“Nordic countries show that social solidarity and economic freedom are not opposite, but go hand in hand.”
The fundamental problem in the USA is the lack of social solidarity. Full stop.
We haven’t faced up to the centuries of systemic racism, sexism, xenophobia, discrimination, et al. That must happen first to have any hope for people to support policies that are for the common good.
22
Well David, just keep trying.
But moderation in the face of Climate Change deniers and evil hateful extremists which the GOP now represents has gotten us nothing but international embarrassment and shame. Shame!!!
The United Stares of America is performing horrors with immigrants all over the country. The USA is cozying up to murderous dictators. And our President muses that he may want to serve more than 8 years.
Wake up David. The revolution is way overdue. And the longer we wait, the more painful it will be...for all of us.
If the Facebook "private page" for Border Patrol agents doesn't send you into a fury, then you are indeed sedated and still slogging about looking for peace and harmony through compromises with the devil.
Wake up from your coma. You are a nice guy. I like you. But you are asleep at the switch.
There is no moderate middle ground anymore. Republicans are embracing the darkest side of humanity and cruelty. They need to be repelled, crushed and made irrelevant. There needs to be a new political party to balance the Democrats.
23
One need only view the results of the center-right administrations for the past 4 decades to realize how incorrect this assessment is. We've followed this course for 40 years and had no real wage gains, more poverty, and a smaller safety net. Homelessness became a fixture, as has global warming. Time for a left turn.
30
There are many stereotypical fallacies in this article. But I take issue with doing away with the minimum wage. Scandinavian countries have a different culture. They never had to contend with slavery. The modern right wing does not like labor and has a long memory for cheap labor aforeded by slavery. Should minimum wages be eliminated you will see a new class of poor.
18
Dear Mr. Brooks,
First, I am a Democrat and a regular reader of your columns, and I look forward to hearing your commentary on PBS on Fridays. I admire your focus on ethics and your centrist views. Normally, you support your positions with specific evidence. Despite your usual eloquence, it seems like you did not carefully examine Senator Warren's vision and policies and her rationale for her positions. She is not as far to the left on economic policies as you characterize her. Certainly not the impression I got in your own NYT piece on Senator Warren; https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/magazine/elizabeth-warren-president.html. It is certainly not the picture I got in the New Yorker piece: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-and-two-paths-for-the-american-left. I know that you admire Senators Bennett and Weld. But from my viewpoint, neither Bennett, nor Hickenlooper, and most sadly not even Biden could make that case for the center/moderate visions of "audacity and hope" for all Americans. Even Weld has failed as a moderate Republican, in many interviews I have watched, to articulate the successes of the moderates on both sides of the aisle. Senator Warren, at least, offers a vision for middle class/centrist America that gives some hope for reigning in a version of capitalism that has run amok and offers us no moral compass. I am not entirely sold on Senator Warren, yet, but I am certain she is not an proposing a radical vision.
17
How many times in an editorial lifespan can one person be so wrong about essentially everything? Read columns or watch his PBS spots with Mark Shields (who gets it), count and find out. Wrong again, Mr. Brooks.
17
What amazing doublethink. This should make its way into a textbook
10
I am sure that a Conservative, even a really intelligent one like David Brooks can't quite bring themselves to admit that predatory Capitalism is a Disease that is destroying the world like a malignant cancer.
He tells himself, "Sure we have had a couple of economic crashes caused by 'mistakes' made on Wall Street but the Almighty Market just needs a few minor 'adjustments' to fix the problems."
He will unfortunately keep repeating that as the earth burns to ashes
18
Finally, an articulate description of what is needed to move forward. The fundamental principles of constitutional democracy are the abilities & willingness to collaborate & compromise! It is the middle that connects & operationalizes the ideas generated from more extreme views. Moderates are the bridge that allows us to cross the chasm. Without it we fall. I too, wish we had more moderate candidates on both sides! Closed primaries promote extremes. As a staunch independent, I resent not having a voice in the primary. My voice & others like me, would bring us toward the middle!
3
Moderate Democrates are certainly better for Republicans, since the radicalization of the GOP has moved to the right of even conservative parties in Europe. Mr. Brooks mentions the lack of a minimum wage laws there, perhaps he should read more at the office; higher mean and median wages provide a market floor in economies with enforced labor codes and respect for unions, with no US parallel. As long as the Republicans are driven by the ultra-moralist defenders of fundamentalist Christianity and the "august and blameless" US catholic bishops insisting we force pregnant women to deliver babies plus the large GOP'ers aligned with the powerful gun lobby and defenders of a false interpretation of the 2nd Amendment moderates, even if elected, cannot lead America to be good, fair, and humane, something perhaps Mr. Brooks would agree we have yet to achieve. But the moderates are important too, to build compromises and to work to retain the civil servants we need and hire replacements for those driven out, through both direct action and machinations of this administration. They can focus on rebuilding the Justice Department, attacked mercilessly, the State Department: remember them, the Americans who work to prevent war and attacks on our people around the world, and draft the legislation and Constitutional Amendments we need to restore the balance of power and correct the misguided Robert's Court.
4
Moderates may have a good story to tell, but we'll never hear it. In today's media climate, it's the angriest and most extreme voices that get heard, facts mean next to nothing, and it's all about riling people up on social media.
This is unfortunate, because it is moderate voters who, as usual, will decide the election. It really goes without saying that the Democrats will win the popular vote: Trump has never even approached a 50% approval rating. The question is whether Democrats can win back centrist independents in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other swing states.
That's not going to happen if the Democratic candidate is vowing to increase taxes by trillions of dollars to pay for social programs.
5
@Joe M. I' rather pay for needed social programs than tax cuts for billionaires.
15
Rereading Schmitt’s “The Concept of the Political,” it again reminds me just how much of a beating liberalism is taking.
In Tracy Strong’s intro., one sees: “Schmitt wants … to remove from politics, especially international politics, any possibility of justifying one’s actions on the basis of a claim to universal moral principles. He … fears that in such a framework ALL claims to good will recognize no limits to their reach. Thus, this century will see … wars to determine once and for all what is good for all, wars with no outcome except the elimination of all difference.” The Left and Right agree, no?
“Liberals are horrified at Schmitt because he offends against one of their deepest premises: politics should not become too serious. Most important, liberal politics take the form of claiming politics should never be about identity and that to the degree policy decisions affect what it means to be a person, those decisions are divisive and dangerous. For liberals, rights are rights no matter how gained: they have little truck with the claim … that rights are not rights unless fought for and won, such that they become OUR rights.”
Is it not correct that many intellectuals, especially those who are tied to the struggle for equality for the discriminated-against, have seen liberalism as not exactly useful to their cause? In so seeing, mightn’t they have learned, and passed on to younger people, a dangerous lesson? Rather hard to see how we recover a sense of common ground.
David Brooks has been writing the same column for three years now: “Trump is bad, but the Liberal Democrats are equally bad. I am moderate and an enlightened Conservative so be more like me.” Honestly it’s getting kind of old.
David, I understand that your party went off the rails and you’re afraid to admit that the GOP was always a little Trumpish, but they did a good job in disguising it, and now the façade has been blown wide open. But you need to do start being honest with yourself and realize that compassionate conservative is a contradiction in terms.
18
David, ever hear of global warming? Student loan catastrophe or the health care crisis? The status quo is not working anymore. Wise up. This column is your worst to date.
8
What you call "moderation" is anything but. There is nothing "moderate" about thinking "competition," or tax incentives or whatever, could stop rapidly-accelerating climate change, 10 years from the irreversibility of human extinction which may be a generation or less away. There is nothing "moderate" about the US incarceration rate, armed paramilitaries forcing explosive pipelines through Native reservations & poor Appalachian villages, breaking into houses & rounding up refugees from US war crimes, or the ideological precepts of these extremist behaviors: private ownership of natural resources, white racial privilege & "safety" behind ethnic cleansing, neoliberalism, or the finance capital/wage system. Your "better story" is court legends & ritual obeisances that flatter the vanity of Smaug-like radicals violently guarding what they don't deserve and could never spend in many lifetimes.
There is nothing "moderate" about leaving the right to organize labor & production for all of society in the hands of a few arrogant plutocrats - who (as we know) invest in weapons, prisons, surveillance, propaganda, fossil fuels, & cheap plastic toys - rather than democratically organize around the needs of the many & sustainability of life on earth. YOU are neither moderate nor responsible. You live in a total fantasy world, & your radical ideology has had its day. What you call "moderates" are the ones who must not be coddled anymore.
4
Mr. Brooks, I am with you. I don't like the word moderate, but I agree with your policy prescriptions. I would actually call it true conservatism, which is evolutionary, not revolutionary. More to the point, if you are really committed to what you this sense of moderation, we need to get together and form a third party movement committed to these ideals, because the progressives hate your ideas and the Trumpists are a cult of personality who probably do not even understand your ideas. You are still hoping that the Democrats will provide a "moderate" alternative to Trump. This dream will never be realized. Even if they nominate Biden, he will be too beholden to the hard-core nanny-state liberals. We may not win this election, but there has never been a better time to do what the Lincoln Republicans did in 1958 and 1960. Let's win one or two states (Utah?) and try to send the election to the House of Representatives. Let's campaign on devolving power down to the states and communities. Our loss of federalism is what is driving the hyper-partisanship. In every election the stakes are just too high at the federal level to allow for any compromise. I am with you, but you must have the courage of your convictions.
4
A few of Mr Brooks thoughts are valid, but many of the comments below offer good rebuttals. And comparing us to Scandinavian countries is not on par, as they do not have the massive income inequality that is found here in the USA.
4
<< Moderates are afraid to break from the gloom and carnage mind-set that populists like Donald Trump, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders insist on. >>
That’s as far as I got. That’s enough for me. Warren and Trump have absolutely nothing in common. I do not feel the need to explain the difference between them to the readers of the Times.
I am afraid Mr Brooks has finally lost it completely.
3
OK - Full disclosure - I went to college free and read an important study by Elizabeth Warren which found that about 50% of those who declared personal bankruptcy were compelled to do so because of medical bills. More generally, Senator Warren has written extensively that capitalism has to regulated not eliminated to protect the vulnerable. When David Brooks compares Senator Warren to Trump I feel afraid. Has the toxic ooze coming out of the White House contaminated Brooks thinking. Has Brooks been kidnapped and replaced by a Clone like so many others of the Republican Party. Are the body body snatchers among us.
3
How did the wealth inequality become so big? The rich are getting richer - as the saying goes. But how ? Is it because they are not taxed enough ? Not so sure about that.
This really needs to be the focus of the solution.
All the far left solutions are hinged on heavy taxation. While that 'MAY' make it possible to put a base for the people to spring off of, all that high taxation does is to redistribute the proceeds. It really does not try to solve the underlying reason. And that reason pertains, among other things, to inflation caused by printing money and supplying it utterly low interest rates. All of this money & the proceeds goes to those with access while reducing the value of the money that is with middle income people. Also, a lot of the net worth of wealthy is in the stock they hold - the price to earning ratios of these are ridiculously high.
The solution to this I think is in better regulation rather than heavy taxation that is being asked for.
@Waldo. Tax and finance policies of the past 30 years have played a part in income and wealth inequality becoming so big. Capital gains are taxed at lower rates than actual earned income. "Carried interest" has enabled hedge fund managers to become filthy filthy rich. This money doesn't go into the "consumer economy" that we had in the 50s and 60s - instead, it goes to make more paper profits and overseas investments. As for "high taxation" - that's a joke. The stated rates may be high, but hardly anyone pays them. Corporate profits go to shareholders instead of being reinvested in the business and the people. It is much easier to build wealth once you have some $$ and much harder to actually accumulate something to start investing with. Better regulation would be great - let's start with having the rich and corporations pay what they should be paying so that the burden for paying the nation's debt doesn't fall increasingly on the shoulders of those whose incomes have stagnated for this same 30 year period.
4
You probably could have just shortened this to "I will have less money under a Sanders or Warren presidency, so here's a list of made up reasons why people who are clearly struggling in the current system should stick with that system and not try to elect people who'll make their lives better."
11
I think that David Brooks does not understand the full implications of his statements.
Let me start with this, "Second, never coddle. Progressives are always trying to give away free stuff. They reduce citizens to children on Christmas morning. For example, Warren and Sanders want to make public college free. But as common sense and recent research tells us, when you give people something free, they value it less. They are more likely to drop out when times get hard."
If we are never going to coddle, then we need abolish legacy admissions, make all students pay for college themselves, and abolish inheritance.
Tax credits help the wealthy more than the middle-class. Poor people often do not get much, if any, benefits from tax credits. Why does Brooks want to coddle the wealthy with tax credits? Nobody will be forced to send their children to day care if they don't want to.
Brooks says that Warren wants to create "a top-down council of government dirigistes," while ignoring that we have top-down councils of corporate dirigistes.
And don't get me started how we coddle the rich by taxing wages more than other forms of income. We need to stop taxing carried interest, dividends, and capital gains at lower rates than wages.
So Brooks, stop claiming you want to end coddling. if you do want to end it, start with the wealthy, not the lower- and middle-classes.
11
Are you high? Do you have any idea how expensive childcare is? How is government-funded daycare not a freedom issue? Do you know some people CAN'T work because they can't afford daycare?
11
I don't think David Brooks understand economics and business beyond a theoretical or academic framework. He's basically a business ideologue trying to couch himself as a moderate or pragmatist, but he just buys into the theories that every other right-winger buys into when it comes to business. Particularly as to healthcare and the pharma industry, he's obviously never studied the industry and its policy of steady price gouging while drugs have monopoly positions through patents. I agree that the country needs moderates, needs pragmatic economic and education policy, but I don't really think David Brooks understands what any of that is outside of what right-wing think tanks like the AEI and Heritage Foundation tell him it means. You have to look at who sponsors those think tanks, the plutocrats who control the country. Brooks can write, but I'm not sure he can think.
3
“As Charles Lane pointed out recently in The Washington Post, most Nordic countries have zero estate tax. Nordic health plans require patient co-payments and high deductibles, in stark contrast to Bernie Sanders’s plan.”
Charles Lane was also editor of the New Republic who published the infamous 1998 Stephen Glass articles in TNR. Books have been written about Glass’ fraud; it’s the subject of the 2003 film “Shattered Glass”. It wasn’t simply one dubious article that was published by accident.
So why would I give any credence to what Lane claims?
Now, of course, via an interwebs search I could check the claim, but I’m betting I’d find huge qualifiers, like what constitutes a legitimate part of someone’s estate. And/or capital gains taxes are very high, and paid on the value at the time of transfer not the value accrued 10 years later, so as to encourage the heir/s not to cashout the family company or big parcel of land but instead to manage it for the next few decades and pass it on to an adult child who will then run it for 35 years until his/her death.
Then the estate tax exemption in the USA is now something like 10 million dollars, so that means figuratively that 99.7 percent of all heirs receiving property or cash/stocks/bonds willed to them pay no taxes on the inheritance. Seems like a big omission by Brooks here.
Submitted July 2nd 3:30 PM eastern
3
Sorry, David, but this is a new low for you. Your facts are skewed and misleading on the Nordic system and in general the article is filled with biases and misinformation.
Please take off your blinders when it comes to how progressive policy can and would work, and put forth a more cogent, fact based and honest argument if you want us to believe the center is where it's at for this country.
6
This summarizes the basic issue we have in any type of complex, advanced society.
We value and want choice, but many of us make really bad decisions when we have choices.
This is exactly why we need a strong social safety net, but also one that is much more simpler than we have now (one cash payment instead of the two dozen welfare and benefit programs we have now). We also have to be prepared to say that this is all you get - society is not here for you to constantly correct the consequences of your choices after giving you so many to begin with.
1
Your premise is wrong. 1. The loss of American manufacturing is not just from free trade. Production requires many fewer “hands” to produce the same volume. Where hands are needed, labor shifts to the cheapest source. 2. The advent of the container ship means that materials and finished goods can be shipped around the world at a fraction of the cost. 3. Education fuels innovation and productivity. We are sorely lagging due to a all out assault on our educational budget, while other developing countries thrive and built their capabilities and economies. 5. Progressive don’t want “free things” but spending that is impactful and egalitarian. 6. While the CEO of my company has seen to take home double and triple pay yearly, if I get a 2% raise, management acts like they’re Santa Claus. And I probably pay more in taxes than he does. Countering these factors is the winning Progressive agenda.
4
Brooks is incredibly dishonest with this piece. One example: he cites a JP Morgan report (not sure why they'd fudge data) that says Nordic countries are "more open to free markets and trade" if that were true (which it isn't in the case of international free trade), more than 50% of the labor (usually upwards of 70%) are unionized. He also conveniently leaves out that fact that these countries don't have a minimum wage law because unions believe it would interfere with their ability to collectively bargain. Again, the majority of their labor force is unionized, thus they have powerful bargaining power when negotiating for better wages. Compare that to about 10% of unionized American works (even less in the private sector.). What Sanders and Warren are proposing doesn't come close to what they have in Scandinavia and Brooks either knows this and is being disingenuous, or he's delusional.
Also, apparently not allowing people to go bankrupt from medical bills is "infantilizing" them. The more you know...
9
@Grant or actually dying from self-rationed insulin.
2
Most often, I find myself in agreement with Brooks, and I join his fear that Trump might just get another 4 years to further ruin the finances, institutions, and influence of the country. That risk is increased when the Democratic party message is tailored to serve mere slivers of the electorate.
But Brooks eludes me when he insinuates that any Democratic leader wants a centralized industrial policy. It is not a planned economy to have intensified regulation of aircraft manufacture to prevent malfunctioning flight control software, or regulation to reduce the 128,000 hospitalizations due to food contamination, or even to encourage shifts away from fossil fuel to reduce the threat of global warming and sea level rise. It is also not a combative government that allows Medicare to negotiate drug prices with providers in the same way it is done by the VA system in the US and by the health system of Canada. But the government may have to be combative to secure favorable trade arrangements.
Yes, the global middle class has expanded, but it has been at the expense of the US middle class (see Branco Milanovic on Global income growth). Should we applaud the growth of the middle class in China when it has come at our expense?
1
There is so much wrong with this column. I love how Mr. Brooks makes the comparison with Nordic countries and talks about their lack of an estate tax (and implies that it is such a great thing), but fails to mention the much higher other taxes. I don't see Mr. Brooks proposing to raise US taxes to those levels (total taxes collected are approximately 60% higher than total US taxes through a variety of ways - income taxes, VAT taxes, etc.). If that is "the approach we want here", what about the taxes Mr. Brooks?
Second, very, very few Americans are against capitalism. However, they recognize that unfettered capitalism benefits the few at the expense of the many, and they have been left adrift. Maybe some of the left-wing plans are solutions. Maybe a Nordic style system, with less regulation, less licensing and strong free markets could be a solution - with much higher taxes. But you don't mention the higher taxes part. You want the Nordic deregulation with low American taxes. Something approaching the system we currently have, which doesn't help most people. Disingenuous to say the least Mr. Brooks. This is why people are turning to left wing ideas, because even moderate GOPers can't discuss the issues in a genuine way. You don't offer a solution, just more of the status quo.
Finally, we had a moderate Dem president in Barack Obama. How did the GOP react to that?
8
I put myself through college in the 70s playing in rock bands and working part time at a convenience store. Back then govt. supported higher education. What has changed, and has it changed for the better? We can, and must, do better.
3
Brooks certainly doesn't lack for gall or maybe it's a complete lack of self-awareness or a convenient Reagan like memory. After spending a lifetime propping up the rotten hull of the good ship GOP, he's got some never coming out for "moderation." Go away.
8
My God, is there no end to the pomposity and condescension of David Brooks?
13
Nordic countries aren’t socialist? Hmm. Obviously, they have hybrid economic systems that blend capitalism and socialism, but one of the standard definitions of socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production.
Large portions of the national wealth of the Nordic countries is publicly owned—as high as 60% in Norway!
Check it: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/29/what-the-right-gets-wrong-about-socialism/
4
@GoSeeCal. From the article: "Yet controlling or interfering with free markets, nationalizing industries, and subsidizing favored ones" - isn't that we have in our US oligarchy? Sarah Palin nationalized the Alaskan oil industry, for goodness sake. Corporate welfare subsidizes large agriculture, the fossil fuels industry . . . need I go on? Free markets - really?
Wrong on just about everything, starting with what liberals and moderates want. Generally, it's a mug's game when any commentator says what the other guys want, rather than simply quoting what they say, or commenting on what they do.
You repeatedly say liberals want to 'give stuff away'; I have literally never heard any politician of whatever stripe offer anything like that. It's an empty, silly accusation; I wonder what it really means.
If you want to say liberals want to take money from those who have and give it/ spend it on those who do not, at least that's a relatively clear statement.
Course it puts you frankly saying we should abandon Social Security, and I can see why that clear statement of what you want is not politically correct. If that's not what you mean, what do you mean?
You stay pretty clear of any problems that liberals find worthy of address by government.
Like health care: we have the most expensive and least efficient system in the world. Alone in the world, we leave millions without access to healthcare. We pay more, we get less and let people die unnecessarily. Nobody else does. You criticize every effort to bring us up, just to the back end of the line, and you offer nothing.
Not good enough, Mr. Brooks. Such empty pap is why the GOP got taken over by kleptocrats and charlatans.
If you got better, not is the time to show it.
5
What a rationalization of failed conservative rhetoric. Rather than looking at and recognizing the ways these "progressives" are trying to make capitalism what you claim here that it is, you just keep dropping code words. "Coddled", "wards", "centralize". As if child care tax credits would work for folks who barely pay taxes because they can barely find a job that makes a living wage. As if a capitalist system that goes nearly solely for profit would compete for green manufacturing gains. As if these folks were trying to take something away that worked, rather than build something new that actually works. I also love that you sneak in "wage subsidies" under the ignite from below. What about wage subsidies isn't centralized? C'mon. Fess up. You don't like that they are calling the policies we need "progressive". Too bad. You know we need these changes, and you know that it doesn't matter if they are called moderate or progressive. You want it to feel more palatable, and like you thought of it. You're a late comer to this party, Brooks. You rolled with some vulture capitalist claptrap under the name "moderate conservative" for a long time without saying much. So I'm not sure you get to name the corrective action.
5
This column is a nice complimentary piece to the thousands of columns of what conservatives and Republicans need to do to appeal to those across the aisle.
What's that you say?
Oh that's right. There are literally zero such columns. Always it's liberals and progressives who have to move to the right. Even as the country has moved so far to the right, we now resemble one of those dystopian societies one reads about in science fiction novels.
But yeah, it's the left that has to move right.
Tell you what, David. If the Democratic party makes you so uncomfortable, feel free to vote for the party that runs child concentration camps instead.
8
For goodness' sake stop peddling these myths! I live, not in a Nordic country, but a northern European one. We have NO co-pay and NO deductibles. Do I need to repeat that? NO co-pay and NO deductibles. I am sick of neocons like Brooks spreading what is factually untrue.
12
Brooks and similar thinkers don’t realize that the “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party is actually that moderate compromise. Climate change is bearing down on us as economic inequality is destroying the very idea of democracy (Mr Brooks’ image of a great gobal middle class is pure fantasy). A left wing with robust ideas to protect citizens, the environment and democracy itself is the compromise we the masses offer instead of something more extreme. Take it or don’t. There are more of us
5
What Brooks fails to grasp (well, to focus on one thing) is that the oppressive social programs he describes in fact exist to give people choice. When we have childcare, when we have guaranteed health care, when we are not saddled with a lifetime of student debt, when we have wages we can live on, we're empowered to make all kinds of choices for our lives. We can pursue goals that were previously impossible; we can express our human potential. That's not dependence, it's freedom.
11
Mr Brooks column has allowed us to think and evaluate the benighted way in which he has painted "moderation" as essentially an unwanted and impractical way for the Country to proceed. Moderation may be fine when it relates to life-style vices and foods, but not a very effective tool for fixing a "moderately" dis-functional society.
5
As is almost always true with columnists and pundits of all stripes, there is an assumption that our citizens are reasonably intelligent, mostly educated, somewhat read and realize that the world is larger then the microcosm of their lives.
Alas, none of those things are true. The average citizen can't see beyond their own circumstance and have no understanding about democracy and the government created by our Founding Fathers.
My only hope is that I can find Democratic candidates for whom I can vote instead of only voting against Mr. Trump and every Republican autocrat and thief on my ballot.
5
If moderates have the better story, then you should not have spent the bulk of your career papering over the racism and rapacious greed of the Republican party, which has not been moderate in many, many years (think EPA and Blackmun, for Nixon, for all his faults, _but see_ Southern Strategy). I still remember you chortling with glee over Sarah Palin's speech at the RNC -- was she a moderate? There's only one way to right this ship, and it's not through you.
7
So these Nordic countries that have socialized medicine, but there are deductibles and copays:
I’m betting that all of them have highly regulated, next to non-profit, $1000-a-year private plans, which can refuse no one, and that automatically cover the entirety of the copays and deductibles.
And of course Brooks here ignores the fact that countries like Denmark highly regulate the prices of drugs and hospital procedures.
It’s also a good bet that no Nordic country allows for-profit hospitals.
Very likely that hospitals keep, for example, orthopedic surgeons on staff paid a good salary, but NOT PAID for each procedure and exam.
Canada’s Medicare system doesn’t cover non-hospital drugs, but there are real supplemental plans that do, AND DRUG PRICES are GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED in CANADA.
Submitted July 2nd 2:26 PM eastern
6
"American progressives sometimes imagine that the Nordic countries are socialist wonderlands. They are not. "
Reading a sentence like that makes me wonder if David Brooks thinks no American to the left of David Brooks has ever left the country. Or even spent an afternoon reading one of the wonderful Nordic Noir novels. Sure there are plenty of people of all political stripes who don't know how social democracies work. But there's info aplenty out there and many have encountered it. Between David's mischaracterization of Sanders and Warren and the arrogant assumptions embedded in that statement, I'm beginning to doubt he's writing in good faith.
10
Capitalism and a free market are not synonymous. When a tiny few own most everything, the free market loses out to monopolies and tariffs.
9
First, if you are going to claim that the moderates have a better story, it would help if you told the story the supposedly unmoderate candidates actually tell. Elizabeth Warren explcitly calls herself a capitalist. None of Bernie Sanders's outrageous policies are anything that doesn't exist all over Western Europe. Both of them are pretty stern about corporations, but they are proposing to regulate them, not eradicate them.
Second, I don't know why but I am suddenly reading conservatives assuring me that Scandinavian countries have the kind of unreined capitalism that we haven't seen since the good old days of Victorian England (see, I can play the pundit hyperbole game too). Having copays and deductibles doesn't eliminate the fact that they have health care paid for by taxes and administered by the state. They also have numbers of other strong social welfare programs. And, given that their income inequality is considerably lower than ours,, it is reasonable that they might not feel the need for wealth taxes or much higher percentage taxes on very large incomes.
If you prefer other solutions, that's what makes for good debates. But you might argue more straighforwardly.
9
As a 76-year old Democrat who has never voted for a Republican for federal office, who was arrested twice for civil rights work in the South in the 1960s, and who worked hard in the McGovern campaign of 1972, I think David Brooks is right on target. Today's progressive mantra has turned into a toxic Puritanism. LBJ got the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed by working across divisions. Today's leftist consensus is "if you don't think like I do across the board, you're the enemy."
4
@Lavon Page The "puritanism" of the left is a reaction to the insane obstruction that McConnell's Senate has been enacting since 2009. If the Democrats want to enact any meaningful policies, they'll have to do so as a united front. If you're not on board, then get out of the way.
8
Thank you David Brooks for caring about the Democrats and helping us be more in tuned w the Moderates who we need if we are going to win in 2020!
3
I couldn’t place myself in Mr. Brooks’ political bestiary. I like to think myself a liberal, although the term has become increasingly co-opted by the resurrected late 19th century moniker “progressive”, whose adherents are mostly “left” of where I stand. On the other hand, I can’t identify with Mr. Brooks’ characterization of “moderate” because it really describes views and attitudes that are soft-core 1950s-era conservative. I imagine other readers had similar reactions.
I also imagine that my Senator, Elizabeth Warren, is more flexible than Mr. Brooks thinks she is. What I think is his misapprehension stems partly from her having come up with a plan for practically everything; once written down, it inevitably acquires rigid characteristics. Although Sen. Warren projects a fighting spirit, she’s also been a listener, and she should entertain suggestions for improving her proposals.
