollar donations? Indeed if Biden and Sanders emerge as the frontrunners and the establishment underestimates the energy on the Sanders side (or rigs the game again), we could be facing a repeat of 2016 and four more years of Trump.
9
Have a little faith. The left leaning AOC liberals are likely partially made up of young people who deserve a lot more than they’re getting (climate change protection!). Let’s refrain from the ‘elites’ labeling. Frankly I’m sick of it. It will take a lot to overcome masterful Republican gerrymandering - but it seems doable with a proper coalition. I left the Republican Party after Sara Palin became the VP nominee and proudly joined the Democratics this year for obvious reasons. I’m hoping we win this for our kids!
12
Like in 2016, Democrats are ignoring lower- and middle-class males as they compete within their bubble for the nomination, which will largely be decided by women and educated elites who tend to vote in primaries. But to beat Trump, they need to recapture the lower- and middle-class male vote and turnout blacks and hispanics. I'm still not sure which candidate will best be able to do that.
6
I do not quite understand this fixation on right vs. left. And I especially do not understand this sort of sage like commentary this early in the primary campaign. Perhaps David does not remember how wrong he and everyone else was in 2016. A touch of modesty is in order - perhaps especially from modest virtuous Dave.
Here;s a great idea. Think hard about the mess we are in. Think about how to get out of it. Meanwhile, let the primary voters have a month or two to express themselves instead of reading tea leaves. There will be plenty to say about voter sentiment once we know at least a little something about it.
5
Joe Biden has never done well in the primaries and debates and I don't think he will do any better this time around. I wish the media would quit saying how popular he is. At this point in the cycle, people just recognize his name.
19
Compromise will not bring about the changes we need. bill Clinton compromised , Obama-Biden compromised and little was accomplished. For too long Democrats have moved to the center and forgot their roots. The democratic candidate has to come out swinging and make an strong case for new policies. If that candidate is not successful then he or she will still have their dignity which is more than anyone has after associating them selves with Trump. Younger people seem to want a new direction. We may have to wait for their votes.
4
Brooks is totally off base, starting with his first paragraph. The populist base of the Democratic party is where its uprising has started. Later, he is telling us that the majority of Dem voters are over 50. You think? So where are the younger voters going - to the Republicans? I don't think so.
14
As a farmer who is struggling to survive in California - like most farmers across the country - and like most working class people, I find this essay confusing.
I am a college educated person who does whatever task needed to try to make the farm work. I look at historic tax rates on the wealthy, home and farm prices when my parents and grandparents were at various stages of life, social cohesion and other factors and see destruction from the Republican party's policies.
I look at most of the FDR Democratic party's policies (leave aside the racial problems that our country had at the time - we are I hope moving toward more equity there as I have worked for all my adult life) and I see compassion, I see use of actual facts and I see an institution that has usually tried to do well by this country.
I know radicals who do want to "blow up the system" and people who want incremental positive change and people who want to just get theirs. Most people I know just want incremental positive change and return to civility. From what I can see that is what most Democrats and Independents want. Me too....
13
Everyone, please remember that whoever wins the next election will almost certainly be nominating at least one Supreme Court justice. If ever there was a time not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, this is it.
16
I think that after 2016, most Democrats will prefer the candidate most likely to win, regardless of their own, personal sentiments. Based on the polls to date, that means no woman at the head of the ticket, for example, and probably none as running mate either. The Dems were willing to take more of a chance after Obama because he won twice. It's a shame, but Hillary simply did not get the support she needed even from women. So it seems we will have yet another white, male ticket, and I cannot foresee an end to that general pattern. As I see it the drama in the Dem ticket is gone. Unless he messes it up, it's Biden *because* he's older, male, white, experienced, and centrist. And that may simply be the way it is into the future. The electorate would need to change for it to be different, and the electorate is already speaking through the polls.
3
Right now I think Joe Biden is in the best overall position to beat trump.Dems cannot squabble amongst themselves this time around. The future of this country depends on a united front come Nov 2020!
4
It’s basically a pro-Biden propaganda piece. The CNN poll is known to be skewed. Don’t know the Gallup poll. The dichotomy between upper vs. lower class rebels of the two parties is at best a hypothesis. It is not debated or supported with facts. Everyone is entitled to his own musings, but please don’t pretend they are anything more. The Democratic Party is about to repeat their 2016 mistake and push the supposedly more „electable“ candidate. Go for it, if you want four more years of the current disaster.
4
"Democrats of all stripes tend to support similar policy proposals." Absolutely not, which is why you have to pay strict attention when the "other side" comments on your guys. Nobody should be listening to Brooks for important advice about how to defeat the Repblicans.
Biden absolutely is a centrist and does not, and never has, supported progressive policy proposals desired by Democrats beyond not opposing them but also not advocating for them and then saying "so sorry" when they don't get enacted.
For him, to at any time, to have come out in favor of such proposals would have compromised the viability of his centrist, dealmaking position int Senate.
4
David Brooks can slice and dice the Democrats any way he wants, but he can't omit women versus men as one major dividing factor. Especially, he can't leave out the women candidates.
Elizabeth Warren, for example, is tied for second. Where's she here?
Warren, to some national surprise, wowed a huge gathering last week of black women voters. She is a populist who, unlike Bernie Sanders, is not an ideologue. My Heavens, she's actually a capitalist! She has an up-by-the-bootstraps personal story to tell, she's actually worked in her life, and she has a list of legislative accomplishments that goes back to before she was elected to the Senate. She's developing solid policy proposals that benefit the Common Person (aka, the Working Family). She puts Biden to shame, for his lack of policy chops.
As these candidates and others begin to debate each other, Biden will fade away from the Obama-shadow effect and Bernie's repetitiveness will bore people. There's lots of time.
6
Brooks gets it wrong from the start. The real elites in our political system are not defined by geography or education; they are defined by money and power.
It is not the elites who seek to elevate Bernie Sanders in this primary. Just as in 2015, the elites will promote a candidate who will preserve a status quo system that benefits their interests. In this pair, Biden is that candidate.
For Brooks to dichotomize populist and educated constituencies is another grave mistake. Young people, and people of color (contrary to Brooks' assertion), overwhelmingly support Sanders' agenda—many of these voters are 'educated populists.' I hail from a rural Iowan town of <10,000 people, and make no mistake, the grassroots energy for drastic change here is formidable among rank-and-file Democrats.
Nominating Biden would be a replay of 2016. We know that voters far and wide want real change, and Biden's brand of politics is not the answer.
8
My politics have been at the “center left” for decades, and I am 67 living on the coast, white, college educated, and have been sorely disappointed by and alienated from the Democratic Party. I support Biden because he is the most electable. I agree that the main goal has to be defeating Trump. My lefty efforts must go local for the time being.
6
I would also add that a revolutionary platform would be hard to navigate in the First Term after Trump as Republicans will be pushing back - hard against any change. So too, we need to repair the broken crockery left by Trump, that will take at least a term. Finally, expect to have an unrepentant Trump and a bunch of groupies lobbing rhetorical bombs from outside the White House for years. A dewy-eyed progressive with little national experience in this kind of situation doesn't the rank and file Democrats a lot of confidence.
1
Upper class readers of The New York Times cannot understand that most American families are struggling to pay high monthly premiums, high copays, high deductibles, and exorbitantly expensive drugs. Most American families are worried about their children’s ability to pay crushing high interest student debt. Most Americans want $15 minimum wage and want action on climate change.
These are not “elitist” east and west coast issues.
9
My number one goal is to defeat Trump in 2020. Who is most likely to do that? The polls say Biden. End of story.
113
@A Realist
Because the polls were so right last time!
10
@A Realist
And how accurately did those “polls”play out in 2016???
7
@A Realist
I swear it’s like everyone is the guy from Memento. We actually ran someone like Biden in 2016. It’s what the polls said to do. Sure fire thing. Couldn’t go wrong.
10
The so-called coastal elite disrupters are embracing what can genuinely be called progressive populism. When Bernie lost the nomination in 2016, it was his more conservatively moderate supporters who defected to Trump.
That'd be the same demographic that lends directly to Biden's high polling (along with black voters who associate him with Obama). That same less educated, white working class demographic, of course, also is a source of Trump's base.
So, the "elites" are now supporting candidates with progressive populist positions (yet Brooks won't call them progressive populists -- he prefers "disruptors") while the less educated, older voters support the perceived political elite in the field.
The things is, the so-called coastal elites (which ignores everybody else who is progressive but not living on the coasts and/or not 50 and older) are genuinely offering bold initiatives for the sake of everyone (unlike Trump and his base, who are not). Then, in the last paragraph Brooks changes tac and says that Biden offers progressive policies, after all.
So exactly -- what is the difference, then? A lot of convoluted explanation about this group and that, to end up saying Biden is not that very different in policy than the so-called "disrupters" -- he just polls better?
Wow, that was quite the head spin.
3
Jack@Austin
Thanks for your comments about Elizabeth Warren. She should be part of everyone's discussion of top candidates. Aren't all of us fed up with the deregulation in finance, tax cuts for the top 1%, a depressing America that only gets excited about continual war. We should remember the successful Consumer Protection Agency she started under President Obama. Of course our current disaster president got rid of it along with many other departments that work for safe air,water, food, health, education,roads.on and on.
I've seen Warren in action at town hall meetings on TV. She is a good listener, warm, responsive, intelligent. I donate small amounts regularly, but the big donors must wake up.
2
David Brooks is one of my favorite conservative writers but this piece strikes me as being built around a false premise that is accomplished by using the term "elites." The false proposition is the notion that, in contrast to the Republican Party, the current chaos among Democrats is a top-down thing. That is completely wrong. The DNC loved establishment Hillary so intensely that it could not see that she was a walking failure as a candidate. Now, that same establishment would love to see Joe Biden as the candidate. But, the folks at the bottom of the power structure, whether or not they have college degrees, want something different; something less establishment. Thus, the dynamics are very similar to those that pushed Herr Trump to the fore in the Republican Party. Is an "elite" someone with power regardless of college degrees or is it someone with a college degree but no power?
3
I am not sure why David conflates educated coastal residents with being well off. I know a number of people (over 50) who are in the “coastal elite” category by residence and education, but who are nonetheless under- or unemployed. Just because one is not from an historically oppressed background doesn’t mean one is not feeling an economic pinch. Investors are doing well, but working people whose only investment is in 401k are not having it so easy.
15
As a 73-year-old registered Republican, I am heartsick. Democrats are raising their hands offering to serve as our President. Yes, Biden is certainly well trained and his credentials are solid. Look what happened the last time we elected someone with untested and someone unknown credentials! That's what got us to where we are now. I've been told that 'a nation always gets the leaders it deserves', so what does that say about us as a nation. God help us all.
4
Have to think about this one. Certainly right that working class Democrats don’t trust ‘limousine liberals’. Privileged liberals exploited and despise the working class as much as privileged conservatives and everyone knows it. Trump won the working class because he comes out and says ‘what we are thinking’. Joe Biden seems to connect as well. But unlike Hillary, Obama somehow managed to connected to everyone. It’s why he had two terms.
1
Plenty of moderate Democrats on the coasts.. we're just not as noisy as the more angry base, but we do vote.
..Its best to let the primaries play out, and then see who's left standing. I would certainly vote for any of the Democrats over Trump..
... Try to imagine Trump picking the next TWO supreme court justices (replacing Ginsburg, Breyer, Thomas..??).. -Its no time for Dems to start fighting each other..
8
Pollsters and media are quick to draw distinctions between those "educated elites" and those who are not, as if that means anything at all. Some of the most educated people I know, many of whom I went to college with, do not have a lick of common sense or appreciation for our Constitution, which set the US on an unparalleled path to liberty never seen in the world before. Long before Donald Trump ran for and won the presidency Howard Dean said on Meet the Press that Republicans didn't care if children went to bed hungry at night. Countless other insults and lies perpetuated against conservatives while the Republican Party stood silent and the liberal press piled on.
Along comes Donald Trump and suddenly populism, racism , nationalism and radicalization are the new trigger words used to describe Americans whom the educated elite decided long ago to ignore..... decent people who occupy the middle of the country and those few on the coasts.
Still Democrats don't get why Trump beat Clinton, as the power base becomes .....yes, radically left, waving degrees that don't mean a thing.
For the political left and the media, being radical is wanting an organized, non porous border, due process against false accusation and respect for protected free speech. Hopefully Donald Trump is not an aberration but a wake up call to Democrats and Republicans in Washington, alike.
3
The New York Times reported last week on a wealthy DNC fundraiser that was underscored by efforts of wealthy donors to stop Bernie Sanders. The people who go to those sorts of meetings and work to undermine democracy, aren’t those folks the elites?
My fellow New York Times readers, it’s time to wake up. Donald Trump isn’t the problem—him and his motley crew of womanizers, liars, and party loyalists are a product of a nefarious root taken hold in American Democracy. There is may be some truth to suggesting that anything is better than another Donald Trump presidency, but it reeks of submission. Partisans have shifted the goal posts in their favor if all we can do is hope for someone better than Donald Trump.
You spoke the words to my generation, shoot for the stars and land on the clouds. Well frankly suggesting that all we can do now is work toward something, anything, better than Donald Trump shows that you spoke the words but never once gave a thought to what they could mean.
Elizabeth Warren is putting in work right now. Read yesterday’s piece on her efforts in Iowa. Sanders still inspires me because of his movement in 2016.
-
Desegregate our schools? Come on be real. Ethnic studies classes in university? Come on be realistic. Women voting? Minimum wage? Social security? Medicare? Come on be realistic.
And now you, what are you saying? Anyone but Biden? A progressive candidate that champions workers? Single payer health care? Psh. Be real.
Thanks.
1
I remember watching David Brooks at a PBS round table on election night in 2016. He was just as stunned as everyone else when two years worth of polling data was all proven wrong.
I'm educated and follow politics intensely. I don't live on a coast. I'm no more inclined to believe these conclusions now than I was in 2016. Everyone told Democrats Clinton's candidacy was completely out of touch with reality. We didn't need a poll. Democrats wouldn't less.
I can't be sure about Biden but we're treading in the same water. Democrats appear motivated to convince themselves down is up again. That's the frustrating part.
To point: This statement is extremely misleading, "it’s worth remembering that a majority of Democrats are over 50."
That's not exactly true. Most voters under 35 don't affiliate with either Party so they aren't technically Democrats. However, they tend to skew left on just about everything. Much further left than Joe Biden.
They also vote in open primaries. A point which the Clinton campaign used to shut them out of closed primaries at every opportunity. I imagine they've learned their lesson.
Before you get all warm woozy over another legacy candidate, be prepared David Brooks et al, along with all the polls, are probably absolutely wrong again.
That doesn't mean Sanders but it doesn't mean what Brooks is suggesting it means either. Best keep that in mind.
4
One political pundit said the damage done to government institutions by the Trump administration may make more radical change easier. After all, the next occupant of the oval office will have a lot of rebuilding to do. But whether those changes will be handing more of governmental services to private companies or whether we will move closer to a Scandinavian style of socialism will depend heavily on who wins 2020.
2
I wonder how many of those people who support Biden are like me - really worried that if we don't put up a white man we are going to get Trump again. I am not sure that is true but that is a fear that I have and I don't think I am alone. I would love someone like Harris to be president but above all I want the denigration of our country to stop. If we have to have yet another white man as president - fine - there are plenty of them who are competent good people and Biden fits that profile. Maybe the majority support him out of fear that we cannot afford to nominate someone not like him.
4
Please don’t underestimate or ignore how much the white, well-educated, and wealthy Republicans quietly supported him at the ballot box. Oh, they weren’t as outspoken as his base, at least publicly, in their distaste for his behavior, but they were very much in support of his policies when he talked about cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy, deregulating financial and industrial institutions, eliminating Obamacare, and closing the borders. After all, we are constantly reminded about his base being 30% of the electorate. Yet, it’s the silent 5% of the “establishment” who will determine the outcome of the next election. Just as they did in the last one.
3
There's a deep fear of voters taking control of government and it's exactly as it should be.
6
Especially among those pushing voter suppression tactics...
2
David Brooks isn't very observant if he thinks the support from Bernie is coming from the elites. It isn't; it stems from people who are appalled at the exquisite income inequality. It's not the millionaires and billionaires who support Bernie. It's the rank and file, dude.
10
After reading Dark Money by Jane Mayer, I am not sure that David Brooks's assertion that the Republican disruption came from the bottom is correct. Mayer argues that a secretive group of billionaires financed a systematic plan that altered American politics, dragging the Republican party to the right. Her book is a compelling and disturbing read.
15
Sheldon Adelson - the George Soros of the right wing - he was backing Trump early.
David, you are making this more complex than it is. Trump got elected because ordinary Americans did not want 4 more years of Obama policies and did not want to see the Clintons back in the White House.
Currently, the Democrats in Congress are coming across like a bunch of whining children.
6
What's so great about being "ordinary?"
History suggests a strong, booming economy with very unemployment and rising incomes supports the incumbent.
Voting with the pocketbook. Democrats are hard pressed to find a likable attractive candidate whose platform is just “anti-Trump”.
And their lefties/progressives are firing up the GOP base. Early in the Game Pres. Trump has the “deliverables” while Democrats are stumbling finding their core “message” among their varied constituencies. Looks increasingly likely the lefties/progressives will give Pres. Trump a 2nd term. Who would have thought scenario realistic in 2016 when the Presidency was Ms. Clinton’s to loose.
Fascinating analysis as always from Mr Brooks. What it suggests is in fact a loosening of the Democrat Party's hold on its traditional sources of strength and any party that has experienced this (think globally) has spent more than a few years in the wilderness. Brooks has been hinting at the emergence of a new political alignment in his writings for a while now, and what he is suggesting here is that the Democrat rank and file may in fact not be part of the Democrat Party at all --- but really quite ready to become part of something else, especially if the insanity that is the IlhanOmar/AOC/Warren/Sanders Axis actually defines the Democrat party during the primaries. If that happens, regardless of who wins the Dem nomination, enough of that rank and file may have decided they are no longer Democrats. Remember 1968 ---the Democrat crazies in the street defined Humphrey as the leader of a party that cannot be trusted to run the Republic and that is happening now too going by what is being apologized for as acceptable political philosophy coming from AOC and Omar. To which I say, keep it up Dems you will elect Donald for a second time. I won't, but you will.
Extremes meet. Trump and Sanders both oppose Obamacare. Both are pro-gun. Trump won his election because he was supported by Putin, a leader of the former Marxist USSR, now euphemistically called "Russia."
Some people on the left talk about the 1% and the 99%. In the United States, the second percentile is almost as rich as the top 1%. The third percentile is almost as rich as the second. Where in the world is there a place where all 995 at the bottom are equally poor? North Korea--the most Marxist country on earth.
Marxism is a philosophy of the far right, which is why Sanders and Trump have so much in common.
1
Sanders is for gun control. Sanders thinks OUR taxes should be invested in OUR health care instead of $718 billion thrown each year at our bloated military industrial complex. Sanders thinks a minimal tax on Wall Street transactions could pay for tuition free community college for our youth. After all taxpayers bailed out Wall Street. Or is “socialism “ only good for the rich?
6
@Zejee
Sanders voted against the Brady Bill on 5 occasions.
2
As a moderate liberal in my 60s, I like Bernie and Warren but neither will get elected because they both promote Medicare For All which voters will reject for fear of higher taxes which Trump will scream every time he's in front of a camera in 2020. I like Biden because he's moderate and experienced enough to handle Trump but he's too old. We need a young Biden.
4
I think voters fear ever increasing costs of for profit health care more than they fear Medicare for All.
7
I'm happy to find anyone, elite or not, who shares my point of view. I'm not sure there's a problem with elites being concerned with the plight of the non-whites. This opinion piece brings to mind for me an issue have been mulling over: should we sacrifice political standing for upholding the democracy designed by the founding fathers. Should we go for impeaching a president who among other things does not support the rule of law eventhough it may mean he would be elected again. Should we find in contempt an Attorney General who does not support Congresses role of overseeing the Administrative branch even if the public is weary of the whole thing. For me these are not issues of liberal versus conservative. Can anyone help me with the terms to describe this dichotomy. And, should this dichotomy become more of a focus.
1
"We underestimated how hollow and intellectually spent the Republican establishment had become, and we didn’t understand the depth of populist alienation."
You'd think the lesson would be that pundits should stop writing these kinds of columns.
7
Trump's message was "bring back jobs"... clinton's was "bring back unisex bathrooms."
unless the democratic party shifts their focus to the ECONOMY and how their policies will bolster growth, they will continue to lose. free healthcare, free tuition, free housing (i'm sneering at you AOC) is one way to tank our country and turn us into Venezuela 2.0. while trump is truly disgusting and an embarrassment to our judiciary & political system, the markets love him. his policies are business friendly and the unemployment rate is at an all-time low. i find it very hard to believe that he wont win another term, unless of course the democrats move towards the center and push economic policy over social causes.
3
Why shouldn’t the US invest in the health and education of its citizens ? Every other first world nation does. Or do you think only Venezuela provides free health care?
3
So, the devout supporter of the failed candidacy of Clinton supports the other neoliberal member of Obama's administration over Bernie. Whodathunkit??
I guess since most Dems are over 50 CNN must have decided those under 50 were not worth worrying about and polled none of them to arrive at numbers to show Biden in the lead. The media generally has no problem embarrassing itself to achieve the goals of their neoliberal 3rd-way choices. or, failing that, being content with Republican rule.
Let's completely ignore, again, that Independents outnumber both Dems and Republicans by 10 percentage points and manipulate polls while throwing neoliberal shills against the wall until one of them sticks. Here's a clue. Slimy doesn't stick well.
Bernie, in spite of manufactured polling numbers, has enough followers to destroy either major party for a decade. The DNC has the luxury of picking which one it will be. The current war is within the Democratic party that abandoned its roots in labor long ago. Bernie is the only one who stands a chance of returning the party to those roots before climate change makes it all moot anyway. Stick with creepy Joe at your own peril Dems.
7
@Oldngrumpy
It does seem like the current CNN 'poll' is this season's replacement of the 'super delegate count', designed to give the impression that the Chosen Candidate already has an insurmountable lead . . .
3
So it's the "coastal, highly educated elites" who support Bernie Sanders? Well, as well reported, Biden did raise more money immediately; but Sanders had by far more individual donors in the same time. In other words, Biden had far fewer donors, but they gave more money.
Who sounds more "elite"?
And who had more individual donors--voters?
To claim that Sanders supporters are "coastal, highly educated elites" is nonsense. In the last primary, he came from being unknown to garner 42% of the Dem vote. With the notorious small contributions.
Watch it, Brooks. You're coming too close to spewing "alternative facts."
8
Note how the latest poll has Bernie just as strong against Trump as Biden. Both crush Trump by six points. (Beato, of course, wins by eight.) The argument that only Biden can beat Trump is absolute poppycock. If you want to see the way the MSM tows the corporate party line, just note how they keep parroting the absurd idea that Biden is the Dems' only hope to win back whites in the Rust Belt. Not only do they deliberately perpetuate this counterfactual nonsense about the current race, they also deliberately never, ever, mention the incontrovertible fact that Bernie demolished Trump in the Rust Belt exit polls of 2016. Whites in the region liked Bernie much better than Trump back then, maybe because they realized that Trump was only playing Bernie on TV with his con job about "trade" and the rest, whereas Bernie was the real thing. With any luck, Bernie and his Democratic masses are going to teach the Dems' neoliberal Wall St. donors a lesson they will never forget: namely, their ability to control American politics is finished. All their money won't buy them enough votes anymore to run the American show. And it will be a good thing, too.
7
What you and most pundits seem to forget is that people are not democrats or republicans, they are people who do or do not vote for one candidate or another or simply do not vote. This is true now more than ever--see 2016. Bernie has a track record of bringing out new voters and inspiring activism. This is exactly what is needed to win the Presidency and the Senate and retain the House for Democrats. Of course, it is way too early to tell who will get us there, but in my opinion Biden is outdated and doesn't seem a likely candidate.
7
I agree with some writers that the term "elite" is not understood, wrongly used as a label, and does not help a bit in understanding anything.
I grew up on the streets of the Bronx playing stickball. I went to a State University, and served in the US Army in the Korean era.
Am I part of the elite? Never voted for a Republican, except for Jacob Javitz.
3
Huh? I think you're totally wrong Mr. Brooks. More than coastal "elites", young people and frustrated progressives (who have watched the party establishment chase after "Reagan Democrats", who are now quite clearly Republicans, as they've pushed the party farther and farther to the right) are leading the charge for something new. Democracy (small d) is the answer. The more people who vote, the more Democratic candidates will win.
And I am seriously tired of hearing Republicans giving advice to Democrats about who they should be supporting. Get your own house in order. This whole article feels like wishful thinking and the comments pushing a "middle of the road" candidate the same.
9
Getting money out of politics would be the start of real democracy. Big donors from every direction corrupt our government, and elections at every level. How about if we just let we-the-people choose who we want. Publicly funded elections.
One person, one vote. Period.
And if we really wanted to understand what it is that the people want, we would use ranked choice voting (RCV) in the primaries and the general election. Choosing one person in a primary with 21 candidates tells us very little about who has the broadest support across the entire population. But THAT's who we need to nominate as the Democratic candidate. Giving every voter the opportunity to have a first choice, a 2nd, or however many they want would yield priceless information on who is acceptable to the most people.
5
Wait a minute. I thought the "elite" are the members of the donor class. Now we're being told that college graduates -- not Ivy League grads working on Wall Street, but everyone with a college degree -- are the elite, and that their attitudes are uniformly distinct from those of everyone with only a high school education.
Ridiculous. And very Trumpian.
11
The rich liberals are trying to push their moral dissolution downward into the party, making it the Identity Politics Party for all sorts of weird niches. I hope they fail.
Donald Trump - a man so privileged and coddled all his life that due to his having his own private chauffer since puberty, he doesn't even know how to drive a car - ran, according to his most devout fans and the pundits on Fox "News" .... "against the elitists" and also how much he hates China's trade practices. ....
.... while wearing a suit he had manufactured in his sweatshop in China after stepping out of his private jet into a town he would not otherwise be caught dead in.
If we allow the Republican party to commandeer our language and set the terms for debates that will ensue during this upcoming electoral process, the GOP will have its constituency end up calling George Washington a socialist - after all he was the founding father who set up the U.S. Postal Service.
And they'll want to give Trump the Nobel Peace Prize for making a North Korean dictator his BFF. Oh, wait - that already has happened.
2
'Older voters' like me, spear-headed the anti-war movement, the feminist movement, the gay movement. I can't believe that significant numbers of us (people over 65) would prefer Biden to a progressive.
10
Yup, we sure run the gamut this year. Let the entertainment begin!!!
From watching AOC putting her furniture together (like watching slow paint dry), and prematurely becoming a Presidential candidate in a couple of years prior to necessary maturation and seasoning, to watching Biden temporarily unable to complete a full sentence like a mini-Trump memory lapse, however, never as bad as Trump's "oranges" instead of origins.
With this huge number of Presidential candidates this year, it will be hard to have quorums in DC while they're crossing the country!
1
When did I stop being an American to become an “elite”? I grew up in the projects of Queens, my Dad brought home blocks of government cheese to supplement our food, I went to public schools, I got Pell grants and loans to pay for college. I moved to Texas and became a Texan to afford medical school, and finally was able to pay off my loans deep into my forties. Did I become an elite in the projects? Did I become an elite eating federally funded cheese? Getting a pell grant? Paying off school loans in middle age? Or maybe it’s because I think my patients (and me and my family too!) deserve good health. Or maybe it’s because I think Americans should have clean air and water. Is this what makes me an elite? David, if Jesus walked the earth you’d consider him an elite, no doubt. I still don’t understand why they let someone decisive and clearly radical as you write for the NYT.
8
Great comment. I, too, wish ‘elite’ would get a solid definition so it wasn’t used as a bludgeon to explain away concerns, policy differences and homogenize whole groups of people.
3
"Given the racism and sexism endemic in American society...."
Could David Brooks just say sorry that he has allowed himself to be described as conservative. The law of the land in America is to discriminate against whites and against men and it has been for half a century. Orwellian statements to the contrary do not change those facts.
I wonder which of these Democratic candidates knows, off the cuff, what the price of a half-gallon of milk is ?
1
During the heyday of the Tea Party movement, I thought the Dems really needed their own Tea Party moment rather than Hillary calling for the abolition of financial aid to the poor. The thing about the U.S. is that it's a self-contained universe so its citizens are largely unaware the country has almost the poorest social programs in the OECD.
Other wealthy countries are fighting over mandatory unionization, union control of corporate boards, five week minimum vacations, housing security, education and training security, health security , universal child care starting in infancy.
Godspeed to the Dem New Wave!
2
The vast majority of the Bronx who voted for AOC would be surprised to learn that they are part of The Elites.
The workers across the country who know they are getting screwed by the latest incarnation of capitalism support Bernie and Trump. I guess they are the revolution in both parties.
6
Yeah I was surprised to learn I was part of the “elite. “ Who knew that those of us who need Medicare for All, free college education, and a lousy $15 minimum wage are elite!
1
I was shocked to learn that all 3 of my siblings (two used to be Republicans and one is still v conservative) plus my Democratic sister, along w me, all plan to vote for Biden. We all came to this conclusion on our own and all have given contributions to his campaign.
5
Democracy no longer exists and Brooks is commenting on the party out of power. Just one more aider and abetter distracting the focus of attention from what is actually happening and propagating faster than you can even imagine. It should not be a surprise to any one if Trump loses the election and then invalidates it.
3
The first presidential election in which I could vote was 1968.
I'd really hate to think that LBJ will have been the only liberal Democrat president I'll remember...
2
Yes its true the rank and file democrats don't want universal health care, economic justice, gun safety, a responsible foreign policy and climate control. They do not even have to think. Republicans are going to tell them what they want.
On they other hand they may not want anything at all if you read this article. Its a pile of ambiguous labels such as disrupter, populist and mainstream, and seems to be devoid of policy. Just confuse them with gibberish so the corporate elite can move on unhindered.
