You live in DC, it matters not in the least for whom you vote.
67
That’s right David. Those are lousy commies who speak up for the diabetics who can’t afford insulin. Worse yet are those who sympathize with the people who earn $12/hr while trying to keep their rat trap cars running so they can get to work while also trying to pay off emergency medical bills - those bills that keep growing and coming from loan sharks operating as hospitals. You have student debt? Tough - anybody who wants to alleviate such debt you must avoid like the plague. No, no, no David you must never vote for such deluded do-gooders. I think the only thing you don’t like about Trump are his bad manners.
213
You owe any Democratic candidate your vote. It was Republicans like yourself who tolerated opening the party to extremists and racists. Now an affirmative democratic vote is owed to all of us from the left and the left-of-center who fought against all those awful folk. Bet you voted for John McCain even though he brought you Palin.
140
Please Mr. Brooks, let us push you away. Take your books and go home. You’re a Republican. Take your party back from Trump so conservatives have something to vote for. Don’t waste your time trying to remake the Democratic Party. We don’t believe the same things you do.
183
Gosh darn it, Democrats, you know I hate Trump, but now I have to decide between the lesser of two evils: kids in cages or universal health care.
217
In other words, you are cool with the demise of democracy by voting for Trump b/c you are too greedy. Got it.
81
Don't drive you away? We've been begging you to join us for decades.
39
You are a hypocrite. Whoever the dems propose will be infinitely better than any Repoblican. How you can even support the morally degenerate down-ballot R's who have never voiced an objection to the repulsive things their party does, speaks volumes of your own true feelings. Remember--actions not words.
104
David, this is a national emergency. Your personal grievances with the Democratic Party look petty and foolish right now. We have a malicious, impulsive, ignoramus in the Oval Office. Vote D, straight up and down the ticket. Then feel free to get back to your 'conservative' critique the morning after.
87
Too late. The second night's batch of Democrats lost me when all of them supported free health care for illegal immigrants. What are they thinking? Let's see them try to provide less expensive health care for U.S. citizens first. These people are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
78
Peace out, Brooks. We have moved on from likes of you.
66
David Brooks, Dems don’t need you or your ilk to win the Presidency. Move on...
34
Surprise! Surprise!!
8
Go away! You steered our nation straight into fascism with your "compassionate conservatism".
Work on reforming YOUR party.
104
Drive you away? Just go away.
50
6/28/2019
"I could never in a million years vote for Donald Trump."
Mr. Brooks,
During your entire career you have helped set the tone, climate and narrative for the Republican Party beginning with an internship with William Buckley, Jr., followed by stints at The Hoover Institution and the Wall Street Journal prior to being hired by the NYT.
Now you're reaping what you've sown.
Gimme a break...
118
David Brooks--you're a Republican conservative. Why not drag your party back from the fascist right instead of complaining that Democrats are not far enough right to be to your liking?
Arguably Trump won as much because the people who voted for Obama's Hope and Change stayed home, as the Russians interfered. Don't double down on the mistakes made by the Clinton campaign being too centrist and NOT "populist" enough to accommodate your personal comfort zone. And don't bother with free advice. Just remember to vote the right way, assuming we have elections as planned in 2020.
63
You won't vote for the Dems? Oh, utter heartbreak.
The fact is that your muddling middling positions have led you to support monumentally wrong-headed policies (Iraq, anyone? )
Don't let the door hit you on the way out, David. Watch out for those blindspots.
51
Go away Brooks.
31
OH PUH-LEASE.
31
My biggest regret about the debate is that neither Sanders nor Harris nor Warren gave the proper explanation for why private health insurance must go:
(a) Unlike nurses, doctors, other health care practitioners, hospitals, labs, and yes, even drug companies, private health insurance companies contribute ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to health care. Instead they delay or prevent the provision of health care, burden practitioners with ridiculous amounts of busy work, force distorted diagnoses which muddy patient records. They are WHCDs-- weapons of health care destruction.
(b) The only way to make universal health care/medicare-for-all truly viable is to reduce the overall national cost of health care and the only way to do that is to eliminate private health insurers who suck out billions and billions of dollars.
(c) As for union members with our hard-fought health plans-- don't make me laugh. The only time half of these folks express concern for union members and our needs is when they get solemn and weepy about our employer-provided health plans. Come on, it's a no-brainer-- I'll swap my employer-provided Garbage Health Insurance for medicare-for-all and you can add half of what my boss was paying for in premiums to my paycheck.
80
I will vote for a chimp, or a fish, if it ran against the current degenerate occupier of the WH.
64
Trump is indeed a disrupter. He gets away with it because everyone else plays by the rules, for the most part. I have always been a moderate, and I've been very disturbed by the candidates' positions on immigration and health insurance, just for starters. Private health insurance companies are a billion-dollar business in America, publicly traded on the stock exchange. Does anyone in their right mind really think we can just summarily close these companies down? Immigration is a problem from hell, to borrow a phrase. We need to control our borders! Those who apply for asylum need to be treated humanely while their applications are considered. The millions in the country illegally or due to circumstances beyond their control need to have their citizenship status adjudicated, humanely! America is dynamic and robust due in part to its immigrants. Lets come up with a rational way to accept immigrants.
Let's work together to make America the country where every kid has an equal chance to achieve the American dream. The founders of this country laid down some very lofty, high ideals. Let's keep trying to live up to them. Trump is evil. Let's send him packing.
33
Nice job by Kamala Harris last night. According to her Joe Biden's a racist pig. No visa violators should be deported. Just overstay and you're in forever. Obama was a bad guy deporting 3.5 million illegals. Free health insurance for everybody. This is San Francisco lefty politics in the extreme. The Democrats likely blew the national election last night, and Kamala was the number one bomb thrower. Welcome to Trump's second term. Does Harris think that nonsense is going to carry Wisconsin?
51
Typical Republican.
22
You might have to suck it up and not vote for a viable candidate. This time around will be my 2nd time voting for a major party candidate; I voted for Obama despite some reservations and this time, I will vote against Trump and therefore for the Democratic nominee almost certainly. He is evil enough that not much else matters.
I'm not a moderate, a liberal, or a conservative, but if you scored me on hot button issues I suppose I'd come out liberal. But I hate those labels, hate political parties, and hate how perverted and corrupt our government has become and I think the leftists are more opposed to the corruption of wealth than the so called conservatives.
And Joe Biden is just another old white man; surely we've had enough of them calling the shots.
16
Nah, David Brooks, you can go away - after all you are a Republican.
11
Even the worst of these candidates on his or her worst day is a better choice than the misanthrope in the White House. Even the worst of Dem policies is better than the best of Repub policies. The Repubs have won their base through culturally divisive issues while at the same time shafting lower and middle class supporters with their economic “trickle down “ policies. You should be shining a light on this to the Repub base instead of knocking Dems. Join the Dem Party!
25
Heard it here first, folks: David Brooks delivered the midterm victory.
I wouldn't have bothered to phonebank and knock on doors if I had known you were taking care of it, but thanks anyway.
10
David Brooks is clueless. The Democrats have had a problem electing Presidents, because beginning in 1976 the Dems have been running Rockefeller Republican types such as Carter, the Clintons, and various other uninspired drones. The one exception was Obama, who himself was a bit too conservative.
As both parties moved to the right, the Democratic Party has disappointed its voters, and the GOP has won by sinking to its racist-fascist-ignorant essence.
To be successful, the Dems need to please their base by advocating more progressive solutions.
20
If you want a fascist, white supremest, kleptocracy,anti minority, state religion, and authoritarian government, then vote for Trump. If you want a democratic government then vote for a Democrat at least in the next election. After the Republican party restores its fundamental core holdings, then by all means be a loyal Republican in a two party system.
12
By not voting for Trump or for any Democrat, Brooks votes for Trump. I find it inconceivable that someone who considers himself an "intellectual, compassionate conservative" can so hate the very idea that every American should have access to affordable, effective health care that he would prefer the re-election of a racist, fascist ignoramus. Yet clearly that is what precisely Brooks is saying.
31
Are you really going to veer from someone like Kamala Harris to Trump's Republican party? Really?
16
I am tired of getting lectured by people who destroyed their own party.
40
David Brooks supported the war in Iraq. A giant mistake. He therefore has very little credibility.
16
Give it a rest Mr Brooks. Nobody cares who you vote for - you are among the top 10%. Only thing that can be considered leftist is Medicare for All and all of Europe, UK, Canada already has that - nothing extreme about it.
31
Correct me if I'm wrong but the +20 million illegal immigrants reside in the U.S. can't vote! So why do the Democrat candidates keep pandering to them?
They are just handing the election win to Trump...
23
I'm sure Democrats will bemore than delighted to nominate a Republican for you. That would make all the difference.
3
Yes David I am sure you would like us to nominate a Gore, A Dukakis, A Hillary Clinton. I think this time we nominate a leftist populist. She wins (I figure it is Warren or Harris) and maybe we can finally get some relief from the social parasites that the republicans have become.
12
David, you were never a Democrat. Why change now?
7
No, it is the Republican Party that “rips to shreds the codes of politeness, decency, honesty and fidelity, and so renders society a savage world of dog eat dog”. Don’t try to hide behind your pathetic “it’s not conservatism, it’s Trump” argument. Trump is not an aberration. He is the natural outcome of what the Republican Party has been evolving into over the past three decades.
36
Why is it never "Republicans, Please Don't Drive Me Away"? Mr. Brooks, vote or don't vote, but stop whining.
19
David, I know it's very hard for you to hear this, but the election is not about you.
22
Maybe YOU are the one who needs to compromise a little. if your principles cause you to balk at anything the Democrats have proposed in favor of reelecting a criminal boss who lies every day, attacks the free press, and follows the proscriptions of Vladamir Putin, the problem is yours, not the Democratic Party's.
34
So stay home David...one less vote for Trump is a win for the Dems
8
LOL. David Brooks is not the only Republican to pen a column today imploring Democrats to appeal to them. You're welcome to vote Dem, David, but the idea that you or your conservative buddies ought to be driving the agenda is beyond laughable.
But in the spirit of comity, let me give you something to think on:
How about not voting for the party that separates families at the border? Thousands of such families have literally been separated forever, you know. Imagine that trauma. How about not voting for the party that imprisons migrant children - perhaps the most vulnerable people on the planet - in deplorable conditions? Children deprived of proper nutrition and hygiene, children who under US custody have died and have been subjected to physical and sexual abuse. I know you conservative types get more offended at calling such facilities "concentration camps" than by the facilities themselves, but ask yourself - do you want to support the party that has enacted and condones such deplorable and evil policies? If not, how about putting on your big boy pants and pulling the lever for the Dem?
20
I understand that your party has gone off the rails, but why should the Democrats change to please you?
20
My response to this is that even were the Democrats to bring forth a moderate candidate they would be painted by the right as "leftist nut jobs". Obama was very moderate and look how great that went, won two elections only to push Trump into office on a wave of socialist fears. Biden could be selected today and they would be saying he's killed babies with his own hands tomorrow. No is my answer, you get someone smart enough to play the game and win.
19
Brooks has supported the GOP for decades.
Now his party has made the idiot president.
What did Brooks expect?
Get on board with whoever the Democratic nominee is, Mr. Brooks, or keep contributing to the destruction of democracy.
And I'm loath to take political advice from someone who until recently trashed President Obama - a truly great man.
27
David of those twenty people that were onstage you can't tell me that you wouldn't vote for any of them over trump. If that is the case please stop your recent spate of moralizing, it is phony.
16
Mr. Brooks, you guys broke your party. You can't have ours.
You're welcome to join, but you don't get to dictate the platform.
28
David joins the ranks of the “undecided” - a pathetic group who seem to lack critical thinking, morality and a sense of history.
If you don’t vote for any Democrat, you are supporting Trump. Get off the fence, David.
17
Best David Brooks column ever! Has Paul Krugman read it? If so, what are his thoughts?
3
Mr. Brooks, Let us hear you make an argument for why you dislike the Republican party philosophy and while at that, please provide us with a good reason for why you chose to stand by the Republican party all these years as that party took a cynical route toward giving much of America a dirty bath.
BTW, what exactly do you mean by leftward ? As in mandating universal and cheap healthcare, demanding cheap public education, be welcoming of gender / race / ethnic diversity, demand tighter gun control, ….
12
David, why? The Conservative movement is exactly what you worked for all these years. You just do not like Trump, but everything else is lie Utopia for the Conservative movement. Wealth transfer from the poor the rich has never been more successful. Oppression of the poor, minorities and women are near their historical peak unlike the horrible FDR years when the uneducated could live a middle class life by stealing from the CEO's who never had a chance to out earn their workers 250-1. You like everything about the results, except you do not like Trump, for reasons I cannot imagine since he obviously embodies the ideas of every other Conservative.
23
David, what in the world do you mean when you say: "After all, he is actually despised by the American elite, unlike the Democrats."
How do you define the "American elite" ? the top 2% ?
Who are "the American elite" ? That is a real not rhetorical, question....
5
Well, David,
moderate, schmoderate. I'm an old guy.
I am disgusted beyond belief where the US is now and all the opportunities missed over the last FIFTY years to have decent national healthcare as does most of the free world. And that is only a single example.
During the two nights I saw twenty Democrats, any one of which I would prefer to have as my president rather than the current reigning nepotist.
It sickens me to know that we face months and months of fearful pundits caviling and quibbling who could possibly give the current greatest danger to all humankind still more opportunities to destroy the earth quickly or slowly. David, please go away and do it early.
24
I can't believe there's anything to debate about at this point. If you're even considering voting for Trump, then you're as guilty as he is, and you have no moral ground to say anything at all.
22
So many excuses to rationalize not voting for the Dem candidate and probably to rationalize eventually voting for Trump. Get over yourself, we don't need you, David Brooks. We don't need any of the fake "independents" or "reasonable conservatives" that wants us to "convince them" to vote Dem. You just want the attention and most likely for us to waste precious time that could be used on other parts of the campaign to "convince you". Admit it, you and people like you are going to vote Trump no matter what. Go away and don't waste our time.
14
I long for Instant Run Off (more parties).
1
David Brooks is politically homeless because he treats Trump and progressives as moral equivalents, so he has no idea how to choose between one and the other. And one reason he's so morally confused is because he apparently accepts and constantly promotes racist Republican propaganda that labels all Democrats as elites, which totally white-washes away all blacks, Hispanics and other disadvantaged populations that comprise a huge percentage of the Democratic Party -- unlike the Republican Party that was 90% white even when it belonged to "moderates" just like David himself.
9
The comments to Mr. Brooks' piece are fascinating in the dualisms they use: good/evil, truth/lying, care/careless. Read through them and see what I mean.
Many commenters explicitly point out that Brooks is a republican despite him saying he would never vote for Trump. Why? Because he's not in 'their' camp.
But this is not the way the world is, falsely dichotomizing doesn't make it so.
5
NYTimes haven't given too much voice to David Brooks or folks who think like him (which me also me). It was disheartening to see how far left is moving. Even worse when Beto, Warren, Harris, Sanders, and everyone oozing extreme socialist views is a millionaire! They blame the system to deny others the same. Warren assumes millions of jobs from socialized healthcare and education are fine. Nope. It is sad how far Obama's democratic party has moved to the left. Is it 2016 repeat? I cant handle that,
6
Simply put, despair is upon us.
2
Dear Mr. Brooks:
You face, perhaps, a Hobbesian choice but there you have it. You can cast your vote for Trump, if you can bring yourself to support him actively by doing so, or for whoever will oppose him. My personal view is that exercising my franchise in favour of a simply despicable individual in the form of Trump is not something I can bring myself to do. Putting all policy disputes aside Donald Trump is personally unacceptable as the leader of the greatest democracy in the world and America’s commander-in-chief.
8
In his heart, David is a “conservative”, which in Republican terms means a person who believes that money is for rich people, white people are the only true Americans, Corporations are people - but deserve more rights, straight people are “normal” and everyone else is weird, plus several other generalizations.
Unfortunately, he and his fellow “conservatives” have led us to Trump land, which they reject.
Corporate rule just seems so “right” to them.
As long as the 1% is happy, why should the American people rock the boat??
8
Oh, woe is me, that I, a person of moderation, should find myself beset by these so thoroughly thoughtless ruffians. I believe I may soon be overcome by the vapors!
Stop with the renting of thy garments already!
Couple of things to consider:
The election is more than a year away-take a deep breath. What happens today is unlikely to be remembered next week, let alone next year.
Since you're not a Democrat, and won't be voting in the primary, I recommend a movie that makes you laugh.
The single biggest problem we have in this country is we are consumed by a political culture, of our own making, where we feel we are not heard or listened to, that we are not represented in any meaningful way. If we were, DJT would not be president. We need to fix that!
A final thought, and I can't be the only person who realizes this: The Trump Show, and that's what it is, is wearing out its welcome; it's nonstop, it's endless, it's a loop that won't quit playing. All the problems Brooks notes will not go away until someone with a true interest in dealing with it is elected.
Trump's greatest enemy is sheer exhaustion of the populace and I believe, in the end, that will be the big reason he is voted out of office.
12
Only one answer: We need a third party! Their is no way I would vote for one of these crazy leftists in the Dem party, and I will not vote for trump. What am I and many others left with?
7
Surely David is sufficiently sophisticated to understand how malleable these issue stances are more than one year out from the election. David's moral insecurity, fear, even panic, is a bit premature. No one expects a day night conversion to Medicare for all and David knows this. Same goes for moderated capitalism, 2 or 3 job "prosperity," human rights for immigrant "humans" and a political home for "homeless moderates." Is there any air left in your self righteous bubble David?
7
The Dems are advocating a de facto open borders agenda. If you would not deport any undocumented
immigrant unless they are convicted of a serious crime, then what do you call those who have applied for, are are waiting to get an answer, for legal immigration? You call them suckers. If you can sneak across the border, get in by hook or by crook, overstay a visa, and not only stay forever, but have a pathway to citizenship, why would anyone go through the legal process? If these undocumented immigrants are entitled to healthcare and education from day one, the current flow will look like a dribble compared to the tens of millions of central and south american immigrants who will soon come. In the long run the immigrants certainly have a positive impact on society, but in the short and medium term they will break the bank. Their healthcare and educational needs will be disproportionately high as they have been ill served up til now. And who are the losers in this new America? The very blue collar democrats who left the party to vote for Trump. These low or unskilled immigrants, who will come in ever larger numbers as the cost for trying is reduced to the equivalent of jaywalking, will undoubtedly depress the wages of the very blue collar workers the Dems are desperate to attract.
As a Never Trumper, I see this open borders position as bad policy and terrible politics. It is Trump's pathway to a second term.
6
Knock it off, David!
You have 3 choices, actually 2:
1a: Vote for Trump directly
1b: Vote for Trump indirectly by either voting for a 3rd candidate of not voting.
2: Vote for whomever the Democrats nominate.
1a and 1b means you're voting for Trump to continue his destruction of the American system, American values, the American Constitution, and American Democracy as he moves us to a totally corrupt absolute dictatorship.
2: means you're voting to stop that destruction and willing to put up with some measures you don't like because you are putting the welfare of your nation ahead of petty choices.
That's your only option. It's binary and there is no way around that, not this election. Like it or not, you're either for Trump or against Trump.
The only way to be against Trump is to work for the Democrats to win.
11
Once again Brooks is pretending to be what he is not. He says that the Dems can't win "without any of the 35 percent of us in the moderate camp, the ones who actually delivered the 2018 midterm win." As if he is the "modeate " he pretends to be seen as.
Brooks has never been in the moderate camp. He is and always was an elitist right winger. Just like here where, if you read carefully he is saying that it is ok to be against the crude, rude, disgusting, cheating, lying, willfully ignorant Trump, but all the Democratic policies that would benefit real people are too left wing for anyone to run on them. Only a nice safe"moderate" establishment, Wall Street approved candidate who will do nothing to stop the great transfer of wealth and income ( and power) from the middle class to the 1% and the 10 % (in his mind 20%) elitists.
10
Don't be such a baby. This ideal of a perfect candidate, perfectly tailored for everyone's needs, is ludicrous. And for someone who regularly blabbers about morality and character issues, a vote either for Trump (or stying home) is shameful. I used to be a fan of DBrooks, but his whining here has turned me off for good.
12
David Brooks is completely correct. Remember middle American Democrats joined with Trumpsters and elected Trump. You are going to guarantee the re-election of Trump if you choose a radical left-wing candidate, and then who are you going to blame? Stop reading the NYT and talk to some real people. They want a NORMAL president. Run an honest, capable, likable, trustworthy person and you will get the votes you need to win. Put your country above your Tax and Spend philosophy, and get rid of Trump. Then you can work to demonstrate to Americans, the worth of your 'Progressive ideas." For goodness sake stop acting like Trumpsters! Nominate Joe Biden and send Trump packing!
6
As long as you never have a major illness or serious accident, it's easy to be satisfied with your private coverage ... even while your insurance company CEO rakes in $18 MILLION a year. Our private health care system is immoral, perverse and cruel. Only a bunch of capitalist sociopaths could have devised such a system and then get a-sucker-is-born-every-minute Americans to think it's the best health care system in the world.
11
Jose Diaz Balart killed the Democrats with his stupid question about whether someone who has "only" crossed the border illegally should be deported. The obvious answer is "How long have they been here?"
Does anyone believe this is a game, where if you can hop the fence, you get to stay? The arguable liberal position is that (i) crossing the border illegally should be a civil wrong, (ii) the remedy should be deportation, and (iii) there should be a statute of limitations. Without the time element, the contribution to the community, the demonstration of good citizenship, the question makes no sense.
Yet panderer after panderer forgot what they learned in law school and opted instead to say, in effect, that they were for open borders, at least to the extent that they are already porous. They will spend the next several months walking that bit of nonsense back.
Gracias, Jose.
6
This registered Republican is so appalled, so disgusted by Trump that she would vote for Jack the Ripper if he was the Democratic candidate.
15
trump was elected...the outage was immediate and based (it says here) rather in democrat guilt (pols and media) at taking him so lightly.
casting him as the clown car candidate, the dnc, the party bigs and the left media) settled smugly on their sheepskins...we the lost and we looked stupid...no cautions, however vehement, were heeded...true progressives (think roosevelt not warren) were most fearful, but the party pursued its drift toward the elitism that has mr brooks so disturbed...a "pluribus" of self-intersted factions with no interest in any form of "unum."
if, instead, the party took on the task of creating a proper national
debate (slogans and insults don't qualify) while actually DOING something indicative of our social concerns, say feeding and getting health care for the homeless...hard work, but if everyone shows up or writes a check, it's do-able, starting tomorrow, and will stand, ever after, as a signal.
I see comments of people claiming to be “liberal” scared of electing a true liberal candidate.
I am reminded of all those people (liberals included) who in 2008 said “America is not ready for a black president. If we nominate Obama we lose big time.” Conservatives we’re licking their chops, hoping that “unelectable” Obama would beat “certain-winner” Hillary in the primary. How foolish does that kind of thinking look now?
3
Is this a joke? The Dems should NOT try to appeal to lifelong members of the GOP. They should focus on the 65% of Americans who want something else. Get out the vote!!!
8
Nobody's driving you anywhere, Mr. Brooks. Based on this, you're in the right party.
6
Your party gave us Trump, demonstrating that its judgement is suspect at best, evil at worst. Get your own house in order before you start making demands about others'.
12
Our only hope is that Rs remain complacent and don't bother to vote!
As a member of the starched boxer club that includes the likes of Bill Kristol, George Will, Brett Stephens, Mitt Romney et al I'm not surprised that you wouldn't "in a million years", vote for Donald Trump. Truth be told, president Trump doesn't need your or their vote to be re-elected. With a record stock market and wage gains of over 4% by those he does need to win your sanctimonious and unfounded charges of homophobia and racism will fall on deaf ears.
President Trump didn't shred the "codes of politeness and decency", Democrats did that a long time ago. Nor did he grow up in the lily white sanctity likely responsible for your elitist prejudice. Unlike candidates you approve of, Donald Trump is willing to get into the gutter and give better than he takes. Mitt Romney wasn't and Democrats savaged him with epithets no less demeaning than those you level at the president. The result was 8 years of a tepid stock market and NO income gains for those outside the country club elite that you and Obama deferred to.
It's clear that president Trump doesn't feel the need to defer to the country club crowd. Maybe that's because he owns so many of them. More likely it is because he feels a fidelity to those he promised a fair shake and critic like David Brooks will not deter him.
2
When I entered the voting booth in 2016, I did something I have never done before. I didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton. I stood there for around five minutes before I made my decision not to vote for either one. It was an uncomfortable choice and I still feel that way. However, I will do it again even more easily if the democrats keep moving to the left. Trump is an outrage but many of the ultra liberals running for president represent a small percentage of eligible voters. I don't think they believe that but that's what many elections have revealed over the past two decades. This is America. It's not Europe where most people accept a huge central government. There are many problems that should be addressed in this country, many of which are the result of demographic changes, technological inventions, and globalization. The main problem with billionaires has to do with money in politics that some of them use to try to beat down the other side.
I'm not a big fan of Joe Biden but there are others I might support such as Senator Mark Warner of Virginia. He's smart, successful before he entered politics, and an experienced legislator. That separates him from most of the people on the stage the last two night.
My father used to say that the thing he was most affraid of was metaphorically or literally ending up in a fox hole next to people he wouldn't normally associate with because he felt he had no other choice. I hope he was wrong.
9
David Brooks finds he's a man without a party. Welcome to the club!
Reading through the comments, its obvious nobody is truly happy with politics in America. Given the choices, no party serves one's expectations.
If it's any consolation David, no matter who the Democratic nominee is, as long as Pelosi and Schumer are the party leaders, there's virtually no chance the party will move to the left.
7
David, I have two simple general questions for you:
1. Are you conscientiously reading these many responses -- not just the handful that endorse your views, but the many more that offer carefully calibrated opposing views?
2. Let's get beyond Trump for a moment; let's talk about progressivism. How do you define it, in our present political moment? Are you against it in theory? Do you have a good grasp of how truly radical, in its day, was the progressivism of the greatest Republican President since Lincoln -- Teddy Roosevelt? If so, do you then reject that legacy? Do you reject the idea that in our current troubles, some new form or progressivism is in order -- that now, progressivism is the true path of moderations? (Surely not, if the alternative is a stagnant status quo or, worse, plain reactionism.) And assuming that you do perceive the need for progressive change (and not Socialism, heaven forbid), where is your Republican Party in this today? Haven't they abandoned the field to the other party? And if so, shouldn't you be able to easily get over your qualms about the likes of Elizabeth Warren, who after all wants to apply some basic rules to our modern form of capitalism in order to save it, in the tradition of T. R. Roosevelt himself?
Thanks for your attention David, many of us here, including those who like and endorse what you have written, look forward to your further thoughts. carefully considered as always!
10
As usual, the only world that David Brooks wants to live in revolves around his feelings. Progressives aren't driving Brooks away from anything truly bad for the United States, bad the way the Republican Party and Trump prove themselves to be every single day. If voting for "not Trump" isn't pure enough for David Brooks, his moral compass is truly broken.
