Marianne Williamson and Donald Trump are both terrible. They have made a mockery out of their parties debates. Instead of an intelligent, policy-oriented, and reasonable debate that leads to the implementation of the best public policy, Marianne Williamson gives a bunch of flowery cliches that literally anyone can spin.
A Williamson-Trump "Debate" would be a disaster and be a tremendous disrespect to other candidates--in both parties--who have spent their entire lives trying to serve the public through crafting policy. Sadly, Williamson's prominence shows that the American people--Democrats and Republicans--just want to be entertained. They don't care about knowledge. They don't care about policy. As the President says, they want all talk and no action. People elected Trump because he spoke in simple cliches and taglines that appealed to the ignorant. Now in 2019, Williamson is doing the same thing on the left. Democrats must stop her ridiculous, embarrassing, and policy-free candidacy.
946
@Anonymous. One glance at Williamson's web site will reveal how deeply this candidate cares about public policy in this country. You are in error to believe she is without policy plans. She is erudite and has already introduced into debate issues that have long been off the table. Horrified at the Trump candidacy , she was relentless in 2016 in her efforts to get out the vote. A public figure for many years, she would not be rattled by trumpian rage.
195
@Anonymous
Not the point of David's article.
Williamson is on stage to help us see America's awful course. Which is now amoral and completely corrupt. She has some excellent points.
She simply is NOT presidential, anymore the tRump is.
But she has said a couple of things we need to hear.
Does she deserve to stay on the debate stage beyond this point? No, but thank you , David, for pointing out the important message she IS bringing.
389
@Anonymous Marianne Williamson will not be our President but David Brooks is right that she is the only one that is talking about what needs to be said. She should continue to be on the debate stage so that we can listen to what she has to say. We need to fight for our values.
97
The line "the Democrats have not risen to the largeness of the moment" speaks to precisely why Biden MUST get the nomination. He is the ONLY candidate on stage or out of 20 who is "large" enough to beat Trump -- large in spirit, large in heart, large in energy -- similar to the way Beyonce is if she is just standing still and not performing, but in a slightly different way. Biden is a giant, and the rest are politicians.
94
@Jessica Mendes
Biden would be an 80 year old President diminishing in energy, competence and spirit by the hour.
66
@Jessica Mendes Well said, and he's the very embodiment of decency, to boot. It still makes me chuckle to remember him clamping his mouth shut every time a moderator said his time was up.
25
The answer is obvious. Michelle Obama should run for president. Her tweet of July 19 is evidence enough:
"What truly makes our country great is its diversity. I’ve seen that beauty in so many ways over the years. Whether we are born here or seek refuge here, there’s a place for us all. We must remember it’s not my America or your America. It’s our America."
I know that she won't run, and I know that my hopes are pinned in the wrong direction, but she gets what's at stake, she gets who we are, she knows how to heal us.
310
No one doubts that Ms. Williamson is not a serious contender. But her contentions (dark underbelly/collectivized hatred/channeling dark) are serious. The perceived liberating power (for many) of Obama's election served also as a catalyst (for others) releasing fear of imminent displacement and change. We don't need a national religion, but we do need a national morality. Maybe just start with the Golden Rule. Or a new Cabinet post: Secretary of Soul.
204
@Noah Kidder
Yeah, and he/ she will appoint a Commission of Souls, where souls go to die. :)
8
I read until I got to where Brooks said we are "subtly corrupted" by Trump as president. If there's anything subtle about it, I'll have to apologize, because I sure don't see it.
44
She IS wackadoodle but she is the only one with a resonating message: fight to recover our best selves. This dark underbelly analysis feels spit on. At the end of the day - Election Day - I’m going with my gut feeling about who will fight harder for daylighting this cultural vampire.
17
Well said, David. And just who is that one individual?? Michael Moore says it's Michelle Obama. Well, good luck with that one. Can we get her to sacrifice? And for her, it would be a sacrifice!
9
David, both Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker express as much hope and optimism. So this whole premise feels hollow and lazy. Try again.
43
Marianne Williamson knows how to sell books. Fixed it for you.
17
There's plenty enough fiction already without a religious-spiritual fanatic in the mix.
19
We don't need an uprising of decency. When Trump's comments, e.g., "rodent infestation," are out of the Nazi playbook we should point out their source and significance. As to Sanders and Warren being materialistic wonks that is precisely what we need. Talk about character and culture will not provide us with solutions to material problems. Talk about efficient delivery of services and funding will. Nothing will do
more for our nation's spiritual condition than a major improvement in a our material condition.
24
I'm sorry, but this column, as are so many by you, is so reductionist.
" That does not mean standing up and saying, “Donald Trump is a racist!” 500 times a day. "
None of the Democratic candidates do anything even close to this, nor to the myriad columnists who extol the dangers of Trump and how we need to move the dialogue forward so we can effect change.
Most analysts and candidates speak thoughtfully about how to bring about change, even as I agree with some and disagree with others.
Very disappointing column, Mr. Brooks.
21
Thanks, Brooks, but my party needs nothing from you but your vote.
34
Thank you, Mr. Brooks, for an excellent, thought-provoking piece. In 2016, I admittedly first stood in complete shock that the moral right couldn't see through Trump and his non-existent morals. Surely, people who "study" the bible would see that this man fails at all seven deadly sins, and rubs it in your face in case you should give him any benefit of the doubt. He's the next closest thing to satan since Hitler, Mussolini, etc. But there they stand, 40% of the country, complicit with this human tragedy (hint to Trump supporters: we are way beyond politics now...the NATION is at stake).
I've given up on the 40%, lost all hope they can be reasoned with. These are people who have now proven they would sell their soul, and arguably have, for a chance to beget wealth and freedom, but on their terms. Everyone else can go to h-e-double hockey sticks...they no longer care, or likely never did. I have some friends that are in the 40%, but its getting harder to relate to them, they hold tight to a single issue and ignore the rest. So it goes, and we wonder where the national division comes from. No need to look any further!
I still sleep well at night, but know a day of reckoning is soon at hand. Glad I'm on the right side of that!
18
Brooks is right that spiritualist Williamson has best articulated the menace Trump represents.
That truth speaks volumes about the hollowness of the Democratic Party leadership: Perez, with the sound down, looks like he's selling cars; Pelosi, hands aflutter, speaks only in DCese, and only her threats to wayward Dems have force; Schumer could be one of the lawyers writing the fine print disclaimers for an insurance company.
Meanwhile, the Republicans meet behind closed doors to study Mein Kampf and the Old Testament.
Sad. I think I'll have a beer...
16
Does everyone have the attention span of a gnat?
"We are in the battle for the soul of this nation." Joe Biden
Yes, that Joe Biden, who launched his campaign on the theme of moral decency and reclaiming it. You know, the guy who is still the Democratic front-runner despite scurrilous attacks.
But of course he's not a self-help guru who compared mandatory vaccinations to fascism and advises...Oprah.
20
Yes.
2
"It falls on the Democrats to rebuild the moral fibre of our country"
Are you out of your mind ?
Have you listened to them ?
They are positively rabid.
5
Excuse me??????!!!!!
3
Well, you're not wrong about Trump or Williamson. But you are somewhat wrong about the politics of the moment. The Democrats, and apparently you, are operating out of a fear of Trump.
And you can't fear this jerk. A lot of his people know he's a jerk. I talk to Trumpists all the time. The reason they like him is because he jerks your chain. And it's "you" they hate. The "liberals" (even though you're a neo-con, apparently being a Jew is enough to qualify), the elites.
And the only way to beat Trump is not a campaign for decency but a campaign against the elites and for something larger, a shared sense of being in this together. Class is part of it, and social justice is part of it, but the unspoken need is for something bigger, a larger American compact. And Williamson actually gets this part too. Really I think this is what she's trying to talk about, but she lacks the language for it, and so do you.
And until we find the language, and the program that speaks to it, a campaign against the elites and for Class justice across racial and ethnic lines is going to have to do. Go Bernie!
12
Is this a joke, or is David Brooks really this delusional?
16
Is there a way to subscribe to Mr. Brooks' Opinion pieces? If not, NYT, why not?
2
Doomed
A.I. will doom us
2
The darkness referred to is like the emotional plague that Wilhelm Reich warned against in The Mass Psychology of Fascism. It is the white patriarchy. Just look at how Pence described Trump during the last election "Our broad shouldered leader". As if a leader has to be a man (with broad shoulders), a father figure with all the answers, someone to make all of the decisions you are afraid to work out for yourselves.
21
At its heart politics is about power. Who has it, who doesn't and how do we get it. Morality and decency are the veneer we place over the raw ugliness of greed and deception which informs this pursuit.
While the appeal to decency matters, and it is admirable, it's the backroom deals and quiet internal wrangling where we trade in decency and engage in lies to get the upper hand. This is true or Republicans, Democrats, Evangelicals, Progressives, etc.
Evangelicals traded in decency for power. Progressives (with the perpetual victimization) will exaggerate, accuse and create hysteria for power.
If you want power with the veneer of decency, think about your interests and vote. Character makes ruling a little less ugly.
67
Why does it always seem to fall on the Democrats to "rebuild the moral infrastructure of our country," to clean up after the party that trashed the place? Hey conservatives and those who support them, YOU BREAK IT, YOU OWN IT. The Dems in the race and most of us voters understand that the "dark underbelly" is full of hatred, fear, and division, and we all know who is really stoking it.
Why is it only old vs. new masculinity that can be taken seriously in the 2020 election? Seems that you've featured the one female out of six running the race who would guarantee a Republican victory, when she seems better suited to running her own cult or New Age business. Why doesn't Williams drop out after throwing her support behind someone who can be head of state yet still care about ALL of us, including the future of the whole planet? And why are so many voters unable to imagine and vote for a woman for the top job?
Why taint a candidate who did the hard work toward actual policies and keeps bringing them to and breaking them down for the voters, especially Elizabeth Warren, with the wonk label (Dukakis, really??)? Warren is not an out of touch, unfeeling, clueless policy wonk, far from it. Nor is she a knows-just-enough-to-screw-it-up charming lightweight skating on "relatability" to victory. America shouldn't be looking for a messiah to solve its problems. WE are the ones who must steer us away from the Cliffs of Insanity.
And NYT? BE BETTER THAN THIS!
23
All true…
But then again wonkiness shouldn't be discarded either. Issues are moral AND material.
Let's hope.
10
What we really need is paper ballots, the kind marked by hand and counted by humans. Yes, time-consuming, not impervious to corruption, but not easily stolen either. Until that happens, no vote count can be trusted, and no amount of pontificating about morals and values and dark sides, etc. is of any practical use.
14
The Walter Cronkite Republican notes Mr. Trump has explicitly demonstrated who he is, the question remains: who are we? He certainly has not done anything to reassure the majority of us who voted against him in the first place.
7
David, Why put this all on the democrats? Where does the Republican party fit in rebuilding the moral infrastucture, as you put it. Have you completely forsaken them? William Weld is running for the republican nomination against Donald Trump. Why not promote him as an antidote to the moral rot, or encourage other repulicans to run against Trump for the nomination. It the republican party that calls itself the party of values, after all.
22
I apply a cynical ear to Ms. Williamson's too broad platitudes and hear an echo of the "Radio Priest," Charles Coughlin. from a previous century. It is true that their religious practices are of significantly different genres and their politics appear to be quite polar but both are similar in the attempt to interject religiosity into our democratic process which mandates the separation of church and state. In this sense, Williamson and Coughlin are sharing a pew while singing from different hymnals. As I would have feared the priest, the guru gives me no less concern.
6
Hello David,
Just a quick note to say thank you for your quality writing and political/cultural insights. I have found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with several of your recent columns regarding the damage Trump has done to the level of civil discourse, moral values, and liberal democracy in this country. Our current president and polarized politics in general causes me daily frustration - I feel so much better when I ignore the news, but after a day or two, I just can't resist checking my phone again.
I do rely on the New York Times and PBS for much of my information, and I encourage you to continue making your voice heard. You are speaking for many of us who don't have a public platform or don't usually speak out on these subjects.
Tom Schneider
11
Bingo. I hope the candidates are listening.
5
"Elizabeth Warren is a social scientist from Harvard Law School who has a plan for everything — except the central subject of this election, which is cultural and moral." David, We're not talking about church sermons here. If you don't understand how Warren's positions are based on the lack of morals, and her abhorrence of the disgusting and immoral actions of our financial industry, you clearly have not had the opportunity to wallow in the morass of the bankruptcy courts. This is how the lack of morals affects the everyday life of many of our citizens.
21
Trump is not a cause, he is a symptom. He is a common man in that he represents what most people are like. Childish, whiny, lying and greedy. He represents the electorate in many parts of the country perfectly.
It's not the job of democrats to fix the republican party. Getting rid of Trump will not fix anything. The problems go much deeper. The people of the US are largely dishonest. The people of the US deserves another four years, at least, of Trump.
9
Americans need affordable healthcare, affordable college for their kids, daycare for young families, and many gov. programs that could make our lives so much more humane and livable. But we have 45, a monster made by the Frankensteinian propaganda outlets of fox, brietbart, sinclair, and their like. Their drumbeat of fear and rage will continue to gin up 45-type strongmen. I'm not even sure now that Murdoch and Mercer have opened these pandora boxes how we can tamp down this growing irrational screaming. Extreme irrational fears and anger lead people to do crazy, hurtful things even to themselves and their love ones. We still can't fathom how 900 people followed Jim Jones to mass suicide. When Nationalized, these extreme emotions have given us horrific wars. Republicans and their overlord oligarchs are benefitting right now but the monster escaped Dr. Frankenstein and the reactionary right may soon find itself w/o control of this attack dog. Republicans don't lead this mob anymore. We must vote these republicans out or see our vote completely lost.
13
"This model has always had appeal to a certain sort of well-educated Democrat." Yep. It appeals to all those "well-educated Democrats" who don't operate in the real world. How did Colonel Jessup put it? "You can't handle the truth!"
1
I don’t think Marianne Williamson knows how to beat Trump, but she certainly knows why he should be defeated.
When he is, he will surely say that is unfair. Portions of his base might be persuaded, and I think some violence is reasonably likely.
Her summary complaint is Trump’s indecency. When Biden entered the race, he said the battle was for the soul of America. Cf. Williamson. His margin in the polls and his moderate, unexciting progressivism should not obscure his being our best chance. Actually he is how to beat Trump. And he should. The incumbent is an ignorant lout.
5
Well said Mr.Brooks ,Ms. Wiliamson though not a policy wonk
really understands that this election is about the soul of America.Trump,like Trotsky,Hitler,Duvalier,and Stalin control by using fear. Fear of the other, those that don't look like you .They are here to take what you have ,your women, your guns, your jobs .Republican legislators fear that if they don't support not only will they lose political standing but financial opporutunies upon leaving.Many of them truly believe as he does and are closet racists.Health care, economic and foreign policy are important issues, but in order to get there ,the Democratic nominee must cogently articulate how dangerous this man is.