2
I'm one of the Democrats who wants us to look to the center-left.
To ignore half the country, to try to stuff left-wing values down their throat is to ignore what a democracy is. Even if you can win the election, you've lost the war. A President needs to govern the whole country, not only their party, needs to consider the needs and opinions of all Americans, not only the left-wing.
I agree with the left about a fair portion of what they think is right. I do not, however, advocate enforcing it over the will of the majority. We've gone a huge way with incremental, step by step change. It's been huge over the last 2 decades. People who denigrate that, want to push us faster and faster - they're only going to lose what we have, push us backwards - as happened with Trump.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
8
“Stuff left wing values down our throats..”. I don’t want understand. Don’t you agree that everyone should have health care? Actually the majority of Americans agree that health care is a right (that’s a value) and want Medicare for All, especially since it is far less expensive than for profit health care.
And why shouldn’t Wall Street pay a minimal tax on transactions to pay for community college for all? Taxpayers bailed out Wall Street. The right wing stuffed that down our throats.
2
I do not like our options here. On the one hand you have the status quo. On the other hand you have Trump. My worry is that if Trump wins another 4 years the two hands will join and Trump will eventually become the status quo (read authoritarianism...at least a far more potent form of the version that we have now). Now if Trump loses in 2020 it will probably be back to the traditional status quo. While I believe this would be the best case scenario for the short term it could be disastrous for the long term since the big issues the world faces now will simply continue to go unaddressed and thus continue to fester. If I were forced to choose between the two I think I'd pick the lesser of two evils but after I made that decision I think I'd be asking myself if I'd chosen a long, drawn out way to suffer as opposed to a relatively quick and painless way to cross the proverbial finish line. Perhaps people will simply see the light and start making sound personal decisions that will allow people to live in relative harmony for many years to come. Can't say I expect to see that one on the ballot.
Can you be sure this is true?
"It was the Republican base that was fed up and wanted Trump — something completely different."
No, it was a PORTION of the Republican base, around 30+%, who picked Trump in the early primaries as the rest of the vote was divided among many. The Republican primary system is, indeed, rigged: it is designed to allow the strongest candidate to emerge quickly, avoiding a long and divisive primary season and to discourage "wild card" challengers.
In ten thousand and one commentaries this has all been touted as a move to the far right, as a rise of "white nationalism" and tinged with racial resentment. Guess what? That vote was always there and it was always going 96% for Republicans anyway. We don't have enough in depth polling data and research to firmly back these conclusions, these ideas that "everyone knows" are true. More study required.
The two most important factors that put Trump in are seldom if ever mentioned in mainline commentary. First, there was the Great Recession. Millions of people needed something to strike back for the hardships they experienced or saw and they found a weapon in Trumpism. Second, it is very likely that Trump activated a couple of million voters who otherwise wouldn't have bothered, voters who were not participants in other elections.
There is no heavy rightward tilt sweeping around the world. It is a fiction. The quirks of our system, including the Electoral College, made Trump president.
7
I'm sure there are many like me whose number one priority is defeating Trump. regardless of policies forwarded and espoused by various candidates, the priority remains to defeat Trump. I suspect Biden has the best chance but would gladly support any candidate most likely to defeat Trump. policies take a back seat by far to the importance of defeating Trump. did I mention my priority is defeating Trump?
6
Hmmm. Not so sure about this analysis. The Democratic success of the 2018 mid-terms to flip the House was most assuredly incubated by the strong negative reaction to Trump among women and minorities, and it was the youth voter turnout that made the difference. It's true that Joe Biden is currently the front-runner, but I would argue that (a) he's got better name-recognition than most of the other candidates, (b) he gets points for having served in the Obama Administration, (c) he's bank-friendly, so the neo-liberal wing of the Democratic Party is on board, and (d) because of all that he is currently positioned to be the best to defeat Trump. (Operative word here is "currently".)
However, it's still early days. I would not discount Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris in this race. Both are very accomplished. Both are very appealing from a populist POV. Both are women who are way more qualified than several of their male competitors in the field. And both have solid policy proposals that are refreshing. Biden will no doubt have more Anita Hill moments throughout this campaign, which is to say he's not terribly progressive or inspiring. Don't count on the youth vote if Biden is the nominee. If the Democratic Party is smart and wants as many bodies at the polls as possible, Biden is not the guy to make that happen.
5
Given his age, his long career as a Washington "insider," his "Uncle Joe" rank-and-file appeal and his out-of-the-gate rhetorical decision to take on Trump head-on in moral terms — combined with his at least perceived promise to put we liberals' idea of a strong (meaning accepting and outwardly welcoming) America back on solid-footing — Biden offers, to a nearly 60-year-old Dem like me, the opportunity to take a huge breath and entertain a future that returns our most closely held values to the highest levels of government. Even if for only four years, before the upswell from the left could rise to the executive branch. Call him a necessary, emergency placeholder. Not ideal, but I'll take it.
6
What data do you have to support this fiction, Mr. Brooks? Lots of Sanders followers are rank and file and lots of "elites" find talk of revolution a wasteful, even harmful fantasy. That is precisely what many of us dislike about Sanders. If you don't have the guts or can't expend the effort to engineer incremental solutions, don't distract everyone with lies about how marvelous, but untested new ideas. Sanders' recent interaction with a Fox News audience is a perfect example. He asks the audience if they like having their health care policy determined by their employer, but curiously fails to ask how they would like it if the GOP and Donnie Boy were the ones determining their policy (as would be the case if there was only medicare for all).
4
Medicare for All means our taxes pay for our healthcare. It doesn’t mean the president manages it
2
Why does everyone keep repeating the lie that David repeats here, that Republicans have become the party of populists and have been taken over by those without elite credentials?
Who is benefiting from the tax cut? Who wants a government with fewer restrictions on business in practically every agency and level? Who will ultimately benefit from a packed court system that thinks this way?
Republicans are not controlled by populists. They simply need them to get elected, and once that happens they can be ignored, as they are now by everyone else in the party except trump.
7
I worked my way through my local state college earning tuition as a plumber's helper and later, a roofer. I am the first person in my family to even attend high school....let alone college.
I ended up getting a graduate degree and taught engineering in a college where I made a decent living (and retired emeritus).
I still mow my own lawn and sometimes watch car racing on TV.
I am also a progressive Democrat. I like Harris, Warren, Booker and Bernie. And I have always been a fan of Biden.
I suspect David thinks he is speaking about me in this statement:
"Highly educated coastal progressives live privileged, affluent lives but define their identity as allies of the oppressed. This privileged pose involves all sorts of psychological contortions that don’t resonate with a lot of rank-and-file voters."
I live in the blue state of New Jersey where middle class people like me regularly pay more that their fair share of federal taxes to prop up the needs of red state citizens. And I love this country so I don't question those needs.
Mr. Brooks (and others) like to use the term "elitist" as a pejorative term to describe people like me.
To use a recently popular term, Mr. Book's comments seem snitty to me.
11
I agree that the Dems are, for the most part, “a party that is exhausted and doesn’t want permanent revolution.” And as such, I support Biden, even with reservations about his age. (I had reservations about his temperament, but that pales next to Trump’s temperament.)
Change, lasting change that is, tends to come in increments. The far left, as represented by Sanders, is making proposals that make sense in the long-term (Medicare for All), but that can only be achieved incrementally - and in this case, that may be a decade or longer.
Government just isn’t disrupted that easily. Trump didn’t disrupt the GOP as much as he tapped into the dis-ease among the rank and file. But he’s done nothing for them. Enter a guy like Biden who can effect quick policy change, like a real tax cut for the middle and lower classes, without having to use the word “socialism”. Biden can run effectively on taxes, healthcare, social security, and infrastructure without having to take Trump on directly.
That’s probably enough for the Dems to get the WH back, hold the House, and maybe take back the Senate in 2020. I sure hope so.
7
It’s too early to be talking so confidentially about what people want. Biden was the last Vice President and is coasting on his Obama connection. Biden still talks as if the problem is that no one is willing to compromise anymore. Working with the republicans is an impossibility. I think he will do poorly in the debates and fade away. At least I hope he will
1
This is a bad time for clear-thinking Independents...The Republican agenda would have been little different had Jeb or Rubio won, save the packaging. This will not change with a fresh batch of candidates. The GOP is in a lock-step march to oligarchy and very little will alter this course. Except for Warren, the Democratic agenda, however, will veer wildly from candidate to candidate, from week to week...
1
@ZenonIt's not as much about the agenda as it is about the nastiness that that we see now.. Rubio or Jeb would never have attacked McCain or made the comments that Trump made in Charlottesville. As an independent had either of those 2 run against Bernie in 2016 I would have voted for Jeb OR Rubio..
1
1. Mr. Brooks wants us to follow him as he tries to unpack his own theories. I don't follow.
2. Anyone who isn't laser focused on the fact that Donald Trump and his minions are working overtime to destroy democracy and not just int he US, is wasting their time and ours. We are living in a nightmare; it isn't simply the opinion of Biden supporters. Confront the monster.
13
Brooks's assertion - that, if you enjoy some material success, you are hypocritical in wishing the same fortune for others, presumably because you aren't giving all of your money away - is pathetic.
Fundamentally, it comes from a place of greed.
Brooks and his ilk are just terrified that they might have to pay more taxes to keep our country running somewhere above feudalism.
That's all there is to it. Trumpism with a veneer on intellectualism and a little bow on top.
8
There are some words that the NYT should only use in quotes and footnoted to explain what is meant by them. The first of these is "Democratic Elite" or "liberal elite". This is a straw-man created by conservatives to deny legitimacy of an idea among Republicans and to sew dissent among Democrats by making them question their beliefs. Some of meager means, like myself, hear that the elite class is trying to manipulate me and I am supposed to reject whatever the elites are telling me. Of course this is a lie but it is a lie that has helped make "liberal" a dirty word for the past 30 years.
In light of this footnoting it would be clear that Mr. Brooks is trying to manipulate his readers. Moving leftward has been tainted with all sorts of communistic, god-less overtones that nobody wants to be associated with the left. In most of the world our current democratic party would be seen as a moderate, right wing party but they make it seem as if socialism is just a vote away. It is wholly dishonest to make the argument that our country could become socialistic if Bernie or even AOC became President. So much would have to change that just wouldn't change but they will make the argument that it could.
Sadly becoming more authoritarian like we have since Trump is very possible. It happens when one party aligns themselves with those of money, power, and influence and ignores the Constitution like is being done now. Tripe like this column needs to be explained if published.
12
Okay David so now after a few essays we all know you favor Joe Biden, got it. I am one of your " Highly educated coastal progressives" but I live far from an affluent privileged life. I am also a 70 year old white guy who must work full-time. I support any Democratic candidate that can defeat trump, period. I like Joe, Bernie, Kamala, Pete and Elizabeth. They are all acceptable to me because I believe all of them to be as decent and honest as a politician can be. But honestly I'd vote for Sponge Bob Square Pants if he could end the nightmare of trump. So if the Democrat leans left of center or right of center that is okay by me if she or he can dethrone king donald.
17
@Steve
i.e. Brooks exemplifies that the old men still want and only trust the old men.
Interesting dynamic going on here. Last election cycle it was the underrepresented Republican chohort that wanted to attack the corruption and rot - so elect a disruptive agent, Trump.
Trump's activities have ironically lead to exactly the same talk from a certain sector of the Democratic side. And the more radical the Trump damage becomes, the more it will be echo back as a call to shake up the status quo of the Dems.
The only question is how all the energy can be harnessed to win in 2020. i.e. "Let's elect someone safe..." meaning an establishment figure like Biden, OR "Lets' elect a fresh face, someone who is willing to take risks and is not beholden to the traditional party apparatus - ."
1
I live on a coast but I'm hardly "elite." I am perhaps better educated than many of the MAGA-hatted morons at Trump rallies wildly cheering a millionaire realtor who has somehow convinced them that he is on their side when the only side he's really on is using the White House for personal enrichment. I'm for Elizabeth Warren because she not only knows Trump for what he is but has the best ideas of how to correct the yawning inequality gap created by the robber barons of the GOP.
9
Once again a tired Brooks column, along with those of Douthat and Stephens, that tries to slice and dice the Democratic electorate rather than deal with the real issue--the fetid house they have created. You've got plenty of work to do and Democrats certainly don't need your tainted, puerile analysis.
8
You forgot a group! Highly educated affluent white people who identify with minority concerns but believe that racism and sexism are endemic in America and you've got to nominate a white man if you want your party to win.
4
Dear Mr. Brooks:
Please write an in-depth article about those 'psychological contortions' and what is so unappealing about them.
1
Harris/Warren? Warren/Harris?
3
No FEMALE candidates worthy to discuss for this article??
4
WRONG!I It is the DNC - Clinton Legacy Democratic Party Establishment that is pushing Joe Biden's Zombie Presidential Campaign asa return to the Old Golden Days of the Clinton era, dispite losing in 2016. Even Obama passed over Joe to endorse Hillary.......Joe's old sense of politics will reelect Trump and doom our nation's future. NO JOE in 2020 !
6
@Bayshore Progressive
STILL haven't learned the lessons from 2016, have you?
Now is the time for ALL Democrats regardless of Left, Center, or Conservative to come together in order to confront the real "ZOMBIE" in the White House.
Why? -- Because no House divided will stand.
C'mom, Stacey Abrams, we need you! Please get yourself in this race.
2
@Jim Bishop
Neither Abrams nor Mayor Pete are qualified to be president of the U.S.
One day, perhaps. And that would be an interesting ticket, btw.
The “bicoastal liberal elites” trope has outworn its welcome. David, you are a bright, presumably well-educated and well-off coastal resident. But you self-describe as a “pundit” despite your obvious membership in this elite group.
6
Please stop using the word "elites." It's a dog whistle.
10
***It was the Republican base that was fed up and wanted Trump — something completely different.***
And they got someone different in STYLE, but the real POTUS is Mitch McConnell. The chattering class says Trump "took over" the GOP. Not really. He won the election for them, but the the GOP donors are still running the show. Healthcare for None and Tax Cuts for the wealthy. They let him fire up the base as he sees fit so the voters can continue to shoot themselves in the foot with their votes for the 8-year old millionaire who tells his Mar a Lago buddies he just gave them all a big tax cut. But - hey - at least he's fighting to keep out the "Lopez's" of the world.
As for your theory of "coastal elites" moving the Dems to the left, I'm not buying it. There is a reason why Trump won the states that Bernie won in the primaries. It's ALL about the "little guy" being fed up. Only difference between Trump and Bernie is Trump blames immigrants and Bernie blames Wall St. Oh - and Trump scammed them and Bernie, while not a huge fan, is I believe very sincere.
7
It's ironic how many democrats resent being categorized as "elites" simply because they reside on one of the coasts. It is a fair complaint. Yet, there is no hesitation to label every Republican as racist, neanderthals, etc. However, that many (most?) of these same people won't accept the premise of that last sentence reflects how screwed up our polarizing politics have become with no end in sight.
6
This Presidential campaign (obviously) not be about wooing trump's base to left or Dems to the right; its going to be about the middle. Biden is the best to re-attract the middle to left than Trump is to woo them to the right. DONT FORGET 12% OF OBAMA SUPPORTERS OVER TWO ELECTIONS VOTED FOR TRUMP BECAUSE OF OBAMA'S POLICIES AND HRC's FAILURE TO ATTRACT THEM.
2
@Frank
The small percentage of Democrat whites included the misogynist Bernie Bros and Stein dim bulbs, as well as those who agree with the GOP on stiff immigration laws and because Obama did little to nothing to assist whites at the bottom, while rewarding Big Banks and Wall St. The 30% of latinos and 10% of blacks who voted for Trump but who had voted for Obama did so in 2008 and 2012 due to race and in belief he would help those at the bottom. Disillusionment with Democrats and straight up misogyny is what turned some Dems to the GOP.
@Maggie perfectly stated. As a Republican, I couldn't vote for either HRC or DT and was expecting that natural selection would put HRC in the white house, it was hers to win and she and Obama lost it; which really ticked me off.
I agree that black voters hold the key to the Democratic primary but they are not monolithic. Some are young and some are old, which is a big difference in political preference in any racial group. Some are educated and prosperous, and some are stuck in low-wage, dead-end jobs or in jail. Some are blue-collar factory and skilled construction workers and some are office and government workers. And of course, some are women and some are men. Religion also figures in. How do Democratic candidates, even African-Americans like Booker and Harris, speak to black voters as the diverse group they are but especially to those middle-age and older voters who can be relied on to show up at the polls?
1
@abigail49 Ms. Harris is not African American under any formulation of the term. Her mother, who raised her (primarily in Canada) was Indian (the South Asian variety) and her father Jamaican. The term African American has traditionally been applied to the descendants of enslaved Africans brought to America through the early years of the 19th Century. Ms. Harris doesn’t meet that definition. Even if the term were applied literally, ie to Americans who have themselves immigrated from Africa recently or (at a stretch) the first generation of American born children of such immigrants, Ms. Harris isn’t African American. She is mixed race, with her formative years having been defined by the Indian culture of her mother.
My point is that it’s mistaken to assume that someone shares your values merely because they resemble you physically. Ms. Harris might not be African American but perhaps she can make a case for why she would represent their interests well. But any of the other candidates, regardless of their race, could do as well or better. For that matter, as you point out, an African American politician might be terrible at representing African Americans.
1
@abigail49
Trump got about the same percentage of the black vote that George Bush did - and as had every GOP presidential candidate since Reagan. It's beyond arrogant and dumb and racist to presume there are no black Republicans (beyond Clarence Thomas).
The high black turnout in 2008 was because a black male was the Dem candidate. Much of that hope changey had worn away by 2012, with only @ 50% of blacks overall even voting, less in the 2010 and 2014 midterms.
"In the early stages of the current political season, Democratic rank and file seem to be embracing Biden and his traditional Democratic themes. It’s the coastal, highly educated elites who are fed up and want something transformative."
This entire article is premised on this assertion, and yet Brooks doesn't provide any supporting evidence. Biden only announced his candidacy last week, so its far too early to know what "rank and file" Democrats want. Also, my discussions with friends and family indicate that people genuinely want a candidate with a more progressive vision and policies to tackle the issues we have failed to address in the last two decades: income inequality, climate change/environmental issues, tax reform, worker protections, etc.
I love Biden as a person, but I don't think he is type of candidate many democrats want at this point in time. I think many people are tired of seeing Democratic candidates with the same traditional, neoliberal center-left policy platform, especially as the GOP steadily marches further and further to the right every year.
4
In 2020, if the young reform Socialists backing Senator Sanders feel that they were cheated a second time from securing him the Democratic Presidential nomination, they will give up on the system entirely and become, not reformist, but revolutionary Socialists. Faced with hard Left revolutionaries,
Mr. Brooks will write about the good old days of moderate Socialists like Sanders. . . . . Bernie is actually the capitalists' best hope of saving their failing system. But fortunately for the rest of us, they are too greedy and short sighted to realize this. The "donor class" will make sure the Democrats nominate an attractive corporate puppet who will be rolled over by Trump's demagoguery. It will simply postpone the rank and file taking over the Party and making it a Socialist Democratic Party until 2024 . . . .
2
It has been proven that the system is not working for the regular joe. It doesn’t matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat. The system is rigged and I cannot see why anyone would think otherwise. Neither party has been bold and these are times that call for bold new initiatives in infrastructure and governance . And even though I would not like to be in perpetual revolution mode, I do support candidates that move further left. To me radical thinking that proposed ideas that seemed whacky in the moment is what our country was founded on. The founders of our country made the impossible possible and I do not see why it cannot and should not be done again. Now is the time.
3
@Robert Allen
A lot of regular Janes are doing okay, have been increasingly over the decades...if they have a college degree and delay both marriage and breeding till situated in a good job.
Whereas, regular Joes over the past 4 decades have done worse if they don't have a college degree and jump into unstable relationships that almost always result in breeding and then a divorce or split + substance abuse and prison that can keep them from qualifying for decent blue collar jobs.
Do Democrats on both coasts really take less pride in America, as Brooks claims?
For that matter, are rural and Midwestern Republicans more patriotic?
Whether you want to call it "pride in America" or "being more patriotic," I've always subscribed that semantics notwithstanding, you wear your pride/ patriotism in your heart; not on your sleeve.
1
I'm part of the "coastal elite" - advanced degree, professional career, financially secure (after a lifetime of hard work), vegan, solar panels on the roof, live in MA. I'm with Indivisible. Trump and Trumpism is pure poison. The house is on fire. We have a constitutional crisis. American democracy is careening toward lawless fascism. Job ONE is defeat Trump. Therefore, I will support whoever emerges as the most electable Democratic presidential contender. If "the Heartland" doesn't want universal health care, or the Green New Deal, fine - go with a government option for the ACA and let people vote with their feet. Rejoin the Paris Accords and package fighting climate change differently. Just don't inflict psychological torture on refugee children. Leverage religiosity to return to minimum standards of decency. The Democratic elite will be fine - we're not the ones dodging tornadoes and dying "deaths of despair".
2
This election will come down to one issue: Is money in your pocket now more important than having a planet worth living on for the future.
2
The choice is as simple as this: The worst possible Democrat would be a 1000 times better then the best possible Republican and a million times better then Trump.
4
I wish Brooks et. al., would stop using the term "coastal elites." It means nothing, except something very pejorative. It's kind of the same as "politically correct," which also, to me, is now meaningless, although it, too, is very pejorative. Many of us who live in CA, WA, OR, NY, and so forth actually work at jobs, have to budget our money, sincerely care about the fate of others outside our "bubble," as it were. So, stop it already!
5
False dichotomy- a choice between centrist - do nothing and conservative indoctrination and pave the earth. We can do better
Let there be no misunderstanding: If the "Democrat Elites" prevail in 2020, as they did with the failing Hillary in 2016, Trump will "serve" another four years. Democrates must win my state, Ohio, a huge loss in 2020. They must win Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, as well. Florida and Iowa would be a solid plus. The Democratic Elites are fundamentally anti-labor, anti-poor, anti-working-class, anti-blue collar. Many contend they are anti-Black as well. Their victory will be America's loss.
3
This 62-year-old non-Twitter-user fervently supported Bernie in 2016 and will again in 2020. We need people like him, AOC, and Tulsi Gabbard to break the stranglehold Clinton, Biden, Pelosi, and their ilk have on the Democratic Party.
1
In the words of an old rocker whose name I forget "Don't tell me about nothing I already know"
Stop discounting the over 50s! Many of us a very liberal.
2
The people I know who describe themselves as "progressives" are bobos in paradise. They're feminists, environmentalists, and fans of impractical schemes to redistribute wealth that have no chance of becoming law. Practical reforms that would improve the lives of poor or working class people bore them. And they're fervent NIMBYs.
4
I always regret it when I read David Brooks' column, but I couldn't resist this time. His argument is completely simplistic, and as far as Democrats go, at least, plain old wrong. It was not only “non-elites" (not even sure what “elite” really means) in the Republican party who voted for Trump, and it is definitely not only "elites" in the democratic party who prefer Bernie to Biden. If the only Democrats who like Bernie are “elites” in NY and California, why did Bernie win the 2016 primary in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Indiana, but lose in NY and California? I understand that David Brooks probably greatly prefers Joe Biden to Bernie Sanders, but that's no excuse for pretending Bernie Sanders is only supported by "elites".
2
"permanent revolution"? Please explain when the last one was.
1
So I guess supporting the fight to arrest Global Warming, to be as sustainable as I can, and to wish the American working man and woman descent pay and health care Make me an Elitist?!
OK then, I AM AN ELITIST!!!
2
Thing one and thing two.
1. Social Security. Biden needs to pound that drum until it breaks and then ask for another. Reparations? I'm worried about reparations to our seniors for the cuts Trump is making to Social Security and Medicare. Squirrel? I hope he's saved enough nuts for winter. Our seniors need help. Manipulative and cynical? Yepper. Don't like it? Say hello to Trump Dynasty and sell your beachfront property.
2. African American support. The Russians are well aware of this weak point and will be all over social media calling Biden a racist for his school integration resistance in the past. How to respond? Deflection. This is Russian interference. Trump refuses to stop it. This approach has the advantage of being true. Don't sing kumbaya with Al Sharpton and denounce racism. That would play right into Trumplestiltskin's wheelhouse. The 5 percent of the mentally-dentally challenged whom Biden needs to peel off are rabidly racist. Welcome to reality, folks. It stinks. So what?
One the rainforests and permafrost hit the tipping point, we're cooked. Winning is everything. It still won't be easy. The fossil fuel lobbyists will change from blue suits to tie dye and paint sunflowers on the smoke tasks. But there will be a chance. With Trump 2, none.
Say it like it is.
The dumb and uneducated people in both parties tilt right. The educated people in both parties tilt left. Regressive populism has the upper hand because most people are dumb.
Democracy is a means by which the majority asserts itself. And they have been emboldened by politicians for decades pandering to their mediocre intelligence. They have lost the appropriately deferential attitude toward experts and expertise. They are as smart as anyone--especially because they are not.
Let's not complicate the situation beyond what it is.
There are people like David Brooks who see a mystery in every phenomenon. And then there are those of us who see our species as talking animals, whose behavior is predictable and simple. When will America return to its senses? When we stop treating idiocy as the equal of education. When we stop calling people "elitist" if they use words that a fifth grader might not know. When we stop elevating the lowest class with these pandering appeals to democratic power (like Ivy League-educated law professors saying "folks").
You want to help? Stop glamorizing our current situation beyond what it is. The Biden Democrats are not much different than the Trump Republicans. We should be choosing between Mitt Romney and Bernie Sanders. Instead, this huge swath of the country wants to do a reactionary back-flip dive into history. Bush wanted no child left behind; well those dumb kids grew up, and will now leave America behind.
1
Isn't it funny how scared the conservative columnists on this site are about the rise of the the left (the actual left, that is--one that calls for higher taxes on the rich, universal healthcare, etc.). They can see that Republicanism is toast, so they keep doing their best to give us one reason after another why we should ignore the left and stick with centrists like Biden (centrists who, in any other era of our nation's history, would have been considered part of "the right").
Methinks they protest too much.
Meanwhile, Go Warren! Go Bernie! Go AOC! Three cheers for the progressive left! If they, in their ignorance, want to call it socialism (which it isn't), then just embrace it. Four cheers for socialism!
4
This is some lazy analysis, let me tell you. Take, for example, the repeated reference to radical "coastal" elites. I understand that this usage is shorthand for for a package of ideas, but it's become pretty darned cliche. I bet if you asked the writer exactly what characteristics he's describing when he says "coastal" he'd stumble around quite a bit before he became exact. And then he'd be inaccurate. Meaning, I'm pretty sure Ohio and Texas have economically successful liberals as well as the east and west coast. Anyways, I know I'm just a reader being an annoyed crackpot, but still, I just can't take such sloppy argumentation seriously.
1
Speaking as a (highly educated) elitist living on the east coast, I wonder why you would not characterize Sanders’ proposals as transformative? You tend always to assert rather than argue, but you are perhaps the one who should give up twitter as it seems to have led you to a dubious conclusion about who supports whom.
1
Joe Biden selects a younger VP who is not a white male and promises to serve only one term. Everybody happy?
2
David Brooks grew up with the words of that Hollywood, firewood splitting, nation dividing President Reagan ringing in his ears... You know? those elitists in their ivory towers type of anti-intellectual fracturing of respect for those folks who went to the trouble of working their way through college to gain knowledge.
So it is with no surprise that in the absence of a Republican Party to hang his hat on, Brooks chips away whenever he can at the Democratic one...
I wonder who Brooks is thinking about voting for. Sounds like he is torn, lol.
1
What themes do the Republican elite embrace now?
1
The whole of the GOP has embraced Trump. He *is* the GOP. End of transmission.
1
The Main question in this election is who wins out. The Older voter or the Younger voter. One thinks of the future while one craves stability amidst the current storm of Trump. I say to the Democratic Presidential Candidates speak to both, don't ignore either. A Progressive and Old Guard can work well together as the Pair to beat Trump. Clinton the Centrist and Gore the Enviromentalist. Obama the Change and Biden the Experience. I haven't decided on the 20+ Democrats but if it was a chance to impress both, you need both Centrist and Progressive in that ticket. I just don't know who should be on the top. But the electorate should decide and not the pundits. My only advice to any voter in the primaries and general election, turn off the pundits, turn off tv and read each candidate's platform and whoever works for you, vote for them. Don't listen to hype, listen to your mind and heart!
This op-ed underscores the dilemma. Yes, our political system is necrotic and deeply corrupt; however, the only only prospect more destructive than maintaining the status quo is four more years with Donald Trump in the White House. As long as the latter remains a distinct possibility, I can't in good conscience support a hard turn to the left.
114
@Glenn Gould
Forget about what you think of the President, personally...what has he done as president that is so destructive? It seems that the most destructive influence in this administration has been the mindless obsession on the part of liberals to CREATE a sense of chaos and obstruction (i.e. the Russian interference witch hunt).
As far as supporting immigration is concerned, controlling our orders is not only a matter of security, but one of securing a decent future for our country. We have NO OBLIGATION to overpopulate our country just because other people have done it to theirs.
4
@Glenn Gould
You prefer fascism?
12
@Raz Thank you for your post. Undermining the 70-year old security alliance which has kept the peace is at the top of the list. We won't recognize the real damage of that blunder until China attains its strategic goals, and then we will surely regret it. Pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord; separating families at the border, apparently some never to be reunited, his tax bill which was a giant give away to the rich with the middle class getting crumbs and it adding $1.5 trillion to the deficit in the process (didn't Republicans used to care about the deficit?). Taking sides with a foreign adversary with respect to the conclusions of his own government with regard to whether that adversary interfered in our election. On that one alone, if all facts were the same except the president was a Democrat, the Republicans would have sent out a lynch mob months ago.
36
"In other words, the Republican story is a story of populist radicalization; the Democratic story so far is a story of elite radicalization.