4
"Over the past generation more people have been lifted out of poverty than ever before."
Too bad they weren't Americans. News Flash: all politics is local. Americans have traditionally been more concerned with what's happening to their neighbors and relatives than to someone they've never met in a Third World country. America's working and middle class families have enjoyed zero real economic gains over the past forty years.
"For the first time we have a mass global middle class."
All clamoring for the trappings of a middle class lifestyle with its attendant carbon emissions that damage the environment and threaten to destroy the planet.
A sensible strategy focused on American interests would combine a carbon tax at home with corresponding tariffs on imports from trading partners that abuse the environment. As we free our economy from carbon-based energy, we can then cut defense spending by 50% since we won't be dependent upon oil from the Middle East. Those defense savings can then be deployed to develop human capital and national infrastructure so that our economy can generate real income gains for America's forgotten workers once again.
4
Wealth taxes don't work, says Mr Brooks, except in Norway or so it seems.
Perhaps if everyone with wealth over a certain amount - say $200 million, had to give half of it to the government when they died do you they would even notice it.
3
Mr Brooks, you fight fire with fire and anger with anger because that is what works with Trumps party.
Always speak and print the truth, If the truth hurts then so be it. Always preach inclusiveness and tolerance because it will make our country stronger.
Medicare for all would create jobs and increase wages since US corporations would save billions of dollars each year and lower health care costs.
1
There are no moderates running in the Democratic Primary, thank goodness. There are liberals and those further to the left. Whether it was FDR and Social Security or LBJ and Medicare there were always a David Brooks whining about how the Democrats were taking the country down the road of socialism. Let any Republican try to take away from any American either program or the ACA or the myriad of other so called socialist programs.
4
What a naive piece of writing that falsely depicts the positions of some the Democratic positions... Mr Brooks, you have become part of the Republican fear of change messaging....
8
Preach to Fox News, David, not us.
11
Charter schools = really a death blow to quality public education for all. See Betsy Devos. And stop caricaturing progressives.
6
Too smart an audience here, David. Please read some of these insightful comments and try this opinion piece again.
10
Exactly.
1
Yet another conservative right wing, Times Republican pundit prescribing what is the best road to be taken for Democratic electoral success. Has something subversive been added to the water cooler at work? No Mr. Brooks, we did not solicit nor do we wish to accept your “advice”. Please return to your personally inspiring road trips in Middle America and the resulting wonky discussions about community spirit, creativity, etc. The fluff stuff we can at least tolerate, not the phony political prescriptions.
5
As the leading spokesman for Congressional Republicans at NYT, I can really get how Mr Brooks knows all about political moderation.
1
Uh, your second paragraph is a complete non-sequitor after the first paragraph. Might have slipped in from a draft for a different column.
1
Brooks proves himself to be the master of misrepresented ideas under the cloak of "moderation". One not even need to look between his sentences to see the spin in plain sight.
3
Isn't this quaint? Now David wants us to all believe that Don Trump (who has no ideology other than himself) and Elizabeth Warren are just two sides of the same spectrum. This makes perfect sense if you're a complete fool.
I get so tired of the Republicans and their trolling partners trying to convince Democrats who should be their candidate. Hey David your party picked Don Trump all by yourselves. Why in the world would we want your help in picking ours? Please stop working for the RNC all the time. You work for the NYT's.
6
Moderates are paying for the Wall, sure is a good story, for the right.
Moderate:
adjective 1. relating to or denoting a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism.
noun 1. a person with neoliberal views.
I was going to read your column today David but decided to skip it and instead am going to read Paul Krugman, which I usually don't.
The more I read Brooks the more I see a man who wants deeply to live in a gray world.
What exactly makes Nordic countries plausible comparisons to the United States? Their population size, diversity and geographic locations might match some of the 50 states but not not the vast expanse of this country. My sincere apologies to the writer but on many issues confronting this nation aggressive government intervention is needed. It is doubtful that market forces will react fast enough to mitigate climate change. In that a one area the challenges of necessary infrastructure are going to be best handled by government driven initiatives.
2
What is all this nonsense about free college? All state California universities (UCLA etc and state colleges and community colleges had NO TUITION until sometime after I graduated in 1967. I paid a whopping $138 for my first year in 1959. I got 3 degrees and after 8 years the cost was less $2,000 with no scholarships, grants, or any help. $2,000 that was it. I think if I didn’t want to go the football games, I might not had to have paid that, not sure. When I graduated I got a job where one week of salary paid for one year college-$150.
5
Solid points, per usual from David, but I can't help but strongly disagree with characterizing Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren as populists like Trump. The push toward the left by mainstream Democrats is solidly anchored in the growing resistance to Trump and the near-fascist policies he and far-right Republicans are trying to ram down voters' throats. One can argue that every election these days is a 'crossroads,' but it's hard to imagine a more critical one to the country's future than in 2020.
1
Solid points, per usual from David, but I can't help but strongly disagree with characterizing Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren as populists like Trump. The push toward the left by mainstream Democrats is solidly anchored in the growing resistance to Trump and the near-fascist policies he and far-right Republicans are trying to ram down voters' throats. One can argue that every election these days is a 'crossroads,' but it's hard to imagine a more critical one to the country's future than in 2020.
Mr. Brooks, the position you advocate is precisely the one that caused the election of Mr. Trump.
If you think they've been doing the right thing all along, how come it didn't work? How come it isn't working?
1
Wrong David Brooks.
There has been no far left for a long time. There has been next to nothing strongly progressive in decades. I realize that even though you seem to be mortified by your party and it's elected members you cannot let go of some long past wished for Reagan era views. They are gone. The middle of the road or ever evolving move to the right got us EXACTLY where we are today. Bill Clinton and even Barack Obama had some success but they also were nowhere near being progressive lefties. They tried to play both sides against the middle and look what happened to the middle. Where has it gone Mr. Brooks? How and why did it collapse and falter? Was it because of far left "radical" policies, or was it because of a steady march against unions, right to work states, corporate bailouts, corporate welfare and tax loopholes for the wealthiest of the wealthy? These were Republican ideals and Clinton and Obama helped keep in place. Americans are sick and tired of moderation from the Democrats. It's gotten us nowhere. We used to hear African Americans ask what have elected Democrats really done for us in the last 50 years. Well Mr. Brooks, now it's white people asking them and the answers are coming from the newly elected members of congress. What do we have to lose. The last 50 years have brought us to where we stand.
3
When David Brooks talks about progressives he simply fails to refer to anything real, in the same way conservatives do when they talk about Kaepernick - ignoring his own statements about what his purpose is, and breathlessly replacing it with whatever knee-jerk right-wing cliches happens to pass the transoms of their febrile imaginations.
5
Mr. Brooks, I like you, but you need to read Paul Krugman's column a bit more often.
5
Hillary Clinton seems a moderate by David Brook's standards. Why then did the moderate-republicans not choose her instead?!
3
The greatest, and most significant, difference between the Nordic countries and America is that that Nordic countries, as truly capitalist economies, apply significant property taxes, whereas the USA, as a feudal construct with a feudal economy applies minimal property taxes. This enables the rich able to buy up as much of the country as they wish, without any penalty. leaving the poor squeezed out of the property market, facilitates slum landlords (Fred & Donald Trump) and ensures that there is not enough money to educate the lower socio-economic classes.
3
Use progressives for your own misguided fantasies and prove them wrong! Micro dosing is no longer working for you. Maybe macro dosing?
It's heartening to read that Mr. Brooks still has his head on straight.
1
"Second: Never coddle."
You're right, David.
If a person refuses a Congressional subpeona, jail them.
If, like Acosta, they rig the legal system to save Epstein from child-rape charges, jail them.
If they are of the preist-class and they rape a child, don't codle them: Jail them.
If they belong to an underbelly Facebook site like "I'm 10-15", and abuse kids in cages, jail them.
Yes, David, we all know who you are and where you stand.
You've said so often enough.
It's just that you are never on the side of decency or following laws.
Like.... Mitch and his secret pipeline for contracts to his wife's office.
Like the president of your country being accused with rape.
You're a Jekell-Hyde, David.
On PBS, you are so reasonable appearing.... and then you get alone and start typing and your common decency goes out the window.
So, here's my solution to that small problem: Never write alone, David.
Your mean streak comes out when you do.
Warren for President, 2020!
7
I lived in Europe for a while and met plenty of Scandinavians. I have the sense that they don't need minimum wage laws, regulations on business creation and the like because the people there acknowledge what Americans have come to disdain: the common good. Norway doesn't have to force it's business to pay people a living wage because business owners understand they have to have happy and healthy employees for their businesses to thrive. If the Walton family, for instance, felt the same way about their employees, why would we need to raise the federal minimum wage.
6
In the now famous words of Santyana, "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." This is starting to feel like the mid-1980s when Democrats spoke dismissively of Reagan voters, marginalized the old guard southern Democrats and sanctimoniously proclaimed their liberal purity while blithely ignoring the fact that the middle class, as their share of the pie began to shrink, were rebelling against the high taxes necessary to fund a bloated federal government. The Dems lost five out of six presidential elections because of that arrogant approach. Take a page from Bill Clinton to middle class voters in a way that acknowledges the validity of their fears.
Terrific column, Mr. Brooks--but, jeepers Your "moderate" sounds an awful lot like a classic, small-C conservative, before Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell sucked the air out of the right-wing.
This could be a presidential election based on ideas and vision--but a lifetime of watching these contests from the peanut-gallery convinces me that, as always, it will turn on "Willie Horton" ads, gaffes, Twitterstorms and "raise your hands" moments. It won't be as bad as politicians offering voters a shot of whiskey at the polling-place--probably worse. In return for your vote, you will receive empty promises, high-minded "plans" that will never survive a Senatorial committee and free admission to the freak show known as democracy.
While he says "moderate", most of us realize after reading his columns for years is that he really means "right leaning". Time after time, Mr. Brooks has shown zero empathy towards his fellow man. I think he really believes one should pull one's self up by his or her bootstraps. I guess a leopard never changes his spots.
You are asking the Democrats to continue to play nicely while the Republicans, and the corporations and rich that back them, become more extreme every day. You can't fight outrageous lies and hyperbole with moderation. Corporations have no conscience. Their sole purpose is to make as much money as possible. If that means funding politicians with no conscience to help them meet their goals, they will. And it is working. It is like a bad B movie, except if it continues it will not end well.
5
You should read the opinion of your colleague Paul Krugman, who knows something more about economics--and morality, it appears--than you do. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/opinion/2020-democrats-taxes.html
6
this highly distorted interpretation of progressive positions reminds me of when Republicans transformed ACA end-of-life advice into "death panels."
5
Trump and the RNC just reported a record-breaking fund-raising effort. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/us/politics/trump-fund-raising-2020.html
So, what is David Brooks's advice to the "moderates" in his own party? He's written at least two columns offering advice to Democratic moderates, but none to Republican moderates.
2
I always thought that Brooks considered himself a conservative but the last few columns he is taking the mantle of moderate. It seems to me that he is just struggling to be relevant now that the 'conservatives" have morphed into Trumpian white nationalists and misogynistic racists. To me the political curve is no longer a bell curve but a bimodal distribution and to win an election it is necessary to make your end of the curve bigger then the other end.
1
Instead of trying to make Democrats into your version of Republicans, Brooks, you should work on actually fixing what remains of your party.
Though, personally, I think ALL Republicans are to blame for Trump and you can all ride that boat down with him.
3
Moderates must also show that they are not working ONLY for the 1%. Charles Ferguson's Predator Nation shows why that is necessary. I have a summary of his arguments (http://www.robsstrategystudio.org/awfcasfw.htm) if you haven't got time to read the book
Donald Trump pointed out correctly how Democrats and Republicans were ignoring the middle-class. He has done the same of course.
Rob
If you want to get me thinking you did it. You're leaving out too many powerful issues in order to preach the moderate solution. How do you deal with climate change, the meritocracy that cripples mobility for most of our workers, the incredible inequality in wages, the years it will take for this country to recover from Trump? My friends are asking, "What can I do locally about climate change?". I'm afraid your dealing with a tornado by waving a feather. Norway is an end result after many failures. We're in the middle of the feather storm and no one appears to have the moderate plan in motion with the power and commitment you describe.
seems to me the dems are all weaklings lusting for power
why stick with our James Bond Trump to fix this drug problem where other powerful nations found away to destroy us through drug addiction and weaklings lusting for power always cave in at the end
hehehehehe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b07Z_qfchFk
Seems to me Brooks' idea of "moderates" is really "corporatists." Let's just ratchet up the "free stuff" that corporations currently, happily receive from every level of American government in the form of tax abatements and loopholes and ridiculous carve-outs, and expect THAT to spur individual grit, determination, entrepreneurship, small business growth and market creativity. Yeah, that'll work. Let's not listen to Warren's true mantra of basic fairness, which isn't top-down socialism at all, but embraces a more egalitarian form of capitalism, where the dollar is strongest not when hoarded offshore or in a blind trust somewhere, but actually works for every American. Let's allow serial, proven polluters and climate deniers to figure out a way forward as the ice caps melt and coastlines are swallowed and forests burn. Let's just translate Brooks' definition of "moderate" into what it really means: "Do as little for the common good as possible, and call it benevolent government."
2
Ah great, it's summer concert season and the Dave Brooks Band is playing all the old hits, opening with "Straw Man Blues" (usually reserved for encores, followed by a ponderous deep cut "False Equivalency (Trump=Warren=Sanders)" from his brief flirtation with Judeo-Christian Neo-Prog in the aughts.
More ponderous musical choices were "Do (Progressives) Know it's (Not) Christmas" and "Nordic Bootstrapping" from DB Fan-Club-Only holiday releases of yore. Younger college-age fans were visibly alienated by a spoken-word breakdown, where "cuddle, college, and coddle" were repeated in whispers, mumbles, and ultimately, deafening screams as the band thunderously rejoined DB to a blinding volley of strobe lights.
The pacing of songs could have used some work, most tempos falling into the tepid category of "Moderate Rock".
6
Mr. Brooks, painting Warren policy as anti market and anti capitalism and trade is very disingenuous.
Carving out basic services out of the for profit commerce is not that uncommon. Do we have a choice of nation defense spending plan ? I which I did, I would go for the bronze plan at best.
Do we pay for roads through taxes ? [may be I would want better urban planning instead]. Do we all pay in social security and medicare [most people would starve in retirement without those] ?
Cutting out profit motives out of the basic health insurance and education financing business is a good thing. For profit higher education is a bit of racket, price are always going up while delivery of the goods using on line media dropped tremendously. People pay because there is no other choice to access good jobs.
Saying having a safety net is not compatible with sustaining an entrepreneurial spirit is ridiculous. In fact student debt, high cost of private health care is an anchor around the neck of young people trying to start a business.
3
You complain that Elizabeth Warren only supports Federal funding for day care, depriving families of the choice offered by tax credits which would also cover families where one parent chooses to stay at home to care for the kids.
The cost of Warren’s plan is partially offset by the income taxes the 2nd working parent would pay and whatever money this higher earning family could pump into the economy. There is no cost offset in the tax credit scenario.
1
This is a nice theoretical piece, but doesn't reflect reality. The country will move to the left. We will have to confront climate change, the disruptive economic consequences of tech, and reform our economic system so it is not controlled by a few with table scraps for the rest. And we will have to move quickly as our enemies are totalitarian states who do not grant their citizens the luxury of internal debates. So yes we are at war with ourselves, but our democracy is resilient. We are lucky that some good people have stepped forward to confront the vapid and heartless Republican party.
7
Mr. Brooks, there are no Republican moderates any more.
In 1964 Goldwater Republicans gained control of the Republican Party from the moderate Rockefeller Republicans.
In 1968 the American Independent Party’s Wallace/LeMay ticket received 13.5 percent of the popular vote and 46 electoral votes from the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama. No third-party candidate has won more than one electoral vote since the 1968 election.
In 2009, as a reaction against the first Black president of the United States, the TEA Party was conceived and became a sub-set of the Republican Party.
In the '90s the Democrat Party of FDR, JFK/LBJ became the "Third Way" of Bill Clinton (and Tony Blair in the UK), which, in essence were Rockefeller Republicans reborn. These were your moderates, but you were busy endorsing, aiding and abetting the rising conservatism of Ronald Reagan, et al.
Now your hens have come home to roost and you really do not know what to do...
8
Brooks is a Republican. Presumably, he will either vote for Republican candidates or not at all in 2020. What business is it of his to dictate what sort of candidate the Democrats should nominate?
9
Republicans want democrats to pick a moderate, because that is what they would do? No. They cut off moderation at the knees, whenever they get their chance. Let’s not fall for it. They prefer promises of right wing extremism. Clinton was a moderate, so they banished her to the conspiracy theorists’ land of the “crooked”. They will do the same to Joe Biden.
The economy is going south right under their feet, but they will not notice because their hands are in their deep corporate pockets. The RNC and Trump have brought in troves of campaign donations from corporate lobbyists. Corporations united!! They are already flooding the internet with fake videos and stories. They plan to win at any cost. They want to sew doubt and divide us democrats again.
5
@Dr. Girl Exactly right. They destroyed moderation in the GOP, and want us to serve it up again so they can wipe it out once more.
2
"The Nordic countries show that social solidarity and economic freedom are not opposite, but go hand in hand."
Mr. Brooks remains the King of Shallow Thinking. It's generally understood that this statement is nonsense. What Nordic countries show is that "social solidarity and economic freedom" are easy in a society where everybody looks and thinks the same (and has, for centuries). We Americans love to celebrate our diverse, pluralistic society; and rightly so, I say. But the rich textures of our social fabric create their own administrative complexities.
Only fools pretend that the U.S. is anything like Norway (e.g.), where the citizens all agree so much, on just about everything, that they can gladly distribute their country's considerable oil wealth -- ALL of it -- equally among everyone. Imagine that happening in America. Hahahahahaha!
3
Yeh, non-partisan moderates, like a few choice members of the Supreme Court. Appalling.
1
Who on the national stage with a realistic shot at the Presidency do you think best represents this point of view?
Hickenlooper? Klobuchar? Someone else?
More whining about the Democrats going too far left. Trust me, if the left-most wing of the Democratic party took control of this country, it might just about bring us back to the center. But it would be close.
Your version of moderate won't cut it anymore, sir. The times they are a-changin', time is running out, and a whole lot of us are finally fed up. I'm sorry this is threatening to you.
7
You lost me when you put Trump, Warren and Sanders in the same boat.
150
@lou All three of them want to take over central government and dictate how things are allocated and managed. Both Warren and Sanders grew up in a lower working class family and have an axe to grind against business. Donald Trump is seriously neurotic and believes himself to be much more than he is. However, all three share one quality. They believe that Americans, rich or poor, black or white, etc. need to be told what to do and when to do it.
10
Journalists and columnists need to stop seeing everything as binary. There is not one progressive agenda and not one moderate one. It's much more of a scale with Bernie on the far left and Biden on the far right (of the liberal side). In Mr. Brooks assessment, which is Mayor Pete? How about Kamala? Or Booker? Democrats are trying to decide how progressive they want to be, not if they want to be progressive at all.
5
Brooks on progressive narrative: "... global capitalism is a war zone. Free trade is a racket. Big business and big pharma are rapacious villains that crush the common man."
Unrestrained, capitalism becomes monopoly and most Americans are poorer. Free trade is a beautiful thing. Let me know when you see markets that without regulation are actually free flowing and not gamed by currency manipulation, state subsidies, and the unseen hand of corruption. Big business that is too big to fail or too big to be regulated is not capitalism, it is crony capitalism. Big pharma that is big because its largest market, Medicare, is not permitted to use its purchasing power to negotiate drug prices is not a free enterprise, it is a protected racket - and no less a protected racket than the urban rackets of yore where business paid the rackets to protect them from, uh, the rackets. We liberals are capitalists in favor of global capitalism and free markets where markets are open and fair and our auto parts, for example, can compete on a fair basis - i.e., not against state subsidies, not against companies that do not have to abide by the same environmental regulations, and not against slave labor. In fact, we liberals are the only ones who want free and fair markets where everyone plays by the same rules and observes the same regulations - a system that is not rigged and does not permit winning by skirting the rules.
6
How does he suggest that the regular citizen/worker accomplish change? Unions have been vilified and demonized.
1
"Moderates" made President Trump possible. The fact is that money has been trickling up, not down, these past 30 years.
2
I hate the term "moderate". Moderation is good, moderate is bad. It is a word that means someone doesn't stand for something.
What I want is not a candidate who is moderate, but a candidate who believes passionately in the right things and is realistic in how to accomplish them. Unfortunately, the slate of Democrats on display right now display neither. It is not that their policies are radical or extreme. I like boldness, and most of the best ideas in history were once thought radical.
Most of these Democratic ideas are not radical or new. Medicare for all? C'mon, these candidates just want to copy systems from other countries that haven't worked to contain government costs. And all the ideas for sky-high taxes and wealth redistribution? Those are both old AND failed ideas. And government command and control everything? Again, old, and coming at the expense of freedom. And, of course, there is no budget to pay for even 5% of the policies being suggested unless one really believes dramatically increasing taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals will not harm the economic output of the things being taxed.
We are in an age of innovation in everything but political theory. Where are the ideas for tapping into the potential of the market to achieve progressive goals?
4
Not sure if the obsession with labels such as "moderate" is of any real use. What's moderate or liberal is relative. It's much more effective to focus on how the policy might actually work without trying to categorizes it. For instance, to me, Warren's proposals are not so much about giving away free stuff, but using government as a tool to promote the dynamic social conditions that you praise in this opinion, Brooks. As conditions change, so to should policy. This is why it makes no sense to keep pushing the same approach over and over again like cutting taxes. If we'd stop thinking less of categories and realize that the effective policy changes as conditions change, we might stop obsessing over what's conservative, liberal or moderate which just clouds our view.
4
Kids that get college scholarships do better than those who don't. Does Daddy pay the full bill? How is that more skin in the game.
Public high school education is free to the student. Society pays the tab and rightly so, I believe. But today a high school education is not worth what it was a couple generations past. Nowadays, a college degree is the bare minimum to be able to "ignite from below". This is more than society's investment in our young people. In fact, it is society's investment in itself: it pays dividends that far exceed the costs, and creates a more dynamic citizenry that multiplies benefits across the wide spectrum of daily life in our communities.
In addition, for millions of college students to graduate with such astronomical debt is an abomination, a huge drag on their lives and on the economy as a whole.
I vote for freedom of choice. Free public education through college for young people with limited resources. If you can afford to pay 50 to 100K a year for private college, go for it.
2
Brooks has a point, but here's the thing: the US has a long way to go to get the "welfare state" part of Brooks' moderation down pat. Most other advanced countries do have universal health care; we don't. Most have free or very inexpensive college; we don't. Most have extensive family leave, child support and day care programs; we don't. Most have job security laws; we don't. So while the likes of Norway, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Canada, Australia and Japan have generally robust free, private economies, as we do, most of this year's Democratic candidates are simply saying we need to catch up.
2
"American progressives have a story to tell, and they are not afraid to tell it. In this story global capitalism is a war zone. Free trade is a racket. Big business and big pharma are rapacious villains that crush the common man."
Having spent my working life inside the global corporate machine, the sentiments you so assiduously deride are much closer to the truth than not. Corporations used to be, if not benevolent, at least reasonably benign. That model died a long time ago, when the greed-at-the-top model displaced it roughly 45 years ago. The rest follows from there. Don't demonize the messenger for finally delivering the mail.
4
'Moderation' especially Democratic Party 'moderation ' is what led to Trump & Thugs in the first place. Republican Lite aided and abetted the GOP in creating the political wasteland we must now endure under a thoroughly right wing SCOTUS.
7
Things cost $. Today anyway. What are we going to do to reconcile the well-intentioned Federal expenditures thus far? Then take on "Medicare for All"? Tax the Rich will we? They've managed to recently bring about tax legislation serving to relieve themselves of reconciling present and future Federal expenditures ($22 Trillion and counting). Corporate debt is so bad that companies that should be out of business are able to subsist on low interest rate loans. These companies are referred to as zombie companies (Forbes). I'm in Wisconsin visiting family. My little sister and her husband just declared bankruptcy. Did it to themselves but they had help. Financial institutions sending them checks ready-to-cash at diabolical interest rates. Car loans they never should've qualified for. I've a friend who lost his house in the 2008 Financial Crisis. He did it to himself too but again, he had some help. Financial institutions frequently reminding him of his ever increasing home value. So they enticed him back to the well until there was nothing left to borrow against.
We all know what happened after that and here we are at $22 Trillion. We as a Nation are awash in debt, borrowing vast sums of money just to service our debt and run the country. The well to do in our Country, have seen fit to shift this burden on those of us who don't have Legislation-Peddler face time. How the heck will we afford Progressive Legislation under these circumstances? I hear you David Brooks.
1
Everything costs money. It's just a matter of where our priorities lie. Republicans dislike providing education and health care to voters because uneducated, sick voters are easier to scare into voting against their own interests. And giving huge tax cuts to ridiculously wealthy people is giving away the benefits of this country for free.
3
Mr. Brooks, Warren's message is a hopeful one. Hope that the depredations of "extreme capitalism" as practiced in the US can be reined in -- as she attempted to do with her formulation of the Consumer Protection Bureau for example. That is hardly the policy of somebody bend on "carnage" ala Trump. Really, how dare you yoke them together. It's also about time you stopped bewailing the left wing of the democratic party. We have not forgotten your servile adulation of GOP "intellectuals" (your word) like Paul Ryan. Given your erstwhile admiration for him and his policies, is it any wonder that Warren and Sanders strike you the wrong way.
1
"American progressives have a story to tell, and they are not afraid to tell it. In this story global capitalism is a war zone. Free trade is a racket. Big business and big pharma are rapacious villains that crush the common man"
This isn't a story Mr. Brooks. It's the world we now live in. It's called reality. I suggest you come out of your bubble and see it for yourself and stop living in fantasy worlds populated by "moderates" who no longer exist.
2
Liberal in 2008 has become a moderate in 2020, that is how much democratic party has moved left. We can't even call "illegal" immigrants by that name anymore. Free college, No private insurance, no coherent immigration policy are the themes of the democratic party of today. Let us see if they can win in the platform
57
The term “illegal alien” was applied to Jews fleeing the Holocaust. But it’s not just illogical - actions can be illegal, being human cannot. The right wing prefers to label to undocumented immigrants as illegals because the dehumanizing term makes their policies more palatable.
If you liked the term, and lament the critics, maybe you were never actually liberal.
16
@SeattleLiberal, So look where we are SeattleLiberal.
1
@SeattleLiberal
Liberal in 2008 is what was moderate Republican was back in 1980. So it goes. I myself am an FDR Democrat.
15
One example you didn’t use was the progressives stance on immigration. During the debates almost every one on stage said that he or she would not deport anyone in the country illegally unless that person had committed a serious crime, and that, of course, entering the country illegally should not be a crime. Whether this costs the Democratic Party the Presidency, I do not know. Such a position will cost them my vote, however, and doubtless many more.
3
Bravo to Brooks...finally. He has found his voice after wandering around in political la la la land since Trump came on the scene. I, an ex GOPer and now Democrat. am a moderate as he describes them and which have now been totally excised from the power centers of the Trump GOP due to the largely ignored and predictable side effects of its obscene southern strategy. It took 40 years but that party has cleansed itself of people like me, capitalists who think government is both good and necessary to referee and provide a strong set of rules because they are essential to keeping a level and honest playing field in the American version of the game of Life. We moderats are quieter than either the more conservative right and its Trumpian screeds, or the more progressive far left with its Bernie die hards. Brooks may not be able to admit it to himself but he is now a moderate and his kind of GOP no longer exists. At least moderates still have a place in the Democratic Party. So to Brooks I say...come on over, the water's great and don't spend 20 years slowly dipping your toe in it like I did before deciding. With Trump in charge you need to decide now...before it's too late and America as we have known it will be gone.
2
My CEO makes roughly 1200x what I make per year. Explain again how moderates have the better story, I'm just not understanding.
5
A mass global middle class that cannot scrape $400 in an emergency.
All well and good that Nordic countries have no minimum wage and no estate tax. They also have a different mindset than the American "compete or die" mantra.
CUNY was free when I attended. By your logic grades K-12 should not be free either. Not everything needs a price tag.
In spite of right wing hype no one is advocating socialism.
Capitalism like anything else requires checks and balances. If you have a billion dollars then you simply have too much money.