5
Brooks has an important point but a poor solution. Morality and politics mix but should not conflated as Brooks proposes. Trump is clearly both aberration (a moral monster) and skillful politician (a welcome spokesman for his "base" consisting of oligarchic authoritarian tribalist angry selfish shareholder exploiters or OATASSEs). Trump needs to be removed and defeated on moral grounds and politically. His base of OATASSEs are part of the warp and the woof of Amerixcan society. They are not "other" - they are part of the main and nearly all Republicans. They seem to comprise about one-quarter to one-third of our total polity. They are part of this many-flavored taste of the USA. Only a relatively small fraction of them are also moral monsters like Trump. The Dems (and surviving Rs) are slowly waking up. Both need to expel this moral monster from our political discourse. Then the Dems can work to beat the Rs politically, on the merits, with a good political campaign. Marianne Williamson herself is just this side of loopy airy-fairy, but she does have admirable courage to be visibly and righteously angry about the Trump monstrosity. That's a start. But we can do better than proposing a face-off between two angry people all wrapped up in themselves rather than cool-headedly facing the real (practical) issues facing all of us.
3
Marianne .and now you, Mr. Brooks, are altering the conversation. This is not politics as usual. This is the future of our democracy. Trump is a symptom of our "dark side". Decent, good, moral people need to rise to this challenge. Quickly. Powerfully. United. I applaud you for writing us the way in.
8
Oh great, another concern-trolling piece by a Republican who's worried that the Democrats have swung too far to the left for him to vote against a racist, serial sexual assaulter.
Whatever one feels about his policies, Barack Obama was one of the most decent men Americans have ever elected to be President, and the GOP was so appalled by the added melanin that came along with his decency that they voted for Trump.
Stop pretending that it's not the GOP that deserves 99.9% of the blame for where this country currently is.
49
Well stated and very true.
3
As usual, there is not one word about the Republican members of Congress who have lied themselves into a corner, cheated the people out of SCOTUS seats and have used racist riggers and dog whistles and gerrymandering to get elected. They have turned into sycophantic bootlicking, self enriching legislating, blatant power grabbing, tax break giving caregivers to the rich. The welfare programs to their rich friends have cost billions while our schools crumble and children in Flint still havr poison water, but hey, it's the Dems who need to find their vision to be worthy of leading. Sigh.
25
Trump is not a cultural revolutionary. He is no more than a despicable disrupter with no plan to fix what he disrupts. From babies in cages to onerous tariffs in trade wars he started, Trump has done nothing to help our country either domestically or in foreign relations. Far from changing America for the better, he is exposing its dark underbelly. Time for him to go.
251
It's a tried and true technique to diminish or marginalize a person by calling them "crazy" or a "wackadoodle" or "from another planet". But it isn't professional by any stretch and rarely is true. It's sad to see the columnist and many in the comment section(geniuses one and all, I am sure) going down this route with Ms. Williamson. I learned the lesson about this as a young man when Ross Perot ran and everyone hung labels such as "eccentric" on him. Recently a friend posted something of that sort when re-calling Perot's run and so as a challenge, I put out there a summation of his main policy positions and at the end wrote, "if Perot had run with this policy platform instead of cuckoo bird stuff, he may have won." I waited for all the "likes" and the "I'd totally vote for a candidate who has that as a platform" before I revealed it was Ross Perot's amazingly sane, straightforward campaign platform. The bar really needs to be raised in the opinion section of this new site.
2
I have not seen any democratic candidate strongly espouse a response for the main reasons Trump won:
Uncontrolled immigration
Economic stagnation for majority of folks
Unfair trade deals - NAFTA, WTO arrangements, etc
Culture wars where everything is under intense debate
IMHO, I think most people will never admit openly reasons they are against current immigration debate and culture wars. These folks support folks like Trump because he clearly stated about these issues.
6
You can't have it both ways Mr. Brooks. You can't preach unity, honesty, pluralism, sympathy, and opportunity to the Democrats - and - at the same time be a member of a club whose bylaws apparently demand a violation of all those things. I'm talking about Republicans and conservatives in general. That's the audience you need to address.
I think it takes a lot of hutzpah to have been a supporter of the decades-long conservative policies that got us to Trump, and then complain about them now. Instead of writing books about the quest for a moral life, how about a full scale confessional about your sins? The moral life begins at home.
23
Slowly, surely and inevitably you will elect "Mayor Pete" who meets all the requirements outlined in this article by David Brookes. I have no direct, vested interest as I'm a Canadian but one who watches, very closely, this election.
15
"Democrats believe they can win votes by offering members of different groups economic benefits and are perpetually shocked when they lose those voters."
Brooks in a nutshell above. Brooks and his conservative friends never acknowledge that Dems just want to make society more fair and Repubs want to make the rich richer.
Repubs - Pentagon spending and billions going to the pockets of rich Repubs. Ag subsidies going to wealthy ranchers and farmers. Tax cuts going to super wealthy. Low tax rates on capital gains go to super wealthy.
Dems - Social security for all including the poorest - opposed by Brooksian Repubs. Medicare for the elderly - opposed by Brooksian Repubs. Obamacare for all - opposed by Brooksian Repubs.
Who is giving economic benefits to whom Mr. Brooks??
17
Rather than pursue the presidency, I wish Marianne Williamson, perhaps in tandem with other spiritually uplifting public figures, would put her talents toward creating counter-programming every time there is a Trump rally.
Imagine if in Cincinnati last night and for every rally to come, there was an event which countered Trump's divisiveness and hate with the positive messaging Williamson espouses. There would be an alternative for people to attend (or tune-in to) and an alternative for the media to cover.
16
Mr. Brooks, Williamson is correct in pointing out some of the problems that this country is facing, and has historically dealt with with too light of a touch, but you're wildly off base in supposing that none of the other contenders for the dem nomination don't or cannot do the same, with much much more backing them up. Sanders is the candidate who can beat trump, has the moral highground (oh, but he offends the ultra wealthy, too bad!), and has policies to get this country where we all believe it should be ( at least on par with the European/ Nordic countries in terms of social services and corruption). get with it, please!
5
For those of you sounding the alarms about M. Williamson, you need not be so worried. David was not penning an endorsement for her as a candidate. He made the point that at this phase she adds one crucial point to the discourse. Whoever our front runner(s) turn out to be, they need to inspire the voting populace with a clear enunciation of the positive traits we stand for as a nation. David elaborated those. The successful candidate can not just talk -policy-. We need a persuasive tolling of the bell of decency. People are hungry for that. Toll that bell so all the masses who would reject this cynical and hateful regime will turn out in droves to change our nations course.
9
Does David Brooks understand Williams history? She became rich and famous by writing a New Age self help book promoting the idea that illness and all ills can be overcome by “ spirituality” and spreading and receiving love. As a former RN, I find that really offensive, and worse it plays into people’s deepest vulnerabilities and profits from them. This is the basic MO of the New Age movement, which then loves to display its acts of charity as publicly as possible, as means of furthering it’s brand.
This is consistent with Williamson, who went on to start a charity in LA, backed by the Hollywood elite( which no doubt helped many people) then went on to become a self proclaimed minister, guru, and now presidential candidate. How is that different from Trump’s original intention when he decided to run, as a way of promoting his brand, that succeeded beyond his dreams. Should we be lauding this a good development in national politics? Should we be lauding candidates that criticize discussing policy in a Presidential debate, with speeches about their superior understanding of issues?
18
Even a broken clock is accurate once a day. Williamson is fluff for the masses. Anti-vaxer? and other wacky "beliefs". Thanks, but there are other candidates who are decent people as measured by their policies as well as their demeanor....Elizabeth Warren comes first to mind.
10
The upshot, after the 2nd Democratic debate, seems to point to a strong values emphasis, looking after the 'least of these', and a Biden/Warren Democratic ticket. Is that about right?
4
@D.T,I submit that all the top eight candidates and more have a deep sense of decency and strong convictions about working for all Americans. It will be up to the American people to rally around the Democratic candidate and press her or him to fight for those policies that lift up all the underdogs, and inspire all of us to struggle for a simultaneously more just and dynamic society.
4
"So Democrats, go ahead and promote your plans. But also lead an uprising of decency. There must be one Democrat who, in word and deed, can do that."
There is. His name is Barack Obama. It's such a shame that so many Americans were unwilling to join his uprising of decency, and a shame on the Republican party for leading them to reject it.
18
There was an allusion in one of the debates to using Clorox after this nightmare is over. I'm glad I'm not the only one who looks to the day this odious presence is out of office and how the entire White House should be emptied out, disinfected and steam cleaned to eliminate every trace of him.
11
Fox News is also on the wrong side of these values. They share much of the blame.
13
A good piece. But is it really the case that we are "one people," except in a merely formalistic sense? Isn't part of the problem that there may not really be a "we" that treasures "members of all races and faiths for what they bring to the mosaic?," a "we" that is unified on what makes for civil society, or at least the ways in which flourishing in a civil society is best promoted, a "we" that really is prepared to engage in thoughtful deliberation on any manner of issues relevant to this flourishing?
That, to me, is the disquieting picture that's emerged in the past several years, although the sentiments have always lurked beneath the surface, as Marianne Wilson points out. In that connection, it's not clear to me that there's ever been a "United States" in any meaningful sense.
By the way, nice attempt to lay some of the blame at the feet of the Dems. Yes, the election is a cultural and moral issue, but last I checked so are the specific issues discussed by the candidates. But again, when there are alternative commitments to different conceptions of morality (usually not very well thought out) where's your "we"?
B+
1
No offense to you, David Brooks, but where do you get the idea that our government is supposed to set and promote morality and values? Our country was founded on the opposite idea -- that people are free (to the extent possible) to have their own values.
Our government works best when it does the least. Of course, government needs to do some things. But the whole idea of our government was to free people, to give each of us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Not to enforce values like unity, honesty, pluralism, sympathy, and opportunity. Those are your values, not mine. And not the values our government was founded to protect.
2
The Democrats are not just dealing with issues of materialism they are also dealing the issue of human survival. Specifically climate change. Trump says it is a hoax and remains steadfastly a denier despite all the scientific evidence that shows Trump is full of baloney. The Democrats should be able to use this issue to their advantage since most Americans and particularly younger Americans agree with them. Right now it is the most important issue that America faces. But how can the Democrats willingness to take action be turned into more votes?
6
I went to hear her speak and donated to her campaign early not because I think she should be President, but because her ideas are crucial to the debate. She is a welcome disrupter. We have been in Afghanistan for 18 years and yet we thinking talking about love is madness?? Big pharma has brought the country to its knees with the opiate epidemic meant to ease our pain and yet we think it's a ridiculous notion to say that antidepressants are overprescribed as we find a way ease our unhappiness? I want to talk about WHY we are in pain and WHY we are so unhappy. She is opening up the conversation. I think she's brave.
12
Not qualified to be President, but I'd definitely support Marianne Williamson for Secretary of Healing.
4
If she understands Trump, let her perform an exorcism. See how that works.
7
Trump is destroying the soul of who we have been as
a country and 40% of the country doesn't care. Trump
is only doing what the people let him do to them. Character
doesn't matter. A guy in Germany did the same thing and the people let it happen. I don't blame Trump, I blame the people.
10
Mr. Brooks was not suggesting that Marianne Williamson be the candidate for president as some of the commentators seem to think about what he is saying in the op-ed. That is clearly ludicrous. He was advocating for some of the values that she spoke about and which are needed in this country. She should be a consultant to the chosen candidate if anything.
6
Nice column , David . I , like Barb from Portland, OR , agree that we often don't agree with David about a number of things ,
however in this column , and in Barb's letter , the nail is being hit directly on the head . We need a moral cleansing after four years of Trump's total corruption and moral debasement . We need to be able to love our country with pride and moral conviction once again , and not be embarrassed because of who currently occupies the White House ( I simply can't get myself to call him "president" ; he's never deserved it , nor earned it ) . While it's completely improbable that Ms. Williamson could ever win the nomination , here's hoping that other , more probable candidates , include her deep and heart_felt thoughts into
their campaigns and speak proudly about them . My fellow Americans , sweep this ugly slime from office in the 2020 election
along with the subservient , sycophantic , self-serving , corrupt apologists for the wealthy , the Republicans . Out , out !!!
5
I sure hope the D candidates have read this!
1
If the Dems don't get hip and run a well-known Hollywood actor, they are doomed. DOOMED!
I suggest Leonardo DiCaprio, that guy would win for sure.
1
David: Always love to hear your opinion, on TV and in the NYT. Your piece on Marianne Williamson today is the best of the best. You articulated what has been unspoken in my mind and heart because I did not have the words (and maybe not the courage) to express the intellectual and emotional and inaccessible with regards to this dangerous fraud in our White House. Thank you for all your work, and especially for today's.
Howard C Kress, Jr
4
Only an unrepentant Republican would suggest a self-help guru with no administrative or governmental experience as a model for Democrats. Williamson will thankfully be off the stage this fall and back to advising and soothing the rich with guilty consciences. I've got my checkbook out and am sending another check to Elizabeth Warren. I want someone who knows something about the law and government and who hopes to improve the lives of people thousands of times poorer then Brooks and his unrepentant rich Republican buddies. They gave us Trump and have yet to fess up.
14
David, this may be the best of all the fine columns you have written about the absolute necessity for all Americans of good will to participate in the restoration and uplifting of the basic moral values that lie at the heart of our democracy and our common humanity. And, yes, as our Founders did, those aspiring to lead our country must first and foremost pledge "their Lives, their Fortunes, and their sacred Honor" to this task. Thank you.
7
Finally someone took note of the demoralization of America. What we've been missing from the conversation is the consideration that Americans are desperate for integrity, authenticity, compassion and courage. We've come to a point in which Americans (other than those who are titillated and vindicated by Trump's racism) would rather hear ugly truths than pretty lies. Each time one of the candidates hedges an answer, or tries to misdirect, we feel a small betrayal. Williamson intelligently shines a light on the need for a candidate who has the courage to tell the truth, and the vision to inspire by looking into our collective soul. While she may not be the eventual Democratic candidate, she brings tremendous value to the conversation. I, for one, am anxious to hear more thoughtful, unvarnished and well-articulated truth.
9
Ms. Williamson is correct in what she says about Trump and where we are. When I hear her talk, though, she sounds angry, not hopeful, and she speaks too fast and with a monotone-not ideal for inspiring people. Obama was a brilliant and talented speaker; it was not only what he said that inspired us, it was how he said it, likewise Bill Clinton. I'm listening closely to all the candidates and hoping that at least one of them can speak to us and inspire us the way Obama did.
4
Very well put Mr. Brooks. I think all but a few folks are appalled by the decline in decency and civility in our government. Having a nice person in the White House would go a long way to restoring the face of America.
6
It continues to exhaust me to watch the "never Trump" conservatives such as Brooks twist themselves into rhetorical knots rather than TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for the indulgences of their party that led us down the path to Trump. The racial dog-whistling, the Southern strategy, the doing away with the Fairness Doctrine so that the talk-radio propaganda juggernaut could rise -- all of that stuff led to this moment, to Trump.
Not according to Brooks, though. Trump happened because the Democrats spent too much time trying to PROVIDE THINGS for people. Horrors!