Let’s try to unpack what that means".
Here's what it means: nothing.
1
"Which tendency is going to prevail? In 2016, most of us pundits thought the educated-class Republicans would prevail over the angry populists. "
I think this column is a useful and thoughtful analysis but I am puzzled. The only self-confessed Trump voters I happen to know would be called "elite" in my book: college degrees, substantial net worth, 6 to 7 figure incomes. They do not seem to me to be "angry populists". Inadequate sample, I know, but I think we may not still fully understand Trump's ascension.
"Highly educated coastal progressives live privileged, affluent lives but define their identity as allies of the oppressed. This privileged pose involves all sorts of psychological contortions that don’t resonate with a lot of rank-and-file voters." Classic Brooks here. Revels in pointing out the supposed "contortions" of progressives to make him feel better about his own posturing atop the moral high ground after supporting the Bush administration despite the irreparable damage it caused to the world.
2
"the Republican story is a story of populist radicalization; the Democratic story so far is a story of elite radicalization."
An assertion without any proof, using the tendentious word "elites." The divide can just as well be cast as a the uneducated, manipulated by certain quarters, controlling the Republicans and the educated striving to preserve rationality and inclusivity in the Democratic agenda.
What makes this election different than all other elections? The only thing that matters is getting rid of Trump. Of course issues matter, but in this election they don't. In order to win we should be aiming for the widest possible coalition, including moderate Republicans. Avoid controversial positions that will turn off voters. Green New Deal? If Trump wins he will continue science denial and the environment will suffer harshly. Medicare for all? If Trump wins there will be millions more without insurance. In other words the re-election of Trump would be disastrous. Most people dislike him. He is the only issue in 2020. The person who can beat him is my candidate.
4
Mr. Brooks represents establishment thinking, and he is missing, again, what is essential. The anti-elites and all the rest of us have just witnessed an astonishing exhibition of elite mendacity. For over two years we have watched an elite, mostly Dem-media machine propagate a fake story about the President's colluding or conspiring with Russia and acting as a Russian agent. Believe it or not, the unraveling of this fantastic delusion is going to have a major impact on how people vote. The lack of trust in elites and in the media has plummeted.
Meanwhile, we have solid economic growth across the board by every measure. We have a disruption in trade and international relations that have left us at a disadvantage, and we are moving forward to correct this. The serious threat of China is now being faced directly and openly.
The polls have Trump almost immovable with his base no matter what slurs are slung by the media and the Dems. The Hispanic/Latino support for Trump has grown markedly since the last election. In many circles, the unraveling of the Russia hoax has caused some severe rethinking.
More circuses by Nadler-Schiff will not help to defeat Trump. There are bigger and more unexpected shifts going on--shifts in trust--than anyone is recognizing. If the investigation into the FISA warrants and the origin of the special counsel investigation show more elite corruption, we will see even greater shifts.
1
I've lived and/or worked in California for the last 25 years, most of that in San Francisco.
I have an undergraduate degree and a JD (public universities.)
I don't regard myself as elite. Most days, I think I'm just another working class guy.
But just like in school, I pay attention. Engage in the moment. Understand American politics and history and how we got here.
So this makes me elite?
3
Unlike any of the other candidates , one of Biden’s strengths is - he has sense of humor. His sense of humor is warm and spontaneous and he uses it to offset many of Trumps ridiculous mean spirited twitter jabs. Like it or not studies have shown that people don’t vote on policy positions or a laundry list of ideas. They vote on emotions. Biden has that market cornered.
The majority of Americans know that Trump is a cancer that needs to be excised. They ‘feel’ it even if they are not great policy wonks or intellectuals.
That’s why this is Joe’s time. The presidency has to be recaptured by somebody people view as sane. His base is a minority of true believers, not a formidable voting force.
The Republicans have already started their smear campaign against Joe and will play every trick in the book to discredit him. My hope is that progressives (and I am one) will not aid them in that effort.
We need to start somewhere. Forty years of a takeover by the rich and by corporations cannot be changed in even one administration. Progressive ideas will have their day. But only if we can accept that we need to start in the middle.
P.S. I think Elizabeth Warren would be a great ‘vice’.
6
I’m only one voter but one that seemingly dispels Mr Brooks’ theory. I am coastal (live in NYC) and pretty highly educated (MBA in finance). I support Joe Biden and of all 21 current Democratic candidates Sanders is my least favorite candidate. Heck, if Bernie wants the Democratic nomination the least he could do is join the Democratic Party. So, Joe #1, Bernie #21. At least one data point to prove Mr Brooks’ theory to be incorrect.
4
The 2020 election will be decided by independent voters, period.
As an older (73) white married liberal/progressive Episcopal woman, I will vote for whoever the Democratic Party nominates. Getting Trump out of the White House is the highest priority to me. There are a number of current candidates that I would be delighted to support and some I would be less than enthusiastic about. I was raised by parents who paid attention to politics and I remember my mother shushing my brothers and me so she could listen to the McCarthy hearings on the radio. I also remember grade school children cheering in our joint cafeteria my senior year of high school when it was announced that JFK had been shot. I want to see Congress return to a collaborative body that works across party lines and for us all. I'd like a Presidential campaign free of traded insults and name calling, and a Democratic Platform that incorporates working together to improve economic fairness, relying on graduated income taxes for both individuals and business, and supporting the idea that all should have full access to housing, food, medical care and education. We need to improve our infrastructure and our care of the planet. All this is what I would like to see in the next round of political campaigning. Since I am living with terminal cancer, 2020 may very well be my final Presidential election. I want to die believing our country is in good hands and headed in positive directions!
12
First: “They don’t want a candidate who talks like a reformer but governs as an insider — as they think Barack Obama did.” is an inaccurate characterization of Obama’s approach to governance. A more accurate assessment would take into consideration the unprecedented Republican obstructionism and use of the filibuster. We’re all pretty familiar with this.
Second: you’re focusing on all the things that divide us, likely because that makes for better ratings, but possibly also because dividing us benefits Republicans as it did in 2016. Please consider using some of your considerable pen talking about the things that unite us all, and on the policies that will produce outcomes that benefit us all, and not just the horse race.
3
I dunno. I like Biden but he reminds me a lot of Bob Dole in 1996 - establishment party favorite up against an unpredictable loose canon. Fortunately the 2019 canon is not only loose but unpopular.
When you say that it's "the coastal, highly educated elites who are fed up and want something transformative" you're pretending that all the 2016 Bernie supporters somehow vanished after almost dragging the party elites over to their guy.
The best predictor of who people voted for in 2016 is the question "do you think stuffs broken?" If "yes" you were probably a Trump or Bernie voter.
Then there are all the voters who went Obama in 2008 and 2012 and Trump in 2016 . . .
A lot of us - even loyal Hillary people - know in our hearts that the current political system is broken and want change, and to reduce that yearning to "disaffected coastal elites" simply isn't true.
4
Expressed in baseball terms:
Clinton/Obama presidencies governed in center right field. If Democrats want to return to center field, they must turn their backs on the right field foul pole (beyond which Republicans are gathered in foul right territory) and move towards center field, which is by definition, in the direction of left field. Continuous movement to the right is a trip first into foul right and then on to foul left.
Biden, like Clinton/Obama, will hang on to center right field abandoned by Republicans. Sanders is beckoning us to left field via center field. Casey Stengel would remind us all that switch hitters like Mickey Mantle embraced either side of the plate.
Or as Yogi put it, "If you come to a fork in the road, take it." I have long been a Biden supporter, but it is Bernie who seems to be listening to Yogi.
Absent Roy Campanella, my choice for President is Sandy Koufax. True power in the strike zone. And all class off the field.
The division in the party has nothing to do with coastal elites, but rather one simple thing- money in politics.
Bernie ran strong in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania- and Trump won those small towns because he promised to drain the swamp and seen as ‘unbought’ because of his wealth.
Clintonion Neocons, with loads of corporate dollars, are wringing their hands about Warren and Sanders, hoping a crowded field will allow Biden to make it through. I hope they are wrong.
3
Warren and Sanders are unelectable in a general election. So folks like you need to make a choice: would you rather seize power back from Trump via a candidate like Biden, or have your far-left candidate win the primary only to endure another 4 years of this disaster?
Hopefully you'll come into the fold before it's too late.
2
I think it is irresponsible and a little dangerous to use terms like "they are much less likely to express pride in America" to describe a political faction or party, as it paints them as "un-American". There is nothing more American than fighting for truth, justice and fairness. Being against a broken system is part of our great experiment, whether you be a Democratic Socialist or a Trumpster. Remember-If we didn't start out as flag burners we'd still be British.
3
Can you do it better?
This is all I ask. Can you do it better.
If I ran, I'd need help from a lot of people.
Are they willing to serve me? Ask them, and if so I'll think about this a bit more.
1
"We underestimated how hollow and intellectually spent the Republican establishment had become, and we didn’t understand the depth of populist alienation."
Nor did we understand how Russian interference would help tip an election.
9
David I love you but you are clueless. Polls at this point mean nothing.
I’m 61 years old, been independent all my life (voted Rep and Dem until recently). At this point who knows?
I want a younger face, certainly under 60 (I love Elizabeth warren but still), and for us baby boomers to get out of the way already!
Global climate change is real and under 30’s will be the folks who are affected.
I love your call for thoughtfulness and morality but please! Call out the culprits!
8
What's wrong with re-electing President Trump?
1
I don’t know how the reasoning for this op-Ed was constructed. I am forced to take the author’s word on these matters, and I’m not willing to do so. It’s too reductive, and without source material for the broad conclusions, may be misleading. I refuse to sign onto it and hope other don’t either.
4
I'm saddened to hear that some Democratic voters are disparaging Joe Biden and are not going to vote for him should he be the nominee. Donald Trump got voters to vote AGAINST their own self interests and won, and we call that populism. All of the Democratic candidates have ideas, track records, refined proposals that will better the lives of all Americans, and we complain that they are not sufficiently progressive.
Sad...
5
How kind of David to include me in his elite circle. Our lives are nothing alike, and I'm hanging on by my fingernails while he actually *does* live a life of elite privilege, both educationally and economically, but somehow because I live on the east coast and have a good education, that makes me an elite, too.
These ideas are useless when they're so badly framed.
7
If you take the 30,000 foot view, much of the split between average rank and file conservatives and rank and file liberals is also "... not over policies..." but "...about attitudes toward America."
That's the sad thing about this deep rift we have among us right now. Generally people want to collectively pay into a safety net and have government services. They want fair and humane capitalism, and worry that we've become an oligarchy. Most people want some sane limits on gun ownership. Most people are not laying awake at night over abortion and God, nor are most people interested in limiting the rights of LGBTQ or racial minorities, and most people want to preserve the environment.
You would think from the contempt each "side" holds the other that we were fighting tooth and nail for survival. We're not. We agree on a lot more than we disagree.
The "blue" and "red" rift is cultural, about basic incomprehension and mistrust of the Other. It's tragic, because wars have been fought over less. As the old saying about academic politics goes, "the fight is so vicious because the stakes are so small."
3
What exactly do "populist" and "elite" mean here? Am I a minority because I'm a woman? Do "minority voters" get to define what "social justice" means? Am I rank and file because I've voted exclusively for Democrats for president my entire life? Am I elite because I live in New York? Or am I a "true American" because I grew up in the Midwest? Did my label change during the years I ways a stay-at-home mother? Am I something different now that I'm employed full-time?
7
The 2020 election will determine whether The United States will become a dictatorship like Poland and Hungary. I am not being alarmist but realistic. Unless the Democrats come together to win the Presidency, House of representatives and two thirds of the Senate our present form of government, although still formally continuing, will no longer exist. The United States is not immune from the populism and xenophobia affecting so many parts of the world, but we have one chance to survive.
5
Biden is old, and he now acts old.
Bernie is old, but he acts young.
Nobody else is electable. It will be a fight between Biden and Bernie, and my bet is on Bernie. I don't think Biden can handle the pace. He's been out of normal life too long. And he has no message, beyond let's get rid of Trump.
You can get rid of Trump by offering something better (or seemingly better) than Trump. You can't get rid of Trump by making your platform and your policy the removal of Trump, and offering platitudes.
I disagree with Bernie on everything, but he is as honest as politicians get, and he has a simple and effective message that resonates with many, especially younger people: Justice for all. Kinda reminds me of MAGA.
My son voted for Bernie and will again vote for Bernie. My son and Biden have zero in common.
The nominee will be Bernie, but it will be a fight all the way.
Bernie will then lose to Trump.
I think we can just watch sports and the Game of Thrones for the next two years, because the die has been cast.
3
As always conservative pundit doesn’t include the outsized influence of the right wing propaganda that holds a strong grip on what the base thinks, wants and votes for. Their general ideology is anti-government, nationalistic, anti-immigration, corporatist and is sprinkled with individualistic and libertarian themes. Populism means nothing to them, until could be used to rile up the base. There is no social and economic agenda other cut taxes and cut regulations. Their alliance with evangelicals gave them the ultimate power over half of American population and over our political system. One can safely conclude that Republican party works for them.
Democrats and liberals are in completely different situation. There is no such a thing as propaganda arm of Democratic party and different liberal groups are mostly genuine grass-root phenomena. Unifying themes on liberal side are issues like health care for all, education, climate change and governing for the people.
Given all that there are different dynamics in conservative and liberal eco-systems. In contrast to GOP, which is totally owned by Fox and moneyed interests, Democratic party has more influence over liberals simply because it is the only political structure on the left. Liberal think-tanks will generally support the strongest candidate.
In this context all this talk about elites on both sides is kind of missing the point. Trumpism hasn’t really brought anything new to conservatism, other than chaos and lawlesness.
3
Anybody and everybody with half a brain and a mite of sanity will see the Trump era as a nightmare aberration. Because it IS.
It's not only people who support Sanders and "other disrupters" who believe politics is a rigged game because it IS rigged.
Whether or not highly educated coastal progressives all live privileged, affluent lives, they identify as "allies of the oppressed" because of something republicans don't know much about: empathy.
With old Glory wrapped around his common sense, Brooks says in good GOP fashion that "these people are much less likely to express pride in America."
In Brooks' view, these must be akin to bomb throwers, say the Weathermen of their "era". People who simply don't march in lock step to the tune that the USA is the greatest nation on earth when they also see the cruelty of unfettered capitalism in their country and yearn for fairness.
Democrats may be split into different isms and identities, but they are absolutely united in ridding the country of the nightmare aberration that is the GOP's Trump.
THAT illustrates pride in what America should be. Again.
9
In another generation, the Republican Party will be merely a shadow of itself mainly because poll after poll confirms the vast majority of democrat millenials are "progressive" in thought and ideology and even young educated Republicans of the same age group are not far behind. They overwhelmingly have had it with the corporate/establishment and their continued desire for the "status quo", appealing strictly to their corporate donors and its total failure in dealing with their constituents and the important problems of the day.
Bernie Sanders may be old in age but, his policies and ideas are greatly resonating with the group that are the future leaders of America. The Democratic Elites better understand that the rank and file have had enough of their greed and desire to "want it all" at the expense of everyone else and to ignore them, is doing so at their peril.
Joe Biden is ultimately, just another "status quo" corporate/establishment politician whose "lack" of real ideas and change is what ultimately put the "buffooon" that is sitting in the WH today trying to dismantle the country and its long- standing important democratic institutions.
One would only hope that long-standing democrats do not make the same mistake again believing one can "play it safe" and the "status quo" candidate is more electable.
The attitudes and the country have changed, it was tried with Hillary Clinton and failed and it won't work with Biden either.
2
"governs as an insider".......is that code for just perpetuating the stacked decks for eight years, while the constituency continued its march to the poor house, with the obligatory big smiles zombified on their faces ?
2
Jared, Ivanka, and all those other aristocrats who look like they bathe in babies' tears and walk on rose petals, who wheel and deal in the name of America for the benefit of their own bank accounts, who have never worked a day in their lives except to reinvest their inherited fortunes, they're not elites. They're "of the people!" Biden, Warren, the Obamas, Bill & Hillary, Harris, Buttigieg, you know, people who were not born into wealth but worked their way up from poverty or middle class, got an education, served in the military, served in the Peace Corps, they're the real "elites!"
Just look outside, the sky is pink, the trees are purple. That's my truth, and I'm sticking to it, and the elite mainstream media better cover it, or I'll scream "liberal bias!"
9
None of the current Democratic Party candidates for President is unsuitable, whereas our Republican President regards Global Warming as a hoax and supports the National Rifle Association.
8
I am so tired of elites like Brooks throwing that term around to disparage other people.
Do any of these conservatives ever take a look at their self in the mirror?
The lack of self awareness Brooks shows is sadly typical these days.
4
David, you are out of touch with those you label “liberal elites.” Liberals care deeply about our neighbors who struggle to makes ends meet, who have to file for bankruptcy because they cannot afford medical treatment for their child, wife, etc.!
Number one issue for Americans during the 2018 mid-terms was...Healthcare! And it continues to be number one! As I type, Donald J Trump has ordered the Department of Justice to fight in court to DESTROY the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)! In doing so, 133 million Americans WITH pre-existing conditions will be at the mercy of for profit healthcare providers who CAN deny medical coverage for, say, Type 2 Diabetes!
We, so-called-Liberal-elites, DO CARE about:
Americans having affordable healthcare.
Americans earning a fair and livable wage.
American Veterans having housing, and the best healthcare possible.
American Seniors Social Security AND Medicare NOT being CUT by Republicans!
American children receiving the best education possible. AND their Teachers being paid fairly!!
American infrastructure being rebuilt.
We, “bleeding-heart-elite-Liberals” ACTUALLY DO want to make our Nation, better FOR ALL....not just the Mercers, Koch’s, DeVoss’....etc.!
And....protect our Earth!
8
Anyone who disagrees with Brooks' narrow view of the world is an elitist.
5
There will Russian interference, once again, in 2020. Blacks will be turned away at polls. And it's too early to speculate about 2020. The characterizations in this article are nothing more than blanket statements.
2
I read David Brooks every week to see if he can beat his own records. That is, his own records for just how facile he can get, how ignorant he can be of entrenched racism and sexism, and how much more he'll double down on his privileged lofty conservatism. This column is about average!
5
On the other hand, your thesis may have diminished the credibility of a college degree.
2
Would you please stop with the "coastal elites" bit?
Plenty of people who live on the coasts are not at all elite and are having difficulties making ends meet. Some are educated; some are not.
It takes all kinds to make a region flourish. And the middle class of all kinds is being hollowed out—unable to make a proper living, unable to afford health care and dental care, with very little left over for retirement.
I had some hope for you when you said you'd missed the boat and were going to listen to people for awhile. But it seems you're back to your facile cluelessness.
Not even Trump's open obstruction of justice and the continuing lies of your own party can seem to coax more than a yawn out of you. Back to cliches and your own sense that because your life is pretty nice, things are pretty OK.
8
Whichever white man gets the nomination--yep, still think one will--needs to choose a female running mate. My money is on Harris, who is smarter than anyone else in the room, but will have to take the second spot this time around.
2
One should be careful of received-wisdom assumptions, in this instance the current, never-ending, much-headlined case that "people of color" support younger and/or non-Northern European origin and/or verbally flame-throwing, and/or female candidates. A significant part of the reason Trump won in 2016 was because Clinton made the mistake of making unwarranted assumptions.
My essential support of Biden is that he may be the only candidate that can bring back Obama/Trump voters, who are the people likely to make the difference in the few states that are electorally relevant in 2020 and, thus, the only candidate who can beat Trump as things now stand. Of course one should keep in mind that someone unanticipated might yet show up, much as Bill Clinton did when he ran for President.
Are there legitimate questions regarding past actions by Biden? Sure. But we are going to vote for President in 2020, not God, and if the Democrat's choice doesn't win, it's more Trump.
Those who say we should elect an "identity" are essentially doing Trump's work for him. Trump is not hugely popular. He can only be re-elected by the Democrats, something they are helping along by engaging in one of their favorite activities, the circular firing squad.
In any case, I can't help but wonder how many of the anti-Biden comments and Recommends are from Republicans who think he poses the biggest threat to Trump or from other countries and businesses, which stand to profit from maintaining Trump in power.
1
I get the coastal and highly educated stuff, but in what way, shape, or form are these Democrats elite?
Am I the only highly educated person on the vast planet who doesn't regard him or herself to be elite in some essential and overarching manner? I suspect the answer to that is no.
It seems to me that self-absorbed NYT columnists arrogantly use the term to describe any person whom they regard to be similar to themselves. Please stop it. It presumptuous and unseemly.
And wait until at least next March to make any assumptions the direction the Democratic party is taking. I falsely guessed that a self-regarding elite such as yourself would have had both the discipline and wisdom to wait that long (If not, the late, great Walter Mischel suggested a number of simple yet effective self-control strategies).
6
I'm 88 and, to quote Mr. Brooks, "think our systems are fundamentally screwed up and require radical overhaul", but my highest priority is to make sure Trump is not re-elected, because of the long-term damage his continuation in the presidency can do to our country and, indeed, the world: his filling the federal courts with ultraconservative judges; the threat he poses to civilization because of his rejection of scientific opinion on climate change; his degradation of the norms of democratic government and public discourse.
So I care more about electability than I do about whether the Democratic candidate for president agrees with my views about what should be done, which are closer to those of Bernie Sanders, or at least Elizabeth Warren, than they are to those of Joe Biden.
And while I'm at it, I also part ways with Paul Krugman on the implications of his analysis in today's Times that Sanders and Biden will not be able to introduce change with, respectively, a highly partisan or bipartisan agenda. I consider it more important to have a President who can at least halt the filling of the Federal courts with ultraconservative judges and restore efforts within the control of the executive branch to stem global warming.
11
No, Mr. Brooks, we Democrats you disparagingly call "radicals" don't want a "permanent revolution". I daresay most of us would be satisfied with short but meaningful one: a revolution that resulted in the separation of money from governance and politics, and that put the health, education and welfare of the people ahead and above that of the military-industrial complex, Big Pharma, Wall Street, and all the other special interests which influence, if not control, the policies and actions of all three branches of the federal government.
5
I know a somewhat older, financially struggling bachelor who through too much finickiness (combined with his money issues) wound up with -as yet- no bride at all, who joked he's looking for a very young and pretty wife, and if not, one who is extremely, extremely old.
Anyway, maybe a similar logic is in order: sometimes if you can't get what you want, as Trump's campaign theme stolen from the Stones has it, you get what you need. And that may often be the OPPOSITE of what you want, rather than the closest approximation.
Elect Biden, then having done that, go for what you're really after. Biden's old enough that maybe a strong VP and the right pressures on Uncle Joe can all work to set things aright. And if Biden turns out to be sleazoid Bill Clinton-republican-in-disguise redux, impeach his rear end back to Delaware. JUST GET RID OF TRUMP FIRST!!!
5
As I said in another comment, arguing that sometimes there is a practical necessity of pursuing your goal in stages, the key is to think of Biden as a "placeholder" or a "pivot."
Normally I repudiate torpid "incrementalism" that mostly reinforces the status quo (probably a fair characterization of Biden), but the current situation absolutely forces me to focus on the prospect of 2016 being repeated. Can we survive a trump re-election? Frankly, I don't think I could bear it. And frankly -as I said in a different comment- it may make sense to contemplate the impact on the younger generation of 8 years of their youth and/or young adulthood under an 8 year Trump administration. Sometimes you really have to play the long game, including losing a battle to win a war. I'm nearly 50, and couldn't be more disappointed in the national politics throughout my adult life. But this has tempered my idealism in the direction of a kind of resigned Machiavellian sense of prudence. Step outside your own narrow wants and interests and think of the long term national survival. Trump is pure poison, and our immediate happiness is the unsalvageable limb that must be amputated for ultimate survival.
Like MLK said, we may not reach the Promised Land, but having glimpsed it can ease, or at least preserve however tenuously, the path for posterity. If we allow trump 4 more years, that path is gone.
Start with Biden to get trump out, then eventually sweep Biden aside too. Likely the only way.
1
Good analysis. It seems like this is Biden's election to win, contingent on choosing a good running mate and not screwing something up. Buttigieg would be a better president in terms of capability. Clinton would have been a decent president but a lot like a continuation of Obama, unable to bring people together through leadership.
Trump played the Republican core/base perfectly in 2016, and manipulated Clinton and the media because they just couldn't help themselves. Surprised me too - as a moderate Republican who did not vote for him. I hope Democrats have learned a lesson. Trump is a garbage president. Kasich would have been a very good one.
2
Here we go with the Republican again trying to categorize us Democrats. We're either this or that. Um, no. Actually we are all of the above, and many shades in between, and often at the same time. And, yes, sometimes we even juggle seemingly contradictory thoughts at the same time. We know who we are, thank you, and I'm sorry if it's not the clean and neat categories you always favor.
2
It is the revolt of the young millennial generation, and there abouts, against the Baby Boomers who screwed them by turning to neoliberalism. The older generation doesn't even know there is a problem, they have houses and cars and means. The kids are not all right. Not at all.
2
After reading Mr. Brook's take on the candidate, I suggest reading Paul Krugman's column today. It explains why Democrats should reject both Bernie and Joe as possible nominees. He does not present a false choice for Democrats, as Mr. Brooks does. It's not a choice between the so-called "traditional" wing of the party versus the so-called "Disrupter" wing. Instead, it's about choosing the individual candidate who is most qualified to lead the country, hopefully neither a traditional Democrat nor a "disrupter," but instead a knowledgable, experienced politician with realistic and progressive policy proposals to improve the lives of most Americans.
3
When Donald Trump leaves office January 2025, the American political landscape will have been completely altered. We will have new parties and new alliances. The fact that four years after the Great Mediocrity left office in 2016, we will have had an election between an independent Socialist and Donald Trump (call him what you want) is evidence of the profound shift this country is undergoing. And the New York Times (and its readers) is missing the story completely. They missed Trump’s election, then spent the next two years ineptly covering collusion (“but we won a Pulitzer”), and now are trying to explain this election through the prism of politics as usual. Stop with the wokeness and wake up: There’s so much more to what’s going on than the Times’ constant coverage of isms.
2
I don't know where the power brokers currently in charge at the DNC fall along the spectrum of "rank and file" and "coastal, highly educated elites". All I know is that they, and the mass media, seem to be relentlessly shoving Joe Biden down my throat as they *only* possible candidate who can beat Donald Trump next year.
It may or may not be true, but it is grating and vaguely insulting. Let the primaries play out as they will!
1
I think David Brooks, who belongs to that group of pundits who worked for years to stigmatize the word "liberal", helped to created a reactionary republican base, and ushered in the trump era, should refrain from commenting or pretending to know anything about how liberal people think and feel...even though he wants to be invited to our parties now.
4
I used to react with dismay when reading snarky comments such as the above. Now I feel that Mr. Brooks is doing a good job of exposing censorious, highly emotional and book-burning haters showing up in the comments section.
1
On the Democratic side, the major division isn't so much between "Democratic elites" and "rank and file Democrats" as is is between the activist Left and traditional Democrats.
@Dave
Just to be clear. "Traditional" or "Rank and file" Democrats tend to be more centrist and willing to incorporate progressive ideas -- whereas "activist Left" Democrats are not only less tolerant, but dismissive to any agenda other than their own; a stance that very well threatens to split the party down the middle ...again.
It's the Republicans, not the Democrats who want a permanent revolution. The tea party is simply an ongoing revolution ready to destroy our democracy.
The Republicans have made sure nothing gets done to help the American people and they continue to do so with the help of people like McConnell, Barr, Devin, Graham, Grassley, Ernst and many more. They don't want to govern, only block Democrats from achieving anything. Next they plan to do away completely with Obamacare and throw millions into bankruptcy and into the streets trying to stay alive without health care.
It's the Revolt of the GOP and has been since Regan.
6
I don't think, David, I know. I used to be a fan of Joe Biden. But, that was before we had REAL options.
Obama/Biden failed liberals as did Clinton. Their policies are apparently NOT the same.
A top tax rate of 70% is not extreme. American productivity was never so high as when it was 90%! Now, EVERY tax system in America - Federal and all states - have REGRESSIVE taxation.
Stop the REPUBLICANISM we live under!
2
Biden's poll numbers are likely the result of all Democratic voters, including "elites", betting on someone they think will be most electable, NOT on because they like his moderate policies.
I don't know who is electable, who can beat Trump if he's even the candidate. I will vote (in the primary) for who I think will make the best president (Elizabeth Warren) and if Biden wins the nomination, I will vote for him. But it won't be because I'm a moderate or an elite. It will be to oust this scourge we have for a president. His Republican enablers must be ousted too if we have any chance to restore our Constitution, the rule of law, trust, and civil behavior from this seditious bunch of gangsters.
4
Bulletproof limos have thick windows.
Once again, David Brooks distorts and deflects the discussion. He leaves the wealthy establishment democrats out of his definition of "elites". The Wall Street democrats are firmly in the Biden camp, but that doesn't fit Mr. Brooks agenda.
Trump and senate Republicans are successful to blow away the illusion we are taught in schools and rest of the world knew in terms like "checks and balances". Now USA looks more like any Banana republic and African nation when any ruler or king refuse to obey parliament, threaten law and order and create a mass confusion, chaos that may lead to civil unrest. Just look at Syria about 10-15 yr ago. I'm reasonably sure that Trump and his dream eyed GOP devotees would not hesitate to use its private religious (Christian evangelical) and racial (white supremacist) militia, whose understanding and allegiance to US constitution and laws starts and ends with 2nd amendment, to use threat and, if needed force, to get away with his whims and crimes. I'm also reasonably sure that trump would not hesitate to use American security forces and military to exert his executive privilege to save his presidency and his fellow gang members. And Democrats probably can do nothing but to engage in endless discussion and debate. I'm having some serious doubt if Trump would handover power peacefully if he is defeated in 2020 or even in 2024! Long live the King of United Kingdom of America.