17
"I would remind you, that extremism in defense of liberty, is no vice! And let me remind you also, that moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue!" Barry Goldwater, GOP Presidential Nominee acceptance speech, 1964. Since then, the pendulum of Capitalism has swung radically, pushed full-tilt to the Right. Now, god-like in their gilded mirrors, these elitists think they can hold back the tide, against the sun and the moon, while keeping their shady agenda from the light.
4
Most crucial in the 2020 election is beating Trump. Nothing trumps that, and the Democrats need to stop the infighting and backbiting to put forth a ticket/platform that will get Trump out of the White House. We have seen him disparage and destroy our democracy with impunity. He seems to be laughing at us as he tears through the Constitution bit by bit, inviting the Russians to interfere in the election. We are so ready for Anyone But Trump to lead us back, to resurrect what's left of American values.
8
Here's a moderate Democrat who is very uncomfortable with most all of the candidates advocating what is perilously close to wide-open borders - and not a peep from any of them about how to handle the flood of millions of refugees that their policies would encourage. This is a huge gift to Trump.
18
@Jeff Hanna
If climate change continues at the pace predicted and now starting to be observed, you're going to have open borders a lot sooner than you think, as will Canada. Countries closest to the equator will be/are the first to feel the impact. Would you stay to drown, roast or starve? The coming 50 years will witness mass migration on an unprecedented scale, best be prepared for it.
2
Don't worry David, even if Bernie Sanders is elected president nothing is going to change. Mich McConnell is going to see that the American people do not get what they want or need. In fact, I wouldn't doubt he will join Trump in contesting the election outcome even if Bernie gets 90 percent of the popular vote and 400 electoral votes. No doubt McConnell and Trump will claim the election was rigged and 100 million illegal immigrants from Mexico voted in California.
10
Once again, David Brooks peers out from under his blanket of privilege, laments that the oppressed people of this nation just aren't willing to move to the center and compromise with those denying their basic humanity and support the slanted system that got us to this point.
The fact that Brooks threatens to abstain from voting because candidates who want to deliver medical care to all are odious to him than preventing Trump's second term demonstrates what an out-of-touch, disconnected white noise machine Brooks really is.
22
The US Capitalistic system only functioned for the people reasonably well when it operated under the parameters of political and judicial controls designed to hold their rapaciousness at bay. Gradually, these controls have been undermined till the system functions almost in a total lese-faire environment. The economic, social and political degradation resulting from the assault on the body politic is what we read about everyday.
I think the stance of every candidate except Bernie is that they favor the US tending toward a social democracy, not embrace socialism (yes, there IS a big difference). The overwhelming majority of countries, (including mine) that lead the various economic, social, health, etc. indices are social democracies. They are the way of the future for countries that can throw off their various controls. If not, the yoke is still on them.
Rather than be feared, the concept should be embraced. The vast majority of Americans would benefit, not just some privileged special interests.
7
First off, can you say 'false equivalency' to the implication re. Ds and Rs the final sentence? Pay attention David, as Dr. Krugman has pointed out in citing the recent Times piece examining the relative positions of the parties on a world-wide analysis of extremist regimes.
Second, David says "the highly educated Americans who are pulling away from everybody else and who have built zoning restrictions and meritocratic barriers to make sure outsiders can’t catch up." I'm fairly certain that I fall into this most egregious 20% and certainly don't recall participating in such nefarious deeds. It would have been nice to provide some examples of such restrictions and barriers.
4
David, I regularly read your articles and admire your attempts/ contribution to raising the quality of political discourse in this country. However, you have been arguing for at least a decade that Democrats should become some kind of Republican-lite party. I think you're giving the same advice that Hillary listened to and followed in her defeat against a whack job. That advice is: most people are pretty happy with the way things are - all that's needed to win is to cleverly triangulate pressure groups. I don't think so; that time has passed. For example you quoted: "70% are satisfied with their employer's health plan"...compared to what? no health plan? having to pay the most expensive health insurance premiums in the world on their own? The country needs a leader to define a path out of ever rising inequality where money is "speech"; one who is not completely blind to the dissatisfaction that elected Trump.
16
I read a lot of people claim to be liberal or Democrat that say they can’t bring themselves to vote for candidates that are “too far to the left”. I wonder if these are the same pro-Hillary people that scolded the Bernie supporters last time to “get in line”. Well, guess who may very well need to get in line this time?
9
If the Democrats lose next year, I hope David repeats this message. It is interesting to note that the most "Recommended" post on this article is a scathing refutation, delivered in a very socialist vein. Like Britain and Thatcher, the US doesn't seem to realise what economic benefits arose from "St. Ronnie" and his rein which made the economy far more efficient for those who wanted to reap the benefits. I would have voted for Maggie but not Ronnie, but that would have been my mistake. I wouldn't vote for Donald Trump, but I can't pick a good alternative yet for the reasons outlined in this article.
4
The fact is, the right has gone SO far to the right that a progressive Democrat is labeled radical. The country is much more progressive than represented in the statistics you represent.
23
David, I feel driven off as well, only for me it's a constant. I espouse the lost-to-history ideology of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Remember him.?
He and his party were supportive of the working American by passing the Social Security Act and the programs of the New Deal. He led us through WW0--- that was his foreign policy acumen. And the wealthy Republicans despised him.
Ironically, today, his party is despised by the progeny of those same working men and women... that had once openly adored him.
Explanation: Simply, the modern Democratic Party's New Deal pertains to the citizens of Central America and not them. Their leftists dwell on victim hood, the unproductive and limitless, unchecked socialism
Would not FDR'S opponents relish this situation?
9
All of this is interesting back and forth but ultimately wrong. Republicans (at least the current version) are gerrymandering to win elections, engaging in other forms of voter suppression or just voter discouragement on part of minorities and the poor, and stealing Supreme Court seats to safeguard their untenable positions. You can draw a line wherever you and the good readers want, but look behind you, the line is far away. We need to act now, lest we want to see a Supreme Court that will lock in Republican ideas for generations to come: no public employee unions; no national healthcare in any fashion; executive power writ large; and on and on.
10
It's not that David won't support a progressive, he won't support a progressive with a losing strategy.
He's letting the dems in on part of the playbook and he's absolutely on point. Democrats will not win running a "Trump-style American carnage campaign." (Part of the problem is that no one quite knows what will work against Trump.) What's underlying this article here is the brutal truth:
This aint going to work.
Despite so much, Trump and his team are great strategists. He knows how to become and maintain popularity. In his game, he’s effectively neutralized or diminished his own 'blind spots', like honesty or telling the truth. In his game, truth doesn’t reflect negatively on character. He is a master harnesser of anger and enrage. He will win this fight every time, because he’s in control of the game.
Dems must understand their own blind spots (unlike Hillary) and change the rules of the game.
9
So a Republican wants Democratic candidates who are more like Republicans. Alert the media. You have your Republican candidate Mr. Brooks in the form of Donald Trump. Your protestations aside, he is your man. Vote for him or don't. Or don't vote at all. That's your choice.
19
Re-read this later and it's even better on second reading. I don't know if the Democratic party can restrain itself from these unrealistic positions.
Certain stances, as David describes, are becoming litmus tests and are not supported by the majority; these leave them vulnerable to the Donald for sure.
11
Excellent article, David and oh so true. We moderates are now completely bereft of a candidate we can vote for unless Biden survives the nominating process. The media is always talking about how Trump and his trumpits have taken over the GOP, but no one seems to notice the craziness going on in the Democratic primary. Come on, every Democratic candidate purports to give illegal aliens government health care? Really! And several candidates want to compel people from using their private health insurance and instead force them into a government plan.
The Republican media consultants are smacking their lips in anticipation of the TV ads coming next year. The Dems seem bound & determined to re-elect Trump with these positions. If Trump was not so clearly unfit for office, he would be leading every Democrat by 15 points. Have the Dems ever heard of McGovern? How about Mondale? Both suffered spectacular defeats and neither was as “progressive” as these candidates. Don’t bet on a Democratic victory next year if these candidates don’t come to their senses!
11
This is called "abuser logic": you need to do what I want, or I'll hurt you.
Note that Brooks and indeed many of the commenters don't make an argument for why their policy preferences are better: they simply state what their preferences are, and demand that others conform to them, or DJT will win.
Well, David Brooks, how about this: by sticking to your supposedly moderate position, you're losing the people to the left of you. Unless you move towards them, you can look forward to four more years of this travesty.
14
Which model should Democrats choose from their own history, David?
They have George McGovern from 1972. They have Walter Mondale from 1984. Jimmy Carter from 1980, would probably "drive David away", too.
But they also have Hillary Clinton from 2016, who is about as moderate as you, as a Republican, could hope for, especially if you consider what went on when she was in the White House as First Lady. Repeal Glass-Steagall? No problem. Tough crime bill arguably targeted toward minorities (think incarceration rates for crack vs. cocaine), you're covered. That's "moderate" by most objective measures. And yet, she lost the Electoral College if not the actual vote in 2016.
But back to 1972: McGovern was nudged into the nomination when the Manchester Union Leader and its publisher William Loeb (if you know me personally, oh the irony!) poured vitriol into Edmund Muskie's gears, all with the blessing and support of Nixon's GOP.
In the preceding paragraph, substitute Moderate Democrat for Muskie, Fox News for the Union Leader, Murdoch for Loeb, add a heaping ladle of Russia, and voila: you have the recipe for 2020.
THe 75,000 voters in three states who just couldn't be bothered to go the poolin 2016 are key to this election, not the occasional conservative pundit.
7
I know that you didn't vote for Trump the last time around, and you had many misgivings about Hillary Clinton. You abhor Trump and everything he stands for. I simply cannot believe that you would not be able to get yourself to your polling place and vote for whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be in the next election.
There are other ways to make the case for centrist conservatism than whining about not getting your perfect candidate, and you know that well, so why bother? None of us are going to get our perfect candidate and a very few might get their first choice. It's Trump or the apocalypse. You choose.
11
Actually I read every David Brooks column leading up to the 2016 election. He never stated who he voted (or didn’t vote) for. As far as I can tell, he may have voted for Trump, even though he was somewhat critical.
5
It's almost as though our two-party system doesn't cater to the needs of the masses.
8
Will there be a candidate I can vote for?
David, If there is at least one candidate who is not a republican, then the answer is YES.
14
David, this is concern trolling of the highest order. After all the nasty (and untrue) things you have said about progressives, and all the both-sides-ism, why should we worry about you?
Research shows that Americans consistently favor the kinds of policies you label as too radical, even if they don't want to call themselves progressive.
This piece suggests that you and your conscience have some work to do. Sort yourself out and let the Democrats do the same.
13
Mr. Brooks may you never loose your employer coverage and your job because your employer tells you A) you are too old (55) and B) your health insurance costs them too much. Trust me then your employer plan won't look so great. Single payer, Medicare for all.
15
Say Warren gets elected. There is no way she will get single payer passed, at least initially. The greedy, parasitical for-profit health insurance companies have a ton of OUR money and they will go to war over her proposal to make them go extinct. Not to mention the overpaid procedure-oriented medical specialists and hospital CEO's, who know that a Medicare-for-all plan will result in lower reimbursements (probably won't make much of a difference for primary care docs).
Other outcome: offer a public option folks can buy into. Consumers will vote with their feet. Smart insurance companies can survive by selling supplemental plans as they currently do for Medicare.
6
If you are any kind of decent, sane person, and would still vote for the GOP at this point in history, there is no hope for you as a human being. No matter HOW far left the Democratic candidates say they are.
What they campaign on, and what they can actually achieve in today's America, are two different things, no matter what kind of mandate they get from the electorate.
In fact I'm convinced that the GOP is on this juggernaut of tearing down every possible sensible and decent thing we ever established in this country, because they know this is their last hurrah as a party. They want to leave so much for the Democrats to set back aright, that it will take them forever to get to any actual social democratic change. The GOP oligarchy wants to hang on to its ability to continue its capitalistic despoilation of the land and the economy as long as possible.
14
Should we even care who Mr Brooks votes for?
And that despite seeing the worst presidency in live-action, he is still focused on shredding progressive ideals, that they are going too far left?
Do I care?
No.
It is the educated, well meaning conservative journalists, like him, who have done the worst damage to US political thought. Give him time, I hope to see a mea-culpa article in coming years.
I will just quote Mr Chomsky's cutting insight:
"It is important to bear in mind that the Republicans have long abandoned the pretense of functioning as a normal parliamentary party. Rather, they have become a “radical insurgency” that scarcely seeks to participate in normal parliamentary politics, as observed by the respected conservative political commentator Norman Ornstein of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute. Since Ronald Reagan, the leadership has plunged so far into the pockets of the very rich and the corporate sector that they can attract votes only by mobilizing sectors of the population that have not previously been an organized political force, among them extremist evangelical Christians, now probably the majority of Republican voters; remnants of the former slave-holding States; nativists who are terrified that “they” are taking our white Christian Anglo-Saxon country away from us; and others who turn the Republican primaries into spectacles remote from the mainstream of modern society—though not the mainstream of the most powerful country in world history."
12
Mr. Brooks' alarm is premature. Most of the rhetoric will moderate following the nominating convention. It always does. Also, the Dem nominee will have plenty of time to confront Mr. Trump prior to the 2020 general election.
3
Brooks' column reads like two facts don't exist. The first is made by several comments below (and certainly could be made by a Democratic candidate)-- you may love your employer-based insurance while you have it, but the Republicans would leave you unprotected if you lose it, which you almost certainly would if you were seriously ill and couldn't work. the second is that the Republicans are already trying to take away your employer-provided health insurance. They are trying to replace it with a health savings account that you could use to purchase private insurance. They've already added that option for smaller employers, and are trying to scale it up. It would leave ALL of us at the mercy of the private insurance market. It's the equivalent of Bush's proposal to privatize social security. So, if you stick with them, you know where we are headed. I'm voting Democrat, and I am VERY happy with my employer-provided health insurance.
7
If we abandon this grouping of liberal, moderate and conservative (where do Progressives fit in?) and ask working and middle class people to list half a dozen policies that are important to them, I would bet that these labels do not matter. Healthcare, affordable housing, a fair taxation system, clean water and air and a decent to good paycheck are universal needs. No one group of people gets to own it.
It is only when news reporters, opinion makers and politicians divide people into groups that we forget what is really important and descend into name calling.
9
I think the people you need to be complaining to (and about) are the Republicans. They are the ones who have abandoned party values. Get yourself a good Republican candidate and don't worry about what us Dems are doing.
12
Democrats will continue to lose elections as long as the are susceptible to the left fringe in many ways like the republicans are susceptible to the freedom caucus. Is not the answer a true center right and center left party. I don't want to vote for Trump. But a true leftist can not win in the south or west. Think about it.
7
Folks David is 100% correct here-- My brother in law in Tennessee could not be happier this week. The country is not Sanders-AOC left.
8
Unfortunately, David Brooks is no different than any SanderFan who advocates for only 1 candidate. I am sure David Brooks would have never voted for Obama ever (even if Trump was the candidate against him). Hypocritical to criticize those who belong in one category and refusing to accept that the current GOP and at it's top - Trump are destroying democracy as we believe it.
2
How can people here illegally get more benefits than people that are here legally?
8
So you'd really vote for Donald Trump? A man who is a walking example of everything you claim to despise about modern politics (uncivil, unthinking, purely reactive, immoral)?
That says more about your morals vis a vis your pocketbook than anything about any of the Democratic candidates.
8
So, Mr. Brooks, you'll only vote for a Democrat who is a carbon copy of a "moderate Republican" like yourself. So you'd prefer Trump rather than any progressive Democrat? Readers, welcome to the Bizarro world of David Brooks.
12
Over Trump's time in office, it's been amusing to watch Brooks perform mental acrobatics to try to reach some peace with his own politics. But this latest "will I leave the dark side?" column leaves me cold for one big reason: the absence of the phrase "climate change." Wake up, Mr. Brooks. Trump is not a disrupter. He is the logical heir to the GOP, in all its greed, racism, cruelty, misogny, and disdain for science. The Democrats might "drive you away," but the GOP will drive us all off a cliff.
10
For the most part, I agree with Mr. Brooks. Wow. I will now stare out of my window such that I may spot the flying pig. It's there. I know it.
6
Mr. Brooks, when I saw the headline of your column I had to laugh. Who knew you were a Democrat? Seriously, do you believe that you arrived at the point to make that statement if it weren't for Mr. Repulsive in the White House? Of course it is the only reason you make it. Ousting Mr. Arrogance has been an extremely unifying goal. But now it's back to reality. You've had no other Republican to support, so now you will begin slowly picking apart any of the many appealing aspects that we Dems and Independents find refreshing in these candidates. From now until the election I suppose you will find different aspects of different candidates to criticize. If we push you away, we push you away, but it really is refreshing to know that we are the party of a wide spectrum of thought and opinion. The other side can't get past hating everyone and everything. Don't deny that that is the only reason you wrote this column.
8
"Don't make me vote for Trump". Go ahead and vote for Trump. Both of you will get steamrolled anyway in 2020.
6
Let America(USA)be govern by Americans for all its citizens,not just for & by conservatives,liberals,clueless centralists,corporate class ya leaders choosing one group over others on personal ideology grounds. We need leaders who can lead the people without asserting to any appeasements trash talks looking at audiences ya driven by lobbying groups for own political/pocket purposes. Similarly,divisions within voters on party lines ya ideology based not gonna help them ya the nation itself. Sooner we grasp it & put our nation a head of any other interests,better it would be. If not so,guess who will be controlling our destiny by dividing US further apart nailing more upon our divide fissures.
1
"Over 70 percent of Americans with insurance through their employers are satisfied with their health plan."
True, but that's because they're unaware of what they're paying for it, a cost that is hidden from them by lower wages allowing employers to cough up for expensive, for-profit insurance. In a world where health is single-payer, employers will have to add back those premiums into people's paychecks, which will then be taxed at a lower rate.
8
Every candidate raised their hand last night suggesting that people in this country illegally should receive free healthcare. How is that going to play in battleground states with dying economies? Handed to them comes to mind.
8
First off, David, you're not a moderate. That's a delusion the far-right has fed you over the past 40 years of dragging this country's conversation to the right. You're firmly to the right, and the fact that you think criticizing Trump's manners qualifies as 'hitting him from the right' just shows how skewed your perspective is.
Second, the progressive wing is winning because it's become obvious that, in the absence of a center-right party, a center-left platform can only take one step forward, two steps back. That's not a winning tango.
9
Clearly a man of tender sensibilities, Brooks ask us not to drive him away--to what? The gerrymandered SCOTUS just gave the green light to GOP gerrymandering, and the GOP-Senate just gave Trump the green light to go to war wherever whenever. What a horrible choice for David!
8
I agree with Brooks on the disturbing "open borders" trend among most of the Democrats running for president. I disagree with him on almost everything else. But he's right that "open borders" immigration has been the anchor around the neck of almost every center left or center right party that has adopted it in these past 4-5 years. If the electorate gets the idea that the Democratic nominee is willing to throw open the gates of the borders anyone who shows up, they'll probably lose enough votes to lose the election. One of the candidates needs to creat a "Sister Souljah" moment on this soon (call it a "Julian Castro" moment) and call out this nonsense. Bernie, are you listening?
9
Mr. Brooks doesn't seem to realize that we're in a very crowded primary now, not a general. There'll be plenty of time to "evolve" one's positions later. People have very short memories.
And if every one of these candidates cannot beat trump with their current positions the country deserves another 4 years of this clown show. The poor homeless "moderates" need to use their heads.
8
After YEARS of shilling for the ideologically bankrupt system and party that produced Trump, Brooks wants a soft landing that’s all on HIS terms - without any discomfort or stretch required.
That takes a LOT of nerve!
Brooks spent years free spending his considerable intellectual currency, twisting any Liberal, Moderate, or Centrist idea into something unworkable, just so the party of rich elitist, racist divisiveness, and warmongering would come out on top. When they finally went a bridge too far, did he ever take a look and say, “Wow! I helped do that!” Did America ever get an apology? No.
Instead, we got several years of philosophical meanderings, that still were oddly twisted, because while some of the ideas were valid, he never saw that he was still spending lots of time and energy evangelizing things that cut at or corroded all his new found ideals.
Newsflash: fixing DECADES of Republican devastation is going to take TIME, EFFORT, MONEY, and HARD WORK. Instead of looking for comfort from Democrats, maybe Brooks and others like him should reflect on the world their efforts gave us, recognize that they don’t have the answers - and that maybe they are just plain WRONG.
Maybe it’s time to get uncomfortable, or just be quiet and Listen. You might learn something about how and why a lot of these “unworkable ideas” are pretty reasonable. Hint: what looks insane in the US has worked for decades in much of the rest of the civilized world. We’re the ones out of step.
11
David, here's a helpful list of all the Democratic candidates who are worse than Trump:
1.
Uhh, still looking for one.
11
In the 50+ years that I have been voting, I have voted for a Republican only once.
Today, the Democrats are pushing me away.
I am totally against almost everything that Trump has done; immigration is an exception.
I consider Trump to be venal and completely unfit for the office that he now holds. I support a woman's right to choose and the rights of the LGBTQ community.
What has become the dumpster-fire on our southern border is what is best for America in the long run and keeping out these and other immigrants, legal and illegal, is necessary to protect our future.
PricewaterhouseCoopers predicts that almost 40% of US jobs could be taken by robots by 2030. As more people are replaced by machines, work hours must be reduced to maintain full employment. This reduction in work hours will eventually have to result in guaranteed incomes for Americans to remove them from the workforce. The living standards of our progeny will be diminished by the progeny of any future immigrants.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/25/technology/automation-davos-world-economic-forum.html
There are millions of Americans who lack a high school diploma and compete with immigrants for the low-level jobs.
These are low-paying jobs because immigrants are willing to take them. Without immigrants, businesses will have to pay more and improve working conditions. Yes, we'll pay more, but more citizens will be working.
6
If you cannot vote for a Democrat because YOU THINK she's too liberal, vote for her because SHE IS THE ONLY candidate that can defeat Donald Trump.
What would be worse for the country?
Another four years of Donald Trump?
President Elizabeth Warren?
President Kamala Harris?
Do you really think America would be better off with Donald Trump for another four years?
Is that what you're REALLY thinking?
REALLY?
C'mon, man!
8
You either get to the polls and vote for the Democratic candidate, or you are voting for Trump. If you think Trump is better for American than anyone who the Democrats end up nominating, you will have to live with YOUR decision to vote for Trump, and don’t put that on anyone else.
7
Mr. Brooks’ tome reminds me of Robert Southey’s story of “Goldilocks & the Three Bears”. Brooks’ ideal Democratic opponent to run against Trump will not be too liberal left (too hot), nor too conservative right (too cold). He or she will be moderately satisfying to liberals and conservatives alike (just right). Sorry, Mr. Brooks. You, as a never Trump Republican, can’t have your porridge and eat it too. You are and have always been a conservative Republican; maybe a never Trumpet but absolutely never a Democrat.
8
The American voters will get exactly what they deserve. We all will.... whoever gets elected is completely on us.
Just smile and wave when its all burning down.
4
Just a few days ago, there was a rash of self-called moderate Democrats claiming (in articles) that the party had gone too far left. And that they'd never vote for a Democratic presidential candidate who supported abortion. Today the single issue that will turn these poeple off is national health care. Next week the single issue they will not support will probably be remediating climate change. These people would never vote Democratic anyway. BTW, I am 64 and have private insurance, which costs me TWICE in premiums what Medicare plus Medigap will cost me next year. Even though I am in great health and hardly ever go to the doctor. My one wish is that we could have national dental insurance too.
9
I think David Brooks is on the right track.
As sorry as I feel for all the migrants, we can not take them all in, but they all need to be heard and as many as possible work for citizenship. This is a political problem in the country they are trying to escape. Try to solve that.
Many of the Dreamers have taken advantage of the US Democracy and now work as soldiers, teachers etc and are a credit to our country, should be allowed to stay.
Free education is a nice idea and should be encouraged for the needy with Pell Grants and other help, We do not need to give free education to the wealthy.
Health care should build on the Obama plan with the government option put back in.
Let's not go to far to the left.
6
Just a bit of advice for Mr. Brooks and others who can't vote for some one they find too "socialist". The reason Donald Trump is in power, has taken over the Republican Party, has accelerated the destruction of American cultural norms and mores is the direct result of people who just couldn't vote for Hillary Clinton. In 2020 the choice will be some democrat or Trump. If you can't bring yourself to vote for the Trump alternative you will be the cause of four more years of Trump and the next four years will destroy the Supreme Court, the environment, women's rights, maybe a war or two and, of course, American democracy.
10
Brooks I think you are looking for a distinguished, civil, old school gentleman like Robert E. Lee.
b.t.w. - I believe Warren has signed on to Bernie's "medicare for all" bill. Medicare doesn't prohibit private insurance. I don't know where you got that from.
6
I find Mr. Brooks always well worth reading as a balance to my usual quick jump to a wishful idealistic left. But I think most everyone is overlooking the best candidate we have and that is Amy Klobuchar.
Amy also has plans that are practical, doable, and bold. She has a solid track record of getting things done while working with multiple sides of an issue and appealing to a variety of opinions.
I think her mid-western intellect, work ethic, humour and honesty are exactly what we need to bring our democracy together, rid us of immoral leaders and show our allies who we really are.
I just hope we don’t overlook the one best candidate because the others are so loud and busy playing look at me!
7
Anyone who thinks private insurance is going anywhere really needn't worry. If 70% of the population is against that and maybe 20% of congress is for it, it simply isn't going to happen.
1
The Repubulicans over the years have shifted far more to the right than the Democrats have to the left. There is an excellent book that details this progression call "Winner Take All Politics". And the Republicans have been blowing racist dog whistles that you seem not to have heard, or thought you could ignore, since Nixons' "Southern Strategy) and Regan's "Welfare Queens". Now it is not acceptable because it is overt and can't be glossed over, but it has been there for a long time, while you were voting for Republicans because of their conservative philospy and policies and seemingly averted your gaze. Trump is the realization of this, not the cause, so don't moralize to Democrats not to drive you away. A lot of us have woken up and have realized things need to change, so either vote for Trump or don't, but don't ask Democrats to modify their stances so you are more comfortable....the fault does not lie in the Democratic Party but the Republicans and their relentless push to decimate the social safety net, demolish unions and put conservative judges on the Supreme Court that think money is speech and coporations are people. I am sorry, but I don't think there is room in either party right now for just right of center conservatives. They need to either change the Republican party, or start from scratch and build a new party.
6
Um, the world is already dog eat dog. It's been that way for a while now.
Also, we have a good economy? I keep hearing that but I never actually see any benefits of this supposed good economy. The job market is too competitive and the cost of living is rising faster than wages.
I am honestly astounded by your assessment of the situation. You and I must live in complete different countries.