31
@gmg22
SPOT. ON.
11
I would expand this to the incivility of Republicans started by Newt Gingrich. This was multiplied in the Obama years by McConnell and his ilk through obstruction and the aim to win power at all costs regardless of the best interests of the country.
14
@gmg22
Exactly right. Thank you.
6
What permutations of mal-adapted culture arise in rootlessness and alienation.
All that pass the test for grow with no limits.
Trump the big red flashing light of limits exceeded. Not the shining light on the hill. Not the beacon to safe harbor.
Something just ain't right in the land.
Lot of internal border crossing going on in this culture of deregulation and dismantling of intelligence to warn us of the ends of our collective insanity, delusionally exempt from limits.
Lead by the biggest border crasher of all.
Making America Peak Indecent.
About reached peak gasket.
Trump, our national inoperable aneurysm.
Brooks, the doctor of dysfunction.
The one D who can do this named Joe Biden.
1
To understand the world of today, I started to read a book written in 1996 by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. Next American Presidential elections will not be about Healthcare or The Climate or The Economy but about The Values and Social Models we believe in as a Community. And not only in the US but across the Western World. If we don’t learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat it.
8
Paul Van Beveren, while some say as you do that if we don't learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat it, I say we learn from history that we never learn from history.
And why should we? As Will and Ariel Durant said in their book The Lessons of History, "Most history is guessing, and the rest is prejudice."
Not to say that we shouldn't read history. We should. And we should read biographies and autobiographies to learn about other people, living and dead.
But that is just background to help us make better decisions based on the present, not the past. Trying to draw lessons from the past is foolish.
1
Exactly.
This is what we were trying to do in the 60's. Maybe everyone should be required to go a psychologist and take a little trip into themselves, if you know what I mean.
A bit of self-awareness never hurt anybody.
One of the [problems we face is that we think we're acquiring morality from going to church. but the Church has turned into a large part of the dark underbelly.
It urges us to accept a Jesus figure who is #1 Aryan looking, with blonde hair and blue eyes, yet #2 it says now that just believing in this Jesus who said to me in Sunday school " If you harm THE LEAST OF MY CREATURES you harm ME".
Does that sound like the speaker meant animals too? Sure does to me.
#3 Mega churches/illusions and the ending of separation of church and state. And why do you think THAT is? It's because they've got a WHOLE LOT of money, influence over their sheep and want all the right for their own ideas.
Inequality is a VERY big part of this whole equation and it MUST be dealt with. The corporations taking/over America must be reined in, fascism must be stopped.
But, I think we need a leader who really can figure all this out, with a full Dem congress.
There'll be enough fights for everyone to enjoy, I guarantee it!
We're all going crazy from the lies/attacks of the last 40 years yet still believing the republican dominated government is watching out for us.
They are not, they are death come for the whole beautiful world.
PS:I Ioved what Williamson said
4
Marianne Williamson is the spoiler sent by the Republicans to make sue Democrats split their ticket (visually and in voting if not in their primary choice) come November 2020.
The Russian Republicans and their "God" work in "mysterious ways" just like human potential expert Marianne.
We know these media savvy charlatans in California because we seem to foster the seeker/guru culture - or at least we did in the 1960's - 2000. California has smartened up since we almost went bankrupt.
What was she doing on the stage? People actually capable of winning should have been on the stage. Tom Perez, DCCC Chair, please do a better job of avoiding pitfalls in format, "moderators" (Democrats had media wannabes instead), and giving participants enough time to talk so you could actually understand the differneces between them.
These Democratic "Debates" were disgusting and boded horror for Democrats in the 2020 election unless they get a new DCCC Chair, new party leadership (Chuck and Nancy really are out of touch - why not put AOC on the selection committee - she would bring in younger voters across the country.
I would like to go on record that I think the trashing of AOC and the Squad is Russian led and Republican bred. These four young women speak truth to power and risk their lives to do so.
Marianne Williamson is a motivational speaker, of which we are so sick and tired since the human potential movement began (again) in northern California with all the gurus. No, no, no!!!!
5
Cory Booker! Read today's Michelle Goldberg op ed.
1
You are kidding me right?
2
This hits it on the head.
1
How long do we have to wait before Michelle Obama gets in?
4
It is odd that I, an elderly, agnostic woman, find one word coming to my mind when I think of Trump - Lucifer@.
5
Dorothy, that is indeed odd. Why would you think that?
1
This is like, do I want to be locked in a room for a day with someone with active TB and a bad cough, or someone with a runny nose. Trump is actively destroying this country. He's using a turbo fan to stir up every kind of enmity among us and with the few countries that would make any effort to help us, except for Israel, which he's using as a stalking horse for his hatred of Muslims (except the super-rich ones he thinks he can exploit.) His appointees are all or almost all people who want to liberate business to wreck our economy again, let the world's environment go to hell, and make our healthcare "system" even less useful, which is pretty hard to imagine. He has no filter between what's left of his brain and his mouth, e.g. his macabre statement about wiping out Afghanistan. If there's a D president and the Rs control the Senate and they won't confirm his or her appointees, at least the government will be run by career people or fill-ins who care about what they're charged with doing. Any of the D candidates who have any real chance of getting nominated would have to be better by default.
3
"SUBTLY corrupted"?????????
2
My, my David here you are among the most superficial, of the shallow impostors, most of whom, probably ignorantly, or unconsciously, serve the very forces that Marianne Williamson is talking about, making the amazingly ignorant comments concerning who and what Senators Warren and Sanders are, and more significantly what they are talking about.
You simply do not get it, David. It would be a wast of energy to try to explain it to you or Trump, or Ayn Rand or, Caligula, for that matter.
10
David Brooks for President!!!
1
“The only thing that will defeat him is if we have a phenomenon of equal force”
It is time for patriots in the intelligence communities to leak the damning information on Trump that we know is out there.
We await your action.
Send it on to the Times, Post , or even Wikileaks, no, not wiki, they’ll bury it and expose you.
5
Marianne Williamson can come across well on television. But she's all fluff and no substance. To be the chief executive of the United States requires skills that she hasn't shown. At all.
The late Steve Jobs of Apple fame said it best when he criticized Barack Obama: "I'm disappointed in Obama. He's having trouble leading because he's reluctant to offend people or [tick] them off."
Steve Jobs went on to admit that he didn't have that problem. Neither does Donald Trump. As Trump said in a zinger directed at reporter Jim Acosta, "I don't really care about offending people. I sort of thought you would know that."
Donald Trump has his faults. He would, for example, be a terrible senator. But he gets things done. He doesn't spend a lot of time debating or adding to his resume or appealing to people who hate him. He figures out a way to get people to do what he wants them to do.
That's a rare talent, and Marianne Williamson doesn't have it.
2
The time to bring decency to forefront is when pitted against Trump. Any of these candidates carry more decency in their pinkies than the entire Trump administration. When we are evaluating them against each other, I would like to do so based on policies and proposals and their track records. Well, at this time, Warren has my vote.
3
Sorry David but Government is about how to represent the public interest. Our constitution and founding documents were not about how to think. This is an administration who ignores laws and subpoenas and acts only to represent themselves and thier friends. The candidates who understand these realities do talk about governing and how to do it. Trying to convince people how to think only works when minds are open. Maybe we should lower the voting age to 14..
4
No, Mr. Brooks.
Marianne Williamson has absolutely no idea how to beat Trump.
And I'm beginning to wonder, if you do either.
Do you and Biden really think that walking around saying "I want to bring back civility", is going to remove Trump from office?
Yes, the country (and the whole world) needs an uprising of decency.
But singing Kumbaya, doesn't win elections.
8
To beat a Trump you must hold a better card hand to out trump a Trump.
2
David has a valid point here. People are not policy wonks, as a general rule, nor are they interested in the ins and outs of governance. That huge not-very-involved crowd will be the deciding force in this election, as it has been in the past. They want a narrative, not a lecture. Trump gives them bombast. Sadly, that's more in line with narrative than an 18-point policy brief. They know its outrageous, but the alternative puts them to sleep.
So far, the only candidate with a narrative that isn't Marianne Williamson is Pete Buttigieg. That may enough. I hope so, since no one else seems to get it.
5
Agreed. Dems need soundbites and catch phrases that get attention, make the point and gain momentum
Start with "Divisive Don" The shoe fits, make him wear it. Also, adopt consistent use of United States of America when referencing our country. As we know, a house divided cannot stand.
2
That is NOT what we need. And remember David is a staunch Republican conservative and he would like nothing more than to undermine this election by supporting some wacko. There are a lot of republicans giving her money just so they can mess things up. She does not belong in the race. And neither do a least half the others.
6
I agree with your statement that shouting 500 times a day that Trump is a racist is pointless; it even turns me off, who is in ardent progressive who can hardly bear another day with this lowly man in the White House. You say Trump is governed by "id." Self promotion, self idolatry might be a better explanation. The values you cite at the conclusion of your article: Unite, Honesty, Pluralism, Sympathy and Opportunity are, of course, what most of us aspire to practice, excepting the most vile of Trump supporters. Most Republicans share these values.
But the Democratic debates can't possibly center on these aspects of their claims for the presidency, otherwise it will seem as if they are all vicars or deacons on a pulpit. And we know how good words can be tortured for ill goals. The job of the democratic candidates, or any politician, is to espouse policies that will help their constituents practice these virtues, because their lives have become less desperate. I think every candidate has, to some degree, done this. The Democrats are not ideologues, but they certainly have ideas that applied concretely to the everyday lives of people will make a difference. They all do, as any talented politician will, add aspirational fervency to this; Elizabeth Warren, Michael Bennet, Joe Biden, Corey Booker, all do this. As do many others.
The Democratic field is large not because of ambition but because of horror at what this president has wrought. I applaud them all.
4
I ask folks I meet who are Trump supporters one question, "Is Donald Trump someone who you would want your children to emulate?" There is usually hemming and hawing and a reluctant "No, but..." reply.
When I heard Williamson say what Brooks quoted about the underbelly, etc. I was so pleased that someone said what she said. I was also was taken aback a bit when Colbert later that night made fun of the statement in his monologue. Despite some of Williamson's other "whacko" ideas, this comment was profound. Still not my candidate as I am voting for Bill Weld in the Republican Primary and for any Democrat in the general election over Trump. Why, because Trump's leveraging of that "Dark underbelly."
One other kudo for Brooks. The majority of Americans know what Trump is as his actions are self explanatory. So for the pundits to scream "racist" again and again are not necessary and I believe are not nearly as strong as just showing how Trump is the opposite those 5 core American values. Values that I believe most Americans share, even a majority of those that voted for Trump. If the Dems were smart - and beginning now, not waiting until the campaign -they would run short, very frequent, constantly changing commercials on TV watched by independents and Trump supporters, each based upon one of these core issues and contrasting Trump's behavior. There is no reason to fabricate or stretch the truth. Foment that "moral uprising."
4
I think we have some candidates that address the moral issue, as well as the practical needs of the country and all its disparate elements. Mayor Pete is the one that comes to mind most strongly to me. I have watched - in both sets of debates - him address the Christian community, calling them out on hypocrisy and the subversion of their faith by the Creature in the White House. I just hope he starts to resonate more with Blacks. We need someone like him to turn things around.
5
More than anything else, what stands out from this essay is what's left out. Imagine, a sage, a wise man, quietly advocating that a moral outrage should rise up to defeat an opposing immoral force.
But the severe immorality (and for some, illegality) of those who are supposed to rise up is never once mentioned.
David Brooks and his selective blindness is the most startling aspect of this otherwise bland and very common essay. How could it be that there is no moral outrage against those who attempted a coup against Donald Trump? Doesn't such an event rate beating the loudest drum Mr. Brooks has ever taken on? FBI and DOJ executives knowingly presenting false evidence to a Federal Court in order to spy on an opposing candidate -- now doesn't that sound very extreme and dangerous? Not to David Brooks. No, sir. David Brooks and his selective moral outrage is reserved for conservatives who do not fit his most narrow vision. And that's because he loves to write little essays from his little office and not get himself dirty.
1
@Len
You present a teachable moment about false equivalency. A "coup" against even a despicable, despotic, dangerous leader is indeed unacceptable. If you want to call it moral outrage, whatever. But you see, in order to get there, you had to string together four or five conspiracy theories, make aspersions contrary to facts (really? law enforcement are liberal Democrats in the opposition?), and the attempted coup turns out to be a 400-page public report you can freely dissect and criticize, as I'm sure you've done?
So: a hidden shadowy conspiracy versus immorality coming straight from someone's mouth and twitter finger? Not equivalent. My drum is taking a rest on that one.
3
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the point in replacing one kind of crazy with another kind of crazy.
6
Sorry...Mr. Brooks gets sillier by the day. I was a #NeverTrumper before I ever saw the moniker in print but the list of values and Trumps assault on them could apply to Obama or Pope Francis or perhaps, if we got to listen in, to David's private conversations. Just because Trump is personally offensive is NOT enough. I think his persona stinks---BUT by and large the policies have worked, especially when contrasted to what was predicted the morning after the election. (From Brooks to Krugman to Kristoff...their 'end-is-nigh" calls have been OVERWHELMINGLY found wanting.)
As Milton Friedman said, your worth as a predictor is if your predictions are ever...worth... anything!
When the White House moves to Sedona and we're all sent healing crystals I'll take pieces like this seriously.
3
@Carl P
"By and large his policies worked": no nuclear treaty with Iran, no nuclear treaty with N. Korea, new NAFTA same as old NAFTA, no manufacturing job boom, and a trade war gathering casualties and no victory plan.
I compare that to the still echoing chorus of how Obama couldn't get anything done: navigated biggest global economic meltdown since the 1930s, and touched the third rail of American politics - health care - to make the biggest change since the 1960s.
We see affirmative action for born-rich white males at work here.
2
He has no policies. Unless you count making all his billionaire cronies richer. He is just completely destructive, abusive and idiotic. But those may be plusses for you. Not for our country though.
2
Not too long ago, though it seems like ages now, we had a moral leader like the one Brooks describes. He inspired the nation with a message of unity and hope. He reached across the aisle and was respectful even of those who opposed him. He was widely recognized as a man of integrity and revered by America's allies. His name was Barack Obama.
But when his two terms were up, about half the country somehow decided that rather than continue Obama's legacy - and vote for the first female president - it would be better to put a known con-man and reality TV show star in the Oval Office.
4
To paraphrase Leo Durocher, decent guys (or women) finish last.
As usual, Brooks gives in to his religious impulses, as if increased faith in a non-existent god would make us a better people. For those of us who knew and worked with Williamson, she is a gross hypocrite, a chaotic and antagonizing tyrant immersed in the nonsense of A Course in Miracles: a belief system which has no more validity than Scientology, Thelema etc. Anyone who sells God, prayer and magical thinking in books, lectures and recordings is a charlatan. Hollywood and its celebrities relate too well to her narcissism and aspirations to a greater stardom. She's doing this to increase her fame, fortune and power, regardless of her politics of compassion.
David, can I interest you in some snake oil?