2
“It’s. the economy stupid “. Look at today’s numbers, low inflation, low unemployment,rising wages. Any democratic candidate will have a hard uphill battle to convince voters a change is needed. That candidate must have a clear concise message that will rise above republican lies and dirty tricks. Trump still has strong support among his base, republicans still strong at the state and local level. Republicans did a good job of checking Obama ,so the democratic candidate will need a strong coattail effect.
I don't understand the term "elite" as used in Brooks column. I hear this so often and object strongly. The many people I personally interact with because of my profession are not necessarily wealthy, nor college educated (often self educated like myself). Instead, if this idea is true, it points to a serious lack of basic education at high school level in America. And a serious lack of engagement in politics. It appears that the "Coastal Elites" merely share a deeper involvement with their communities and how politics affect their own lives. They are open to learning about how other countries pay for health care, higher education etc and question the huge spending on the military. Otherwise why would so many Americans vote against their own interests and allow the true "Elite" 1 or 2% make all the rules, including telling us whom we should vote for?
2
Democrat elites? Surely Democrat(ic) as an adjective or noun does not fit into the party of the DNC that turns out is a private corporation? And the elite would have to be aging Yalies from the HrC campaign as well as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, Obamas, Biden and co. Biden is throwing his hat into the ring because it's 'his turn' now. Out here where reality isn't disguised with large amounts of lattes and urbane talk, we notice only the bottom lines $ of college debt, costs, out of reach medical care. If we were all registered Dem, we would be the rank and file? Or just the disenfranchised of the Dem party. The real party hasn't yet begun.
All Democrats need to forget about the Democratic primary and do whatever is necessary to get the right to vote in the Republican primary. Your vote against Trump in the Republican primary is worth 100 times your vote in the Democratic primary. Practically speaking, it really doesn't matter which Democrat wins the nomination. Forget what they are saying right now to get elected, they will all support the same policies once in power.
This way, you get to vote against Trump twice. First in the Republican primary, and second time in the general election, assuming of course that Trump wins the Republican nomination. Consider the fact that the number of people voting in any primary is much less than those voting in a general election. This means that the number of votes needed to defeat Trump is much less in the Republican primary than in the general election.
Also consider the fact that if you do not live in a swing state, your vote in the general election is basically worthless. It will have absolutely no effect on the result whatsoever. But if enough Democrats vote in the Republican primary in the blue states like California and New York, you might throw enough delegates to Trump's opponent to get rid of him once and for all.
3
One should be careful of received-wisdom assumptions, in this instance the current, never-ending, much-headlined case that "people of color" support younger and/or non-Northern European origin and/or verbally flame-throwing, and/or female candidates. Part of the reason Trump won in 2016 was because Clinton made the mistake of making unwarranted assumptions.
My essential support of Biden is that he may be the only candidate that can bring back Obama/Trump voters, who are the people likely to make the difference in the few states that are electorally relevant in 2020 and, thus, the only candidate who can beat Trump as things now stand. One should also keep in mind that someone unanticipated might yet show up, much as Bill Clinton did when he ran for President.
2
Please, Democrats, take this to heart: "it’s worth remembering that a majority of Democrats are over 50. In a recent Gallup survey, a majority of Democrats said the party would be better off moving to the center than to the left."
Please, Democrats, don't shoot yourselves in the foot again.
219
@Asheville Resident It's pointless to elect someone who is not going to move US forward on key issues.
1. Medicare for All. US health care costs 20% of GDP. European health care which is better, costs 10% of GDP. That must get fixed and only Democrats offer a solution.
2. Military budget takes 70% of US budget, $800B in just Pentagon and oil war costs. China spends $250B. Russia $100B. US could cut wasteful military spending by 50% and still spend MORE than Russia and China COMBINED.
3. Global Warming and oil use. US getting as energy efficient as Europe, Japan eliminates $300B a year oil import tax and eliminated the $400B a year oil war costs. Push EV's, solar, wind power. Fusion power.
4. Eliminate gerrymandering and limit political contributions to restore US democracy.
Addressing those four fundamentals is key for US survival. Whoever advocates for those policies is who US needs to elect. Electing someone who will not address them is pointless.
46
@EaglesPDX
Maintaining the status quo in the areas you cite, as well as others, is still better than going backwards, which is where trump will continue to take us. Please be realistic. Even a true progressive, like Bernie, is not going to be able to give us the radical change you're wishing for. Haven't you learned your lesson about where ideological purity gets us?
19
@EaglesPDX
I support those 4 policy changes, as I believe do most Americans, and all the Democratic candidates whether they talk about them or not. But, to play devil's advocate, why the imperative to elect someone who loudly supports those policies, when without a senate majority none of that can happen?
A president can "advocate" all he likes. His power is very limited. A Republican senate will stop everything - just as with Obama. A senate majority is even more important than the presidency.
27
Where is the discussion about the age of Biden and Bernie? I am not ageist, just an educated nurse practitioner who knows the risks of putting huge stress on an aging person. Just look at our current president and his inability to have new thoughts. I am also tired of the white haired men telling me "how it is" and I assume others are also. By the way, I'm 70 and know that my faculties are not what they used to be.
2
As a moderate who doesn't identify with either party, I would jump on the Democratic bandwagon if it was more centrist and not constantly seeking "justice" for that .01% that feel slighted for being different. That's where the party loses me.
The "redeeming" quality for the GOP has been lost - I felt they stood for lower spending and lower taxes but with the recent Trump Tax Hikes in NY and him wasting money on a wall the old GOP is now gone.
Not to mention any party that denies climate change, evolution and that mentally unstable people shouldn't have assault rifles is unqualified in my opinion.
@Sharkus77
In my view, if you don't vote for the Dem candidate this time, regardless of policies, age, sex or whatever, you're voting for a continuation of the current madness in the WH.
33% of Americans over the age of 25 have a bachelors degree. That means 67% don't, including a majority of Democrats, and a majority of primary voters. So while you may be offended by the term "educated elite", if you are somebody with a bachelors degree, you are part of a minority. Candidates who can only find traction when they visit college campuses are going to have problems in primaries, particularly in the less educated parts of the country. This is what Bernie found in 2016. His support was concentrated among students and the educated; in the end he lost too many primaries because Hilary dominated among black voters and non-college graduates.
.
Bernie is fighting the same problem this time, as is Warren and many of the others. It may seem like the leadership of the Democratic party is made up of Ivy-League grads and people with several degrees, but you can't forget that this is still a democracy, and the base is older and less educated than the stereotypical Democrat. There is a progressive wing of the party that is clearly impatient with living in a democracy that elected Trump, and a democracy where Biden is a popular candidate for the nomination, but we're not going to give up democracy for their progressive ideals. Candidates need a program that appeals to the whole country, not just those with university degrees.
2
Tell St Peter at the perly gates, that you're from the ranks of the elite, and see just how far that will get you up there.
It seems ironic now, but the founder of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln is the father of the modern American Republic. He coined the phrase that "the Declaration of Independence as an “apple of gold,” and the Constitution as the “frame of silver” around it."
Which meant that the ideals of the Declaration that all men were created equal and endowed with their Creator with inalienable rights is the core of the American ideal. The Constitution is merely a means of implementing that ideal in the form of republican self-government.
From 1789 to 1867 that "silver frame" was flawed. It was given birth in a compromise necessary to meld slave with free states and concessions were given to the slave states to get them into the union, though that compromise eventually failed in 1961.
The 13th 14th and 15th Amendments sought to end the cause of compromise and bring our governing organic law, the Constitution more in line with our core beliefs as set forth in the Declaration.
Since then, we have tried mightily to live up to Lincoln's standards. It has been E Pluribus Unum v. the ancient pull of tribalism. At times it seemed that speaking Lincoln's words were no more than platitudes, a thin patina placed over the reality that tribalism was never done away with here. There was never a Novus Ordo Seculorum, "a new order for the ages". That is what America was to be.
Trump is stripping away the patina and exposing the tribalism. Biden's view is the antidote. That he may win
Don't sleep on Howard Schultz. He has the most authentic message and would be the 2nd best man for the job. I'm hoping for a President who has empirical experience of having skin in the game. I avoid voting for politicians with hypothesis based on how he/she wants thing to be vs how thing really are. These individuals conceptualize what they consider a perfect world without any exposure to financial lost if & when they get it wrong. In other words, how can these individuals get a lot better at something they think they're not bad at?
Every Dem has his/her favorite as well as dislikes among the runners, so get behind your guy/gal as much as you want in the primary. But, please, once the candidate has been decided -- vote. Don't fail to do so out of disappointment or because you're not a fan of the candidate.
I view the Dem in-fighting from a long way off and it frightens me to the core. I'm scared you could hand Trump another election he should not win. The big picture is not about who emerges victorious out of Biden, Bernie or any of the other Dem hopefuls. Not this time. It's not about elites, the left, the center or where donations come from. It's about one thing: Getting Trump removed from the WH.
This might be the last chance to do that. The way the Republicans and Barr are behaving, if Trump is returned to office, four years on from 2020 they'll have the US in a vice-like grip that might never be broken.
If you feel too disgruntled to get out and vote Dem, make no mistake, that won't be the case for Trump's supporters. A third of Americans are with him no matter what and plenty of independents appear willing to support him if the economy is in good shape. They seem able to overlook all the wretched policies his administration puts forward.
James Comey is correct when he says Trump devours people's souls in small bites. Don't deliver yours and your loves ones' to him on a platter. Vote.
2
Mr. Brooks states, "Right now, Biden is in a strong position — offering progressive policies to a party that is exhausted and doesn’t want permanent revolution."
This is a very odd assessment. I don't know any politically attuned Democrats who think the party is "exhausted." And how, exactly, does one arrive at a judgment that people don't want permanent revolution when they haven't had any revolution at all, and the movement called a "political revolution" by Sanders and "Our Revolution" by Nina Turner is currently growing and thriving as people look for a path to reclaim the government from the far right.
1
The issue is that the conservative/libertarian long term starve-the-beast strategy is very near the end game. They've been running up deficits while simultaneously screaming about how bad deficits are. They've done everything in their power to undermine government programs, and then turned around and pointed to the resulting shortcomings of said programs as proof that big government doesn't work. And, given current projections, Medicare and SS are going to be in dire straights very soon. The actions required to save these and other programs, as well as saving the environment, raising wages (unions), and generally doing what most of the country wants will cause the heads of big money donors (to both parties) to explode in a fit of rage. Any candidate that is unwilling to take those actions is unlikely to reverse the decades-long downward spiral for large portions of the population. It will be a matter of too little too late, assuming it's not already too late.
6
Like your insights into the little nuisances of each of the party's.
Will be supporting the 'disrupter' candidate over the democratic "MAGA" candidate Biden of a bygone era.
Do believe that there are big differences in policy direction between these two candidates.
Disagree with your support for Sanders as disrupters, as we see there is a need for these changes in the program of/for governing, and yes reformers who work as insiders are someone we do not want or expect to be elected. How will one get legislative changes in policy if insiders continue to run the program? Let Bernie deal with what happens in the halls of Congress after the election. And no, one does not even listen to Trumps aberrations- how come you do? Does he have anything of real value to say or Tweet to America, really?
Change is coming and that is where the democratic focus should be, the future, change and moving forward, in 2020,2022, to 2024 elections especially in the House and Senate races, and with it policy changes and court nominations. A new direction and perhaps policies toward a newer deal, not going backward.
I don't vote the same way in every election. Meaning, I look for different candidates/qualities depending on what the candidate is running for.
When I'm voting for legislators, I seek out the ones with the most progressive visions and ideas for laws. I vote more reliably for what my "true politics" are, which are left of liberal on most all issues. We need more progressive laws, so I vote for progressive lawmakers.
When I'm voting for executives (mayors, governors, presidents), I don't initially seek out the most progressive leaders. I want executives who lead with a steady hand, who are decision-makers with resolve. Sometimes this is a left-of-liberal progressive, but I'm comfortable not being 100% pleased with all their political views, because they aren't making the laws-- they're simply signing them. I demand an executive who represents all of us, not just my personal and community interests. As long as they nominate progressive judges and sign the progressive legislation, I'm good.
One of my gauges for presidential candidates is, "Can you go into any community in America and speak comfortably with constituents there?" Some people can't: they're comfortable in airplane hangars in Grand Rapids, but they wouldn't dare appear in the inner city-- they're too weak and scared for that. Others can and do go anywhere. I'm much more likely to vote for them for president, even if they're more moderate than I would prefer my lawmakers to be.
1
Others have commented on the meaningless of the term "elites." I'd like to address the same hollowness of "privilege."
I went to an "elite" private school in the suburbs of Detroit (Cranbrook) for grades 10-12. I was one of the poorer students there. My mom was a social worker for the state of Michigan- good benefits for health care but a rather meager salary. Dad wasn't a help financially. I was there on partial scholarship, the rest was my mom scrimping and saving. I did rather well academically. I took my "job" as a student whose future was in his hands rather seriously. Worked harder than my friends in public school, apples and oranges. Enough to gain admission to Columbia University . . .
Where there was more financial aid, some grants, some loans, with more scrimping and saving by mom. More apples and oranges comparing how much time I spent studying with my friends attending less challenging public universities, who were there more to party than to learn anything meaningful. Did well enough to get into a good medical school . . .
With more financial aid, mostly loans now. More scrimping and saving. Studied my tuchas off, enough to graduate at the top of my class. Residency was 80 to 100 hour weeks while earning just over 30 grand. 6 figure loans to pay off.
Now I make money, not 1%, probably closer to 10%. I live in Los Angeles. Taxes are high, I'm happy to pay them. I'd never vote GOP. No real money in the bank. I rent.
Am I "privileged?" Am I "elitist?"
3
Why do we continue to warp the definition of elite to mean people of privilege and power who's ideas are not part of mainstream thought and are unable to understand the plight of those less fortunate?
That's not what elite means and those clueless rich folks are not defined by the political party they're affiliated with.
1
Like others here I am tired of a pundit putting labels on us that separate rather than unite us. We all lose fobs especially in a changing society, get sick, need health care, educational opportunities and enough to eat. We need a stable and safe environment to thrive. Our debates as democrats are not ideological, but about solid ways we can help each other through solid programs and reforms.
Is this radical or elite? It stretches across every line of separation, economic class, gender or age. Democrats would like to include Republicans in this discussion, but at every turn have been thwarted by the republican fixation on power and its maintenance. People in boxes live in their own little worlds. To break free we need tolerance for other ideas and possibilities all of which every democratic candidate is bringing to the pot so that we can make a great soup together.
Perhaps some will say that I am not being specific enough in my ideas, but we must have rules of discussion set before solid policy can ever come about.
2
I pray that every Democrat, white, black, yellow, brown, progressive, centrist, or otherwise takes along his or her brother, sister, parents, grand parents, uncles, aunts, cousins, dog, cat, and other members of his or her family and friends and ensures that they vote for the Democratic candidate nominated, whoever he or she is and regardless of any shortcomings he or she may have.
In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
1
Elitist, "supporting the view that a society or system should be led by an elite" as if Bernie Sanders was ever elite!
I am 63 years old, I attended college but did not finish and I have worked hard my entire life to maintain a simple middle class life style. This coastal democrat is far from elite; she is PROGRESSIVE!
I voted for Bernie Sanders in 2016 (2020 - leaning towards Warren - plans & polices I like) because I reject the status quo and I believed he had a better chance against trump. #45 won because republicans and many independents rejected the status quo as well. Americans know the system is broken and I think most want to fix it; we disagree on how.
I don't express pride in my country, now never, but even before trump. Why because we are not number ONE and it is this kind of rhetoric that is often used to hold us back. "Make a America Great Again" -- it was only every GREAT for white men and big corporations run by white men.
It's not radical -
to want to stop gun violence
to want health care for all
to want your children to get affordable college degrees
to expect profitable corporations to pay taxes
to impeach your criminal president
to take steps to protect our planet
to keep church and state separate
to want clean water, affordable shelter...
Other civilized countries have these things.
Biden more of the same - NOPE . He is right though time is running out for America - we do need to save her soul!
6
you got it right with the twitter feed. a "college degree" does not mean much these days - anyone can get it, and this spend most of their time of twitter. all you need is a loan that you do not pay back. studying, attending classes, being smart is not required
1
I object to being called "elite". Thanks to the Republicans, it has become a derogatory term when used in politics, despite being used in other areas as complimentary , for example with respect to the military
I was a child of the Great Depression. My father was out of work for 2 or 3 years and at one point my family had to put our belongings in storage and live in one room in a boarding house with " kitchen privileges".
I got into NYU and Harvard Law School by working hard and obtaining scholarships and working part time and during vacations.
I served in the Army for 2 years, in the Active Reserve for 2 years and in the Inactive Reserve for 3 more years.
I have had a successful career and am now retired.
No one gave me a silver spoon in my mouth as some recent Republican presidents did. They might be called "elites".
I am a proud member of the Democrats and resent the implication that I have no feeling for ordinary people.
Gerald Gura
352 Carolina Meadows Villa
Chapel Hill, NC 275217
6
Here we go again attaching those ugly labels that divide us. Of the 20+ candidates, no matter what their education, backgrounds or geographical locations are, who is going to lead us in winning the most pressing problem of all? By 203, drastically reduce the harmful effects of carbon emissions, keep our earth temperatures at 1.5 degrees C? According to 99% of world scientists and the Paris Climate Agreement, "even a half degree warmer than this will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people." The most vulnerable people worldwide are those living in extreme poverty as a result of these horrible storms. Who will have the foresight, the integrity, the empathy, the bold leadership to answer the call? That is the person I will be voting for.
Mr. Brooks has chosen very selectively which CNN polling data he cares to use, ignoring important parts of it that don't support his thesis.
Why?
One section deals with which issues are most important to DEM and "Democratic leaning" voters. I found that surprising. Bernie Sanders' top issues are top of the list.
#1 Climate change, 96# say "very" and "somewhat important" - (high on Sanders' list)
#2 Medicare-for-All, 91% ! - (very high on Sanders' list)
#3 Stricture gun control, 85% (not a focus of Sanders)
#4 Free tuition at public colleges, 78% (high on Sanders' list)
1
I'm left of Biden but would surely vote for him if he were the nominee. He wouldn't be my first choice but I hope all Democrats and anyone who opposes 4 more years of Trump agree.
Let's listen to what the nominees have to say, and stop using "reason" to speculatively micro-analyze what might occur and why. We're lost in the woods right now and if Mr. Brooks or any pundit think they know what things will look like a year from now, they're kidding themselves and us.
2
The polls seem to indicate that the Democratic Party has not changed that much from 2016 when Hillary Clinton handily defeated Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary, winning every southern state and most of the northeastern states as well as California and a few other states. Biden's lead in the polls over Sanders indicates that despite AOC mania the status quo in the Democratic Party largely remains intact. My guess is a center-left candidate will again be the nominee but it won't be Biden who has a history faring poorly in presidential primaries. There are many qualified candidates with campaigns underway and early next year the folks in Iowa will finally have a chance to start sorting things out.
@Bob - The CNN poll linked to in the article had this to say about the issues of most concern to DEM and "Democratic leaning" voters.
The top 4 issues are Climate Change (96%), Medicare-for-All (91%), Gun Control (85%) and free college tuition (78%).
Three of those 4 issues (not gun control) have always been VERY high on Sanders' agenda.
1
@J Jencks
I was referring to the many polls that show Biden leading Sanders. Those polls suggest to me that the Democrats haven't moved as much to the left as has been reported. The polls seem like a reality check.
I think Bernie Sanders just demonstrated in a recent town hall meeting hosted by Fox that he can get woo to his side some people from the Trump's base. The general election is not going to be about the most popular Democrat. I know for a fact that my mother who lives in Dayton Ohio would vote for Sanders, she supported him in 2016 and went for Trump instead. Personally I myself belive Sen. Warren should be getting far more attention than she is getting, but as far popularity contest the binary: costal elites for Sanders, rank and file democrats for Biden is false and/or meaningless.
1
What exactly is the threshold to be considered "highly educated." I have a graduate degree, so does make me highly educated" Or must one must have a "professional degree"? Or does having simply a bachelor's degree qualify?
And why does that make a difference in choosing political sides? It seems to me that a highly educated person would see the folly in the proposals of the far left. Supporting the left does not seem to be very smart.
1
@Southern Boy
Oh do tell us about “the folly proposals of the far left”. And while you do help me out with what you mean by the term “far left”. I’m open to any and all proposals because that’s just what they are, a proposal, not law, not written in blood. They are a starting point to engage in a conversation to move said proposal from the starting gate to more concrete ideas, plans, and “gasp” compromise. Educated people, highly or not, recognize that we are all in this together and need to work for solutions. The problem for republican’ts is they can’t, it’s to hard, it’s stupid, it’s going to cost money, blah, blah, blah. Name one proposal, submitted by republican’ts in the last 10 years, of any value that isn’t a tax cut. They don’t know how.
3
Populism did not elect Trump, not in the least, though this is a favored excuse many republicans seem to want to grasp, instead of the ugly and obvious truth. Most democrats just want to win, but they also want drastic change from the past forty years of lukewarm left and radical right. Republicans no longer respect institutions and have no investment in a successful government, seeming to exist only to fill the feeding trough for the feudal barons. Winning to democrats is not just holding a place, it's about doing something with government that helps the commonwealth, the people, the country. Not just a favored class of donors and corporate masters.
8
Bernie is certainly a stirring force ... is a rousing speaker and offers transformative ideas! While he would be easy to support if having to choose between him and trump ... it is worthwhile to take a look at his record of accomplishment(s) as both a Congressman and as a Senator as it is appropriate to do for each candidate. In approximately 30 years of service he hasn't done much!
2
I'm 64, white, female, college educated and middle class. Sorry, David, the revolution is coming and I'm behind candidates who are ready to do the hard things. Elizabeth Warren is the sleeper in your formula. She's got common sense and a clear vision of what needs to be done to right the ship and good ideas for how to do it.
I find it amusing that a candidate who talks about solving problems in straight forward ways is anathema to the old white guys who are struggling to maintain their stranglehold on obscene wealth.
I like Joe. I like Bernie. I like Pete. But seriously....we need someone with the brains and iron will to get us out of this mess before it's too late.
Doing the same thing over and over again got us Trump. Wise up, Dems.... get behind the woman who can get it done.
7
Thanks, but I’m plenty wised up. Wised up enough to know that Warren’s a born Senator, and will never be President, any more than Chuck Schumer will be. And for a lot of the same reasons, the good side of which is that she’s a policy wonk who’s great at maneuvering to get stuff done.
So stop already with this “the revolution is coming,” junk. Brooks has a point, for once: the majority of Democratic voters, at least right now, want Joe Biden.
Question is, can Joe keep both feet and an arm out of his mouth? Just how seriously will people take the fact that he’s been a Senator for decades, and has a ton of business entanglements even if he’s never made a ton of money off them? Just how auto-cannibal will the Party turn?
David, I frequently enjoy your thoughtful articles but would appreciate your not separating the educated elites in this country by coastlines. I get that you have limited space to right, but codifying liberals (progressives, I'd say) with such a specific geographical marker seems both limiting and rather insulting, especially to well-educated progressives in Chicago, Denver, Austin, Milwaukee, St. Louis, and other non-West or East Coast urban areas. It also dismisses college towns from Nevada to Tennessee that are either purple or blue politically.
7
Just a Wonderful random thought. Im over 70 , I would love to see the Biden / Obama combination in the White House again. Is it possible to elect this Dynamic Duo again ,in reverse order?
Elites. Coastal elites. Radicalization. Disrupters. So many labels and generalizations. You don't have to be in any of these catagories to see ..."the Trump Era as a nightmare aberration". You just have to be sane and not a member of Trump's cult.
5
David stop trying to create a conflict narrative where none exists. Polls may show differences–great! But Dems of all stripes are united in prioritizing ONE type of candidate above all others: a winner.
Dems, this needs to be the Mary J. Blige (courtesy of last nights Lipsync on RuPaul): "No More Drama."
1
@Amanda M."...a winner."
Elect Trump then since by your definition he's a "winner".
Unless you vote policies, electing "winners" who do not address US problems is useless.
Anyone using the ambiguous term 'elite' should define it more precisely. If you have a college education, does that make you elite? Or is it simply your net worth and the fact that you live in California or New York? And how come we rarely hear the term applied to conservatives?
386
The word "elite" has been twisted.
"Elite" implies merit, ie that one is excellent at something.
"The Elites" are a class of rich people with fancy credentials and insider connections, who consider themselves to fit the traditional merit/excellence definition of "elite" described above, and therefore are dismissive of outside opinion. They feel they've earned their institutional power which they wield at will. But the general public does not view "The Elites" as favorably as "The Elites" view themselves, and therefore grow frustrated by "The Elites" monopoly on political power
18
@LeGEE Good question. I would be an elite Republican, which I'm defining as well educated, researches the issues, and makes decisions based on policies and the capability of people to get the job done. I did not vote for trump and consider him a terrible president. I describe my place on the political spectrum as moderate - more conservative with respect to fiscal matters and more strict Constitutional interpretations of the law. I would not, however, actually call myself "elite".
16
@LeGEE A great question and a great suggestion. I have a highly educated brother, a history teacher, who shocked me a few years ago when he used the term 'elite' in a totally pejorative way as he exulted in the Brexit victory. After that, I began to see the term used regularly with a contemptuous intent. Now it seems to have replaced older terms of dismissal like "liberal," and formed a newly emphasized dichotomy with "populist," another term which needs more refined definition. Both trump and Sanders were said to have "populist" appeal in 2016, but though I see many similarities between the two men, their "populist" characteristics are clearly quite different.
18
Why is it, David, that you keep harping on "Democratic elites." And to top it off you, nearly end of your story, you wrote, "[h]ighly educated coastal progressives live privileged, affluent lives, but define their identity as allies of the oppressed." Nothing wrong with some aspects of that statement, but are the only progressives in the two coasts? This becomes a signature of you, but do you not think of yourself as an elitist? I'll tell you who the elitists are--they are the billionaires who control most of our lives, starting with Amazon, Facebook, et al.
7
@eb
If I were to define "elite" or "elitist", it might include wealthy Republican money managers, hedge fund managers and Wall Street scions, the people who have certain kinds of status and position because of their inherited wealth and ability to easily transition into these sectors through family connections and attending the right schools.
1
As a liberal, I am constantly amazed that I cannot identify with anything Brooks writes about when he writes about liberals. It is more like a Conservative take on what liberals look like through a blizzard of right wing writing.
7
The date of the first democratic primary is February 3. Who knows what will happen between now and then.
David: this statement near the end of your article is dripping with bias and I resent it: "This privileged pose involves all sorts of psychological contortions that don’t resonate with a lot of rank-and-file voters." I don't "contort" or "pose" to see any person as human and someone I like to communicate with. And, I am a privileged coastal.
3
If Biden runs I'll vote for him. If he doesn't run I'll vote for
any Democrat. Just to get rid of Trump--the worst President
ever, the President the founders feared, the President they didn't fear enough.
6
The Democratic Party disrespected and dismissed an energized, youthful, progressive cohort in 2016, tossing away the chance to dominate American politics for a generation. With eyes wide open, the party establishment steered the nomination to someone with enough baggage to sink a ship — and that's what happened, afflicting all of us with a horrid, retrograde, unstable, corrupt four-year DC dumpster fire.
They're about to do it again.
Between identity politics and the fantasy that Republicans might be longing for the good old days of bipartisan reason and respect for the Common Good, the Democratic Party is headed for another meltdown from which there will be no recovery.
If the Democratic Party no longer has the guts to fight for and advance the Big Policy Idea to radically change what runaway capitalism has done to the people of this country, then the party deserves to die.
2
Let's see about Credit Card Joe:
voted for the Iraq War
voted for the Patriot Act
voted for NAFTA
a dear friend of the bankster Wall St. cartel
This will not fly in 2020 America.
Like Hillary, he is a phony liberal. Trump will mop the floor with him in the general.
The 10% of Bernie Bros and the 10 million twice Obama voters, who all voted for Trump, will not be voting for Wandering Hands Joe. Brooks and the DNC don't get it. Douthat gets it.
Throw in the fact that 22 different people are trying to get the Dem nomination. Talk about a circus that will only confuse and alienate Independent voters. You know, the Independents who are 44% of the electorate, who decide who our president will be. Bernie is an (I).
1
Sanders is popular with the 10% because he lets us off the hook by pointing at the 1%. The misery of the American working class is not the result of an evil cabal of billionaires preventing socialism from occurring. The proximate causes are two things that all upper-middle class people participate in: NIMBYism and the overvaluing of college degrees. When a 10%er is for Sanders what they are really saying is they want the lower classes bought off with someone else's money so they can keep up their own exclusive lifestyle without worrying about guillotines and such.
2
The voters from both parties want "revolutionary candidates," David. The kind we had back in 1780.
They eschewed the one-sided politics from the English ruler, and embraced a two-party system whereby each side do the "give and take" of what politics was meant to be.
We do not need more wackos and unfocused leaders. We need someone who can lead both parties to agreements that serve the common good. That's what the Executive branch of our Constitution called for.
Is there an executive out there who can lead both sides? An Independent Party candidate is the answer. Anyone? Anyone?
2
I'm so weary of the inaccurate "coastal vs. heartland" bifurcation. So Chicago, Milwaukee, Ann Arbor, Minneapolis, etc., are more conservative than San Diego, Charleston, Savannah, and Orlando?
3
549 days until the election. 276 days until the Iowa caucus.
Must be a slow day in DC corruption for Mr. Brooks to dwell on the ups and downs of the democratic presidential pack milling about at the starting line. I can wait. The current crumbling of our federal government is far more fascinating than Brooks' musings about democrats.
everyone I know who voted for trump, who can barely admit it either, is an un-college educated pot smoking gun owner, enough said. I fear the USA is in a devolution of quality discerning citizens, judging by some of my own family and friends in California. Recommend buffing up the education system in this country.