I will agree with you that the Democrats are too extreme on immigration. I'm amazed you haven't mentioned how extreme they have become on guns.
3
The Democratic front runners are more honest and honorable than Trump, and I don't think they're lying about their positions. But primaries play to the base, and generals play to the mainstream. I think Warren and Harris will emphasize progressive tendencies now, and moderate tendencies later, and that's a good thing. They are both electable, Warren in particular imo.
Biden will muddle along until he tanks due to age and bussing. Even at his apex he wasn't a good campaigner, and he's not at his apex.
Bernie's won't moderate himself ever and his bombastic 'democratic socialism' will indeed alienate too many people--he's the least electable. Just being old and white isn't enough.
3
I think Mr Brooks accurately describes the dilemma, but fails to address the larger point. He is correct that if the Democrats nominate someone who excites the base, they will very likely lose the Center. If they nominate someone who appeals to the Center, that person may not excite the base. However, the larger problem with this country today, is that in a just world, a decent world: Donald Trump wouldn't get a single vote outside of his own family. This country is in a lot of trouble.
4
After watching Biden flounder last night, I suspect we're lone of the more progressive candidates will be at the top of the ticket, perhaps Warren or Harris. But regardless of what is being said during the pre-primaries and primaries, once we get into the election campaign their more extreme positions will be replaced by aspirational endorsements and their stated policies will be much more rational. Who knows, maybe there is Candidate #25 lurking in the weeds who can combine a more moderate policy bundle with charisma? Without that, expect a progressive able to temper what bothers Brooks.
2
It's really simple, David. Not voting for the Democrat, whoever the nominee is, is voting for Trump. All the rest is commentary.
16
Bingo, Mr. Brooks, but it's more than that...
We don't just need someone palatable to moderates and conscientious conservatives to beat Trump. We need someone who more than a third of the country is willing to follow after Trump is beaten.
Otherwise, this trend of ever widening division will become irreparable.
2
The testament that this column hits so many where they live is in the nearly 3K comments and still counting. I, too, am wondering just who are these people on the stage? I gladly supported Bernie Sanders in 2016, and then Hillary Clinton. But whoa -- I'm not sure if these folks want to represent most of America or Central America. If one ignores Trump's horrible racism on illegal immigration, one can go back to 2014 and see where the numbers have increased and have grown to crisis levels, and why and how. But rather than address the issues, it seems like these folks want to create even greater incentives to come here illegally. I think getting health care for all Americans will be hard enough. Then those who do stake a more moderate ground on any issue, you need a strong pair of binoculars to try to find those poor souls and last, one of those guys asking the questions: he was yelling, emoting, and demanding an answer that met his litmus test than getting an honest answer out of the candidates. Very little was even said about foreign affairs, yet what Russia did to disrupt our last election was a dire threat. I fear these folks are going to be their own downfall.
4
I agree with this article. The moderate or middle won't have a meaningful choice if the Democrats insist on fighting to get to the left end of the field. I think many moderates will not vote which ushers in Trump once again- a very scary proposition. When you hear in the debates taking away insurance, read about making capital gains the same as ordinary income, virually open borders, little about Russia and foreign affairs, you can see that many in the middle will just stay hom.
7
It's strange to me that someone so aware of our dual economy (20% vs the rest) could support the conservative policies of destroying unions, lowering taxes for the wealthy and corporations, deregulation, not committing to a vast infrastructure deal, etc, that have created these conditions.
You speak of a 4% increase in wages for the low-wage sector. How much of that was just liberal cities and states raising the minimum wage? How much was from Bernie Sanders confronting Amazon to raise the minimum wage to $15, which forced other businesses to compete with that wage?
Bonuses have gone 20% since the tax cut. How does that compute with the idea that the economy is doing well? Maybe we've reached a point where having a job is all that is needed to say that we're in a good economy because the great recession was so terrible.
6
It's like he completely forgot about winning the primary and then pivoting towards the center to catch the moderates.
5
Here is the thing about Medicare for all.
It works.
It already covers the oldest, sickest and poorest Americans.
It has an overhead cost of 2.5% verse 20 percent for employer based plans.
Phase it in over 5 years.
Most employers would prefer Medicare than the hugely expensive insurers.
4
Medicare works because everyone contributes although most of the benefits go only to those who reach 65. Furthermore, to attain the 20 years (or so) of coverage, one must contribute often for more than 40 years.
2
Biden isn't a target because he's moderate. According to polls, he's the front-runner (though we well know that polls aren't necessarily truth) so that's one reason. But for people that care and know about history and ideas, Biden is very meh. He seems to think he's entitled to be the nominee. I find him lacking both vision and passion, something many of the other 19 candidates on stage this week did demonstrate. When you're in the single digits (fundraising and polls), the need to be noticed is high.
Who will emerge in the end is a guessing/betting game now but I hope that, after some winnowing takes place in the coming weeks and months, that Warren, Harris, Castro, Buttigieg and Booker are all debating. Any of them can beat Trump. Biden might beat Trump too but he's certainly not the one that I would like to see in the WH come Jan 2021.
6
The USA is the only first world nation without universal healthcare and it shows in the lack of care too many Americans receive including for those who do have insurance because of extremely high deductibles and co-pays.
We have among the highest infant mortality rates, among the highest maternal mortality rates, and the highest number of bankruptcies due to healthcare expenses.
This isn't sustainable.
Then there is the issue of taxes for whom the wealthy and corporations are the favored lot. They are also the ones who use the most government tax dollars to protect and maintain shipping lanes, highways/freeways, dams/bridges (for irrigation and navigation), water/sewer systems, and other infrastructure for which they often get a pass on paying for.
Then there is the issue of pollution these folks like to dump into the air, water, and land for which they socialize the costs while privatizing their profits.
We can't afford another Republican lite candidacy whereby the status quo of corporate profits continue to have priority over most of the rest of us.
Incrementalism is the reason we do not have, nor will we have a solution to the high CO2 levels which may make the planet uninhabitable for humans and many species of flora and fauna in the next few decades. We have known about this for decades and have done nothing about it. Both parties are bought by corporate interests and the already wealthy to the detriment of 95% of the people on the planet.
6
The US is hardly a first world country. The average income is pulled up by a few who make billions while millions live in poverty. America has many slums and ghettos which the corporate media hides well from view.
4
@Jones, The USA is a mixed bag. I live in a town of 33,000 in Eastern WA. The county I live in is both the wealthiest(for farmers) and the poorest(for 23% of those who live here). It is for all intents and purposes a microcosm of the rest of the country with pockets of wealth and larger tracts of poverty.
There is more poverty in the red states than there are in the blue states but truthfully most places are red in this country often due to ignorance and a lack of worldly views.
The cities are blue because of their diversity and often due to the educated populace who have seen more than just their local community.
The rest of the country is red because they want to maintain the ties they have to their communities despite all the evidence that says their communities are dying due to a lack of opportunity for the younger generation coming up. Those kids have to leave their homes and go to a city where they often discover that everything they were taught in their small town no longer applies.
There are areas that are as bad as any third world nation(think AL, MS, Appalachia, etc, ) where kids and their parents are constantly living in absolute poverty with a lack of the basics of food, clothing, shelter, a decent education, and opportunities to better themselves.
It is a sad situation in too many parts of this country when so many have so little and so few have so much, but those with little seem resigned to their situation and don't vote their interests.
5
I am a liberal. If Trump was a Democrat, I would vote straight Republican ticket, regardless of what that potential president was going to do. I would choose country over party. I would do that any day of the week. This is not a difficult question.
10
I am bewildered by how far left the Democratic party has moved since 2016.
While I agree with the Democrats goals, I get nervous about such sweeping and costly legislative proposals. Heaven forgive me.
This isn’t to say I will be voting for Mr. Trump, but I do fear that the moderate plurality in this country might go with the devil they know rather than the devil they don’t come Election Day 2020.
9
Quick note to Cecilia from TX. David said he could never vote for Trump in the first sentence of this essay.
While I'm not usually a fan of this writer, this is an excellent opinion piece and everyone who wants a new president should read it. Harris' attack on Biden was despicable and the cable news folks seem to want a spirited contest for the Democratic nomination that will enhance their pockets by increasing their ratings. At the same time, kamikaze attacks on Biden, who is infinitely better than Trump, will only boost Trump's chances in 2020. As long as respected polls indicate that Biden is the strongest candidate, Harris and any others contemplating similar attacks should grow up and realize what is at stake next year.
9
Regardless of what Warren and Sanders say about health insurance they ain't gonna be able to pull off Medicare-for-All and an ouster of private health insurance in the current political climate. Obama barely got the ACA through, and that was modeled after a previous GOP plan. So a vote for Warren is not going to threaten your insurance if you get it privately. No worries.
@Syliva
Obama barely got the ACA through, without a public option, because we were convinced we had to do what David Brooks suggested and tack as far right as possible while still keeping the Democratic label on the candidate. And a handful of races won that way- we called them Blue Dog Democrats. And they're the ones who made the ACA basically squeak by. They're the ones that defeated the public option and gave us the milquetoast law.
And what happened to all those blue dogs? Voted out at the end of their term. They set the GOP up for the major victories in 2010 that seized control of congress. All that had to happen was one term to pass for the GOP to get the bad taste of Trump out of their mouths and go straight back to voting Republican.
Mr Brooks is *not* arguing to become a Democrat for any real length of time. He just wants a comfortable place to hang his hat while he waits for the GOP to become more appealing again. Come 2022 or 2024 he'll be back to his old ways and leave us with the smoldering ruins and ineffectual results of his "make room for me!" appeal.
2
With so much energy and talent, you'd hope Elizabeth Warren's goal would be to win the Presidency. By raising her hand to eliminate private health insurance she's effectively declaring it is not. I wonder why?
5
Republican presidents have done damage to millions in this country and abroad and it gets worse every election, culminating in Trump. Fear of what the increasingly heartless, environmentally irresponsible Republicans will do allows Democrats to tack to the center. Our voters can't vote for [fill in the blank], they think. Voters are essentially held hostage.
Refusing to go along with this game and various kinds of electoral malfeasance got us Trump. Now David Brooks (no friend to Democrats or average human beings in this country or any we might bomb) wants us to play thus game again.
"No flipping way", ought to be the answer.
I follow this rule: Don't take advice from people who don't care about you. That goes double for Republican pundits.
6
I prefer getting a bunch of new voters out to the polls.
5
I am tired of all these NeverTrumpers who think that Democrats should be moderate or even conservative Republicans who are not quite as gross as The Donald. If your top priority is to get rid of Donald Trump then the only option is the Democratic nominee. You don't need anything else. Besides Democratic/liberal positions are generally popular and rational, especially compared to Republican/conservative positions. Can you name two major Republican policies (not vague philosophical positions like "small government" or "freedom" or "free market" or "low taxes") that are demonstrably better than mainstream Democratic/liberal policies? Health care? Foreign policy? Climate change/environment? Wall Street regulation? Debt and deficits? Immigration? Civil rights and minority rights? Marijuana? Abortion? Evolution? Maybe after your Republican/conservative party has promoted better policies on most of these issues for a few decades we'll consider changing our positions. Until then we still offer the only major candidate (with a chance to win) who is not the most comprehensively disgusting, immoral American not in prison.
5
David your vote is, as a New Yorker might say, chopped liver. For years you supported the GOP in its rightward march, and now you ask a political party that you worked to defeat to move rightward so that you feel like you might have an option. The Democratic Party is a lot more conservative than it used to be. And I have a feeling that this is your underhanded way of supporting the GOP by arguing that Dems are extremists.
6
Dem’s have all but assured Trump will win.
Trump’s immigration fanaticism has compelled the nation to reconsider border policies and control despite having killed any meaningful conversations or compromises.
If it wasn’t so absurd the political suicide of the left would be tragic.
3
Oh go away. Spend your energy making your Republican party worthy of consideration. The last thing in the world the Democratic party needs is advice from someone who has opposed virtually everything that makes the party attractive to the majority of Americans.
6
Sorry everyone, but gerrymandering and the electoral college make the choice who becomes President. We all just vote.
5
My goodness, if I bought the shallow reading of the democratic candidates positions which you've presented here, I'd be mildly concerned too. But such superficial readings do not do justice to the plans the likes of Warren or Harris or Sanders have put forward, which are detailed and nuanced. Do your homework. The only thing Trumpian here, is your insistence on sound-bite versions of the truth, which serves nobody.
5
Your views about the democratic candidates need to appeal to the moderate republicans who are repulsed from voting for Trump is flawlessly reasoned. As a life long Democrat I fear we will manage to sabotage our opportunity to rid ourselves of the menace to our democracy now in office. The problem was articulated by Will Rogers when he said "I am not a member of any organized party. I am a Democrat."
2
Why are Americans so wedded to private insurance? Is it because they mistakenly believe that a pubic option means no choice of doctors or hospitals? In Canada we have choice . We do not have dental or vision coverage. Pharmacare only kicks in below a certain income level. Other countries do it differently. US presidential candidates should do some research into medical systems of other countries.
4
@Jean Travis
Most Americans don't know any better and have been brainwashed by the right-wing think tanks to think government health plan will run like the local department of motor vehicles (slow, dumb, wasteful and ineffective). Pictures of old Soviet Union comes to their mind. This is what killed Clinton's plan, and how GOP almost killed ACA with the lie of "death panel".
Principles of American exceptionalism has stopped them from learning about other nations' healthcare system, because it cannot possibly be better than the exceptional American system.
This is why politicians on the left seized on "Medicare for all", because the only socialized medicine anyone here really knows is Medicare. In all likelihood, even if Sanders did get to the WH, his Medicare for all won't be the Medicare people currently know.
Mr. Brooks is absolutely right. By virtue of the chaos of the trump administration, and lawless and loathsome behavior of the so-called "president", the 2020 election is one the Democrats should never lose. But they will lose, because they will end up with a candidate with a completely unrealistic platform that will result in the never-trumper Republicans and moderates of both parties simply staying home on Election Day. The day after the election Democrats will be looking at each other (again) and asking "how did this happen"?
It's not too late yet. Democrats simply need to repeat this mantra: "How do we beat trump?" and make sure that they do whatever it takes to make that happen. It is a combination of an electable candidate and a reasonable platform. This is not rocket science.
3
Unlike DESTROYING institutions, healthcare protections, foreign policy, national reputations, the climate, the air we breath etc. BUILDING something (almost anything) takes time.
To do it in an optimal way also requires planning, negotiation/debate, collaboration, hard work, action, re-evaluating and amending plans as needed along the way etc.
Stretch goals that will benefit the ENTIRE country (and that by default will still overall include businesses, Republicans and the well off) set a worthy target. If, as the Republicans do, all one wants is to destroy, horde and regress - it really doesn't take any vision or effort.
So no, private health insurance and employer sponsored insurance wont go away overnight. Neither will student loans etc. But as a nation we will be working towards building something that will help all Americans.
I'll vote for ANY candidate who makes it to the Democratic ticket. Democrats are not afraid to have an inclusive vision, work hard and solve for the tough questions.
5
David maybe you are not....god forbid....a moderate. Look at the party you lived for!
4
"I could never in a million years vote for Donald Trump."
During your entire career you have helped set the tone, climate and narrative for the Republican Party beginning with an internship with William Buckley, Jr., followed by stints at The Hoover Institution and the Wall Street Journal prior to being hired by the NYT.
Now you're reaping what you've sown.
Gimme a break...
6
Honestly David?!?! You know what we and you have now that we didn't have when we elected Trump? Hindsight!! So, in spite of the FACT that you and everyone else knows he is a pathological liar and could care less about following any "laws", you would vote for him over a progressive Democrat that would most definitely end up tacking towards the middle anyway?? He was an "unknown" when he was elected...the Progressive would be an "unknown" as well...why does the Right always get the benefit of the doubt and the Left "would never win"?? Hogwash!! Go ahead and vote for Trump...you will be in the minority this time!!
3
Good bye, David Brooks! We hardly knew he.
3
If democrats are going to be the big-tent party (while republicans huddle with their homogeneous 35%), at some point it probably makes sense for democrats to let states become laboratories for many of the progressive policies that frighten our friends in conservative states.
What is wrong with letting states in the Northeast and West Coast enact more liberal policies without forcing them on states that fear them? Let the swing states (Midwest) observe the try-outs and pick the policies that work best. Once the swing states are on board, you can then begin to move towards a national consensus.
As long as we're not talking about protecting fundamental rights under the constitution, there are only a few issues that really demand a national government response, right?
Embracing its role as the party of common sense, pragmatism and flexibility while encouraging liberal states to experiment with policies before pushing national consensus, the democrats have a credible path to long-term governance.
4
I think Brooks is on to something when he says the great divide is between the top 20 percent and the rest, but not all educated people have found berths in the top 20 percent.
3
"Overall wages are rising by 3.5 percent, and wages for those in the lowest pay quartile are rising by well over 4 percent, the highest of all groups."
It is hard to believe that any American actually believes that these numbers are good.
The fact is that most families need at least a 20% raise just to get by.
Forty years ago blue collar and clerical workers were making enough money to own a home, pay their bills and save for retirement. Today those same workers need to work two jobs to pay for a tiny apartment and are unlikely to pay all of their bills on time let alone save anything at all.
A 3.5 - 4% raise in income doesn't come anywhere close to even covering the rise in prices for housing, goods and services.
How can anyone type that sentence and keep a straight face?
5
You people say this about the Democratic candidate every single election. This never fails. Obama, also, was portrayed as a radical Muslim leftist whatever. Get real.
4
Brooks is affluent and like many others who are struggling, his comments are so out of touch it's annoying. he's annoying enough all on his own. He wants the status quo to continue..I bet he does. Clueless
3
Blacks won't accept a gay man and Hispanics will never vote for Socialist policies they fled from. Dems care more about illegals than their own citizens who need help. Nothing on turning around our slide in education. Why vote for a Democrat? No one the last two night can beat Trump right now. No one. Help
6
Everyone calm down. The same things were being said during the Republican primaries and about Trump and come Nov '16, it worked out for him. It will work out for the democrats, too. Let the process play itself out.
1
Dear David: I think your article is exactly what is needed to wake the Democrats up. I this point, I think that Oprah as a Democrat Presidential nominee can win in a landslide against the incumbent and restore decency to this country.
2
I'm a lifelong Democrat for whom immigration is not a decisive issue, one way or another, for how I vote, but I recognize that it is for millions of other voters, especially in the critical states to win. None of the presidential contenders seems to realize that. What constituency do they think they are winning over by moving closer and closer to "Everybody in the world, come on in!"? Recent legal immigrants probably don't even like the idea of people sneaking across the border or rushing the border with minor children demanding asylum. Their overblown pro-immigrant rhetoric just rubs salt in the wounds of American citizens of every race and national origin who feel their needs and struggles aren't being taken seriously. They're not hearing, "Let's welcome immigrants and treat them with respect." They're saying, "What about me?"
6
Sorry, they've already driven me away. I'm an educated professional with a couple of degrees and I don't watch Fox News. I read the NYT every day. And I have no doubt that some progressives are leading us to a new Cultural Revolution. Every day the Reign of Terror ramps up a little more. (Maybe it's because I read the NYT every day that I'm so terrified.) It's a matter of time before all dissenters are purged or imprisoned for not passing an ideological purity test. I'm not the only one who feels this way--we're just afraid to talk about it. But not to vote.
9
David--If you're going to be dogmatic, we may not be able to offer you a choice you can agree to. Would you rather compromise on certain issues or see your country become an autocracy?
It's that simple.
If you believe in representative democracy, you must vote against Trump, no matter who the alternative might be. If you don't, please don't consider yourself a patriot.
3
Poor David, now you are a victim? Soon to be homeless?
But remember it was the republicons that kicked you out of their party, and it will be Democrats that attempt to make room for your views in our party...just don`t expect to get the royal treatment as we try accommodate your still alien to us opinions.
But never the less, we will try to make room for you, and if you are not too picky, you might find you like it over here.
3
Please, even the most granola-crunchy, vegan, Birkenstock-wearing Democratic candidate, even if she should win, still needs to work with a two-party system of 535 others who will be less liberal and more fascist. What's with all the hysterical, Henny-Penny crying?
6
Sorry David You are emotionally committed, for decades in fact, to the idea or at least the lovely sound of claiming to be a conservative, and equally being a Republican. This is your animal brain talking to you
Your human brain has only to find an acceptable explanation to justify that choice Does not have to be the truth It just have to provide you an excuse
You are doing great. You have listed plenty of self excuses No harm You were never going to vote Democrat anyway
What did Trump say? I could shoot a man in the center of 5th Ave...
4
The only consistent theme in Brooks’ column is to provide a center-right viewpoint in a center-left newspaper, and we’re supposed to take his claim to Dem affiliation seriously?? Could one possibly concoct a tidier example of the “bad faith” argument? Please, this is plain and naked as the day!
5
Well, David Brooks, you ARE a Republican, so . . .
3
An obnoxious twitter troll is preferable to any candidate who supports defacto open borders and a European welfare state.
4
@I want another option Fine. Vote for Justin Amash when he declares. Our current president is several degrees worse than an obnoxious twitter troll, and, if anything, Justin is incredibly principled and very much against a European welfare state.
He's got a snowball's chance, but it's not his fault the Republican party became a cult of personality.
3
Please, do go away. Love to never read another one of your out-of-touch columns.
3
Amen. I also could never vote for Trump, but I also couldn't vote for Mrs. Clinton. There's no one in the front of the Democratic fray that I can support. Michael Bennett sounded good, but doesn't have a chance. Joe Biden, more moderate than most, is old news and carries too much baggage. I suspect I'm very similar to a good chunk of the Democratic Party and even a few liberal Republicans. My concern is that the Democratic Party will commit suicide, which is likely to destroy what little remains of our Democracy.
5
I fear what is going to happen is Trump will be re-elected. It seems impossible, but folks like those making comments here promoting Warren or Sanders talk only to each other and assume everyone thinks like them. My biggest fear is that the most active component in the Democratic party will attack Biden or any moderate and the party will nominate a progressive so far left he or she will be unacceptable to all conservatives, many independents, and a good portion of Democrats. Millennials have years to go before they can carry an election. Considering the entire voting public, not just the echo chamber, most people are not in favor of open borders, Medicare for all, or free college, but they are in favor of immigration reform, reinforcing Obamacare and dealing with medical costs, student aid, and, especially, climate change. If the Democrats hang the election on a person and platform that will lose them the majority of the voters, get ready for 4 more years. I will be voting Democrat regardless, but I also think I may be having to consider moving to Canada.
6
I am a moderate independent who voted for Clinton. I can’t stand Trump, BUT, the dems need to get practical on:
1 Right sizing immigration (see David Frum’s article in the Atlantic
2 Health Care
3 An efficient government
4 Gun control (just close private sale loop holes)
5 Energy policy
6 Accessible college education (but no freebies)
If what David is indicating comes to pass, shame on the dems for completely blowing it. I’ll never vote for them again.
6
Trump won because he could read the anxiety of the Americans who felt they were being left behind and, that their white, Christian country was changing. Trump campaigned for them. The vast majority of the Trump voters are not racist or grab women or cheat in their taxes or are corrupt.
By the same token, those candidates on the left, are reading the Americans who despite the country’s very good economic numbers feel they are out luck. They have debt, lack of affordable housing and, Trump’s threat of leaving them with no access to health care. They have no access to the opportunities America offers the wealthy. Same problems that Trump voters in different colors and diverse philosophies.
You do not want Democrats to drive away moderates. I do not think that somebody like Kamala Harris will have any problem asking Biden to run as her VP.
3
"The party is moving toward all sorts of positions that drive away moderates"....Which party are you talking about? Is there anything excessively liberal about affordable healthcare? Anything excessively liberal about DACA or treating human beings with dignity. Anything excessively liberal about rejecting racism or rejecting pandering to racism? Anything liberal about recognizing income disparity as a problem? Anything liberal about pursuing the goal that all men are created equal? Your willingness to look the other way and pretend bigotry is ok is why we are here.Go ahead, sit on your hands and reelect Trump if that is what you want America to look like
6
Wow, David. That you could even consider being “driven away” from voting against Trump is pretty staggering. Who cares if you’re not satisfied with the Democratic candidate? Your mentor, Buckley, wouldn’t have like them either. But you know what? In this particular election staying home is not an option, and you’ve expended too many words addressing the threat that Trump is to American governance and society to pretend otherwise. So, put your money where your mouth is and quit your bellyaching. As we learned in ’16, a failure to vote at all is a vote FOR Trump. Sum: you can run, but you can’t hide.
7
I absolutely agree with Mr. Brooks. After watching the debates, I feel thoroughly discouraged. I don't think the Democrats have a chance of winning with someone as far left as Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. It scares we when the other candidates are criticizing Joe Biden for saying he could work with and even like people who had different values and goals. Finding common ground and solutions between people and groups with opposing ideas is the basis of our democracy.
7
@Marian V.
Did you feel equally discouraged while watching the GOP primary debates 3 years ago?
I have a feeling your feelings of discouragement reflects how polarized this country had become and you are increasingly being left out by being the "middle" (more like, right to center right)
1
I am less concerned about driving moderates away from the Democratic ticket than electing a president who can restore a functioning democracy and a sense of unity/pride. There are issues that urgently need to be addressed. We can't strong arm opposing political agendas back and forth between elections and solve these critical problems. We need to do hard work and find common ground.
Climate Change, healthcare and civil rights, cyber security, living wages, merging global interests.... these are not political platforms, they are realities.
2
Boy, I wish people would stop using the term "moderate" to describe the right wing of the Democratic Party.
The US Republican Party would be regarded as a hard right fringe party in any other western country, and the Democrats range from centre-left (on the left) to centre-right.
"Moderates" are not moderate. They are the neoliberal right wing of the Democratic Party.
5
The Democrats are dead on arrival with most of this group. As a former McGovern supporter, let me remind everyone that the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Ignoring the opinions of others, and believing only you have the answers to every problem, not to mention the moral high ground on every issue, is the road to failure
David Brooks is a great man and a sage crying out in the wilderness. The wise will listen. Sadly, not many wise progressives are stepping up to slow this futile bandwagon, I'm afraid. Four more years and the possible end of our democracy is at stake, so please wake up and face reality before it's too late.
9
The various policy goals espoused by the democratic candidates are aspirational, not a forgone outcome.
So please let’s not cast any of those candidates into a box based on what they posit for the future state of our country.
The writers of our Constitution did a great job of insuring that one official could not dictate the outcome of a political fight.
Look at our recent history. Obamacare squeaked by. Invading Iraq happened only with the false intelligence reports from a bunch of Bush-Cheney War Hawks. Many democrats have since admitted they goofed up that vote.
So what are the future chances that even a minority leader McConnell would be unable to skewer the Sanders-Warren-Harris single payer health care proposal?
Mr. Brooks, do not paint the democratic opposition to President Trump with a tar brush. The case is far more serene, all twenty come across as sounding sane and reasonable, details vary.