4
When will the Dem debates stop being reality TV, which is what Trump turned them into? As long as CNN and others play to the beauty contest model of political correctness, the Dems are doomed to fail in the General.
Brooks is spot on about the value side of this.
Stumble verbally as often as he may, Biden actually epitomizes what they country needs most. He just needs to channel his Harry Truman and get to the finish line.
I am grateful to David Brooks for speaking out for decency, and to Maryanne Williamson, also, for recognizing that what is in our hearts and on our minds need to be addressed in the public forum. I hope some Democrat takes up his challenge ( in addition to Maryanne). And I really hope this editorial sparked the consciences of all journalists and others in the media.
To address the media, in particular, ask questions of feeling and emotion as well as facts, and the real story of the smoldering fear and springlike hope of people everywhere in our country will come out.
1
The only problem with this analysis is that America never really is or has been one country. It is two that are morally incompatible. The sooner the liberal pluralistic states break away, the better, because the illusion of unity is rotten and fake to the core.
"We are all subtly corrupted while this guy is our leader." Only if we follow or acquiesce. Granted, so far that's been the Republican model. Republican's idea of political courage is to respond to the most disgusting Trump comments with "that's unnecessary" or "that's not helpful".
"We’ve never dealt with a figure like this in American history before" Perhaps not as President, but we've had demagogues before. George Wallace is the first to come to mind.
And we've had dark days before. Read the history of Joseph McCarthy's rise and fall.
Ultimately it takes people with courage. And there appears to be precious few Republicans with courage.
1
Why would a privileged White woman care about the legacy of slavery,domestic terrorism,Jim Crow and racism? The answer is that Marianne Williamson has moral clarity and courage.Facing the corrosive reality and effects of White Supremacy head on is NOT a "Wacky idea".
2
David is right — someone has to take on Trump at the level of the soul — someone who isn’t a policy wonk, someone who merely by standing up exerts a countervailing power. Fortunately, there is such a person, and Michael Moore has named her. https://youtu.be/RLYpqPtWC1o
She does not know how to beat Trump. In fact, she will never get to the position of frontrunner for the Democrats- unless they've truly gone off the deep end. This is new age hippie dippie nonsense that resonates with a certain group in the US- she's pandering. If she thinks talking about the spirit and strength "within" in order to defeat Trump, then she's beyond kooky.
2
Democrats should recruit Mitch Landrieu.
Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, etc. can't even knit Democrats together, but Landrieu could. He has a strong civil rights background and progressive views which would appeal to Democratic progressives and, though an outsider, he's not too outside for establishment Democrats. And Landrieu, unlike most current candidates, would not instantly turn away those most needing to be shifted away from Trump's narrative.
More importantly, America needs someone who knows how to ADDRESS Trump's attempt to rebrand America using the cult of the "lost cause." Mitch Landrieu knows how: “I want to try to gently peel from your hands the grip on a false narrative of our history that I think weakens us. And make straight a wrong turn we made many years ago — we can more closely connect with integrity to the founding principles of our nation and forge a clearer and straighter path toward a better [government] and a more perfect union.” He advocates forcing ourselves to look at “the searing truth” through the eyes of children so we can see “what is right and what we must do”. He says if our children’s “potential is limited, yours and mine are too.”
Mitch Landrieu has a path to lift America back up.
“Here is the essential truth. We are better together than we are apart. Indivisibility is our essence.” -- Mitch Landrieu
See his profound speech on this at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/opinion/mitch-landrieus-speech-transcript.html
2
Unfortunately, our society became selfish, racist, greedy. Do not tell me this is not America. Indeed, this is not America of the past, but if is our current America.
1
The fact that this opinion piece has generated so many comments should make it very clear that it hit a nerve. Maybe not the same nerve in everybody ;) but hit it did...
Where is your manifesto renouncing and denouncing the conservative movement and the Republican Party? Until then, you have lost any moral authority to preach, let alone criticize the Democratic party or any of the candidates. The people with whom you identify have completely abandoned human values and decency in order to pursue a cruel agenda based on greed. Preach to McConnell, King, and every other despicable and repulsive Republican politician defending Trump and stop criticizing any Democratic candidate. No matter how much of a Christian you claim to be, you do not any moral authority to preach to any of us until you publicly renounce and denounce the conservative and Republican party. Regardless of what you think, the people I support, Democrats are trying to do the right thing. Can you say the same about the people you support?
6
Bravo to that. However, Brooks is Jewish, but no matter, the argument still stands.
1
OK he made some good points, I'll give him that. I think he dismisses that this is early in the campaign. The messages of each candidate will evolve and hopefully (probably) begin to tackle the moral morass that Trump thrives on and encourages.
I caught a glimpse of Trump's rally in Cincinnati last night. It startled me. I can see what the top commenter on here is saying that perhaps Trump is a product of the country's morality rather than dictating it, but boy does he flame the fires.
3
Everyone assumes Marianne Williamson has "wackadoodle" ideas, because her path in life has been alternative spirituality, not politics or business. I'd argue that any person who has never considered an out-of-the-box idea isn't thoughtful enough to be president.
But the ideas I'm hearing from her make eminent good sense; and she is intelligent, well-informed (and more broadly so than many of the other Democratic candidates) and articulate. Her vision of a moral and spiritual revolution is what we need to overcome Trump.
Brooks is correct: we can discuss and debate policies to address climate change, health care, immigration, etc. and those debates are useful to a point; but unless we lead with an inspiring vision of where this country needs to go spiritually and morally and culturally, we likely will lose.
Four more years of this disastrous administration would mean a much more difficult recovery. I do not always agree with David Brooks, but the values he lists are the simple, true, core American values, and we can win but urging a return to those values.
THEN we continue the wonky debates.
3
How does this sound as a rallying cry?:
Bring back decency with "Regular Joe" Biden.
3
@doc Most of the Democratic candidates seem decent to me, especially in comparison to Trump. That is not a criterion for distinguishing between them.
Biden needs to just go away.
Decency -- you mean like electing as president a person who has provided us with a primer on his preferred method of sexual assault? Sure. Or maybe lying ever time he opens his mouth and the " decent folks" just accept it. ( 11,000 lies and counting)
David Brooks is NYT 'conservative' exemplar.
He says the election is "..about the moral atmosphere in which we raise our children." Really? 'Moral atmosphere' for presidents went out with Bill Clinton -- and the NYT fully abided it.
Brooks further lists his view on American values -- and pointedly leaves out respect for the law. He also omits citizenship.
A very convenient 'conservative' indeed.
2
He's kidding, right? I mean he has to be kidding.
3
Williamson is Fringe and it's a Joke CNN had her there. Watch CNN last night with Anderson Cooper
3
David Brooks, please run for president as a Democrat! You have my vote!
The writer refers to Marianne Williamson's ideas as 'wackadoodle.'
Which ones, specifically? Cuz frankly, the stuff she says makes sense to me.
What she says is resonating with a lot of other folks too, and here's the proof: If you listen carefully to the other candidates, many of them are incorporating her phrases and ideas into their own pitches - a sure sign that they know her ideas are appealing to many voters.
So much for 'wackadoodle.'
3
Two suggestions.
Regarding the value of a unity, every racist tweet of his must be linked to all email actblue type accounts. We click and donate $5 each time. Unify or Die is encouraging contributions, all of which will go to the primary candidate who eventually gets the nomination. Regarding our value of honesty: The Dem candidate that will debate trump need not refute the lie, but should say “lie”, “lie#2”, “lie#3”, etc.
I still think the best way to deal with trump is to mostly ignore him, the same way you ignore the sad old drunk at the end of the bar, the way you ignore the loud mouth jerk in the office, the same way you ignore the racist old grand-uncle at the family reunion.
Yes, deal with him when you have to, but the rest of the time ignore him. Let's be honest, why bother to respond to what he says when he will say something different the next day (or next hour)?
3
You like her platitudes but scratch your head over her policies?Oh, this is an easy fix:
Whoever the next president is should hire MW as a speechwriter.
2
We do not need a New Age Princess amateur. We need a politician who is decent. I wouldn't go to an amateur dentists. Why would anyone even consider Marianne Williamson.
3
There’s a well known saying: every Democratic country deserves the government they have” . If true, then Is Trump our wake up call to the real and dominant feelings in this country, And if so then how did Obama get elected. Which President got in while the “real Americans” were snoozing”? Obama or Trump?
.
1
"The Democrats have not risen to the largeness of this moment."
Don't you mean Republicans?
3
But so many eligible voters stayed home in 2016. All the stars plus Uranus lined up (Williamson might say) for the Dark Night (Knight?). Methinks that if Democrats can rally the forces of light around whomever wins the nomination, as Chance the gardener once exclaimed, "All will be well in the garden".
1
Pretty good evidence that America just wants to be entertained. If a "candidate" like Williamson can garner this much attention from Brooks, the Twitterverse, NYT, et. al. it will be a long road for the Dems race to the WH.
Combined that with gerrymandering, the electoral college, Russian interference, etc. we should all just move to Canada.
2
The most highly recommended comment and picked by the NY Times is one that reminds the readers of the opinion that Trump is only a phenomena of a large amount of voters that have his prejudices of xenophobia, racist, sexist, etc. who have a disproportionate share of power due to the Electoral College.
You just labeled almost half the country is an ugly, condescending way which they are all too aware of and is why Trump got elected in the first place.
Keep on keeping on, and see where it gets you.
1
wow, well said, Amen to that.
so many Republicans giving at-a-boys tells you all you need to know about Brooks—and Williamson.
1
I don't know what you are looking at David. Truthfully. What you are stating needs to be done already has. Every time a Democrat or anyone for that matter tries to point out the lack of decency on Trump's part he just trashes them in his immature, sophomoric way. And his supporters love it. And his spineless party doesn't call him out on it. So it goes on.
When HRC called them deplorables they took up the moniker and made t-shirts to celebrate it. They way they would see it:
Honesty? They don't care if he and his party blatantly lie. Saying "all politicians lie". As if that's some justification. Politicians exaggerate. Donald lies.
Pluralism? That sounds like some sort of yankee liberal socialistic commie talk. Republicans don't care a thing about that.
Sympathy? Sounds like some sort of bleeding heart liberal nonsense. Don't you know? We are a nation of rugged individualists. I got mine you get yours! Your problems are your own pal.
Opportunity? Stop looking for a handout and go out and make your own way.
All the ideals you're mentioning here have been forsaken by the GOP over the last 60 years and the modern GOP voter doesn't care. They only know they want their team to win. Would be nice if those were things they cared about but they don't. For them it's all about profits and consolidating power even if it means destroying the structure of governance, the American dream those ideals underpin and the very fabric of our society itself.
4
Captpike66 , well-stated . Keep on keepin' on , and help get out Democratic voters to do some heavy lifting in 2020 !
1
Unfortunately, same can be said about all those corporate status quo dems as well.
2
Notice how David prevents himself from an “all-in with the Democrats” misinterpretation by referring to the RNC talking points of “offering different groups economic benefits”, sometimes called “goodies,” and “economic redistribution effort.” No David.we are fundamentally looking at the public good for the greatest number of people. Also, is “wackadoodle” respectful? Seems like something Trump would say at one of his more chill moments.
2
David,
If you want to talk about decency, please address your fellow Republicans.
11
I was not always a fan of President Obama, but what David is talking about here is the fundamental awesomeness of Barack and Michelle Obama and their years in the Whitehouse. Maybe that is what makes to extreme of this Administration so overwhelming!
A racist party and president continually spew hate, racism and misogyny. And the blame is on the Dems for not countering this forcefully enough? Mr. Brooks is attempting to whitewash his own party. SAD!
3
Totally wrong. We need an uprising of willingness to destroy the Republicans by any means possible, just as they have committed to destroying our country for the past 11 years, after the unthinkable (for Grand Wizard McConnell) happened and a black man was elected President.
3
"Wow!"
"Amen"
"Exactly!!!!"
it is a veritable tent revival of Marianne acolytes.
Williamson is a New Age wingnut.
Just look up her record on health and illness. She's on record as saying that illness is an illusion.
Seriously? You like this candidate?
5
I think Ms. Williamson's point was that EVERYONE has a dark side (some more than others) and the leader can encourage its development, as Mr Trump has and Hitler did before him. Since many of the commentors like movie metaphors, I'll propose It's a Wonderful Life where the rise of a demagogue can lead good people to their dark side while a moral leader can lead the bad into the light. About 46% were easily led in 2016 and more will follow in 2020 if the demagogue wins. We're in a perilous place and Mr Brooks, long time conservative, sees it too. Ms. Williamson's not presidential material, but I like that she's on the side of the light.
4
if only Trump were not President we could have a debate on who in the Republican Party brought Trump to power.
Trump would not exist but for Newt Gingrich's speakership and "Contract On America.
Trump would not exist but for Rush Limbaugh's national broadcast—thank you ABC—turning political discussion into the an entertaining dark psychic force.
Trump would not exist but for the author of "Bobo's In Paradise" to ever so gently demonize and bring the spewing of hate and mendacity into the acceptable light of day in the rarefied pure air of the NYT's opinion writers.
2
David, you should have written this piece when Newt Gingrich came on the scene. Or Reagan, though I'll admit he hid it better.
I'm not sure what you think Williamson is going to do about this though. Exorcisms only work on supernatural hateful forces, not man-made ones.
2
So funny coming from you Mr. Brooks, a Republican and conservative. You scold Democrats for supposedly not espousing values that they’ve stood for for decades, while people on your end of the political spectrum have been dog whistling their racism and divisiveness for decades. Lo
4
Trump is just the latest, worst incarnation of republican puppet presidents the rich have propped up while they rape American workers. Another will come after trump if the people don't take this country back & make it work for all Americans.
1
Mr. Brooks, You must really want the current resident of our house to continues living there.
No, thank you!
1
What should be noted is that whether or not they can win all the Democrats are interesting and smart. Whether or not Trump can be defeated will only be determined at the end by voter turn-out and not now by trying to get out a crystal ball and guessing (wrong again?) as to who can do it. Marianne Williamson not being taken seriously has a bit of sexism in it--let's be honest, people. She is not a professional politician but the country has shown itself tired of those. I'm glad to see Mr. Brooks acknowledge that it's the gestalt of the campaign that's as important as the policy details. Only Jay Inslee has both. Don't know why he can't get traction. Glad to see Booker getting some.
Hear hear
Well said, sir. I think you have captured the moral center to the times we live in. Whether that translates into support for Williamson or not, it feels like the right way to stand up to Trump ---certainly far better than what we have seen from the establishment "resistors" to this point. But of course, your view will have no impact on the NYTimes readership who consumed a toxic cocktail of hysteria and delusion quite some time ago. They will cheer on the Omar's, the AOC's, and anyone else who has no actual solution the challenges we face so long as they can feel a sense of moral self righteousness in the bargain.
1
I'm surprised to fine myself agreeing with almost the entirety of a David Brooks column! the one quibble I have is with his dismissal of Senators Warren and Sanders as materialistic wonks. Yes, they speak in terms of plans and policies, but they're both rooted in a vision of American society that has a lot in common with the values espoused at the end of the column: fairness, commonality, a sense of Americanness that's about generosity and compassion, not selfishness and demonizing the "other" (e.g. the poor, people of color, non-hetero people, immigrants). Yes, articulate an inspiring and unifying vision; but it needs to be backed up with real plans.