3
Once again, Mr. Brooks describes Democratic politicians who are no more progressive than Nixon or Eisenhower as "extreme", and describes candidates who are far to the right of those former Presidents as "moderates." One has to assume that Mr. Brooks needs to study history a bit more and learn what formerly passed as solid conservative GOP policy. It may surprise him.
4
@James As far as studying more Mr Brooks was by his own admission high in high school. He may have missed something.
1
Brooks was on a pretty good roll there for a while. And now this, back to the old gross oversimplification of nuanced policy and opinions. After all, who needs to carefully debate policies when you can just lie about their contents? Free 2-year community college for qualified students = free college. Policies to ensure affordable child care options = free child care. Recognizing the crucial role that government spending plays in our economy (like that $400B no-bid contract reported the other day), and directing that to where it will provide the most benefit to American citizens = centralized government.
Brooks, for the sake of all your readers, stick to the community and social issues and stay out of politics and policy. You apparently don't have the intellectual integrity to fairly represent opposing views and are only eroding any credibility you have in other arenas. It's truly baffling how you can go from thoughtful, compassionate commentator one week to this the following week.
Also, your political party has been shifting further and further right for many years, while democrats have, if anything, drifted right as well. So, "moderates" are now defacto conservatives. Well no more. Time to shift the Overton back to where it belongs. Then maybe progressive policies will seem more moderate while "conservative" policy will come to be seen for what it really is: regressive.
6
Absolutely we need more moderates—in both parties!
2
Good to see some of these early comments, most particularly the recommendation that Brooks read Krugman's column. Krugman offers a fact-based analysis that Brooks' wishy-washy,whimsical, and sentimentally wistful/wishful "reasonableness" manages entirely to evade. Mr. Brooks: write to Mitch McConnell and tell him your story.
4
Yup. Just about totally right.
Sanders and Warren are screamingly popular. Think of how many donors Bernie Sanders has amongst the ordinary working population.
Brooks purports to speak for us Americans as wise and judicious people who would be moderate if we could. He is correct in that optimism. He is ignoring that we cannot muddle through this crisis, however. We need to act through government to discipline an amoral capitalist class. Things have gotten out of control, and it is the season for an activist regulatory government.
We do so reluctantly but this time we are not "Biden" our time until another election to speak truth to power and divisiveness. The rhetoric to unite us as ONE people who need to EQUALIZE opportunity is being used and can be successful even with Fox viewers. Discipline the takers of power at the higher levels. Create a fair tax system. Use funds to help working people, build infrastructure, go to college. We, not Brooks' corporate friends, are the optimists, and Democrats can prevail if they focus on key themes: security, opportunity, discipline. Then I'll put on my moderate hat again.
1
I was very glad to read the comments section because the readers have so much more sense and knowledge than Mr. Brooks shows in this opinion.
7
Something Mr. Brooks didn’t address about Nordic countries:
Their tax systems. Wonder why he left that out?
https://taxfoundation.org/how-scandinavian-countries-pay-their-government-spending/
2
Here we go AGAIN David. I am with you, a moderate. I am right of center, kind of conservative. In a perfect world (and not only is the current political world imperfect, it is rapacious on the right. Which of the two sides do you think is most amenable to being pulled toward the center? Raise your left hand if you think its Republicans, right hand if you think Democrats. That's correct, left hand to pull the Repubs toward the center or left of where they are and right to pull Dems toward the middle or right of where they are mostly campaigning.
Now David, quick toss up question: Name me one Republican with any political clout who is not pulling further and further to the end of their flat earth, more right every single day. Ok, I'll be fair, I'll give you 24 hours to come up with someone who won't make me laugh in your face with how wrong you are.
Now I'll take the same question regarding the Dems: Pete Butigieg for starters, Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Beto O'Rourke are all way more moderate than anyone in the Republican Party.
Now lets have a quick look at where the partys would take us: Republicans want to overturn Roe v Wade and then all equality for LGBT people, possibly start deporting DACAs without Congress finding a compromise policy, legislate from the bench with Conservative Judges (ok Dems might like to do the same if they could). Oh yes, the Republicans want to take a bullet to the ACA and yet they have no clue what would replace it.
What can I say??????
5
Question? In two weeks the Department of Agriculture will completely implode! With the move to Kansas City to a non- existent facility, the USDA scientists, 80-90% of the department will be out of work. Will moderates help? This is the government department in 1929 that discovered penicillin and in 1941 was able to manufacture large quantities and saved Allied forces in WWII. Do conservatives, moderates, even care? Liberals have been trying various ways to stop this move from happening. It all stems from the belief that climate change like the Mueller report is a hoax. If one is trying to find middle ground between the truth and a lie, and between fact and gut feeling, and scientific result and wishful conclusion, what is left? No cred, empty wishes, and profound flatulence remains!
2
David Brooks seems to be stuck on an ideology fantasy that doesn't fit the facts or the polls, at least according to Paul Krugman, who demonstrably knows more about economics and research, and is apparently a better reporter: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/opinion/2020-democrats-taxes.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage.
1
You are way off base today, Mr. Brooks. Sound like you are retuning to your republican roots, even trump-like. Very sad for us. Our four children, all very successful, now in their fifties, are living the world you are trying to describe. I don't know what you are reading or looking to for your information, but it's
wrong. Massive changes are needed and you are no longer helping: you are regressing.
4
If it is so easy to start a business, employ people, and live off the largesse of the government, I suggest all the leftists attacking Brooks simply start their own companies. It seems strange that you prefer waiting for the utopian revolution and the righteous might of the central government to set you free.
1
"How to do that? First, learn from the Nordic countries."
Yes, but you left out excessive Military Spending.
Top 15 countries in Military Spending 2018 (Wikipedia)
Not a single Nordic country is included in the first fifteen countries of military spending. The US leads the pack by many furlongs. The US spent more money ($649 Bn) than the combined total of the next six countries which includes China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia.
There are only two comparisons that the US is not at the top of the heap:
% UDP - USA is third behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. (One wonders how much of the Saudi funds are also interrelated with the US?)
Alphabetical Order - USA last.
Reference - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#Military_expenditure_as_a_share_of_GDP
After "Independency!" was gained, John Adams insisted that a free population must be well educated!
Suggestion for this 4th of July - Watch the DVD or stream the musical "1776" - great entertainment - and much historical information.
If you had told me as little as four years ago that I would be turning first to David Brooks, Ross Douthat, and Bret Stephens for the most consistently readable and reasonable columns in the NYT, I would have laughed at you. But they are really the only grownups left in this room.
Politics is the art of compromise. It is not foot stomping, fist shaking, threatening to hold your breath till you turn blue, and calling names.
Edmund Burke: 'The effect of liberty is that men may do as they please. We ought to wait to see what it may please them to do, before we risk congratulations.'
It pleases 'progressives' to go back to Sixties politics. But what did the Sixties radicals really accomplish? Not only did they not shorten the Vietnam War by even a day, they split the Democrats and elected Nixon, who widened the war to Laos and Cambodia, paving the way for Pol Pot. The 'sexual revolution' 50 years on, arguably enabled the spread of AIDS and has produced a new puritanism that evidently cannot even envision such a thing as a wholesome heterosexual encounter. Race relations? Let's not go there ....
The 'progressives' blame the failures on the 'reactionaries', and advance the same old socialist panaceas like Bullwinkle boasting he'll pull a rabbit out of the magic hat. 'Again?' says Rocky. 'But that trick never works.' 'This time, for sure! Presto!'
Disclosure: In my youth I was a Fabian socialist. I grew out of it.
4
How is it that conservatives like David Brooks have so much time available to critique the Democratic candidates, when they have an entire political party that needs to be redeemed from its bigoted, plutocratic, authoritarian instincts? Please get your own house in order before denigrating mine.
3
This is wishful thinking at best. "Moderates" are disgruntled conservatives in disguise. Mr. Brooks and his kind seem to think they'll prevail in a gunfight with some sort of magic carrot. Ain't gonna happen!
1
......and that is why Joe Biden has my vote
3
W had it.
We had hope with Obama.
Once again the voice of reason as offered by Brooks is drowned out by the voices of the NYTimes readership/minions who actually believe Warren is a moderate, proving that in a vacuum they cannot even hear themselves think.
5
Brooks is floundering. He despises Trump but quails from the notion that Democrats, with ideas that fit Democratic ideals, should not be Republicans.
Sorry, David. Democrats will nominate a Democrat for the presidency.
You will be presented with an existential choice -- either hold your nose and vote for a Democrat or stuff corks in your nostrils and vote (again) for Trump.
3
A conservative (even a moderately conservative) pundit thinks that a moderate democrat is the best pick for the job of president over a progressive. Not exactly man-bites-dog journalism here. I anxiously await the shockingly revealing OpEd piece from Jerry Falwell Jr. declaring that he believes the universe was created by a supreme being.
The moderates described sound like conservatives, without the racism and hate.
When David Brooks bleats in the pages of the NYT, Democrats should regard the bleating with the due understanding that he is working at cross-purposes that ill serve Americans and thereby the Democratic Party. He's spent a lifetime providing bad advice to Republicans, who followed it to its current disastrous outcome with the monster in the White House, and Democrats, who shouldn't pay attention. Isn't it time to de-platform his voice before he does more harm?
2
Your party endorsed Trump. YOUR party turned free trade into a racket. YOUR party turned global capitalism into a war zone.
That is on you, David Brookes. You didn't object to the Tea Party when they took over, you didn't object to Mitch McConnell declaring war on former President Obama, and now you think you can whine about how you can't get what you want when it comes to Trump's opposition.
You should have thought about that at least back to the point when you had Arlen Specter was in office. Your own party ate him alive for being too moderate, and that was years ago.
3
Hey Mr. Brooks. Why not go back to cheerleading for conservatives instead of concern trolling Democrats?
Progressives are calling for a centralized industrial policy? Really? Are you living in the 21st Century United States or Russia of 1917?
How to be a loyal member of the Professional Republican Commentariat in three easy steps:
1. Create simple, two dimensional cut-out dolls of the Left, excised from Republican talking points memos, preferably printed with screaming, all-caps, Party-approved epithets.
2. Make ludicrously inapt comparisons, such as between countries with small economies and small cohesive populations, and the US.
3. Always, always, always project your Party’s sins, such as “You need a government that will protect you, control you and give you things...” , “you want government that is centralized and paternalistic” and “create a government caste that is powerful and a population that is safe but dependent” onto the Democrats.
Moderates have the better story...says white male, elite, speaking over the very well prepared and 'liberal' female candidates.
@Jason C. Why does the color of Mr. Brooks' skin or his gender matter? Could it be that.... GASP.... you are generalizing based on skin color/gender? And that is not racist because....... (insert explanation here)?
In his latest fantasy, the wise and righteous David Brooks gives another straw man a thorough thrashing.
Imagine being this out of touch with reality.
David Brooks a moderate? I don't think so!
Lumping trump, Sanders and Warren together is just stupid and cheap.
1
"In fact, [Nordic countries] can afford to have strong welfare policies only because they have dynamic free-market economies."
We consistently do a great historical disservice in our discussions of welfare states in the Nordic context and western Europe in general. The welfare systems in these countries, which David rightly lauds, came about in SPITE of powerful pro-free market actors. They were won on the backs of robust, militant, and explicitly socialist labor movements, exactly the people David and co. would deride as progressive class warriors.
"No Nordic country has a minimum wage law" because, by and large, such a law would be redundant! Unions still enjoying mass membership are able to set basement salary rates that dwarf our current $7.25/hr federal minimum. In Denmark, for example, the effective minimum wage is around $16/hr - not including benefits and pensions that are, on average, far more generous than private sector standards in the US.
As our "moderate" pro status quo punditry so often do, David has managed to take a very compelling story of working class struggle and flip it on its head to make a mind-numbing point about free markets and rampant inequality actually being in all of our interests!
3
"Moderates have a different story to tell, but in both parties moderates are afraid to tell it."
This resonates with me perfectly. I must quibble with one minor point, however. Nordic countries have zero estate tax because they have progressive income taxes that obviate estate taxes. In the US, such a thing would be untenable. We'd all be working for the descendants of J.P. Morgan and the robber barons!
Thanks for this David. There are so many of us here in the middle, trying to do the right thing, trying to take care of each other and those that are less fortunate and vulnerable, and trying to make life better for all. And lastly, not get drawn into the derisive and abusive rhetoric that has become the rallying call for those that lead both political parties. We try to live by Reverend King's instruction: "Let no man drag you so low as to hate him." But do not mistake our reticence for apathy. We are here, we are paying attention and many will vote in 2020 because we believe we have a responsibility to do so.
1
The operative word here is "Story".
40% core Trump. 40% anti-Trump. The key to 2020 is winning over the middle 20%. Forget the attempt to define moderate policies; that is an impossible task. The perception of moderation is what is essential. It is all about the story.
1
Sorry David Brooks, but you and your moderate brethren have been eliminated from Trump's GOP. Rather than lecture progressives, why don't you make the choice to join them in defeating Trump this time round. You can't always get what you want (as the old saying goes), but by adding your voice to the mix in a more positive way, you might be heard.
2
Hear hear
Mr. Brooks, your comment about estate tax may have turned me off your columns forever. Is there any clearer picture of the folly of transferring great wealth from parent to child than the Trump family?
What more effective way is there to calcify a class system than to let children who have done no work receive, tax free, more money than most working people will see in a lifetime? The offspring of the wealthy already have myriad advantages, such as better schools, debt free higher education, business connections, a private safety net should their endeavors fail, and the ability to take unpaid internships for lengthy periods without the need to pay their own bills. That is more than ample opportunity to make their own success in this world. They absolutely do not a huge windfall on top of it.
1
I agree substantially with Mr. Brooks's presentation here. But I believe the split in the Democratic Party is between "progressives" and "liberals" (not "moderates'). This is more than a semantic difference. I count myself among the "liberals." On the fundamental issues -- a regulated market economy, universal rules (e.g. voting rights, access to health care, an unfettered press), and so forth -- liberals and progressives are indistinguishable. And on policy issues liberals are much closer to progressives than Mr. Brooks apparently thinks. We differ more on the means of attaining similar goals. I admit to being more cautious than my progressive friends on matters that haven't been attempted. So I accept incremental change more readily than they do. I also accept compromise more readily. We live in a complex, multi-faceted nation with varying interests and interest groups so that in a choice between flexibility and war I'll choose flexibility. While I have strong values, I rarely let the perfect impede the good.
In other words, Democrats should support someone who doesn't want to address wealth inequality or implement a higher minimum wage, but will preach about personal responsibility, free markets, and fewer regulations. Someone who will leave the poor pharma companies alone, repeal the estate tax, promote charter schools, and under no circumstances implement new government spending programs to make things like child care and college more accessible.
I look forward to the next article from Mr. Brooks:
"Why Marco Rubio Would be the Ideal Democratic Presidential Candidate"
2
All we have to do is look to the Republican party for examples of how moderation have led to election victories and political power. Oh, wait, no - exactly the opposite is true. The GOP gets more extreme every day and then lectures Democrats about moderation. Classic and effective bullying behavior. What makes me crazy are "Democrats" who say stuff like: "Well, Mr. Brooks has a point, I mean - we don't want to seem too extreme!"
2
Brooks writes: "Progressives want to create a government caste that is powerful and a population that is safe but dependent."
This is a lie. It is not a distortion or an interpretation. It is a lie. And it reveals how desperate Brooks and his ilk are to prevent a progressive victory.
Brooks is not stupid. He realizes that extreme inequality is a problem. He knows that, thanks to the neoliberal economic policies he favors, big business has run amok, hollowing out America's manufacturing sector in the process. He knows that big finance brought the nation to the brink of ruin. But he doesn't want to admit the necessity of structural reform. He wants "moderate" reforms that won't upset the balance of power in society. He knows where his bread is buttered.
And so he does what desperate conservatives always do --he slanders the left. He falsely accuses progressives of wanting to create a nanny state that would infantilize the American people and rob them of freedom and opportunity. The idea is to sow fear in moderate Democrats and Independents who might otherwise warm to a progressive candidate.
It might work. I has worked before. But today a great many people realize that what ails the nation won't be fixed with a band-aid. That's why we see so many progressive candidates for the Democratic nomination. And that's what scares Brooks. It should frighten every apologist for the status quo.
5
Once again, Mr. Brooks asks the Democratic party to save us from the crazy right-wing corrupt Republican party by becoming Republicans.
He might get better results by urging his own Republican party to step back from the brink of Trumpism.
3
David Brooks complains that "Progressives are always trying to give away free stuff. ..."
That's funny coming from a man who doesn't seem to mind that the oil industry gets billions; roads near Walmart's corporate headquarters get worked on while the rest of our infrastructure crumbles; and when you had your war on in Iraq, Republicans, you spent our money on having concrete - made from sand - shipped to the middle east from Halliburton who made a killing, literally, off of defense contracts.
Perhaps when you mean "for free" you're finally admitting that what Democrats are doing is expressing concern for the welfare of the people of the United States in accordance with the preamble of the Constitution, while your guys in the GOP wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they weren't on the take and doing nothing for the people but plenty for their corporate donors, because they've they are professional influence-peddling thieves and obstructionists instead of legislators / public servants.
2
I like David Brooks, and have admired his long, recent detour into spiritual communitarian philosophy. But it’s election season, and, on cue, he’s dropping into the same old libertarian tropes. As I read this, I kept picturing Ronald Reagan’s welfare queens, the thesis that government assistance leads to laziness, dependence, and worse. Progressives “reduce citizens to children on Christmas morning”? What a despicable style of argumentation.
I do think that a far-left Democratic challenger would be unlikely to win in 2020. I also think that progressives are making many promises that will be impossible to turn into law. But a person as intelligent as Mr. Brooks should not be vilifying progressives. They are identifying real problems, and he should want to work with them. He can rejoin the Republican Party after Trump is out of office.
1
The GOP is a radical, broken party.
There are no moderates in today's Republican party. The GOP cried "repeal and replace" for eight years. What was their replacement for the ACA? Tax cuts for the wealthiest, while stripping millions of coverage. Instead of working with Democrats to cut health care costs, the GOP worked to undermine Americans' health care, ignoring citizens' needs and the fact that the ACA is largely based on ideas put forth by Nixon, Dole, and Romney. The GOP obstructed jobs bills, infrastructure, and environmental protection under President Obama. The GOP cried about deficit spending as Obama cleaned up Bush's Great Recession, yet passed a massive tax cut for corporations and the wealthiest once the Baby King was in office. Radical hypocrites.
What I hear from Senator Warren and other Democrats is common sense change that is long overdue. Brooks should be trying to heal his own party, taking the real radicals to task. Instead, he offers up more nonsense that strikes me as divorced from reality.
Change is coming. Vote: 2020.
2
Audacity and hope in a relative sense. Who among the moderates is willing to hold us and themselves to standards high enough to deal with climate change? Are the moderates today's version of the Silent Majority? If so, why do they remain silent in the face of such obvious hypocrisy and corruption?
If the moderates are going to continue to sit on their hands, then someone else has to pick up the flag and carry it forward. We need leaders with aspirations, not just short-term plans. Business as usual is not enough.
1
Sigh, another straw man op-ed.
"In this story global capitalism is a war zone." I'm not sure it is a war zone, but it is pretty clear that unregulated or inadequately regulated capitalism (or any other economic system) benefits the powerful and harms the weak. In this case the powerful are corporations and the rich.
"Free trade is a racket." I don't think anybody has said it is a racket. The complaint is that there are winners and losers as a result of free trade and it would be appropriate for the winners to compensate the losers.
"Big business and big pharma are rapacious villains that crush the common man." I don't know if they are villains but they seem pretty rapacious to me and certainly take advantage of their powerful position to maximize their profits.
The US economy is very strong but it would be nice to have a more thoughtful discussion of some of the problems that it faces.
I don't think moderates in recorded history ever precipitated social change. Moderates are usually armchair philosophers with little or no experience in the real world. Show me just one moderate who really understands economics, politics or sports and I will show you someone who knows nothing. In fact, moderates are not leaders. Then again, moderates are not bad people, they are moderate people who suffer no consequences because they essentially say nothing and they are easily led only when the time suits them. Unfortunately, the situational context of 2019 in this country demands leadership based on the current existential threat before us. Can or should you be a moderate when it comes to the inhumane treatment of illegal immigrants, women's rights, xenophobia, racism, and ignorance? I don't think so. There is no antithetical solution to Trump that can be associated with moderates. However, the antithesis to Trump would be a moderate liberal/progressive leader. 2020 demands a bold liberal/progressive to change things for the better. Moderates are not change agents!
1
It seems to me that progressives mostly, just want to put back policies and rules that we used to have...eg...fair tax system, regulating monopolies, fair banking rules, worker protections, affordable college, etc...
1
David,
Have you met Paul ?
""In moving to the left on taxes and spending...Democrats are actually moving toward voters’ preferences, not away from them. Yes, Republicans will try to demonize their proposals, but they would do that in any case."
-- Paul Krugman The Moochers of Middle America
You two should talk...
"...populists like Donald Trump, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders insist on."
I am almost spit out my coffee in reading this. This is the greatest false equivalence I've heard since Trump announced his candidacy.
I am an independent but it's harder and harder to swallow the "moral conservatives" like Brooks who now avoid the stink of Republican moniker by offering themselves as enlightened soothsayers with their recycled bromides.
Why should I listen to Brooks? It's his party and conservative moralizing that got us in this mess. A mea culpa would be more appropriate than his ignorant remedy.
2
David can't help himself. He may well see the enormity of the problem--at 3 in the morning when he can't sleep, but he cannot admit it or voice it aloud for fear of the void that will open at his feet..... Moderation in all things? Not at this point in time.
Lost Brooks attempts an hostile take over of the Democratic party. The reason why we have Trump is because center-right policy as been a gigantic failure. Trump continues the same policies in the form of a ruse. The time of progressive solutions is coming.
The comparison to Nordic countries falls apart in the fact that the people in those countries are not infected, as we are, by insatiable greed. Greed and admiration always for bigger, better, glitzier. The immoral opulence and undying popularity of our current president attests to that.
I agree, but being a moderate isn't sexy or cool. Being a moderate takes patience, maturity, and abstract thought processes.
After Donald Trump, I did veer further left because I was so angry at him and the uber-conservative pack.
Of course, I would never vote for Trump if simply because of the environment and Supreme Court justices. However, I am now feeling a personal backlash reeling from reverse racism and blaming (Corey and Kamala), ageism, and egotism.
There are some other noteworthy candidates like Higgenlooper and Bullock, but their voices are lost in the clown car.
I agree with almost all of this. Thank you.
For me, an ad which appeared in the middle of my screen as I read this column is a telling rebuke to Brooks' optimism. It was for an in-home personal elevator.
With those in charge for whom the word "enough" has been banished, I don't see a happy ending. Obscene greed will not only soil our planet, it will soil our societies.
I agree, David Brooks. Once things are free people throw the opportunities away. This must be why we haven't had a free market in decades.
David,
Name the Republican moderates in Congress. And please don’t say Susan Collins.
So tired of Brooks - there is no moderation on kids in cages, rampant racism, criminal wealth inequality, or denying the science of climate change. There is no moderation on voter suppression and collusion with our enemies and women's reproductive choice. Anything less than aggressive, positive, progressive policies is complicity.
3
Reading the column and then the comments bring a line from computer science (I think) to mind--"theory and practice and the same only in theory." In this piece Mr. Brooks speaks theory while the commentators speak practice.
Once again, good job David. But your sensible view of things totally contradicts the current “progressive” ideology that currently infects Democratic thought. Don’t trouble them with facts, common sense and history, when we can disrupt our economic system with their “progressive” ideas.. I have just two words for Democrats trying to impose their central government system on the rest of us: McGovern & Mondale. Go ahead Dems, add another one to that list!
1
What stuff.
David’s first paragraph basically argues that progressives think unrestrained capitalism is all about profit.
Is it not?
What other values are there in corporate America? If any CEO put some value BEFORE maximizing shareholder wealth, the CEO would face a (probably successful) lawsuit enjoining that practice- assuming a resignation was not demanded by the Board first.
American capitalism has failed most people.
You can’t have a working class which hasn’t had a raise since the Watergate hearings and claim success- at least for most.
For the rich and their handmaidens in the pundit/lecture circuit class, however, things have gone swimmingly.
But now the wealthy are getting nervous. The peasants are starting to get restless... time for those mouthpieces to point out all the “moderate” alternatives to the current system (when the tuition-free public universities that existed when David was a child are considered “radical,” “moderate” is pretty right wing.)
Will they act quickly enough? FDR got ahead of the game and headed off a real workers’ revolt, saving capitalism.
Are there any big capitalists now as smart as FDR? Seems not- at least none are really willing to put their money behind such solutions.
So expect more and more violence and rage, from the left and the right.
And if you wait long enough, and things get bad enough, perhaps free tuition may even be a price the wealthy are willing to pay to save capitalism and themselves.
But probably not.
"Progressives want to create a government caste that is powerful and a population that is safe but dependent."
Brooks' strawman, mischaracterization-du-jour.
"In this story global (American-style Predatory) capitalism is a war zone. Free trade is (an illusion touted by Predatory Capitalists). Big business and big pharma are rapacious villains that crush the common man."
There, I fixed 'em for you, Brooks - altho' you did get the Big Biz/Pharma one right.
Brooks free market fantasy world is powered by platitudes with glib and misleading characterizations of Progressive programs and regulatory proposals. To call Elizabeth Warren's regulatory proposals and tax policies radical, without any analysis of those proposals, is the intellectual equivalent of a local Chamber of Commerce promo...not critical thinking, just carping blather.
1
Find me a genuine moderate with real compassion & empathy and I will vote for him/her/it
Where to start with this column? Every paragraph contains untruth.
I’ll pick just one. Yes, Sweden has no minimum wage. But, nearly every Swede belongs to a national union, and wages are determined by national — national! — collective bargaining. The union that covers salaried professionals doesn’t establish a minimum because, what, it’s not relevant. The unions covering lower paid work do set a minimum, which in effect is a national mandate. That’s better than here, where states compete for business with low wages and weak workers’ rights laws.
Moderates like President Harry Truman have a better story. Health care for all!
David Brooks is usually a pretty thoughtful guy, but this column is intellectually dishonest/confused. As hilarious as it may be to hear a free market idealogue like Brooks suggest we can learn from the Nordic countries, he grossly misrepresents how their economic systems and social policies are structured and operate in practice. While he is correct that these countries have "open free-market economies," he fundamentally misunderstands how their "strong social supports" work. He tries to make it sound like Scandinavian healthcare systems are similar to America's private health insurance system, which is not remotely accurate. As someone who has lived in Denmark on a student visa, I can report firsthand that basic healthcare services are virtually free, even to immigrants, and I have witnessed emergency hospital care provided free of charge, no questions asked, to an undocumented tourist. If you want a clearer picture of how the Danish health system actually works, here's a helpful breakdown:
https://international.commonwealthfund.org/countries/denmark/
Brooks also forgets to mention that Scandinavian countries provide free education through university, free childcare and guaranteed parental leave, guaranteed retirement income, etc., etc. These policies are understood not as "paternalistic handouts," but as human rights and public goods. I'm disappointed to see Brooks spinning the facts to fit his ideological prism.
2
What is crazy about this push for a moderate Democrat is that it isn't being grounded in an argument about what SHOULD be the platform, it's all about what SHOULD NOT be the platform.
Look at this piece - it's all Warren this, Bernie that (contrasted with weirdly cherry-picked factoids about the Nordic model. Those folks pay close to 50% income tax and they do get free college, but that's ignored.)
What does a moderate platform actually look like and how is that better?
Heck, the article even ignores what Obama's "Hope" message was actually about - it was about specific things like creating a government-run health care option that everyone can have access to, and ending our horrible foreign policy with black CIA torture sites. Instead here we are told that Moderation is some sort of rocket ship.
I get that some of the new ideas are scary and maybe not all of them are right for us. But be specific about what you DO want. If it turns out you want the status quo, be honest about that.
Mr. Brooks,
Please write a column demanding that GE, Amazon, and other giant corporations pay their taxes. Then write a column about the beauty of the free market. Not the other way around. Thank you.