Bottom line: many of the Miami-twenty we listened to on Thursday and Friday could serve admirably as the follow-on president to the disastrous Trump.
8
I for one am glad that Democratic Party candidates are "moving to the Left". It's a time for big solutions, and further educating the American voter on what is possible. What Bernie has been touting has taken hold.
Now the candidates must figure out the details on how these solutions could be implemented, and most importantly. paid for. (I'm looking at you, 10 %ers).
Not that the Republicans made any reality-based justifications for their Big Idea, the recent tax cuts.
6
Why aren't you and other Republicans trying to convince your party to nominate a sane, moderate, non-racist, non-rapist, patriotic, non-Russian Republican? Why are you whining to us?
15
Those who poo-poo Brooks’ analysis do not accept that the majority of the body politic will not vote for some politician advocating elimination of private health insurance and open borders.
8
Bye Felicia.
3
Dear David,
I'd rather the party drive you away than defer the responsibility to advocate for those who need more meaningful, systemic, and expedient change in healthcare, economic and educational policy than you require.
I understand that more "moderate" conversation may be required to appeal to those with, for example, employer-provided healthcare plans. It's clear, however, that politely suggesting that "capitalism needs to be reformed to reduce inequality," as you put it, has not been a successful strategy.
If we are actually going to reduce inequity, now may be the best time for establishing clear arguments with a bolder agenda.
With so many people positioned to say "no" to a president with racist and sexist tendencies and a casual relationship with reality, it's time to have a conversation. Even if that conversation makes you feel uncomfortable.
Will this really drive you away? What's worse - an uncomfortable conversation or voting for Trump?
7
I see that Mr. Brooks has given up on telling the GOP what to do – and really, who can blame him? But I'm afraid the Democrats aren't going to nominate Mitt Romney, or any Democratic version of Mitt Romney (sorry, Gov. Bullock), so Mr. Brooks will have to stay home, or vote for the Democrat, come next November.
6
On the contrary. I absolutely want to drive David Brooks, and other carpetbagging conservatives like him out of the Democratic party.
I'm a life long liberal Democrat. David Brooks is a life long conservative Republican, who because his political party has gone completely insane, has decided that he will switch to the Democratic side... and apparently rewrite our party platform for us.
Right now Democrats need to be focused on getting support from a new generation of younger and minority voters. Not the tiny number of middle aged white men who decided to defect from the Republican party after Trump was elected.
Seriously, David, get lost. This is not your party and it never will be.
12
Speaking as a citizen of your northern neighbour -- which happens to be your largest trading partner after China, and a geopolitical presence so benign that you hardly know we exist -- I can only smile at Mr. Brooks' handwringing over the leftist tilt of Democrats. Their brand of socialism is tame stuff for us up here, and, well, as a country we're not doing too badly.
Despite our differences, Canada has been youtr greatest ally, and you, ours. We fought together in two world wars. Our economies are entwined. And I can only speak for myself, though I know many Canadians feel the same, America, for all its faults, is a source of admiration. Yours isn't the greatest country in the world -- ours is -- but, well, as a country you're not doing too badly.
And yet, you elected a president who has insulted my country, not to mention our prime minister. He imposed crippling tariffs on our industries. He tore up a long-standing trade treaty with us. He accused us of taking advantage of your, ahem, largesse. It is no way to treat a friend.
I get that Brooks wrote his column as a caution to those Democrats who might alienate enough voters that Trump defaults back into office. But as a Canadian, I can only wonder, and feel disheartened, why you put him there in the first place.
10
The dial is moving David and if you cannot move with it, you will get left behind with the other people who used to be called Conservatives and are now with an inchoate rabble group of populists, know- nothings and nativists that are moving far to the right.
When Brooks says don't drive me away"- he was never with us as far as I can see, but again he can claim connection, however illusory. He does not care for progressive issues period.
5
I have only two words to say in response to this article: George McGovern.
He ran against a deeply unpopular Republican president (Richard Nixon, for the millennial crowd). He was far to the left of mainstream America, but was favored by the young baby boomer crowd. He also won only one state and the district of Columbia. My prediction is the Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders would also win California and New York.
345
@chip: And if the voters don't see the parallels between the disaster that was voting for Nixon, and the abyss we'd fall into from a second Trump term, then we deserve to fall in.
The fact of the matter is, anyone who cares about the fate of the nation, and who isn't a Trump-et(te), knows that voting for whoever the Democrats run is the only sane choice.
And if even Bernie Sanders is "too far to the left," it's only if you are convinced Trump would be better that you should vote for him. If, after what we've seen in action by now, it's clear that "anyone but Trump" is the superior choice, it never will be.
56
@chip
Sorry, Nixon was anything but unpopular. He was adored by the "greatest" generation and was actually sort of moderate on lots of things. Sad to say the Democratic candidate whoever, was toast by '70.
38
@chip Richard Nixon was NOT deeply unpopular by his re-election. After returning from China, he was a masterful politician at peak popularity.
At any rate, healthcare is less a turnoff to me than keeping kids in cages, undermining the environmental crisis, praising Russia and North Korea, trickle-down economics, xenophobia, and so many other things.
68
the only question for so-called moderates is how they can get rid of the current occupant of the white house. any choice that pulls votes away from the Democratic nominee - no matter how far left they may be perceived to be - is unacceptable in 2020. and this includes staying home from the polls. there is one objective, and that is ridding our nation of the pox that is Donald Trump.
4
The high cost of healthcare generally, and especially fear of medical bankruptcy affects nearly every adult in this country.
Seniors certainly aren't immune as long term care (such as for dementia) isn't covered by medicare and such costs can and do wipe out a whole lifetime of savings and investing.
I think the best approach for Democrats is to propose an expansion of medicare but without 'outlawing' private insurance.
Most people already experience a lot of anxiety around healthcare, and a solution that appears drastic will work against us. Outline a step by step approach instead.
Talk about the threat of medical bankruptcy and the fact that we pay the highest medical costs in the world! And compare the US system to other countries (Japan, Germany).
Most important - don't just talk, use charts to visually display the data.
When talking climate change and its impact, why not bring up the economics. First, point out the terrible impacts catastrophic flooding, increasingly severe storms, etc are already having on the entire ecosystem - physical destruction, huge costs, human mass migration. (We can cite the UN and US government multi agency reports, maybe DOD warnings).
There is a cost of ignoring or worsening climate change - but we should also stress that there are economic benefits - new technologies and industries - to be derived from addressing it. If we don't, other countries certainly will.
1
@Cal,
This may not be popular opinion but the consequences of being unable afford healthcare are going to come a lot sooner than the consequences of climate change.
Unless healthcare and income inequality are adequately addressed, climate change will continue to remain an issues of secondary (or perhaps even minimal) importance to those who are less affluent
This is a wonderful article. And it is an important article. I hope all Democrats read it.
4
@Mary
I hope all Republicans realize that after destroying their own party, they're not entitled to tell me what to do.
3
When Republicans run "to the right" in primary campaigns, the media and the pundits say, "but they will tack back to the center for the general election". Aren't the Democratic Presidential Candidates doing the same thing? Why can't the Democratic Party receive the same media coverage as Republicans?
2
Mr. Brooks is playing the same game he always does: to wit, "moderate" is defined as "things Mr. Brooks likes" and everything else is "progressive."
This is not the way the rest of the country thinks. 56% of the country supports single-payer healthcare.
(https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/)
6
@John Long Yes, EXCEPT if it means doing away with their current private insurance through their employer. Then the figure drops to 13%. That's why Buttigeig got that part of the debate right.
4
@John Long - Getting rid of private insurance means getting rid of Kaiser. "Single payer" will do nothing to improve quality or control costs. Neither does Obamacare.
The only way to effectively improve access to care, improve the quality of care, and controls costs is to get rid of the fee-for service (FFS) model and adopt the Kaiser HMO model.
The Kaiser model is the only model with the right economic incentives. When you are healthy, Kaiser saves money; when you are sick, Kaiser loses money. The FFS model is the opposite. With FFS, revenue comes in when you are sick, and when you are healthy, they lose money.
Abolishing private insurance is the opposite of what needs to be done.
1
I’m tired of being forced to the right. I’m sick of their lies. I love the candidates and ideas they are talking about that hit core aspects of our social issues. If you don’t like it tough. Create an independent party, a new Republican Party or whatever but stop asking me to save you from the people “YOU” put in power by sacrificing my vote for “YOU”.
If Trump wins then let it burn. The point being tough love time. If he wins democrats will likely turn blue states so blue that republicans will go extinct and we may even take the senate and hold him accountable.
We can’t lose by standing on our principles democrats. Any way we go fight and stop protecting republicans from themselves. They don’t like Trump then change the right wing party that are extremists in the worlds eyes.
7
I disagree,
People like Kamila Harris and Pete Buttigieg (I did indeed have to look up how to spell his name correctly...but I hope we all get more familiar with him) sound to me like moderates. Let's hope they or maybe, some other like Corey Booker, can pervail.
1
It's probably too late in the comments time line, but I'll issue this challenge (virtually unanswered - competently - in the decade+ that Ive been asking it):
Provide me with a coherent definition of "Left" and "Right"
As applicable now, in 2019.
To help you from giving an incoherent, irrelevant answer, you should know that the National Review has been convening panels since the early days of William F., and nobody yet has been able to give a coherent definition of "conservative," let alone Left and/or Right (and no, Lakoff's definition doesn't do it either).
Here's a little secret - barely 15% of the US can give anything resembling a coherent, credible definition of liberal or conservative.
And finally, here's the answer - there is no legitimate definition (as there is none for "center" or 'moderate" either. These terms - Left, Right, conservative, liberal, moderate, etc - these are all names of a team.
If Donald Trump (who ran on many so-called "Left" issues - which is why he beat all his Republican opponents) were to announce today that he is implementing a pro-abortion program, he would lose at most 5% of his adherents. Those who think he was chosen by God would simply conclude that God's decree had changed (just as the Southern Baptists had no problem in 1968 declaring that a fetus was not a full human, therefore any abortion, right up until just before birth, was not a problem).
People, give up these labels. We are all in this together.
5
I have not cast an enthusiastic vote for a President since Jimmy Carter. Based on what I saw for two nights I dare say that this year will be no exception.
The Dems never fail to disappoint. But, David, you get used to it.
3
There is no policy that a Democrat can espouse that can justify you voting for Donald Trump. And not voting for anyone is a vote for Donald Trump.
5
@adrianne Howard Schultz. I immediately googled him after the debate last night to see what other options there might be with moderate traditional Democrat positions.
He has absolutely no chance of winning, no third party candidate does. You have two choices Trump, because the Republicans don't have the courage to get rid of him, or the Democrat. That's if you choose to get rid of Trump otherwise you might as well just vote for him.
3
I couldn't agree more. The dems have lost all concern for everyone but the elites who promote a great society they can sit on top of and become immune to rules they make. The rules of course are not for them, but are for the unwashed masses. The elitism of this party stinks and they're only savior Joe Biden is being ripped to shreds. Good luck finding moderates who will vote with you.
6
To paraphrase Nicolle Wallace, I would vote for John Hickenlooper's bus. Anything, anybody, to make sure that we get a chance to recover from the most corrupt, soulless president in the history of this country. If Mr Brooks doesn't see that as the top priority in this election I'll be happy to blame him if we lose.
6
Anybody can win against Trump hands down. The man is thoroughly despised by most Americans except his base which is a minority.
6
The Democratic "debates" on Wednesday and Thursday nights were just warm ups for the circular firing squad that the candidates will stage in the near future. Each candidate will be given a paint ball gun with one round to shoot and smear the other candidate 180 degrees away. This will be the TV reality show equivalent of pig wrestling without having to set up a stye. It won't help any of the candidates, but it will make NBC lots of money.
Incidentally, it's not clear why Kamala Harris thought Joe Biden's words 40 some years ago were so "hurtful." She's not really an "African American." (Look it up. Neither of her parents were from Africa.) Identity politics does have its limits, even for Democrats.
5
Your party's race to the right the past 50 years means moving leftward is the only way forward. Either get used to that, Mr Brooks, or get used to more ignorance, more hate, more racism, more Russian influence, more diminution of rights, more lies - in other words, more Trump and more GOP.
8
Ridiculous. Vote for the person/party most likely to represent you and your beliefs. Opting out, while an option, is cowardice.
Moderates feeling "homeless", pfft. How exactly do you think the rest of us felt when moderates controlled the home? Everyone takes a turn being faced with a variety of choices, none of which truly appeal to them. You pick the best one of the lot. You do NOT stamp, whine and go home.
8
David Brooks has finally jumped the shark. It's a shame, really, since he was for a long time a powerful voice of Republican moderation. Now he is just an anti-Trump voice. So, the economy is broken, eh? Yes, that 3.8% unemployment figure is brutal. The lowest black unemployment rate in history, you say? Meaningless according to Brooks, I suppose. And worse yet, he begins this op-ed by asserting that he is looking for a Democrat to vote for. If the Times has any decency left for those of use who are moderates, please remove Mr. Brooks and replace him with an actual Republican. It's only fair.
2
We should recognize that one effective tactic of authoritarians is to paint the opposing side as too extreme to govern. That jingle from the right-wing propaganda machine--the same machine that brought us last election's hit, "Crooked Hillary"-- seems to be making inroads among Democrats.
The other one I'm hearing is, "we're not ready for a female president." Really? But we were "ready" for an incompetent, ignorant, America-bashing demagogue accused by 20+ women of sexual assault, with a history of bank fraud and money laundering? That's just sad.
7
"Dear Democrats: Be more like Republicans".
Sit down, David.
7
Mr. Brooks has carried water for the GOP for approx 30 years of downward deviancies and depradations and now he is looking for consideration from the Democrats. Weird.
6
Trump should be kicked out from WH, and I don't care how. His manner and personality is a toxic to this country. I am in favor of better border protection, better immigration laws, better health care and education system. I like some of Trump policies. The issue is Trump himself. His moral compass is corrupt and rotten.
Left of the Democrats cannot win the election, plain and simple because most of Americans are so brainwashed by corrupt capitalism. Why should I vote for my picks like Warren or Bernie when I know Trump will win. I choose instead to settle with Biden even though he is not perfect. At least he is more honest and well mannered compared to lunatics in WH. At least I won't be worried that War can happen somewhere in the world because T wants to bully a country.
3
David Brooks is a smart, eloquent Never-Trump Republican.
He has made a living writing his opinions for just about anybody who'd pay him-- the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Newsweek, and the Atlantic Monthly. Most of those opinions, though deftly expressed, were typical right-win PR--years of shilling for the Iraq war, for instance. He's now a syndicated columnist for the New York Times, a commentator on PBS--and he writes books. Like many successful men, he converted from Judaism, he traded in his first wife for a younger model, and spends a lot of time giving spiritual advice ("The Road to Character").
All in all, a nice career. But why in the word would any Democrat with a functioning brain take advice from him? Do you really believe a man who's done nothing but write conservative opinions for a living and gotten rich doing it is the ideal source of political wisdom for Democrats? Really? Really?
5
Ah yes, David...the threat of driving you and your conservative dictums away from the Republican Party ....when where were you when George W. managed to steal two elections from two moderates named Al Gore and John Kerry? Where were you when moderate Barack Obama who promised to get out of the Middle East kept our drones out there killing innocent civilians. All these moderates didn't get you to change parties...but suddenly Trump is just too much for your to withstand. Moderation is not the answer for America today and I seriously doubt whether it ever was. Because basically, moderation is a way of deflecting the attention away from the reality of change.
5
David:
I've read your column for years and tuned into PBS for your Friday commentaries. You always seemed like a thoughtful, compassionate human even though you are a republican. How anyone with the personality you seem to have could vote for trump after the uncountable acts of aggression, the destruction of our democracy, the decimation of our place in the world and the overall nastiness that trump exudes on a daily basis is unbelievable. I can't give you a pass. You're an intelligent person, you love this country. Where is your conscience toward the issues on our border, dying children, racism, misogyny, the dangerous return to making abortions illegal, the corruption, the inaction of the senate, the overall division in our country that is teetering toward civil war? I don't listen to or place much gravity in what most so called republicans or so called Christians say. But you sir, I have always had respect for. To have any doubt that another 4 years of trump will destroy our country is just plain head in the sand nonsense. Please David, for the love of our country if nothing else, vote for the democrat. I'll keep reading to see if you change your mind in the next 18 months. If not, you've lost a very loyal reader.
515
@Cecilia David's very first sentence: "I could never in a million years vote for Donald Trump."
88
@Cecilia
Read the piece again please. David said he would NOT vote for Trump. He is positively the best opinion writer in the country, bar none.
65
@Cecilia
Read the article! What he isn’t warning make so total sense.
32
Life should be lived in moderation, but Brooks doesn’t define it directly. Too bad, it would have looked like he might know what he was talking about, but he doesn’t. He is as much a distractor as Trump.
Does anyone believe, even for a second, that corporations pursue moderation?
4
Life isn't binary. It's not all that obvious that Bernie would be less destructive than Trump. Rather than unload ad hominems on Brooks I'd rather consider that he may have a point. A penetrating glimpse into the obvious point. The moderate majority is best not ignored.
4
Just who are the moderates in our country? Are they people who self-identify as moderates? What if to them being moderate means being neither a Trump conservative nor a left-leaning "pinko?" And what if identifying themselves as a moderate, they tend to lean somewhat to the left of center? My whole point is that you can't count on respondents to hold similar views as to what moderate actually means. If you question them more deeply, you might find that there really isn't a set definition among them. So, for me, Mr. Brooks, moderate means what you want it to mean. And that's the fallacy of the case that you have tried to build in your whole piece. And I find that pretty shallow.
1
This country has moved so far to the right on all but a few social issues on the last 20 years that the Democrats have a duty to pull us back toward the center (because, by the way, the vast majority of things you mention here would be very centrist positions and many of the world's other democracies). If for some reason it doesn't work this election, based on all of the available dates about the younger generations, they will start destroying the Republicans in every level of government within a decade.
4
When did we stop listening to each other? When did the news outlets succeed in driving us so far apart? When did we forget how to compromise for a solution that moved us forward? I fear Mr. Brooks might be right and we might be playing right into the devil's hands.
5
After following Mr Brooks for the past many years, at this point in our country's evolution 8 cannot help but feel that the necessary response to him today is, Thanks, but we can win without you. Even the mighty David Brooks (who has been wrong in the past) can be wrong on this. I couldn't have been more ptoud, of the candidates and of our country，than I was these past two nights, at the smart and heartfelt lively exchange of ideas.
3
The idea that the economy is booming is mythical for the middle class. I'm a middle-class mother of two, highly educated, and living on the coast. I have one full-time job (a good one) and two part-time gigs. That's the only way I can afford my rent; because I can't afford to buy in Los Angeles. And, yes, I have private insurance, and it's good, but I pay through the nose for it. If there were Medicare for all, I wouldn't have to have two part-time gigs, and maybe I could actually save to buy a home. Oh, and child care? I can't afford that at all. This country is a mess for most of us in the middle. We need change. Real change. Drastic change.
7
Here's an analogy (not sure how 100% apt) that keeps coming to mind regarding the "can't vote for Trump but can't vote for someone I'm not in love with either" quandary:
Imagine that you live in a society where the government provides everyone with meals. You may not skip a meal or cook your own. The one fair element is that every 4 years, the population can vote for what kind of food they want.
There is naturally a sizeable percentage of the population who wants Big Macs and the like for every meal. There is also a more health-conscious segment who wants healthier food; it is probably larger than the fast-food faction, but less unified.
In preliminary polling, a compromise like the Burger King Veggie Burger takes the lead --- not *super* healthy, but better than a Big Mac. But a sizable proportion of the healthy-food faction insists that their food must be organic, vegan, locally sourced, etc etc, or they will not vote for it. As a result, those folks abstain from voting (or vote with the Raw Alfalfa party) and everyone, including them, ends up with Big Macs rather than veggie burgers.
Granted, this is a somewhat silly analogy, but it should be pretty easy to see where Trump supporters, Bernie/ 3rd Partiers, and Clinton supporters fit in.
Is being so uncompromising that you end up with something worse than the thing you didn't really like really worth it?
3
No we can't win without Moderates or the center, but here is the honest truth, the system is broken, the parties are broken on both sides, Trumps way isn't the way to fix it he's had 3 years and shown to be incompetent, unethical, immoral, he has highlighted almost every part of our system that is broken. People talking change, suggesting a different path like Warren for instance maybe they deserve a chance, maybe she can fix some of the broken system. Maybe not though but it's either 4 more years of the same old and 4 years later into the game or try something new.
I watched Joe Biden and he's not the answer he's just another old politician who wants things to stay the same I'm sick of that. I'd vote for him if I had no choice besides Trump but I don't believe he will change anything or fix any of the problems we have as a society, government, or people. But that's my opinion. Now if you want a Republican who isn't Trump to run as a Democrat I doubt you'll get that so sorry to say that's your decision to make if that's something you can vote for or not.
3
I want the sane candidate to win. Trump supporters have lost their ability to reason. Anything Trump does is fine with them; they can't get past their consuming love to see his numerous faults. It is disturbing. I feel that there are enough American voters out there, luckily, who can make a sober decision to vote for a man or woman who is rational, principled, and civil.
2
In the larger historical context, not only of world wide democracies, but of the United States, there wasn't a single 'leftist' on either stage last night or the night before.
The Times itself just published an analysis of our two parties.
The Republican Party is truly now in the political realm of Mussolini and Franco. As a result, the centrists, like Warren and Sanders, 'seem' to people like Brooks, to be wild eyed radicals.
David, we do not need fugitives from modern day Republicanism in our party. They will only lead us down the path to failure again.
Take a hike, and fix your own house before you come crashing in and telling us how to run ours.
11
David, right now, a smart French poodle could be elected president by the majority of the American public. A German shepherd could win by a landslide.
The ground shifted in response to the so-called Freedom caucus. Odd name for an astro-turf organization funded by oligarchs, i.e., the Koch Brothers. I used to be Republican so was Liz Warren. Join us David is squashing what has been the party of no, the American Taliban.
I'm not saying everything progressives think is correct or even possible but it is American to dream spectacularly. We may fail but we keep trying. We may not agree but we can cut around the edges of our disagreements and solve our problems together. That's a better deal than the Freedom caucus.
4
For whatever else President Trump may or has done, he must not be re-elected because he has broken the norms of the US Presidency. His cabinet officials have come and gone, come and gone again, and now several top administration posts have only a temporary leader not approved by the Senate.
For these things alone, and the lack of a check against the President especially by Senator, and Congressional Republicans and a very biased Supreme Court, the re-election of Donal Trump may further erode the checks and balances that our founders and the American people at the time of the signing of the US Constitution meant how our government should function. Without a President with at least some morality, this nation will be in grave danger ion becoming an autocracy. Trumps want to delay the US Census, maybe he'll want to delay the next Presidential election until his death!
4
Which can't come soon enough.
4
What the Democrats have a problem with "is a failure to communicate." They repeatedly lose the "message war" to the GOP, because the GOP knows how to simplify their message into Black and White slogans, which in too many instances become the accepted language on certain issues.
One glaring example is identifying anti-abortion proponents as "Pro-Life," which has the intended effect of implying "Pro-Choice" proponents are NOT "Pro-Life."
Unfortunately, your op-ed has adopted all of the GOP talking points as to why a "Leftist" Democrat cannot draw majority support.
3
David Brooks - like the rest of the Republican party - wants to end Medicare for senior citizens.
David Brooks hates Medicare. His political idols are the right wing politicians who said Harry S. Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson were socialists for getting Medicare enacted.
David Brooks would refuse to vote for Harry S. Truman and would call him a socialist because Truman believed in Medicare.
If David Brooks had his way, all seniors would be thrown off Medicare immediately and Medicare would be abolished.
3
Why not demonstrate some of those ”values” you're touting in the media? If you're truly values-driven, how could you threaten a vote for a second term for trump?
7
Decriminalizing migration is NOT the same thing as "open borders."
We can have well-regulated borders that pre-empt and deter drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, human sex trafficking, and the entry of criminals and terrorists without turning desperate people seeking safety, and industrious people seeking hard work, into criminals.
In fact, it is imperative that we use border enforcement resources for these goals.
Until recently, crossing our border without documentation was a civil, not a criminal, offense. Today immigration comprises more than half the cases in the federal judiciary--a waste and an aberration.
Who benefits from criminalizing immigration: those with a financial stake in our growing private prison industry; and politicians who stoop to racist scapegoating to maintain their electoral edge.
7
Mr. Brooks is nothing if not consistent! Always towing the party line just doing it more politely, it’s the reason the word “progressive” means to move forward as he tries to move us back.
Very subtle though, Thomas Frank called it out well in his book “what’s the matter with Kansas,” Mr. Brooks has a talent for keeping things stuck in the mud, and plays on the powers of myth at time of crisis; moderates will many times foolishly turn to conservatives for advice. That approach works best before their was science, and Investigative journalism
Sounding reasonable is not the same as talking intelligently, Kamla and Pete have made that clear!
A dream ticket with these two would be an understatement!
3
Time for Democrats to be bold. Not stupid.
Reform healthcare yes .... Medicare for all maybe if well crafted. ACA is OK only as a starting point for reform.
But the Big Prize is to be a sane candidate who thinks before she speaks and places America and Americans ahead of self-interest, nepotism or crony capitalism.
No need for Democrats to commit hara-kiri on health care or any other high profile issue - climate change, immigration and Middle East war.
Middle of the road flexible common-sense approach combined with razor sharp focus on probity and integrity will be enough to win against Trump.
I think Elizabeth Warren has tried to have to both ways on the healthcare issue. Last week she told the NYT, “I choose neither.”
Or: “I’d like to work on the ACA(reverse how the Republicans quietly stripped it and let Obama take the blame for what they did to it) and improve it and also eventually arrive at Universal Healthcare.” More or less.
Then at the debate she came down far-left by raising her hand. And yet I think she is extremely honest but as Howard Dean said on The Daily Show last night(6/27/19) he did not win by telling the truth 100% of the time. He did not win.
1
At all levels of American politics, it has always been thus. Candidates of both parties lean to the extremes in the primary race, then tack furiously back to the center when the nomination is in hand. If the Democratic nominee can do this successfully, she or he will beat Donald Trump. What will be fascinating to watch is if Donald Trump, who has no primary challengers, continues to embrace far-right positions to "solidify his base" when he shouldn't have to. That is a true sign of the weakness of Donald Trump.
In the very likely event Mitch McConnell maintains control of the Senate, the policy agenda of a newly elected Democratic President in 2021 becomes rather moot. (Although I do wonder whether McConnell would be quite as resistant to bipartisanship with a President Biden?) Therefore earnestly moderate voters like David are free to vote for the candidate who will restore the greatest moral authority to the Bully Pulpit.
1
Mr. Brooks,
Your first sentence is the answer to your second. Thanks to the stranglehold that is our two-party system, you either vote for the winner or the loser. Inevitably, the "other" path - not voting at all - almost always equates to the first option. So, you could never vote for Trump? Good! Don't. 'Nuff said.