5
Thanks, David. I hope you bring this up on the Newshour this evening.
2
David, I was initially dismissive of Marianne Williamson as too new-agey and woo-woo, but then the second debates came and she said some things that needed to be said. Since, I've listened to her interviews on Stephen Colbert and The Breakfast Club and read her policy ideas on her website. She's thoughtful, articulate, and cares deeply. I like having her around as a truth-teller.
Interestingly, when I listened to her, I thought of you and the things you two have in common, and that I have in common with both of you. The fact that you wrote this editorial pleases me greatly.
6
Well, David Brooks, the Democrats I know locally are onto the immorality of Trump, horrified by his behavior, words, and the expression of those words in policy, and on the moral side of these values--you have described them beautifully.
Donald Trump is going to lose the 2020 election because we hold those values dear, and Marianne Williamson is not the only Democratic candidate who knows this--despite the wonky nature of the recent debates.
2
I don't know David....it seems our "National character" may be closer to what Trump emulates than not. Maybe that IS who we are.
4
@Bob
Nope. Facebook thru Russia has contributed mightily to our decline.
1
@ Bob-
Speak for yourself. The people I know have never been that way.
Maybe Democrats need a chant of their own:
WE ARE BETTER! TRUMP MUST GO!
Keep it simple, keep it strong, keep it consistent.
@PS
Catchy! If that's the most creative you can come up with, then you'll lose! And the world will lose with you!
Trump is who he is, just as he's always been. If you insist at eating at a restaurant with a reputation for lousy food but a sign outside quotes a positive review from a make-believe magazine, you too will get a lousy dinner. He's NOT the president, he's not a leader, and he's not a symbol of national pride or morality. He worships only at the MONEY shrine, hidden away in some obscure private country club. Strange incantations emerge from there, including "greed is good, be a killer, pummel and insult the smallest kid in your class" and so on. Moscow-Mitch goes there frequently as well, clawing and pushing others away to get his fill of the raw meat piled up there. We should know this to be true, that all men are NOT created equal, and the American flag lapel pins have to be removed before you can enter there.
My parents understood this and didn't have to teach us this disturbing fact. America occasionally rolls out the welcome mat, but often there are many places you can't enter (No "fill in the blank" Allowed). And if you want to make a decent living, you have to suffer for it. It would kind-of be OK if our free and fair election system was still self-correcting (ex.-the election of Barak Obama). But it may soon be over, and even a conservative like R.Mueller is teed off about it, although- he's the most emotion-less guy I ever saw. A little indignation- NO, A LOT-would be more appropriate. The GOP has deserted and betrayed us, violating their allegiance to the country.
2
Yes, Mr. Brooks, you’re right, and so is Marianne Williamson. I believe Andrew Yang is in the sweet spot you identify. So much more is possible when _everyone_ has a floor. And that’s just decent.
4
David Brooks is right. We need a harbinger of decency to energize our collective goodness. With that in mind, I’m wondering if we ought to be paying better attention to Tom Steyer. Decency is a cornerstone of his ideology. He comes across as not just another egotistical rich guy, but a man of substance with impressive education, qualifications, passion and INTEGRITY: the antithesis of Trump.
“When you see someone who’s deeply corrupt and anti-American, then we have to step up as a people and call it out and act up.” - Tom Steyer
1
Is Marianne Williamson " the best" to take on Trump? God no... However the fact that someone who has been part of the ' spiritual revolution ' felt the need to participate in a political contest should give everybody pause and is a testament to the gravity of this historical moment. It's amusing, and at times painful to see the contrast between the exclusively materially oriented people and a ' spiritually ' oriented person ( and there are arguments to be made wether she is the best representative of the last category ), however it is very clear that politico-economic ideas alone are not going to cut it in this election. That's part of the reason why Mayor Pete has so much traction, he is the only one who seems to realize the need of jolting the decent, Christian people who fell under Trump's spell. Of course there are Christian extremists who are beyond any chance of awakening, mostly because they are at their core extreme, not Christians, but there is a good chunk of Trump's supporters who await just a sliver of religious discourse to justify to themselves jumping ship. And neither Warren, and definitely not Sanders are offering it, or can do so convincingly. It's going to be a very different type of election that anything we've ever seen, and if the Democratic candidate cannot sore on moral winds, he or she will end up mopping the floors, courtesy of Trump.
2
Is Marianne Williamson " the best" to take on Trump? God no... However the fact that someone who has been part of the ' spiritual revolution ' felt the need to participate in a political contest should give everybody pause and is a testament to the gravity of this historical moment. It's amusing, and at times painful to see the contrast between the exclusively materially oriented people and a ' spiritually ' oriented person ( and there are arguments to be made wether she is the best representative of the last category ), however it is very clear that politico-economic ideas alone are not going to cut it in this election. That's part of the reason why Mayor Pete has so much traction, he is the only one who seems to realize the need of jolting the decent, Christian people who fell under Trump's spell. Of course there are Christian extremists who are beyond any chance of awakening, mostly because they are at their core extreme, not Christians, but there is a good chunk of Trump's supporters who await just a sliver of religious discourse to justify to themselves jumping ship. And neither Warren, and definitely not Sanders are offering it, or can do so convincingly. It's going to be a very different type of election that anything we've ever seen, and if the Democratic candidate cannot sore on moral winds, he or she will end up mopping the floors, courtesy of Trump.
I can't see Williamson as president, but I see value in a role for her, somewhere, somehow.
I also see Buttigieg filling the gap between the policy head and the deeper-questions heart. Maybe after the left-far left brawl clears the field, he'll step into that role.
2
Those who support Trump don’t think he operates against these principles other than when it comes to those they oppose, which is OK by them!
2
“We’ve never dealt with a figure like this in American history before. "
Nonsense. She obviously never heard of Huey Long.
@ AGM-
You got THAT right. I think the only reason more parallels are not drawn between those two is that Long never became president. And I don’t think he would’ve been as bad as Trump is now if he did become president. He was just a demagogue, not a narcissist.
Unity, honesty, pluralism, sympathy, opportunity?
Sounds pretty much like the existing Democratic platform to me.
3
This article touches on the necessity to counter the vulgar meanness of Trump and his cadre of miscreants. Trump employs the magnetism of the worst traits of human nature to control. This administration is analogous to ha horrible train wreck from which one cannot divert one’s stare even knowing a boxcar will probably crush you. Trump’s vileness can only be successfully countered by a campaign of honesty, truth, humanity and patriotic pride. Such a campaign will need to insure that its candidate will ardently address the needs and concerns of ALL Americans and with an unmistakable air of decency.
The American constituency is weary and wary of the polar ends of the Right and Left. It may be difficult for our neighbors on the ultra left, and ultra right, to believe but the vast majority of the American electorate is moderate with both left and right leanings.
I doubt the Democrats can conceive of such a novel idea as a moderate government that speaks to and for the entire nation. I know the Republicans cannot, they have proved that time and again.
2
No president is ever immune from their sometimes imperfect policies. President Obama had his share but I never doubted his selfless decency and his patriotic dedication to the betterment of the lives of all Americans. He was a good man--something I will never be able to say about Trump. The saddest thing for me is that I cannot find one of the values I most cherish and want to teach my children in this amoral mendacious person. When did character cease to matter for millions of Americans? Can they honestly say that they want their children to emulate Trump? If so, we are in a very dark place in this nation.
3
Use Trump as an example of what not to do...
Oh, brother. As if no Democrats have any religion or faith. Yes, she is articulating, along with others, what is uniquely horrific about Trump, but she would be a disaster.
3
Let's just call out the elephant in the room: Marianne Williamson's candidacy is nothing but a self-serving campaign to sell more books, full stop. She stands for nothing by way of actual policy, and is an embarrassment on the debate stage (on the order of Herman Cain, or worse). Her core ideas are anti-scientific, and in fact actually quite dangerous (anti-vax, etc.).
Other outsider candidates (like Andrew Yang or Inslee) have a pet issue to promote, and that I can at least somewhat respect. Not so, here -- Williamson stands only for some poorly-defined version of "love", and has a 0% chance of getting nominated (let alone elected). Let's please refrain from encouraging this nonsense just because it seems entertaining, or because it feels warm and fuzzy.
David, please turn your attention fully to your own troubled party, it's where you do your best work.
6
So, the Beatles were wrong whey singing “All you need is love...”?
@Oron Brokman
This whole candidacy is so wacky, I often can't even tell whether people are being serious in discussing it.
Assuming I'm to take your comment at face value, I don't recall the Beatles (either collectively or individually) ever running for office. John Lennon did support McGovern though, and that worked out just great...
I believe that the world needs love (sweet love) as much as the next person, but that concept in the abstract isn't going to improve the trajectory of the country. As many others have noted, I see that compassion in many other candidates, married to actual policy that reflects it.
1
@Oron Brokman Don’t recall the Beatles running for President...
Hillary ran on "Trump is terrible and I'm not Trump." How did that work?
2
It encouraged the Russian to meddle in our elections by supporting Trump.
@Oron Brokman I think the fix was already in long before.
We need to realize that at a deep psychological level, the point Marianne Willaimson was making that Biden is the good father figure to Trump's bad father. He's warm where Trump is cold; he's comforting where Trump is harsh; he's empathic where Trump is cruel; he's loving dominant where Trump is hostile dominant. In short, he's Trump's antithesis and Trump is right to fear him. For at a deeper feeling level that is what the coming contest is all about, not the "wonky issues" that Williamson warned about and that the candidates are arguing about. Sometimes, we need to contradict my high school teachers and take our "thinking caps" off and don our "feeling caps." Biden is a feeling man who has suffered the tragic, sudden traumatic loss of a wife and a daughter in an auto crash. and more recently a son, but has now healed enough to be the wounded healer that America needs after the immense wounding of Donald Trump. Biden is the true adult in the room who can banish the destructive father that is Donald Trump. [Disclosure: I'm a professional psychologist and follower of Carl Jung.]
5
Marianne Williamson may be right that a great uprising among the country's people will defeat Donald Trump. But she fails miserably because she offers no way she will achieve that outcome. Devising a behavioral solution without any thought to how to achieve it is political dogmatism. This country needs a leader who is as politically pragmatic as well.
1
@J. Franklin
I think that she succeeded in bringing a spiritual dimension into the spotlight, and has people talking about it. I really don't think she expects to be anywhere near the top tier candidates, but if she brings this moral/ spiritual conversation more into the center of the debate we are all winners.
2
i was at first delighted to find david brooks writing this week about "decency", because decency is the key to solving climate change.
decency toward future generations, decency toward other nations, other races around the world, decency to the planet and the organisms we share it with ... with a vast outbreak of "decency," climate change would be licked in no time.
but, alas, another missed opportunity. "decency" for david brooks means you talk nice, look pretty and enjoy a retrospective debate about NAFTA or "softness on crime" (whatever that means).
brooks doesn't want to debate energy policy or a carbon tax; he wants to redefine "what you can say" -- that's censorship, by the way, but speech police in kid gloves. elbow length kid gloves ... the kind any "decent woman" might wear.
is it true that my moral standing is defined by the trumpish "little dramas?" sheer nonsense. nothing but my social behavior and speech defines my moral standing.
unity, honesty, pluralism, sympathy, opportunity ... the "central subject of this election?" wait, i thought it was real world problems like racism, or immigration, or health care, or -- gulp! you can say it! -- climate change. but let's leave the real world to the "materialistic wonks." david brooks prefers the world of vague abstractions, empty labels, and decorous ladies in kid gloves.
3
What a powerful and insightful essay. This is why, despite a reportorial slant that I too often find benighted, I continue to read the New York Times. Simply brilliant, Mr. Brooks!
1
Ah, Mr. Brooks, if only you were privy to the many impromptu conversations now springing up between strangers in public places, and private. People are talking together about the enormity of what is at stake in the upcoming election for themselves and for the country.
If Trump wins in 2020, he will be unstoppable. This is a war Trump has waged, and a war requires troops, hence his base. Marianne Williamson spoke of the dark underbelly.
But remember, Mr. Trump, as someone once said, "You cannot fool all of the people all of the time."
3
Gee Anon. I can understand why you are Anon.
Are you of a mind that any National goals of the Constitution and the Declaration can be achieved without at least a modicum of Unity, Honesty, Sympathy etc. Seems to me
these are the very qualities we are called to from our birth as a nation to apply to the government of the people. And one really has to stretch beyond belief to say that Trump exhibits any of these qualities. He is an example of the opposite on each score. Forget Williamson and and the Author. These are universal statements'
1
I find Brooks's argument fully persuasive, which is why we should be supporting Cory Booker for Democratic nominee and POTUS.
3
True to his Republican roots (despite recent appearance of repentance), Mr. Brooks is being disingenuous, I presume. I'm understating, I know. Sure, he would promote a Democratic Party candidate who hasn't a snowball's chance in ...
3
We are at a crossroads, and we need to decide if we are moving forward as a country or going backward as the rest of the world appears to be doing. The GOP will never be trusted by anyone who is paying the slightest bit of attention.
They have sold whatever beliefs that they claimed they had to the Russians and to a con man.
Morality,integerit, decency are items that you take off the shelf and use when you need them. Either you have them are you don't. Listening to Ms. Williamson is appealing to people. to think, and realize that words have consequences. The GOP have allowed an opportunist to destroy the very fabric of the GOP. At the Nuremberg Trials when the soldiers were asked "Why" the simple minded answer "I was following orders" that was an horrific answer then and its horrific now for the GOP to behave in the manner that hey have.
The second night of the Democrats the majority of the candidates were just like Trump. I would never vote for the hate that was being exhibited by Harris, Booker, DeBlasio, Kristen all attempting to be better than the other. Those smug self righteous smiles, I thought it was the Mueller committee meeting with the Russian loving GOP.
Ms. Williamson had flowery statements but we were suppose to listen just like Mueller wanted us to listen and understand what is at stake. She has every right to provide another path, you choose to listen or not.
We haven't all completely lost our minds, Trump is hate and destruction of ones soul
1
David Brooks has found his moment in this election cycle. He has been a consistent advocate for communitarian values and action. The current occupant of the WH is anything but. Williamson has a good take on one important plank in a platform but however fundamental, it is not enough.
"Many of her ideas are wackadoodle. . . "
Gosh I love that term!
I could not agree more with Mr. Brooks' column, but I think he left out a few other values which I believe are paramount:
Integrity - that should speak for itself
Empathy - people don't want others to feel sorry for them, but want/need help and understanding their plight and how to obtain the tools needed to achieve a better lot in life.
Hope - it's important and crucial to make people aware of the problems we as a nation face. But what is equally important, if not more so, is to have hope and to lead people in that direction. I'm tired of what hearing what is wrong in the country. I want to hear what can and will be done to fix things for the better.
2
Ms. Williamson is absolutely what we don't need. While she's antithetical to Trump, it is the election of someone with similarly broad strokes of wishful thinking and ideas that got us into this fine mess. No thank you.