1
People keep saying we need to "keep fighting" to bring "change". Usually to bring a personally preferred type of change represented by a particular candidate. It is not about fighting, folks. Fighting does not change anything. Winning does. So go ahead and back your personal favorite, and refuse to get behind someone else if they are chosen. Go ahead and act like a petulant child and refuse to compromise. Do that and we will get 4 more years of trump and the continued demise of American Democratic ideals, continued ecologic disaster, continued widening of the gap between Haves and Have-nots, the continued gap between us and the world, continued isolation as we separate from age-old allies.
trump's supporters are all swimming in the same direction. They are mostly poorly-educated, misinformed by Fox and Sinclair "news" organizations and often display low character, but they are unified and will vote as a bloc in 2020. Either Democrats do the same, or trump will win. Get behind a candidate chosen by the majority, and then hammer out the party platform to account for variations in approach. Non-chosen candidates can negotiate for cabinet positions, and effect change that way. Get flexible folks, it is not all-or-nothing when it comes to bringing positive change.
"Fighting" is like "trying" - it is what losers do.
To quote a fictional character, "Do or do not; there is no try."
A party establishment candidate who enabled the financial industry to put citizens into lifelong debt servitude, while corporations and our current president can declare bankruptcy, is not “Progressive.”
1
"Seemingly nobody on Twitter supports Biden." The truly elite don't follow Twitter.
1
@Robbbb
Anybody within their right mind doesn't follow Twitter.
I must disagree with your analysis Mr. Brooks. Just one example for this is that Biden reportedly has support at this point from 47% of Black Democratic women, a group that I would not characterize as radical. The populism of the left is personified by a politicians like Sanders or Buttigieg. These men are overwhelmingly supported by young activist voters. And as for issues? It is the outliers, not the top dogs like Biden, who are pushing for radical policy when it comes to climate change (see, Jay Inslee and Beto O'Rourke, for example). Biden, if anything, is the "safe" candidate, the one who leaders of the party see as capable of wresting white workers from Trump's orbit.
1
I fear another attempt at equivalence balancing.
In my memory it is always the industrialists who believed that they could tame the beast, the populist racist, misogynist, nativist, "leader", protecting their profits while giving the masses bread and circuses.
They were wrong in the past, and they were wrong in 2016.
And it seems they are still backing the beast.
It matters naught what “wings” are doing in the Democratic Party. Come November 2020 we will be voting against Trump. There ain’t nothing anyone of these democrats running can say or do that will change the fact that voting against Trump is a no brainer. Medicare for all vs no healthcare, Green New Deal vs drill baby, drill, reproductive rights vs religion based rights. You are either going to vote to restore sanity to office of the president or you are going to vote for the global wife abuser. You get a binary choice, I suspect for most people in this country it will not matter who the nominee is, because the known known (Trump) has shown he is unfit for any office. Do people really think any democrat could ever be as horrible as what we have witnessed the last 2+years? Not if you are paying attention.
Any chance this all comes down to self interest? Medicare for all and free college tuition both probably sound very attractive to affluent families.
They're likely less beneficial to older and poorer people who don't go to college and are already getting government subsidized health care.
1
It is going through my head.
Maybe I should run for President.
I know my innate morality.
When I'm drunk, I seem a buffoon. But when not, I'm a leader of epic proportions.
I know I'd win. Can I do that?
1
Bernie probably won't ein as long a Warren is in the race but either one seems to have a great chance if the other falters badly or quits. Trump with a good economy would likely lose to Biden but it seems a toss up against Bernie or Warren
Trump’s rocket economy would make him a virtual lock against Biden...or any Democrat...Even the most optimistic liberal understands that incumbent Presidents usually win re-election...A Democratic victory in 2020 is a long-shot proposition
The Republican story is NOT a story of populist radicalization. It is a story of racist radicalization used as a cover to dismember our social safety net, our environment and ultimately our Republic. If we are to survive as a nation, the current iteration of Republicanism/Trumpism needs to be utterly discredited and destroyed.
2
The ability to discuss politics without reference to individual rights is more evidence of our nihilist-modern culture.
Biden is a three time loser who is going to go down for a fourth time if he is on the 2020 ticket. And that is not a coastal elite talking. I live in the state Biden was born in and I ride the train every day just like Joe. And out here he doesn't have a chance.
Bernie was the peoples choice in 2016 and would have faced Trump and won in 2016 if the primary was not rigged. That was an example of the Democratic elite imposing their candidate on a country that did not want their choice. Biden is an example of the Democratic elite again imposing their candidate on a country that does not want their choice. In 2020 the stars have changed and Bernie does not have the same ground swell of popular support that was available in 2016 to sweep the Democrats to victory, but he is still head and shoulders over the rest of the Democratic field. If Bernie is on the ticket and Russia stays out of our election and the FBI doesn't start another bogus investigation eleven days before voting day Bernie has a chance. But we know that Russia is already being invited in to rig the election for Trump again and no one can compete with the FBI when it turns against you. So no Democrat is going to make out well in 2020. The Dems have the best chance with the most seasoned campaigner they have and that is Bernie. There is a lot riding on this coming fight and they should not start the race with a perennial loser like Biden..
2
@Bobotheclown
Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. He is an Independent, ran for office as an Independent, and currently holds office as an Independent. Complaining about how the Democratic Party "cheated" him out of the 2016 candidacy is ludicrous; they are under no obligation to back a candidate who is not party-affiliated. Senator Sanders would not have "swept the Democrats to victory" in 2016 election, because the Republicans would have tarred him by using "Socialist" as an epithet and running with it 24/7 on Fox News and in attack ads, because that's how they work. I admire Senator Sanders, but at 77, he is quite frankly too old for the presidency (as is Joseph Biden) and the future needs to start being determined by younger people. And with the focus on "winners" versus "losers" and "coastal elites" in your post, you are regurgitating tired Republican tropes. You might want to re-examine your rhetoric.
Dave is lying to himself again. He says the Republican "base" rejected "conventional Republican themes" and "wanted Trump -- something completely different.". Trump used the very same strategy used by every Republican presidential candidate since 1968. The Nixon "Southern Strategy". Racist hate of the "others" is what conservatives do, Dave has promoted this behavior and now claims to run from it, but Trump is of your making Dave, he is your baby!
2
Really? I can not even get through your second paragraph. Highly educated elites?? Come on Mr. Brooks, you need to find a different set of words to describe people with education, awareness, justified concern about the future of our planet, and compassion for all living things.
How is this radical? I am open to your explanations.
3
The divide among Democrats is based on a the progressive spectrum. The divide among Republicans is either support Trumpian corporate fascism, racism, and bigotry or leave the GOP. They have forgotten what America stands for: Constitutional separation of powers, the rule of law and freedom and justice for all. There is not a shred of patriotism left in anyone who continues to support the Republican Part in its current stater of amnesia.
2
What this analysis misses is that in the Republican field of 2016 you had a bunch of normie corporate republicans and one single rage candidate, and the 1/3 of the republican primary electorate that is primarily motivated by rage and hate went for the one option. If you'd had multiple racist clown candidates then the q-anon, conspiracy theory believing, alex jones inhaling lunatic segment of the modern republican party would have been split and we'd probably be quietly suffering through Bush III right now, but Trump got lucky.
On the democratic side you have the opposite - 16 or so change candidates and arguably only one normie, Biden. It should not be surprising that as the vast majority of both citizens and democrats do not pay loads of attention to politics, that the normie with the name recognition has the most support. But if you tally up all the people who are supporting change already it's more than support Biden. If it was Biden and 6 other normies and only one or two Sanders/Yang/Buttigieg candidates, this column would look very different.
The real test will be after the debates, when candidates like Andrew Yang with his UBI proposal will have a chance to get their "radical" proposals heard on a national stage. These ideas will become much more normalized and acceptable. Democrats will start believing in the vision these change candidates are proposing. And then, I predict, Biden will fade away...
The reason we want change is because government s too corrupt and too many are in danger of losing homes, jobs and health because of the greed of investors and corporations. Go Bernie.
1
According to a recent CNN poll matching up Democrats against Trump, Beto does best, outpolling Trump by 10 percentage points, followed by Biden and Bernie, who each beat Trump by 6 points. Next is Buttigieg, who outpolls Trump by 3 points. According to the poll, Warren would lose by 1 point and Kamala Harris by 4.
I don't see any ideological trends in these polling data, just racism and sexism, and possibly homophobia.
Once again I find myself in general agreement with David Brooks -- not something I would have expected years ago. As an older Democrat who leans toward Biden I think he is on to something here. Even if I am an highly-educated resident of BOTH the East and West coasts.
One reason why older Dems such as me support Biden was missed by Mr. Brooks. We remember 1972! We remember the Democratic Party swerving hard left and nominating George McGovern. A candidate who was so trounced in the general election by a loathsome Republican incumbent that he failed to even carry his home state.
If Nixon was Nixon then Trump is Trump. And if you want to take down Trump you cannot do so by coming from the hard left. Biden knows that as do we older Dems.
The drama over the next eighteen months will be to see if the hero wins the day or if once again the Democrats go down in flames by swerving so far left that they leave most of the electorate behind.
I heard Michael Bennett, the Senator from Colorado speak last night. He made a lot of sense. Check him out.
Sorry, Brooks, you got it wrong. It is the party elites vs. the progressives. The limousine liberals are for the status quo, which would include Biden, Buttigieg, Beto, and Booker. Maybe Amy, but I doubt it.
The elites are socially liberal to a fault, replacing true social justice with identity politics. It just makes them feel morally superior. The progressives want change, and they want it before all the insects that fertilize the soil are dead from pesticides and/or our democracy is deader than a vampire with a silver nail (?) in it.
Biden is ahead! Oh, my, who could have predicted that? Other than anyone who understands how the DNC/DLC/CAP control the media and the messaging, not to mention the millions raised from corporations who like the status quo just fine, thank you. He has name recognition and nostalgia on his side, but that will only last until he starts to speak out regularly and blows it. He always has and he will again.
Don't place your bets this early. It isn't over until the last state holds it primary.
It is refreshing to read fairly unbiased opinions by a conservative commentator. That democrats have currently a big tent of diverse thoughts is true, and hopefully aiming towards social justice. The current administration is an aberration of sorts, as a malevolent demagogue, 'expertly' recognizing a vacuum of unhappiness in people 'left behind', forced the republican party to accept him, however deeply flawed he was/is, and adamant in governing by dividing us, and 'expertly' instilling fear and resentment of 'the other'. You may realize that Trump's rallies are based on a few ill-gotten ideas touching the emotional feelings, entrenched, in the psyche of his credulously anxious audience, that at the end could care less that what he said was repetitive nonsense based on lies, and naming irrelevant scapegoats for his own incompetence, a rabble rouser exciting a 'mass of people' that now became a 'mob' ready and willing to do whatever he said must be done. This is a very dangerous situation for any republic, a charlatan creating a collective hysteria to find a sense of purpose in otherwise empty lives struggling to survive in what seems deeply inequitable to them.
1
By the time actual voting happens in Iowa and NH, Biden could be the new "Jeb!". It is way too early to judge the presidential voting preferences of rank-and-file Democrats.
"They don’t want a candidate who talks like a reformer but governs as an insider — as they think Barack Obama did."
Which is EXATLY what Trump is doing.
1
Sen Harris acquitted herself well with the questioning of Barr.
Excellent questioning skills,and prepared down to the commas.
Booker stumbled.
I see the planet species going into extinction daily, and only want to stop Trump.
In the limited number of years remaining I will never vote for a republican candidate again.
1
Darn those pesky educated folks. So out of touch with their analysis of what's wrong and aggressive timelines. They should know there's no quick solutions. Only grinding compromise that, in the end, looks very similar to where we started.
Brooks hits a triple; and, judging by the progressive whining in the Comments (by far the best reading in the NYT), he has hit a nerve. The self-righteousness of the progs is a thing to behold; they were put on earth (not by God, by god!) to save the oppressed--and each minute, it seems, the oppressions grow, each more itty-bitty and ill-defined than the last.
The Democratic party is busily fragmenting before our very eyes; the losers in this scrum of Presidential wanna-bes will not take their "defeat" well; once again, each rejected savior's sulking kids (Bernie, I'm talkin' 'bout you) will hand the victory to the dreaded Other.
Let’s be clear: Republican elites are long dead. What remains is a zombie world. As for Democrats - at least they have beating hearts.
1
Till now, it is early to confirm who will be the Democrat candidate for 2020.
Those darn "elites" with their college edumacations think their so dang smart. But we know better, we must vote for moderates who believe that the GOP has some very good points, like hating others, helping the rich, and did I mention hating others. Yes, we must vote for GOP ideals because of those snitty elites.
1
"If these voters stay where they are, it will be hard for a disrupter to win. So far white progressives have done a poor job of wooing minority support or even marching in step with minority voters. They talk a lot about social justice but don’t support the candidates that minority voters actually support."
What candidates have actually supported minority voters?
It was during Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden's term that America faced some of its worst racial tension, a flood of cop misconduct and shooting cases that led to the insurgence of a white populist racist misogynist, all under Ms. Lynch, a tragic disappointment to the minority community, their civil rights. Until recently, I don't believe progressives or minorities had but a few authentic representative candidates. So who should progressives march in step with now? Is this your back door endorsement of Joe Biden? How many young black men went to prison on Mr. Biden's watch? Black women raising children alone so those union white firefighters, prison guards, and cops could have taxpayer funded jobs. On her back, he will rise, indeed. How many black people are on his senior leadership team, ever? How many did he lift into economic autonomy? Beyond getting too close to women, how many did he employ in a senior role and were they paid in parity to male counterparts? So many blacks in America have been pushed to geographical diaspora-- why doesn't Mr. Biden ever tweet about their displacement and lack of an American homeland?
There may be a generational divide among Democrats, but it is dead wrong to describe it a split between elites and "rank and file."
The talk of elites is a typical Brooks smear. The GOP, with a complicit media including people like Bruni and Brooks at the Times, repeatedly called Hillary Clinton "elite" even though she won 63 million votes, 3 million more than Trump. If you have an elite of 63 million, it's not all that elite.
Living on the coasts or in multiethnic cities does not make anyone "elite" or "rank and file."
"Elite" should be reserved to describe the truly wealthy and powerful -- Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Fortune 500 CEOs, New York Times pundits.
3
Using the word "elite" in your title is fraught with all sorts of baggage that you are in no position to unpack the meaning of. The electorate will roar in 2020, and it will be deafening.
Dear Mr. Brooks,
Please stop using the term "elites", especially as a pejorative term. You and your Republican friends use this word as a cudgel to make war against science, humanity and logic. Being educated is a good thing-- not a dishonrable, disqualifying badge of elitism. Embracing science and trying to assist those less fortunate than yourself is a good thing-- not a cluless example of elitism. Eschewing the vile garbage peddled by the current president and his Republican followers is patriotic-- not a horrifying aspect of elitism. Elite implies the embodiment of excellence, training, and dedication to a particular craft or endeavor-- it is not a word that should be used as a weapon for political hacks.
1
Democrats of all stripes -- a warning.
David Brooks is, or at least was, a Republican. Try as he might, he can't shake the Republicanism from his bones.
Taking his advice without a carboy of salt may be the worst thing you could do as a Democrat and an American.
Be careful who you listen to.....
"The Revolt of the Democratic Elites"?
Aahh, David: such willful distortion and mischaracterization at the very head of the article?
That's really not the way they taught you to argue or present information or debate in Social Sciences Core course, was it now?
So, from whom did you learn such sophistry? And for what purposes do you employ it over and over again these days?
1
“It was the Republican base that was fed up and wanted Trump.”
I have three friends who voted for Trump. Their reasons are as follows:
Friend #1 – He stands up for the white race.
Friend #2 – He’s not a politician
Friend #3 – I’ve always voted Republican
None of them are in economic pain. Nothing to be “fed up” about as I see it. Also, not sure if we can call them populists, especially #1.
220
@Eduardo
The fact that the Republican Party as a coalition coalesced around Trump in the primaries is a different story, different electorate, than the one that put him in the White House. Were #'s 1, 2, 3 supporters of Political Freakshow in the general election or just the primary?
5
@Iced Tea-party
Eduardo neglected to.mention reason #4...Trump isn’t Hillary. That’s the main reason a lot of my acquaintances voted for him.
10
@Eduardo, I too have never comprehended the concept that most of the people who voted for Trump felt "forgotten". I have thought about this long and hard. I have tried to be fair and empathetic. However, I don't feel forgotten. I think it really means that someone other than white people are FINALLY being given even a modicum of thought and attention-not nearly enough, however. Trump verbalized this fear in the hearts of the white majority that they might not be the only game in town forever. It's really a bogus argument.
12
Oh, please. I am not in the elite (nor are most of the people I know), but we are Democrats and we want a new deal. Don't try to make it seem that it is being imposed upon us. We elected people to do exactly what they are doing.
PS. the Republican are populist radicalization?? Or just people who confuse Reality TV with reality?
3
Despite Brooks efforts to slice, dice and dichotomize "us" in the variously loyal opposition, I submit that foundational, there is far more which unites than divides us. Sure, we differ as to our degrees of faith in America's basic systems and "pride in America," However we are staunchly united in seeing the Trump Era as a nightmare aberration which, above all else, must be brought to an end. As to differing views of the course corrections to be taken thereafter, let's leave those until after that pivotal challenge has been successfully completed.
1
Biden missed his shot. He might have stopped Trump, but the Democratic establishment thought it was Hillary's turn.
Bernie seems a bit too cantankerous to me. I'm glad he's pulling the party to the left though; the corporate control of the Democrats has to be reversed. America will complete its slide into oligarchy unless we the people wrest control from them.
I don't know who I'll support in the primaries, but I'll vote for whoever runs against Trump in the general election.
2
Thank you, Mr. Brooks, for an excellent op-ed piece; you and Thomas Edsall are the only ones who make sense.
I love when you write, "Highly educated coastal progressives live privileged, affluent lives but define their identity as allies of the oppressed. This privileged pose involves all sorts of psychological contortions that don’t resonate with a lot of rank-and-file voters."
Yes, this sums up very well the hypocrisy of the white liberal, and why I have very little to do with them.
1
@Southern Boy
And seeing as you consider yourself coming from the CSA (Confederate States of America) -- one need not wonder whom you have anything to do with.
That may not be "hypocrisy", but it's still very troubling.
1
In what fantasy land is Biden popular among Bernie Sanders fans?
I voted for Bernie in the primaries in 2016, but I fear that the bad feelings from that year will poison the 2020 race, so I'm holding back on support and am evaluating the other candidates. Even so, the idea of another candidate being put forward "because it's his turn" and because "who would vote for Trump instead of him?" makes me very, very uneasy.
The universal reaction to Biden's announcement among the Bernie supporters of my acquaintance was that it was the Democratic Establishment trying to preserve the status quo and promote someone who won't upset the corporate contributors.
Good for you for looking at all the candidates during the primary. I too, supported Bernie in 2016. When Hillary won the candidacy, I supported her. I am a former Republican, who switched sides during the Dubya administration. Above all we,Democrats, must unite in 2020.
Bernie diehards who harbor the fantasy that he is electable and if elected has any more hope of getting his policies enacted than he has for the past 25 years are largely responsible for the tRump catastrophe. If they demand the same purity tests in 2020 as in the last election we will lose again.
3
@DCN
Warren/Sanders 2020
DNC and DCN Run someone that can win this time.
It is not Joe Biden, run Joe run to your retirement.
@s.whether. Bernie could have provided good service by not running and working hard to support whoever the candidate is that emerges from the primary. Bernie cannot win a general election with his all or nothing approach. Purity tests do not work.
Until the Trump victory, I might have accused Mr. Brooks of being merely disingenuous, but the last election seems to indicate that rather than manipulating reality to suit their own ends, he and his cohorts really don't get what happened. (That's what makes the laughable notion that the Russians orchestrated the outcome so popular with Brooks' crowd.) Americans feel abandoned by both parties, and they're angry about it. Obviously this does not characterize all voters, but, much to the shock of our rulers, it is enough to shape the outcome of elections. Thus we get, here, as well as throughout the mass media, the pathetic twists and turns of logic necessary to come up with more acceptable scenarios. There is a strong current of cynicism in this article which makes American politics something of a board game devoid of any ideology let alone strongly held beliefs. One has to wonder what the reaction will be if Bernie Sanders begins to look like a possible winner.
3
The trouble with Joe
"When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well; I meant Medicare and Medicaid; I meant veterans' benefits; I meant every single, solitary thing in the government." — Joe Biden defending the proposed GOP balanced budget amendment, Jan 1995
6
It is about one policy and one policy alone for this 60 plus year old white male. Money. Where is the candidates money coming from. I support Bernie precisely because he takes no, zero, corporate money. Biden is up to his proverbial neck in it.
152
@Joseph- No, no no! The one policy and one policy alone is to defeat Trump. Period. Full stop. The typical Democratic circular firing squad has got to stop.
37
@Rick -- If you really think so, then support Bernie or Warren or someone with those policies.
It isn't defeating Trump if we just elect Republican-Lite.
No more of the same. And no, Trump is not unique, the Republican Lite would actually DO the same things, same wars, same drug laws, same prison populations, same "entitlement" deals (Biden and Hillary specifically on those).
17
@Joseph And then (while agreeing about the fundamental root of evil) concerning what Biden is up to his neck in, don't forget those tens of thousands of e-mails purged from insecure hard drives and a "foundation" rife with internal and international conflicts of interest? Er ... what's that? OK I guess those were the HRC disqualifiers. And on this topic of disqualifications, did you take solace in a vote for Jill Stein? Thanks for that.
4
"Right now, Biden is in a strong position — offering progressive policies to a party that is exhausted and doesn’t want permanent revolution."
This last sentence of the column has it all wrong. The D party is not exhausted. Its energized and energetic and with a progressive wing more active and mobilized than its been in a long time.
Revolution? The party of revolution? That's the Republicans:
Citizens United, tax and spending policies that have led to massive inequality with poor schools, crumbling infrastructure, and medical bills as the largest cause of bankruptcy-as Warren Buffet has said-we've had class warfare and my side has won; supporting either actively or passively actions of Trump that resemble those of a tinhorn banana republic leader, l
2
Me I'd settle for a candidate whose policies are based on reality rather than fantasy or pie in the sky by and by. The Green new deal?.. Would never make it through even the most friendly court, Single party healthcare? Take a look at exactly how many of our political offices are held by people obligated to special interests including the healthcare industry. Enough to block single payer no doubt. You could say the same for tax reform or making Wall Street more responsible or regulated. Has for the candidates prattling about reparations? That's pure vote buying nothing else. Not going to happen. Even if you could get it through courts? (Unlikely) Is dividing the voters the way to win? Not to mention sins of the fathers ? I didn't think you could inherit guilt? Just once I would like a candidate to run on this is what we can accomplish, This is what we hope to accomplish, This cannot be accomplished. Instead we have politicians trying to sell bigger fantasies then The Lord of the Rings. Just once I would like to see policies based in reality. So far I'm not seeing any.
1
I only hope that once the advantage becomes clear (which side has the upper hand), all Democrats (and Independents) unite behind the candidate. I think they will. We can't afford to have disgruntled revolutionaries staying home and not voting.
Now that most Republicans found very amusing to block any policy Democrats propose, Sanders or Biden will get to the same results.
1
I'm disappointed David that you have fallen into the trap, as has so much of the media, of giving Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders so much of the Democratic candidates attention. Voters don't really know the 19 other Democratic candidates, and you're not helping them. Voters express preference for names they recognize and fear the unknown. Both Biden and Sanders reflect a past that is never coming back. I'm 84, female, and live in the Tea Party heartland. I'm anxious to know more about candidates who are proposing specific solutions to current problems such as climate change, universal health care, economic inequality, cyber security, inadequate infrastructure. We need stronger headlights than taillights.
2
How interesting! You call Democratic politicians actually backing POPULAR legislation "radicalization." I thought radicals were those with unpopular ideas? Sorry, I'm not buying it. Looks to me as though you and your socially conservative, fiscally austere politics are faster becoming the radical one, that's all.
3
Perhaps this column will be much ado about nothing. With a field now of 22 candidates, it is very hard to see how any candidate will enter the Democratic National Convention with enough delegates to win a majority of votes on the first ballot to win the nomination. At that point, the super-delegates (769 of them) can begin adding their votes in the next round of voting.
They have a virtual "fiduciary" responsibility to cast their ballot for the candidate they believe has the best chance of beating Trump. Not one who necessarily supports "Medicare for all" or 80% tax on the wealthiest citizens or an end to corporate donations to political campaigns. My guess is that they will not be supporting the most liberal candidates in the field. Should that occur, the best way to see Trump returned to the White House is to have those on the losing side at the Democratic convention decide to stay home and pout on election day.
I would cast a vote for my birddog before I would vote for Trump. I plan to watch the debates and let the primaries play out. There are a number of whom I consider qualified candidates in the field. I could be happy with most of them.
What we don't need is Republican pundits making our choice for us. We need to turn out in huge numbers in both the primaries and the general election. We cannot afford to pick up the marbles and go home if our favorite doesn't prevail in the contest. Likewise, no voting for third party candidates.
Keep your eye on the prize, that is ending the reign of Trump.
4
Gen Z doesn't like Bernie; they like Warren and Harris. They have learned about politics and POLICY from the March for Our Lives crew. And, unlike Millennials, they are poised to vote in huge numbers thanks to a lack of gun control legislation.
3
There is a divide among Democrats, but there has always been. In the 60s, the coalition that Roosevelt had put together was wearing thin -- partly because of the Vietnam war, partly because of civil rights, partly because of women's rights and partly just generationally.
The Democrats went too far in one direction (witness McGovern) for the electorate, and except for Watergate and major GOP economic disasters (1992, 2008), they didn't win a single first term election.
Democratic elites, if that is who is driving the "progressive" movement, are focused on policy. Democratic voters are focused on execution. Their goals are not substantial change but calm and steady as she goes.
All of us (and I am a moderate) hate Trump and find the corruption that he embodies, and in which the rest of the GOP seems to slither, revolting.
Time will tell what will happen. But polls show that Democrats are collectively not nearly as interested in shaking things up as in putting things back together again. They want to win elections, unseat Republicans at all levels and restore a sense of stability and sanity.
The loud voices who can't control either their pointless tweeting or their endless diatribes are far more likely to return the Democratic party to the wilderness in which it flailed for decades than to be effective in winning elections.
2
It upsets me more that politics is such a "team sport", that the members of a party vote in lock-step for every proposal of their party and against every proposal from the other party. I vote democratic party. I am on that "team". But I don't want a united party with everyone exactly on the same page, or else quietly accepting.
Most political issues revolve around where to draw the line between the rights of the individual and the rights of the group. I tend to favor the rights of the group (except for civil rights matters, where I favor inclusion).
The republicans have for years rallied around the idea that "government IS the problem". Democrats have not claimed that "government IS the solution", but we recognize that sometimes a government solution is a good one, and other times a private sector solution is better.
Global warming is an important issue that is best addressed at the group level, and will require enforced changes individual activities. That always sounds unpleasant, but it is not any different than fighting a war. Which requires the sacrifice of individuals for the "greater good" of the group.
I don't think there is a great divide in the democratic party. There is a natural and necessary advocation of a government solution to Global Warming. And since the republicans label every government program as socialism, it is natural to embrace and adopt that label as a positive. If fighting negative global change is socialism, I'm a socialist!
3
Social media may seem to have little relevance on the race at this time (1 1/2 years out) but that will change. Technology is moving at a brisk pace. And it's not just twitter, facebook and instagram; it's all the alternative online news outlets sharing video from anyone with an iPhone and an upload button.
1
You provide a voice of reason in a wilderness of extremism. I do believe that there are many, Republican and Democrat, in this nation who desire to see us get back on a more centrist course. Electability is key. Perhaps a Biden Klobacher ticket?
"Highly educated coastal progressives live privileged, affluent lives but..."
That's more than a little facile.
Who are these wealthy coastal progressives? Hedge fund managers who live in Greenwich?
To the best of my knowledge, there are entire divisions of "highly educated coastal progressives" who live three to an apartment and are having difficulty paying their student loans.
6
Trump has thrown wide open the door on trade relations with the rest of the world. It is a supply-side bias in trade policies which has provided the means for the upward redistribution of income. It remains to be seen which Democrat will walk through that door to repair the damage caused to middle class incomes and to the demand which is critical to a healthy capitalist economy. Neither Biden nor Sanders seems to have his heart in the task.
This analysis feels incorrect on many fronts. The people calling for political revolution share at least one thing with Trump voters: they are living in permanent economic peril. You call them elite, but they're not, they just share the same urban location as many elites. This is something that really annoys me about Republicans talking about "coastal elites." Half the country lives in the coastal states. I don't know your definition of elite, but in my mind, it's a lower proportion than half. And another thing: social media will be important. Trump won on social media -- with older voters.
2
Neither Biden nor Sanders are naive politicians as Brooks implies. Biden is a one note candidate with no agenda. Nothing promised nothing to be achieved. Sanders on the other hand knows he cannot be elected so he is free to articulate policies that are visionary. He has shaped the agenda for a party that has lost its soul. One of the other candidates will pick up the baton with achievable policies.
2
It is not that people are rejecting the more progressive way, it is the reality of getting rid of the disaster that is currently in charge. I am a coastal elite, and I will vote for Bernie in the primaries, but I will also vote for any Democrat over Trump. To do otherwise is insanity!
3
When David Brooks "unpacks" he just spins. His love of "just so" stories that ignore realitiy and just try and "prove" his position is just spin. He ignores facts and easier explainations.
Part of the reason that the average age is over 50, is that no one under the age of 18 can vote. (So it will be higher than 37.9 average of American because you are not including anyone under 18.) Further, As everyone knows political participation generally increases with age which has been true for generations.
Of course 15.2 percent of voters in Democratic primaries in 2016 were 18-29 vs. just 8.3 percent of Republicans. A trend that shows no sign of abating. Noticed voters, not registered party members.