1
Finally, an op that perfectly captures my reality. As a well-educated vet of 73, officially "independent", I see the GOP as having abandoned honor and integrity, and now the Dem's are lurching into their own twisted extremes. This leaves far too many of us with no viable party that speaks for us.
Elliot, going out with a whimper, or 'Billy, with tales of sound and fury...?
3
Thank you David Brooks! I am a longtime Democrat who has watched in horror as the party of Lincoln and "conservatism" embraced a dishonest and amoral demagogue. They have alienated people, like my parents (lifelong Republicans) along with many other thoughtful folks in the center. Now, my party is, confusingly, working hard to alienate and move away from the majority as well, offering everything (college, healthcare, etc.) for free and doubling down on idealistic and impractical answers to tough questions about immigration, political correctness, economic inequality, and our nation's fiscal health. The Republican's chaotic and irrational lurch to the right on social and environmental issues has opened a huge space in the center for a sane, compassionate, common sense candidate. The reason that Hillary Clinton's candidacy failed was not because she was a centrist (to many Republicans, she was viewed as an extreme leftist), it was that she was damaged goods - demonized for years by the right and undercut and destabilized from the left. I pray that my fellow Democratic voters will look for common ground with Independents and alienated Republicans like Mr. Brooks. It is the most sure path to victory in 2020 and would provide the stability and comfort so badly needed by our traumatized and damaged nation.
6
What, you think moderates can't be in favor of something better than employer-based insurance? I disagree.
I have health insurance through my employer and I'm happy with it. I'd be happy with Medicare for all, or single payer, or whatever. Maybe happier. It's the health care that matters. Not anything else.
When I retire, the employer insurance goes away, whether I want it to or not.
7
David Brooks this is not a time to be overly idealistic. I will vote for whomever the dems put up against trump for the sake of the country. If Kasich was on the ticket I would vote for him if it meant dismantling the attack that the current republicans are waging on our democracy.
5
Instead of continually insisting that Democrats become Republicans in order to win his support, maybe David could put his efforts into calling for reasonableness and sanity within the Republican party.
On second thought, since he knows that is not possible, I guess there is some logic to his position.
5
David, you are right-of-center in most of your views in my opinion. I appreciate that you have more moderate views than many contemporary "conservatives" who sound more and more like white nationalist extremists. I'm glad you won't vote for Trump. And it is too bad that we only have two parties. I think it would be better to have a multi-party system, so voters could have choices that better correspond to their political views. Then you would have a political home. But we don't. So should the Democratic party move to the right to accommodate disaffected Republicans like you or move to the left to accommodate progressives who have waited far to long (and don't want to keep waiting until the planet is 10 degrees hotter on average) for a progressive government? For once I think Dems should adopt policies based on principles and the good of the planet, not just on "electability." So my response to your essay is "Dems, please don't drive me and other progressives away."
5
David Brooks does not mention the 1 trillion in deficit that is caused by Trump tax cuts. The tax cut was supposed to pay for itself. As expected it didn't. For now a lot of people are doing better but what about our children and grand children who have to pay this debt off?
It is a bit like having a great time by charging your credit cards to the max. Can't deny that you are having a good time but the party shall end.
If you look at Trump's Taj Mahal Casino and how it eventually went bankrupt you will be able to understand how he does things. As he said he will be dead by the time his legacy gets discussed.
4
Dear Mr. Brooks: Did you see the article that showed how far right the GOP has gone and how the Democrats are closer to the center? The candidates agendas may appear to be radical, but many are common sense solutions. It is the conservatives that have gone crazy radical. But then again, maybe you live in a gerrymandered district and your vote doesn’t count much anyway, so don’t worry.
4
Thank you, Mr. Brooks. I fear Dems underestimate how many single issue voters there are in America, especially for guns, immigrants, and abortion. Even if they don't like Trump, they'd tolerate the destruction of public civility rather than accept a progressive agenda for any of these issues. No matter that the Executive's most important function is foreign policy, which has little to do with any of this.
3
@Kevin Vlack, we are enduring much, much more than the destruction of public civility. We very well could be headed for total disaster if this ship can't get turned around. In order for that to happen, we need some dialogue rather than finger pointing, reasonable compromise rather than my way or the highway. The good of our country and our fellows needs to come before party.
2
@Julianne Heck, thank you for your thoughtful reply. Since Trump's inconceivable election, I've had more dialogue with voters outside my comfort zone in rural Missouri. The conversations I've had were civil and simple, and always about one of the issues we've been arguing about for decades (centuries?). It was never about foreign policy or anything abstract like "common decency".
The problem is you are not a real moderate. Moderates now fall in the conservative camp because the right has gone to the extreme, taking you along with them. If you are considering Trump over any of the Democratic candidates, then you are also a far-right extremist.
12
I, too, believe top ranked Democrats are taking the wrong approach on health care, but I understand the practicality. Bernie Sanders made significant inroads with his Medicare for All. No one dares to lose that segment of voters.
My belief is that it cannot happen regardless of who is elected. As you point out the vast majority is happy with employer health plans. And benefit packages are certainly an important consideration to employees considering alternative employers.
Medicare without privately purchased supplements is at best bare bones. It's quoted administration cost does not reflect efficiency, just the lack of profit that is vital for any private industry.
The same imperative exists with the issue of immigration. The horrid conditions that make daily news force a public stance that will not receive bipartisan support.
Democratic candidates have to first get on the ballot. Republicans could balance the discussion by removing support for reelection and promoting a rational alternative.
BTW this is Kate Wickham, not John.
2
A frequent question being asked is: which Democratic candidate would be most likely to beat Donald Trump. But I don’t expect Trump to be the Republican nominee in 2020. He is way too much of a liability, and his candidacy would have the effect of dragging down Republican candidates running for positions in the Senate and the House. Trump has another year in which he will continue to do and say very harmful things in what appears to be an infinite downward spiral. As Trump himself frequently says: “We’ll see what happens.”
2
The Democratic Party has moved so far to the right that it is virtually indistinguishable from Nixon’s GOP. For a Republican like Brooks to describe the candidates as “liberal” is laughable to liberals. With the exceptions of Bernie, Warren and Tulsi Gabbard, all of the candidates are moderate or conservative. The Democrats have run moderate to conservative candidates in every election since McGovern and have lost most of them. Perhaps it is time to try some progressive ideas instead
9
I completely disagree with Mr. Brooks. We can argue back and forth but at the end I believe that whoever is the Democratic candidate must get his vote -even if (s)he is too far to the left for him: it is a moral duty; maybe it would help for him to see it as a vote agains trump.
4
Mr Brooks - If I were you I'd be spending a LOT more effort looking into supporting primary challengers and doing other things to try to fix your broken party than spending time worrying about what the Democrats are doing.
We're going to do what we're going to do, and you can vote however you want.
7
RE: "The party seems to think it can win without any of the 35 percent of us in the moderate camp, "
That is precisely the winning formula for the Republicans where they race to right to "out conservative" one another, and as a recent commenter from Alabama said, the one who goes right-most wins every time.
I always wonder. Why is it that what works brilliantly for the right is a non-starter for anyone claiming to be a Republican considering to vote for a Democrat. As if they want to appear open-minded but erect barriers that that they can blame on someone else. They claimed they could not vote for a liar or someone who subverts the law as they claim Hillary Clinton did, but then vote Donald Trump.
The sauce for the goose is poison for the gander it seems.
3
Brooks is being naive. The Democratic nominee will certainly tack towards the center, as most candidates do. Trump did although it was all lies. He didn’t win by executing the policies that he has; that wouldn’t have put him over the top.
1
Whatever Democratic moderates say, you know they want Medicare for All or a public option. That's in the Democratic DNA, and moderates know as well as anyone that employer-based insurance leaves you one illness or layoff from poverty. But they won't pursue this for the same reason some of them won't vote for a woman again after Hillary Clinton's loss. They remember losing elections or legislative battles over healthcare, and it's painful for them to revisit. So, unlike Republicans after a loss, they quit. Their rallying cry is: "Please hurt me less and I promise to stop complaining!" After a defeat the Republicans still charge up San Juan Hill, but the Democrats' DNA includes a streak of fear and cowardice.
Very vote counts, but I’m sick of pundits treating theirs as if they belonged to Solomon.
3
As far as I'm concerned, David is welcome to the fight against Trumpism but he is not going to be a leader.
He forefeited any right to that by helping to make the Republican party into what it is today.
7
Did you even read the first few paragraphs? 70% of Americans call themselves "center-right". The left doesn't want to believe that, but whichever century they realize this...they may begin to win at politics again.
And people like Biden know that the "left" never shows up anyway. Not for McGovern, nor Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, Hillary or even Obama's midterms.
2
@TONY B
Nor in 2018.
1
I disagree. We are a country of two parties and the Republicans have chosen Donald Trump. I want a candidate who represents me and what I believe are Democratic ideals, not just someone who can beat Trump. And in the end, if moderate Democrats think Trump is the better choice, well then that's the land we live in. But I think going to some middle of the road candidate who will try to appease everyone is a losing strategy. Please don't forget, there are now more millennials than baby boomers. If David Brooks decides to stay home on election day (I highly doubt it, perhaps if we have the right candidate, the millennials will fill his space. Now is the time to stand for something besides just getting elected.
479
@BoulderEagle The millennials will not be deciding this election. The people in Milwaukee and Detroit who decided not to vote in 2016 will be the ones to decide who wins by showing up at the polls (2012)or not (2016). Get a plan together that gets them to the polls, it won't even matter who is selected to run against Trump if they can get voters to vote.
37
@JJ
Bernie Sanders excites people to vote.
The Powerful and the Establishment and its Media intend to prevent Sanders from getting the nomination. I think they prefer Trump.
Sanders could have beaten Trump in 2016, but the Establishment Media gave the attention and time to Trump and Hillary.
Sanders' ideas have already won.
He made clear in the debate, what is necessary now is to elect a Democratic nominee with the courage to stand for the People against the Powerful.
Bernie Sanders will win in 2020.
9
@BoulderEagle, I don't know any Democrat, moderate or otherwise, who would even dream of voting for Donald Trump. We need every eligible person to get out and vote in the upcoming election. Absolutely no excuse for not doing our civic duty. NONE.
41
Even theoretically "Liberal" or "progressive" presidents, state & federal administrations actually promoted conservatism in terms of religious fundamentalism, and in many cases tactically mixed it with racism (read, white supremacy). Those two always accompany crony capitalism, mainly since Reagan era.
Public education also got polluted by underlying religious fundamentalism and racism, of course, more openly in Red states. One can just look around and see so many roadside billboards telling fairy-tales about God/Jesus/Christianity and such "conservative" ideas. Then compare how many you can find to denounce such myths or telling scientific truth about such issues. Imagine how so many people across the country, mainly in red "conservative" states, would react if someone put a big billboard denouncing God/Religion/White Supremacy or such "conservative" issues.
It seems that time has come for those "liberals" to conclude that time to compromise or accommodate "conservatives" are not working. It actually never worked for long. Sometime ago, one Op-Ed in The Times concluded USA under Trump is very close to 2nd civil-war- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/opinion/the-american-civil-war-part-ii.html.
In fact, I think we reached to this state as reconstruction after civil war was totally disrupted and Jim Crow era set in. Now the "moderates" need to pick up a side based on their core values and education, if they want to be on the right side of history.
2
David, get with the program. The time of the middle-class old white guy is so over. Move left with us or find yourself surrounded by the you-know-who-ites.
5
The point isn't that David needs to be convinced to "suck it up" and vote for a Democrat. His columns and his opening line clearly convey that he will not and cannot do that. There are less involved and contemplative voters in the middle that also need to vote for that Democrat if Trump is to be displaced.
3
Where you gonna go? For decades, progressives have been ‘instructed’ by wise centrists to folllow the donor-sucking, war-mongering establishment Dems. Because, where else could they go?
1
Mr Brooks is using his tried and true trope: damning his opposition by pretending to praise them. He will never cross the aisle: his entire career has been as a GOP enabler. His moony, midlife crisis New Agey humanism is the same sort of ruse he says he wants from the Democrats. He wants to vote for a Democrat who's basically a Republican with good manners and who reads books. Bless his heart!
8
Will there be a candidate I can vote for?
There damn well better be. Do you really want to live with a staunchly right-wing Supreme Court (not to even mention the lower courts) for the rest of your and your children's lives? Do you realize what is at stake?
I'd be holding my nose to vote for Sanders, and I'll stop watching politics if I have to see Biden and Trump fight with each other, but I'll be damned if I wouldn't vote for Marianne Williamson if it means getting Trump away from judicial appointments.
7
What's frustrating about the line of reasoning in this piece is that it ignores the asymmetry of the parties' respective swings left and right. The Dems are talking about structural reforms to a capitalist system, yet the Repubs have swung so far to the right that, as Paul Krugman pointed out, they would be called "white nationalist extremists" if they were a European party.
5
We've gotten along without you for years and years, and I imagine we can do just fine
without you.
4
Start your own moderate party. You want yourself protected; you are the elite that have been protecting themselves. If you don't want to own the (perhaps unintended) consequences of what you have reaped then you are still part of the problem. It seems to me that if we don't put out bold visions for the future the inevitable compromise will be the crap we have.
2
I don't remember, did Mr. Brooks support the fairly moderate Hillary Clinton against Trump??.....didn't think so
6
This is a joke, right? A registered Republican who has been a committed right-wing culture warrior throughout his career now wants to pretend he is "moderate"? And he demands that Democrats save him from the porcine Republican vulgarian he and other "conservatives" like him helped put in the White House? And Dems are to do this by fielding a "moderate" presidential candidate? And by "moderate" he means supporting Republican-lite policies?
OK. Let me tell one too: I hear Hilary Clinton is still out of work, Mr. Brooks. Give her a ring.
7
I see comments of people claiming to be “liberal” scared of electing a true liberal candidate.
I am reminded of all those people (liberals included) who in 2008 said “America is not ready for a black president. If we nominate Obama we lose big time.” Conservatives we’re licking their chops, hoping that “unelectable” Obama would beat certain-winner Hillary in the primary. How foolish does that kind of thinking look now?
2
Mr. Brooks, give Dylan's important and prophetic song from the mid-1960s. Alas, the progress thrust may cause the loss of your vote.
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'
3
David - time for you to retire along with Joe Biden. Time to pass the torch to rational people who care about his country and do not like the direction the GOP is taking (against voting, against the middle class, against fair elections, against unbiased justice, etc.).
7
Mr. Trump will be forced from office soon enough.
By the 22nd Amendment, on Jan. 20, 2025.
1
ok for the repubs to drag the country kicking and screaming to the right then I suppose. The left move would actually help people in their lives.
6
I want someone who can beat Trump. Biden is an honest and honorable man. He has a record that not one of his opponents can compete with. He has made friends for America all over the world. Obama chose him not once, but twice. If that’s settling, I plead guilty.
2
I’ve almost always liked your columns, David. I hate to think you would sit out this crucial election because the Dem candidate isn’t to your liking. It’s almost like giving your vote to Trump. After all, it’s either one or the other.
But then, if you vote in NY, it won’t matter. Another problem: all votes aren’t equal.
4
David Brooks, why don't you tell it to your own party? Because the Republican Party drove you away you think the Democratic Party should become the moderate Republican Party? I don't think so.
5
Wah wah. Poor David Brooks will have to choose between voting for a lying, mentally and intellectually incompetent con man who is endangering the viability of the nation itself, or someone who will substitute a government-run health care system that will ultimately cost him less money for his privately-run health care system that will surely attempt to abandon him if he actually needs it. How can he possibly make such a Sophie's choice...?
6
Mr. Brooks, with all due respect to you and the folks you speak for, but your sensibilities and concerns should be secondary or even tertiary to those of the Black community, more specifical, Black Women who are, and have always been, the underappreciated backbone of the Democratic Party!! But, I do understand how your sense of entitlement and privilege compels to think that we should cater to you and be grateful for the opportunity. However, and I say this with respect and humility, you, and the folks you speak for, are free to join our cause—you can even offer suggestions—and we will welcome you with open arms, but you can never dictate our agenda, or our plans and goals, or the strategies and tactics we choose to achieve them. The mythological days when you rode in on your white horse to save us from ourselves are as long gone as the days that Trump dreams of when he puts on a MAGA hat!!
3
Whatever it takes the democrats need to put up candidates for prez and vp that can take on Trump in a TV debate his medium that he has mastered. Do Americans want a serious president or an entertainer in the pocket of Putin and MSB. Trump is colorful and fun to watch like tv wrestling but Trump has fascist tendencies and would rule as a dictator if he can get away with it. AG Barr and McCONNELL are comfortable with Trump as dictator as long as it makes the GOP the ruling party and the donor class in charge. Dems need to get into a room and figure out how we can save our democracy as we may lose it if Trump gets re-elected with Putin's help he just asked for with a wink and a nod.
1
Anybody but Donald is a candidate you can vote for.
6
57% of the 45% are lying.
The thing that makes Trump attractive is the Nationalist Populism. Nobody ever lost an incumbent campaign because they were too patriotic.
Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren are also Nationalist Populists, but they're also Marxists.
Sorry..but the people who left the Democrat Party over the last 6 years because of rabid social agendas aren't coming back to the Democrat Party..not as long as Trump is there doing their bidding.
Sanders and Warren will get their clocks cleaned by Trump.
Even the gaggle of candidates raising their hand to offer free healthcare to illegals should be a federal charge against everyone of them for inviting foreign interference in an election.
You can't promise free stuff to foreign nationals during a campaign in exchange for their support.
That's called an inkind contribution and it's ILLEGAL!!!
2
Mr. Brooks, what is this sentence supposed to mean? "So now you’ve got a lot of candidates who sound operationally open borders."
1
Hey, David. Figure out the difference between left and right. Your left is a little too far to the right.
5
Drive you away? C'mon, David - you voted for Trump. Just be a mensch and admit it. Or is integrity for other people, too?
6
Why on earth should anyone listen to David Brooks’s opinion on anything? He has been wrong over and over again for nearly decades while almost never admitting a mistake.
7
Bottom line! - We progressives just can't get over the fact that any normal caring human being could support a moral monstor and grifter and sick individual like trump.
That surely his original supporters -minus a minority of sociopaths like him -would actually vote for him this time around after witnessing the lies and corruption and ethical carnage he has spread across the world.
That any considerations of wealth -even for the wealthy could overcome his perfidy.
That even the bronze age moralists from the christian absurdidts will come to their senses and go back to jesus for their core values. (the ultimate stretch i would agree)
We progressive humanists say let's roll the dice and bet on a tsunamic coalition of the righteous to sweep away this human stain upon our politics and culture.
The young and the minorities and the women AND all men and women of good concsience.
If the trogs win -so be it -they will have a lot to answer for from their grandchildren.
6
You are so right!
1
What a ridiculous premise. Really, if what the Dems are proposing is something you consider "too far left" then you should examine why you are now on the fringes of the right wing. NOTHING they have proposed is anywhere near "left wing." Rather it is all common sense solutions to problems caused by the move of the Repubs to the far fringes of the ultra right wing, a place where everyone is on their own and sociopaths rule the country (See: Trump, McConnel, and every Repub politician scrambling to prove how sociopathic they can be.)
Too bad you cannot recognize your ultra right wingness. But that is just par for the course and proves once again that right wingers are the most uninformed people in the country and are clueless about the real world.
6
So...making the USA work for all its citizens is a radical left-wing idea...?
8
Mr. Brooks. Learn to compromise. Do the right thing for your country.
3
David,
First of all, there is absolutely nothing ‘moderate’ about a private, for-profit ‘healthcare system’ that
A) leaves millions of our fellow citizens unable to see a doctor or afford medicine
B) is almost twice as expensive as any other nation’s (with poorer outcomes)
and
C) is the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the country.
The only reason that most Americans say they are satisfied with their employer-based insurance program is:
A) They know the alternative is dying because they can’t afford pay for their insulin out-of-pocket because pharmaceutical companies can charge whatever they want.
B) They have no idea how good people in socialist hellholes like Sweden and Germany have it.
Sincerely,
An American in Europe
6
I'd like to see pro GOP columnists like Brooks driven away from the NYT op ed page! But otoh, he and his type do serve an educational purpose to elict reader comments that counter their weak arguments. They show up unrealistic, narrow views of what is center/left/right in US politics.
See NYT---“What Happened to America’s Political Center of Gravity?”
It says “The Republican Party leans much farther right than most traditional conservative parties in Western Europe and Canada.”
And could add, now leans further right than even some GOP of our past generations. We need this comparison constantly to see today's distorted politics more clearly.
What's distorted our definitions of left/right/center is legalized big money in elections, and the rise of FOX News media.
Best example--health care for all,that's centrist in dozens of capitalist democracies for generations, is here still labeled left wing.
So any reduction in excessive and exploitive private profit that hurts millions of Americans is simply called big govt, left wing, anti American interference into private property.
For years, the main media and centrist Democrats have not strongly countered this distortion. We need columns on what they have been afraid of.
2
Dear Mr. Brooks ... this is such a typical David Brooks-centric view. First, remember you're republican and don't exactly exude progressive Dem policies. With respect, what makes you think that Democrats actually are concerned about you "enlightened republican views." We're not.
The policies programs that the Democratic nominee will promote will depend on Democratic Primary voters. These policies and woman/man who holds them will weathered a primary process that will be what Democratic voters select ... not yours Mr. Brooks, not even close.
We wish you well in your eventual choice ... maybe you'll just decide to stay in your elite ivory tower and not vote at all. You're choice
6
I always get the sense that your thought processes are trapped in your cranium - forever bouncing around, trying new pathways but never really able to escape and see outside. In other words a fuddy-duddy intellectual still longing for the good old days of endless philosophizing with William F. Buckley. It walked behoove you to read the comments replying to your column and begin to see the forest from the trees - recommendation #1 , read Barbara Rank's comment which summarizes better than I could the absurdity of the trade-off which gives you pause. Instead of 'thinking' so much, open your eyes and see what is right in front of you. Can you handle it?
5
David, what about Howard Schultz?
"The progressive narrative...is dominating because no moderate wants to bear the brunt of progressive fury by opposing it." WRONG -- it's because the moderates HAVE NO NARRATIVE. If moderates can't stand up with a platform that wins progressives, how can we expect them to stand up to Russia, China, Iran?
You're right about one thing, Mr. Brooks: "All the energy and competition is on the progressive side." If the only campaign issue moderates have is that we should be more "civil," they will lose.
So, Brooks threatens to stay home with his vote because, he whines, the Democratic party isn't making a home for his "moderate" views.
The heart of patriotism and the only way this country can work is if people start to recognize they have a responsibility to vote. The choice may not be perfect. They may have to hold their noses. But if you wait for perfection, and you sit on your hands demanding that every candidate "earn my vote," the country goes to the Trumps.
3
My question for Mr. Bruni and others like him is, Will you let the perfect be the enemy of the good? Chances are high that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will endorse at least some policies further left than you would like. But is Trump preferable?
I'm pretty sure I won't agree with everything the ultimate nominee stands for either. I'm a long time Independent who only registered as a Democrat so that I would be able to vote in the primaries. All of the Democratic candidates are further to the left on immigration than I am, including Biden. I support universal healthcare, whatever form that takes. I don't support gun control. I don't like identity politics. I support reforming the student loan system, not making all college free for everybody. I believe absolutely in a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. So I would never vote for Trump. Therefore, even though I may disagree with some of the candidate's positions, whoever the Democratic nominee ultimately is, they've got my vote. Do they have yours?
2
Please Mr. Brooks allow me to show you the exit so you can drive away. Where you go I don't really care. But according to the sneakily pernicious "Middle" the ideas of basic rights is anathema to our country.
7
@zigful26 -- Exactly. Every other country can do health care, but we can't because it is too expensive?
Every other country gets its health care cheaper too, but we can't because of our respect for intellectual property rights? We just need to pay twice as much as elsewhere, drugs even more than that?
We just can't avoid imprisoning more people than anywhere else in the world? Even Russia?
We can't afford the college we could afford for my generation? We can't provide the education almost all of Europe does, what Israel does, what Japan does? Why? So we can have a few more billionaires than other places?
3
One question: Why did many voters ,especially Midwesterners vote for Obama in 2008 and 2012 but for Trump in 2016?
Personally I think that Hillary was status quo ,a la Joe Biden, and people hurting the most in this country knew that and took a chance on Trump. Of course he has not done what he said,but it shows desperation, not interest in center right Joe Biden.
4
The majority of Americans support universal health care, not because they are Marxists, but because they sometimes get sick--and when they do, they discover that the "great" coverage they thought they had will not meet their needs.
"Socializing" healthcare should not be any more controversial than maintaining "socialism" in our military. If it's the best way to provide for our protection, then there is no reason to be frightened away by political labels.
7
When will any US politician look at the Australian health care system? Dual track: universal plus private.Private is totally free market, consumer rather than employee/ employer oriented. You can change jobs every month if you want to, and still retain the SAME policy! Let that sink in.
Would Americans let their employer arrange what kind of make of auto they can buy, or what college their kids can go to? Why not have the freedom to purchase directly whatever private health care policy you want?
All Aus. private health insurance companies are national companies, operating in every state, every Municipality ( US county)
All doctors accept whatever your private insurance is.
This is free market capitalism at its best. It seems the US one is sadly not a free market system. What US politician will stand up for true free market health care?
4
I am not a fan of Brooks’ lean to the right. But I am concerned that many voters will feel their employer insurance will not be replaced by something similar.
Or, that universal healthcare will be such a mess. All good intentions aside, families just want to be less worried about the day to day.
It is such a leap for voters to take. Will I have insurance, and when I vote for an alternative , will it hurt me for even a short time? Fair questions.
I live in Luxembourg, we have incredible social health care. But our country has less than 1 million citizens. And it has been a staple, no one stresses about sickness or work leave.
Americans who work here are besides themselves, and becoming citizens by the the droves.
Many of them are American republicans. The irony is the saddest part.
3
left and right are relative. a move to the left at this point will barely get us to an historically recognizable center. i walked around my busy new england tourist town yesterday carrying a sign stating "stop trump gop crimes against families'. supportive response emphasized government policy; while negative response praised trump as a hero and/or denigrated me as a communist. what to say about leftists wanting law and order in government and rightists indulging in emotional excess?
5
In 2016, I held my nose and voted for Clinton, not because she was a great candidate but because Trump was worse. In subsequent special elections and the midterms, I have supported a mix of Democrat and Republican candidates based on their policies. After listening to debates over the last 2 days, I am seriously wondering who I would vote for ... maybe a 3rd party candidate. Why? Because most suggestions made by these candidates scares me ... how are we going to pay for it all? Democrats always answer by taxing the rich or taxing the upper 20% - guess what, I am in that 20% and I already have a substantial tax burden because I receive a W-2 and can't take advantage of all the business loopholes in the tax code.