Evangelicals have taken over the GOP, by definition that bars any hope of future moderation in that party. Their worldview is extremist to the maximum and the republicans they elected have willingly drunk their kool-aid. What to do? Democrats first need to loudly and openly call out their GOP colleagues for helping to trample the constitution at the behest of this radical, minority base. Democrats need to undo what the GOP has done to disenfranchise voters, especially in the states of the Old South. These are not radical, left-wing ideas but are central to the survival of the nation as we know it and anyone who purports to love this country would support them. Okay, now we can talk economic policy.
Mr. Brooks,
I'm afraid you didn't get your facts right. You claim that the Nordic countries have no estate tax. That is true for Sweden and Norway but Finland and Denmark still levy inheritance tax. This information can be found on https://www.ey.com/gl/en/services/tax/worldwide-estate-and-inheritance-tax-guide---country-list
I am so disappointed in this piece. I have been defending Mr. Brooks against the criticisms of my progressive friends, claiming that he is a thoughtful voice that does not adopt standard approaches and ideological cliches. This column rebuts my claims; as so many others have pointed out, this is just a tone-deaf and fact-deaf conservative screed.
Great article - I agree - and the DEMs who ideally qualify & can beat Trump are (alphabetically) Mike Bennet, Joe Biden, John Delaney, John Hickenlooper, and Amy Klobuchar - check out their stance and philosophy - sadly, only Biden has any traction, and Klobuchar a bit.
That’s what this country needs, Audacious Moderates! Wait, isn’t that an oxymoron?
The "better story" you have outlined sounds a lot like what the Obama administration was trying to initiate; which is now being dismantled by a villain of the people.
David, you are no moderate anything: You are a good old fashioned reactionary. Your words prove it:
"American progressives have a story to tell, and they are not afraid to tell it. In this story global capitalism is a war zone. Free trade is a racket. Big business and big pharma are rapacious villains that crush the common man."
Apparently, you are not afraid to tell our story, either Mr. straw dog. The curious thing is that the story you tell is more akin to the ideology of American capitalism, with its worship of unrestricted competition.
I for one do not believe that free trade is a racket, anyone who believes in cooperation among nations would be foolish to. By the way, big phama is big business, no need to differentiate, and the sole purpose of business corporations is to increase profits for the corporation, no matter the means. If one can rig the laws through "business friendly" edicts and decrease "burdensome" regulations by increased lobbying/bribery, at least it's less expensive than paying decent wages or ensuring for safety and against graft.
You, sir, are no moderate. You are pure dissembling reactionary, through and through.
From a "moderate" who always looks forward to your columns - I'm disappointed at what seems like an exaggerated description of "liberals". I hope you read what seem like very thoughtful comments in response to this column and take the time to rethink your position.
So, your answer to our problems is to give control to moderates... that behave like conservatives.
The good old "if we are going to do something about it, you better agree with me".
Thank you, but no, thank you.
Mr. Brooks, the bus is heading for a cliff. Let's get moving in a safe direction for now, and worry about over-correcting later.
1
No moderates do NOT have the better story. Look at the polls and you will see that moderate old Joe is dropping while Warren and Harris are climbing.
David Brooks deep dislike of President Trump has led his pieces to lean toward left since the 2016 election -- until last week's Democrat debates. IT was refreshing to witness his awakening in his commentary last Friday on the PBS Newshour. He continues that awakening in this piece.
Lord, I love you David Brooks. Another great article. You give me hope. Who will be the politician(s) tp embrace this view? Seriously, this is one of the most important political articles that you have written.
Here we go again. David Brooks may be on something because he certainly isn’t onto something. His characterization of what he calls Nordic countries is highly misleading. Let’s not forget that he has always spewed conservative dogma, most proven to be wrong. It’s just that his party has slipped way past him to the right and have absolutely no interest in anything he has to say. He is still out there trying to get someone, anyone to listen to his dated musings of the good old days when the elites ruled and knew what was best for “the little people”. He needs to get a new gig. Something like selling reverse mortgages on television.
1
"Second, never coddle. Progressives are always trying to give away free stuff. They reduce citizens to children on Christmas morning." In my neighborhood in Flatbush, Brooklyn, not only to many Christian children not get a visit from Santa on Christmas morning, but the Hanukkah kids don't either, nor do many others because of government policies that give all their toys and free stuff to the wealthier God-fearers you love to defend. If sickness, injury, and aging are inalienable rights of the body, then so is the duty to acknowledge it with material care. When a government protects the private property of only some, while prolonging policies that disallow others from enjoying the same liberties, then it's time to ask what you, as a Conservative really stand for. The "rose color glasses" of your argument may be the ice cubes in your cocktail glass, but as for the rest of the children on my block, you're a cold hearted consumer serving a luke warm glass of smug to every child less privileged. So there!
1
you know nothing, david brooks! love, a millennial who can't buy a house, will have loans until I am your age, can't retire, if i lose my job and health insurance with it my life is on the line because i have type 1 diabetes, having a child is a scary, incomprehensible thing thanks to the climate, and oh, the country is super busy spending tax dollars on inhumane atrocities.
but yeah give me a "moderate" politician who is in the pocket of various corporations
" The Nordic countries tried wealth taxes of the sort Elizabeth Warren is proposing, and all except Norway abandoned them because they were unworkable."
Why doesn't the Times write a piece on this?
Huh.....very enlightening.
Now, explain why Americans hate the Healthcare industry.
Why are we so blind to the "great" healthcare benefits we are all receiving?
We should stop complaining.....Mitch McConnell is looking out for our best interests.
I have to laugh out loud thinking that David Brooks is now touting Scandinavian countries as moderate. My how things have changed in the last few years.
You say it so well.
Let's move on with Biden's workable center toward Sanders' and Warren's ultimate goal
Most Americans are moderates.
With big ideas and moderate policies, let's work together and
WIN
Almost any one of the people responding to this article could have written a better article. I learned much more from reading the responses than the article. David Brooks gets paid to write and yet he can misrepresent the views of the Democratic candidates, the policies of the Nordic countries, and the state of our country and is not only given a forum for spreading his deceits but is paid for it. The threat to another 4 years of Trump does not come from liberals but from conservatives .They want the Democrats to save them from Trump but won't help unless they get everything they want. They didn't like Obama's moderation and no matter what Democrats propose it will be too liberal for them. Any one of the Democratic candidates is a better choice than Trump.
3
@Treelover2
There are plenty of Republicans (myself included) who would like to vote for a Democrat for president in 2020 so that we can be rid of Trump. I don't expect to be aligned on policies with that candidate, but that candidate does need to be sober and reasonable. Most of the candidates right now are espousing policies that are anything but.
2
With the moderate debate, conservatives like Brooks are just trying to make excuses for voting for Trump. Even if you don't agree with Warren or progressive policies, you are implying that voting for Trump would be better. Not even debatable. Brooks ineeds to fight for moderate candidates in the GOP not try to get Democrats to placate him.
3
@Jessica
No, many conservatives who dislike Trump's personality and style would like to vote for someone else. We are not looking for an excuse or cover to vote for Trump. We actively DO NOT want to vote for him, but need someone on the other ticket who is a better alternative. I would vote for Trump over Sanders or Warren and not even feel bad about it. Their policies are so anti-freedom and anti-personal responsibility that it would be a far greater moral imperative for me to prevent them from becoming president than to endure another 4 years of the Trump Show.
1
"It is to give people the skills needed to compete and flourish in this open, pluralistic world. It is to give people a secure base, so they can go off and live daring adventures. It is to mitigate the downsides of change, and so people can realize the unprecedented opportunities." Brooks undermines his story in his own words. Expanded access to post-secondary education is precisely about the skills needed to compete. Guaranteed health care and child care are precisely about a secure base. A sturdy economic floor (because nets are by definition hard to get out of) is precisely about mitigating the downsides of change. Progressives have the better story, but shame on us if we expect conservatives to tell it right.
3
I think Warren is far more pragmatic progressive than Sanders. Honestly I think attacking our current Republican Corporate Welfare State should be the Agenda of the Democratic Party.
1
If I got injured or sick and needed a medical intervention, I doubt I would “value it less” if it didn’t bankrupt me to pay for it.
2
Under Gov. Pat Brown in the 1960s, California implemented the Master Plan for Higher Education. It provided --wait for it--virtually free education from grade school all the way to graduate school. Brown, and state lawmakers understood that to have a strong economy, you had to have an educated workforce. And it worked.
Way back in the late 1940s, Gov. Earl Warren proposed universal health care. Conservatives hired the high-powered consulting firm Whitaker and Baxter to spin stories of doom and gloom. The effort succeeded, and Warren lost.
Brown was a Democrat; Warren a Republican. They were fishing pals who both saw the future through the lens of opportunity and, dare I say it, progressivism.
5
The idea that increasing government involvement in health care will cause us to become "dependent" is a simplistic and silly argument. I, and many others I know, are already dependent on our employers for health insurance, so we are stuck in jobs that don't suit us well, or do not use our skills well or do not bring us joy. With more gov't guarantees, I can actually exercise MORE freedom and independence by risking switching to a job that uses my skills better (even if it involves a pay cut), or starting a business or doing a low-paid but satisfying job in a helping profession.
1
The problem with healthcare is the lack of transparency in pricing and poor information on the efficacy of treatment. Creating a giant bureaucracy to manage this as a single payer certainly is a possible solution. A better alternative is to find a market-based solution that breaks the pills and procedures business model and instead focuses on preventative medicine and rewards practices that actually lead to better health.
If it is so easy to start a business, hire people, and live off of government largesse, why don’t all the “progressives” ranting at Brooks just start their own business. Very strange that they prefer to wait for the utopian revolution and the firm hand of the central government to usher in paradise. I think we tried that in the last century and it was regressive, not progressive.
Regarding Scandinavian countries with tiny, homogenous populations undergirded by an very strong cultural identity and shared values, there really is not direct parallel to the U.S. Even a tiny bit of immigration has started to stress these idealized systems and there are worrying signs of scary tribalism just below the surface of the secular humanist idealism.
Government needs to focus on creating free and fair markets and pushing as much responsibility as possible to the local level. Empower people, don’t coddle them. People don’t want a hand out, they want a fair shot.
Spend a few months in the Nordic countries and you get really angry at American Pharma, American Big Banks, American Insurance Campaigns, and Republicans. Not just Trump, all Republicans. I did my time in the Nord. What struct me most was how well their Government worked. It worked, really worked. Government effectiveness is a norm in the Nord. Why? Because people support their government. They respect it. Why? Government in the Nord is viewed by voters has part of the solutions. Not the problem. Anti government politicians get voted out because the voters realize the business of government is vital and they all have a say in it.
2
While I consider myself a moderate liberal and agree with many positions in this Op Ed, the premise about comparing to Nordic countries is entirely flawed. The Nordic countries are NOT comprised of multi-ethic states that can determine how individual citizens of a particular state live. The problem with the Nordic model is that the deprived citizens in Alabama and Mississippi will NOT get the option of support for child care UNLESS the federal government insists on it or funds it. We have seen in our federal system the great inequities that exist from state to state and how some provide for it's people and others that don't. These discrepancies do not exist in the Nordic countries. The only way to assure the level of support for the individual that the Nordic countries and Mr. Brooks AND ME would wish for all Americans is to insist upon them at the federal level, otherwise they will never trickle down to the neediest Americans in those places where the state government has forgotten about it's people - i.e about 40% of the country.
2
"Moderates emphasize tools that regular people can choose to build their own lives and maximize their own opportunities: wage subsidies, subsidies to help people move to opportunities, charter schools."
Who the heck would vote for this? People don't want to have their wages subsidized, they just want to get paid a fair wage for honest work. People don't want to have to leave their communities and families to find work, they want more opportunities where they live NOW. And don't get me started on Charter Schools- they're nothing but a band-aid solution that diverts funding from struggling public schools to unaccountable, for-profit private institutions that serve THEMSELVES, not their communities.
This is the real problem with "moderates". They understand that there are serious problems, but instead of trying to solve the underlying socio-political causes of these problems, they instead try to enact some roundabout technocratic bureaucracies to try and mitigate the problems just enough to be able to say that they're addressing it.
These "moderates" have been in charge my entire life, and it's obvious to anyone who isn't an elite media figure that things have gotten WORSE while these people have been in charge, and the reason why is obvious: they are too scared to actually try and change anything, even when confronted by generation-defining problems. You say "moderate" and I hear "coward".
4
I get your point. Capitalism is great at growing wealth, but also concentrating it. Wealth has to be redistributed to a degree to generate common purpose and just society. In the past, wages and salaries redistributed wealth . With wages and salaries failing to do this, then something has to be done on the redistribution side.
I don't see in Warren what you say her policies do, although I know it sounds like.
Then there really are things that take a village( a nation, an international community) and climate change and health care are more like that but I am open to discovering bottom up solutions either via markets or grass roots .
In the end, I come in from the Left field, will do so, but agree a moderate for president would be great,,,, but would anyone notice such a level headed calm rational and compassionat person.
Dear Mr Brooks,
What shall we learn from Nordic countries about spending for national defense? Should we follow their example and reduce such spending to 1% or 1.6%? Where would that leave us and the rest of the world?
1
@Frank P Cruthers
In peace.....
And your favorite candidates are? War on Warren? Your moderate panacea will never be possible until the people are empowered. Free stuff, ruining the fabric and soul of citizens by providing the basics of heath care, affordable education, child care and other basics that people in poverty are now denied. It is not the level playing field with moral leaders you wish for. Your assumptions about a status quo where people can simply be offered opportunity and can grab on and soar are flawed. Not in today’s society. Give me the jolt needed from Sanders and Warren to jump start opportunity at the grass roots. Balance the scales and playing field first. Then you can appeal to the more moderate frame mind, at a time when the masses are bettter educated, are able to stand on their own two feet, and feel the power and joy of participation. Your harsh criticisms of progressives over reaches and implies motives that I truly believe you do not believe. I have to wonder why. Bernie came from nowhere and almost best the heir apparent Hillary. You think it can’t happen again? And what if it did? I would rather have the shots called by progressives with some integrity than the Trumps, the corporations, and the rich - at least for a term or two. That may be the more feasible return path, the quicker path, to normalcy I think you also seek. Get a conservative moderate to challenge Donald Trump. Then come back and run this column again. Maybe then it will be more persuasive.
1
The notion of the benevolent moderate reminds me of a parable:
A banker, a progressive, and a moderate are attending a town hall. The banker goes to refreshments tray and quickly grabs 11 of the 12 cookies on the plate. He then leans over to the moderate and says, "Look out for that progressive, she's going to try to take your cookie."
And isn't it thus? We have people making less than $30,000 per year fearing a marginal tax increase for income above $50 million. That's essentially the long and short of the republican's economic plan: making the little guy think his fortunes are tied to the elites their party publicly pillories but secretly court. For the rest of us, it's hard to understand why we need to keep giving those guys money instead of improving the day to day lives of our neighbors.
If it's more important to shield 500 or so families from an estate tax that affects only multimillionaires than it is to prevent the middle class from drowning in debt, I'm not sure how that position is moderate.
2
@Law Feminist Thank you for a bit of humor ... It's getting really bleak reading the NYT.
1
It's always interesting to hear a conservative "takes a village" type explain to me how I view Bernie Sanders' and Elizabeth Warren's political messages. Thanks for letting me know what I think. Quite frankly, Brooks is projecting. He's referring to government health care as a paternalistic caste system. You do realize England has a more socialized system than anything even suggested here, right? The BNH was around long before Margret Thatcher.
If I want to read fiction, I can start Game of Thrones. Until then, thank but no thanks. A sales pitch always fails when the customer realizes you're selling too hard.
2
I appears to me that Mr. Brooks believes that in order to win his argument against the progressive candidates of the Democratic Party, it is necessary to mischaracterize their positions.
He may think that in doing so he has succeeded, but the fact that he can’t honestly deal with the progressive argument demonstrates the weakness of his own argument.
1
The appropriate place for your ideas is a Republican primary, it isn’t progressives’ fault your former party is broken. Even if you were correct, the only way America would achieve this Moderate Dream you speak of, would be if liberals were pushing for something further left and creating an opportunity for compromise around some of the things you suggest. Obama and most of the current crop of candidates are interested in solving problems. If there is a workable plan to end medical bankruptcies that doesn’t just involve handing large sums to insurance executives, they will take it. The current problem is the Republican Party is ideologically opposed to trying to solve any of our real issues.
2
Sadly David Brooks has swallowed the corporatist Koolaid foisted by Economist James Buchanan and Koch family money(Ref. Nancy MacLean book, Democracy in Chains). Biden, like Clinton and Obama will continue to pander to wealthy donors, CEOs and corporations at the expense of all others. Reagan's Trickle Down has been shown to be the Voodoo Economics GWH Bush described, and all presidents since Reagan have made the problem worse. With Trump's $2 Billion tax cut for corporations and the wealthy the folly continues. It's time for systemic change, not more "shareholder value" pandering.
I am an independent voter and am very concerned that our choices in candidates at all levels of government are too polarized. I am in disdain for our current president and have great fear that he will win again because, despite the huge numbers running, there seems to be no one (likely to win) who has a moderate standpoint. I guess Biden is the only possibility but because of his vulnerabilities of age and long record, is probably doomed. As you point out, David Brooks, I am probably not alone in this concern.
2
I cannot wrap my head around why conservatives who bemoan the government's giving away "free stuff" *never* seem to mention the subsidies and massive tax breaks (e.g. the 2017 tax bill) enjoyed by the wealthy and mega-national corporations.
Why do we subsidize corn syrup? Why do we allow investment firms to pay zero income tax for producing "clean coal" that in fact has no environmental benefit? Why does Amazon pay ZERO income tax? Why do we fight wars on taxpayers' dime so that Lockheed Martin et al can get richer, while most ordinary Americans are sick of (or dying in!) endless wars? Why do taxpayers fund private prisons such that those profiteers push for harsher criminal laws, while collecting free labor from inmates? As we all know I could go on and on... But oh no, we can't afford free college or universal health care or the economic benefits both those programs will bring.
These freebies for the wealthy are the product of "moderates." For God's sake let's stop listening to them.
And last I'll say this: Bernie's been in Congress for decades. He knows how things work. His proposals are obviously opening bids. If you start from the "moderate" position, you give the moneymen an opening, and slowly they'll pull you to their side. (See Obamacare's affair with the insurance companies for just one example.)
It's well past time to go big. Let's do it.
#Bernie2020
5
@J
Corporations don't get any free stuff. I will respond to a few of your examples to explain:
Why do we allow investment firms to pay zero income tax for producing "clean coal" that in fact has no environmental benefit?
Why does Amazon pay ZERO income tax?
Brooks and his fellow anti-Trump conservatives should cut Democratic presidential candidates some slack. To win the nomination, these candidates have to win votes in primaries in which Brooks et. al. won't participate. So they aren't going to try to appeal to Brooks in pre-primary debates. I will sound snider than I want to, but I suggest Mr. Brooks read a book during future Democratic debates and tune back in at the Democratic Convention. That's when he should start judging whether the candidate has enough moderate wisdom and enough rhetorical leeway to earn Mr. Brooks's anti-Trump vote.
This is your most disingenuous column I think.
For example, I’ve heard nothing about Senator Warren’s ideas that lead me to believe she wants a centrally planned economy as you suggest. The core of her ideas is to revive American ideas about monopoly power, fair competition, and opposing restraint of trade. That’s the exact opposite of the picture you painted.
Same thing for her ideas about regulating Wall Street. You don’t have to be a commie to want to make sure the interests of Wall Street align with the interests of Main Street, that the general economy doesn’t crash because of financial shenanigans, that people aren’t fleeced by sharp financial practices.
This is the American heart of well-regulated capitalism designed to work for everyone.
As to her green manufacturing ideas, addressing climate change and the needs of underemployed parts of America at the same time seems like a good idea to me. Nothing commie or radical about it.
I’m to her right on health care and education and maybe child care (or maybe not) but we need to have these conversations about what’s a public good.
Bad job today, Mr. Brooks.
6
Even when I largely agree with The Human Shrug, I can't abide. We're living in a kleptocracy! Moderation in the face of this will not do. This is not a moderate age and if you want to be the man-in-the-middle, you'd best try to moderate your own party because Democrats and working class people are not in a moderate mood after what we've seen.
2
The “moderation” Brooks describes is not a "story." It’s a hodge-podge of plot fragments, full of contradictions. Consequently, it has no audience.
For example, it pretends capitalism is like natural history and ignores the costs of racism, human rights violations, and ecological destruction as if they were externalities in that story.
It ignores that Nordic middle class ability to pay taxes is a result of a century of policies aimed at reducing intolerable economic inequality and poverty.
It ignores the cultural aspects of Nordic society, which motivate economic participation by ensuring and balancing economic security, efficiency, and productivity. By comparison, the U.S. motivates economic participation with fantasies of largess, while threatening insecurity, unemployment, sickness, poverty and hunger.
6
Brooks' comment about personal responsibility is key. The twin pillars that have caused America to be so successful have been freedom and responsibility. Most of the democrats on stage last week were unrecognizable as Americans. They want to deprive Americans of freedom through government mandates, coercion, and confiscatory taxation while simultaneously relieving people of personal responsibility over even the repayment of their own college debts. This sort of thing represents not only bankrupt economic nonsense, but also a sign of severe moral rot in our society.
3
Neither the American Revolution nor the Civil War nor the Reconstruction nor the Civil Rights eras were made and sustained by moderates.
Moderation aka maintaining a conservative backwards looking status quo ante was always the enemy of making all American persons divinely naturally created equal with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness meaningfully real and true.
4
Mr. Brooks has one thing right ... "The Nordic countries show that social solidarity and economic freedom are not opposite, but go hand in hand."
Nordic citizens do not view universal health care, free college education, social security, family leave, environmental regulation and other progressive laws and regulations as burdens or "coddling" the lazy. They view these as part of a broad social compact between the government and the citizenry. Far from seeing these benefits as "free stuff", most people in the Nordic countries understand that their higher tax burden is the means of payment for an equal, fair and just society and they are quite willing to pay the price.
6
@MartyfromMA
The key is that those Nordic countries have buy-in from a small, relatively stable population. The US does not and never will. It is too big, too diverse ... and most Americans still favor freedom over security.
STATES and CITIES in the US, however, can adopt more Nordic-like policies successfully, and nothing should stop them. Plenty of states offer tax-payer funded college to all qualifying students. Good for them.
The only reason "progressives" in this country want to impose this stuff at a federal level (on states that don't want it) is because only the federal government can spend money without ever expecting to pay it back. And of course all politicians love to spend without imposing the pain of paying for it.
5
Seems that when it comes to issues like health care and education, conservatives claim that universality doable for Nordic countries, but impossible for a large, diverse country with 350 million people. What nonsense!
A larger population provides advantages of scale, which actually decrease the overall costs of a universal health, child care and education system, and the US happens to be the richest, most powerful country in the history of the world. If the US can’t do it, who can?
The Democrats are a coalition of moderates and progressives. Liz Warren used to be a republican and is a capitalist, but she recognizes the severe problems of inequality and favors regulation and proactive solutions.
The current Republican party is the party of Trump.
4
If Trump wants to reinforce David slam-dunking "free-stuff giveaways" as NEVER benefiting the wealthy, he'll have no problem finally disclosing his tax returns.
MAKE SAFETY NETS NET PEOPLE IN NEED AGAIN
“Giving away something for free”?
It isn’t free, somebody is going paying for it.
These people really think they are smart enough to take control of the whole economy.
They have a plan for everything.
There 7 jobs for every 6 applicants.
Nice job Mr. Brooks.
Love the idea of college profs wrong for free.
Andrew Yang has a role to play in the Democratic primary. He's an example of someone who is certainly correct in a narrow sense. His single issue, universal basic income, is the only rational response to the economic surplus produced by advancing automation.
However, he has no hope of being President. He has no interest in actually being the Chief Executive; like Bernie and Warren, he's just promoting his idea(s). He doesn't care that what he recommends is unpalatable to most Americans.
Democrats, if you wouldn't nominate Andrew Yang, don't nominate Bernie or Warren.
you did not tell us who is the moderate. i hope you are not implying the current GOP led by Trump and McConnell is moderate. yes, i agree total capitalism may not work in future but drugs, less reproduction rate, accumulation of wealth by few and no safety net for those who cannot make it to the main stream is howing some weakness in the true democratic and capitalistic society. moderates will have a better chance to fill up this gap but are they bold enough to take steps? we need a strong leader with right attitude with less fear of political correctness.
Brooks is a Republican. The Democrats need to nominate a Democrat, a progressive one at that. Democrats need to energize their base and get them to the polls. They are the majority but don't vote consistently enough to maintain political victories.
If Moderation like Brooks was such a great strategy, why did these policy wonks lose control of the Republican Party? It didn't work there and it won't help the Democrats.
5
@No recall this Democrat will stay home rather than voting for anyone spouting about free child care, free college, canceling student debt, and on and on...sure, more affordable college and child care, and much lower interest rates on student loans, but, please, stop with the "free"...as Brooks says, people need "to have skin in the game"...of course, there should be exceptions for the truly needy...I do think, as well, that taxes need to be raised on the wealthy, and corporate welfare needs to be stopped...
@Jim
We do have skin in the game, we pay taxes. Why does Amazon have a zero tax bill? Why do we subsidize Exxon? Because of our skin in the game. Class warfare has been the republican’s skin in the game and they laugh at how stupid the average voter is. Exceptions for the truly needy, define what “truly needy’ is because again according to the republicans if you use welfare you’re a taker.
Mr Brooks- I am sick to death of corporations having as much power as they have and our government doing nothing about it. There is nothing moderate about trillion dollar corporations paying taxes that is 5% of their income. There is nothing moderate about how and why people are concerned about health care/the environment, but our government focuses on reducing entitlements. There is nothing moderate about such profound income inequality. You forgot a few things e.g. nordic countries- what percent of income is paid in taxes? Is that why education IS FREE in these countries? oh, also, how much do their CEO's make compared to an average citizen? Moderate equals status quo and if this is what appeals to you then trump is your answer
@nlitinme
The purpose of taxes are to generate revenue for the government, nothing more. Why do so many Democrats see their purpose as some form of punishment, as though private, job creating, product and service producing companies need to be punished.
@Econ101
The only "punishment" Democrats want for "private, job creating, product and service producing companies" is for those companies to contribute a fair share of the billions they earn in profits every quarter to the general welfare of the country. In other words... Pay taxes just like everyone else!
Warning! Brooks is a die-hard believer in the Republican mantra that money and favors incent the rich but spoil the poor.
So, of course, he dismisses the notion that social democracies are different from America. He asserts that countries like Sweden really do exempt the rich from fair taxation, really don’t provide special child care and affordable college or trade education for their young people, really do charge premiums and co-pays for health care and prescription medicines.
Brooks misses the whole point of social democracy. It is that adequate, affordable, guaranteed cradle to grave social benefits offer freedom from want, freedom from hassle and worry over health care, freedom from the pressure to save for retirement and the children’s college tuition, freedom to pursue job opportunities without losing employer-provided benefits, and freedom to undertake projects and enterprises, even risky ones, without jeopardizing the well-being of self or family.
America’s disjointed, pathetically inadequate, politically-imperiled social benefit programs are nothing like the social democracy defined in the Preamble to our Constitution and practiced in the Nordic countries and several other nations and city-states around the world.
6
David the Evangelist....a voice crying in the desert of the doling Dems.
Yes, Warren leads them in giveaways, but there are other wolves from the Progressive Pack, committed to ripping commonsense from government and making it instead a common giveaway cornucopia. All you need to get it is to vote it.
Reminds a reader of the fall of Rome. One wishes there was another loud voice from less voracious wolves. Some who attack only for what's needed and no more.
3
It is highly ironic that immigrants, including illegal ones, still do whatever possible to come to this country, while native progressives depict it as an inferno of corporate corruption, stifling inequality and lack of opportunities for honest, hard working people.
Given these opposite views of the American Dream, as an immigrant myself, I suggest a swap that should make the supposedly immigrant-loving progressives very happy: leave this country to us and whatever natives who still see opportunity in it, and let the progressives move to our countries of origin, where they could make everybody happy with much-desired Democratic Socialism, intersectionality, open borders and guaranteed jobs for life.
4
Two thoughts; 1. We could afford more social programs if our military budget wasn't so outlandish. 2. It is obvious Mr. Brooks has finally seen the light and realized how cruel, wrong, and corrupt the Republican party has become, culminating (but not originating) with Donald Trump. But he is trying mightily to both defend himself for having been a Republican for so long and resisting becoming a Democrat because it is so hard for him to admit he was wrong for so many years. Come on, David, give up the bogus defense of your old views which you want to believe were moderate but which were completely Republican, and finally join the only party that is willing and able to solve our current problems: income inequality,ongoing racial animosity, and the climate crisis, to name just a few.