4
NO! He is not a revolutionary. He is the logical conclusion of a Republican doctrine of “governance as war.”
That doctrine is killing our democracy.
Once more... the Republican doctrine of governance as war IS KILLING OUR DEMOCRACY.
1
Brilliant hopefully Joe reads this soon. And the rest of these "candidates" because the reality is I smell fear, anger, and failure on the debate stage. If the Democrats blow this history will never forget.
Pluralism is the toughest one of the values listed, by far. Many many folks on the fringes left and right do not subscribe at all and in fact, loathe the concept.
1
I wish Mr. Brooks had said we're all Americans instead of a vague and ill-defined one people.
Thank you David Brooks.... From your mouth to the ears of the minions of Trump's supporters who's only defense is anger and self-righteousness. The two days and 6 hours of the CNN debates served only to raise my level of anxiety. It was a muddled mess of impossible expectations that succeeded to fire up Trump supporters and raise their expectations of a second term for the president.
1
Not a new thought, but I don’t think trumpsters read the NY Times. I don’t think a large swath of them CAN read.
2
Mr. Brooks;
Again, spot on. I am always finishing up Section A of the NY Times, in a hurry to get ready for work. Then I see that your column is in the paper. Worth reading it, and running late.
Joe Biden comes as close as we have to what you are describing in the Democratic pack of candidates. Decent and competent.
Hopefully the current occupant of the White House will be remembered as a (washable) stain on our history and character.
Guaranteed that Joe will alienate all the progressive voters and the youth. He really needs to step aside as he is just running so the DNC (Nancy, Chuck, et al) can hang onto their power and continue to take us nowhere while lining their pockets and those of the lobbyists.
No thanks.
1
Subtle corruption is part of the center of this matter. It's like erosion in a field or the shift from healthy microbes to toxic over time. Brooks' essay may be about resilience, the capacity to bounce back. The next election may turn on our capacity for resilience. Affirming who we are is a step in that direction.
2
NO! Politics is a profession, and the presidency requires enormous political skill and experience with government bureaucracy, including compromise with elected officials in the lawmaking process. Trump should convince everyone in the universe and beyond to never ever elect an inexperienced celebrity to president again. Very disappointed in your judgement, David.
1
I've been a liberal Democrat my whole life. I am horrified by the condition of politics these days, including the Democrats. When I read a David Brooks column, I am reminded of the soul of the country and am grateful that he's talking about the deeper meaning and consequences of our times. I marched to Washington in 1958 and 1963 and again against the Vietnam War. I don't think marching is the course to take now; I don't know what to do now except to feel as if I lost a deep part of myself with this era and to get depressed. David Brooks helps put it in perspective a little.
He is right, Williamson spoke to the heart and not the head and it needs to be spoken to. I was a psychologist my whole adult life and attending to one's emotional life is essential. I don't believe that Trump was elected because of economics and practical matters. His was an emotional and irrational election and his supporters continue because they don't "hear" the facts about him; he is a magical figure to them, one who touches some core need.
The Democrats (me) need to address that issue and try to reach the hearts of their constituency and they need to stop nit-picking over facts and programs. Being right doesn't help you win. Williamson is right-being loved is what helps you win.
I never thought I would support a Conservative Republican but I honestly am so appreciative that David Brooks is speaking the truth about the deeper issues of our world.
3
David, we had President Obama, who did all those things and the republicans refused to work with him and tried to de legitimize him at every turn. It is why so many of us feel democracy as we once knew it is doomed.
62,984,825 people voted for him, 2,868,691 less than voted for HRC. That means the 62,984,825 people were willing to tolerate trump's boorishness, racism, misogny, dishonesty, and incompetence. These traits were on full display, well known and documented before the election so anyone of those dt supporters who claim they didn't know what they were voting for is delusional. Yes, some of them held their noses and voted out of desperation or protest, some didn't vote at all , but a lot of these people truly believe in trump. Just look at footage of his rallies to see the adoration on their faces while he stokes their anger and self-righteous "patriotism" and maga values. What do we do about that? Look how low and how quickly, we as a nation have sunk under his, and the pathetic , cowardly GOP's enabling "leadership". Tragically the bottom is not in sight. Policy debates, such as they are, are virtually meaningless. The only thing that matters is getting rid of trump and all of his enablers and starting the process of re-building our self image as a nation and people as aspiring to the impossibly idealistic values this nation was founded on. And yes, I realize how naive this sounds, but what have we left? The next election isn't about trump, it's about us, and who we are, and what kind of country we want to live in. If the vast majority of people in this country allow the republican base to cement control of government, we're toast.
6
@Peter: The way you use the term "we" you quickly dismiss the 62,984,825 million people who voted for Trump, plus all those who did not vote for Trump but now support him. That is essentially one-half of the electorate. Yet you use the term "we" as if you're speaking on behalf of everybody. You're not.
@Peter.... If the majority of this country does vote for Trump, the sad, horrible, bile filled fact is the USA is no longer the beacon of hope it once was. The USA will be officially a racist, bigoted country. If I was younger ( I’m 77...) I’d emigrate if that were to happen.
I cling to the notion that WE outnumber THEM. If we get off our butts and VOTE, we should prevail with such a landslide that trump will not be able to attempt an overthrow of our country( with the GOP’s help, I guarantee...) claiming voter fraud.
Williamson is an anti-science anti-vaxxer. She is also an eloquent and charismatic speaker. In both these respects she resembles Trump, who speaks compellingly and champions ignorance. I don't want a Democratic Trump speaking for me.
Yes, it would be great to have the Democrat nominee be someone who can speak clearly and from the heart about the moral plague that is upon our nation, but that person must also be able to propose and carry out the policies that will wrest power from the hands of those who have been happy to use Trump to their own advantage.
Oh, wait - there's Elizabeth Warren!
4
@Cheryl Kay Marianne is not an anti-vaxxer -- she has already corrected that statement and that didn't seem to get the coverage that the first statement did. And, it was in a broader context. I have heard her say on several shows that she wanted to correct that and she is not an anti-vaxxer.
And, she is certainly not anti-science -- one of her great concerns is the climate crisis and how Trump is not listening to scientists.
1
That's all wonderful, but she doesn't have the slightest chance of winning.
Wrong. Trump is a social reactionary who still sees the world though his 1950s lense. He is a narcissist who has only now been able to succeed by leveraging racism, misogyny, and fear of the other. He has exposed and elevated these, unfortunate, parts of our citizenry for his benefit and his benefit only. His lies are for his benefit only.
Every candidate for the Democratic nomination would improve the moral, ethical, and legal character of the Presidency when compared to Moscow Don.
There has always been an academic argument of the proper allocation of government taxes and spending. In Trump's only significant legislative accomplishment, enabled by a freak minority government, the best tax breaks were for the rich property owners. All about him.
But this did expose that the Republican party has lost any hold on that academic purpose of government. Democrats at least still have an honest claim. So why knock them by saying they are the lost party defending the poor from material want? To somehow make a false equivalence withe the broken Republican party. Stop that whining.
Dear David,
Why are you not asking the Republican members of Congress and their supporters to step up and have some decency and all of the things you ask Democrats to do to save the country?
Is it that the Democrats always have to save and rescue and then the Republicans come along to gut and destroy.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the Democrats thought that pointing out the disunity, dishonesty, xenophobia, callousness, and selfishness of the Republican candidate would win them the 2016 election. Instead, it turns out that a large fraction of the population shares and embraces those traits. And another significant fraction don't worry about the country's dark underbelly because it doesn't touch them directly, so they couldn't be bothered to vote against it. Those two groups made Trump president. And if anything, they've enjoying it even more now.
@Everyman
Darkness touches everybody in the end! It's like climate change, but if you wait until the last imbecile has got the message it's too late!
Any even cursory description of each and every one of the many candidates would show that they all stand for exactly the things you presume to support and this argument of "materialism" is, frankly, silly. Trump simply represents what has existed in the Republican Party since it adopted racism/bigotry in the middle 1960's and has pursued ever since--and continues to pursue even now. And it isn't a question of who is or who isn't a "racist," its that the Republican Party can and does succeed by promoting white people against black people and minorities. The massive shift since 1964 of millions of whites, and not only in the South, from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party is irrefutable evidence. Wallace, Faubus, McConnell, Trump, and all of those despicable Republicans in the Senate all simply know what works in America, it's as simple as that.
I don't disagree that the 2020 election is about "our national character," but no Democrat is going to win by denigrating the character of 30-40% of voters (see: "deplorables"). They do not see Trump as a liar; it's the "fake news" that's been lying to them. They aren't interested in pluralism. They're alright with telling other Americans to go back where they came from, and with keeping out immigrants ("aliens!") at all costs. They don't care about unity. Trump's voters have been sold a lot of snake oil, and they're not going to listen to anyone tell them that until he's out of the picture. Democrats need to find a candidate who can win in spite of our degradation of values, not by promising to fix it, but by giving them what they want and need...fixing it will come later (hopefully).
Again and again, Mr. Brooks, you call on Democrats to save us from the amoral monster, and yet cannot help but sabotage the Democrats efforts to do so. Your put down of the New Deal as only designed to rescue us from material want is one of the most absurd, cynical, disingenuous remarks I have heard said about the New Deal. The depression, Mr. Brooks, was not just an epoch of material deprivation , but of spiritual and moral doldrums as well. Your analysis is deeply wrong, and is all the more wrong because you are trying so hard to wear the hat of spiritual healer. I sympathize with your need to do so. Your own past record of adherence to blatantly immoral stances throughout the most critical years of struggle for civil rights, your sycophant attachment to William Buckley, are cause enough for wanting to do penance. But unfortunately what you evoke now for me is a caricature fashioned after the Catholic prelates of 19th and early 20th century Rome. All efforts to do anything political or social to mitigate the ineffable poverty in the city were blocked by them on the grounds that the poor were an inspiration to individual charity and therefore a valuable aid on the path to salvation. An uprising of decency? That presupposes an indecency to rise against. That would be, an uprising against the president and his party, his indecency, the party's indecency led by Moscow Mitch. That means the Democrats are to do the uprising--as long as its polite.
1
Setting aside Trump's daily domestic outrages , ignoring the Constitution, illegal financial dealings, disgusting twitter rants & attacks, I'd like to see someone explain what Trump's dictator love and support is all about. How has he convinced his supporters that pushing away our longtime allies and embracing the likes of Putin, Kim, MbS, is good for the U.S. and supportive of human rights? His foreign policy lacks morality and it's shameful that he represents us.
I would like to think you are correct, David, but I liken the members of Trump's core support to the guy down at the end of bar who wears his cynicism like a badge of honor. People like that will laugh out loud at your list of values. They're not deplorable, they're incorrigible.
Trump may go but the underbelly of hatred and racism will remain because that has unfortunately become the heart and soul of America. Some other misogynistic leader will emerge who will stir up this hateful underbelly and we will be back to where we are with Trump. Trump may go but Trumpism will continue to be part of us. What we need is not one leader but an army of leaders in both parties who need to shake up the nasty hateful underbelly and bring us back to the caring America once was.
Williamson is a spiritual leader (who writes books) to help people improve their lives.
Which is what this country needs!
She being discounted and mocked which is neither uplifting nor forward thinking for bringing up important truths this nation would prefer to deny. She would be as skilled and powerful facing down Trump as Warren, Sanders or Harris.
She is a truth teller: this IS a dark time.
A President doesn't have to be part of the political world to be effective. Unlike Trump, she really would get "the best people". As long as she and others like Jay Inslee are marginalizedwe will miss important voices of our time.
Williamson is about the farthest thing from a "wackadoodle' as they some.
2
Wow, David! You still adamantly refuse to admit your own long term culpability in this mess by having been a Republican.The Democrats haven't risen to the largeness of the moment? Perhaps they have not shrunk to the smallness of the moment. Do not boil the entire issue to just Donald Trump, the issue is the entire GOP.
While you cast blame on the Democratic Party for not resisting this abomination more strongly (despite only 6 months with the reins of merely one branch of government) you seem to give the GOP a pass. Donald Trump is the end point on a path the GOP has been on for decades-- for most of that time you were on board. Great that you now see the inherent evil of the GOP, but don't blame other's for having failed to stop them.
I agree with you that the country desperately needs an outbreak of decency. It certainly will not originate in the GOP.
1
I beg of you. Someone - *anyone* - print this article out and find a way to get it to Pelosi and other Democrats. I am stuck in Canada right now otherwise I would do it. Seriously. The Democrats NEED TO GET THIS MESSAGE.
1
Is anything more galling in the Age of Trump than being lectured by Republicans on the need to show moral leadership? Take the plank out of your own eye.
Don't know what kind of weird incapacity David Brooks must have if he does not see, hear, understand the sustained moral passion at the heart of Elizabeth Warren's proposals: her deep concern about citizens, her sharp criticisms of greedy corporations, her despair over the deep wounds of many kinds that Trump and his enablers have inflicted across the land. Snap out of it, David, please.
2
Whenever Dem candidates show decency, they're attacked by Reps as "soft" - soft on war, soft on crime, you name it. And when we're wonky, we're attacked as being "elitist" & out of touch with ordinary Americans. Face it, until more voters are educated enough not to be duped by Republican propaganda, we're stuck with that intellectually dishonest party.
2
It must be exceedingly difficult to come to terms with the fact that dancing at the precipice of a slippery slope with a 300 foot fall has consequences. And that the path back up the hill will certainly be very different than the first gentle stroll up.
Years of high-risk Republican behaviors have consequences, David. It was your bedfellows who defined a sensible center as the enemy, while you helped. You can't really claim surprise that people took your rhetoric seriously now, pal. Your words actually mattered - in the worst way.
Thanks for that.
Michelle Obama is the one who can elevate the discourse and remind us what dignity and humanity we all share, trump is an aberration, what follows him is what's critical, just saying
I strongly agree with David Brooks and Marianne Williamson! So let's get the message out and wear the "UHPSO" logo on blue campaign hats distributed to all Democratic candidates and voters. Keep reminding people about the basic values we Americans stand for and support. It can make all the difference!!
I find it interesting that one of your central arguments here is that Democrats want politics and faith kept separate. Yet, you leave out a very popular candidate in Pete Buttigieg who very much lets faith inform his politics. I think your argument is a bit disingenuous Mr. Brooks.
1
@mark shafer
THE ONLY Dem candidate who explicitly says that. Let's face it, most Americans do Not have a good reputation when it comes to reading between the lines, or reading for that matter.
The media's foolish obsession with the reality show candidate in 2016 has a lot to answer for why he now squats in the White House. I distinctly recall that they gleefully reported on him every single day, and that includes the NY Times. While I agree that corruption, racism, lies, and greed are are at the core of our dysfunctional culture today, it is foolish to make Ms Williamson seem like a viable candidate by overstating her importance. David Brooks and others need to look back and see the folly of focusing on outliers. Cory Booker also has a spiritually uplifting message. Pete Buttigieg doesn't hide his religious background. Kamala Harris and even Kirsten Gillibrand call out racism. Julián Castro has a strong message that seldom gets featured in this paper. Serious candidates need to be seriously vetted.