And then one might say, by an ossified control of baby boomers on political power might be making all younger voters deciding that party politics are not for them. (which also shows up in registration numbers trending independent.) But then a trend towards more open primaries, means that there is an advantage to being registered independent in many states, regardless of your preferences. They are making a rational choice.
2
I'm probably going to have to run for office.
The thing is, I know that if I ran for President I would win. It would be off the charts, the numbers.
So, can I deal with that?
I'm thinking.
1
So what if Biden has an edge among committed Democratic primary voters.
We need the votes of the undecided, the usually-stay-home, and a few eccentric Republicans.
Can't get those votes with Hilary II.
Fear is driving a lot of Biden's support, people don't want to take chances. Wrong reflex.
3
Just another piece about the elites that control the DNC. The same elites, with their crooked super delegate system, that kicked Senator Sanders to the curb because they worshipped the Anointed One.
But Mr Brooks ignores one point. It's about the Electoral College as much as the popular vote. At the moment the Democrats are offering up nothing that's really new and/or different. Quite a few centrist Democrats from fly over country defected to help bring in President Trump precisely because he was something very different.
Which he was. In a way it was a historic, land mark event. Unfortunately the historic path has not been going the way we all expected. History will remember Mr Trump for all of the wrong reasons. Breaking with precedent would mean dumping the party line dance routine. But he quickly jumped into the DC Two Step routine with the Republicans. Rather than leading he's been dragging the country through the mud of one controversy over another. Of course the Democrats are thrilled to be able to contribute to this.
I think this next election cycle might yet bring more surprises. I agree that Mr Biden is a centrist and will appeal to centrists of both sides. But he's still tied to the same old Washington Two Step dance party.
"Highly educated coastal progressives live privileged, affluent lives but define their identity as allies of the oppressed. This privileged pose involves all sorts of psychological contortions that don’t resonate with a lot of rank-and-file voters."
Wow. For someone that claims to be bridging the divide in America, Mr. Brooks is giving into the Fox News stereotype without issue. Mr. Brooks column is full of stereotypes, although he is trying to make people aware of themselves.
5
@Anthony
I agree. Enough with the generalizations and stereotypes. I'm a college professor (elite?) living in a deeply red state (not on the coast, so no more elite?/) making less than $60k a year (whoops, definitely not elite, eh?). No pollster has asked me about Dem candidates. Dems in red states are largely ignored. But i can tell you that neither Bernie nor Joe makes my heart go pitty pat. I'm still taking it all in, but if I had to choose today, only Warren seems to have the goods.
2
@Katie Harper Warren appeals to me as well. I prefer policy wonks.
1
There's something Brooks and pollsters are missing here, and that is that a lot poll respondents are likely expressing support for Biden because he just entered the race. This happens all the time. One need look no further than Pete Buttigieg.
Biden's numbers will soften as he fades into the larger field of candidates. Take that to the bank.
3
To begin with, and this is a common mistake -- Bernie Sanders is NOT a Democrat.
If anything, he's a Democrat-in-name-only because he'd be unable to run for President and an Independent, but some may argue that he's not even that.
Next. Grouping voters into college educated and non-college educated may be pragmatic for the sake of this argument, but that in itself is also somewhat "elite".
And nowhere in this assessment is there any mention of the Black vote, which is not only the backbone of the Democratic Party, but matters greatly when talk comes around to the racial politics in this country, or the race of the candidates involved.
On top of all that, there also seems to be a prevalent misconception that there aren't Blacks who are highly educated, leading privileged affluent lives, which is also somewhat racist in itself.
This is one of the reasons why I find polls and articles like this a bit off-point, because so many somehow manage to fall between the cracks.
And now, perhaps more than at any other time in recent history, when the very soul and the future of our country is at stake, all votes matter.
So now is not the time to guess or group or prognosticate.
Now is the time to VOTE.
4
I wholeheartedly disagree that that current state of our politics is "populists" vs. "elites". The major opposition is between those "conservatives" who want to use the politics of low taxes to dismantle most public social programs on the federal level vs. those who want to preserve and strengthen these services to benefit all citizens.
It is not populism vs. liberalism. It is right wing vs. mainstream and there is nothing conservative about it.
4
David Brooks, I think you over-simplify college educated, progressive, coastal Democrats. I am one, and I am excited neither by AOC or Bernie. I think both are gifts to the Republican propaganda machine. And their most radical suggestions have absolutely no chance of passing a divided Congress and a Republican Senate (regardless of whether they are good ideas). Therefore I'm looking at Biden, Harris, etc. over Warren & Bernie.
I don't think your picture of coastal, elite disruptors vs. old-school, working class Democrats accurately describes the Democratic Party and it's voters' choices.
4
Bottom line: there is no Democratic equivalent of Donald Trump. It will not be a hard choice for millions of Americans next year.
2
It seems Mr. Brooks thinks there are no older "educated" Democrats. Older people, with college degree, are moderate and practical. They have seen communism and socialism fail through out the world. They know we can't replicate small European countries' success. If you have lived through ups and downs of nations and personal life you know radicalism and extremism, even for a good cause, do not bear good fruits in the long run. #Me Too, PC and likes of Black Lives Matter are well intentioned but lack objectivity. I hope the silent majority of the party votes in the primaries.
3
@Jack: I am a senior with a graduate degree who has lived on both coasts and currently lives in the Midwest.
Neither #MeToo nor Black Lives Matter is mindless radicalism, Both arose to confront real problems that have been brushed aside for too long:
1) Powerful men who think they have a God-given right to use women for their own pleasure
2) Police forces who see African-Americans as natural-born suspects and unworthy of the rights they accord to white suspects.
You may not see it as a (presumably) white man living in Las Vegas, but these movements were *necessary,* even if the evils they confronted didn't affect you.
2
@Pdxtran
I am a man , an engineer with a master's degree but not white. I do think the movements are necessary but I object to some of the rhetoric and the conduct that are counter productive. Being analytical, logical, and hopefully rational, I believe some empathy for the ones you protest against is important in finding solution to any societal problem.
I understand that the remark about AOC tweeting every 30 seconds is an exaggeration for effect. But its intended effect is to trivialize her and her followers, to make them all seem a bit hysterical. They're not. In fact, she tweets around five times per day, including retweets, and the content she shares is, on the whole, serious and committed.
8
There are those who divide the people into two kinds (educated and populist) and those who don’t.
I guess I’m one of those who don’t.
If we use the notion of intelligence, rather than educated, then things get really complicated.
And if we talk about the public rather than populism things get still more complicated.
2
"They don’t want a candidate who talks like a reformer but governs as an insider — as they think Barack Obama did." Exactly Mr. Brooks!
Candidates like Beto and Mayor Peter are telegenic and charismatic speakers but lack the experience for the job and would most likely surround themselves with the same old Democratic insiders if elected. Maybe that's good for stability but does not satisfy those that want real change. That was the situation with Obama - inspiring but not in the least transforming.
Trump and Sanders tapped into the same frustration - your choices are a Clinton or a Bush (or substitute Biden or Rubio) - the rhetoric is slightly different but nothing ever really changes.
2
There was a huge opposition effort to Obama to ensure that nothing would change. Whatever change Obama proposed was immediately shot down by republicans and blue dog democrats.
David Brooks tries to discuss the current political climate.
But there are no guarantees that democracy will survive in the long term. In fact, the evidence seems to be growing that democracy will be replaced in the US by some form of autocracy.
Part of the problem is that American society has become increasing complex. My grandfather lived in Bison, Kansas, with a population about 250. There is a bank, a post office and a general store with a gas pump. No need for parking meters.
In that simple community, democracy makes sense. It doesn't really make sense under conditions of high population density. The problems become harder to understand, and people start making decisions on incomplete and faulty information.
Take illegal immigration, one of the most difficult problems confronting the US. Population in Guatemala increased from 4 million in 1960 to about 17 million now. The high population growth caused poverty, and the growth of violence. Democratic activists (Pueblo sin Fronteras) organized the first migrant caravans. Now we have a genuine crisis on the border.
Democrats tend to oversimplify. They regard any denial of entry as racism. But this displays incredible innumeracy. The US doesn't have the resources to fight Latin America's poverty problem with immigration.
Republicans on the other hand cling to religions that teach that birth control is sinful. Thus they cannot see the reason for the population explosion that has afflicted Guatemala.
2
"...don’t underestimate the Democratic rank and file".
Please don't.
It might be wise to attempt a definition of the Democrat rank and file. Something more useful than an aside that most Democrats are over 50. As if that means something.
I am an elite, yet frustratingly average Democrat male (I am so sorry).
I'm way, way over 50 but find the Democrat freshman class much to my liking.
Too bad the bulk of party resources lately have been invested in shushing them out of the spotlight and leaping on the Republican dogpile on Representative Omar.
If there's a serious problem for Democrats right now, as of course, there is, its people like our author who insist on convenient labels.
I don't care who's a socialist or a Democratic Socialist or a progressive or a plain vanilla liberal.
Voters don't care either, except as they have been conditioned to foam at the mouth when someone like Mr. Brooks whispers "socialism".
I do care deeply what these people intend to do, and how, and how they plan to pay for it. I want to know who will benefit, and I want to hear how it will be good for our country.
Save the labels for disgraced conservative pundits who led us right to Trump, and get on with the business of making America great for people who work hard, care for others, and could use some help in this Republican swamp of rich-guy hegemony.
Pigeonholes make for a good rant, but they're rarely useful or accurate. Still, its nice to know Mr. Brooks is worried about us.
2
Mr. Brooks, it is Republican elites who are revolting!
They have forfeited respect for the truth to protect their financial excesses, ethnocentric superiority complexes and contradictory party principles: small government except the minimal majorities they occupy in state and federal offices; fiscal restraint for everyone but themselves and their government contracts, and strong opinions but no policies or principles in trade or foreign affairs.
Biden and Bernie are both too old for the rigors of a campaign as well as the Presidency. Bernie has been giving the same stump speech for 4 years now. He can't win by vetoing gun control. If it hadn't been for Obama, Biden would have already lost his third try Scandals about Ukraine are too familiar to brush aside.
Given the Senate is a pipe dream in 2020, winning the White House becomes imperative. Lose, and two more Supremes and countless Federal judges will cripple our justice system for 30 years.
The Democratic path to victory is a narrow one. Assuming OH and FL succumb again to dog whistles, MI, WI and PA are must wins.
He'd be my fifth choice all things being equal, but Biden unquestionably gives Democrats the best chance in those three key swing states.
Let's focus on winning elections, appointing judges and writing laws, instead of yelling at people in restaurants. Nominate a candidate giving Dems the best chance to win MI, WI and PA.
4
@Henry
Senator Bernie Sanders has the best chance to win in MI,WI, and PA.
Former Obama voters voting for Trump gave Trump the Presidency.
Biden, having the same stupidity as Hillary, voted for the Iraq War, NAFTA, and for deregulating Wall Street, will prove a very weak candidate, once voters realize the values sugarcoated by "niceness".
Many Democrats and Independents want sweeping change with regard to healthcare, costs of higher education, gun control and other issues. But given the recent history of Obamacare and regressive Republican majorities in Congress and on the Supreme Court, they are rightly skeptical of aiming for the sort of revolutionary change advocated by Sanders and Warren. They like Biden because of his Washington savvy and bipartisan appeal, his good heart and his longstanding commitment to labor and the less affluent. All Biden has to do is show that he's not stuck in the old modes of Democratic reform politics and he'll take the nomination - and beat Trump.
2
Biden is leading polls only because he has far greater name recognition. David Brooks loves a paradigm--any paradigm--but this one is just a dressed up way of saying there is a class divide in the Dem party. Which is probably true but it's got little to do with the candidates.
2
This is a good analysis of the current situation. I too believe the African-American vote is crucial to Democratic victory just as they were in the 2018 election (particularly African-American women). We also must realize that older people like me vote in greater numbers than young people. That is who elected Trump and it was bottom up for Republican success over the past few years. I don't think a top down revolution will work out as well for Democrats. I want to believe Trump and Republicans have not completely broken our democracy and that incrementally sane, caring people can turn things around. We need to bring Obama voters back into the fold.
PS I agree with Jack from Austin, Elizabeth Warren should have been part of the analysis.
Those progressive purists who supported Sanders (and refused to vote for Clinton) in the last election helped to usher in the Era of Trump. If Bernie supporters continue to demand their way or the highway in 2020, they will help to extend the Era of Trump for another four years. Extending the Era of Trump will result in harming many more vulnerable individuals. However I really don't think that current progressives care that much who gets hurt. Many of them possess the Trotsky-ish notion that "great ends" justify the means. And, if life is miserable enough for enough people, the masses will finally see the light and embrace Bernie and Socialism.
I am a life long liberal who will support in 2020 the candidate that can bring an end to the misery and lies being generated during this Era of Trump. From my perspective the world will never be perfect, just better. If progressives don't watch-out they will become as rigid, uncompromising, and fundamentalist in thought and action as those in the Tea Party.
1
Bernie has been rigid and uncompromising for 25 years. He's been yelling about the same things his entire career and has never made any of them happen. Most, if not all of them, are pipe dreams given that they will never achieve majority support in our political system. This makes his supporters mad and leads to talk about how unfair our system is and how we need to change it.
All of which are non-starters for the majority of Americans.
1
@DGS
It was Obama voters voting for Trump that gave him the Presidency.
Do you know how huge and growing the wealth/income inequality is?
The time is NOW for BOLD leadership and that is Bernie Sanders, not Joe Biden.
Biden is stupid, with values that led him to vote for the Iraq War, NAFTA, Wall Street deregulation...
@DGS
It was Obama voters voting for Trump that gave him the Presidency.
Do you know how huge and growing the wealth/income inequality is?
The time is NOW for BOLD leadership and that is Bernie Sanders, not Joe Biden.
Biden is stupid, with values that led him to vote for the Iraq War, NAFTA, Wall Street deregulation...
Brooks: "In a recent Gallup survey, a majority of Democrats said the party would be better off moving to the center than to the left."
Interesting that this poll reflects the thinking of both David Brooks and Bret Stephens, both conservative pundits. Both of whom have been lamenting on these pages, the loud demands of the Democratic base for Medicare for all, which both consider a radical leftist proposal.
Memo to Bret and David: Worry more about the active and public depravity of the GOP from top to bottom. Worry less about aspirational Democrats.
3
Brooks fails to mention the greatest factor in Democratic voters minds - that a second Trump term is terrifying to them. Playing around with terms like "Democratic Elites" and "Diploma Divide" shows a complete lack of understanding because there is nothing more important than to remove Trump from office. The problem becomes what is the best, most assured way to accomplish that.
After the last election where people who once voted Obama were then voting Trump, it is hard to have faith that people won't again make that choice. Many Trumpers reading this don't see the issue but it is much in the same way those that supported W Bush didn't see the disaster his policies were leading us until we were in recession. This time it is much worse because it isn't just economic collapse on the horizon but substantive damage to what America is. They can celebrate a continuation of a good economy but it is largely based on debt with even less cushion for when we fall.
Democrats are second guessing themselves as they see norms broken on a daily basis and barley a consideration from Republican lawmakers and citizens. The Right Wing media has turned a large group of Americans against their fellow man and show no signs of stopping as the frustration and fear of liberals only bring them joy and satisfaction.
Brooks is trying to become enlightened but part of that will mean seeing the reality for what it is and not placing it through whatever prism that he is used to viewing the world.
1
Certainly the elites in NY and DC are propping up Biden, with a healthy dose of media help. However, as Joe's recent China comments confirm, he is a continual gaffe machine apparently out of touch with basic realities. They better hop on a more sustainable candidate such as Kamala if they want an elitist candidate to survive the early primaries.
1
Seems to me that Mr. Brooks has hit it right with his analysis. As I was reading his words, I saw myself in his description of Democrats with one exception: I'm over 50, college education and a native New Yorker and I do NOT support Sanders. While my first choice would be Buttigieg, I could easily move to Biden and give him my vote if he turns out to be the nominee, which is likely. What else is there to say about the matter? As to the Republicans? They don't think ANYTHING because they've lost the capacity for "thought" entirely, not that they ever had much to begin with. I mean, "Dubya"?
3
Why do these pundits continue to talk about Democratic and Republican voters but ignore Independent voters? According to one source, Independent voters are 42% of total voters while Democratic voters are 29% and Republican voters are 27%. Any political analysis that does not closely examine the interests of Independent voters has limited value.
@Quinn
Agreed. The concern is that some/many (?) Democratic primaries only allow registered Democrats to vote. I know this to be the case in New York, which is why I am registered Democrat rather than Independent, so that I at least have some say in the primaries (though in NY that's limited anyway because the state always votes Democrat). I am concerned that the Democrats, based on the primaries, will nominate someone who does not appeal to Independent voters who were not able to express their views in the primaries. Conclusion: Independents should make sure they can vote in the primaries by registering Democrat if need be.
2
I find that people are constantly under-appreciating the sophistication of the "rank-and-file," whether red or blue.
College students and highly-educated progressives revel in their disbelief that "the dumbs," to paraphrase, would support the same old corporate shills who sold out the working class under Obama in favor of Wall St bankers, etc etc... we've all heard this endlessly.
Meanwhile, people who work for a living understand the virtue of common sense and cultivating friends and allies. They also understand that pinning hope on a transformational savior is folly. We liked Obama (although we worried about his lack of experience); the idealists fell madly in love with him, and then turned on him when he didn't have a magic wand to fix everything for everyone. Will it be any different with Bernie? The guy never met an ally he didn't scold for being insufficiently like Bernie. He's a party of one; he won't help Democrats retake the Senate, so he'll be powerless to deliver his revolution, and will find himself lumped in with the "shills" by his former adoring crowds.
The "energy" on the progressive left is a fickle mania, and never lasts when confronted with the real need for work, compromise and coalition building.
1
Mr. Brooks...you are far too kind to Mr. Trump's rabid 30%, and far off the mark about the Democratic divide.
The biggest positive value of Dem movement is that; it will bring new green deal which will help everyone on the planet weather you vote for Dem candidate or not. It's with inclusiveness.. unlike your GOP; which is only for 0.001%.
1
It is obvious that the "progressive" fringe is elitist. Look at AOC's activism to sabotage the Amazon HQ2 deal. It cost 25,000 workers the opportunity for a job. She responded by calling these jobs "scraps" and publicly gloated about her victory over a corporation. As to th lost jobs? Nothing! Her activism was a product of the latte/ white wine sipping salons of the upper west side/gentrified Brooklyn. It appears that she is quite unpopular among the regular working people, the Democratic base. She will likely lose her seat in 2020. And, the Bernie crowd of socialist revolutionaries elites is likely to lose, too.
1
The problem, educated Republican were willing to support the liberty caucus against President Obama and Speaker Boehner and they were willing to vote for Trump and be completely coopted by the disruptive "bottom".
Had they have been willing to cross party lines to vote for Hillary Clinton and elect a moderate Democrat with Republican majorities in both houses we wouldn't be in this mess.
Now that Responsible Republicans have destroyed our government and we now know the Constitutional safeguards can't be counted on to work, democrats are more willing to look at radical fixes to an obviously broken Constitutional system.
The problem isn't the disrupters in the Republican party. The problem is responsible Republicans have allowed them to destroy our Constitutional Republic.
4
After reading this, I had a vision of a bombed out landscape with embers and smoke produced by gleeful republicans in fatigues, and a tea party with elegantly dressed dems speaking of a coming flower show. This divide is pretty real to me, but the obliviousness to reality is jarring.
Democrats' divide between estab and anti-estab is baloney because it does not matter. Both are sinking on this Titanic.
Bernie is anti-establishment too, he has no appeal among Trump voters. He is not a coastal elite, this avuncular Brooklynite talks down to no one, he is instead near obsequious and earnest. He has the same appeal to middle America as does reasoned action; i.e., none at all.
So why does the democrat divide not matter? I can see two clear reasons. First, democrats are showing - in living color - their complete inability to act on daily evidence of republican chicanery and Trump's criminality. They huff and puff, and roll their eyes - and signal to the rest of us that they are past their 'sell by' date, undeserving of being trusted. Trump, produces daily evidence of loot and pillage that keep the MAGA delirious. Big difference.
Second, democrats are doing what every business about to go bankrupt does: hold a fire sale. Each contender is promising free this and that. They seem completely unaware that Americans are willing to pay a premium to sit in the front seat to watch a bully beat someone up. They did it in four important states that mattered, and will do so again.
I don't like these simple dichotomies that Mr. Brooks seems perversely attached to. I can name a half a dozen Democrat liberals who do not meet his college degree standard, many of them older white males. The Trumpster populists share similar if more cynical concerns about American politics. What is apparent is that voters devide more along the degree of attention they give to politics and activism. Some pay little attention and fail to see its influence in there lives. Many others are preoccupied with it. In most elections fewer than half the people vote. Most know more about some athletes positions than their congressman's.
3
I just want a big W in 2020. Although not terribly enthused about Binden---he does have the ability to take those borderline Trump voters, the ones now looking for the exit door, to vote democratic. Trump has moved the general public well beyond policies or even platforms---no, the general public graves peace, quiet, and yes, boredom. Joe right now is Mantovani elevator music to a public sick of living through a daily Mad Max movie.
2
According to Brooks, the Republican elites were happy to embrace conventional Republican themes, like more wars, more guns, more tax cuts for corporations and the rich, but covert racism. The Republican base was fed up and wanted Trump. They got more wars, more guns, more tax cuts for corporations and the rich, but overt racism.
Wow...that's "completely different."
2
Change from the elites at the top. Disruption bubbling from the bottom. It all sounds like a Cirque de Soleil contortionist act. A party splits far left. A party splits far right. In the end all America should want now is some basic sanity and rid the White House from the beast. Enough of the Mad Hatter daily dystopian drama. "Everything in moderation' was a phrase I grew up with. Still works today. At this point I would vote for Romney if only to see a steady hand on the tiller.
The immediate employment of predictable platitudes concerning Coastal Elites as the only democrats who dislike the authoritarian confederate plantation style maneuvering of gerrymandered districts ignores LGBTQ, new citizens, immigrants, people not white, college students with loans, scientists, environmentalists, alternative energy specialists, independent farmers, hurricane survivors, residents of pipeline installation, property owners who have been affected by fracking, those with loved ones in jail who have not enough for bail, sick people cheated out of decent health care by insurance companies, those affected by fatalities airlines could prevent as well as Native Americans across this country.
how will Bernie explain away his long time support and applause for Hugo Chavez and his disastrous policies in Venezuela?
the public seems mostly unaware but simple reminders and video clips will scare away voters easily. Awful decline in a few short years from prosperity to starvation in Venezuela; all those disastrous policies, Bernie was defending the whole way down (until just a couple years ago). Shame on him.
beware big government, eh
I've asked this of Mr. Brooks many times, and he never responds: Please define the word "elitist." Do you mean educated? Wealthy? Living within a hundred miles of an ocean? What do you mean?
I have a PhD, but little or no money to spare after paying the bills for my family in my $1,500 square foot house near a highway. I support higher taxes on the middle class and wealthy, universal healthcare, free and high-quality public education pre-school through college, heavy government regulation of corporate abuses of the person and the environment. I live near one of the coasts. I read Joyce and Wodehouse in my spare time. I'm currently struggling to pay the medical bills for my husband in end-stage cancer. He went bankrupt from his medical bills. I need an MRI on my back but can't afford the $300 co-pay so am putting it off until after my husband dies. I like to play tennis, when I have the time, and enjoy watching it on the TV. Roger Federer rules. Am I an elitist?
I suspect you don't even know what you mean in your use of that word, Mr. Brooks. Or, if you do, it represents nothing other than an inferiority complex of some kind on your part. By all means correct me if I'm wrong.
4
@EB
You made the same point at which my as-yet-unposted comment took a mighty swing (I think that it cork-screwed itself into the ground as the ball whooshed by and smacked into the catcher's mitt). However, your manner of argument was much more poignant and constructive than mine (which tended ironically to be a bit self-serving).
In the end, we all return to the dust from which we came. We are in Kurt Vonnegut's words, "lucky mud." One clump of lucky mud should never assume that it is in someway more "elite" than another.
May both your husband's last days be happy. And good luck to you.
1
@ToddTsch - Thank you. I'm sitting in the ICU with him as I type, alternately watching his chest rise and fall and trying to take my mind off things by reading/writing. It's amazing how even a few words of support from a total stranger here on this site can make a difference (as yours just did for me).
What a great quote from Vonnegut! I'm glad you shared it. That's exactly how I have always felt, whenever I've seen/heard people setting themselves up as better than each other (or even better than the other animals). We are "lucky mud" indeed.
2
@EB
I've been trying to discipline myself to quit commenting on these articles. I'm glad that I posted at least one more.
This one will be my last (I hope). Vaya Con Dios, EB. (I know that sentiment doesn't square perfectly with the lucky mud stuff, but the sentiment is sincere).
2
The Democratic Party candidate-selection process is roiled enough without analyses like these, by republican stalwarts. And they are no more 'helpful' than social-media trolling by Russia (trump's real party.)
Why does Mr. Brooks never write a column that fully and forcefully sets forth the depths of depravity and horror that trump and the republicans have unleashed? Write that column first, Mr. Brooks - then I will care what else you say.
2
During a major election year only 50% of registered voters actually vote. A healthy democracy can not survive when only half the electorate vote. If you don't vote you don't get. We, as a country, are not voting so we are going to get what we deserve.
Reverse Citizens United. Get rid of K Street lobby money.
It is not only Biden supporters who see 45 as a "nightmare aberration", all Democrats share that perspective. 45 personifies the hopes of the "Freedom Caucus". Senator Michael Bennett from Colorado just threw his hat into the ring, he is Democratic candidate #21 for POTUS. Last night, on TRMS, Senator Bennett correctly characterized the last ten years of Congress as non-governing under the "tyranny of the Freedom Caucus". Hence, very little was done. I understand tyranny as power and justice without love and compassion. For 45, this means making kidnapping of children from migrant families and keeping no records Federal policy, exercising immanent domain over Native American and Southern Border ranch lands, and seeking to eliminate the ACA. This attitude and practice is antithetical to democracy and bi-partisan governance. I am not certain that party disruption is from the elites or the populists; with the Democrats change originates with the 35 and under, and with the GOP it is kowtowing to "Freedom Caucus Tyranny".
1
The landscape that Mr Brooks has painted in 2016 sounds a lot like France in 1789 ( King Louis beheaded)...
the landscape he is painting for 2018 sounds alot like France in 1816 (The Bourbon Restoration)
1
I haven't looked at polling numbers with Bernie and Biden.
I don't care about them.
I understand that Biden is taking up the public option in medical care. It's a start.
But let me talk about the immorality of student loans.
We saddle our most promising kids with massive debt so early in life. I'll talk about my niece that aced the SATs and decided to serve as a teacher. She was saddled with debt that is almost paid off, bless her soul, but she's facing an uphill battle to serve kids.
What is wrong with us? Why do we make this path so difficult?
Why do we invest our money without knowing where it goes? How many people know that their 401k is putting our best kids into debt from their first steps into our world?
Student loans are toxically immoral. If we can't even figure this one out, what good are we? Come on people! We're supposed to be better than this! It turns out we're not, I guess. We're just turning out to be a bunch of losers!
1
@DudeNumber42
I gotta an idea, Dude Cuatro Zwei. While I don't necessarily agree that student loans are immoral, I do think that we should have plans to help dedicated students with high integrity pay them back. How 'bout if you get a job in public education, the government immediately forgives 50% of the debt and then pays down the remaining debt 5% each year (the 5% calculated from the original principle) until it is payed off? That way, if a student gets a job teaching and keeps it for 10 years, he or she winds up not owning a dime (assuming that the loans are interest free, I guess).
I think that we could find similar ways to deal with students who enter other professions, especially those that require directly providing mental and physical health care.
1
@ToddTsch
Oops. Freudian slip there. I think that I actually meant "now owing a dime" rather than "not owning a dime." On the other hand, maybe my subconscious knows more than it is willing to intentionally let on.
1
@ToddTsch
5% from the original principal, principal. I'm on a roll today. There, this is my last comment.
David Brooks comes to his conclusions at a distinct disadvantage, he's a right of center Republican elite. Why he has chosen this ideological path in this later segment of his life is incomprehensible having himself witnessed the last thirty years. The damage the Republican party and it's right-wing duplicitous propaganda machine has done to this Country is incalculable. The parable from the Bible of the man who sows his seed, where some some seed fell on stony ground and withered and other seed falling on good ground grew and flourished should be considered by Mr. Brooks.
2
Beware when Republican pundits are giving advice to Democrats.
3
Not much has changed.... liberal elites still “don’t understand the depth of populist alienation”. And it is not just alienation with the old Republican Party but complete disgust with the idiotic liberals and their mainstream media allies who since November 2016 have conducted a war against President Trump with a continuing narrative of lies and half truths. The liberals will learn in 2020 how outraged real Americans are with their tactics.
Propaganda is best when used fresh and in times of peace.
That, my friends, is the formula that has been used by Republicans and their propagandists at Fox and Russia to keep us all angry and confused.
1
Trump followers voted for a privileged arrogant narcissist who thinks he's above the law. He has been so coddled all of his life that due to having a private chauffer since the age of 12, he doesn't even know how to drive a car.
Because Trump followers don't like elitists.
No, I think they don't like dictionaries.
1
“Psychological contortions” - Brooks pretty much nails his own argument.
2
Mr. Brooks is wrong! Yes, there are partisan differences between young and old, college educated and high school grads, men and women, vets and those that have not served in the military, atheists and religious, and wealthy and poor. Duh?
But the fight we are in right now is for the soul of America. MAGA is simply the cover name for MAWA - Make America White Again.
And Trump is the champion of this message.
But he isn't the problem, just the messenger. It is high time that elites in elite circles on either side admit to this dilemma, this crisis. How do we undo or better, avoid this next Civil War? But we can't defeat this level of institutional prejudice if we can't get ourselves to acknowledge the evils we are facing.
I suggest that this fight can only begin by sending Trump and company packing and ideally through a landslide victory. Joe Biden message is right for our times.