2
This is not just semantics. People, candidates AND journalists must stop using the word FREE. Health care and education will never be free! It’s about who pays and how the money is allocated. People have paid into Medicare and social security to get benefits later in life which are supported by today’s working class. Trump purposefully relies on people’s ignorance to win. Democrats come across as proposing handouts because they do a poor job at educating voters and they also inadvertently deceive with promises of freebies for all. Even Mr Brooks can’t help himself with the notion of apparent Nordic handouts. In addition to vast underlying cultural differences, Nordic countries pay much more in taxes and they understand that the benefits they get are not free, and that the costs of providing are a worthwhile expense.
8
Name a moderate or two that fits this description, hmm socially progressive, fiscally moderate, pro trade , pro alliances and pro defense. Big tent outlook with an eye to decentralize decision making and open to reforming immigration policy (not open borders), tax code and criminal justice. Every single candidate on both sides has sold out to special interests and is waging identity politics. Sad ...
1
Mr. Brooks seems to hold the Nordic countries up as a model only on health care and their vigorous capitalism. He goes on to condemn universal childcare and free education through university. I have two high school classmates who have moved to Sweden and become Swedish citizens. One has a child now in university. He speaks highly of these policies. The other friend supports the policies that provide free childcare, lengthy parental leaves and free education to her fellow citizens (and residents who are not citizens, many of whom are Muslim asylum seekers) recognizing that she pays high national taxes to support them. Neither wishes to return permanently to the U.S. We hear that the Nordic countries have the most content populations in the world. You can't pick and choose, Mr. Brooks. If the Nordic countries are a model, you have to accept all aspects of their policies, not just ones you favor.
4
"It is to give people a secure base, so they can go off and live daring adventures."
Seems like ensuring that everyone can afford whatever medical care they need to "go off and live daring adventures" would be fundamental to this secure base? Being sick and unable to afford care or medications to live and be well is the exact opposite of a secure base.
4
Mr Brooks
Consider this:
We are the wealthiest country in the world the epitome of Capitalist triumph.
Yet diabetics even with insurance can't afford life saving Insulin so they ration it and just die or beg for money on Gofundme. Just because Pharma companies are greedy only in the US market.
Highest per capita spending for health care but worst health outcomes compared to other developed countries like low life expectancy,infant mortality, maternal mortality. Worse than many developing countries. Universal health care work well in the U.K.and Canada.
Highest income inequality and poverty among developed countries. Most people in this country live paycheck to paychecks.
College tuition is the highest in the world burdening the youth with insane debts. Even poor East European countries provide their college students quality education with free tuition and monthly allowances.
All this while our corporations reap astronomical profits while paying less and less in taxes and giving nothing back to the society.
How are you moderates going to solve these problems other than promoting good old capitalism. Capitalism in America is not working for the majority of our citizens. And you the so called moderates label anyone advocating for a decent life for our citizens as socialists.
3
David, I considerate myself a "moderate" based on today's American political spectrum and while I agree with much of what you write today, I disagree with the initial premise that moderates have a "better" idea. I would say "different". An assessment regarding better or worse is subjective. The failing of today's Democrat and Republican parties is that there is no place for those who are not in lock-step with their "base". Where is the voice for the "pro-life" democrat, the "pro-choice" Republican? For the Democrat who wants to limit immigration, the Republican who wants to increase gun controls? If we identify the Republican & Democrat bases as 30-35% each of the population, then 30-40% of Americans are center-right to center-left with no political home. Our parties need to recognize this and truly become "big tents" without any litmus tests to become a full member. The Democrat party is being pulled, not pushed, to the left by the progressive candidates while its rank and file remain center-left - maybe sightly more left that previously. Democrats must recognize that all Americans matter and that insistence on policy purity may give Trump the 2020 election. Historically, moderate voters, as opposed to movement voters, vote and if they can not vote for the Dem's progressive left agenda they may vote for Trump. Dem candidates must not mirror Trump and give simple answers to complex questions; respect the American voter and give them the truth and not only slogans.
4
Why do conservatives such as David Brooks and Bret Stephens believe that the answer to beating Trump is for us Democrats to become more like George Bush Republicans? No thank you gentlemen; we tried that already. Now we are following the lead of Elizabeth Warren and making the Democratic Party once again the party of FDR and Truman.
6
Our last moderate President was Barack Obama whom you and other pseudo-conservative columnists such as Brett Stephens and Ross Douthat criticized almost on a daily basis for 8 years. Except for Trump which successfully energized the white working class, elections are won on the center. I consider myself a moderate but I have a hard time agreeing with some of the nonsensical propositions floated during the debates; healthcare for undocumented immigrants? Free college and student debt forgiveness? Really? Hopefully by the time the list will shrink the remaining candidates will come to their senses and move to the center...
4
Health care for all should be our goal. If an undocumented person works and pays taxes, why shouldn’t they get health care. Taxes that provide safety nets should be our goal not tanks on the Fourth of July. Unfortunately, our President does not read so he doesn’t know that the fourth is a celebration of freedom not war. I guess we have to give him some slack since he never serviced his country.
3
Fighting against autocrats and growing corporate welfare is not an easy task. While it seems to be less than moderate, it is just not so. Treating the wealthy like children with their hands out, giving them all they desire, is the story that Brooks continually ignores.
4
As always, Brooks' views are measured and attended by some fundamental wisdom. But lumping Warren and Sanders in with Trump as "populists" is surprising in a Brooks column, as he rarely slides into lazy thinking. Whatever the flaws in Warren's and Sanders' platforms--and there are many--these two candidates are guided by compassion, fairness and a desire to level the playing field for the great majority of Americans who were not born white, wealthy, and insulated from life's hard realities. Trump is guided only by his desire to enrich and celebrate himself. That is a fairly substantial difference.
6
David is somehow afraid that Americans and in fact anyone who is in this country will receive health care, affordable housing, child care, and maybe even a livable wage and retirement. I know that's revolutionary because "conservatives" have made it their mission to deny these essential human needs or at least make sure that their rich friends won't have to contribute to the common good in the form of taxes. What's not remarkable is Brooks' inability to learn: cutting taxes on the wealthy didn't create jobs, "conservative" economics have led to slower economic growth for the middle class and the poor, and militant foreign policies have made for unending Republican wars. It's seems impenetrable, doesn't it? What Brooks thinks is "moderate" is just Reaganism and that has not only failed, it is finally being roundly rejected. Only fear and manipulation can stop those facts from becoming the mainstream understanding of American politics.
5
I’m curious about your statement that Norway has fewer regulations on business than we do. Could that be that their businesses are more mindful of the public good than ours? Maybe their business self police themselves and pay living wages without regulation; maybe their businesses price drugs fairly without regulation; maybe their businesses engage in practices that don’t pollute the environment - without regulation.......
2
I don't understand why there isn't broader vocal agnst about the lack of moderate candidates. Some of us in the middle feel without a choice and very dispirited in the whole process. I agree with Mr. Brooks' theme for the most part. It probably is more optimistic on how a moderate position will realign economic opportunity, but it speaks to the risks of looking to government, whether federal or state (I live in California) to solve every problem- they can't and often if try won't do it well. Government should remain global in competition and perspective, we should help but not dictate choices in education and health care. Where are positions for moderate improvements, fairer student loans, better public health options and be truthful about limitations, and focusing on getting done in government the essentials.
3
I think this goes way too far. You may have policy differences with Senator Warren, but reporting facts out of context really is behavior that is beneath you.
While it is true that Nordic countries, with one exception, lack an estate tax, their income tax rates calibrated so that the maximum marginal rate kicks applies more broadly and the VAT also supports programs. The point is that real, live people support a social services approach in a way that provides certainty and dignity to everyone.
On the flip side, Scandinavian countries tend not to tax capital and business income at high marginal rates and thereby support business risk.
But, if you make it big over there, you will live up to your promise to contribute your fair share, not an unfair share, just a fair share, to the country's treasury.
As far as planning goes, we are struggling to get our arms around big changes in our environment, deterioration in our infrastructure, stresses in our healthcare system, underfunding of our pension and social security systems, fraying of our social fabric, and perpetual budget uncertainty in our towns and cities. Sometimes big problems, or a series of big problems, require a coordinated solutions. Those solutions are impermanent, like everything else in our society, and will soon be replaced.
But for right now, they are exactly what we need.
5
Dear Mr. Brooks,
Framed as in your essay, who could not admire the virtue and stoicism exemplified in your mythical “moderates”?
In reality, we are hopelessly divided between a genuinely infantilized left and an unrepentantly rapacious right, pulled by the kleptocracy of the useless and the plutocracy of the ruthless.
The question is how on earth to bridge the gap?
The answer is to eventually have a citizenry as worthy as the ideals chiseled into our founding documents. Certainly there are a few, but at this moment, in our time, I’m sorry, sir, we reside in an idiotocracy, flooded by imbecility. There’s no middle ground there, no chance for “moderation”, only the vain hope that at some point the floodwaters will recede.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
3
Mr. Brooks: My problem with your study is that you make some cheap unsubstantiated generalizations on how people will respond to the progressives so called coddling. I just want to remind you, that the people who run companies are easily coddled too. And their lazy attitudes effects much more, by way of their tremendous economies of scale.
My main objection to this current administration is its attack on the natural environment. These easy/loose policies leaves the companies with less incentive to innovative, become more competitive. Why should they invest in the future when they can continue abusing from sea to sea, our land, air, and its people.
So please, please for the love of all things that makes us great, skip the generalizations about how people will respond to policies, it's a generalization that can be applied to everyone.
2
"The gloom and carnage mind-set that populists like Donald Trump, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders insist on.'
George Orwell warned the reader against failure to properly distinguish political positions like this. Most grievously, Orwell found Republicans in Eisenhower's time claiming that the totalitarian terror of "1984" represented all forms of socialism, whereas Orwell, a social democratic all his adult life, had fought on the side of Spain's government in the civil war. The enemy, included the totalitarian, communist form of socialism, with its "Big Brother" at the helm.
Bernie Sanders' lifelong declaration of his democratic socialist persuasion, available in videos for anyone concerned about the distinction between the "socialisms" , or in this case, the incongruous comparison of Sanders and Warren alongside Trump as "populists."
Brooks fails to even attempt an explanation for the U.S.' failure to provide any of the supportive popular
social welfare elements seen in central Europe AND in those Nordic countries, homelessness simply an immoral condition.
The role of the very wealthy in advancing their interests and destroying chances for future generations in denying climate change surely must be explained by the defender of the "moderate" case. Ignoring the evidence of their role succinctly laid out in works like Robert Kenner's Merchants of Doubt, demonstrates that Brooks' argument is as pointless as those whose case he purports to defend.
2
Businesses are happy to take government giveaways in the form of taxes shifted to others (industrial development tax relief), reduced taxation of capital gains, and business use of the vast national infrastructure, which was built with public funding. Business owners press government for opportunities to escape taxation, and "conservative" lawmakers cheerfully deliver them. It is difficult to criticize benefits for the little guy when there are many corporations that pay no income tax at all.
2
to quote Mr. Krugman
"That tax cut, after all, appears likely to add around $2 trillion to federal debt — with around a third of that going to foreigners. Meanwhile, the promised surge in business investment is nowhere to be seen."
You are talking about trillions; that is real money.
How much of that money do you think went to the middle and lower class? who is getting the benefits of this economy?
Scandinavian countries are able to afford everything that is being proposed. How is it that the richest country in the world is not able to?
1
"free college, free child care" and I'd add universal access to medical care. To Mr Brooks these things are radical. Well, just look around at the most successful democracies in the world, Mr. Brooks. You will note that they all have these features and they are thriving. It's not so radical at all - it's giving citizens opportunities to be educated, healthy, and able to contribute to our society.
5
What accounts for the rise of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and their views? One explanation might be that there is a crisis of inequality in this country. The wealthy are becoming more so and the middle and working classes' wealth has dropped since the 1970s. Everyone may be better off in regard to health and life expectancy, but people, social animals as they are, are concerned about relative position in the pecking order. The current generation is probably the first one in a long time that believes their kids will be worse off than they are, that they will have a harder time raising families and staying in the middle class.
American historians no longer are optimistic. They used to believe that each generation would do better than its predecessor. No longer. Like most other intelligent people, they are worried.
4
Is it paternalistic to give children free high school educations? If not, what makes it different from a free college education? When free high schools began the level of education required for a job made high school the equivalent of college today. We have traveled from paid education by the wealthy to free elementary education in the area north and west of the Ohio River, to free high school education as an alternative to private education. Free college is only the next step in this long historical drama. It is a moderate step in line with out history.
3
This may be why our high schools turn out so many students who can’t read or write. The science is with Brooks, when something is free, people place a lower value on it.
Medicare-for-all would also provide an equality among men. Precisely what moderates don’t want.
1
@rebecca1048
Need to add Republicans, too!
Moderates are people who have been so well-served by the government they’re not even aware that they’ve been served by the government and are under the delusion that they are solely responsible for creating their place in society and are convinced everyone else is too. What the extremists on both the left and the right have in common is that they’ve bumped up against the limitations the system we live in has placed on their ability to determine their own lives. The difference between them is that the right-wing extremists are only interested in opening up opportunity for people whose cultural and ethnic backgrounds conform to a narrow definition of American-ness and are unconcerned about the exploitation of the people who don’t (and the super-rich among them want fewer limitations on the extent to which they can exploit their workers while avoiding paying taxes and submitting to oversight over their business practices), while the left-wing progressives are the rest of us: people who clearly see how the government has rigged the system and want it to expand its opportunities to include people who aren’t in the same cultural and ethnic tribe as David Brooks.
9
Thank you David Brooks for another thoughtful piece. As a fierce moderate (yes those two words can be paired) I find both your writing and that of your colleague Bret Stephens to be some of the sanest commentary today. Kudos also to the New York Times in publishing OP-Ed writers who are not in lockstep with the editorial board. David, please keep up the good work.
5
David Brooks column today, July 1, is excellent.
I don't agree with him that charter schools are something we should want. Here in Michigan, charter schools take the money they earn out-of-state.
Public school employees rarely do.
But his story about Moderates is well worth reading. It is probably what most Americans really want--no matter what they say.
3
Has it ever occurred to Brooks that the various, long-term benefits of a well-educated public would far outweigh the costs of free higher educations?
8
@Bob Holmstrom Perhaps Brooks' objection to free post secondary education is best voiced by the paleocon Roger Freeman--a key educational adviser to Nixon then working for the reelection of California Governor Ronald Reagan-- "We are in danger of producing an educated proletariat. That's dynamite! We have to be selective on who we allow to go through higher education.”
Late again on this conversation, but I must say our system as twisted by the GOP over the decades is about nothing but power. For a long time our system has stifled any debate or possibilities for moderate or progressive reforms and even more conservative policies such as they are go no where. So while we debate in columns such as this good possibilities they go nowhere. And watching Mitch McConnell at work it is obvious that passing good policies for the people plays no role in a system devoted only to the preservation of power for those who possess it.
By the way I really agree that Mr. Brooks gives Elizabeth Warren a bum rap. In almost every situation she has defended the role of capitalism and her aim has always been to make it more responsive to the people she serves.
8
I live in a small town in Mississippi. Some people don't have enough to eat. My neighbor lives in an old trailer. About a quarter of the houses in my neighborhood are abandoned. Tell these people how well the system can work. Tell them about the importance of legislating against estate taxes. Tell them that free access to higher education would actually be bad for them. Here's where Mississippi is: east of Aspen, west of Martha's Vineyard, and south of D.C. I'd be happy to show you around.
16
Well, another Op-ed warning Americans the dangers of progressives and their wild policy ideas from a conservative writer and thinker.
That's all we get since the democrats kicked off their primary season.
It's unfortunate that these op-eds border on misinformation. I'm sure many anxious Americans are now soothed by Mr. Brooks words of warning and moderation.
Yes, our country was build on incremental change, a muddling through in our government if you will, however when you negotiate policies and laws you don't for just a small piece of what you want you, you ask for all of it, and then compromise with the other side.
6
Mr. Brooks is suffering from "Freedom Deficit Syndrome". The cure is written in the document, celebrated this coming July 4th: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
The columnist's piece this am is a formula for destroying liberty for millions: peace of mind when ill, being a highly educated person, protection of voting rights, child care that allows all citizens a right to earn a decent living, workers' rights, and anything else that is the opposite from what Mr. Brooks proposes.
Americans don't want to live a life that proposes things are better now than the stone age. Should we be happy that we do not have to wait until "the iceman cometh"?
Leading a good life means any American has a modicum chance that allows taking advantage of what human advancement has provided.
His made up analysis of countries higher on the contentment index than the US should be an urgent call to exercise our voting rights. Even this is in peril given the present government organs.
If David Brooks's dictums are moderate he should be faced with Patrick Henry's vision, who was determined to express what a new nation should provide: "Give me liberty," or we will vote you out of office!
3
Since the Democratic debate, every moderate Republican pundit from George Will to David Brooks certainly got the memo: "Put fear into moderate Democrats about the horrible consequences of picking a too far to the left nominee." Boy are they scared someone Progressive might beat Trump.
Democrats need to take into consideration who is offering voting advice every time they are warned about the dire consequences of moving too far to the LEFT.
I like David Brooks but I disagree with his vision because he's all about keeping the status quo.
We need fundamental change not incremental change.
7
@KHD
Think about what the progressive in the party are asking for, healthcare, education, and childcare. David got his didn’t he!
Brooks makes some strong points, and his commitment to individual freedom and choice reflects American values. But he weakens his case by ignoring the differences between the US and the Scandinavian countries.
They don't need an estate tax to reduce economic inequality, for example, because they have high progressive taxes. The absence of a minimum wage, secondly, almost certainly stems from their strong unions, which have the power to negotiate better wages. The high deductibles attached to their healthcare insurance, furthermore, does not harm the citizenry because those better wages enable policyholders to pay them.
Warren's approach reflects the outsized political and economic influence of America's big corporations, and represents an attempt to use federal power to curtail that influence. FDR combined some of Warren's methods with a sharp increase in the power of labor unions, and his New Deal contributed to a generation of strong economic growth.
David paints an ideal picture of thriving democratic economies and societies. But unless we can duplicate here the underlying conditions that help explain the success of Scandinavia's government policies, at least some of Warren's proposals may have to serve as a substitute.
2
Mr. Brooks, without affordable advanced education and affordable childcare it is very, very difficult to develop "skills needed to compete and flourish in this open, pluralistic world" or to have a "secure base, so they can go off and live daring adventures". I went to college in the 1980s when a state university education was affordable to a young person who worked part-time jobs and lived at home. This is no longer the case. I attended a public law school (the same one that Kamala Harris attended) back when it was possible to graduate with modest and affordable student loan debt. That is no longer the case. And without that advanced degree I have no idea how I could possibly have afforded childcare. My vote will go to a progressive.
6
David-I feel for you. If I were a Republican I would be appalled by what has become of my party. But don't look to the Democratic party to become a Democratic-lite party. For decades Democrats have been twisting themselves into knots, trying to conform to what moderates would find acceptable. At the same time Republicans became more and more intractable in their desperate efforts to hold back progress for everyone, not just for the rich and well-connected. The answer for your woes is to advocate for a third party candidate--a Republican who represents the kind of values you espouse here. He/she would be unlikely to win, but it would probably sink Trump--and more importantly, provide you with a base to resurrect the part of Lincoln.
4
I'd like to see Mr. Brooks in a one-on-one debate with Ms. Warren. I think the picture that would emerge is one where government polices that favor the wealthy and connected are baked in to our society and are fueling a growing wealth gap, disastrous climate change, falling education levels, high infant mortality rates, and a host of other ills pointed out by others commenting on Mr. Brooks' column.
Too often "freedom" of the sort urged by Mr. Brooks is defined by wealthy in a way that allows them to exploit the system for their own benefit. Ms. Warren may not have all the right answers but she at least has a sense of the nature of the problem.
3
David Brooks advocates universal unionization? Nordic countries don’t have a minimum wage, but a base wage negotiated by unions, government, and businesses. Nordic countries are thoroughly unionized. Unions have representation on all large boards of directors. Progressives know that they can’t reach that far, but dishonestly, Brooks offers the Nordic Socialist states to discredit socialism by cherry picking “facts” and then moving on to denigrating progressives. He forgets that his foundational argument about minimum wage was just a distraction, when he tries to make “free college” an anomaly while it is a characteristic of the Nordic countries.
The Nordic countries are rational. The recognize that democracy cannot be excluded from the workplace, and so they promote unions. That is a National Security issue for them. In America, National Security is evoked when bad actors want to hide their crimes, or when there is a war. The most blatant example of exploiting National Security was the Confederate Army made up of non slave holders who were duped into fighting for the benefit of slave holders. Real National Security would include the establishment of Universal Healthcare by Otto von Bismarck because he needed a healthy population to preserve National Security. Education, Healthcare, law enforcement, fire safety and roads are National Security programs in the Nordic countries. David is playing “three card Monty” with this column but is easily caught.
5
Mr. Brooks correctly reminds us that the Nordic countries have strong welfare states precisely because of their capitalist economies. But he overlooks the fact that these systems can afford to take a pass on estate taxes and require high health insurance deductibles because they are also relatively egalitarian. In the U.S., the introduction of such policies would only widen the chasm between rich and poor.
I'm a moderate at heart. But I think this piece begs an important question: can a moderate political agenda alleviate socio-economic inequality??
1
@PLM
And unlike the US, even their civil penalties for speeding and such (at least in Finland) are progressive - you pay a percentage of income, not a flat rate. I don't see any Republicans clamoring for that! The penalty is actually a penalty for everyone, its intended purpose. Not permission for the rich to break the law!
1
Why should Democrats listen to a Republican like Brooks anyway? When you moderates fix the GOP, then you can lecture the Democratic Party. And equating Warren and Trump - have you no shame?
8
I don't understand why the conservative columnists at the Times feels free to lecture people on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum about what they should be doing. I disagree strongly with a lot of these positions because, well, they're essentially Republican ideas. I'm sorry that the GOP has run so far to the right it resembles a proto-fascist party, but maybe Brooks should be directing his ire at the party that thinks limited government intervention is the solution to everything, which is an improvement over the current stance of burning government down.
3
So many straw men. Let me quote John McEnroe: "You can't be serious!"
6
More references to Anu Partanen’s writings: What Americans Don't Get About Nordic Countries". The Atlantic. Retrieved 22 March 2016, including articles in the NYT.
1
This article, a mishmash of strawman arguments and magical thinking, is so skewed in its facts and reasoning that one could be forgiven for thinking it was a stump speech penned by an overzealous campaign staffer.
5
A long time ago Mr. Brooks may have actually been the moderate he so likes to extoll. Back then he was also a Republican and was urging his party to be less ideological while at the same time saying the exact same thing he is saying today about the Democrats.
With the ascension of Donald Trump to the apex of the GOP he apparently has decided that if Democrats would just be the party he once imagined existed and supported he might just be able to support them.
The problem is he thinks his former party was hi-jacked by a reality TV show huckster and in doing Trump's bidding has lost its way. With one exception, trade policy, the reality is Trump had no actual policy ideas and is the one doing Mitch McConnell GOP's bidding. On taxes, on health care on using any group lacking the monetary muscle to buy their way into McConnell's good grace--be it immigrants, single women, blacks or anyone else non partisan federal court might protect--Trump's GOP is McConnell GOP.
Mr. Brooks seems to think what the Democrats should find the perfect moderate candidate to work with the self described "Grim Reaper" Mitch McConnell because that is a better story then one we are living in. FYI, while you were and still are identifying everything that's wrong on the left you were and are one of the moderates that created this mess.
3
Another sermon from the pulpit of Reverend Brooks warning us of the evils of progressivism – the devil’s playground. “Get back Satan!”
Yes, says Brooks, let’s steer the ship of state into more moderate waters - waters fed by conservative springs: opportunity abounds in the capitalistic model; government is bad if it plays more than a moderate role in people’s lives; self-reliance where “regular people can choose to build their own lives and maximize their own opportunities” is the magic elixir we all need to drink – it will make us “more powerful than a locomotive…able to leap tall buildings in a single bound!”
“Buck up America! Our redemption is in ‘vigorous virtues — daring, empowered, always learning, always brave’!” (Cue the National Anthem.)
It’s the same old story. You know, the conservative narrative we’ve been putting our faith in for too long now – the one that got us into the deep hole we find ourselves in.
It’s the narrative that enables the powers-that-be: the oligarchs and the Republicans. While we are distracted by Brooks’ burning-bush sermon, they rob us blind. While we are trying to keep our balance on the unlevel playing field, and playing according to “Brooks’ Rules,” the oligarchs are stealing the profits and the Republicans are stealing our government.
Yes, moderates have a “story” – but so do con artists and hustlers.
5
Another sermon from the pulpit of Father Brooks warning us of the evils of progressivism – the devil’s playground. “Get back Satan!”
Yes, says Brooks, let’s steer the ship of state into more moderate waters - waters fed by conservative springs: opportunity abounds in the capitalistic model; government is bad if it plays more than a moderate role in people’s lives; self-reliance where “regular people can choose to build their own lives and maximize their own opportunities” is the magic elixir we all need to drink – it will make us “more powerful than a locomotive…able to leap tall buildings in a single bound!”
“Buck up America! Our redemption is in ‘vigorous virtues — daring, empowered, always learning, always brave’!” (Cue the National Anthem.)
It’s the same old story. You know, the conservative narrative we’ve been putting our faith in for too long now – the one that got us into the deep hole we find ourselves in.
It’s the narrative that enables the powers-that-be: the oligarchs and the Republicans. While we are distracted by Brooks’ burning-bush sermon, they rob us blind. While we are trying to keep our balance on the unlevel playing field, and playing according to “Brooks’ Rules,” the oligarchs are stealing the profits and the Republicans are stealing our government.
Yes, moderates have a “story” – but so do con artists and hustlers.
Is it just me or does Brooks’ picture at the top of the column look like a deer in the headlights of reality?
3
This article is just full of platitudes and broad generalizations, without a scintilla of research.
For example, Nordic countries don't have minimum wage laws because every industry is strongly unionized. Meanwhile in the United States, unions have been gutted by the exact "moderates" that Brooks supports, making minimum wage laws the only way to make low-skill jobs have livable wages.
Honestly baffling that the New York Times pays this guy.
6
In 2014, when commenting on Israel, the Middle East, Iran, etc., David Brooks had a son in the Israelivp army but did not tell readers or listeners. Just one more bit of evidence that Israel's partisans put a thumb on the scale of US media reporting and commentary. David Brooks is not honest or credible.
1
Gee David, I think I’ve seen a program like yours before. It used to be called “Republicanism” when George H.W. Bush was president (and before Tea Partiers and Trumpistas stole the party).
Why don’t you guys fight to retake your own party instead of trying to corrupt someone else’s?
7
David's brand of moderation is Ronald Reagan talking about "Welfare Queens" as opposed to Donald Trump talking about "Mexican rapists."
5
Great constructive criticism.
Well done.
WRITE IN Mueller and fix our broken democracy, Show the world the true power of our vote. He will lock them all up. A life long democrat
Why does conservative Brooks continually lecture Democrats rather than addressing the disgusting state of affairs among his own?
4
Thank you!!!
As usual, Brooks has misstated so much of what he claims as moderate/progressive. Do us all a favor. Criticize your own party and its kleptocratic members, rail against the inhumane and indecent actions of potus and his ilk, cleanse your own party of its vile racism and bigotry, and leave the rest of us to make our own decisions regarding what it is we want and demand.
5
Get lost David.
They Sooner The Better.
3
“Progressives want a population that is dependent.” Sorry, but that is sheer nonsense—perhaps good enough for Fox News but not appropriate fro David Brooks.
2
NEW MATH 101: Bernie's stupid give aways + Warren's + Kamala's = Trump for 4 more years. Even I will vote for Trump and I detest the guy.