1
It's always amusing to me when Republicans tell Democrats how to win an election; any election.
Thanks Brooks, we don't need another George McGovern to carry our hopes for the White House.
Woo-woo Marianne my be a wonderfully spiritual person but she is not a winner against a Trump, but thanks for the subversive advice Brooks, the once-a-Trump man.
2
I agree that we need a moral uprising. But what you’re missing from the lofty heights of your “compassionate conservative” tower is that the Dems HAVE stood for all of these things from the 1970s on. Nixon, Reagan, Bush and W all worked—sometimes subtly and sometimes not, sometimes from ideological grounds and sometimes from cynical or pragmatic ones—to divide us, and they harnessed race and religion to do so. Embracing the NRA, the pro-life evangelicals, racists and homophobes has been in the GOP playbook since well before DJT, not to mention the hard work the GOP continues to put in to suppressing black and brown votes. You are either too blind to see or too arrogant to acknowledge that. You’re “woke” only to the past four years, not the entire history that preceded it, so you have this ridiculous idea that if we just all act more kindly to each other, we can overcome. There’s more at work here than our feelings or morality—there’s an entire system that’s been built to win political campaigns via division and suppression.
Sometimes, it's not who you vote for, but who you vote against, that matters. This is one of those times.
1
This from the 8/01/19 Washington Post article by Tara Isabella Burton: "To those encountering Williamson for the first time in this campaign, she comes across as a conventional New Age type — an eccentric aunt purveying essential oils. That side of her is real, as when she tweeted that “love IS the answer, and that is as relevant to public policy as to personal behavior.” But there’s a much more specific tradition she emerges from, which is typified by this darker comment in “The Law of Divine Compensation”: “Many people fail to manifest money because on some deep level they don’t think they should.” She has also argued that depression should be considered “a spiritual disease,” rather than “medicalized” and treated with anti-depressants. (When challenged, she said anti-depressants were justified in some cases.) And she’s suggested that people who are overweight may suffer from a deficit of “spiritual intelligence.”" And let us not forget her comments on mandated vaccinations as being "Orwellian." There is way too much at stake in the next election to have any of us throw away our votes on a figure that the GOP and Hair Furor must be delighted to see as a DEM candidate.
I just read a Brooks column about Cory Booker that describes the same values, although he's not mentioned in this article. The two are probably the most similar in spirit, although Booker is far more qualified to be president.
Yes, David, even without getting into Thomasian theology, our collective soul recognizes the the frozen lake at the center of the Inferno that this POTUS has taken this country through betraying its core values. A vile act. We very much need a return to core American values that built this great country from duty, common good, honesty, empathy, sacrifice, and honor.
Ted Ricks
Marianne studied "A Course in Miracles" which emphasizes love and reality. When she speaks, nobody really understands what she's saying. Trump is an established TV personality. Everyone knows him. None of the candidates so far will be able to raise enough money to beat Trump. Trump will win again because the Dem party is corrupted.
One huge problem in your thoughts. It is clear that a substantial portion of the US population LIKE what Donald Trump is bringing out in our culture. Unity? You are joking. Honesty? With so many people liking Trump despite his dishonesty? Pluralism? With our long history of white supremacy and racism? Sympathy? Where? I don’t see much in my fellow Americans except sympathy for me, mine and my kind. Opportunity? Yes, for me, mine and my kind - not for anybody like the poor who deserve all the misery they have and should have more because they deserve it. You are talking about ideals we should have but too many of us just don’t. One thing is for sure about the 2020 election - we WILL get what we deserve as a nation. I pray all the time that we have enough people who care about the ideals you describe to take come chances and make a better USA, but every day I’m seeing it less.
In 2020 there is just one issue...decency versus indecency. Policy issues are meaningless. The only thing Democrats need to run for is against Trump ...every single day. Labeling Trump what he is...a bigot, liar, and sexist will suppress at least a some of his base. Telling people around us who are Trump supporters that he’s a bigot, liar and sexist, over and over again, like a broken record will suppress his base.
David. Please challenge Trump on the Republican ticket. You would get my vote.
Marianne Williamson"s integrity got shredded by Anderson Cooper last night.She bristled with arrogance when confronted with some of her actions and words about anti-depressants.
There can only be decency if democracy is eradicated.
The next president wins simply by not be Trump.
Which means telling the truth, having good ideas, speaking calmly and clearly, and, above all, acting normal.
Normal as the people you know in your life every single day.
From the restaurant owner to the gardener to the school crossing guard.
Remember just plain normal?
1
The problem is not only to defeat Donald Trump. Who knows if Marianne Williamson has the qualifications to run the White House?
If you have to discuss it - then you don’t have it: there is no clear leader among the candidates that could claim the integrity to be a “moral” leader against Mr.Trump - although that appears to be a really easy task. Joe Biden could be close if his campaign manages to make the achievements as vice-president the center of his candidacy. Right now they don’t and let other democrats do the digging for dirt in Biden’s history. The Trump team can just sit it out, take some notes and throw it back on the surviving candidate when it is time to take the gloves off. What many seem not to understand (and that is why they still do not get the Trump appeal) is that rules (...and laws) do not apply to the current President. You can have the greatest moral argument - and the answer will be that you look “old” and “frail”. The Trump team works with personal attacks only and will find a weakness to go after - always. So...how about judging the President on his achievements instead? There are only a few....that should be easy then!
In summary, David Brooks wants thought and Prayers. Elizabeth Warren wants to promote the implement the ideas people are thinking and praying about.
2
"We are all subtly corrupted while this guy is our leader. "
Megalomaniac Trump no more defines me or other Americans than the my last bowel movement did. End of story. Few foresaw Trump's megalomaniac, which is exactly why the American Association of Psychatrists broke the professional rule, "the Goldwater Rule", which is a commitment to not issue diagnosis's on persons not properly clinically evaluated. This is how DANGEROUS Trump really is and they saw, I saw and Marianne Williamson saw it. Trump alongwith the Mitch McConnell Republicans are dismantling democracy and they know it. Trump si indeed PROFOUNDLY MENALLY ILL. He does NOT re-define anything. This is because we DO NOT RELATE TO HIM. Mr. Brooks, please re-consider because you are simply wrong. This said, Williamson is right and I applaude her courage and welcome her voice because of her words. The candidcacy is irrelevant otherwise but she serves us well. Now, go vote blue no matter who!
1
Mr. Brooks is completely ignoring the perils of Trump and that is his appointments to the judiciary which to date have been 70% white males, no African Americans, no Latinos/Latinas. Policy eventually makes its way to the courts. Guess how all of this will shake out for an American future? I'm guessing white male privilege will win out.
We need a government of the people (minority and majority) governed by the people (mix of minority and majority but lead by the majority) and for the people (all the people) not beat down by career politicians, idiologs, thugs and criminals. Do away with the electoral college or we'll have more of the same.
The "dark psychic force" embodied in Trump has been conjured up by the dark psychic forces embodied in the GOP over the past 30 years.
From the author of the "Contract On America", to the author of "assume room temperature" and yes even the author of "Bobo's in Paradise."
Thanks Mr. Brooks, but I don’t need a life long Republican proselytizer to tell me what’s going on in the Democratic mind. Don’t worry your pretty little head about it, the Democrats have faced the spiritual results of Republican greed before and they know how to defeat this monster. They have the example of FDR who defeated Republican fascism in the 1930’s and JFK who faced down Republican fascists in the the 1960’s. Both of these men were spiritual leaders at heart and they inspired the entire country to reject the sick doctrines of greed and hate that animate Republicans and united America behind shared humanistic goals. FDR defeated Nazism and promoted an economic Bill of Rights, JFK saved the world from nuclear holocaust and began the exploration of outer space.
Trumpism is nothing new, it is simply the return of unregulated greed and treason to the the highest levels of government where it is again visible and repugnant to every patriotic American. The Democrats have faced evils bigger than Trump and the Russians and they know how to ride this horse. The fact that Mr. Brooks finds the Democratic solution incomprehensible is the predictable outcome of his intellectual blindness to a morality that exists outside of his religious conservative shell. The country needs a revolutionary leader again and one will arise and we can be sure that Mr. Brooks will criticize him daily as he fixes the problems that Republicans have gotten us into. How sad to be so blind.
1
Conservative Republicans sowed the seeds and made the ground fertile for the likes of Donald Trump.
That includes Canadians writing about Bobos in Paradise.
The onslaught of columns this week which point to the Democratic Party 'failing in THEIR mission' to right the wrongs of Trump's America is astounding in avoiding the elephant in the room.
Why are Brooks and Stephen's blaming the victims as it were?
Why is the duty of the Democratic Party to right the ship? How about taking on the total abdication of moral and decent leadership of the entire GOP in the face of Trump?
How about taking it to Moscow Mitch's feet and placing blame for lack of morality and decency squarely on HIS shoulders? Or ask Mark Meadows why he supports every vile thing Trump has ever said in his silent supplication?
This is not only a Democratic problem. The libertarian wing of the GOP love personal responsibility. Mr. Brooks should take personal responsibility seriously and evaluate his own complicity with the GOP collapse in the face of Trump. Make his fellow Republicans come forward to raise again those values we hold dear in America and repudiate Trump.
At the end of the day Trump is just one, 1, man. If he was gone, what would the GOP do? Wither and die too? Check his given power now. Lord knows the Democrats are trying.
2
Very interesting
Let me say this we wouldn't have Trump if we had not had Obama. I thought the sky was bluer the day he got elected. I was naïve. Many whites hated him as they felt they were loosing their entitlements & identity.
I am stunned by Trump's support. Its about entitlement. A retired white couple who volunteer at an African American museum are closet Trump supporters. They like African Americans but they like their white entitlements more. They don't want to loose them or have their grandchildren loose them. Trump's support is very deep. This is not the 1960s where we thought we could make the pie bigger and give everyone a slice. People believe the pie is not getting bigger; so people (whites) just plain don't want to share or be fair or descent. Just very depressing.
1
David Brooks often charms me. I won't ever forget his story of how at high school he already defined himself by his writing so that when a girl turned him down for a date and went off with another guy, his stunned reaction was "But I am a far better writer than he is."
But Brooks has a weakness for "interpreting" events in terms of world-historical forces and social tectonic shifts. He gives his readers nosebleeds from altitude sickness.
That may be why he has fallen for this false Messiah, and swallowed her bloated overripe pseudo-profundities about "dark psychic force of the collectivized hatred" and the "racism, the bigotry and the entire conversation that we’re having here tonight."
This is worse than swollen nonsense. If it is taken seriously, it will produce the opposite effect from what Brooks intends -- it will encourage a sense of helplessness, a feeling that we are at the mercy of forces beyond our control. It is even far worse because it is false. Sweeping charges of bigotry and racism are the hallmark of a quack.
Yes, Trump is a coarse bully, he makes stuff up, he is forever picking fights, but to make him out to be devil incarnate in Brooks' theodicy who must be ousted by an "uprising of decency." gives him too much credit and too much blame. Trump did not invent the practice of attacking "whole cities." The Democrats on the podium routinely attack whole genders (so long as they are male), races (if they are white), corporations, the 1%, cops, and more.
1
The young leaders of Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School got it right - and they are still going strong.
It’s time for all righteous Americans to show their moral outrage at the levels Trump (a racist, womanizing, ignorant, self serving, lying thief) has been dragging us down to since the last election.
He has always been a vile reminder of evil and greed in NYC. That will be his international legacy.
We want a better world.
It should start in September with a massive country wide turnout flooding the streets and continue throughout the election cycle.
And NEVER miss an election - even if it’s for dog catcher - again.
We are fighting for the soul of our Democracy!
2
If we need someone has the moral, spiritual and intellectual capacity who is also ready to reshape the fundamental foundation of our democracy, let's get Mayor Pete in the Whitehouse.
1
Yes, Marriane Williamson spoke the deepest, most important truth at the debates. And yes, she knows we must have leadership that speaks with power and authority to the moral, ethical, spiritual soul of America in order to seize this critical moment in our history and evolve us into the new, unified, kind and thoughtful nation we can be. And, she does that very well. Policy wonks are a dime a dozen and always a key part of a leadership team. Singular leaders that move the masses do so out of moral authority (MLK, Gandi, Buddha) or fear (DT, Hitler). Williamson is not a politician and is in the lineage of the former. Americans are being exposed to different ways of seeing US and a different type of power in Ms. Williamson. Moral leadership, which includes deep truthtelling, is an extremely powerful force for good that is most important in a President in these dark and most unconventional of times.
2
Why is no one talking about Tulsi Gabbard who combines decency with competence and experience?
This friend speaks my mind.
A lot of people knew how to beat Floyd Mayweather Jr. also.
How did that work out?
Make some attempt to stop the left right boxes into which
You place people. Not David in particular almost everyone.
I’m looking at Ms Williamson as an opposite of Trump ,not a
True candidate for the presidency.She Maybe ,I don’t think she is.She is an Advocate of Democracy, a supporter of racial
Acceptance, she values equality,Strongly defends the truth
About what this country is about ,and openly tells those
Democrats running for President to pay attention to what our
Country needs not just to money and power, and winning.
1
Maybe it's me but I am holding hope that by the time we've winnowed the Democratic hopefuls to two or three, we will all come to our senses and do what we need to do to get rid of the scourge that Trump is. We simply cannot go on with such a dystopian government and headed by a total disaster of a president.
We are, at the end of the day, better than this.
300
Democrats should recruit Mitch Landrieu.
Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, etc. cannot even knit Democrats together, but Landrieu could. His strong civil rights background and progressive views would appeal to Democratic progressives and, though an outsider, he's not too outside for establishment Democrats. Plus, unlike many current candidates, he would not instantly turn away those most needing to be shifted away from Trump's conservative narrative.
More importantly, Landrieu knows how to address Trump's attempts to use the cult of the "lost cause" to rebrand America. He says, “I want to try to gently peel from your hands the grip on a false narrative of our history that I think weakens us. And make straight a wrong turn we made many years ago — we can more closely connect with integrity to the founding principles of our nation and forge a clearer and straighter path toward a better [government] and a more perfect union.” He advocates forcing ourselves to look at “the searing truth” through the eyes of children so we can see “what is right and what we must do”. He says if our children’s “potential is limited, yours and mine are too.”
Mitch Landrieu has a path to lift America back up.
“Here is the essential truth. We are better together than we are apart. Indivisibility is our essence.” -- Mitch Landrieu
See his very profound speech on this at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/opinion/mitch-landrieus-speech-transcript.html
10
@Bob Burns Good demonstration of the word 'dystopia' there, Bob. "An imagined state or society in which there is great suffering or injustice, typically one that is totalitarian or post-apocalyptic." Operating word being IMAGINED.
5
Bob Burns, by my measures (and they are pretty objective) we as a country are more prosperous and more at peace in the world than in January 2017 when Donald Trump took office.
Donald Trump does offend some people. But that's a feature, not a bug. The late Steve Jobs of Apple fame said it best when he criticized Barack Obama: "I'm disappointed in Obama. He's having trouble leading because he's reluctant to offend people or [tick] them off."