1
It's way too early to tell which candidate the Democrats will nominate. But, as the process moves forward, it will become increasingly easy to tell who the Republicans don't want to face in November, 2020.
That will be the candidate who is most in the cross-hairs of the right-wing PAC advertising campaigns during the Democratic primaries.
In 2016, that person was HIllary Clinton. And there was hardly a peep about Bernie Sanders. The GOP was afraid of Hillary, but not afraid of Bernie.
So, watch and listen and you will learn who the Republicans fear.
2
"They don’t want a candidate who talks like a reformer but governs as an insider"
And how will a democratically elected Sanders govern exactly? No different. Revolutionary changes require revolutionary actions. Not that I'm advocating for a military coup or anything, but some perspective is in order....
I don't usually find much common ground with David, whose thought may be generally summed as "volunteer firemen are the backbone of the republic". But many Democratic hopefuls are in fact running on ideas that may well be of limited popularity and extremely divisive even within the party such as reparations, voting for inmates, and a health care system that guarantees that "if you like your insurance, you will lose it". These ideas will be easy prey for those other people during the general election.
In “A Revolt of the Democratic Elites”, NYT May 4, 2019, David Brooks writes: “Highly educated coastal progressives live privileged, affluent lives but define their identity as allies of the oppressed.” Does Mr. Brooks have any polling data on that group? I wonder, but the concept helps his story line. Whoever those elites are we’re told that “they don’t support the candidates that minority voters actually support.” Does that mean they voted for Trump? Who else did? My guess is that the group now known as Trump’s base included some Republicans (but not this one), some independents and some traditional Democrats. I’d guess, too, that Trump’s base is getting smaller every day. My worry is that in 2020 the Democrats will put up such a weak ticket that Trump’s base and some more disaffected Democrats will elect him again.
2
I live in a blue collar area of Wisconsin--where I saw lots of Bernie Sanders lawn signs during the last presidential election. I respect David Brooks a lot but this seems like a wishful thinking/bias piece based on his beliefs that for example profit driven health care (what we have now) is much better than a Medicare for All plan. Informed voters know that Joe Biden stood with the credit card companies over ordinary people during the financial crises. Informed people know that Joe Biden voted for the Iraq War. Informed people know that Joe Biden voted to get rid of Glass-Steagall. Informed people know that Joe Biden supported NAFTA and the TPP. I could go on and on. Trump is a symptom of structural problems in the system of which Joe Biden has been a big contributor. Thanks, but no thanks!
3
I've always thought that the extremes match each other with their anger and the absolute beliefs that they have all the answers and everyone else does not count. Trump exemplifies these traits. The dramas and angers of the right and left are exhausting and ill conceived in terms of reality.
1
As someone who lives in Berkeley, a minority woman, and a registered Democrat with a Ph.D. but I don't consider myself as one of those "coastal elites." To the contrary, I am very concerned about the so-called "coastal elites", many of them are Berner Sanders or Elizabeth Warren supports. They are supporters of political correctness, self-righteous, and disingenuous because they present themselves to be perfect and seek perfection in candidates. These are the those who demand purity and keep wanting Biden to apologize to Anita Hill and several women who claimed that he made them "uncomfortable". They are those who live in huge, multi-million dollar houses while claiming that they care about global warming. They are the people who advocate for political correctness and turned many people voted Trump in 2016 and may do it again in 2020.
Many people are hungry for more authenticity in a politician without the mean-spiritedness, nastiness, sexism, and racism in Donald Trump. That is one main reason that I support Pete Buttigieg. He seems intelligent, clam, and above all, authentic and I hope that he will be nominated.
2
Could we please stop using phrases like Republican/Democratic Elites? It's lazy and misleading. Michale Jordan was an elite athlete who set a standard for everyone who followed. Very few of the people you refer to as elites would fall into that category. It seems to have become a pejorative term to denigrate educated people who don't work in coal mines.
3
How dare Mr. Brooks try to tell the young Bernie supporters that the entire Democratic Party, and the overwhelming majority of the American electorate, are not far-left progressives.
The elephant in the room for all these candidates is not the GOP, but that our solid working class-middle class labor economy, as we have always known it since the end of WWII, is going away...permanently, and being replaced by a knowledge based economy. It is not just manufacturing and trucker driver jobs that are all headed to the waste pile, but also, travel agents, underwriters, technical writers, data processors, administrative assistants, etc., etc., whose vocations are dwindling away. Over the next ten years not only will the non college educated find decent paying careers in short supply, so, too will most college graduates. And, neither the elites, rank and file, or the populist have an answer. But, if I were to guess, it will be the various populist movements that will be center stage in the 2020s.
1
I am a 68-year-old-retired teacher with a bachelor's and master's degree. I have an adequate pension supplemented by an death benefit from my late husband--also an educator. I am very liberal--voted for Obama twice and for Hillary Clinton in 2016. What we have faced these last two years is no more or less the destruction of a unified America. I don't know if any of the 20-something Democratic candidates can beat Trump in 2020 because I am not convinced that we will see another fair election in my lifetime. America's democracy has been fundamentally broken in the last two plus years by Trump, his GOP toadies., and foreign interference that put him in power and keeps him there. His new AG Barr is his fixer. Trump and Barr have managed to quell the rule of law as far as Mueller's Report is concerned. Rule of law may die entirely in the months ahead in every area of American life. Too many Americans are not paying attention to what is happening. Trump is counting on their ignorance of what he is actually doing. America is going to have to be resurrected and perhaps divided into more than one country depending on what kind of permanent power base Trump and the GOP can establish before November 2020. By that time elitism, age, and perhaps party affiliation will not matter any more. Only survival will.
12
" It was the Republican base that was fed up and wanted Trump — something completely different. "
I am sorry David, but the Republican base voted for trump because he promised jobs. They could see the writing on the wall (no work prospects) and believed the first huckster that played to their fears and prejudices.
Today they still have no jobs and our demagogue in chief continues stoking their fears. A rabid base still believs, but a large amount know that they have been had. Again.
What we need now is aplomb and vision. The times are challenging and exciting. Who will be the candidate that can embrace those qualities? Of either party?
You can’t draw too many conclusions about the republican base in the last election- Russia interfered in that election. Don’t forget!
I find Biden more palatable than some of the other candidates, but I have some concerns about his age. I saw that his son has now broken up with his brother’s widow, which will probably improve Biden’s campaign optics.
As much as I admire Biden and so wished he ran in 2016, his era has passed. The world has changed and Biden is a relic from the post-Vietnam baby-boomer years. He has the stature and the recognition to command the leading position among candidates, but it is at best painfully awkward and often cringeworthy to see him campaigning. Sanders is even worse. Like Biden, his time has passed, and while he ignited the left in 2016; he needs to pass it on to the next generation. Biden, Sanders, and Warren are just past their sell by date.
2
maybe david needs to come to michigan. our progressives are much more middle class than he seems to recognize. if there is an elite segment, perhaps a whiff of it can be located in ann arbor, but not around the state where ordinary people are fed up with republicans, gerrymandering, bad roads, tea party social programs, and bigotry. we are more a coalition with black, arab or muslim, working class, and university types, pushing for democratic candidates in coalition. slotkin is an example: ex-cia, not for gun control, solid feminist, pro-military, but strong anti-trumpism. we progressives have made coalition with slotkin our hope for ousting tea party politics and trump.
1
We need to talk about specifics instead of general terms like left, right, center. Issues that are important to all Americans are: healthcare, jobs, social security, education (which is closely linked to jobs), infrastructure, taxes... We need to make healthcare affordable to all; private and public insurance do not need to be mutually exclusive. Education is required for all good jobs; education is not only college; we need skilled trades also. We need regulations that protect our environment, our health, our finances; these are not mutually exclusive with jobs.
We need a tax system that collects more from the wealthy. Wealthy Americans are wealthy because they benefit from the labor of others (this is not a criticism). A fair tax system will reduce our national debt and ensure that social security, medicare, infrastructure, etc. are well funded.
I know I'm preaching to the choir.
David Brooks, I hope you will focus on specifics in future articles. Focusing on college educated vs non college and costal vs middle American states only serves to divide us more.
To win the nomination, a Democrat must run to the left.
To win the election, a candidate must run to the center.
At this point only Biden has demonstrated he is capable of doing both.
2
As best I can tell it is hardly a matter of elites versus rank and file. It is a matter of age. Millennials grew up during the Great Recession. They are far less satisfied even looking at the Obama presidency. They first saw Sanders as the great disruptor and Clinton as the status quo. Now many are migrating to Elizabeth Warren. Older Democrats want Trump gone above all else. We have also seen socialist proposals soundly defeated.That said, there will be coalescence around anyone who opposes Trump.
2
@Daniel A. Greenbaum. The future belongs to the younger generations. They must stand up and vote.
In 2016, David Brooks and nearly every other journalist in the U.S. missed the year's two big political stories: the popularity of Donald J. Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders. Afterward, Brooks wrote a column in which he vowed to get outside of Washington and learn about the U.S. I know that Brooks did travel the country, but I question how much he learned, since his prognostications for 2020 seem as flat-footed as his analysis of the 2016 campaign. Brooks may be right the some older Democrats and African-Americans are sticking with the party's "establishment." But the economic inequality and corruption that provoked many voters' anger in 2016 have not been remedied. If Brooks thinks that the upheaval in the Democratic Party is merely the petulance of privileged, highly-educated coastal elites, well, he's got another thing coming.
4
Don’t forget the biggest story- Russia interfered with the US election.
"Elite radicalization" may be the phrase of the year. While I think David gives the Democratic Base a bit too much credit for moderation (Robby Mook, Hillary's campaign manager in 2016, referred to some of them as the "Red Army") they are certainly more reality based than the elites in Brooklyn and Berkeley. Reparations, socialism, destroying the Electoral College and other lunacies are playing far too well among people who should know better. I attribute this to Trump Derangement Syndrome, but whatever the case may be its a scary thing to behold.
2
If I had my way Elizabeth Warren would be our next president. But if Joe Biden (or any of the other 20+ candidates) becomes the nominee, I will surely support him. Although I do not believe Biden can lead this country to where it needs to be, I doubt any Democrat president can as long as Republicans hold either the House or Senate for the days of bipartisanship are over. I just hope Biden or whoever is president has learned this.
Although I voted for Bernie Sanders in the last primary, I worry that in attempting to take Biden on by citing his flaws, Sanders could mortally wound Biden's eventual candidacy by keeping Sanders supporters away for the general election. Sanders needs to tell his story and lay off everyone else.
2
So....there were many wealth, educated business people who voted for Trump, not just those without a college education. I find this editorial an attempt at generalizations that simply do not hold up. I am a progressive, 68 years old, still working, barely holding on to being in the middle class. Yes, I do have compassion for the marginalized of our culture...but that comes out of a strong belief that we as a nation have the capacity to create and live in a culture where everyone has its basic needs for food, shelter and healthcare met. The income inequality we are experiencing is systemic and rotting our democracy. It will take a shake up by a visionary Democratic leader/President to align with the new younger voices in Congress to bring about real change. Not another Obama who filled his cabinet with Clintonites. A better name for for this progressive position is that of "social democrat" rather than Democratic socialist.
I am deeply disappointed that Biden joined the race. Democrats.....we need to wake up to building a sustainable present and future, not long for being saved by an older white guy with some real questions in his record.
1
The first problem of the democrats is having 21 candidates. If Republicans wanted to divide and conquer Democrats, the Democrats played right into their hands. It is absurd. The second problem is the broad brush. We live smack in the middle of red state flyover country with our graduate degrees that started in the bottom 20%, were once Republican and could no longer stand how Republican and conservative policies were directly hurting the working class. We have seen action after action by Republicans to restrict and diminish equal opportunity in education, in family assistance, in housing, in damaging the environment and even in voting. They pull the ladder up behind them, forget where they came from and look constantly to the past. Their voting record proved it to us where we live. There are decent, god fearing, progressive candidates on the left who will get our vote because continuation of the policies of the right are too painful to contemplate.
3
If the tax scandal in NJ shows us anything, its that there is no appreciable difference between democrats and republicans. More like different sides of the same coin.
1
Joe Biden sneers at anyone under the age of 50 because we have it too good by his standards. After all, he says we enjoy this age of prosperity and wonder because of what his generation did. During his long career, Biden repeatedly voted to entrench and worsen the War on Drugs, oversaw the public shaming of Anita Hill, and is a friend of the financial sector that brings us worsening inequality and the ongoing humiliation of the Great Recession. He is terrible for working people.
Biden will likely win the nomination because of the tendency of people over 50 to want to try to recapture the last time America "felt right," which was during the Obama administration. The party will place Harris as veep as a concession to the party's insurgent left so to try to build unity going into the general. It will not matter.
Trump will shellack him during the general, and the everyday horrors will continue well into the 2020s. There is a leaden inevitability to this process because the donor class of the Democratic party gets its class interests supported and protected at the expense of all other life on Earth, even if it means losing what ought to be an easily won election.
1
@Ryan
If we let the entrance endorphins wear off, we'll see that Bernie is actually our front runner.
I agree that Biden is not a progressive. He's a Republican that we've had to drag kicking and screaming to progressive agendas.
So Bernie is it. I'll do a lot of things for Bernie that I would have never done for anyone else. He's the one.
ELECTION REFORM SERVES BOTH TRADITIONALISTS AND DISRUPTERS
By attacking gerrymandering, voter suppression and closed primary elections, candidates can appeal both to traditionalists (who want more honest elections) and disrupters (who want to attack partisan party politics).
I look forward to seeing the Democratic candidates pushing for election reform against the Trumpists, who seek to benefit from distortions in the voting process.
2
Biden is the only candidate focusing on most critical problem facing us, and on which everyone can agree: the deepening divisions in our country. This article highlights some but not all of them: class, geography, education, race, religion, politics. These divisions always existed, but only in recent years have they torn bonds of family and friendship. This country is founded on principles upon which we all agree, and which we take for granted, and which we have forgotten in the current divisive climate. Biden is the only candidate promising to unite this country on these values.
1
Where did you find the bit about Sanders supporters not expressing pride for their country? All of the supporters I know are real patriots, not with the Confederate flag though.
6
I always have difficulty with the negative tone given to "populism" by journalists like Mr. Brooks - whether the term is being applied in analyzing the Democratic Party or the Republican Party.
The merits of aligning public policy with the aims of the many (populism) instead of the few (elitism) should not be a hard argument to make.
To journalists like Mr. Brooks - who still seems to be in a state of surprise about the election of President Trump in 2016 - elitism, instead of populism, continues to be appealing.
3
I think you have this exactly backwards. First of all, I am so tired of the phrase “coastal elites”, which is a veiled insult to the average voter. I live in the south, have friends and family all over flyover country. We want affordable healthcare, bold action on climate change so that our children and grandchildren can live. There is a reason Biden and Sanders, essentially opposites as far as Dems go, are at the top. Sanders speaks of economic fairness and bold action. Biden seems like a safe bet to those who are terrified that Trump could win again. But Biden has no vision, he is of the Clinton school. If Democrats are to win they need a visionary. If anyone thinks that Biden will get young voters and women out in droves they are very mistaken. Being anti Trump is just not enough.
6
The problem that faces the nation is less about policy and more about who can break the gridlock in Congress. Obama did not and Trump has not. Both resorted to rule by executive fiat. It matters little about policy because whatever policy one prefers, you can trust in one truth; it will never be enacted. Congress abdicated its powers to the judicial and executive branches. Until Congress regains those powers, nothing changes. Policy and candidate discussions are mainly academic exercises. One party becomes the obstructionist party until the next election when that role switches to the other party.
2
Why does David Brooks see the world in binaries? These “either ors” are so reductive. Or maybe he thinks his readers can’t process complexity. In either case, once again he is wrong.
Highly-educated Democrats, including many progressives, are supporting Biden, because they think Biden can win. The Democrats supporting progressives are not disruptive young populists, but voters of all ages who believe- mistakenly in my opinion- that there is widespread support for a progressive platform.
There are a few diehards who don’t care who is electable, and prefer to go down fighting; but most progressives who support the progressive president candidates, honestly believe that those candidates can win over swing voters. The argument among Democrats,including progressives, is mainly about who can win, i.e., the nature of the electorate.
There is no resemblance between that conversation and the uprising that elected Trump. That fight pitted the entire range of GOP middle and wealthy voters, and evangelicals, against the white ethnic workers whose votes the GOP had cultivated for 30 years with dog whistles, antiabortion rhetoric and pseudo-patriotic platitudes.Those voters revoked and picked someone who seemed familiar- a poorly educated idiot who dumped the dog whistles for loud shouts.
If young voters are rejecting Biden, that is because he is 78 years old. Bernie is alsojn his seventies, but plays younger - he’s your your cool great-uncle. It’s a complicated conversation.
2
Another top-down misread. Watch Kamala Harris.
Who is the current elite of the Democratic Party ?
Nancy Pelosi, Leader House
Chuck Schumer, Leader Senate
Who finances their campaigns ?
Nancy Pelosi, top campaign contributors. Campaign Committee Fundraising, 2017 - 2018
1. University of California
2. Facebook Inc
3. Alphabet Inc
4. Salesforce.com
5. Intel Corp
Chuck Schumer
Top Contributors, 1989 - 2018
1. Goldman Sachs
2. Citigroup Inc
3. Paul, Weiss et al
4. JPMorgan Chase
5. Credit Suisse Group
The American political system is based on donors
financing campaigns, politicians elected with their donations, in turn, taking care of the interests of the donors.
NONE of the above donors is interested in higher wages
SV relentlessly argues for more H1B to hold down Salaries) and none on Wall Street has an interest in corporate earnings being diminished by higher wages.
It is about time for a revolt. The current Democratic elite talks about being for average Americans, but is financed by Silicon Vally and Wall Street.
Look under the hood, and you see that e.g. Schumer actively works for LOWERING the federal taxes of hedge fund managers, NOT to increase it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/washington/30schumer.html
Thanks to him, hedge fund managers still pay at most 23.8% in Federal Taxes on their income. Rather than the top rate of 37%
Most amazingly, Schumers work for Ube-rich has not hampered his career. On the contrary, since 2007 he moved up
THE REVOLT IS LONG OVERDUE
7
Another Democrats in disarray kind of story when the real story is the acquiesence of the Republican elites and rank and file to the destruction of democracy by Trump, Barr, McConnell and others.
3
Please explain what Mr Biden's policies are, so far he is gliding on being Uncle Joe.
1
Boom! Roasted!
“Highly educated coastal progressives live privileged, affluent lives but define their identity as allies of the oppressed.”
i.e. park slope parents are all aboard the liberal cruise-ship until it’s their own neighborhood school that’s getting integrated.
1
Trump 2020 in a landslide... Don't blame me... Dems will lose on the immigration issue..
1
In a hundred years when historians read the oped pages of the Times during this era they will wonder what planet David Brooks was living on. In column after column he writes about what unites the country. It is all so ridiculous especially in a week when the White House tossed the Constitution out the window and the Republican AG lied once again to Congress. David, open your eyes and write what you see not what you imagine when your eyes are closed!
2
Oh, so the African American vote might be crucial. Wow, why didn't anybody else think of that? I wish the African Americans who couldn't be bothered to vote in 2016 had thought of that. I know Obama had. How did he put it? "Don't Boo, vote!" Simply put an African American on the ticket and maybe they'll condescend to helping keep America a Representative Democracy.
1
Nice cheap shot at the very end. So typical of the way Brooks asserts his “conservatism”. Passively and with a heavy dose of condescension.
4
Leaving college (mis)education aside, David sounds like he has moved from being a Republican "elite" to imagining or wanting to be the part of the Democratic rank and file.
1
Indeed. I don't want revolution. I want a return to normal political strife, where I can hate a guy like Dick Cheney but not consider him a traitor, where I am not so utterly and profoundly disgusted by the professed and evident values of the person in the highest office in the land.
I want a President who strives to help all Americans, even those who disagree with her or his or their policies and beliefs.
I want a President who respects reality and doesn't serve lies and justify crimes or promote strife because of personality defects, corruption and narrow self interests.
So, no duh, beating Trump is job #1.
Hillary Clinton didn't lose because she was a moderate or even because she was too friendly with Wall Street. She narrowly lost the electoral college because, let's be frank, she was, a) arrogant and b) a woman.
All other things being equal, the odds of beating Trump go up if Democrats nominate a straight, white, moderate, male with blue collar appeal. Defined in that manner, one guy stands out from the crowd.
Joe Biden doesn't have my primary vote locked up yet. My personal favorite right now is Kamala Harris. But with my eyes on job #1, if Biden doesn't screw up, I might well choose him when voting day comes.
As for Bernie Sanders... anyone who identifies himself with the term "socialist" in any context, however defined, in America, starts off with a serious handicap. Eyes on the prize. Let's not make job #1 harder than it needs to be.
4
Don't forget that since 1976, when "outsider" Jimmy Carter won the Democratic Party nomination, most Democrat nominees for president have been party insiders:
1980: Jimmy Carter (insider following his election in 1976)
1984: Walter Mondale (insider)
1988: Michael Dukakis (insider)
1992: Bill Clinton (insider)
1996 Bill Clinton (insider)
2000: Al Gore (insider)
2004: John Kerry (insider)
2008: Barack Obama (sort of an outsider)
2012: Barack Obama (insider)
2016: Hillary Clinton (insider)
The Democratic Party mostly nominates establishment candidates. If I were a betting person, I would put my money on Biden for 2020.
1
What can the future possibly hold for the Democrat party if they want to make it a requirement that you have to pretend to be stupid in order to join?
"Will you believe anything we tell you? Do you promise not to think for yourself? Ok, you're in."
Thank you, Mr. Brooks. It's Biden-Buttigieg here as 'B & B'. Yours with a High-School Diploma from Barcelona.
1
The differences and similarities between Democrats and Republicans today and prospects for 2020 election?
The similarities between the both are more telling than the differences. America for all other conceptions of the human views human beings as essentially animals, that a person is a package of basic drives which if satisfied becomes happy. For all politics and economics and other cultural forces (religion, arts, sciences) we have essentially a world in which all forces work to make a human more or less a domesticated animal and the people with the most wealth and power in society have little to say about the human other than how more humans can purchase their products and be better citizens.
This leads to the two essential differences between Republicans and Democrats: the former in choosing Trump chooses for a more violent, untamed humanity, but one essentially vulgar, materialistic, with little to show for it but the predatory, accumulate as much as possible instinct. Democrats attack this predatory concept of the human, but are no less vulgar and materialistic, with little concept of the human beyond the animal; they just want more sharing and for humanity to become a more tamed animal.
The net result is really just a human zoo, an enclosed space with a bewildering variety of metal bars and walls and psychological techniques which have permeated communications systems to point that either a person rages and chooses Trump or rages ironically for tame Democrat animal.
I do not care who the nominee is except that they can beat Trump. Full stop. That is my single issue this year. Please, please, please, for the sake of the country, our foundational ideals, and the lives shared on the rest of the planet, don't let perfect be the enemy of good!
2
What troubles me about this analysis of bottom-up from the right and top-down from the left is this... The so-called extremists on both sides are using very similar language, and are responding to very similar situations. Namely, disenfranchisement of the average American. The so-called extremists on both sides shout about:
* Corporate welfare
* Disappearing middle class
* Illegitimacy of the status quo
* Congressional abdication of responsibility
* Failure of mass media
* Unresponsive government
* National security
* Judicial failure
* Failure of immigration policy
* Failure of the health system
* Failure to address modern changes in the world
The list goes on. At a layer below, the two sides differ wildly in terms of how to respond, and in terms of hot-button issues like the 2nd amendment and taxation. But above these differences, they use near-identical language and are responding to the same situation... A crisis in government that is global in scope, and not restricted to our borders.
Given this, I find it hard to believe that the top-down vs bottom-up analysis can hold water. I suspect the polling is looking for an answer before it asks the question.
In any event, if the Democrats post a defender of the status quo, they will surely loose.
And, since Joe Biden is the only Democrat that I could EVER vote for, it's a sure bet that he'll never win the nomination. Dems will ultimately run someone even more unlikable (or extreme) than Hillary and voila! Trump 2.0.
I find it hilarious.
There you go again David....
“The Republican Party has been disrupted from the bottom.”
No. The proles who vote Republican get their instructions from on high - Fox News, Sinclair etc... who are in turn shills for the Republican oligarchs who want no taxes for the rich and no social benefits for the rest.
The two parties work in very different ways because the Democrats are an actual political party and the Republicans aren’t.
I know this is David Brooks time in the conservative wilderness and I appreciate his attempts to make sense of it, but he writes in a hall of mirrors of his own mind and cannot see beyond. Pity, he seems like a really interesting fellow.
4
I increasingly balk at the characterization of Democrats and other Trump Resisters as “exhausted.” Dems in Congress are wary of pursuing Barr because of exhaustion. Impeachment is a bad idea because, exhaustion. Now Brooks sings the plaintive song of the exhausted Democrat.
I’ve had sleepless nights, sure. No patriot can say otherwise. But I’m eating well and get my rest. Sorry, David, I’m tired of all that Trump has wrought and continues wroughting, but exhausted? Nah.
Get those impeachment proceedings cracking, pal, and you’ll discover just how wide awake we can be. We know about real life exhaustion. Valley Forge taught us.
3
@Victor Well put. I had a sudden, hilarious vision of Brooks as the Wicked Witch of the West:
"Now my beauties. Something with poi-son in it I think. With poison in it. But attractive to the eye and soothing to the smell. Ha-ha-ha-ha. Poppies. Poppies. Poppies will put them to sleep. Sle-ee-p. Now they'll sle-ee-p."
“In other words, the Republican story is a story of populist radicalization; the Democratic story is of elite radicalization.”
Okay. Sounds like two groups that could find some common ground for reform and reconciliation. But Mr. Brooks, warrior for the status quo, has placed “elite” in the wrong spot. The college-educated coastal Democrats are not the elite.
The elite are the middle dwellers whose fortune depends on making the former (populist Republicans) hate and resent the latter (AOC, college kids, Hollywood miscreants).
“Elite” is the dirty word du jour; but it lacks a definition. How about: your capital works harder than you do. That doesn’t apply to many college professors.
Mr. Brooks isn’t even careful about slapping lipstick on this pig of a paragraph. He presents his basket of deplorables:
“Highly educated coastal progressives live privileged lives but define their identity as allies of the oppressed. This privileged pose involves all sorts of psychological contortions that don’t resonate with a lot of rank-and-file voters.”
For a moment I thought I was watching Fox News, or reading WSJ opinion. Let me get untwisted. Welcome back from the Second Mountain, David.
1
The Democratic Party has a long history of bi-polar mood swings and multiple personality disorder.
In 1860 they split in two, with the northern party pretending that it could hold the South by maintaining the fiction that the country could reunify following Dred Scott and John Brown. The southern party campaigned on a constitutional amendment to protect the "rights" of slaveowners. The only thing the two sides had in common was delusionality.
The Democrats today have one side that wants to unite behind Crusades-style identity politics and a planned economy , and another that wants a return to Harding-style normalcy. They are both impossible.
Mr. Brooks has made a very shrewd observation. I suggest that the only candidate that can really bridge both camps is Beto O'Rourke -- which is why he topped the yesterday's poll of how various Democratic candidates fare against Trump.
1
"Democrats of all stripes tend to support similar policy proposals." Yes, and, though Brooks carefully doesn't say so, those similar policy proposals are all fairly "progressive." Which is why Biden's lead is tenuous at best, largely based on name recognition and fear of Trump; not "attitudes toward America" as Brooks and Yglesias suggest, in a revival of that tired old Republican canard that Democrats - in this twist, "coastal progressive elites" - hate America. The true difference between progressive and "moderate" democratic candidates is not so much over policy but whether they truly mean to do anything about them or not. It very much remains to be seen what Democratic voters nationwide will make of that distinction once debate season puts all the candidates head-to-head before the public. That's what has Brooks and the genuine elite, the corporate elite, running scared; and why Brooks is so solicitous that "highly educated coastal progressives" get some sort of therapy or otherwise straighten out their "psychological contortions" so no one is left allied with the poor and the oppressed to advance the policies upon which all Democrats and the majority of independents largely agree.
2
I am over 50. Far from elite. I live in the middle of Trumpland---not on either coast. I stand 100% with Bernie Sanders. Like millions of other Americans, I am beyond fed up with the way things have been going for the past 40 or so years.
There is zero chance of 'Status Quo Joe' getting my vote in the primary. And as much as I despise Trump, I am going to have a very hard time casting a vote for a 'Davos Democrat' in the general if one of them wins the nomination.
I do not have enough years left for the same tired policies of the past. Nor do I have enough time for slow incremental change. Neither does the nation.
Not him, Us!
414
@Concernicus
Our positions are very similar--I'm 59, a Bernie fan--I've got my Oregon Bernie Bird sticker on my truck from 2016--and I share your enthusiasm for his policies: I see Bernie as the Merlin in our story: the one who's bringing FDR's New Deal to the 21st century: three years ago, his ideas seemed decades away. Today, they seem quite do-able.
But I see this Trump presidency as a time of unparalleled peril for our democracy, and believe that the only way to change the status quo--starting with getting money out of politics by flipping CU--is by winning elections, not abstaining in protest. Angry Jill Stein voters gave us Trump--often only a few per precinct.
I'm an Independent who loves Bernie. But even Bernie knows that we all have to vote blue. Or accept that we'll never have a free vote in America again. Change comes from winning elections. Not refraining.
148
So if Bernie is not the nominee you will stand by and let Trump win again
67
@Concernicus
I trust you will rethink your current position on Status Quo Joe if he should actually win the Democratic nomination. Surely you wont stay home and assist Trump. Enough with the purity tests.
97
Senator Warren is conspicuously absent here. Why?
She’s for American ideas with good track records like affordable high quality public higher education, well-regulated financial products, and preventing harm to labor, consumers, or competitors caused by abuses of market power. To me these ideas are where populism once met traditional American progressive thought. I trust she’d agree that disadvantaging your competition with better customer service, more efficiency, or a better idea is not an abuse of market power.