I read through some of the comments here and it saddens me. The general gist of comments are either get on board with the progressive policies or get out of the party. You don't win votes and elections with that kind of attitude. Democrats would be wise to keep in mind that while the costs are flooded with progressives, the South and Middle America are not. It does't matter if progressive policies resonate with people in CA, NYC, and WA. Winning those states will not win you the White House or Congress. People need to learn the art of listening to others concerns and compromising, otherwise the Democratic party is going to remain in the minority.
4
@PKWhy did middle America support Obama and then go for Trump? Obama did not deliver on his promises and they viewed Hillary as more of the same...a la Biden.
1
Clinton was not only a great candidate, she was the ONLY even remotely qualified person in that gang of dimwits, incompetents, and poseurs running against her. Trump, if course, exemplified all three.
1
It is your "conservative," Republican ilk, Mr Brooks, who continue to enable and empower the twin embarrassments of Trump and McConnell.
If McConnell's betrayals of Senatorial dignity and mutual respect, and Trump's dark, fear-mongering nature, are not already enough to convince you to support the Democrats in 2020, you can stop wasting your words.
6
There was almost nothing for a Democratic moderate like me to cheer in these debates. I’m left with the feeling that the party wants to do away with private insurance while providing coverage to illegal immigrants.
They need to tighten that up or Trump will batter them.
6
Brooks, you are confusing politeness and decorum and manners with morality, which is absolutely appalling.
*All* democrats have been doing for the past 3 years is beating the drum that it is not moral to detain children; destroy the environment; sexually harass/assault women; pay men and women unequally; refuse to pay people a living wage; be a homophobe; be racist; deny women the right to an abortion; deny people health care; deny children education; or to lie, insult people, mock the disabled, mock women based on their appearance, swindle people out of money.. the list goes on.
4
The thinking here is too self-centred. You can't vote for Trump, fair enough. But why? Maybe you can't abide affirming him. But this shouldn't cause you to abstain just because you think his opponent will lose. Maybe you're wrong, maybe it's a toss-up. Every abstention then helps Trump. Why do this? It's one thing to advise Democrats not to go too far to the left. It's another thing to help elect Trump if the Democrats don't take your advice. Nobody in the running is a Stalin. If you are happy to elect Trump without yourself voting for him, I think you're too concerned with the cleanliness of your hands. Get them dirty.
2
Raise your hands if you want Donald Trump to win re-election in 2020.
2
Reading this made me realize just how selfishly I've been looking at the issues. I had been concerned with all the little things, like, I dunno, maintaining the NATO alliance, a planet that supports enough bio-diversity that we can still grow food, having the moral fortitude to condemn neo-Nazis and not insult foreign leaders - that kind of thing. Maybe even, after almost two and a half centuries, seeing a president who looks like me. If not that, maybe just a person who hasn't been accused of sexual assault by more than 20 women. Someone capable of staffing an administration with people who aren't aligned with lobbyists of the industry they are tasked with regulating. If not that, then how about someone simply capable of staffing an administration for a period in excess of several months.
I now see that my little concerns are inadequate in the face of the big issues - like ensuring that people who are satisfied with their health insurance arrangements remain undisturbed.
1120
@maggie I agree with you about the issues that need to be addressed, but I think that the pursuit of a perfect solution to the issues may hamper the Democrat's ability to realistically achieve those goals. You need a majority of the population behind you to win the elections and implement policy with public support, and you won't get there by dragging the party further leftward and abandoning the middle. Best case scenario, those people vote for the Democrats anyway, but resent the fact, worst case you drive centrist voters into Trump's arms. The Democrats need to realize that perfect is the enemy of good, and an aggressive pursuit of these very liberal policies may cause many to abandon the party, without another place to go, which then leaves the Democratic Party itself up a creek with no paddle.
45
@maggie Author is a Republican. We will never pull Republicans away from their God Trump. Vote for any Democrat; guaranteed to be better than the GOP.
47
@Joseph
The "aggressive pursuit of these very liberal policies" may excite many more to vote to have
A Future To Believe In!
Bernie Sanders ideas have already won.
President Bernie Sanders will lead with integrity and courage to implement those ideas.
You may like the status quo of mediocre education for most, extortionate health care with mediocre outcomes, lots of violence and the most colossal income/wealth inequality in the developed world... but the US could be better.
The time for CHANGE is NOW!
President Bernie Sanders 2020!
11
This is, actually, a trenchant analysis.
I was for Warren until she self immolated, unnecessarily, over Medicare only. There is no reason we can't have a government option operating alongside Medicare, as the UK does. Why did she go all nuclear on this?
If 10% of China and India and 80% of Central America arrived here tomorrow, English would be a minority language so open borders has no appeal.
As you note, you cannot beat Trump with nobody, but nobody appeals to me.
5
Warren's position on Healthcare is much more nuanced than Sander's. She has had to cover up those nuances to win over the Sanders supporters, but she does believe that we need to strengthen the ACA before we transition to SIngle Payer. A more detailed explanation can be found here
http://acasignups.net/19/06/27/sen-warren-medicare-all-last-nights-debate-forgot-include-critical-follow-question
She is also continually referencing those traditional values you admire, especially in her stories about her own upbringing. This is why she has received praise from many very conservative writers, including Tucker Carlson, and William Kristol's Bulwark Magazine. For an extensive set of links to Conservative support for Warren go to #CapitalistsforWarren
5
The disdain shown toward Mr. Brooks is precisely why the Democrats have little chance of persuading anyone on the fence to their side.
5
@Didi
That's what you get from being tied into the Twitter loop. He's trending there, so the too-woke (could use some sleep) come flying over here. It's the same poor analysis you see there, except here they get more characters to do more of it.
Interesting how Mr Brooks thinks he is owed something from the political opposition.
10
David, what in heaven's name are you talking about? By any measure, even with some recent leftward movement, the Democratic party is a far more moderate party than the Republican Party. This is not opinion but fact, if you simply look at their platforms and legislation. They are farther right than most right-wing parties in Europe.
The Republican Party has not only been taking actions that are politically partisan (i.e., at the level of policy) but even more reprehensible and destructive, undermining the democratic process itself with gerrymandering, voter suppression, stripping power from offices when Democratic candidates legitimately win them, and (remember this one?) refusing to act on a President's properly qualified Supreme Court nominee.
The Republican Party, not just Donald Trump, is a danger to our very democracy and institutions. If you can't see it, then you are blind.
11
Brooks is implying that if there isn't a moderate dem, he won't vote. Shame on you if you don't exercise that right!
6
Magic! Democrats win White House! All progressive policies implemented seconds after being sworn in!
Magic because Democrats don't believe in miracles.
This is a nonsense "scare grandma" essay.
Mr. Brooks and I both know that change comes very slowly in politics and in governing. Given the foot dragging Republican Party on all issues any real change is going to incremental at best.
2
There are some people who've been committed to the underclass our whole lives. The title to your editorial does not turn our heads, Mr. Brooks.
4
You will never vote for Trump in a million years. Yes there will be a Democrat running for president. If you find the Democrat wanting, maybe it's time for you to form a third party or go for it, Brooks 2020.
3
Sorry you are not a moderate columnist and probably not in voting either. Just because you can't deal with Trumpster Fire doesn't make you middle of the road.
6
Great piece and I agree. I won’t vote for Trump, but healthcare for illegal immigrants and “we should be talking about the murders of black trans people,” - I think I could hear the Trump team cheering.
4
David Brooks is right.
Last night, I suspect Mr. Trump saw a glimmer of hope with just two beauties on full display at the raucous debate - Medicare for all AND virtual open borders. He's going "I can DO this!"
The Dems are rolling the dice by giving that man a little running room...
It will be a tragedy if they give in to short-sighted impatience and squander their opportunity to take back power and begin the massive job of moving the country back to the sane centre.
Proceed in haste, repent at leisure!
5
The remarkable thing about David and the Republicans for whom he speaks is how oblivious they are of any responsibility for what has happened to their party.
11
I hear what you're saying and I share your concern that the center will not hold. As you've probably noticed, the people on the farther reaches of the political right and left are vocal and more ideologically driven compared to moderates. They excel at bringing new ideas to the fore. Not so good at implementation and facing the political reality of convincing others. I hope more moderates will speak up and become engaged in this election to temper the leftists and keep our country together. That's the most important thing of all.
1
David, I'll have to sleep on this idea of 80 vs. 20 versus 99 vs.1. Otherwise, I'm not sure any of these other cliffs are real. Open borders? Only folks who like open borders are the 1% (or 20?) who see national borders as systems to game for tax purposes. Borders aren't going away for anyone else, no matter who we vote for. But soap and toothpaste might come back to the border.
4
Face it, David, you really aren't a moderate -- you are refugee in search of a new home. Time to act like a guest in someone else's home, eat what's put in front of you and be grateful for the refuge. That, or go back and lie in the bed you and so many other GOP intellectualistas made. I'm really tired of hearing you, George Will, Bill Kristol, Max Boot, Jennifer Rubin and crew complain about the cesspool you dug.
18
Mr. Brooks misses the point that employer health insurance is subsidized by the employer and the remainder is paid with pre-tax wages. I'm confident that public insurance could be offered to employees under the same terms making it just as popular.
7
Excellent job trolling Democrats, Mr. Brooks. As usual.
5
I was born in 1951. I grew up with both all of the values and behaviors that Trump denigrates. In my opinion, he is the antithesis if everything that comprises a decent human being.
I also grew up and agreed with what were the 1960’s centrist Democrat positions. My values have not changed, but the country as a whole and especially the Republican Party has swung SO FAR to the right that today’s moderates (centrists) are well to the right of 1960’s Conservatives. The Republican Party has swung further to the right than Atilla the Hun
15
@George Shaeffer -- I agree. I was born in 1954, and feel the same way.
I am not going to vote for things more right wing than the Republicans of my youth. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.
Even if those are "the Democrats," I'm not voting for them. Never.
If that means Trump to utter destroy our political system, well then maybe it needs utter destruction.
4
It is almost always the case that those seeking party nominations cater to the base and then tack more to the center in the general election. So if Mr. Brooks is using that dynamic as an excuse for not supporting a Democrat he is either being willfully blind to they way politics works or intentionally setting up an excuse for not supporting a Democrat against Trump. Brooks (and other purported Never Trumpers) might just sit it out with some sort of self-serving justification, but the bottom-line is that a non-vote will effectively be a vote FOR Trump getting four more years to make the country anything but great again. For any well-meaning, decent, compassionate human being (whatever his or her political stripe) the stakes for the country and the world are just too high for that, no matter who the Democrats nominate.
2
@Eric G.
Your closing line is absolutist thinking. Very de rigeur, though, it seems. In truth, there are people worse than Trump, believe it or not.
As for primary v general behavior, I keep seeing this excuse of how the progressivism gone wild is just necessary now to get the base, then they tack more centrist for the general.
It's a long time till then with a lot of unpalatable words for them to spill. And then, come the general, you mean its just Lucy with the progressive football, and their true believers are Charlie Brown, about to take a hard falll? Nothing to see here!
Pretty shoddy and shady. And in the meantime, their open borders/too much free stuff policies for ALL (even illegal migrants) will go over great (not) with non limo working class libs and centrists... and never Trumpers...and and and... (not not not!)
Trump/FOX/Rightwing Media will work all this to great effect 24/7 while theyre in promise-anything primary mode, then when they do pivot, as you say they will, their flip flops will be used to paint them as inauthentic, pandering and just-another-slick-politician who wont help you and could hurt you.
And Trump will have a much easier Road to the WH, 2020, thanks to their Woke (Just kidding!) Follies.
There is no one worse than Trump.
1
Mr. Brooks -- Whoever the Democrats nominate will be preferable to Trump, so vote for the Democrat. There will be plenty of people to block or modify the stuff the general public doesn't like in the proposals. You know that.
8
Mr.Brooks - it's more than a little surprising to read an op-ed columnist cite popular approval of the economy as the basis for questioning the Dems' attack on Republican economic policies.
Your concern about the Dems' attack on employer health insurance suffer from precisely the same weakness.
You of all people should be aware of the great discrepancy between popular perception and both macro and micro-economic reality.
The title of your article suggests that you are being driven away because the Dems' policies conflict with your principles. But it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that you're afraid their policies aren't sufficiently popular.
Good to hear that you wouldn't vote for Trump in a million years. But it caused me to generate a fantasy scenario in which Trump was somehow politically active for a million years--enough to scare any sane human being. In fact, two minutes of Trump in the White House is too much. And, in my view, people are not ever voting for perfect candidates, but always for the lesser of two evils. Since not voting or voting for a 3rd party candidate could favor Trump or be a waste of a vote, I would recommend that you hold your nose (if you're so inclined) and vote for the lesser of two evils. And if you don't believe that Trump would be the lesser of two evils, vote for him. But don't equivocate.
4
I hate to say this, but figures lie, and liars figure. I wonder, what part of the 70% that like their health insurance have ever really had to use it to pay for a significant bill. Many of these satisfied employees are in for an "eye opener" when they see their deductibles. Their insurance is great...just don't use it.
4
Firstly, David Brooks is a perfect Republican example of Molly Ivins’ caricature of Bush: “Born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.” As other commenters have pointed out, he has no concept of the economic hardship and stress many Americans face these days. He is truly out of touch.
Secondly, all boring “centrist” Democratic candidates (in the last 30 years) lose: Hillary Clinton, Gore, Kerry et al. All the (slightly) bolder, more off-beat candidates win: Carter, Clinton, Obama. So not only is Brooks out of touch with the plight of many Americans, he is also out of touch with how they lean politically in a presidential election. So why on earth should we listen to him now? And why on earth should we abandon our democratic goals to appease his guilty republican conscience?
9
What is the proper role of government? What should it not be involved in? These are key questions that need to be discussed. The US government is too big, too bureaucratic, and too wasteful no matter who is in office. We are $22 TRILLION in debt. I think individuals will spend their own money more wisely than the government will. The Dems and Repubs want us to fight each other, when the truth is that BOTH PARTIES HAVE FAILED US. We need to teach basic economics in this country and teach personal responsibility. Please listen to NPR Planet Money podcasts from 2008 to 2016. Please read "Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem" by Jay W. Richards or "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. Watch videos by Milton Friedman. Get government out of healthcare, out of mortgages/housing, from being the police of the world, eliminate subsidies, bailouts, welfare, get out of education, out of student loans, stop excessive regulations, and stop spending trillions more than what they take in. Just because something is expensive does not mean government should provide it. Proper roles of government: To provide national defense, to protect individual freedoms, and to be like a referee at a football game to ensure fair play in business to prevent fraud and monopolies. This does not mean no government, weak government, or anarchy. This does not mean completely unregulated capitalism. Government does have a role to play.
In a negotiation, it's fairly common to ask for more than you expect to get. That's where the Democrats are now. We may not get all of the Green New Deal, but we'll likely get some. We may not get to burn insurance companies to the ground on day 1 of the next administration, but we might just be able to blunt their influence. This is how these things work. Pretending otherwise is willfully naive - and pretty transparent clickbait.
2
Any one whose name is not TRUMP is a way better than TRUMP. Any one who sits out is helping him getting re-elected. The only important factor is not to re-elect him.
It is a no-brainer!
7
re "Warren and Sanders pin themselves, and perhaps the Democratic Party, to a 13 percent policy idea. Trump is smiling." Why is Trump smiling? Your first sentence indicates you (and presumably many like you) would "never vote in a million years" for Trump. So, what is Trump gaining? Why is he smiling? You will sit home (right?) rather than vote either candidate.
2
David it’s too bad that you’re party has disappeared from under your feet. But it’s not the Democrats responsibility to give you a candidate. You and other principled conservatives need to take your party back! It goes beyond trump to his chief enabler, Mitch McConnell, who sold you all down the river so he could give his donors their promises tax break. That is the bottom line
10
The whole narrative of how left the democrats have become is completely bunk. The last left leaning populist was hated so badly that grandpa and grandma gave him four terms and he changed the country in magnificent ways, creating a middle class and the most powerful nation the world has ever known, along the way. Brooks is muddling into the same gas lighting leftists modus operandi as the rest of conservatism.
"Just be a moderate republican and you'll get my vote!"
No thanks, and its just that kinda referee working that has gotten us to where we are right now. You want a moderate governance? Then proudly support an activist and empowered left, because we haven't had it since reagan and his merry band of marauders, and just gander at how awesome that's turned out.
Moderate policy comes from the left and the right compromising. Corporate fascismo tyranny and economic inequity and imbalance have come from the right and neo-fascists compromising. Our institutions are dysfunctional, the social malaise is blinding, and all standards of public policy - domestic and foreign - lay in tatters.
Time to try listening to both sides and taking the best synergy.
Sure republicans are going to yell "socialist!!" at every squirrel, from now till election day, label ridden tripe is their calling card, but the rest of us should play grown up and look toward solving actual problems and facing real issues with pragmatic policies, not pugilist cacophony.
6
Sad to say, I almost agree with David.
I would vote for, as they say, a yellow dog, any living creature, over Trump. So that's not a problem for me. But the positions the Democratic candidates are taking are political suicide. One hopes that they will pivot back to the middle in the general election. But there will be a lot of damaging footage.
Sad to say, Trump may be right when he sees Democrats supporting health insurance for illegal immigrants and says, Game Over. Morals aside, he may be right. This is political suicide.
The quote David is gesturing for is from Burke, concerning "the decent drapery of life," torn asunder by the French Revolution.
2
Great article Mr. Brooks and spot on. Unfortunately, reading through the commentary, the Democrats are suffering from mass delusion.
As a Midwesterner and a liberal, most of these positions will not fly here.
Let me list some out:
Open Borders
Free Healthcare to Illegals
Free childcare
Reparations
Medicare for All
Free University
Absolving of Student Loan Debt
Ban guns
Ban free speech
Have abortion available until birth
Impeach Donald Trump
Etc...
I’m just trying to figure out how in the world you think this will get a Democrat elected?
@PLH Crawford -- I agree with at least half of those things listed. I suspect many other people do too.
Will they vote for the list because they like half of it, or vote against it because they dislike the other half?
That depends on the alternative.
What they won't do is vote for getting none of it, but just "I'm not Trump." We've had that election.
2
Mr. Brooks has long been an apologist for Republican policies, and hides from how many of these policies are being continued and even fulfilled by Trump. Trump's supporters are the silent majority of Nixon, except that Trump has given them a voice -- much the same voice that Nixon displayed on his tapes and that he more or less successfully kept hidden in public. Trump is the inner Nixon, without whatever it was that made Nixon keep his inner self hidden and pursue policies that his inner self did not like.
Mr. Brooks was one of those who joined in the reelection of Dubya as he slimed a genuine soldier and pretended that Cheney's war was going well when it wasnt.
Mr. Brooks' beloved center gave us the rusting of the Rust Belt and the programs that unsuccessfully fought the rusting while perhaps slowing it down, racial dog whistles, a moderate rather than extreme voodoo economics, and a financial sector left to its own devices enough to drive heedlessly on and put us all in the ditch. The experts who encouraged everyone to become homeowners and use their houses as piggy banks were made whole, and those who took their advice were punished by being forced to trade their houses and savings for debt.
The center does not work well enough or for long enough. Dems are driving Mr. Brooks to a choice he always has managed to avoid explicitly to keep his readers, who love him for his ability to obfuscate and hide. This choice is Trump.
2
David, you are wrong by saying that the Democratic Party has become two left leaning. Many of the candidates may be too left leaning but the party is still moderate left. You will see that the candidate who is selected will be from the moderate wing of the Democratic Party, most likely Joe Biden. He is more representative of the Democratic Party as a whole than the loudmouth extreme leftists.
I'm a progressive person. I know I'm not a Republican because I am a civil, polite, anti-screaming, pro-choice, environmental protectionist. I'm pro-education and pro-healthcare for all citizans. Trump has torched common sense, civility, compassion, and the respect our country once enjoyed among nations around the world. I will vote for the candidate that comes closest to fulfilling my prayer of seeing my country and the planet safe and supported. There are plenty of good, not to mention sane, Democratic candidates to choose from. If I'm driven it's to see one of them oust the current, inept, cheater sitting in a US President's chair.
4
Having been a life long democrat, there were parts of me that thought about voting for Trump (I didn't by the way). The one thing that makes me like Trump is the fact that he speaks his mind very bluntly and doesn't hold back anything. To me, that comes across as someone I know what he's thinking all the time without considering his "hidden agendas" and quickly becomes very likable. He did it at a time when this feeling was desperately needed in politics as many politicians did a bunch things behind the scenes without disclosing to the public till after they signed. Unfortunately, it just so happens that every word that comes out of Trump happens to be made up, lies, racist, hateful, or presented as obviously a problem but without a solution.
1
David, if you can't bring yourself to vote for the only viable candidate who challenges Trump, there is something really, really wrong with you. Trump's pal and enabler, Vladimir Putin, just denounced the entire concept of small-l liberal democracy.
My father left Weimar right after the 1932 elections. Let's not repeat the most catastrophic election result in history.
6
The title of this column drips with the kind of smug disdain a bully has for his target. Mr. Brooks often baits, so I was tempted to turn the page but the provocation stuck. I was curious to see how far he would go to disparage "the Dems" who've brought forward ideas that don't involve breaking the law, alienating allies, lying to gain more power etc etc etc. These candidates seem genuinely interested in following the precepts of the founding fathers with a degree of earnestness that Trump couldn't begin to fathom. They may drift a bit left of the middle but don't place them in boxes as you often do. Give them chance to move the country back to an even keel.
6
I feel like I'm going insane. Time after time I hear "moderates" admit that Donald Trump is the most vile, loathsome creatures to ever grope his way into public office; but if the Democrats put forward a thoughtful, intelligent person who thinks our tax policy should be informed by sound research and aim for social equanimity, they might just have to vote for Trump. It's absurd! They're arguing over curtain design while the house is burning down, and those of us frantically trying to put the fire out are dismissed as alarmists.
8
I voted for President Trump, and I very much look forward to voting for him again. I would not trust ANY ONE of these Democrats as far as I could throw any one of them. These twenty (20) individuals are not good --they are just plain downright bad-- for America.
2
The progressive narrative is dominating because people like you have dragged the Democratic Party so far to the right that it’s laughable to suggest that the United States even has a “left wing” party at all, unless you count the CPUSA. And because, as is plain as day, Americans are ready for radical and done with mediocrity. Trump was a radical choice. He won. Run mediocre Biden and he’ll win again.
3
Dear Mr. Brooks:
Any Democrat is obviously a better choice than continuing with Mr. Trump. Even learned you should know that assuming that you still wish to live in a democratic republic. So, if you choose to stay home becuase the Democratic candidate does not meet your purity standards, it is tantamount to voting for four more disastrous years.
2
There is a great deal more to life than money. I'm a college educated middle class citizen who has always had a decent job and decent salary. Yes, the economy seems to be doing well. Yet I am not proud of what our country has been doing. I do NOT want this trend to continue. In my mind what made America "great" was our commitment to human rights. Our acknowledged period of greatness was not so much winning WWII as it was rebuilding the shattered world afterward. To this day I still get tears in my eyes watching ships glide past the Statue of Liberty with her upheld torch. THAT to me is what the greatness of America stands for.
We have been shredding that greatness, watching this administration tearing down brick after brick of the foundation of our democracy. For what? 3% economic growth? I would happily pay more in taxes, even take a CUT in pay to see us return to a more civil and balanced society. I want to be proud of my country again because of the way we are conducting ourselves on the world stage, because we are protecting civil rights, because we are educating our children well and being earnest stewards of our endangered planet.
In the end we are all dead - your money will mean nothing. I want to go with a peaceful conscience, knowing I was part of a decent society. I'm honestly not sure I could go that way right now.
8
@cindio
Thank you!!
If you are committed to replacing Trump, you have no choice but vote for the Democrat. Any concerns about candidate's statement now should be tempered by the certain knowledge that edges will be smoothed through the usual grinding of the political process. In other words, stop kvetching, Brooks, and do the right thing.
2
@William Schindler -- I am committed to meaningful change or bust.
That is quite different from replacing Trump. If not-Trump means not-change, then no, it is worse and I won't vote for it.
Although people may be happy with their employee health coverage, employee health coverage is probably the single most important problem with our health care system. Because of employee health coverage, there is no competition between health care providers and there is no competition between insurance providers. All of this leads to fat profits for health care insurance companies and poor outcomes for everyone else.
3
I wonder how productive it is to categorize candidates and push voters into ideological corners. Imagine listening to Senator Sanders without the "Democratic Socialist" label. When I listen to him speak (as well as Senator Warren), it sounds like the truth. The truth reaches people regardless of political persuasion.
That said, my primary concern for next president is that she/he is an accomplished statesperson and a healer. "Compromise" should not be confused with common ground. Common ground requires honest communication, hard work, and faith.
1
"Over 70 percent of Americans with insurance through their employers are satisfied with their health plan." is among the best fake statistics I've come across. Let's ask uber-drivers, under-employed 'consultants', and people unemployed too long to be included in this sham of an "employment comeback." Not to mention small business that could create more jobs if not for benefits requirements. I'm glad several employers can still provide decent health plans -- and why ban them -- but we might have already left the time in history in which an employer is a reliable source for a health plan.
4
And yet Bernie has consistently trounced Trump in the polls, which naturally skew older, so there's a wealth of younger voters not even being accounted for. Bernie would decimate Trump in the general election. Many of Trump's voters are disaffected and would love to vote for Bernie, a fact they have already admitted. No other Dem candidate can claim such bona fides.
Convenient omission doesn't help Mr. Brooks's case of pure speculation and wishful thinking. Those pesky numbers can be so annoying sometimes, eh?
4
Thank you for this thoughtful call for moderation when the public discourse has been pulled to the ideological extremes and away from a reasoned discussion over how to deal with our problems realistically. After 2.5 years Trump’s post-truth hyperbolic rhetoric with a shocking disregard for real-world consequences, we need policy proposals grounded in the complex mess that is the real work with an earnest regard for the consequences. Mr. Brooks wisely points out the far-left ideologically driven positions fail this test.
I’m an economist who has in antitrust for over 20 years. When Elizabeth Warren was asked whether she would be picking winners and losers in dealing with large companies she basically said yes she would. This is a problem just as it is when Trump intervenes in antitrust investigations, such as Time-Warner AT&T. Corey Booker eventually got to the right answer. As a president he would ensure that the FTC and DoJ had the resources and leadership to vigorously enforce antitrust law. This respect for the President’s proper role is critical and very different from Trump.
Medicare-for-all proposals that ignore the reality of our current system and people’s preferences for choice are not constructive and drive the discussion away from finding realistic ways of achieving universal healthcare. Bernie’s answers to how he would accomplish his proposal were basically faith-based. That is not good enough!
1
@Steven S -- "the public discourse has been pulled to the ideological extremes"
No, it has not.
It is just right vs extreme right, by the standards of here when I was younger, and the standards of the entire rest of the world.
What you say is extreme left mostly isn't even left. It is right of Nixon.
We've been pulled all right -- the frame has been pulled far to the right, and this comment buys into that.