1
@Bob. You may "detest " Trump, but you obviously have the same values, the dollar being the first. 0
I enjoy reading David Brooks the social scientist, but David Brooks the economist, not so much. For that I turn to Dr. Krugman. And for politics, well, take your pick. The NYT has a respectable stable and it can sometimes include Mr. Brooks, but not this morning. Call me thin skinned, but it pains me to see Elizabeth Warren cast in such a false light. She actually made a case for charter schools in her book, The Two Income Trap. As for economic slavery, what the heck does one call entrapment in a 400% payday loan, economic freedom? Free enterprise off the rails is only freedom for robber barons.
4
What is Mr. Brooks smoking?
These are the Swedish co-pays
from https://international.commonwealthfund.org/features/what_covered/
Service Fee Range (2016)
Swedish Kroner U.S. Dollars
Primary care physician visit 150–300 17–33
Hospital physician consultation 200–350 22–38
Hospitalization per day 50–100 5.5–11
Source: Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SALAR), 2016.
In addition, costs are capped at $120 for office visits. I seriously wish that we have factual arguments instead of unsupported assertions. And frankly, let the government intrude one our personal lives to prevent drug companies and insurance companies from pushing us into bankruptcy. A D- column for sure.
2
@David Miley - I filed a single example of what it actually cost me to get my 3 stents thanks to Swedish Universal Health Care. That comment is one in the very large collection of 1 hour ago comments.
I never heard anybody tell me that I was making a copay when I paid 100 kronor (med or) when checking in to get my first 2 stents.
It is truly appalling when a New York Times columnist cannot make the slightest effort to present the facts correctly.
The only solution would be for the Times to present correct information for specific countries and have that information available to columnists and readers. I will use the link you provide.
I use the Swedish sources and my direct experience. And as you note, in the Swedish system there are caps on what would be paid if anything, given the situation.
We can only hope that Elizabeth Warren is getting the correct information to be used when she must do so.
Thanks for the comment. Have an appointment booked tomorrow at the University Hospital and when I enter my personal number and the code for the visit I will see - go directly to the location - no charge! (since everything is totally free from age 86 on).
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
Shhh! No one tell David he is a conservative!
2
David's argument against free community-supported colleges is way off base. I went to City College of New York (CCNY) in the early 50s because I could afford no other. Most of my colleagues went on for further graduate work or professional degrees. The amount of additional local and federal taxes we paid over our working years, compared with taxes paid by non-college graduates far outways the money paid for us by our communities to support the free college system. This is a long-term investment with a potentially big payoff; it is pure capitalism. Of course, it is necessary for applicants to demonstrate that they can do the work or else enter a remedial program to learn things they should have learned in High School.
1
The fact that Brooks suggests charter schools as an example of moderate choice vs. progressive fixes to me shows the problem with this whole argument. It is harder to create the equal playing field that he is arguing for than it is to make certain things free for everyone. Choice is great, when everyone has equal access to good choices. In the case of charter schools, we've seen already how that can go wrong. Charter schools are not open to everyone--they offer limited space, and then those left in public schools have less funding and a poorer education than those who were able to get into the charter schools.
Progressives want to eliminate the barriers that give advantages to some folks but not others. "Choice" will only work once those advantages have been eliminated.
1
In 2016 the "Nordic" countries were socialists; now they're moderates. Nothing has changed there; but the semantic narrative is changing. The "Nordic" countries provide healthcare (not insurance), higher education, and child care to their citizens. American politicians who have pointed to the "Nordic" countries - which I assume include Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Norway - have been characterized as "wild-eyed" socialists by David Brookes in the past. What has happened? Has the failed Reagan economy generation given rise to a need for a new narrative? Wow. What's going on David?
4
Thanks D. Brooks for prompting these rebuttals to your argument for moderates in a crisis times. Your readers have shellacked these arguments with a reality i am more familiar with coming from a shrinking middle class who have watched my moderate rights being hijacked by the wealth class running the republican party.My son has $70k in college debt when he graduates next year- he currently can't afford healthcare. Insurance for my wife with pre existing conditions has set her premiums beyond our income level. i could go on but i think your readers have covered most of the other concerns with the moderate agenda as you describe. And yes there is no moderation in the republican establishment - 'in all its audacity' that has serve me so far.
3
Amen David. Please keep giving us your intelligent, informed, and sane point of view. I strongly believe that a majority of Americans belong to neither extreme, even though it seems like most of the voices we hear in the media are either far left, or far right. I can't vote for Trump, and I certainly hope the the Democratic candidate does not espouse some of the wacky ideas that seemed to get strong support in the recent debates.
7
Uhhh...income inequality. Corporate welfare. Living wage. We need progressives. Moderation isn’t working.
4
Dude, your with the party of Trump. No Democrat should care about anything you have to say about the parties candidates. People who are going to vote are going to vote for Trump. People who see through him will not. Period.
3
“ It is to give people a secure base, so they can go off and live daring adventures.”
Mr. Brooks... it is difficult to “go off and live daring adventures” when your health insurance is tied to the corporate employment that you cannot separate from because there would be no ‘secure base’ left for you to be able to responsibly partake in those ‘Daring adventures’!
Oh...and in order to mesh with your own line of reasoning, can we assume that you will be DECLINING universal healthcare (MEDICARE)come your 65th Birthday?!
I'm assuming you won’t have any problem with declining America's single-payer, universal healthcare plan called MEDICARE come your 65th Birthday? responsibly
2
Also Nordic:
~ Minimum five - seven weeks vacation/holidays;
~ Guaranteed sick time at 100% salary;
~ A YEAR of PAID maternity and paternity leave;
~ Childcare;
~ Free healthcare;
~ Free college or trade school;
~ Homeless counts are between 5,000 and 7,500 per country - America’s is 555,000;
~ Etc., etc., etc.;
~ad nauseum ...
4
Thanks for this piece, Mr. Brooks. If you want "medicare for all" go to Russia. If you want federal planning, go to China. Just remember that when you get there you won't have a free press or if you disagree with the "benevolent" administrators you are subject to all sorts of harassment including prison or even death. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders need to be honest about where they will inevitably lead us. Putin or Xi don't tolerate people with differing opinions- just ask Gary Kasparov or Mikhail Khodorkovsky in Russia or the Qigher(?spelling) Muslims in China
Brooks is wrong about Scandinavians having high deductibles, at least he's wrong about Denmark, which is who Bernie & Co. want to emulate.
Several years ago, when I lived in Denmark, I had an accident that required three hours of surgery performed by two hand surgeons. The hospital was clean, new, and had the latest medical equipment. After the cast came off, the reattached tendons and nerves all healed nicely.
In the US, even non-surgical treatment for a broken hand costs about $6000 (https://health.costhelper.com/broken-hand.html)
Cost to me in for hand surgery in Denmark: Zero
2
Unless I missed an announcement, Brooks is still with the GOP despite the party's takeover by thoroughly anti-democratic forces. His opinion about progressive Democrats is not worth considering. The hyperbolic nonsense in the first few paragraphs was too much. Bah!
3
When David writes a column eviscerating the Republican tax cut for multi-millionaires costing $1.5 trillion then I'd care a little more about what he considers moderate.
3
If the Dems don't get a brain on immigration, and desist from the sweet pleasure of insulting large swaths of the electorate, we will have 4 more years of The Orange One, and very little will be done on Healthcare.
I'm in my seventies and have been watching this farce too long. The Reps have few or no ideas. The Dems have silly ideas and their fascination with tiny white countries is absurd.
We should take pitchfork and torch in hand and run out into the night, looking for kindred souls. Abolish the Senate. Make campaign financing a public function.
David Brooks is such a champion of capitalism.
So I'd like to know who Brooks competes against in the free market.
@Robert Henry Eller
If he really believed what he says here, he would have become a moderate Democrat in 2016, or perhaps 2008 when Democrats (foolishly) saved unrestrained capitalism from itself (again), or 1992 (when a Democrat ran on deficit reduction)...
His party is unrecognizable:
Tariffs are not free market.
Sanctions are not free market.
The MIC is not free market.
Restricted immigration is not free market.
Legislated morality is not free market.
The wars on drugs are not free market.
You cannot claim to be governed by principles and then have none.
This article showcases the deeply insulated perspective of David Brooks, as well as his shameless willingness to distort reality to support his view - i.e., his slippery and untruthful words about no min wage in Norway..
You are wrong about government, Mr. Brooks - it is not mommy- ism, it is the coming together of our best thinkers, in open debate, and being able to agree together on how to proceed with collective issues.
But for me, most important, is his lack of interest in the natural world. Climate change, species other than humans, have no place in David Brook's universe, at all. St. Francis you are not, Mr. Brooks.
3
It is 03:35 in this Nordic Country from which I have filed 100s of comments reporting on the Universal Health Care that for me very likely explains why I am alive and writing at age 87.
David do not generalise about Nordic countries and co payments and high deductibles.
My 3 stents cost me a few hundred crowns 10 years ago, kronor not dollars.
Now my care costs zero do grasp that? Zero.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
And yet again, the Times's conservative columnists offer free, unsolicited advice to the Democratic Party. So thoughful! So generous! David Brooks's tired canards about progressives seeking to narcotize citizens and render them "dependent" on government are straight out of Ayn Rand. Brooks, like Bret Stephens, seems not to be able to distinguish a New Deal Democrat from a Stalinist. It's enough to make one wonder what on earth they teach at the University of Chicago! As for Elizabeth Warren, she calls herself "a proud capitalist."
Regarding the other party, who, pray tell, are the "moderates" in the Republican Party who are too timid to articulate a reasonable, center-right platform to counter Trumpism? Which Republicans champion "the vigorous virtues — daring, empowered, always learning, always brave"? I follow politics avidly, and yet I do not know who David Brooks is referring to. He used to hail Paul Ryan as though Ryan were the second coming of Edmund Burke, Benjamin Disraeli, and Winston Churchill all rolled into one. Who are the GOP "moderates" Mr. Brooks?
4
So busy touring the moderates but while never a Trumper you haven’t taken to task your party , the party of the “ grim reaper “ , tax cuts for the rich and corporations , anti immigration , women , LBGT , and anyone else who doesn’t meet their definition of a “ real American”. The GOP answer to those in need is to sneer , ridicule or cut whatever meager benefits they have. The GOP sold their souls to the base and Trump Judas like so they could prevent women from having a choice over their lives and bodies , keeping people of color from voting and closing the borders. At least Warren and Bernie have plans to help those in need.
1
If moderate means “middle of the road” solutions to climate change, then no thank you.
1
Moderates have been telling there story for the last century or more. We live in a moderate world. Half a century ago, when Britain got the NHS, decades later we were only able to pass Medicare and Medicaid. We tried again when Barrack Obama sought a public option—a half measure when compared to the NHS—but it failed due to lack of moderate support. Even in our most “progressive” moments, the moderates prevail. They scare us with stories of “dependents” and a “government class,” and their messages have impact because they are often backed by the group that stands the most to gain from the status quo, big business. It’s how we get a figure like Bill Clinton who fails to reverse the tide of Reaganism, a philosophy and a movement during which David Brooks came of age.
We live in a country built by moderates and conservatives with the tiniest spikes of progressive moments. Would it be so bad to give people the relief they need?
By the way, enough of the false equivalency between Donald Trump and the progressive left. It’s a rhetorical devise you use to argue for a return to the center and very clearly made in bad faith. You have a potential ally in the compassionate progressive movement, but your losing them awfully fast.
Sometimes I need a break from David's usual sunlit uplands view of the free market (not as cod-Churchillian as that moral vacuum salesman Boris Johnson in Britain) and that's when I turn to his New York Times colleague Paul Krugman.
Krugman's current column The Moochers of Middle America is almost coincidentally the precise answer to David's calling out what he sees as political views that are too progressive. I sometimes don't know the reality of what is going on in America until I read Paul Krugman's take on it.
What I always like about Paul Krugman are the easy-to-read helpful insights and analysis, and that his columns are full of facts. Discernible, checkable facts. Hey, remember those?
The fallacy of this peace is contained in the early paragraphs where Brooks states that progressives want to create a population that is dependent and weak. He seems to overlook that it is during the past 40 years of unbridled capitalism that our population has become weak and disempowered. Furthermore, he gladly picks up the dog whistle that progressives (quite falsely) want to create a Marxist state, as opposed to one that offers the same kind of booster rocket he advocates for. Brooks has some good points that he sadly undercuts with his cartoonish pablum about the supposed risks of progressivism, all of which sound like they were borrowed from a College Republicans website.
2
Yeah. All that moderation worked wonders for Obama. And just look where we are now!
I am reminded Obama became the deporter in chief because he thought it would impress McConnell and induce him to negotiate over immigration reform. Instead McConnell just saw his mark coming from a mile away. We don’t have time for dilettantes like this.
1
Don’t mess with Progressive dogma, David.
Every good Liberal knows that THEY are the smartest and best to make decisions on behalf of the collection of hyphenated interest groups waiting for Santa Claus to redeem their grievances.
I wonder whether there are African-Swedes, Muslim-Danish, and Italian-Norwegians. Or is this a bit of social exploitation that takes root only in a cynical culture that hurtled past postmodernism and now seeks a “might makes right” hubris of the elected caste.
When readers are unable to extract any room for thought from your column, I know it is time to end the subscription: nothing enlightening here folks, move along.
3
Mr. Brooks is a moderate because Mr. Brooks is a millionaire. It is easy to bray for moderation when one is making a comfortable living borne from society’s inequities.
I’m beginning to think my conservative friends in the Midwest are right about NYT readers. Based on most of these posts my fellow readers have completely lost their minds. Not surprising I suppose - Trump will do that to you. But Brooks has it right - if you think prattling on about free stuff and a government monopoly of health insurance are going to carry more than 10 states, you’ve been smoking too much medical marijuana. Wake up and smell the sewage - you’re pitching to maybe 30% of the electorate at best, and the other 70% want no part of what you’re selling.
6
Talk about out of touch with today’s world. This article reads like an endorsement of Jeb Bush circa 2015.
1
David Brooks should be formally condemned by The New York Times for this, frankly, weird conflating of progressive positions of candidates like Bernie Sanders with the far right of Donald Trump. Such misreading of the record borders on illiteracy. Its intent is malicious to say the least.
1
Moderates: Though shalt not do anything that touches the donors’ ability to rake in billions and buy as many yachts as necessary. Progressives: Hey, we’re being crushed out here with exploding health care costs, vicious banking and lending, wage stagnation, monopolistic companies raising costs and rents, crappier schools, crappier services, vulnerability, college debt, floods, droughts and fires! Plus you moderates gave us Trump! Help!
What? The Nordic Socialist hoard are on to a good thing now? David, talk like that can get a man in trouble.
1
University education in many European countries is free, or close to. I work in a school where many of the kids flow into those universities, none of them that I know have dropped out. It’s so American to think that having “skin in the game,” means it’s only good if you paid for it out of your pocket. What a bunch of hooey.
1
This article expressed some decent ideals, but what is the real-world result in the U.S. today? If you want an example of the most recent policy that moderate Democrats have endorsed, read this: https://theintercept.com/2019/06/28/josh-gottheimer-house-democrats-cave-as-josh-gottheimer-claims-to-have-votes-to-block-bill-mandating-better-conditions-for-children-in-detention/
Mr. Brooks, your anti-Trump Conservatism is admirable. I do disagree with some of your analysis, but now is not time the time to split hairs. Our country is in existential crisis. Therefore, I need to know now. If you can't "save" us Democrats from Progressivism (as you failed to save your party from Fascism), will you vote for, say, an Elizabeth Warren, or will you throw your vote...and thereby your country..away by staying home, writing in, etc.
I wonder if David Brooks knows that charter schools don't use certified teachers. Not knowing anything about Brooks's family I can bet that his kids and grandkids don't attend charter schools. It's good enough for pablum. Also while Hillary Clinton was a genuine moderate, she lost to a guy who claimed that Obama was born in Africa and was a secret Muslim. So much for moderation. It's nice to pull something like this out of your ear but everything has to be put into the context of where we're actually at. Anybody who thinks that moderation is the way out of this is smoking some of that legal weed. No pain, no gain.
If you want moderates move to Germany, they learned it the hard way.
1
You know what moderates have gotten us? A chipping away at reproduction rights, a failure to address climate change, a lack of immigration compromise, high student debt, unaffordable housing, unaffordable healthcare, race relations, shall I go on? The whole go along to get along is fraud that republicans have used as a hammer to get what they want, by insisting that they aren’t right wing nut cases but “moderate conservatives”. No more. Moderation has given away the store and the shelves are empty while people in this country are begging for help. The counter action to the rightward lurch of these moderate policies is why people like Mr. Brooks are terrified. Maybe he should be, the white male privilege that he has enjoyed is coming to an end, women and POC are done with waiting for your permission and we are not going to stand down for some weasel words of moderation.
1
Reading this is like walking into a "Hall of Mirrors". For starters: will the "moderate" in today's Republican Party please stand up? Also, David: can you provide links to articles by you demonstrating your consternation at the GOP's move away from "moderation" in recent decades - particularly over the last twenty-five years? Unbelievable!
As for the "moderate" character of the Nordic social democracies. You do realise - don't you - that it took a lot of progressive people in power like Sanders and Warren to make them how they are? And that - being democracies - there are opposing parties and coalitions that have had power at times during that history. And, if you want to talk about "moderation", how about we compare the politics and policies of the centre-right in the Nordic countries with what passes for such in the US. Just embarrassing!
Perhaps you're auditioning for a job in the Murdoch press. They love half-truths, doublespeak and misinformation. This article is beneath the New York Times, however.
1
Mr. Brooks....You are living in the old world....Something big has got to change....HC was a moderate let’s not forget and look at how that turned out for us in 2016....It’s time to open we our eyes.....Moderates aren’t thinking big enough and getting
us pumped up for 2020. But Bernie is.....
Wouldn't it be simpler if David would just write "I Like Ike", and leave it at that?
David writes beautifully when he shares stories of local activism, and tells us how, if we would all just be George Baileys and return to Bedford Falls, then Mom and Apple Pie would be safe again.
But when David writes about the sins of the left, his facts are as fictional as Mr. Potter. He spends the entire first two paragraphs grossly exaggerating the progressive agenda, and then the rest of the article arguing against his own invention.
I know, David, I know. Anything left of Cal Coolidge and we are in Eugene Debs land. I heard you the first 452 times.
Please write less about politics, and more about how to make Stone Soup. I like those columns, cause I get all inspired-like for half a day or so.
1
"The Better Story"?
This is an American election, not the final episode of Game of Thrones.
Mr. Brooks is once again trying to paint Conservatism as moderate. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig!!!! He wants people to think that his PROFOUNDLY conservative viewpoint is moderate and therefore the correct place for this country to land on policy. This is simply not true. It is the RIIGHT that is radical, not the left. The left has very reasonable positions, and much better ways to pay for them then the right as a whole. (and don't cherry pick the ridiculous stuff to disprove this -- that tax cut is now law and is costing us a fortune, whereas Obamacare came in under projected cost!))
1
The moderates' story is so much better, so very, very much better, that the leading lights of Brooks's party treat it with contempt. Were anyone to introduce any of Brooks's pallid notions in the Senate or the House, Brooks's party would scream 'socialism' and vote it down in favor of more lice-ridden cages for kidnapped children.
The routine is stale. Whatever Democrats propose is statism. Never comment on Republicans' authoritarian greed, thus endorsing it by silence.
The worst people on earth are destroying our society, and all Brooks can come up with is that Elizabeth Warren is somehow a dictator.
MURRAY THE COP: I'm doing the best I can.
FELIX UNGER: I know you are, Murray. That's what so tragic.
-- "The Odd Couple"
I agree - lets not give away things for free. lets start by outlawing bank bailouts, sports stadiums "grants", student loan guarantees to banks, tax free status to church based businesses, no bid contracts to cronies and farm subsidies. And lets totally squash State based subsidies to states like Kentucky (read Krugmans column) - and bridges to nowhere - those moochers don't deserve it. Lets stop states offering economic incentives to companies relocating from one state to another - I hate economic migrants taking other states jobs.
Oh sorry - that's not what you meant, is it, Mr Brooks?
670
@MrC I shall second you, MrC. The picture Our Mr. Brooks paints here is enticing and it seems to make a certain amount of sense. I remember reading in Paine's 'Crisis', "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly. It is dearness only that gives everything its value, " etc. But when he brought in charter schools, which have an overall dismal record, appreciably worse than public schools, he lost me right there.
25
@MrC You know what is so much fun? When you assume that he wants those things. I'm as conservative as they come and I'm all for not using taxpayer funds on stadiums, I'm all for getting rid of farm subsidies, I'm all for getting rid of student loan guarantees. What did he say that makes you thing he is for picking winners and losers? Get rid of it all, I AGREE.
12
@MrC Yes. It is a sad part of our American history that only some uses of our taxes are considered handouts.
22
And the Nordic countries,are a lot less diverse than the United States is. And have a higher income base than does the United States.
Denmark does NOT give citizenship like the United States does.
My Grandfather was born in Denmark. Yet, I do not qualify for citizenship. No chain migration there.
My son was born in France. He cannot get citizenship there either because neither of his parents were born in France.
Get the picture. No need to provide translators for people that cannot speak their language (and that includes schools).
1
If moderates have a story to tell, Brooks isn't telling it. Instead of abstract platitudes about supposed moderate virtue and alleged progressive vice, please share with us specific examples of moderate policy proposals that can effectively address climate change, our health care crisis, income inequality, crushing student debt, partisan gerrymandering, the housing and eviction crisis, etc.
*Bonus points if you can do it without straw-manning progressive policies and values.
1
Having just finished Jill Lepore's These Truths: A Concise History of America. it is clear to me that those on both the right and the left that suggest these are the worst of times requiring drastic action are clearly ignoring our past. The country has faced far greater challenges then our current President. We have clearly been more divided in the past as well. I think the vast majority of American's want a strong manager to move the ship of state back to the center. While the left is overly active on the internet and over-represented in media coverage, polling suggests that moderate and conservative Democrats actually outnumber the progressives in the party. The Progressives in the Democratic party are like the MAGA base of the GOP, they are louder and appear larger than in reality. They are also not enough to elect a candidate in a general election.
1
Yes, David, "Free trade is a racket." It's been perpetrated by people like yourself, ignorant of the details of the original theories developed by economists like Adam Smith, David Ricardo, et al.
International trade only is productive when, played on a level playing field, there is a significant advantage offered by exchanging goods across borders. Need I emphasize "level playing field"?
Far more advantageous, for large economies like ours (yes, ours means American citizens), is the exchange of goods and services produced and consumed by a coherent grouping of citizens. The best of all examples was the Model T Ford -- efficiently produced by workers and sold at a price that enabled them and their fellow members of economic society to purchase their output.
The key is "fellow members of economic society." When the autoworkers are purchasing clothing made in China instead of by our own workers, then those clothing workers (because they no longer have jobs) can't buy cars made here. And vice versa. The healthy economy in which one type of worker buys the output of another, and vice versa, has no inherent reason to become unbalanced. Balance allows the economy to serve the needs of all.
So, yes, David, free trade is a racket.
"It is to give people a secure base, so they can go off and live daring adventures."
This is a good point and illustrates why health care is key. We are almost and perhaps alone among advanced countries in making risk taking so much riskier. This is because striking out on one's own to try a good idea is not only risking hard work and potential business failure, it is often risking financial ruin for any potential entrepreneur's family the way especially our health care system is structured. No wonder we see reduced economic mobility and lower business creation relative to many other countries.
1
I would love to see a poll that asks people their position on several political issues and also whether they write comments on Twitter or for online newspapers.
Where would moderates, progressives, and hard-right conservatives stand in that poll?
What do you think? Are the majority of the commenters on this forum moderates? Because they will be swinging the election.
I worry more about their opinion than yours or mine.
Speaking as someone who identifies as moderate, I think the article misses a key point - by even talking about these seemingly more radical policy ideas, the Democratic candidates are expanding the range of possibilities open to government and the electorate. Even though most or all of them will not be enacted in full, by debating these ideas they become rational, reasonable choices that the country may or may not take, as opposed to insane, crackpot ideas that cannot be discussed without being labelled as evil or unserious.
President Trump has done this himself to dramatic effect - four years ago, who would have dared to suggest that building a Southern border wall, deliberately starting trade wars, insouciantly dismantling environmental protections (and the agencies which enact them) and treating brutal dictators as close, personal friends would be options for an administration, let alone reality? He has personally shifted the discourse so that the previously unthinkable is now not only thinkable, but real.
In the UK, the idea of Brexit has gone through a similar journey - from idiotic, extremist nonsense on the fringes to being the apparent will of the people in the space of a few years.
Democrat candidates should absolutely float their ideas and let them stand or fall in the scrutiny of the public - even if they are not implemented, they may well lead to better, "moderated" versions that make your society a fairer place.
1
I agree that the proposed giveaways need to be tempered. Although I support universal healthcare, I harbor some resentment at other freebies that my wife and I worked our butts off to provide for our family, including day care, preschool, college, etc. We had no employer-provided family leave, much less paid leave. If the country moves to offer these amenities, at least require that citizens have, as David put it, some “skin in the game” so that there is some measure of responsibility. And I do not support providing these benefits to undocumented migrants; in my opinion this amounts to rewarding cheaters.
1
Our governance has destroyed us. Repeal of Glass Steagall. NAFTA. Tax cuts for the rich. Huge immigration. Terrible wages for years. Crazy inadequate healthcare.
After sitting there for years doing nothing like most of them, Sanders realizes with a jolt that US is going down the tubes and runs out trying to be president and fix it somehow.
There was a brief time after WW2 when we taxed the rich, limited immigration, did not allow monopolies to form, had unions and the middle class blossomed.
Yes! Thank you. Keep spreading this message! It may not resonate with the angry, loud, willfully ignorant, closed-minded, ideologically pure, zealot minority but it resonates with the sane, practical majority.
1
Moderation exists only in the hearts and souls of most Americans.
2
What has our government encouraged us to become?
We are a weird version of "bread and circuses" in which a very small group gets almost all of the bread and a virulent minority gets an endless stream of hateful political rallies.
How can we moderate ourselves out of this?
1
Funny, the party of "No" cannot say "No" to its leader.
Democrats have been cleaning up Republican messes for the last 30 years (wars, deficits, recessions).
Republicans, clean up your own mess. Run your own counter-Trump moderate.
1
Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. That is why this country is great.
I'd prefer not to make this personal but Mr Books has offered as objective a series of absurdly biased and misleading observations So, I'll leave the dissection of his offerings to others . Let me just say ,now that the pendulum of change is swinging and may not stop when it reaches the Republican view of the world, Mr Brooks is worried. He therefore has no choice but to remove the ill-fitting, sheep's clothing he's been wearing for the past two years and he has very sharp teeth.
Yes, David, it's really terrible that all these progressives just want to "give away free stuff." How terrible! Not like those moderates who have made it possible for the biggest corporations in our country to pay virtually no taxes. To allow CEOs to make many thousands of times more than their workers and pay less taxes than they do. That would be outrageous, right? We know how those moderates who espouse "tough love" like you do make such huge sacrifices and practice what you preach, don't we. David Brooks once again demonstrates he is the single thinnest mind at work in the media.
Indeed, Brooks tells a better story but it is largely fiction since it disregards the facts on the ground - the wealthy have become wealthier and have tipped the scales in their favor the past 40 years while the majority has lost ground. His bullet points are manipulated and skewed finding the most perverted interpretations of policies. Brooks gives the tired bootstrap narrative, ignoring why these policies are being suggested in the first place.
1) Nobody wants a Socialist Wonderland. They want a more fair system. Government should protect us from the powerful who take advantage of the weaker.
2) Nobody is talking about giving stuff away. Access to free college benefits the whole society and creates a buy-in for those that take advantage of it.
3) Federally funded day care is just that. Warren is saying this should exist and everyone should attend, like public school, but there is still home schooling and private school systems.
4) For decades we have brought on the world but was that really the best thing for this country? Sure, the wealthy and many other Americans did well by this but let's finally recognize there was a downside and maybe develop policies that address that fact.
5) Currently the wealthy have no problem getting financing and favors from the government which common folk have no access. Remember the recession where banks were given money to lend to people which they failed to do but did give bonuses to the executives? Cut out the middle man.
There is so much that is wrong in this column but Mr. Brooks had it right in the first paragraph:
"Free trade is a racket. Big business and big pharma are rapacious villains that crush the common man."
You are correct, sir.
2
To lump Trump, Warren, and Sanders together as “populists” is extremely disingenuous.
Trump pretends to be for the little guy but he has given huge tax cuts to the rich, eliminated middle class tax deductions, failed to deliver on infrastructure or healthcare, and attacked labor rights. With Trump, it’s all a con, like everything else in his prior life.