She talks about raising taxes higher than I might like. I’d like to see how much good the public sector could accomplish on a fiscally sound basis with something like Clinton era taxes. And she might pay off more student loans than I would. But her ideas set the stage for conversations we need to have as a body politic.
How much of a drag are student loans on the economy or family formation? When you slash taxes on the wealthy do you get sustained shared prosperity in return? Or do you get a short-lived sugar rush followed by things like less money for higher education followed in turn by a student loan industry and for-profit colleges arising to meet the need? Do poorly regulated financial products make home ownership affordable for more people or cause financial meltdowns?
Who else is talking about this? Why leave her out of the discussion?
688
@Jack. I agree. I have seen Warren many times over the years before she came a brunt of jokes for Trump. I think she has a sound approach towards bank and corporate over site. I think for political reasons she is going to far with student loan forgiveness but other than that she talks about policies that effect people on an everyday basis. Let’s get away from everything being about race and gender. I would suspect that all people would like a fair shake when it comes to their personal economics.
55
@Jack I think you said it well. Sen. Warren is pointing out the failures of our system and making proposals on how to change it for the benefit of the 90%. She also is very pragmatic about what can happen even as she campaigns on what should happen. She should be in every conversation about Democratic presidential politics. And people should listen attentively.
92
@Jack, Sanders and Biden get all the attention because they are older white males - just the kind of candidate America likes for POTUS. Always have.
I'm for neither, and I'm the left-of-center, mainstream, educated, east coast "elite", and I want someone younger.
Sanders has been in politics for decades and has done relatively little to further the Democratic Socialist cause, so in my book, that makes him an establishment candidate. Plus he's still biting my hand while asking me to vote for him. Nope.
Biden has been in politics for decades, and has done relatively little with his career. He's an establishment candidate with almost nothing positive to raise him to distinction.
Warren, Harris, and Booker are my favorites - - so far.
Pundits yap. A lot. That's what they're paid to do, and they're doing it as though Biden and Sanders are the only two candidates in the field. It's the same thing, just in reverse, that the media did with Trump in '16 and they put him on the map. It's up to us to guard against that.
38
I've lived all over the country. There is nothing more elitist about progressivism -- in fact, the elitists (who are rich and live all over the country, especially the suburbs) -- tend to be centrist and status-quo oriented, because that will let them keep their wealth.
225
Some stories that don't fit this article (and are conveniently omitted):
- Occupy Wall Street
- AOC, a young outsider from the Bronx (which is not a wealthy district)
- Bernie's average donation is under $30 while the corporate centrists court huge donations and host fancy fundraisers
- etc etc etc
44
and the progressive 'elites' actually support and would happily pay more taxes to make things better for everyone, without any of the psychological contortions required by being a populist who cuts taxes on corporations and the rich. This seems to be beyond Mr. Brooks' grasp.
34
No doubt there's a great deal of grass-roots support for progressive ideas that are not even embraced by coastal "elites," all of which Brooks elides in his opinion piece.
In that regard, and as to what the Left Coast may not fully realize about A O-C: she comes from a stable, if not bourgeois part of the Bronx that never came close to burning, and her district extends into Queens, where most of her support actually came from -- and from gentrifying precincts at that, now skewing young and (formerly) middle-class (Astoria, Woodside/Sunnyside). Not that there's anything wrong with, or elite about, that.
4
I take issue with your phrase “psychological contortions,” to describe the social justice commitment of the progressives in our shared neighborhood, Mr. Brooks. To be educated and affluent does not preclude one from putting aside privilege to oppose oppression and fight for political changes that would help all citizens.
494
@Reader
Good point. FDR, Kennedy and Obama are good examples of your point.
5
@Reader They just live in gated communities and send their kids to private schools.
8
@Reader It just makes you a hypocrite in practice
1
I usually try not to get to deep into the weeds when it comes to understanding what is going on. The answer is that we are now a country suffering from the side effects of a very unhealthy diet of political propaganda aimed at us in a continuous 24 hour cycle.
I place the blame on the effect of a relentless propaganda campaign begun by Fox that has endured now for a few decades and only seems to get louder with time.
Rupert Murdoch set out to create his empire and in the process he and his Republican gang discovered that propaganda is a superior tool to advance political goals by the relentless false narratives and political attacks used in a 24 hour news cycle.
I have acquaintances who live on a steady diet of Fox News all day. When you talk to them, they are only able to regurgitate talking points.
It is no wonder that we are all hopelessly confused and angry.
6
Labels and tribalism are clearly too general to define a result.
As a highly educated septuagenarian I hope and pray that the commonality of all wings of the Democratic Party continue to express their views intelligently but eventually choose to fully support a candidate who clearly supports the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. We must recognize that polarized government is baked into our founding documents and that candidates who promise impossible dreams cannot win the day against Trump who is attacking our fundamental rights daily.
2
I despise the assertion that all of us living on the coasts of the United States are just "Highly educated coastal progressives living privileged, affluent lives...." For those of us out here, it's not that we live privileged lives.
I went $60k into debt for a college education in a STEM field and right now I don't make enough money to own a car. I have health and dental insurance, but the health insurance won't cover a penny until I spend $5k in a year and the dental insurance just denies everything, even in-network providers. I'm playing catch-up on my medical and dental needs because I had no insurance while in college. I have no money for anything but the basic necessities because debt is drowning me and I'm shackled to it for the next few decades. I look ahead to my future and ask, can I afford to ever have children? Can I ever buy a house? Will I ever be able to even retire?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not starving and I'm not living in destitution. But the way I see it, I'm gonna scrape by for the rest of my life. I want to see real, honest-to-God change in this country.
Would I vote for a more traditional Democrat like Biden over Trump? Absolutely. At the very least, they wouldn't actively try to undermine my life or the lives of those I care about the way Trump has for the past few years. But if someone could really shake things up? I would love that. I want someone who can guide us to the future, not someone who waxes nostalgic for the past.
892
@SD: A two-step process might work best:
1. Get rid of Trump.
2. Shake things up.
37
@SD I hear you. I'd like to say it gets better but I'm not sure I can. I'm 60 and the past 5 years have been horrible. I was downsized from a job 3 months shy of my 55th birthday. I've been unable to find a permanent job since. One job at a start up vanished because the company had no more money. Another job disappeared because Trump cut the program that funded my job. It took me 14 months to find a temporary job. I'm unemployed again and now, because I'm 60, I doubt I'll find anything.
I've been in a STEM field since I graduated from college almost 40 years ago. The truth is that this country has not been interested in working people since the 1980s. It's been about greed, financial deception, and outright theft from working people.
I sincerely hope it changes for your generation. I'm worried it won't because we have the rich running things for themselves. Electing a man like Trump was the worst thing this country has ever done. I truly hope we can recover from it, for your sake and for everyone else's.
5/3/2019 12:33pm
208
@SD Fellow Oregonian, your swamp is unfair. We senior citizens know this: the basic contract with America--that if you work hard, you can have a family, a house, yes, a car, and a retirement program--is being broken not by you, but by the corporations and banks who've turned from being honorable patrons and supporters of youth--as they were in my father's post-WWII generation--to being loan sharks. My Education degree put me $8000 in loan debt in 1989, three decades later, it put my niece $80,000 in debt for the same degree: that's just not right and we elders know it.
I believe there's a wave of disruptive change coming. Bernie, Elizabeth and AOC have solid ideas to help you out. But we have to win elections, and if that means Joe--who, I think doesn't want to run if he doesn't have to--then that means Joe.
We hear you. We know you're not getting a fair shake. And we're looking for paths to make it right for you. Your dreams mean the world to those of us oldsters who've already attained ours.
118
People on the coasts are not "elites." 1/8 of America resides in California alone. If we are in a bubble of elitism, it's a pretty gigantic bubble. And it's interesting to me that many of us so-called "elites" are the ones arguing for stronger unions, better pay and working conditions, improved infrastructure, and higher taxation on the rich. All of which would benefit the working people in the center of the country far more than the "populism" of Trump and his GOP, who in every deed prove they are out to serve only the *actual* wealthy elites — i.e. themselves and their financial backers.
800
@RGT People lose their jobs and then can't get other stopgap work because it has been snapped up by immigrants. That is why we have Trump.
8
@Liz
Oh really? These people would be willing to pick produce and clean hotel rooms as a stopgap? You really think so?
20
@Stephanie Wood What I am reading over and over is men thrown out of work looking for construction jobs that have been taken by immigrants.
2
2020 will hinge on what every presidential electio in our lifetimes has hinged on, what swing voters in a small handful of swing states choose to do.
If you want to know who will win 2020 all you need is comprehensive polling in PA, WI, MI, FL and OH. If the DEM wins 3 of those 5 a DEM will get the White House.
I would be interested to see such a poll framed this way.
1. Which presidential candidate did you vote for in 2012?
2. Which presidential candidate did you vote for in 2016?
3. If the vote were held today you had the choice of:
A. President Trump
B. an unspecified DEM candidate
C. Johnson of the Libertarians
D. Stein of the Green Party
Who would you vote for?
Then repeat question 4 replacing B with specific DEM candidates one at a time, Biden, Sanders, Harris, Warren, Buttigieg, O'Rourke and maybe 2 or 3 more.
Conduct this poll in the states mentioned above, with a minimum of 500 full responses in each state, and you will have good data for predicting 2020 as it stands today.
In my opinion the DNC should be sponsoring exactly such polling research on a continuous basis, from now until April 2020, to determine which candidate is most able to beat Trump. This is a way they could be useful in the process.
Regardless of political point of view, I think most of us are simply exhausted from the Trump melodrama. I would be perfectly happy if 2020 were simply an end to the Trump presidency. A mental breakdown, such as our tribal politics, requires a time of peaceful restoration before tackling a new agenda. The fact that Biden is more restorative than progressive is his strength rather than a weakness.
851
@Bachnut
Amen, brother!
33
@Bachnut
Read Paul Krugman's column today to see the fallacy of your hopes (which sound like the Democratic version of MAGA). The real tribal politics are not driven by Trump, but by McConnell, Grassley, et al. They would eat Biden for breakfast. If we want a restorative era, we need to fight for it.
More importantly, if we want our children and grandchildren to have a future, we need to fight for that. If we do that, younger people will be motivated to vote, and they would vote Democratic. So far, I have seen nothing from Biden to show that he can do that.
42
@Bachnu
Well put. I think many of us feel the same way. I'm just not sure we'll ever be able to purge ourselves of the knowledge that our world is so full of "swamp creatures".
21
David Brooks avoids the real question. At what point will politicians of both parties start talking about the real problems confronting Americans and stop the political posturing?
Take health care. It's not working for the poor. To get a working universal health care system we need to talk about resources.
To make universal health care work, we need to train doctors at a faster rate than the population increases. The simplest way to do that would be to cut down population growth and shift education resources from K12 to universities. In other words, train fewer truck drivers and more physicians.
But nobody talks about resources except as some sort of abstract game. There is endless talk about interest rates, unemployment rates, GDP. We have been bamboozled by economists who provide sophistry instead of honesty regarding shortage of resources.
For example, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber designed Obamacare as an unbelievably complex system that would protect insurance companies and put the poor in the impossible position of choosing between health care plans with insufficient information to make a choice.
The result is that the poor hate Obamacare because they die as a result of shortages. And Democrats claim that it is racist to talk about the shortages driven by illegal immigration!
In other words, Democrats lie. They pretend that resources are unlimited. That the US can absorb an infinite stream of illegal immigrants with no decline in living standards.
7
The fact is, the only way a Democrat might be able to win will be to out-slime shameless Trump and his band supporters & cohorts. They can't and won't be able to do it, because they play nice and are way too beholden to the Clintonites. As long as the economy keeps chugging along and Trump can keep us out of any and all useless military adventures that have cost us trillions, he has a good chance. As for this article, Brooks is attempting his own divide and conquer routine here, because he won't say out loud that he and other elites actually support Trump in a very big way.
3
Why is it that we all agree about the value of education and yet use the term “elites” which clearly has pejorative connotations?
6
@Richard C For the obvious reason that "elite" is NOT synonymous with "educated" as you suppose. It's about money and the "Let them eat cake" monieds who assume their money means they should (and do) have a greater say in what goes on. The hoi polloi like Trump because, while he has money, he doesn't act like it and he wants everybody to win.
@HLC But not all educated people are of the “Let them eat cake” variety. I don’t mind if politicians or people in general conflate the two. But I don’t see why journalists should do so, even opinion journalists, especially when they otherwise feel free to draw upon social science to support their views. It’s selective, hypocritical, and self-serving.
"We underestimated how hollow and intellectually spent the Republican establishment had become, "
How about "corrupt" as a more pithy word for the above?
7
@Techieguy "Those who live in glass houses...." Oh well. Hilarious, the left calling the right, corrupt given the amazing corrupt history of the Clinton/Obama era.
The Republicans were able to get rid of their elitists in the 2016 election and its aftermath.
Sadly, the Democratic elitists operate exactlly like Stalin's NKVD, relentlessly rooting out and purging all who pose any serious threat of opposition.
The Democratic voting base has no hope (which is why so many voted for Trump in 2016).
All the minor players will die off, the DNC will "Bernie" Bernie again, and the elitist's pal Uncle Joe will be the candidate. And anyone who doesn't like it can stand up against that bullet pockmarked wall and protest.
5
You spin a nice yarn, Mr. Brooks, but that doesn't make it so.
The man that inspired me first was John F Kennedy. But some mysterious individuals didn't like his ideas, so the murdered him.
My first experience with a Republican was Nixon who gave us Watergate and years added to our Viet Nam adventure.
Reagan, our first and best actor, gave us elite death squads in Central America, new world racism from Philadelphia, MS., Unions are un-American and supply side trickle down on our heads Reaganomics. He helped write the blue prints for today's Republican Party.
George Bush and his ignoble son gave us a history lesson on the ME and the forever wars where empires go to die.
Now we have doofus #45 playing with the planet and our heads like his private play things. At the same time as His party is teaching us about scorched earth politics and the importance of a politicized Supreme Court. Witness Citizens United.
The Republican Party taught me many things over the last 50 years.
It's been an incredibly painful experience.
7
Don't trust Republican David Brooks to choose the top Democrat in the race. It's part of a GOP strategy to win Trump a second term.
2
My son and I have had this discussion: why does stupid always win? Because there's so much more of it. It wins through brute force.
4
Dear Mr Brooks,
This column makes me want to tear my hair out! Turmp is the symptom, not the disease.
What is the "normal" "center" to which US politics can return? Bush V Gore? WMD? Torture? Too Big to Fail?
The Dems will run Biden, or another candidate, as Clinton 2.0. Even if they win, they will have sold out to crooked insurance companines and lobbies and nothing will change.
Meanwhile, the ice is melting fast.
4
@David Malek "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
2
The "highly educated coastal elites" support Bernie Sanders???? Come one, the educated, heavily student-loan-indebted, idealistic young support Bernie Sanders. The old feed-at-the-Washington-trough corporate lobbyists support Joe Biden. The rest of the Democrats are just going with name recognition at this point.
2
"In 2016, most of us pundits thought the educated-class Republicans would prevail over the angry populists."
Oh please David - stop the false meme that Trump was not elected by educated elites. From the beginning this false narrative that the poor, uneducated, rural whites is the reason for the disaster of 2016 was pushed and pushed by all the talking heads. THey did prevail over the populists - they were always wrapped in the same cloth.
Look around at who supports this serial liar David. Listen to them defend him. Ha. Methinks the word elite has been weaponized - a strategy that prevents us from critical thinking.
2
Let me be clear, if anyone is listening, that if Biden is the nominee I'll vote for him. I won't withhold again, nor would I ask anyone else to do so.
I withheld my vote because the establishment was taking over Hillary, and she knows it was happening. We have to thank the NYT for putting Harvey Weinstein where he belongs, in jail, because people like him were destroying the party.
I hope people stop asking whether Bernie can win. Everyone knows he'd get upwards of 65% of the vote. People want this.
Our establishment press is afraid. Many people are afraid. Of what? Real change. That's it, people are afraid of real change.
Where's FDR when we need him. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself! We need to be brave and we need to move forward. All we have to do for now is get over this first little scare. Bernie is not a Marxist, and he's not Joseph Stalin. He's just a good Democrat that believes in morality. So do we.
6
While Brooks touches on the id of the diplomaless portions of the Democratic Party I think he is still missing crucial pieces. Blue collar of all colors is fed up, white, brown, and red maga wearing hatters. Last election many of us sat it out, others voted for Trump. Harris, Booker, and Buttigieg might seem to have the right amount of intersectionality to someone who writes op eds for the Times, to regular people they are simply more of the status quo, more bought and paid for coasties. There's a reckoning coming, and it might well be Trump in 20, watch out.
2
Thank you David for detailing just how the DEMs will likely snatch defeat from the jaws of victory AGAIN in 2020. Dems need an epiphany moment where they collectively admit their racist, sexist, sexual-preference-phobic, ageist beliefs and start believing in things that really matter like universal single payer health care, fair trade, job protections, affordable post something secondary education, and breaking up mega conglomerates that have swallowed all their competition. So help us all, Dems need to focus on real problems and not try to out Ken Starr the GOP. Real people are dying because Dems prefer to chase ghosts and creat their own smoke and mirror shows.
Dems are currently as bad as the GOP. It's time for a 3rd or even a 4th party. Let the wacked out extremists have the DNC and GOP. The majority can then be free to step up and govern.
3
Krugman Biden and Sanders are "romantics". Biden believes his bipartisan relationships will break the logjam of obstruction (they won't). Sanders is an uncompromising idealist and activist for whom it's his bold programs like Medicare-for-all or bust, which means -- bust.
Until the debates, none of this speculation matters. The debates changed everything for the GOP in 2016. After decades of ruthless propagandizing about specious libertarian ideals (eg, trickle down economics) and demonizing the LOYAL opposition, their id finally arrived in the form of a swaggeringly chauvinistic, racist, narcissistic autocrat.
Biden may be as solidly bipartisan and politically decent as Sanders is consistently quixotic in his overly simplistic drumbeat for economic equality, but Democrats need a tougher, more energetic fighter at this time.
They need someone who, with an unflappable wink and a smile, will fight relentlessly and savvily for Democratic — and, more importantly, democratic (lower ‘d’) — values, balancing capitalism with 21st Century humanitarian values; lower inequality, universal healthcare, voting rights protections, and quality education for all.*
*The GOP’s war on public education has made us dumber. The smarter we get, the better officials we’ll elect, and the smarter government we'll get.
2
If you say so Mr. Brooks.
Democracy is pretty simple when you boil it down.
Just vote for whomever you want. All this noise from people who have 500 words twice a week and afford those Mercedes payments by appearing on TV panel discussions... they are just killing time until we do what we do. Vote!
If they really want to do some good, they need to inform us about ideas and issues, not tell us who we are. We know who we are and we make up our own minds. We are not 1.8 children or college-educated black coastal or working-class white rust belters. We are individuals hoping to guide our country to a better place. Having columnists tell us whether or not we prefer spinach over kale is patronizing.
3
This piece is breathtaking in its misunderstanding of what “elite” means -- and thoroughly misrepresents who is who among the D’s.
Simply living on the coast and having a college degree does not make you elite. It may not even mean having a job.
Political elites are those with political power. This includes Pelosi and the many others in D leadership, who aren’t exactly rolling over in fawning admiration of AOC, impeachment, or other progressive demands.
The progressive push is coming from political activists at the grassroots across the entire country. Amazingly, many of those outside of the coast actually have college degrees.
Political necessities demand that the D's balance both activists and institutionalists, coastal and heartland states, and white-collar and blue-collar voters.
David Brook's simplistic and wrong-headed stereotypes completely misses this reality.
6
All this piece does is emphasize the painful reality that hit mit the day after trump was "elected" in 2016. If Bernie Sanders was our candidate, Bernie would now be president. Not sure if he still has the same momentum, but I know who I want to win. As other commentors have said, I would vote for anyone with a D next to their name to get rid of trump.
2
Mr. Brooks - I think you need to frankly acknowledge your debt to Christopher Lasch's final book "The Revolt of the Elites" (1994) which, like a great deal of Lasch's work, explored the tension between "populists" and [political/economic] elites. Lasch was a visionary in seeing this conflict more than 20 years before the rise of Trump and Sanders on the national stage. Lasch was critical of the new meritocratic elites, which had achieved upward-mobility through education and career, and argued that this new class 'retained many of the vices of aristocracy without its virtues,' lacking the sense of 'reciprocal obligation' associated with elites of the more hereditary variety.
4
Although Mr. Brooks once again proposes a philosophical/socioeconomic approach to the "revolts" in both parties, what he ignores is as important as what he posits.
Lumping voters into "coastal elites" or "heartland populists" is a straw man fallacy. The most fascinating aspect of current polling is seeing how registered "Independent" voters respond to survey questions. In most cases, their replies fall into more "progressive" categories while Republicans and Democrats alike remain firmly entrenched in their own party's agenda. According to the Pew Research Center, Independent voters now comprise 37% of the electorate, greater than both registered Democrats and Republicans. Within educational parameters, the same general percentages hold true, even among those without college degrees. (Source: http://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-among-demographic-groups/)
Thus is it not the "elites" vs. the "populists" in the Democratic Party who are "disruptors" and the false equivalence Mr. Brooks proposes is an outdated meme. A greater number of Independent voters appear to have been drawn from the Republicans than the Democrats.
The 2020 election will be the result of the level of participation of these Independents voters. Harris/Hill Polling reported in Feb. 2019 that Independent voters disapproved of Trump's job performance, 58% to 42%.
Mr. Brook's opinion about party "disruption" currently (or in 2016) is misguided, and simply not relevant.
4
I don't see how Trump is going to grow his percentage of the vote in 2020. His base will be there, it hasn't budged an inch, but the Trump victory was made up of a lot of voters who thought he would govern like a normal person and work through his craziness once in office. That hasn't happened. All the Dems need is someone without Hillary's negatives which Trump so easily exploited. MOR voters will not vote for him again, they are embarrassed by their choice last time. I do worry about Biden and Sanders both having track records that are too long. Trump will find something there to exploit. I'd prefer a fresher face, any of the rest of the field I've seen so far will do.
1
@Johnny Mayor Pete Buttigieg was elected with 80% of the vote in South Bend and many of those votes came from Trump supporters. He did a great interview on Fox with Chris Wallace. Worth checking out.
2
Actually I could support both of these candidates. Most of the other Democratic candidates I find difficult to support. I was a Bernie supporter 2 years ago.
I don't live on the coast, but I do follow politics intensely and am college educated. However, I cannot support the tactics of AOL.
Me thinks, Brooks, as much as I like you and watch you on PBS every Friday, I think you generalize too much in this case.
2
What makes America unique is the importance it places on the individual. Pollsters and pundits put us in groups -- white, of color, old, young, educated, farmers [supposedly less educated] -- an endless litany of labels. But we don't think as labels despite all the analysis. We think and vote as ourselves, whatever our mind-set happens to be on voting day. Biden's appeal derives from familiarity and is unsurprising. Buttigieg's appeal derives from his originality and has no simple explanation. Americans don't always go for the predictable, as evidenced by the current oval office occupant.
3
It's a long, long time till the 2020 elections. A lot can happen between now and then. The Democratic Party in 2018 elected their Representatives to the House based on local concerns. The same will hold true in 2020. The needs of the people and the seemingly moral need to win the Senate and POTUS will guide the candidates. Many of the Democratic candidates are familiar with local; e.g. working with labor unions, school teachers, county and state prosecutors, school superintendents, mayor, and small business owner. There are more Millennial voters than Baby Boomer voters and their concerns will influence the election. The lack of positive legislation coming out of the Senate and WH will also influence the election. Inaction on voter cyber security, poor relief from natural disasters, many farmers cannot plant now because their lands are underwater, and WH corruption will be front and center during the campaign highlighting 45's ineptness and uncaring governance. Personal experience of adversity and neglect will determine how many Americans vote.
2
Republican moderates like David Brooks are in a pickle. They no longer have a home in the Republican party which was becoming too radically conservative even before Trump and has now become a caricature of its merely radical conservative past. At the same time, the New Democrats (also known as "Republican Lite") from the Clinton era are falling out of favor with Democratic voters. So commentators like Brooks have no where to go in a two party system. If I was Brooks I'd be advocating open primaries.
9
I think what most voters have learned after electing Trump and any GOP members in the house and Senate is none of them give a fig about ordinary Americans.
If they did we would have a Health care system that works for a, we would have fair taxation, we would not have voter roles purged, voting places closed or voting hours to make it virtually impossible for a lot of voters in rural areas to vote, the threat of Social Security being broke, which by the way affects Republican and Independent voters as well, a Federal minimum wage, and the Climate Change problem.
Democrats need to stick to issues during the Primary season. If Trump and the GOP have taught the American voter anything it is that issues matter, that who represents them in Congress matters and who heads up the White House matters.
I want the best Candidate with the best ideas for its citizens to live a decent life, make a decent wage and not go broke trying to pay their medical bills.
The press has not given any information to voters about the one primary challenger that Trump has, Bill Weld, former Governor of Massachusetts. Why don't they start talking about him as well as the Democratic Candidates. See where he stands on the issues.
The press has become myopic. They should give the same coverage to ALL candidates who have declared. This includes Bill Weld.
All of those disgruntled voters who voted for Trump were voting against status quo. Plenty of Candidates are not status quo.
9
Even among young people, we aren't all urban progressives posing to see who can be the Wokest while complaining about our having to pay off a Film Degree from NYU and trying to afford rent in Brooklyn.
Believe it or not, a lot of us in our 30s own homes in boring places, have fully grown up lives, real jobs, a marriage, a child or two, and would rather see good management and improvement of existing programs than have our lives disrupted by Radical Change.
I know more than a few Democratic primary voters IRL under 50 who favor Biden and don't care for the more radical candidates.
They aren't on Twitter. What adult has time for that? But they will vote.
13
Democrats have absolutely zero chance of beating Trump. The only question is whether they run a moderate candidate and hope to hold the House, or a more radical candidate and lose the presidency plus giving republicans total dominance of both the House and Senate
I hope they run a Sanders or Harris, get totally wiped out, and then forget extremism and get back to making some sense for the 2024 round
5
@John Morton No president of the modern era has won reelect if they have never gone over 50% approval. Because of the Republican extremism the R party ID is dropping.
It is Trump that has the uphill climb.
1
@John Morton Trump's disapproval rating is at 56%. I don't see that as zero chance in winning the White House. But feel free to live in your fantasy if you must.
1
David, I believe that labeling groups....i.e "elites," "angry populists", "rank and file"...oversimplifies and further divides the country. We are all Americans...all of our votes should count...that kind of snobbery directed at the "educated" is juvenile. Sometimes journalists don't realize that in contributing to the existing divide, they are not helping the problem.
18
The CNN/SSRS poll on which this article and its references are based had a sample size of only 1007 respondents. I would be very cautious of drawing conclusions about the nature and views of the national electorate from such a small sample.
3
When will David Brooks give up the false notion of "both-side-ism"? Both parties are not undergoing fundamental change at this time. One is: the GOP. The other is finding its way back from an attempted change, one that nearly destroyed it, by its minority "third way" faction, that part of it that takes advice from the likes of Brooks and embraces the twin myths of "centrism" and "pragmatism". It is not the "elite coastal leadership" of the party that is taking the party leftward; it is its membership, including disaffected and disenfranchised working class folks right here in the formerly industrial midwest, right here in the formerly agricultural plains, right here in what Brooks and other coastal commentators have so long derided as "fly over country."
14
@Father Eric F
You are unfair to David Brooks. I n all the years I have been reading him I have never heard him use derogatory terms like flyover country
Be curious, be vigilant, be aware of the past, put things in perspective but, above all, think for yourself instead of what others believe you should think and do what you think is best to preserve and protect the future of our democracy.
Then vote.
4
Democrats of all stripes are united about one goal: to make Donald Trump a one-term President. They differ only about who has the best chance to do that. The first real test will be in the debates starting in two months. Some of those running will almost certainly stumble in the debates while others shine. Relative standing at this point is based on what people know and its far too soon to know how people will perform under the gun. Patience.
8
It's a bit premature to conjecture in this way. Let's give the Democrats time to sort through the debates happening. As you note, in reality there are not huge differences concerning what all the candidates are backing. Sadly, these various groups make a mountain out of a mole hill and might shoot themselves in the foot during the process. BTW, i am a senior citizen and while i respect Biden and will vote for him if he's the candidate, i am hoping for a generational change in this next election, and I am excited by Pete's approach to his campaign.
3
I just love the phrase "privileged pose involves all sorts of psychological contortions." So true.
5
@Harry B The concept of "privilege" involves many contortions to not come across as reverse racism. Which it is.
This op-ed only makes sense if read, literally, less than a week after Biden announced his nomination. It’s establishment-thinking trying to show it’s hip of establishment thinking. People don’t know Biden‘s policy proposals yet, they just like him as a person and correctly assume he can run circles around Trump.
Folks, this is more “coastal thinking” from Mr. Brooks. He could have easily cited a number of other polls that show massive support for “radical“ policies like Medicare expansion, taxing the rich, free college tuition and student debt forgiveness. The middle-of-the-road nonsense is the same pony show the “moderates” sold with Clinton in 2016 and got Dems crushed for ignoring their own disruptive candidate from below. Heck, Trump won by appropriating Bernie’s message, something the right wing and elitist left wing media suspiciously forget.
8
@Fernando And Republicans are not looking at the polling on issues.
“What some political people don’t fully understand: Medicare for all is not a radical position,” Matthew Dowd, a former top Republican who is a vocal Trump critic, wrote on Twitter. “Increased taxes on the very wealthy is not a radical position. Gun reform is not radical. All are supported by a majority of the country. If you are a centrist, that is the center.”
It is not just who Mr Brooks cals "elite" in the Democratic Party who are for more progressive policies.... it is Republicans, too.
5