5
You say 70% are satisfied with their employer offered healthcare. What question was posed to elicit that response? I bet it wasn't "Would you prefer a health plan with no deductible, that pays 100% for both in and out of network claims and that also provides coverage for pre existing conditions?" There is no moral reason to limit healthcare. The only reason healthcare is limited is because corporations want to profit from people's illnesses. This is not a health care industry, it is a health profit industry. Medicare for all would be complete care for all.
8
What frustrates me in the health care discussion is the fear of that “Medicare if you want it” type plans will result in severe increases in costs to the consumer. I suggest we are already paying a lot for what in my opinion is an inferior product. I’d rather pay for a fair-minded bureaucracy than excessive corporate overhead.
As much of of a disgrace as the American healthcare system may be, healthcare is limited because it is a finite resource.
No healthcare system, public or private, will ever be able to cover everything for everyone--even Medicare in its current form has to make hard choices about what will and won't be covered.
I'm certainly open to ideas about how to improve healthcare in the United States. However, it is a fantasy to think that there will ever be a system where everybody gets everything.
If "moderates" are willing to stay home on Election Day rather than vote for an unattractively left-leaning Democrat, they must find Trump far more acceptable than they claim.
7
I usually enjoy listening to and reading David's comments but if he is suggesting he might not vote for any Democratic to be President if they are "too liberal" for him, even though he says he could never vote for Trump, his logic baffles me. Doing that would in effect be a vote for Trump. David must realize that.
He seems to feel a CNN poll showing that 71% of Americans say the economy is very or somewhat good, shows the economy is not a winning issue for Dems. WHAT? Bringing back jobs was one of Trump's primary promises to much of his base. Now is the time to show he hasn't and can't deliver on it. It doesn't seem likely to me that Trump's supporters can be convinced to suddenly see his moral shortcomings and vote for someone else. I'd be inclined to believe in miracles and Santa Claus again if that were to happen.
If David "leaves", it won't be the result of him being "driven away." He would have chosen to walk away on his own, which would be unfortunate.
8
Saying you like your insurance is a form of Stockholm syndrome. The insurance/health industry is a business only concerned with profit. They are not concerned with the health of Americans. Why are 1/2 of the commercials on TV for insurance companies or prescription drugs? Because they are highly profitable businesses. And we continue to go along with this insanity, while humming their jingles...
9
I think the terms liberal, moderate, conservative are useless without context.
I'm fiscally conservative....don't pass legislation without figuring out how to pay for it. But I'm liberal about programs to care for the young, the old and the disadvantaged...enough to want them, and to be taxed to have them. I believe we all are deserving of healthcare. How we pay for it? I don't care.
Less labeling, more discussion on goals and solutions.
10
I’m a lifelong progressive. Needless to say I have never been fully satisfied with the Democratic candidates for president because they’ve been too moderate (and tacking ever rightward) for me.
I’ve had to vote based on who was the one least likely to do harm. That’s always been a Democrat based on issues like climate change and health care (there are many others of course). And that means no third party candidates either, no matter how much I may agree with their stances, if they had no chance of being elected. This was never more important than in the last presidential election.
So I have to ask David if I’ve spent my entire life trying to do the least harm regardless of my personal preferences can’t you do the same to get rid of trump? Because if you can’t hold your nose and vote for someone who’s imperfect according to you then you and those like you will end up giving us four more years of Trump. And I don’t think our wobbly democracy can stand it.
5
Many comments point out that Hillary Clinton was a moderate but she lost the election, therefore progressives believe a moderate is not electable. I think this is wrong. In fact, I think the left wing of the Democratic party was responsible for her loss. They assumed she would win but didn't want to "dirty their hands" by voting for her. By not voting for someone less left-wing than themselves, they were in practice, voting for Trump. Well, they got what they asked for. I pray that they and we are smarter this time.
4
@FrankM If the economy stays strong no one will risk that for these Left Democratic policies. Period.
2
To David Brooks and all the Republican Never Trumpers populating cable news programs: Congratulations for having the decency to recognize the unacceptable insanity of the Donald J. Trump Presidency. However, please do NOT presume to advise Democrats on campaign strategy. Democrats do not need to appeal to Republicans, whose agenda is still mainly anathema to liberals; they need to recapture their TRUE constituency, ordinary working class Americans, NOT the traditional base of the party which has now been exposed as the monumental fraud it is.
3
David, the Republican party is not the "conservative" party.
Ignoring pending climate catastrophe, actively abetting pollution, ignoring the will of the voters as well as totally dishonest arguments and public statements is the antithesis of conservative political philosophy.
That is not even mentioning the reckless economics of running up massive debt so as to make social services seem unaffordable.
Cynical, un-American, anti-democratic, lawless, yes.
Conservative? , a resounding NO!
4
You won't NOT vote and you won't vote for President Trump, so you and most moderates will vote for whomever the Democratic Party nominates. That's how despicable our President is. The Democrats will not be retaking the Senate, so no one should have no qualms about any of the candidates' more left-leaning proposals becoming law.
2
You can practically hear the undertone of "Burn Him" Burn Him" for daring to disagree with any of the lefts positions. Not exactly attractive to people who agree with some of the lefts positions but not all. Burning people at the stake figuratively or literally might have been acceptable in 13th & 14th centuries. These days not so much. And folks, Running off people whose votes you need because they disagree with you? Well purity is nice I suppose? But winning elections...is nicer and more useful.
2
I've voted Democrat all my life and I had a hideous thought last night that I was disagreeing with so many of the things the candidates were pushing that perhaps I was turning into a Republican!
I like my Health insurance and have rarely had a 'not coverered' issue. I would gladly give it up as long as the process is done carefully and the kinks are worked out. Launching anything as massive as universal health care is going to run into problems. Being gung ho to destroy what works (albeit badly)before putting in a new plan is insanity.
Not one of the progressive candidates had a practical solution for the mess at the border. Everyone was trying to give a feel good answer which will only drive moderates away.
So, you aren't alone in being a bit appalled at the rhetoric last night. But when push comes to shove, I'd vote for a chipmunk if it ran against Trump.
4
@Diana Nope. A great economy is better than LIberals screwing up what is working. I can choke down another 4 years of Trump if he can keep going this economy and trying to improve education. Lets work together and get infrastructure. Give Trump his stupid Wall. $5 billion is peanuts compared to what this crisis is actually costing right now.
David, stop wasting your time trying to talk common sense to "progressives". They are ideologues who are immune to facts.
Let the pod-people continue their leftward march to implosion and self-destruction. There is a world of trouble out there which we are being distracted from by their hyper-partisan chatter.
3
"Trump is a disrupter."
Anyone but Trump...as long as they are honest, decent, loyal and trustworthy.That should be what you are writing about. It's that simple.
5
i'm a lifelong democrat. besides biden, i would not vote for any of the alternatives over trump. that is depressing.
2
@goldenbears Worst group of Democratic candidates I have seen in 6 decades. Wow do they not know know the history of our country? People are willing to die to come here for the opportunity for success. Are these Candidates just making up a new country or something? One wants to give everyone $1,000 a month. Another wants to convince people everything will be free. The ones that do not agree with this logic will not challenge their rivals. Democrats are not ready to assume control.
1
"These are the highly educated Americans who are pulling away from everybody else and who have built zoning restrictions and meritocratic barriers to make sure outsiders can’t catch up."
This is completely ridiculous! Zoning restrictions are the best you have? And you some how think that only highly educated liberals like zoning restrictions! Good grief. Oh, and I'd like some elaboration on what these "meritocratic barriers" are. So far all I'm seeing is Republicans yanking away funding from things that can actually give people equal opportunities. The most obvious example is funding for education. What exactly are you doing on that front? Yeah you can argue that Rich Liberal parents in NYC who are sending their kids to private schools are having a negative impact in that their attention and interest is being pulled away from public schools, but for the love of all that is holy, that is a drop in the bucket compared with how your party has decimated education funding.
And surely those zoning restrictions have a bigger impact that corporate America's well-funded anti-union and anti-labor activity. Unreal.
Oh right, and let's not forget about families bankrupted by medical bills. If only they lived in a different neighborhood.
1
Centrists upset about the so called left putting Trump into office and fear mongering for Trump should start proposing policy. Stop telling us to vote for republicans. You want to win votes earn them!
1
Paraphrasing John of Patmos and his charge against the Laodicea Church, "You are neither cold nor hot, you are lukewarm and I will spew you from mouth." Moderation comforts the comfortable and barely attends the afflicted. The economic progress today began with President Obama's Stimulus and other economic reforms addressing the Great Recession. The Stimulus needed to be larger, thus the long recovery and slow wage growth. Moderation in America did not end slavery, give women the right to vote, nor create Labor Unions. Moderation will not address Climate Change nor provide adequate relief for victims of disasters and gun violence.
4
Incumbent administrations & their supporters (Mr. Brooks' threat, on behalf of himself & other soi-disant "moderate" conservatives, if the Democrats swing even vaguely to the left of Obama or Republican-lite Billary Clinton), is to treat the election as a referendum on "how things are going now," trotting out favorable stats (remember what Mark Twain said about statistics?) & evidence wealth is finally trickling down. This , aside from the larger point I'm about to get to, is a classic scare tactic: "Now you don't want to jeopardize the gains, however incremental, you've been enjoying, do you?"
But most treacherous in this pro-status-quo propaganda is suppression of the inevitably *cyclical* aspects of the economy. It is myopically present-focused. Indeed, it is almost taboo to talk about "cycles" during expansions.
Why? Incumbents/their supporters don't want to attribute gains to the cycle, & want credit for the expansion, & don't want people to think the current policies can lead anywhere but up (prosperity); the challenging party is afraid to say they plan to preside over an inevitable down turn, or be prophesiers of recession.
This prevents Democrats from making the case that they, & only they, are planning/making provision for inevitable downturn, in the form of better safety nets & social insurance programs, & that the time to do so is conditions of relative prosperity. But this is the case that must be made, because it's the truth & the responsible orientation.
2
And moreover, in a cyclical economy, one expansion's (or boom's) prosperity is bought with recession period (and *generation's/cohort's*) hardship and misery.
Though "meritocracy" tells us current gains and wealth "were brought to you by" this groups's ingenuity, talent and effort, it's more "brought to you by" the lost 2008 generation that absorbed a recession deep enough to produce such a dramatic rebound.
When we think about policy, we must address what the fat years (and those whose long term economic condition is established therein) owe the lean years (and those who absorb the cycle's brunt).
2
I have no problem permitting "private" for-profit plans as long as I have the alternative of a government managed, tax-funded, single payer plans like the one I enjoyed while working in France over a decade ago. There is no need to make private plans illegal, just let them compete with single-payer. They will be history in 2 years. American people do not understand either our own for-profit system or the rest of the advanced world's single payer systems & are bombarded with false & misleading propaganda about the virtues of vulture health insurance companies making profits from our ills.
The magic word "taxes" scares most people. But, in single-payer countries, the people pay less in taxes for their total coverage health care than we pay for our company-supplied insurance. The hidden cost is that the company's contribution is really a deduction prior to your gross. It still comes out of your pocket. In fact, all of your healthcare comes out of your pocket. The average percentage of GDP per capita each person in the US pays is about 19% - all, one way or another, out of your pocket. The average paid by people in Canada or France, for example is 10 or 11%. And everybody gets cradle to grave guaranteed coverage that is far superior to the undercoverage most Americans think is so good. Only when Americans are educated about BOTH systems will the choice for single payer be overwhelming.
3
Mr. Brooks, you (and several of the older white men on stage the last couple of nights) seem reluctant to recognize that your opinions are no longer the most important ones in the room. Having had the benefit of authority for so long, it must be hard to let it go. But you've been drifting away from the zeitgeist for a while. Like my beloved Joe Biden said last night, your time is up.
5
I saw the recent debates and yes it sounds like open borders; just claim asylum. As Kamala Harris said, everyone has a right to claim asylum so Central Americans, Venezuelans, the whole world, just get here and claim asylum and you are here for years while your case is adjudicated. A recipe for Republican victories for years. Looks at the statements of Obama and Clinton on how to handle immigration and you'll win. Obama deported many because he knew political realities.
2
So long. See ya. Don't write.
We need to realize that Brooks is making another empty promise, he's writing yet another bad check. He's Lucy promising the hold the football for us.
The never Trump "movement" dissipated the moment the Republicans were offered a tax break. So are we are really to believe that the right wing resistance that has failed to materialize after seeing dead bodies floating in the river is going to come together because Trump is awfully rude?
Puh-leeze. This argument doesn't pass the laugh test.
6
David, if you want a say in who the Democratic nominee is, register as a Democrat and vote in the primary.
3
Look at it this way: the electoral college still exists, and the presidency will once again be decided by just a few states. Loathsome as Trump is, people in those states voted for him, often holding their noses as they did so, because they believed him when he said he would restore their place in the world. Of course, he has worked hard to make their lives worse, but Warren offers those people the kind of change that Trump said he could make, but she actually knows things and means what she says. Don't get all tied up worrying about her "radicalism." The people who voted for Trump did so because they wanted a radical change, and they got it, just not the one they wanted. Warren can win those folks.
4
This is so on point--cannot and will not vote for Trump, but Dems have GOT to pick someone electable--you would have thought that 2016 would have taught them this!
1
None of us should be moderate in the face of Donald Trump and the impending extinction events that must consume us if America is to have any sort of future at all. So get real and vote for the best chance of having a future. Once we get that, then worry about your political map.
1
Brooks again herald’s the “myth” of the center right country. Many of us know , our health care is ONLY GOOD ENOUGH if you dont have to access it. Get sick and die, or go bankrupt. So this still happy with private insurance haven’t gotten sick yet. Plus, Trump isn’t a disruptor, or the chaos candidate, he’s a bully with no sense of history, morals or decency. Look at his son-in-laws, Mid East “peace plan. These guys govern like rich guys sitting at expensive dinners spouting ideas to people to subservient to question them. Trump is wrong on so many levels that if he wins in 2020 the country is toast, and David, you are not helping.
1
Where would you go David? Back to your Rep party, the one that doesn't exist anymore? You think talk of single payer healthcare is equal to the incompetence shown by the incumbent? You think talk of immigration reform is equal to a policy of state sponsored abuse? You think any of this campaign talk will drive you back to vote for the one guy who encourages foreign interference with our democratic elections? You actually still think you have a choice in this matter? There is no other conclusion a rational person, acting on information not ideology, can make: anyone but Trump!
4
We’ve been nominating conservative Dems for a long time. And we get crushed by extremist republicans who will lie, cheat, & even call moderates like the Clintons, Obama & Biden “socialist” when they are really Republican-lite.
My impression during the debates of the last 2 nights is that the Dem moderates look like old dudes peddling the same old tired stuff. (And I’m closer to Biden’s age than I’d like to say. )
Young people have been losers in this economy & eventually the piper will be paid. Something new must be done. Free market fundamentalism has destroyed us, and the old regime can’t stand.
That’s where the Dems are heading. The other choice is to become a banana republic under trump & the grifters.
4
Brooks, you nailed it. Let's see if we can close the circle:
First, foremost--Trump is the devil we know. Everyone, except the mouth-breathing sliver of voters, has long ago made up their minds. His base is solid; nothing will dislodge it. He has actually starting to do things that make moderate-leftists (and NYT op-ed writers) uncomfortable because they are good decisions--for starters, don't wander into a war and get tough as nails on China. And don't mess up the economy, stupid. Hard to beat that.
Second, after the dust settles on "progressives" battering one another--something they do very, very well--the final candidate will have managed to scare the pants off moderate voters. As always, the Sandenistas will sulk, along with followers of the women who didn't make the cut. If these first mass-appearances are any indication, it's gonna be a bloodbath.
This leaves open the very real possibility of a third-person/party campaign. Ready for recounts in Florida?
3
So let me get this straight...you’d risk not voting for a Democrat because they are apparently way too liberal for you and insure that the worst person ever elected President be re-elected again just to send some sort of message to the Democratic candidate who wins the nomination who by any standard cannot even be remotely as bad as Trump for the nation because they don’t completely subscribe to some ridiculous notion of yours of liberal ideology? How sad and short sighted not to mention selfish. Any Democrat in the race and I’ll admit many are certainly weak candidates would be a far better choice than Trump. Let’s hope others don’t follow your very flawed argument and re-elect this monster.
4
..The point here is well made.. The 'real' election is in November 2020.. And it goes state-by-state..
.. Democrats don't need to worry bout New York, California, or Massachusetts... nor are Republicans concerned about Alabama, Tennessee, or Oklahoma..
... The 2020 election will come down to a handful of states, like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, & Florida...ALL of which Trump won in 2016..
.... To win in 2020.. the Democrat must win in these Moderate, swing states... otherwise it's FOUR more years of Trump.
2
So the policy stands Mr. Brooks would have the Democrats take are... what, exactly? It sounds like his ideal candidate is somebody who would promise to do nothing and be nobody, and run solely on the basis of not being Trump.
That doesn't sound like a recipe for success.
1
It's the young voters who will get us through this and to a new president. Many of the comments are right on...we must move forward.
2
After Trump no one should be buying the "win the moderates" argument.
2
I had supposedly excellent private health insurance which covered me for my first cancer treatment and then dropped me. Who would cover someone with cancer who has been dropped by an insurance company?
Great article as always David. As a moderate Republican who's been following you for years there is absolutely no way I would consider any Democrat except Biden. If Biden wins and has a moderate message, I'll vote for him. Otherwise I'll vote Trump without any hesitation whatsoever. I suspect there is a very large silent majority outside of the far left liberal media bubble that shares this sentiment. At the end of the day, Americans simply don't want to pay 75% of their income to the government(it would cost at least that for Medicare for all, uncontrolled immigration and free college). If Biden gets too beaten up by the left, Trump has no chance to lose...especially when he lifts the China tariffs 6 months before the election and the stock market booms.
@Jack Rickard If only your argument was supported by actual facts, rather than figures you heard on Fox. 70% of Americans now favor Single-Payer healthcare; the question isn't whether we move to that or some hybrid of it, but when. No candidate is calling for uncontrolled immigration. Not every candidate is calling for free college education. You should have actually watched and listened to the debates so you would know the wide range of policy stances espoused in the party. Vote for Trump if you like and pretend it's because of the economy or whatever. The truth is, "moderate" Republicans like you are quite comfortable with supporting racism, misogyny, and corruption to keep the status quo.
1
I am not the only one who craves a new high tech gadget that lets us drop the candidates into a hopper, twist the dials, and watch as a hybrid of personality and policy emerges as the nominee. But then I remember that Trump ran not on policy but on evoking the base instincts, fears, and anger of his base while letting the Democrats divide and stay home. While he promised not policies but actions to support his core supporters, the voting blocs that will matter in 2020 are not going to pay a lot of attention to policies but the sound bytes social media, the actual media, and the Trump campaign make of them: Trump doesn't need policy, just anti-policy or anti-anything else.
I faithfully follow David Brooks in the Times and on PBS New Hour Fridays, so I am firm in my belief he is compassionate and a deep thinker. I suggest he consider that once the storms of the campaigns are past and that governing begins, there will be more debate and compromise on those policy positions. At the same time, like attitudes towards Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare, public sentiment will change on new measures once the benefits take hold.
The problem the candidates and the Democratic Party need to solve is how to explain that future to the 35%, 20% or whatever number works. Or let Trump fear monger anything other than keeping him, his family and his favored friends in power to line their pockets at our expense.
I will take an extreme policy without holding my nose over that.
2
The real questions are:
What would be bad about a second term Trump Presidency?
What would you do to prevent it?
2
The unfortunate debate performances of the past 2 nights, esp last night, was, as Brooks warns, what drives potential Dem voters away. And theyre not sounding smart, even if they win. Open borders? (Yes, they are really going there, if not actually saying it) Free healthcare for ALL, including NON Americans, here illegitimately? Swallwell thinks fake IDs are ok.
I once really liked Elizabeth Warren's smarts and dedication to fighting to build back the attenuated middle class, restrain inequities that favored the wealthiest. But she too has been promising too much and going overboard like many of the others. She recently offered up a plan to give reparations to gay couples who missed out on the fed tax break by marrying too soon. For crying out loud!
The rational progressive I used to admire -- she who fought for the middle class, period, without the identify group overload -- is being overtaken by pie in the sky plans for everything free and transparent pandering to identity groups.
Finally, her feverish, ill advised attempt to smack down Trump's Pocahontas mockery, breathlessly trumpeting victory by waving about her miniscule Native DNA result (maybe registered a speck) was a sign that she lacks restraint. She can get too riled up and carried away in the role of righteous warrior saint. This trait seems to be drowning out what may have made her a viable choice for some disaffected Trump voters and Never Trumpers who need some convincing to vote Dem.
@Sandrine Agree and let me add that Hispanics themselves o not agree with the Democrat policies involving illegal immigration. Also and i do not like saying this but Black Americans will not vote for a gay white man for President so you can forget Mayo Pete no matter what he says or how he sounds. Finally no one addressed our education slide in this country. Better educated workers are better prepared and would help close the income inequality gap
@MelGlass
I have to say, I had the same thought about Mayor Pete and the black vote. Think many just wont get there. Doesnt mean I dont think he should try, but it isnt just black folks who arent ready for a "First Man" in the WH.
I, too, was a Republican. But I would vote for any Democrat now running in a heartbeat before I'd vote for Trump. I'm shocked that you wouldn't, too.
5
@bnyc I can live with Trump, he has done many good things aside from his whackiness. Of course no Dem will admit that but the evidence speaks for itself. Consumer confidence tells you how people feel, Right now there is not a Democrat alive who will best Trump in 2020
1
What has been exciting about the Democratic debates so far are the ideas being put forward on the different areas of policy. A real debate is taking place that aims to find workable solutions to difficult issues. I would guess the candidate who emerges will be supporting an agenda that reflects pragmatism and compromise. This sure beats a platform of platitudes about values, freedom and personal slurs all in the interests of giving more power to the wealthy.
2
@anselm
I dont see much debate. For example, last night 2 did not raise their hands in agreement with decriminalizing illegal immigration, but the moderators did not let them give their dissenting views, so we only got to hear from the choir of 8 singing the same hymn.
This was a big deal. Neglecting the opposing view was inexcusable incompetence by the moderators. But MSNBC operates in a bubble, so poor performance is to be expected.
Wrong! You’re letting your age show, David. Biden is in the 35 conservative and most others on stage fall in the moderate category. Perhaps they seem left because the whole spectrum has been shifting right for 30 years.
1
David Brooks' words of warning are well taken. But as one who is and has been a 'moderate' all my life, I believe that his words of warning are using inadequate definitions, and terminology. Our system of 'Party' politics has clearly failed. The cause is not being ineffective 'conservatively' or 'progressively', as influenced by 'moderates'. It has failed because of the dominant power of wealth and special interest, which controls the political behavior of both parties. A healthy society must be served by 'conservative' values and power that recognize and protects what is working and is beneficial to all. It also needs a 'progressive' voice and power that recognizes what has failed to served the interests of all, effectively and fairly. The actions of both must be responsive to the values and activities of 'moderates', who can balance the actions and priorities of both. Inevitably, moderates may be obliged to choose between the 'lesser of two evils', from a conservative or progressive perspective.
The problems and crises we now face, have been greatly worsened by the actions, inaction and values of Trump and the McConnell controlled Senate. They make the 2020 election perhaps the most important in history. The threat of catastrophic war and worldwide climate crisis hang in the balance. They can be avoided only if we unite around both real conservative and progressive values and take the collective actions that are necessary for survival.
1
Employer based health coverage has been snatched away form workers too many times in bankruptcies, plant closings, mergers, and the like for us to trust it as a permanent source of protection. The only way to really protect everyone and equitably serve the common good in national health care.
5
I think the Democrats are hurting themselves. Look in this game of politics you have to have two things. Money and name recognition. Most of these candidates don't have both. With the exception of Biden,Sanders and Warren. Let's be honest if your going up against the Trump political machine you have to have both. I'm not saying that some of these candidates don't have good ideas or the energy to go toe to toe with Trump.I'm saying you have to go the distance. Most will drop out half way through. Some shouldn't be running at all. In the end it's about staying power and who can project their message to the most people.I think when Trump watches these debates he's laughing. Because he sees that they are in disarray .Too many voices shouting at once. I would love to see Trump ousted. I just hope that the Democrats can become more unified and ultimately stand united behind a front runner.
But disappointed people have voted for Bush and things got much worse. Then they voted for Obama, and he rescued us from disaster and had to deal with a recalcitrant Congress, but the economic and social structure in the United States fundamentally didn't change. Now we have Trump and he passed useless tax reform and seems to be going in circles with trade talks. But now we have a candidate in Elizabeth Warren--a Republican turned progressive--who speaks sincerely and has plans and ideas that might help us get out of a lot of problems our country is facing--gun violence, climate change, and mass income inequality.
I think David Brooks is part of the elite that doesn't get that many Americans are incredibly frustrated with politicians and just might embrace Elizabeth Warren if she speaks to their anxieties.
4
He's also one of those pearl-clutchers who pretend to be appalled by the Trump administration they helped vote in.
See also: Sykes, Charlie; Dowd, Maureen.
Only little wit and a big ol dose of naiveté will excuse the comments from individuals who believe that the political slogan "Medicare for all" means unlimited health care. That is definitely not what it means. In all the European and Canadian health care systems that tout universal coverage the expense of health care is less than it is in the US- we all know this. These health care systems do not provide the citizens of France and Canada with unlimited health care. Not all diseases and conditions are treated and the focus is on prevention not on end of life or critical care. Whether you agree with this approach or prefer the USA health care system approach you will have to accept that there will be limitations to either.
2
David, single payer does not mean losing your doctor. How many people do you know that have gone on Medicare and have lost the doctor they were already with? If it's more than a couple, you know a lot of people who are going to doctors that don't take insurance, and are practicing to the top 1%.
On the other hand, I don't know anyone who has to give up their doctor with the Medicare/Medical/State Insurance Programs for people in California.
3
In my lifetime, the Democrats have nominated and run 6 general election candidates (Dukakis - H. Clinton). Each and every one of them was a moderate. Two-thirds of them loss.
Time to stop pretending the key to victory is nominating candidates who won't offend moderates.
5
David, you incorrectly envision the progressive left as obstinate teenagers acting out if they refuse to get their way. The progressive liberal vision on health care, the economy, immigration and income inequality all point toward the most basic of American values, that we are a single organism, united in our diversity. This is the position taken by a nurturing parent, establishing the vision toward which the family of humanity must strive, not as still immature selfish demands along the way.
As your personal journey appears to be leavening toward greater social integration, it's important to realize that unity is the guiding motivation, and not varying developmental guideposts we may collectively find difficult to accept in the present moment.
For the true progressive liberal, you (and each of us) are all of us.
Don't be driven away by the vision of unity underlying "out of many, one."
2
As America grapples with becoming a nascent post-modern, post-capitalist society, it can learn from the EU, those who have already traversed this same path.