You can agree or disagree with Warren and Sanders about their policy proposals, but there is no doubt they mean what they say.
1
I don't know why this guy doesn't leave progressives and is so obsessed with them. I think he's afraid that a possible progressive President is way worse for his bodies than Trump!!
Why just don't find a center/conservative person in the republican party to praise and promote as presidential candidate? If you cannot find any, then it's better to rethink your extinct ideology.
"But as common sense and recent research tells us, when you give people something free, they value it less. They are more likely to drop out when times get hard."
This is the most elitist statement I have read in a while!
Here-in lies the problem with people in the top 10% making statements about what the other 90% need or want.
I think Trump's daughter spouted the same!
Heaven help us if a person could get through college without being saddled with decades of debt, they might not appreciate it!
Here we find Mr. Brooks first public rationalization of the 2020 election. While Brooks is excellent at selling his character and morality tales, he is also a Republican first. In this column we see where the cracks, fault lines, and contradictions start eating away his courage.
Voting not just against Trump but actually for a plausible other side - a side that aspires to implement solutions to current malignant presidential influence -- is going to be hard for "moralistic" Brooks. I am betting this article is the Brooksian announcement and realization that voting Democrat is his bridge to far (for him.) This is the unwillingness to let go of the failed Reagan revolution, from the so called "moderate" Mr. Brooks.
2
Oh, I get it. Now Brooks thinks that we should listen to Conservative solutions again and have Democrats act more like his ilk and that will save the day.
Brooks ideology and policy stances is precisely what has driven America off a cliff for the past 30 years.
Sorry David, this raging moderate on the left coast isn't buying one word of your latest platform.
2
What deceptive hogwash. The European countries don’t need minimum wage laws because workers are unionized and given voting power on the boards of corporations. You don’t need a minimum wage when you have a vote on what you’re being paid and the power to bring production to a halt by walking off the job if you don’t like your pay. I thought thoughtful conservatives like Brooks would be honest in this debate. Looks like it’s not gonna happen. Okay, you asked for it. Bernie then. You could have had Warren, who does in fact talk constantly about opportunity, what cheap public college did for her own career, and the positive power of capitalism.
1
Oh, David. You are chasing that moderate unicorn again. Instead, take the longer view. We have shifted to the right as a nation since Reagan. All these people you label as progressives/radicals are merely espousing views that were mainstream when the middle class actually had a living wage and fairer tax system. You remember, back when America was a beacon of hope.
1
I wish this column had been written by one of the Democratic candidates. I'd vote for her/him.
2
David, we don't need your advice on whom to nominate for the Presidency on our side, thanks very much. You're a conservative Republican whose party has given us this cruel bastardization of our great democracy which we are suffering through. Frankly, what we'd like you to do on election day is stay home. We'll do the rest.
Elections are won by going over into the other guy's pool of voters and taking a bunch of them. That's what we intend to do. It isn't paternalism to offer people decent healthcare, or the opportunity to be educated without being crushed by debt, or to go to school without fear of being shot, or to stop a mass extinction that will swallow our species. I'm betting those policies will be seen by plenty of folks as sane and reasonable. Call them what you want - moderates, suburban women, swing voters, I don't care. With our policies, we'll take them from your party, and take back our country. Your unwarranted fear of decent government will be seen for what it is: beside the point.
1
David Brooks, like Mitt Romney, complains that working Americans want "free" stuff. Untrue. The correct term is taxpayer-funded programs, not "free stuff."
2
Moderate? Progressive? Ideologue? Pragmatist? I don't care who is nominated so long as they can remove the most cruel, corrupt, plutocratic, racist, divisive, anti-democratic administration in my lifetime, and restore a semblance of democracy to this nation.
“American progressives sometimes imagine that the Nordic countries are socialist wonderlands.”
Only because it was conservatives who decried them, as they still do, as socialist hellholes. I haven’t even read the rest of your column yet but I can guess that you are about to enumerate all of the fiscally conservative things they do that you believe “progressives “ won’t like.
Me, I would just like enough taxation and government support of education, health, and welfare to assure that everyone has a good start in life with basic needs met of food, shelter, and security. Seems like other countries do a better job at this than we do.
Only Brooks could in any way equate trump with Warren and Sanders! How utterly ridiculous. There is being a populist and then there is a pretend populist.
1
It’s disingenuous to suggest abolishing the estate tax somehow fits with the overall theme of this column. If you truly “never coddle,” “want to help but not infantilize,” and “want to produce a country that is not full of passive recipients but audacious pioneers,” you also likely support a reasonable estate tax. After all, “as common sense and recent research tells us, when you give people something free, they value it less.” Free stuff is free stuff, regardless of whether you get it from your family or the government.
2
It's great to learn here that modern American capitalism is an "opportunity field" -- a fact obvious to the tens of millions of Americans who will never earn enough to pay Federal income tax, weather a $400 emergency or obtain health care outside an ER.
And either David Brooks has never actually listened to or read Elizabeth Warren -- "you need a government that will protect you, control you and give you things", in his absurd telling -- or he's going full Trump.
Who need facts when you have money?
I stopped reading midway through. The Nordic countries are an odd model for us -- small, homogenous, and all. And you are cherry picking.
No estate tax? Of course not. They have a wealth tax. Goes after the same intergenerational pot. Doesn't really matter which way.
Exactly right David!!! This middle-aged white person is not ready for the progressive mindset. I want a leader who works with our allies, values our Constitution, and respects all people. (That is, someone who is a real leader, someone who does not try to shame asylum seekers, does not cater to dictators who kill those who disobey them, and does not support white nationalists.)
I don't care about these progressive "plans". I don't want free college or universal healthcare. Make college free and my diploma will be worth nothing. Make healthcare free and I won't be able to get an appointment! Even after listening to all this debate post-analysis, I just want a leader who doesn't make me cringe.
Is this going to be a daily feature now - rightwing columnists telling readers what Democratic voters should decide? (Hint: they should vote for Republicans masquerading as Democrats of course.)
1
David, is this accident by design? You failed to mention that progressives want the rich individuals and profitable companies to pay their fair share taxes. This is one of the darling objectives of the progressives.
Cry for the beloved country
2
Brooks, you made some errors.
If capitalism is working, then why don’t the majority of available jobs pay a wage which a family can live on?
If the education system is working, why does a year of private college cost more than the annual salary of most teachers? And why, for that matter, have the costs of California’s and other state’s public universities spiked over the last two decades?
And why, if the moderate movement is a bottom up phenomenon, has the moderate movement systemically destroyed our nation’s unions, the institutions most responsible for the high quality of material life we enjoy today?
And while those Nordic countries don’t have a wealth tax—though given the errors in this article I’ll have to check on that—they have far higher taxes than we do.
This piece is rife with generalization and poor characterization. And while I share Brooks’s fervent wish for an incrementally progressive future, Brooks must admit that we do face a number of institutions that are in critical condition if not disrepair. It isn’t radical to prune a plant’s dead leaves, or even to cut down dead wood. It’s practical.
1
David, other than his boorish personality, what don't you like about Trump? He's not a real populist. Other than tariffs, his policies are all standard GOP or "moderate" positions...more tax cuts for the rich and corporations, more military spending and wars, more cuts to social programs, more laws against women and minorities.
I get it...Trump wasn't part of your club. But he's done everything club members have always wanted. On January 20, 2021, you and the other members will happily toast Trump's second inauguration.
1
That’s a fascinating straw guy you have there. I would be interested in a rebuttal from Warren or Harris. I don’t say you are completely wrong just leaving some stuff out.
When unions were the means to access power, people tripped over one another to organize. Once conquered, Milton Friedman came up with Neoliberalism. No rules or regulations, let the markets self regulate, and deregulation exploded. Unions were eliminated, jobs outsource and the rest is history: The country began the steady decline we find ourselves in. When kibbutz..ism. was needed, Socialism was great There were communal lunch rooms, child care and much love and dancing. Then, with tax payers money, these Kibbutzim became Teva Pharma which cornered the generic drug market and charge as much as it cans squeeze out of the American public, which has sent them into bankruptcy. Google, Microsoft and Intel have been directed to outsource sensitive jobs to Israel; intel alone has created 10k jobs there. Meanwhile back home, 40% of working Americans can’t come up with a mere $400 for emergency expenses. Working two jobs, working Americans can barely make it at the end of the month. And of course, Stephen Miller, like WWII era propagandists has managed to demonize and racialize Central American refugees.
“Centrism” is expected to retain the status quo, which David Brooks is salivating for because it won’t demand accountability. In the UK, moderates like Corbin are also being attacked with anything that can stick, short of accusing him of killing babies. Enough with the air of superiority and cynicism. The economy has to work for all.
1
"populists like Donald Trump, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders insist on."
One of these isn't a populist David, can you guess which?
1
David Brooks made his case for "moderate" political leaders by hand picking certain policies established by Nordic countries. But he conveniently omitted one huge progressive policy that ALL Nordic countries have: Free tuition costs at public colleges & universities!
https://www.edvisors.com/plan-for-college/money-saving-tips/colleges-with-free-tuition/countries-with-free-tuition/
As noted in the article above, not only Nordic countries have free college tuition public colleges. France, Germany, Poland, Spain, Austria, Greece, Iceland, Turkey, Brazil, Luxembourg, Argentina, Uruguay, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Kenya & Morocco also offer free college tuition.
And don't even get me started all the countries in the world who already offer some kind of universal health care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care
Burkina Faso & Botswana can do this & we can't?
1
I believe in moderation in all things. But I wonder...how much moderation is too much?
Mr Brooks, normally I find your writing a bit more precise and engaging, whether I agree or disagree with your content.
Here I find generalities, over-simplifications, examples with zero context. The "moderate" position strikes me as "conservative" without a scaffolding supporting it.
There are no moderate Republicans that I can see. There are a lot of rapacious corporations that place profit over people. And while I don't agree with every progressive item in the wish-list -- it's at least a position paper that has human beings at its center, not the greater expansion of power and profit (see Stiglitz' new book, "People, Power, and Profits").
So, sorry, but as a former English teacher, I give this one back to you for a rewrite, please.
1
At this point, I am less interested in any narrative than in simply making the Trump horror story end!
Who are these moderates?
1
Democracy is threatened by an out-of-control, corrupt, right wing, money totally controls our government, the richest three people in the country own more than the bottom 50% of the country, the planet itself is in grave danger from climate change.
David Brooks has the answer - moderation!
1
Mr Brooks, you consistently let your religious and political attachments cloud your sight and judgments. It is currently common for people of all stripes to frame issues and positions in militaristic terms. So first, let's put that aside as it tells us nothing about the differences between positions; we can speak of how to better that aspect of ourselves another time. Instead let's scratch the surface of your claim that there is not serious and deep rooted abuses done by corporate interests that require strong efforts to correct (many would say this requires conflict as the needed corrections will not happen without a fight). Are we to believe you are not aware of:
Roundup, Flint, Wells Fargo, Max 737, the 2008 great recession, VW, climate crises, the DC swamp, big pharma, the LIBOR price fixing scandal, the SEC - and its "best interest" rule for starters, the FCC - and its rejection of net neutrality for starters, privatization of prisons and mass incarceration as a way to make a profit, health insurer's and the scandals of refusing legitimate claims as a way of increasing profits, "journalism" as profit centers rather than reporting, the secret selling of privacy by Facebook and other media/social media, the gun industry (if a book were written on this one the subtitle would be "or how to make a profit on mass shootings and killing children"), costs scandals charged by DOD contractors, murder of khashoggi by oil ally, Erin Brockovich... are you writing this down David?
1
Really? It's not a war zone? Spoken, as usual, like a cheerleader for the team that's been winning the war. I would suggest that David, since he is a such an earnest believer in civil dialogue, sit down with some people and talk about this. Sit down, David, with Lincoln, and the millions of slaves and descendents of slaves who to this day suffer greatly from that particular capitalist legacy from which all our other "successes" have proceeded. Include, of course, the native Americans we slaughtered and stole from, and their descendants, too. Sit down with Teddy Roosevelt, who knew a war with business when he saw one, and with FDR, who rightly welcomed their hatred as he engaged in necessary war with the entities you feel so warmly about. Sit down with the fifteen million children in this country living in poverty. Sit down with the women who's bodies are literally being taken over by your party. Sit down with, well, the seven billion people who are about to be run over by the locomotive of climate change that the coal and oil companies continue, even now, to actually promote, yes promote, so they can rake in more cash. Sit down with the billions upon billions of creatures, God-given breathren of ours on this green Earth, also in peril and dying in droves already. Sit down with them all, David, and see what a war looks like in the trenches, not camouflaged by the height of your comfy deluded perch. Good Lord, save us all.
3
The most repressive, murderous dictatorships of recent history have been those established by left-wing socialists who hoodwinked their own people by promising to take wealth from those who had it and redistribute it to those who did not. That economic system has never worked and can only be maintained by terrorizing people into compliance.
You’re putting Trump, Warren, and Sanders in the same category? Dude, you need to be cancelled.
2
I laugh at the smugness of an “Inside the Beltway” view that likes to talk about “Nordic Countries” and how much better they do things. Reminds me of being in natural gas pipeline meetings when I was told “in Germany, they use a much better mix of solar and wind”. Well...In Texas, you can drive all day and not get out of our state! The vastness of the US means that what works in a small collection of countries probably won’t work here. (Brooks is also often quick to criticize Europe for its secularization and its moves away from the church. I guess “Europe” or “Nordic States” works for whatever argument you are making.)
I agree that the moderates in both parties have a better story to tell, but where are they? Where are Republican moderates, especially? Home (or silenced, ala Mitt Romney), regarded as “losers” by not only the head of their party, the President, but also by their legislative leadership that passes a “tax cut” that benefits the top 1 percent. A Democrat moderate is currently Speaker of the House, and while she doesn’t always win, she’s certainly holding her own.
1
Brooks conveniently ignores the climate crisis, affordable housing crisis, opioid crisis, healthcare crisis, and income equality crisis to tell Democrats they should be looking out for the privileged classes while throwing a few bones to everyone else.
3
The only story moderates have to tell is the one called Never Do Today What You Can Put Off Until Tomorrow.
No David, most of us just want someone to level the playing field. Senator Mitch McConnell needs millions from my health insurance company? For what? Senator Grassley writes legislation which pays him $20K a year in farm subsidies. If you are receiving farm subsidies, shouldn’t your rear-end be on a tractor and not in Washington ushering in drunks to the highest court, who will decide women’s issue?
Today, every mother must work, putting no one at home to care for the children? And now, no one wants the high-stress, no-pay, no-benefits, no-career job of caring for the next generation? (But, and I have seen this a million times - they’ll want all the glory and benefits when the kids are older and more manageable!) Childcare is an issue, it has been for years, and your “moderates” have for years, evidently, like minimum wage, swept it under the rug. No more, “all for me” moderates!
1
I’m a moderate. Who else is with me?
1
But where are the moderate democrats with enough substance to win against Trump? Like Dick Durbin, or Schumer? They're not running.
"social solidarity and economic freedom are not opposite, but go hand in hand. That’s the general approach we want here." Well David then I guess you're endorsing the Democratic candidates? Because, the Dam candidates are moderates, it's not that the Dems have moved leftward but that the GOP has become such an extremist right wing organization. As you well know Elizabeth Warren is an ardent and outspoken capitalist - who believes that capitalism needs to work for all Americans, as it did for the better part of a hundred years, not just the 0.01% at the expense of everyone else as GOP faux capitalism now does. Bernie is famously a social democrat - but so are most Nordic politicians and you're putting them forward as models to emulate. And Kamala Harris has been a moderate centrist all of her public life.
1
Should not be surprised that David Brooks likes charter schools. He does not care about children and likes the corruption and waste that is going on in the charger industry. David probably would like to see a Cory Booker as president. David could open his own charter and start padding his bank account with public money while the children suffer. Take a look at New Orleans and you'll see what this country has to look forward to if David gets his way.
Lying arrived within he Republican Party long before Trump showed up.
By linking Trump to Sanders and Warren as standard variety populists, Mr. Brooks again seeks to shelter the empty shell of his Republican party from the ravages of this criminal and clearly unstable man presently leading our country. If not seeing Trump and today's craven GOP clearly for what they are (and for a seasoned journalist no less) is not an act of willful deceit, then it is surely one of imbecility. Take your choice.
Also, I am not a fan of Michelle Goldberg. I think many journalists need to put who their favorites are at the top of all their columns. When they do a slash job on Joe, I have to hunt around to find where they call on the ideological spectrum. From the segregationists and busing flap, I've found that the people who were for Joe before are still with them, some dug in a little more, that's where I am, dug in more, and that the people that didn't like him still don't just have new fodder to throw at him. That is a net positive.
Only smug, pundits worry about coddling. The rest of us worry about getting to the next day and the next month. Does the oh-so-comfortable Mr. Brooks really believe that access to higher education and healthcare will give us all the impression that we are Warren Buffet and can sip margaritas around the pool for the rest of our lives? Do we really need to live in daily fear of starvation, disease and destitution to avoid moral hazard. Unmitigated arrogance. I’ll tell you what David - I think your motivation is in danger. How about losing your job, your coverage, and your house. You’ll be broke, sick, and homeless. But you’ll be so exquisitely motivated. It’ll be good for your soul
How come Brooks isn't sharing his essential advice with the GOP and advising them to 'move to the center?' Isn't he a lifelong Republican? Why in the world is he telling Democrats, the party he has insulted, smeared and built his career on attacking, how to behave? And a related question: if his advice is so important that the NY Times thinks they should publish him 2x a week, why did the GOP completely tune him out after his decades of faithful service?
1
Ever since 2016, when Bernie lit the progressive torch and out shined Hilary, there has been an an addiction-like need of Republican punditry to preach the virtues of 'moderation.' David is an exemplar. Fortunately for these addicts, the pages of the NY Times has seen fit to give them refuge and a needed fix for their addiction. And there, we readers endure their decades old chants and sermons that give them purpose in life. And we look for signs of recovery. But there are no signs. Only the endless tiresome old bromides of GOP yore.
1
Brooke’s as ever is spot on. Good luck getting the moderates the chance to tell their story.
Missing from David Brooks' column are the words and terms like inequality, monopoly power and economic concentration.
1
Geez, Mr. Brooks, you sound panicked — like a man who realizes that the conservative movement is in shambles and that progressives, held back for nearly forty years, finally might be having their day. You see, the political center has shifted so far to the right over those four decades that only a hard yank to the left can restore the true center. Of course, you’d like as much of that last forty to be preserved as possible so you are casting your lot with “moderates” who will moderate in some respects and frustrate in others the shift back to sanity. Hence, all these warnings from you about bogeymen radicals and socialists. Sorry, sir, incrementalism will not do. Not this time.
Some good points here, but David, I must say it's fun to see how frightening the left wing of the Democratic Party is to conservatives. Are Republicans such as yourself actually writing things like, "It's time to learn from Scandinavia"? Oh my, this is getting fun.
Brooks it's not Democrats fault that all the viable ideas are on the left. As George Will said, the Republican party has become a cult. How much credibility have you built with progressives? None, I'd say. I could not get past the lies and hyperbole in your first post. I left the R party in the early twenty naughts. I've never been a Democrat. I am a trained natural scientist and Wharton MBA and think for myself. I couldn't read past the first paragraph because it is fantasy. It does not reflect our shared reality. We have a shared reality that science tries to get to. Even though perception is reality for so many.
What percent of the world lives on $1 a day?
Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. More than 80 percent of the world's population lives in countries where income differentials are widening.
Poverty Facts and Stats — Global Issues
www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
Pushing decision-making on climate change downward will lead to massive human misery, as will any moderate approach.
As always David you misrepresent progressives ideas and motivations. I ask you sincerely, what would Jesus do? Seems to me he would ask the wealthy to share with those less fortunate. I guess that is too progressive for you.
Brooks’ biggest mistake is thinking he is a moderate. He is not. Elizabeth Warren is a moderate by the standards of 1960.
1
Moderates like Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry have the same motto, "Failure is always an option". We need progressives to win. Moderates don't cut the mustard.
1
Everything will be OK if we take the easy middle of the road path. Put on a band aid and hope for the best. Is that your point David? Wrong and wishful thinking.
When I was a temporary activist in college, picked out for suspension and possible expulsion until I gave it up, one of my friends told me I would become a moderate when I got older, so David's article fits me. Do I dare say this to my children? They are far from being activists; much more like very well-educated moderates with passionate principles and committed careers. They don’t see Warren and Sanders the way David does, and yet I think he is writing to appeal to them - to pull back from radical rhetoric and embrace policies that have a chance of being enacted. Certainly Waarren and Sanders would have to work with powerful businesses to get anything done. Could Joe Biden do that? The only President who ever accomplished balancing business and government was the true-blue capitalist FDR, and he was labelled a communist for doing it.
So is David’s article like his predecessor Paul Gigot, a sycophant for established business interests, or is it a message for voters to seriously consider? If yes, then yes I am a moderate and will support a moderate. But who is that? And will this article add to the mass confusion that enables Donald Trump to get elected again? Perhaps if the media had been alert and forthcoming is 2016, it wouldn’t have mattered what the Russians did. In 2020 it is urgent that David, the NY Times and all the free press and media throughout the world clarify the issues for voters or they will cease to exist and so will democracy.
Dream on! Problems will solve themselves. Corporations will put the good of their workers above profits. The powerful will police themselves. No need to be concerned about income inequality,
climate change, human rights violations, corruption in government, people without healthcare or anything else. No need to change things. Everything will be ok if everyone just calms down. Just think so and it will happen.
David, you have fallen off the wagon and hit your head.
To compete people need higher education that has become unaffordable to to too many. Denmark has free college. Free tuition is far from free college as housing costs and fees are more costly then the tuition.
Globally more are lifted from the bottom but in America too many still suffer from the ravages of the 'Great Recession'. We need to provide some help at home to keep us from becoming an isolationist nation at a time American leadership is desperately needed.
We have fallen into the rabbit hole and need more dramatic policies then what you suggest moderates propose to get us back out. We have tried moderate with Obama and even Bush and now we face a time crunch to fix climate change and truly save our world all the while as Americans became angry and embittered that government was ignoring them.
1
"Moderates are afraid to break from the gloom and carnage mind-set that populists like Donald Trump, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders insist on."
You lost me when you listed Sanders, Warren, and Trump as somehow being equal. They are in no way equals and to list them thusly further normalizes the egregious stain occupying the Oval Office.
Speaking of doom and gloom, wait until climate change and environmental degradation further destroys our planet. This is no time for moderation.
2
Mr. Brooks is really spot on with this insight, except for one thing: His “moderates” are today’s real progressives, and heirs of the liberal New Jersey Republicans I grew up with, under Christie Whitman’s father, Webster Todd. We are the sons, daughters, and step-children of Clifford Case. We practice fairness that works, and a certain level of discipline that brings order out of chaos. We also have a voice, but, as Brooks suggests, this is at the local level. You don’t “hear” too much from us, because we are busy doing things that work, that meld conflicting viewpoints into tangible, evident action with positive results. As one with six years on the Venice, FL, City Council, I have seen this happen, and it is very real and still at work. But Brooks is also right that this needs to be broadcast more and louder. In my case, that means immersion in Public Television governance. Look at the PBS system, and you will see the message.
We were fortunate that my husband was able to pay for our two sons' educations. Yet, he made each son take out a small loan to help finance their degrees....not because he couldn't afford to pay for all of it, but because he said they had to have some skin in the game, David Brooks words exactly.
We have personally known two students, who received free tuition because of their circumstances. Many students who begin college are still unsure of what they want to do. That's why many school do not require students to specialize their first two years of school. In both of the cases we knew, the students dropped out. One of them even said, that, because it was free, what difference did it make.
Freebies are great, but they often teach the opposite values we hope will be instilled in an individual. When Dunkin Donuts offers free donuts, we all line up, even though we know it's bad for us! Let common sense prevail.
True in a lot of ways, but Iceland do have a law that requires equal pay for both sexes, passed this year!
Fashion on the runway in the great design houses translates into the clothes we buy at Target. Moderate policy should be the incremental outcome of the balance between the doable and the shining ideal. "A goal properly set is halfway reached." Zig Ziglar. Now is the time to properly articulate and properly set our goals...and they are not moderate.
As always, caricature is grown from a seed of truth. I think it is fairly clear that Warren and other progressives are ultimately fighting for equal opportunity to participate in the economy and a sound social safety net - not governmental dependence and subservience. However, I do agree that their rhetoric slides towards populism, which hurts the movement and lends credence to populists of the Trumpian variety.
This is where I think Pete Buttigeig shines - he is able to ground ideas similar to those of Warren, Harris, and Sanders with moderate, common-sense rhetoric. I hope others on the left can learn from him and shed the rhetorical influences of Trump.
4
While I fall mostly in the moderate category, we have reached a point in this country---especially economically---where we need a some, maybe a lot of, TR trusting busting anger. From Facebook to Amazon, I believe most Americans believe now that our futures are being controlled by a few individuals in command of these giant corporations. Moderates are not tooled to take these giants on...Warren is. Now having said that, where moderates do come into play is after the disruptions---but, we desperately need some back to Jesus policies for those few individuals who are now running this country.
5
I identify with the ideas presented in this article as well as the notion that those who believe them can be called moderates. I have some doubts about whether the polarizers can accept a middle category, as they seem to want to push everyone into one or the other of the left vs. right camps. Of course, I would want to consider the ideas one-by-one for legislative purposes, but this is a good start, and good on you, #nytimes and David Brooks!
2
What about the defense budgets in those Nordic countries? Are they blowing $750 billion/year on an unauditable defense budget? Which Moderate is calling for responsibility at the Pentagon? Which Moderate is calling for an end to senseless, endless wars?
5
Moderates might have the better story, but since Reagan it's a story largely embraced by Democrats and rejected by Republicans. Clinton and Obama embodied the sort of moderation and free market ethos praised by Brooks here. And both men were demonized by the right as leftist boogiemen.
While the economic gains of the past decades are real, so too are the economic shortcomings. Millennials feel this most acutely. Student loans and low wages have made the home ownership and economic stability of a middle class life seem like an impossible goal for so many. Progressives have a plan to remedy that. It might be a plan that goes too far for moderates. But they'll have to ask whether their reticence is worth extending Trump's presidency.
3
Brooks, I like your stuff and read with interest. But I stopped this piece at this point: "Moderates are afraid to break from the gloom and carnage mind-set that populists like Donald Trump, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders insist on." I agree Warren and Sanders (and others) are going too far from the center. But to even remote compare them to Trump is preposterous. Trump isn't just a populist moving from the center, he's a radical, anti-democratic, iconoclast who puts our future as a nation in grave doubt.
7
Let’s be clear: there are different occasions for which one kind of story is “better” than another, but that is just so much marketing. Having a “better” story doesn’t make it a “truer” one. Most often, the true story is not the one we want to hear, but the one we must hear if we are to make the needed policies that will address the problems we have identified. As always it is a question of values, and Mr. Brooks’ values, I think, are misaligned to our current situation b/c, for the past 4 or so decades we have tried the moderate story, and it turned out to be a cover-up for the wealthy to exploit the working class. Let us, instead, tell a story of political corruption, of unconscionable wealth and income disparity, of concentration camps at our borders, of the continued oppression of people of color, and lastly, and most significantly, of the degradation of the planet that is required by a capitalist free market system. Those stories are depressing and, so far, don’t have happy endings; they are not “better” stories, but that is precisely the reason we should tell them.
3
"Progressives are always trying to give away free stuff. [...] For example, Warren and Sanders want to make public college free. But as common sense and recent research tells us, when you give people something free, they value it less. "
Nordic countries, David Brooks, offer free public education to ALL, regardless of of their income.
2
I was born and raised a moderate, insensible to the many advantages that came with my good breeding.
My parents (I had two of them), made sure I had lots of books to read. Nursery rhymes. Dr. Seuss subscriptions. Collected anthologies.
They drilled me on my spelling and multiplication tables.
They insisted that "average" isn't good enough.
They kept me well clothed and fed and out of trouble.
They pitched in some college funds at the precise moment they were needed. They gave me room to find my own way and figure out my own dreams. And so on.
So naturally David Brooks's column makes perfectly good sense to me. Why wouldn't it? I always had the right advantages at the right time, and made good use of them. I lived up to my end of the bargain.