Technology has created vastly unequal communities, access to resources created the wealthy, our most promising demographic is taking to opiods because they feel left behind and a $21 TRN GDP economy cannot deliver healthcare for its most vulnerable: these are some of the issues we confront or agonize over.
Surely, there are some values we can all agree over, even if we cannot agree over its solutions.
A decent education, affordable housing, minimum childcare and healthcare , a living wage, a secure just community and a guarantee of equal justice for all, how difficult is that to agree on that?
And, thank you David Brooks for a shout out for what makes a 'decent society'. Why should there ever be any dispute over that? Here, in the USA?- the most prosperous society ever to exist on the good Lord's earth?
I fail to understand why US candidates don't know that European National Health systems exist successfully side by side with private health insurance. It's not either/or in the UK, France, Holland, Germany, Spain etc. Employer health insurance still exists. But all citizens are guaranteed a modicum of state care: prenatal, natal, pediatrics, annual flu vaccinations, emergency services, surgery,etc. There is of course no such thing in the public health care system as pre-existing conditions though there is in most private sectors. European health insurance is FAR cheaper than US. Please educate yourselves. There are so many countries whose health care & private insurance work.
8
Here’s an idea David Brooks: Instead of trying to tell Dems they have to be more moderate to make up for Republican Party’s policies over the past 40 years that led to nominating and electing Trump, why don’t you renounce your party and spearhead a new third party that actually represents your values? Or try to pull the Republican Party back to some sense of sanity by throwing your hat in the ring for the 2020 Republican nomination?
7
You are 100% correct! Thank you!
The R's have taken their party so far to the right, that any forward looking idea is automatically too left. It is time for a progressive president. Barack Obama was a disappointment not moving more programs and initiating laws to move the country forward. Because of the headwinds put up by McConnell and the R's Obama had to rely on the Executive Order which have virtually all been undone by Trump. We need to elect a progressive President, Senate and House to really initiate the changes needed.
1
There is a problem with Brooks' statement concerning a "dividing" line which is that, in an exponential curve, the top is not static: It continually pulls away. So the top 20% have less as the 1% gets more and the 0.1% gets even more. Practically speaking the entire "zoning" discussion benefits the 5% or the 1% or, eventually, the 0.1% if local zoning is simply removed. This is because large companies will buy houses from the 20%, then sell them to the 5%. This process can continue until there are only the incredibly rich and the poor. Here is the relevant bit: "But the big divide in America is not between the top 1 percent and the bottom 99. It’s between the top 20 percent and the rest. These are the highly educated Americans who are pulling away from everybody else and who have built zoning restrictions and meritocratic barriers to make sure outsiders can’t catch up."
I completely agree with Mr Brooks. I’m a lifelong Democrat and the party has lost its way. I have felt this way for a long time. When I received the Democratic opinion questionnaire in 2018, the economy was not even listed as a choice for one the the priorities the the party should consider. The same thing happened last night when all candidates were asked if only one priority could be accomplished in their term, what would they fight for. I heard the nebulous climate change chorus as well as gun control and non-answers. Not one Democrat mentioned healthcare. Hello??? Wasn’t healthcare what the 2018 Blue Wave was all about. Sounds like healthcare will not be a priority either. We need a new party.
5
If 'moderation' were on display in a national election, what would it look like, David?
It is a testament to the power of bombast and bullying that any speeches filled with anguish for the realities of today's political landscape appear to Mr. Brooks as extreme!
As a nation we haven't even reached the point of taking the Mueller Report seriously. When we do, and Impeachment is in the offing, you will consider your options again.
2
Driving you away?
This is supposed to be our cross to bear??
12
It's early. There will be some moderation of position as the general approaches, but only if we pick a candidate who is politically savvy. I fear Warren is too much of an idealogue and purist to change her perspectives - and though I agree with many of them, the need to beat Trump has got to be the top priority. I believe Harris may be just the right mix of idealogue, pragmatist, and attack dog - and that she is willing to evolve in order to win. Biden essentially exited the race last night - the clock is ticking for him.
1
David, having been, along with my wife, on Medicare for close to a decade, we have seen how reluctant physicians are to accept new patients on Medicare even with decent supplementals. M4A would eliminate such discrimination.
I would also favor the horrible, just plain awful idea from socialist Europe that medical school should be free so that new physicians would be able to enter practice debt free. The savings from M4A would cover the cost.
Stockholders, you will be bought out. There are plenty of other profit centers to invest in.
Workers, there will be plenty of jobs administering M4A. Not for all, no. But who of you really enjoys turning down patients in vital need of health care? If there is a determined fight against global climate change, there will be an abundance of new and challenging (that is, interesting) jobs.
2
Viewing America from the outside I would agree with Mr. Brooks’ concerns. Two parties must represent the viewpoints of two hundred million voters: one party believes the only role for the federal government is to ensure everyone can get a gun and no one can get an abortion, and the other apparently believes that there is no limit to the role of the federal government. That will be a difficult sell in a country where people really, really do not want to be taxed, as both the data and a visit to any American airport confirm.
6
Why are Democrats constantly lectured to by the punditocracy about how they need to appeal to Republicans, but Republicans are never lectured to about how they need to appeal to Democrats? This is the isolated case where both-siderism would actually be relevant.
6
This article spoke to everything I was thinking about the problems of the Democratic Party, and how they are destroying themselves. I’m an independent and I love this article
6
"Over 70 percent of Americans with insurance through their employers are satisfied with their health plan. Warren, Harris and Sanders would take that away."
Compared to what? No insurance?
Nobody gets to choose their insurance (which ISN'T actual heath care by-the-way.)
So just having insurance makes people happier than not having it for sure. The implication is that in changing the payment system they will lose that. This is not true.
People would get something likely cheaper since a single risk pool provides the widest spreading of risk rather than hundreds of them all trying to scrape their profit out of the premiums and allowing a portion of it to flow toward actual care.
Plus it's not employer based. Health insurance is used as handcuffs on employees. The threat of job loss and losing insurance is real. And no... Cobra is not protection. You have to cough up the all the raw costs.
4
Right now we’ve got two parties trying to make moderates homeless.
I think what we learn from this statement is that Mr. Brooks and other Republicans still haven't been able to get their values straight. Even if you accept that some of the policies being proposed are not appealing to so-called moderates (I don't buy that generalization), it still wouldn't justify Mr. Brooks or any other "moderate" feeling homeless.
THE issue confronting the country is whether we will remain a functional democracy that respects the rule of law for all. This alone should prevent Mr. Brooks or anybody else from feeling "homeless". It's a shoddy and transparent excuse. Right now, even if it means holding your nose, the most important goal for all patriots is to flip the Senate, and send Trump packing. After we accomplish that we can, if we're lucky, try to return to policy issues.
4
@Richard Wilson absolutely agree. Is there are home for those with centrist views? Is there a home for those who hold fiscal conservatism and socially liberal positions? No. Both parties ignore Independent voters.
2
So, David Brooks is torn between having to vote for Trump, or suffer ignominy of having to vote for a candidate who calls for access to medical care for all, supporting the right to an education to young people, demanding a decent living wage for working people, and acting on the existential threat of the ever growing climate crisis in or to prevent it from reaching the point of no return, and to ameliorate the effects which will inevitably result from the present condition of the atmosphere. He'd prefer another 4 years of Trump to such a radical. A sad commentary on Mr. Brooks values. I thought he was a mensch. Disappointing.
10
I'm a moderate Democrat, and I'd prefer that Democrats not veer sharply to the Left, because it's not where I want to be. But Democrats can't win by aiming at David Brooks, because he's what used to be called a conservative and Democrats, even the moderates amongst us, do not hold views consonant with his.
The problem with folks like Mr. Brooks is they want to be courted by Democrats with policies they would enact if given the power to do so. Too many of them are like Susan Collins--they express concern, they consult with advisors, they gently chide, but when it comes to commitment, there's always a reason. I think the Democrats need to be more moderate. But we are going to have to do that ourselves, not by addressing David Brooks' priorities.
5
Over 70% of Americans are satisfied with their employer-provided health plan, for two reasons. One, because they don't know any better. Two, because they haven't had the misfortune of developing a condition that overwhelms them with hefty bills - 20% of a $1,000 bill might be tricky for many Americans, but 20% of a $100,000 bill would bankrupt many more.
7
There's a point that seems to be lost in many of these comments - does it matter if you feel better voting for someone who mirrors your ideology if there is no chance they will be elected president? Isn't that just a naive vote for Trump? I realize nobody likes strategic voting, but democracy remains defined by majority, and a truly good politician can drive policy forward by being trusted by more than just one segment of the population.
3
We had the choice in 2016 between Trump and an mature corporately-embedded moderate with too much baggage.
Look where that got us!
We all know that whatever bold views a new president goes into their administration with, they will accomplish relatively little. Especially if McConnell fails to be replaced.
I'm not worried about socialism - the big bold stuff is not likely to ever come to pass.
I am far more worried about Democrat fatigue, lack of enthusiasm, lack of engagement by the three voting demographics needed to swing the tide - Millennials, Minorities and Women ( = MMW).
Sorry David, while we still need mature white men, you no longer are hold the key to change in this election.
So please, DNC - ask not what Millennials, Minorities and Women can do for you . . .
Ask instead what the DNC can do for MMW!
6
Healthcare is one of the "electrified" rails in the 2020 presidential election cycle. Already the field of Democratic candidates is aligning and realigning their platforms on national healthcare policy, not on facts or reason but the expediency of having a sound bite moment.
The danger is too many otherwise conscientious and engaged citizens will be misinformed, deliberately and inadvertently, by efforts to improve unreliable and transitory poll standings then by a factual discussion on the various options for forming a national healthcare
Mr. Brooks, the role of the Democratic party is not to cater to moderate Republicans. It's to turn out their base. And the base is moving ever leftward. I'm OK with that, particularly in light of Speaker Pelosi's recent cave to the Republicans on the detention centers. The Democrats are not here to make you comfortable. The Democrats are here to meet the needs of the working class and those who have been left behind by this economy. As Ms. Harris pointed out in the debate last night, the economy is not the same as the stock market. People who don't own securities--roughly half the country--cannot reap the spoils. Full employment as currently reported, completely misses the fact that people are often working more than one job, neither of which have benefits.
So, you'll excuse us when we roll our eyes at the Never Trumpers who insist we should care what they think, but nevertheless looked the other way in the last 30 years when other GOP power-mongers were stealing the rest of us blind and creating patently un-Constitutional rules that hurt our democracy.
15
Brooks may be right about the electoral politics. What surprises me is not that, but rather the title of his op-ed: “Dems, please don’t drive ME away”.
Please explain to me, David, how a person like yourself, well on your way toward the top of the “second mountain” that you so eloquently describe, a mountain bestowing wisdom, other-centeredness, interdependence, unqualified compassion and social solidarity with others, could NOT support Medicare for All, a humane immigration policy, an effective means of addressing the economic imbalances in our population, the Green New Deal.
David, please enlighten us.
7
The 30% of folks who are unhappy with their employer provided health care are the ones who've had a serious crisis and discovered that insurance companies will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying for health care.
5
Ding! Ding! Ding!
We have a winner!!!
I am pretty far to the left, and this is the first column David Brooks has written that I agree with 100%. Democrats need to learn to speak the language of the majority of the electorate--and a lot of that is about honoring traditional values that Democrats actually have an advantage on in this election. Traditional values of politeness, honor, and respect? Trump routinely disparages foreign leaders, military heroes and their families, and women. Charity and kindness toward those less fortunate? Trump's attitude is always us (the wealthy elite) first, them (everyone else) second. The importance of family? This man literally tore apart families ICE dragged babies away from their screaming and pleading mothers
Instead of trying to push some elaborate progressive overhaul of laws and policies in this country, why can't any of the candidates just run on the promise of being decent human beings? Trump can't possibly offer any meaningful competition on that front.
8
I cannot envision a scenario where either my wife or I would vote for Trump. Both of us have not intention of wasting our vote on a third party candidate or by not voting. Both of those alternatives are essentially a vote for Trump and I do not believe the country can survive another four years of Trump.
Also, no matter how progressive the Democratic candidate, if elected, he or she will still have to deal with the reality of passing legislation. It is never as easy as people think it will be, especially if the Democrats don't gain control of both the House and Senate.
3
I don’t think that asking the candidates to raise their hands to indicate yes or no to answer a question, or to ask them for a one word answer is a good idea. Many of these issues are way too complex for a simple one word answer. What about a series of one hour candidate interviews on some of the more divisive topics such as health care, immigration, etc.?
6
I agree with most Democrat positions except immigration.
If the Democrats remain operationally focused on what sounds like open borders to many, as Brooks is noting, they're not going to win 2020 despite incredibly strong candidates like Harris & Buttigieg.
Democrats have not fully learned the lessons of 2016, focusing only on the message of stolen election & Mueller report. Immigration is the bedrock of America, we need and want legal immigration, a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million DACA kids, and we need to reunite families now who have been separated to address the current heartbreaking crisis at the border.
But border security is also very important to Americans, we need to address root causes of the spike in numbers of people from Central America, Mexico and other countries. There are also millions of kids and adults already living in poverty here in the USA. There are millions of Americans older than 40 who are can't find jobs, and can't pay their bills, even in this 'great economy' because of age discrimination.
We need to address what's broken inside the country. All Democratic candidates need to be out holding town halls in small cities and towns and hear from voters what they struggle with every day. For many its finding their next meal or a job.
Democrats must not fall on an idealogical sword, and need to start holding more centrist views on Immigration.
8
I don’t like the Warren-Sanders-Harris approach to Medicare for all, that is abolish private health insurance. For one thing, the way Medicare works requires private insurance companies to fill the gaps in what Medicare covers. From what I have heard so far, those candidates don’t understand how Medicare works. I have heard nothing about the greatly increased cost of Medicare if the private insurance component goes away.
Secondly, political reality will set in once one of them is elected. I’m not nearly as concerned as David Brooks that private insurance companies will be abolished. How that plan would ever get through Congress is a mystery to me. I can promise him that political realities will prevent his worst fears from realization. What Warren and Sanders have done is call attention forcefully to the problems in the current system. I’d like to see a public option, but we won’t even get that if Republicans retain control of the Senate and Mitch McConnell is re-elected.
@Susan Piper. Finally, the first priority is to dump Trump, preferably with him going to jail. For those who are repelled by the idea of abolishing private health insurance, please, consider the politics. Campaign promises are always stated as reality that can actually be accomplished while they should be thought of as wish lists. Political realities have resulted in Trump’s failure to get Mexico to pay for his wall. Moderates should focus on getting rid of Trump. If you need to hold your nose because of campaign promises that have little chance of enactment, then do so but stop with the hysteria.
I disagree that moderates are being left by the wayside. The progressives have good ideas, the moderates can tweak those ideas to insure they work. Example: In healthcare, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel, we have only to look to Canada, France, and Italy for first class healthcare that works. College? Limit free college to community college, and make four year state universities more affordable for all. Do the economy a favor, and erase the student loan debt. Instate federal student loans where interest does not hobble the borrowers. This is not brain surgery, this is numbers.
2
Mr. Brooks - You are driving yourself away. Not that you were ever on the side of win/win socio-economics. You, as a conservative are for win/lose. And it's those on the losing side who suffer and provide society with crime, get addicted to opioids, alcohol, smoking and even buy lottery tickets, all out of despair about not being able to get ahead.
These policies of the right have given us legions of homeless on the streets of America's cities (another gift of neo-liberals) exploding during the 12 years of Reagan-Bush and now again during the Trump reign of error.
The win/lose socio-economic policies of the right also guarantee that the working class and poor will have lower-quality schools and be shut out of affording to live in better neighborhoods.
And many of these classes were driven to vote for Donald Trump because these libertarian/neo-liberal policies of the last few decades, put into high gear by Reagan.
This is what you have been supporting, Mr. Brooks, for decades. You have therefore been doing your part to to further America's decline.
My suggestion:
Acknowledge that you have been philosophically wrong.
Drop the conservative/libertarian, neo-liberal stances.
Start, by recognizing that greed is not good.
Try developing some real empathy for your fellow citizens.
Then become a progressive, support win/win and support Buttigieg/Warren/Harris/Sanders, all of whom propose win/win socio-economics.
Make America forward moving again.
2
Obama's policies were well to the right of Dwight Eisenhower, and look how his legacy has worked out for the Democratic Party and our country...
The problem isn't the Democratic Party becoming too liberal - it's what is considered 'moderate' becoming too right-wing and lassez-faire; and it's the reason our standard of living has been dropping since Ronald Reagan was elected convincing republicans that government is the problem - so that when they work to hinder and corrupt its effectiveness they further their own cause - to all our detriment.
Milquetoast 'moderation' is not going to turn the corner against the extremist right-wing party that the Republicans have become. We need truly liberal progressive 'democratic wing of the Democratic Party' initiatives that aggressively tackle our current socioeconomic and environmental crises, that convince more Americans that they can trust our government to make our lives better if they elect the left individuals whose passion is to do just that.
4
The voided center of American politics also appears to be a spiritual void. This is an opportunity for a third party candidate to start with a potential base of 35% of the electorate who call themselves moderate. You have a winning formula if you syphon the never-Trumpers from the 35% of the electorate who consider themselves conservatives as well as syphoning the never-progressives from 26% of the electorate who consider themselves liberal. A platform, perhaps a TV network or a university, is needed where these policies can be debated and defined.
3
Let's try analyzing voters by passion and sentiment, rather than left, right, moderate. Those who voted for Trump in 2016 fall into two groups, emotionally speaking. The first is those who respond to Trump's fearful description of America - anti-elite and anti-immigrant. This includes religious traditionalists who yearn for a return to white patriarchy, the lost American "greatness." This is Trump's solid base.
The other group is less fearful or hateful, but they are habitual Republican voters who are distrustful of government elites. They were willing to give the outsider Trump a chance because they saw Clinton as the very symbol of Washington corruption. These are David Brook's people, and they are much less likely to vote for Trump again, because they see him as an embarrassment. They want to make America respectable again.
Those who voted for Clinton last time will be back. Very few will stay away even if Sanders or Warren is the nominee, because they are so horrified by what Trump has done to this country. Their motivation is their loathing of the current President.
That leaves the most passionate segment of voters this time around. Those who see their future threatened by climate change, corporate power and politics controlled by money. They see a real opportunity for universal health care, a living wage, and one last chance to save the planet. Last time, they stayed home. This time they will select the next President.
2
I am sympathetic to this argument, but I've seen too many moderate Democrats lose to Republicans (Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Hillary Clinton) to have faith in that option anymore. The country is polarized, and voters genuinely seem to want to vote for someone who represents a clear break with the past. In my view, Democrats are weakened by a desire to play fair, trust in the facts, and broaden the coalition. I see no decline in Trump's support among Republicans after two and a half years, despite everything he's done. It may be that the only way to beat him is to make the stakes as clear as possible. I'm not going to support a radical progressive, but I am willing to go further to the left than I once was. I hope moderate Republicans can take comfort that candidates can promote whatever policies they want, but they still have to get them through a closely divided Congress (note wall, ACA repeal still not done). Don't panic.
How long have you been doing this, David? And as long as you’ve been doing it, hasn’t the primary always been about outdoing each other for the base, moving towards the extreme ends of the spectrum, just to come back towards the center for the general election?
Brooks and Biden, two dinosaurs. I am a 70 year old white guy, always considered myself a moderate fiscally speaking and a left on social issues. I really don't find anything in Sanders, Warrens of Harris' plans left wing. We have been subjected to Republicanism for so long we have been led to believe that they are moderate. David they are not, they are right wing. We are ready for a dynamic shift in this country. You tout a 4% rise in pay for the lowest pay quadrille. For a minimum wage person that means an additional gross pay of $11.60 a week.
It is time to shake things up. Get over it.
8
Donald Trump won the last election, except by vote numbers, with less than 25% of eligible votes. The issue in America, among many, is ambivalence. If the Democrats are to defeat Trump, I would think that the golden opportunity is in motivating those sitting on the sidelines to get up and out and vote.
2
Mr. Brooks,
my Center City neighborhood is teeming with actual homeless Americans. We need a POTUS dedicated to building housing equity, not just affordable homes. My apartment complex sets its rent on a daily basis. If I don't sign a lease today, it may be set at a far higher rate next week or next month. Prices spiral. I'm paying more for a loaf of bread with fewer slices. My own health care costs are 5 figures annually following my 2005 ruptured brain aneurysm that caused my permanent disability. This is no time for moderation. It is time for sweeping change.
4
I used to think I was moderate and then Justice O'Connor was pronounced a radical. So I guess that makes me left wing now. The current President and Senate are certainly not conservative and haven't been for years.
2
While I don't agree with Brooks here, I do know that positions like those held by the likes of Amy Klobuchar, or even Cory Booker--one that introduces a Public Option without threatening to upend a system that, while deficient, is ingrained in our society, at least for now--are inherently going to be more appealing and less "scary" to a broader electorate in 2020.
I think what we are seeing here is is that the idea of "electability" shouldn't come from a person's gender or race, but rather from their platform and its appeal. Hence, I would choose the most electable candidate, someone who is palpably liberal and progressive, yet has the ability to articulate WHy they aren't ruching to the Deep Left end of the proverbial pool.
I gotta say, it's a little troubling that the generally wise Mr. Brooks would categorize the electorate based on a poll of what people claim to be, conservative, moderate, or liberal -- and then based on these labels, assert that the Dem candidates are appealing to mostly the 26 percent liberal.
It should be obvious that people interpret these labels differently. A much better measure would be on the issues.
And, on the issues, such as raising taxes on the wealthy, some form of expanded healthcare, common sense gun laws, abortion rights, the great majority of Americans agree.
And their beliefs happen to align with those put forth by the Dem candidates.
2
David Brooks is yet another Republican refugee seeking temporary asylum in the Democratic Party. It is presumptuous of him to insist on dictating the terms for his acceptance of shelter. If indeed their is a significant bloc of voters who long for a centrist option, perhaps Mr. Brooks and other similarly minded individuals should consider the third party option rather than advocating that Democrats abandon progressive positions.
1
Because a traitor for a president is a better alternative?? Wow.
5
I am perfectly happy with my employer provided health care. However I would be happy--thrilled even--to give that up if it means that my fellow Americans who have bad or no insurance now would get insurance.
5
Nobody should have to worry about losing their job and suddenly having to stop treatments. a proper national health service would also take far less out of one's paycheck than most present emplyer- based plans. The lie that is still perpetuated in this country is that a National Health service doesn't really work in other countries, when of course it does - very well , and at far less cost to the patient. Also, Mr. Brooks' assessment that the Dems are moving too far left is hilarious at best, since they are extremely centrist by the standards of most of the civilized world. It's just that the GOP has gone so far to the dark side, the Dems have moved too far to the center to compensate. I was also thrilled that Mayor Pete FINALLY said something about the GOP stranglehold on religion
3
Take back your conservative party and stop trying to inject your rightwing values into ours.
8
I have trouble with labels. My priorities are: addressing global warming; making sure all have access to health care regardless of means; tax equity so the government has the resources to undertake needed programs relative to education, job training and infrastructure without incurring huge deficits; meaningful gun control; fair treatment for DACA kids; and restoration of honesty and integrity in government. Regardless of labels, it seems that there is only one party that will try to achieve these objectives so there is no choice to be made.
2
"we’ve got two parties trying to make moderates homeless." It is sad, isn't it?
It seems that the way to attract voters is to relentlessly, and sometimes baselessly, attack the other party's candidates, now goes to the candidate in the same camp.
Dear David, thanks for your concern. This column will be filed away with all the other well-meaning advice from moderates/conservatives who only want to help the Dems from going overboard with a progressive agenda that might really improve the quality of life. By any chance, is there any chance you have considered retiring? I highly advise it, the sooner, the better. much love and happiness!
3
The strong implication toward an open borders policy is going to be a big problem. The other suggestions, free healthcare and lower tuition, especially, should sit just fine with most people.
5
I agree. Show me any country that has open borders. We have to make our immigration policies more humane and we have to continue to take in refugees and asylum seekers, but we still have to protect borders and uphold laws.
2
If you look at graphing of the two parties' political & social policies, you will see that the Republican party has done a dramatic shift to the extreme right since Reagan. Very few Republicans are centrists, with the volume growing greater the farther you move to the right. The establishment Democratic party has been shifting rightward into the center ground to match since Bill Clinton, with the majority of establishment leaders just barely to the left of the center line. The traditional progressive politicians have grown fewer and fewer each year.
Yet, when the Democratic grassroots are polled on issues, they are well to the left of the party centrists. The majority of Democrats & Independents and a surprising number of Republicans poll well left of the centrists in areas like climate change, the environment, single-payer insurance, trade unions, immigration, free public education through college or trade schools, foreign policy issues, separation of church & state, money in politics, transparency & accountability, gun laws, social security, & many other issues. It is only a shift to the left that David Brooks sees, but a shift back to the core values that have defined the party from FDR to Jimmy Carter. For the younger population, tired of the establishment elite of both parties, the emergence of an alternative to the establishment is welcome. Trump's big draw during his 2016 campaign was the same as Bernie Sanders - the rejection of the establishment.
5
I am reluctant to agree with David Brooks but this time I think he nailed it perfectly. Unfortunately as many of the comments suggest,I am afraid that his admonition will be ignored. The debates were chilling--cliches, false statements, and desperate attempts to catch the repeatable phrase, but no substance, despite Elizabeth Warren's effort to provide some. I will vote for the nominee whoever she or he is because I cannot be complicit in allowing Trump to retain control, but I will work for and contribute to the candidate only if a platform of reasonable fact-based proposals for change is put forward.
7
@Timbo
I recommended your post because I agree with most of it. I would add though that Elizabeth Warren has been promising too much and going overboard like many others. She recently offered up a plan to give reparations to gay couples who missed out on the fed tax break by marrying too soon. For crying out loud!
The rational, progressive substance I used to admire in her -- she who fought for the middle class without identify parsing -- is being overtaken by pie in the sky plans for everything free and pandering to identity groups.
Finally, her feverish, ill advised dash to smack down Trump's Pocahontas mockery, breathlessly trumpeting victory by waving about her pitiful DNA result (barely registered any NA DNA) was a clue that she lacks restraint. She gets a little too riled up and carried away with her own image as righteous warrior saint. This trait seems to be drowning out what may have made her a viable choice for some disaffected Trump voters and Never Trumpers who need some convincing to vote Dem.
The unfortunate debate performances of the past 2 nights, esp last night, was, as Brooks warns, what drives potential Dem voters away.
1
David
A great thing happened yesterday in the House when the moderates took control of the emergency border funding bill. The victory for common sense over ideological purity is worth celebrating, and you should become its lonely spokesperson. the House went Democratic because the moderates flipped 50 seats. Let's celebrate this tectonic move and the first of hopefully many common sense victories which will result. Next up: Never Forget Heros. and after that: a narrow DACA bill which solves at least one problem for those who need it solved. Write about it.
4