Progressives know it isn't like that for everybody. The path I took isn't available to many. My job, our job, is to understand what that means and what should be done about it.
9
Brooks loves to preach. He's the know-it-all. He's knows better than us. He's persona non grata among his Republican friends. So now he's taken it upon himself to pontificate to progressives and Democrats. His opinion doesn't count, among the left, the middle and the right. His ideas on the economy are superficial and on society are simplistic. His how-to manual failed in 2016 and is likely to fail in 2020.
8
It sounds like David wants to be a Democrat again, but on his terms. I do happen to partially agree with much of what he says but politicians don’t think as deeply as David. They are more focused on raising money and getting voters to vote for them.
1
"The Nordic countries tried wealth taxes of the sort Elizabeth Warren is proposing, and all except Norway abandoned them because they were unworkable."
If it works in Norway then it clearly isn't "unworkable."
Just sayin'.
5
And here is what the cherry picking Mr. Brooks failed to mention.
"Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and other northern European nations do provide more social and economic benefits to their citizens than the U.S. Free childcare. Paid parental leave for mothers and fathers. Extended sick leave. Generous unemployment benefits. Shorter work hours and longer vacations. Universal healthcare. Free college tuition. Much higher retirement benefits than in the U.S. The top income tax rates are 47 percent in Norway, 56 percent in Denmark, and 60 percent in Sweden. Those rates hit families earning about one and a half times the median family income. That means a family earning about $80,000 pays a tax rate higher than a U.S. family earning a half million dollars."
A country gets what it values and is willing to pay for.
8
"American progressives have a story to tell ..." says Brooks.
Yes, they do, but don't listen to Brooks' version. Instead, read for yourselves Elizabeth Warren's "This Fight is Our Fight" and let her tell it like it is. Read about how government from FDR on played a key role in creating America's once thriving middle class.
700 billion dollars was spent bailing out Wall Street after the 2008 economic crash -- let that sink in -- and Brooks is worried about "socialists" giving people things for free? Really? Arguably, it was "moderates" from both parties who brought us the deregulation that led to that crash.
Progressives like Warren make a very good argument, backed up by sound research, that government once again needs to play a stronger role. Brooks on other other hand, resorts to taking quite a few cheap shots. Fortunately, I doubt he is very convincing to the vast majority of voters, who are still struggling (despite the economic numbers) just to get by.
In short, Warren and the progressives "get it." Brooks' version of "moderation." on the other hand, falls far short of what is called for today.
8
"For example, Warren and Sanders want to make public college free."
Alternatively, in Ohio and other places, Republicans are dismantling the previously affordable four-year state college system in favor of a 2 plus 2 plan, where high school graduates, regardless of their prior academic achievement, go to community college for the first two years. And, while community colleges are fine things with an important place in the educational ecosystem, they are not the same as a four-year institution and what they offer in the first two years is not the equivalent of those same two years at a four-year institution. Why do Republicans push this plan? Affordability, of course. What they fail to mention (and what so few fail to recognize) is that they gutted the state system in the first place by slashing funding. The bait and switch now comes in two forms: sub-par community college education sold as the standard and increased debt in the form of loans. So, frankly, while free college may be a stretch, affordable college isn't. All it takes is the recognition by conservatives that an educated population is worth a modest increase in taxes.
4
Brooks asserts that Nordic countries have “strong social supports.” He goes on to highlight how wonderfully capitalistic the countries are, but does not mention that those “strong social supports” are woefully underfund in our country. I am a moderate (I think) but am appalled at the lack of empathy conservatives seem to display, when they talk (or don’t) about wealth inequality and health and child care in this country.
3
There is no moderate candidate available on the republican side of the aisle in this election. The GOP is the party of Trump, and as such devoid of any “moderate” positions that you espouse. So delineating between Progressives and moderates is a bit silly considering that the real choice in the coming election is between autocrats and democrats. If you value American democracy, the best way to fight for its survival is to vote for a democrat in 2020.
I also find that this article misrepresents the positions of Elizabeth Warren to a laughable extreme. If you have an issue with her Green Jobs Plan because it favors American businesses, then propose an alternative. And again, where is “moderate” plan for dealing with climate change? Surely not coming from the right. So if you care about climate change and the environment, the best way to fight for it is to vote for a democrat.
The house is on fire, Mr. Brooks, don’t quibble over the fire fighters plans, just help get some water.
695
@DB I agree with DB! Go get a fire hose Mr. Brooks or start a bucket brigade-your GOP is doing nothing that could be described as moderate.
28
@DB, I could not agree more. Thank you!
4
@DB
More like the poor side of town is burning down and Brooks is scolding those who want to call the fire department. "Back when Americans were virtuous everyone learned to put out their own firestorms with a garden hose."
20
“First learn from the Nordic countries?” Mr Brooks please look at the tax rates of these countries. Yes they have a free market economy but these companies also pay their share of taxes. What the Nordic countries have done is to socialize a strong social safety net with the wealthy and corporations paying their fare share. Sounds a little like what progressives are calling for here. The Nordic countries also have better child care and paternal leave. Sounds a little like what progressives want here. Then there is the strong push towards alternative energy sources. If Trump admires Norway so much maybe a fact finding mission to that country would do him some good.
4
In research methodology their are references to curvilinear relationships where a moderate level in one variable leads to a high performance in another. The best example was test anxiety where a moderate level of anxiety equated with high performance in lieu of high anxiety(my whole future is at stake I cant afford a mistake) and low anxiety(this test is inconseqential; I dont need to prepare). I always though that this would be a good analogy for social programs where assistance is provided for education and social benefits are provided for when faced with unfortunate circumstances but their are performance expectations placed on individuals to take responsibility for their lives.REpublicans at the extreme represent the high anxiety platform with proposed draconian cuts to safety networks and individuals being totally responsible for their welfare. Conversely blindly liberal democrats represent the opposite extreme of low anxiety with proposals for guaranteed wages; free education; jobs for everyone who WANTS one and apparently an expanded social safety net for those who dont. Social programs shouldnt be developed in terms of cost effectiveness; they should be concerned with maximizing human potentials in the face of some social inequities.
1
i know this sort of "Moderation" is not always popular in these pages but You Sold Me. There are probably a dozen moderate positions which would have 60-70% approval and could easily get done if they weren't blocked by the extremes on either side. Find common ground, Get the agreed on middle, Get something done
The arc of the political pendulum has widened of late and David wants to be the weight that shrinks it back to some manageable to and fro. All well and good, very rational, but interestingly, he is asking for moderation from the Democrats, not the Republicans. Is this some indication he wants the Democrats to pick a candidate he can vote for? Does this mean he has given up on the Republican Party as it now exists? Perhaps he no longer believes that the normal checks and balances inherent in our two party system will moderate the so-called extremes of the Democrat’s far left leaning candidates - because those he thought moderates in the Republican Party are working so diligently to thwart all attempts at moderating the far right. The Republicans have now realized that the only way they can overcome the changing demographics and preserve the ever widening gap between the haves and have-nots is to create an authoritarian state that will perpetuate their power and control. It’s that simple. The Left’s desire to implement more centralized economic controls is small potatoes compared with what the Right has in mind. Maybe if he dealt with that issue first, he’d see that our first priority is to save our system of governing from the Republicans. Moderation will follow.
2
Well, hard to knit-pick this one, usually alot easier with Brooks. Free college and Federal daycare both sound like candy for young voters, free tuition is just as absurd as $60,000 , and why shouldn't daycare be like the original idea for Obamacare, with a "public option", but many choices? And solar power was booming till we clamped down on inexpensive chinese panels, so lets stop shooting ourselves in the foot. The world is a big place, and optimizing where things are made or grown or mined is not the worst outcome of globalization....
I get it now. I missed it entirely. Economic inequality isn’t bad. Income inequality isn’t bed. It’s not a crisis. It’s not affecting our politics at all. It’s not contributing to any resentments or polarization. And besides, if things really are unequal, that’s just the way things are. If people don’t want to work and lift themselves up, they’re lazy. The Europeans with free education have it wrong. It’s better if students carry debt. It gives them skin in the game. And lets the banks make money guaranteed by the government. You know, let the government support banks; it’s good for the economy. Better to support the banks than lazy students. (The students will just drop out if they don’t have to pay for it. That doesn’t really happen much in Europe where education is free, but American students are different. They’re lazier and more passive.) Besides, when you give people something free, they value it less. If you give them free food they don’t eat it. They just throw it away. We shouldn’t give people childcare. Let’s give them tax credits against taxes they don’t pay that aren’t really worth anything because they wouldn’t be enough to pay for childcare anyway, but why are those people complaining? Get a job. Somehow I missed all of this but I get it now. Let the moderates reign. It’s good for capitalism. It’s good for democracy. It’s good for the common man. I’m so glad to be reminded. That social Darwinism thing finally makes sense. Thank you so much, Mr. Brooks.
483
@ADN when I lived in the Netherlands ( which I did for 26 years), nothing was free. It was however, affordable. The progressives are doing the electorate a great disservice by portraying single payer, free university, etc. as the one and only way to create an egalitarian social democracy. And it will cause us to lose the coming election.
31
@Lisa Murphy
Why are you so sure that progressive policies will "cause us to lose the coming election"? The Democratic Party has been moving steadily to the right since 1992 and has been losing power and influence throughout the same period. A bona fide "moderate" failed to defeat the most absurd presidential candidate in history in 2016. Seems to me that the historical evidence is squarely on the side of the progressives.
45
@ADN
Most comments are much more illuminating than the opinion piece.
42
A moderate political view somewhere between the Republicans and Democrats of today for America in 2020?
If America can be compared to a wall in an art gallery the Republicans and Democrats of today can be compared to two crowds shouting at each other about what's going to be put up on that wall. And neither side has much taste, concept of design, honesty, integrity, intellectual capacity.
The moderates in all this are museum directors, personnel, and visitors to the museum who may or may not be associated with the two major political parties but who are certainly having to wait in line, go through the procedure of visiting a museum, etc., which is to say moderates peruse the brochures, go to the bathroom, eat, and are otherwise the typically boxed in Americans.
Now the people that are conspicuously absent are precisely those people with the creative, synthesizing, artistic, intellectual capacity to actually get some decent approximation of what should be on the museum wall. These people are absent because the one thing everybody else agrees on is they are unsafe, too daring, presumptuous, arrogant, disruptive to little box life of moderates and a bracing wind in face of howling political parties and a shock to museum directors, official personal and all their tie straightening, perfect hands on, nervous and correct life.
The question is how do you get some actual and worthwhile art on the gallery wall, visions of American life people will at least stop and contemplate?
The biggest reason I am a progressive and not a moderate is because I feel the Climate Crisis needs to be addressed with the urgency it requires and I feel that moderation is not going to get us there. The United Nations says we have a little over a decade to take on the crisis.
This opinion piece does not mention the Climate Crisis at all. Why not Mr. Brooks? It is the most pressing matter of our day, maybe of all time.
415
@J.
I'm a moderate and I think we should have a take-no-prisoners climate policy. Climate issues are science, rather than social policies. I don't know where the climate deniers came from. They don't reflect anyone I know.
24
"Warren ... supports only federally funded day care, effectively forcing families into federally funded programs, limiting their choice and making them wards of the system."
I, too, support using my federal and state taxes for federal and state programs rather than private, for-profit agencies of dubious quality.
Public dollars for public programs. What's so hard about that?
1
David Brooks, you are looking back nostalgically for an America that may have never existed. In the present, where most of us live, we are experiencing the second gilded age. The richest and the most influential companies and people have captured State and the Federal Governments and have bent them to their will.
One job does not pay the bills for a family to survive on, healthcare is not affordable to the point that some hospitals go after delinquent former patients and garnish minimum wage jobs. Some hospitals have even set up their own collection companies. The Payday industry is thriving with over ripe usurious rates. Every possible industry including the local government and "police industry" with their ticketing system has figured out ways to extract the last dollar from our bank accounts I could go on but why?
We have had 16 years of center right Democratic Presidencies that would not or could not move the needle for the poorest among us.
The center did not hold, things fell apart. We have to right this political and economic system to work for all of us not a vanishingly small group oligarchs at the top. I am not proposing socialism but is there such a thing as "enlightened capitalism?"
324
@Gary Valan
"Healthcare is not affordable." Why? The greedy bad people? (Yes, to some extent).
Are you aware that, thanks to Obamacare, all insurers must cover any "preventive" treatment that is approved by a group of ten (unelected, largely self-appointed) doctors? Are you aware that because more than half (as reported by gay organizations themselves) of male homosexuals refuse to practice safe sex (condoms), and therefore their lobby is about to secure mandatory coverage for anti-AIDS medication (PReP) to be given preventively, in lieu of condom use? And that the likely cost of this will be $30-$40 billion per year?
This kind of nonsense is what accounts for most of the unaffordable costs of healthcare.
2
@Gary Valan
Not “Social Democracy” but “Safety Net Democracy.”
3
@Upton
Why, it makes you wonder what an ounce of prevention is worth!
3
Gee, what if we had a moderate president, say named "Barak Obama" who laid out mostly moderate policies...only to get no support or compromise whatsoever for 8 years from the other party-- Not even when he proposed a plan from their playbook for healthcare.
How do you propose we deal with that?
891
@Marc McDermott
A repeat of the Obama years would be the ideal 2020 outcome for a "never Trumper" like Mr. Brooks. It would enable such pundits to continue pretending that the debate is really about differences between conservative and liberal "visions" of America. Progressives threaten that comfortable discourse by clamoring to bring class into the discussion. If those lines get drawn, many will be outed as what they really are: class warriors for the rich.
52
@Marc McDermott
He doesn't know.
He is just outdated person looking for the spot in today's dynamic world but his time is gone. So he better stop
schooling
9
@Marc McDermott
Barack Hussein Obama and William Jefferson Clinton were not only both to the partisan conservative right of FDR and LBJ as expected. But Barry and Bill were to the conservative partisan political right of Ike and Nixon as well.
Barack and William were both Reagan Democrats in practice and rhetoric.
Donald Trump is Ronald Reagan without any of the acting, governing and political experience or talent and gift for bigoted rhetorical euphemism.
Reagan was for state's rights and against Chicago welfare queens and strapping young bucks with food stamps and the communist Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
10
Mr. Brooks, until you are willing to admit that we do NOT have anything like a free market, laissez faire capitalism in the USA, I'm not inclined to give credence to your defense of moderates. The system is rigged, and while you may think those who fight this state of affairs are too far to the left, I challenge you to tell me who among the moderates (forget the right wingers) are trying to even up the score and level the playing field, and how they're doing with that.
324
@Boneisha
Brooks states explicitly that moderates are failing to make an impression in both parties, so he's answered your question about "how they're doing with that." Candidates like Klobuchar and Buttigieg need to be stronger and more forthright in making the moderate case, but as we know, that's hard to do in a primary, which tends to reward polarization.
16
@Boneisha
Who among the moderates are trying to even the score and level the playing field and how they are doing with that? Montana Governor Steve Bullock--Dem. Gov in a so-called red state has expanded Medicaid and minimized corruption-money in state politics--who missed the first debate cutoff because he was (gasp!) doing his job.
17
This editorial is filled with logical fallacies. Mr. Brooks sets up a straw man argument by asserting that progressives want "a centralized industrial policy to shift investment where it’s needed," a "government that will protect you, control you and give you things," and a "government that is centralized and paternalistic." Since when? All candidates on all economic issues? For example, Senator Warren and others have talked openly about creating FAIR markets and reforming capitalism, rather than having our current and highly dysfunctional version of unregulated capitalism.
I agree that the Nordic countries have much to teach us. But they're also not burdened with a political system beholden to dark money, a Supreme Court that refuses to stop gerrymandering, a Republican Party intent on deregulating everything it can to appease its corporate donors, and an unhinged President drunk on power and fame.
What Mr. Brooks sees as "progressive" would be considered centrist or even center right in most other countries, including Nordic countries. For us, rather than moderation, I'll take basic sanity.
554
@jrinsc What a great and very clear comment. I am so happy most of the commenters see right through Mr. Brooks opinion piece. How is it he is so blind? I do not get it? Good point about what he sees as "progressive" would be considered centrist or even center right in most other countries. including Nordic countries." To me moderation in this country means accepting the gross corruption and the propaganda of the one percent and corporations that most of us must be satisfied with very little and not have good health care or clean air and water or safety nets or good infrastructure and our kids must be trained to serve the needs of the wealthiest, in short moderate means allowing our country to continue to be an oligarchy.
53
Mr Brooks, could Trump University been created and allowed to operate in a Nordic country ? Are students given loans so that unfettered Corporations are assured a profit ? I will support free education before predator profit centers.
17
@cheerful dramatist
How is he so blind, you ask?
He isn’t blind. This is intentional. He is as bad as faux news, in every respect.
He is a willing participant in the evil that is being done. He knows what he is doing, however laughable he is.
13
Mr Brooks is not describing the moderate position. His is the conservative position. With the Republicans shifting to right wing extremism, the usual conservative position only seems moderate. I understand that these abandoned Republicans are really frightened by the now necessary progressive agenda. But, they let the extremists take over the Republican Party, and now they want the Democrats to move right to satisfy them. These "moderates" really have no standing. Great injury has been done to our country under their watch.
3
While I would agree Mr. Brooks, where are the Republican moderates? Like me, perhaps they've all quit the Republican party.
296
@JMWB And where are the Democratic moderates? Cowering like wishy-washy parents intimidated by tantrumming children. I haven't quit the Democrats yet, but they aren't getting any money out of me, and if something doesn't change, I, for one, will be sitting on my hands at home come November 2020.
12
@ACW
Whatever has happened to improve the lives of those living in America has happened because of progressives, and not because of the moderates who "do not want to rock the boat".
If you feel like an abandoned Democrat moderate you seem to be ignoring that progressives have helped you. By sitting on your hands it is just about tantamount to casting a vote to re-elect the fraudster-in-chief.
27
@ACW The Democratic moderates suffer the fate of Diogenes -- they are condemned to traveling the world in search of an honest Republican.
11
Things for free from the government. The GI Bill provided a free education. Most didn’t drop out. Elementary and public education are free. Most graduate. The federal highways are mostly free and opened up the whole country. PBS is free. BETTER than anything on the cable or traditional networks. The Works Progress Administration. Free – and subsequently home to many wonderful artists. Police protection is free. Watching men go to the moon was free – and inspirational. Libraries. Free. We could use more, not less. Communication networks such as satellites. Land grants. Government subsidies to farms and corporations.
Things created by the government and not the private sector. The general purpose computer. The Internet. Aviation technologies. Semiconductors. GPS technology. Artificial limbs. LASIK technology. Solar cells. Freeze-drying. Baby formula. Cochlear implants. The electronic grid.
And by the way. Social security. Not free. Workers pay for it. Medicare. Not free. Workers pay for it.
701
@Stephanie Wood Yes. That's true. But that's not Brooks' point. Dems and liberals believe in pooling tax revenues for the public good. Brooks's claim is that it's better to take the funds out of the hands of government and do everything locally.
9
@JoeG In re: the GI Bill. I wouldn't call the education provided as being "free" as the soldiers had to earn it by their service first. They definitely had skin in the game. It IS a great model for a national service program, however, that interested students could join to earn their college educations.
21
PBS is not free. Subscribers like me pay for it.
8
Political categories: Progressives, Moderates, Populists (not to mention, Right Wing, Leftists, Liberal, Conservative, Socialists) add nothing beneficial or clarifying to political discourse. This is clear enough from David Brooks version of "Populist", which contains Trump along with Warren and Sanders. More than that, using these categories, that have as much definition as a used-up elastic band, is lazy and seriously misleading. I suppose Trump is a Conservative. How would he have gotten along with William F. Buckley? Drawing similarities and differences between the complicated stances of politicians is complicated. It can't be done with slippery labels.
3
Reading this list of abstractions and pieties, one would never guess our urban streets are full of homeless people, one third of the nation are an emergency payment away from being unable to pay the rent, and the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands has tilted the political playing field increasingly in favor of the the super-rich. Rising health care and housing costs are throwing people onto the streets faster than state and federal governments can react to the crisis, but all we need is "moderation." The forest is burning down and David Brooks wants to rent a garden hose.
512
@Eric Caine in David Brooks' world there are no homeless people, people who can't handle an emergency, or unemployed people. There only people who do not live the way he believes people should live.
40
Moderates have an ineffective story of inadequate solutions. If moderation is so great, why has everything fallen to pieces under the watch of moderates over the last 39 years. You can’t moderate your way to addressing climate change
554
@Doug K Don't need to address climate change when Jesus will Doug! Our moral purity will ensure our survival!
3
@Doug K, sure you can, if you're prepared to fail. That's what the GOP wants, failure at every level. They are prepared to let climate change run its course, see more people starve and die due to natural and unnatural catastrophes, and wait it out in their very own "bomb"shelters. What they don't comprehend is this: climate change will not overlook them or their rich owners.
5
@Doug K
If the extremes of parties are so great, that why hasn't our country flourished under hype-partisanship?
I think our country flourished more and solved problems better, when representatives could could together across the aisles-- instead of demonizing their counterparts.
Refusal to compromise has been a hallmark of the Tea Party. Do we want Democrats to emulate that?
There's much to agree with here, but Brooks ignores the vast difference in economic/wealth disparity here in the US vs. Nordic countries. Estate and wealth taxes play a small role in addressing that disparity. And, a minimum wage law is less important when the cultural norm is to pay a livable wage (and when health care costs don't represent a crippling risk).
2
David Brooks you are right. Government is a not for profit shock absorber. Because profit is not its thing it can boost areas of the economy that are not profitable enough for private industry to function effectively and it can damp areas that are so hot that abuse is likely.
I think this is pure Keynes. The theory is beautiful the problem is that bureaucratic complacency coupled to intentional disinformation and exposure has given government a bad name. By exposing a few examples of waste and a few examples of policies the application of which appear illogical, government has become synonymous with incompetence.
However a non corrupt government is the only entity that considers the satisfaction of its customers as an end by itself instead as one of many means for greater profit.
In the past two decades technology has somehow bridged the gap between private enterprise and public endeavors. Transparency has increased and made waste less likely to occur. it is a trend that is likely to continue and help government become more an agent for good than a hindrance.
1
There you go again, Mr. Brooks, picking and choosing whatever fits into your not so moderate world view. You laude the Nordic countries for not having an estate tax and no minimum wage, followed by you chastising Warren and Sander wanting to make public college free.
You conveniently fail to mention that higher education all through university is free in these countries, as in other Western advanced nations. And it is just laughable to write that people you get it free are going to drop out in higher numbers.
As to not having estate taxes, these nordic on other countries have much higher income taxes which results in a strong safety net for all their people. And those who lose their job do not lose their health insurance, nor does a sudden severe illness bankrupt them.
A tale of audacity and hope? I would call it a tale of comparing apples and oranges.
6
“Nordic health plans require patient co-payments and high deductibles”
I am not sure what health plan you get from the NYT but at my place of employment we have a $300 deductible for prescriptions in the best plan (the skinny plans have higher deductibles) and $50 co-pays. I checked and the deductibles in Netherlands (the country quoted by Lane independently of the JP report) is $275 (it was around $350 in Norway). After that, people pay nothing for most care. That’s still a much better deal than most people can get in the US
6
Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump actually share the same trait -they each in their own way believe that they have an answer for every problem the country faces. Warren believes all those problems are answered through government intervention and Trump believes he is the answer for all of the problems. Overall the American public do not want a federal answer for all ills. Unless Warren and the dems tone it down we will face 4 more years of Donald.
1
Let's assume for the moment that there's merit to your argument about moderates. Here's the problem: moderates didn't do anything to fend off the right wing of the Republican party; to even mitigate the damage they've been doing to the country since Reagan. Moderates capitulated every step of the way. Merrick Garland is exhibit "A". So, my question: why should anyone believe in moderates now? The quality of your arguments are strained, Mr. Brooks.
8
I think you’ve mashed together some elements of moderwte liberalism and modern progressivism. Teddy Roosevelt, called a progressive in his day, was savvy enough to understand that concentrated wealth became a source of power that placed its interests over those of the people generally, and needed to be challenged, threatened, reigned in. Would you call him a progressive in the modern sense? I don’t think so. I think he’s more of a liberal/moderate. He would not have supported free college, free health care, etc. I think what you’ve done in this piece, David, is taken a bunch of perspectives that are yours, defined yourself as a moderate, and thus defined what moderates think as what David Brooks thinks. There are very few Democratic leaders who haven’t drunk the “free trade is always good” religion, and none of them are running (except maybe Tim Ryan). And you are missing an important divide in the current Democratic coalition between progressives and liberals. Both modern progressives and liberals understand like TR did that corporate power must be met with people power, as it’s instincts are not to act virtuously, nor are its instincts allied with democracy. Your version of “moderate” naively accepts the innate benevolence (or at least harmlessness) of concentrated wealth. But there is a divide among modern Dems on whether federally-run, universal programs are the best path to reducing inequality and giving the poor opportunity.
Up here, in Quebec, we have a Parental Insurance Plan. A wage earner will receive 70 % of her salary for 18 weeks of maternity leave. Fathers can get five weeks. Cost: $400. a year.
Subsidized daycare: this year, it’s $8.25 a day.
We also have health insurance and pharmacare for people who don’t have private insurance.
I could also add that the costs of education is minimal compared to yours.
All of this is considered left of the center in international politics. Your country is so far to the right that you think that we are a welfare state. Wrong. Just look at social policies of developed countries.
8
Where would the moderates be if the left hadn't pushed for their agenda? Whatever you think of Bernie, he changed the conversation. The moderate position is no longer a few tweaks to Obamacare, but a considerably more substantial improvement. The 'radical' idea of free college is likely to result insubstantial improvements in financing of higher education, not just a moderate expansion on Pell grants.
The Brooks version of moderates does not include the current GOP. Fear and loathing, tax cuts for the wealthy, trash the environment, rob health coverage from those who need it most, disparage the FBI, Justice Department and Intelligence Community as corrupt and unjust, and cripple consumer protection so banks and payday lenders are free to plunder. Led by a man totally void of principle.
Where have all the moderates gone?
4
Excellent analysis.
It is important to realize that the wings of either party will not elect the next president.The moderates of both parties will. As a democrat moderate I am waiting for Godot. A messenger with fire in their belly and a moderate message to tell. God help us if this individual does not emerge soon. That would be a path for Trump to win as we moderates either stay home or are divided
1
Globalization has lifted many millions out of poverty into a moderate income status but not to a high income status. At the same time in high income countries such as the US many have also become of moderate income status.
This is the issue that both Trump and Warren have taken up politically and the former being in power has tried to do something about it. Firstly, by goosing the economy and employment through additional deficit spending. Secondly, by imposing selective tariffs and threatening much more. Thirdly, by immigration policies which will eventually reduce the supply of labor. Two and three are long term measures.
The alternative is much more difficult in that it requires several step changes to increase the level of investments in inputs to raise productivity and hence compensation. This will demand a reduction in consumption and possibly a reduction in standards of living over the next decades.
Also and not talked about is whether the work week/year can or should be reduced for broad sections of the working population while maintaining a better than "living wage".
The moderate majority of both parties agree on the one thing that Mr. Brooks does not mention:
The powerful have used their power to preserve and gain more power in politics and economics.
In nearly every domain, the fight is no longer fair because law and economics and party networks have been twisted.
It was silly to think that mere contest -- in the market or at the polls -- would produce the best outcome. It may have produced the worst, by relieving the fighters from responsibility. Historically, only war relieved the wealthy of their advantages, but now war is tended like fire, enough to succor but not to burn.
We don't need more stories. We need a political party committed to unwinding, bit-by-bit, the advantages granted to economic and political heavy weights, before they drown us all.
Unfortunately, that means 10+ years of confronting powerful united interests protecting every tiny advantage, on behalf of a multitude of people who don't know or understand how a legislative phrase becomes the loophole law of the land. In almost every case, it means overcoming the information and power advantage that private players have over public ones.
The difference today is not between radicals and moderates, but those who believe the powerful will compromise and do the right thing, or whether they'll have to be forced.
I'm guessing they can't be forced, so we must hope they come around of their own accord, even while they fight back their less-scrupulous usurpers.
5
Democrats v. Republicans is the party of the millionaires v. the party of the billionaires. The moderates don’t even recognize the situation. Brooks’ column is all about identity politics. What people supposedly feel comfortable with. It doesn’t address that most people are struggling. The moderates don’t have answers for that.
5