Steve Jobs went on to admit that he didn't have that problem. Neither does Donald Trump. As Trump said in a zinger directed at reporter Jim Acosta, "I don't really care about offending people. I sort of thought you would know that."
Donald Trump has his faults. He would, for example, be a terrible senator. But he gets things done. He doesn't spend a lot of time debating or adding to his resume. He figures out a way to get people to do what he wants them to do.
That's a rare talent. None of the Democratic candidates have it. You can have your candidate. I'll take Donald Trump.
2
Per Brooks "The modern version of the Democratic party emerged during the Great Depression to solve one problem: material want".
Ummm? Material want like: food, a job, their house back and farms back?
Lets look a Republican wants:$1.5 trillion dollar tax cut for corporations (40% reduction in tax rate) (Koch brothers smiling), $5 trillion on bogus war in Iraq and Afghanistan (Haliburton and others defense contractors say: thank you. Amazon and others paying zero taxes.
Yep Brooks. Democrats really need to reduce their "material wants".
2
In his own wonky way, Brooks is saying that Dems need a candidate who CONNECTS at the emotional heart of light as opposed to darkness of Trump.
Plans (Warren) and Anger (Bernie) no matter how well conceived or justified are NOT the same as channeling the light that Williamson speaks of and that Brooks refers to.
And to every D that dismisses her as moonbeam maybe ask yourself how she is wrong about Trump.
I actually think that Booker has come the closest to this of the major candidates. He had the best debate performance on Wed. He’s still a long shot, but like the Mets, never count out a good starting rotation.
2
Tuesday night Hickenlooper Bullock, and Delaney all tried to say exactly what Brooks is talking about. In fact "Hick" was finally about to squeeze in a comment that if we talk about programs Americans don't want "we might as well Fed-Ex the election to Trump".
The trouble is that the media wants what sells and the loudest, most confrontational, candidates are the one's to which they a 75% of the time cutting off the governors and mayors that are trying to say exactly what Brooks is talking about
1
A warren Buttigieg ticket, would bring back integrity and also be inclusive—especially of the youngsters who will need to cope with the consequences of what we’ve decided so far. Pete’s account of finding love and also embracing the god that created him is a story America is ready to hear.
1
I had wondered how Ms Williams ever made it to the debate stage with her touchy-feely outlook. Having watched her in the 2nd debate, however, I was impressed by her articulation and moral qualities but her moral standing is not enough to go against Trump without a solid program behind her. All of the candidates - my God, even a homeless person on the streets - has more moral backbone that this Caligula now in the White House. We need straight ahead, sensible policies to propose to the American voter backed by integrity and experience and appeal to most voters. Joe Biden has those qualities. Ms Williams lacks the experience and political know how to lead the country and cajole a sometimes unruly congress. I thought about the candidacy of Ralph Nader. If he had won in 2000, did he expect to govern on the basis of his moral authority alone? Naive.
1
Morals/Ethics/Decency, what have you, are middle class characteristics, the poor can’t afford them the rich don’t need them.
Around 2014 (year 6ish of the Obama Presidency) some agency (census or labor or whatever) announced that the middle class had fallen below 50% for the 1st time in decades.
The GOP has been waging war against the middle class since the Harding administration. They finally gained traction with Nixon and Reagan admininstration (the median wage has been flat since 1972, which means most people who work for a living have had 50 years of declining expectations).
The GOP has only 1 prime directive. The ever greater concentration of wealth and power on behalf of the wealthy & powerful. They do this by attacking the agency of other groups bargaining power (workers/unions, middle class/quality affordable higher education, very poor/ACORN) while reinforcing that of the rich (corporations, see Citizens United).
To get elected the GOP used to con the middle class that they were the champions of values. With the collapse of the middle class I wondered how they’d ever win another national election. Enter Donald Trump.
So decency is a middle class characteristic.
If you want to see a more decent society then push for the expansion of the middle class in both directions.
The only candidates credibly doing that are Warren and Sanders.
If you want decency and are not politically progressive then you suffer from cognitive dissonance.
3
Dear Mr. Brooks, what has happened to you? What has happened to your perennial skepticism and your ability to reinforce your brand of realpolitik that I hear you espouse each Friday on PBS News?
I do agree that discussing the soul of the nation is very important....just as an umbrella is essential in the midst of a heavy rain storm. However, I find it surprising that you started off your column so enthusiastically embracing Marianne Williamson's particular words. Williamson did speak to the fraught future our nation faces. However her overly rehearsed talking points were tinged with a tone of privilege, wealth and distance (that reminded me of Mr. Macron). If Ms. Williamson could descend down from the heavens and just speak plainly to the average person, perhaps more Americans would be more receptive.
Mr. Biden used to be able to articulate the big picture in a more folksy way, but is he still able to do so? Will he be able to know how to effectively blunt Trump? Only time will tell.
1
Ms. Williamson may in fact be prophetic but she is vox clamantis in deserto. She is speaking about values and of compassion where there is hardly any left. As loath as I am to speak this way, I am reminded of the early church historian, Joachim of Floris who spoke of "dispensations.". It wasn't the same as the nasty modern dispensationist theology. Joaquim warned that skepticism is essential and that the triumph of goodness was somewhat pie in the sky.
I'm all for the 5 values we all share listed at the end of the piece. But really, some of those materialist values are important. There needs to be something included about the right of people to food, housing, and education. Nothing on this list is going to exist, or will deserve to exist, if this basic material requirement isn't recognized.
Maybe we can't agree on how the right to the material basics is fulfilled - but agreeing that this right exists is where everything starts.
3
How can you think what Marianne Williamson stands for is what this country needs but she shouldn't be President but instead other Dems should run on her platform? How about if we all vote for who resonates with with is NOT who we are manipulated on voting, we would see a different politics? Marianne Williamson is who I am supporting and no one will gaslight me to choose otherwise.
2
For too many, supporting Trump is like having faith in a religion and he is their god. And they feel anger, even fury to those who denigrate their divinity with facts.
Can the rest of us overlook our differences in policies and candidate choice to rise up together in support of our common human values? I fear not but will continue to strive to accomplish that. It’s our only hope...and our church es can play an important role..(and I say that as an atheist!)
3
I agree. It's the big picture we need to look at and not get lost in the details. Marianne sees the big picture from a holistic spiritual (not religious) view, and isn't afraid to speak truth to the dark reality we are living in. She speaks on terms I think go over most people's heads, therefore they call it ridiculous, woo-woo or some other disparaging term.
Being able to see the root of problems, allows us to eliminate problems, not merely manage them. She could provide the vision and leadership to direct a well-qualified, ethical cabinet to implement the healing and change both Democrats and Republicans desire. Mediating our human needs would allow us to evolve individually and a country economically, environmentally, globally, racially, etc.
BTW, Andrew Yang also is looking at the big picture, albeit from an economic view. People hear $1000/month and are either thrilled or turned off, but it is the back end of this proposal - the whys and how’s that reveal the benefits of an UBI to our country. Beyond having more money in your wallet, UBI provides a solution to numerous problems we are facing and not just the financial ones.
2
Far from being interested only in solving "material want," the Democratic party that emerged in the 1930s was deeply involved in healing our scarred physical environment, protecting human rights, and enabling the pursuit of happiness.
Efforts to ameliorate and stop the spread of the Dust Bowl probably prevented an ecological catastrophe. FDR's "Four Freedoms" advocated the extension of human liberty to people "everywhere in the world." Countless WPA projects brought free music, books, and art to millions of people throughout America.
Also, for the record, Mike Dukakis is the biggest mensch I've ever encountered among politicians. Mr. Brooks really ought to get out more.
3
“Politics should be separate from faith. Politics should be separate from soulcraft.”
David, politics should indeed be separate from faith and soul-craft in a direct way. It’s for politicians to propose and enact fair and compassionate legislation that helps all the people, and to communicate in an intelligent and respectful manner without stoking hate and fear. These things do have a relationship to morality and ethics, but people’s souls are best left to their own devices.
3
In other words, Trump is creating a national Jim Crow. If he is allowed to continue, there will be an America for just "White America", and everyone else.
Trump has a minority on his side, but that side has a great deal of money and use the pulpit to perpetuate Trump's vision of America. An companion article, in this paper, has the pastor of First Baptist Dallas (Jeffers) see no racism in Trump's rhetoric. This church is very powerful in Dallas, and it home of its 1% elite.
Ms. Williamson articulated the problem very well. Unfortunately, thanks to poor moderation, and materialism among the moderators and candidates, no one is addressing the fact6 that is country is morally and ethically bankrupt. The main goal, of most Americans, is to make money, accumulate wealth and gain it by any means possible. Trump was elected because he embodies what is wrong with this country.
Next month, it is doubtful the ABC will address this moral and ethical bankruptcy, during the Democratic debate. It looks like Ms. Williamson si a cry in teh wilderness.
3
Mr. Brooks what makes you think using words like unity, honesty, pluralism and sympathy in your argument for the 43% who voted for Trump would change their minds? These people are a lost cause. Such words can possibly sway the fast disappearing group of independent voters; but the lofty goals you mentioned must fall on a fertile and open ground to take root. When the even the church-going so called evangelists have turned away from the worthy goals you suggest and are part of their religion have embraced Trump, what hope do we have what you suggest will work? Last is opportunity- that would work, but for that the voters must think that they have better opportunity under a president other than Trump. And only when people begin hurting by Trump’s policies, they will turn to exploring opportunities - economic, healthcare, education and retirement, etc. And such things can only be shown through plans and not platitudes. Trump has done it once, but is less likely to work again. Farmers who lost China markets and the manufacturers who lost European markets would not be fooled again; they would like to see visions backed by concrete plans. You may not agree on the Democrats’ plans but it is better to have some rather than none.
4
David, I completely agree with your analysis of the key characteristics our country needs in our leader, the values of unity, honesty, pluralism, sympathy, and opportunity. These values perfectly describe what Cory Booker has represented and promoted his entire life. It may have been a Freudian slip when Joe Biden addressed Cory as "future president" during Wednesday's debates. But it is clear that even Mr. Biden, who is assumed to be the most appropriate candidate by many people, is eagerly hading over that role to Senator Booker. This entire country needs to give Cory the attention and support that will allow him to set our country on its best path forward in every respect.
2
I have read too many articles that place the entire onus on the fate of our country and national character on the shoulders of the Democratic Party. If Republicans prioritize morality, as so many of them claim, do they not share some of this responsibility? Is there no sense of urgency among themselves to correct this untenable turn of events? Isn't this a great chance for redemption for them? Apparently not if it comes at the price of losing an election, even if it would mean a victory for the nation. In order for this intense grip of partisan politics to dissolve, democrats can't be expected to be the only grown ups in the room.
9
Mayor Pete hits all these points--unity, honesty, pluralism, sympathy, and opportunity--without any wackiness. He has been grounding his entire campaign in values first. He also very consciously does not give any more oxygen to Trump than necessary whereas Marianne is likely feeding the latter. I am surprised you are not pointing to him in this piece.
15
I couldn't agree more! I am just concerned that at his current station in life and experience, he is unelectable... but we need more candidates like mayor Pete. someone with intelligence, critical thinking skills, and probably most importantly... compassion and the ability to articulate these tenants to others. I support mayor Pete, I wish the country would get behind him as well.
6
@Doug
Buttigeig has more executive experience than Trump and Obama did. He comes across as having more knowledge about our policies, political history and practices of governance than most candidates, with a great personality and military experience to boot. Having a president with intellectual curiosity and drive, the ability to process problems and formulate solutions based on measured reasoning seem like better attributes than having built buildings and hosted TV shows. He also won elections twice in the midwest and would energize the young vote.
5
I think David forgets that he, as an American, also has the responsibility to do and say the same things he expects the Democratic Party to do and say. These times call for every American citizen to stand up and speak out. Not only to tell someone else what to do, but to do it themselves.
Do feel free to take your own advice, David, and to call out each and everyone, beginning with your fellow Republicans (the ones whispering in the shadows and the ones in the Congress) to do the same, and then you can preach the same to every other American. This problem - the moral rot epitomized by our President - requires all hands on deck!
6
Here's a question that Mr. Brooks might entertain in a future coolumn. What is the connection between Marianne Williamson observations cited here and the beginning of impeachment proceedings?
1
Apparently, Mr. Brooks did not pay attention to Sen. Amy Klobuchar. I am not sold on any one or three of the candidates yet, but while most of the candidates fell into the trap set by CNN to get them to fight and nit pic with one another, Ms. Williamson and Sen. Klobuchar stayed out of it. Even when Mr. Tapper directly invited Sen. Klobuchar to criticize her fellow candidates on the stage, she refused to do so and spoke about honesty, unity, integrity. So, I give kudos to the candidates who did not play CNN's game.
Mrs. Klobuchar has moved up on my list of the candidates. I do not have a top person yet, but she is now one that I will listen to more closely.
7
I guess I agree with this. Culture and morals are important in a candidate, and Bernie Sanders is still miles ahead of the other candidates. This is a man who was arrested protesting segregation in Chicago, a man who deeply cares about senior citizens who can't afford insulin.
It's the centrist candidates who derive their support from economic and practical considerations. Bernie and Elizabeth are clearly the more exciting, moral, personally honorable candidates, and are capable of bringing people together as Americans committed to a shared vision.
Moderate democrats are choosing corporate the corporate candidates for economic reasons, or out of fear--not because Kamala Harris or Joe Biden are spiritually inspiring.
2
Mr. Brooks's appeal to voters to think about "our national character" and "the moral atmosphere in which we raise our children” is laudable. Right now, both are being defined by the new norms set by President Trump and his minions. They have already corrupted the national character and the atmosphere they have created is anything but moral.
Brooks is right: Democrats don't have the language to deal with Trump at his level. That is something they can be proud of. At the same time, they should be ashamed that they don’t have the guts to confront a man who has proved to be immoral and racist.
We all can agree with Brooks’s diagnosis of the illness the country is afflicted with. But we have to part with him when he says that “the central subject of this election … is cultural and moral.” That should be the central subject, which whoever wins the election should be preoccupied with.
I hope Brooks is aware that it was his ability to offer, even without any concrete plan behind it, “economic benefits” to “members of different groups” that won a culturally and morally bankrupt person the presidency in 2016. If so, how can he condemn Elizabeth Warren’s and Bernie Sanders’s promise of those benefits, with concrete plans to attain them?
I applaud Marianne Williamson's emphasis on the need for “a spiritual crusade” in the country and the profound wisdom in what she said in that connection. But the crying need of the hour is to find practical ways to defeat Donald Trump in 2020.
5
Unless or until the Democrats get serious and address the two or three serious issues confronting the country, Trump will win again. So far, the four debate nights have presented a sand box of little children- fifteen who have no business being there.
Mr. Brooks,
Good summary of which end of the spectrum of fundamental human values the opposing candidate(s) will need to shift toward.
While more abstract than those on your list, would throw in respect for the rule of law, as without it, we would all be much like Mr. Trump and his ilk.
2
While the main point of the editorial is a good one, it misses the irony that Trump emerged a response to the ethnicity-based, balkanized spoils system promulgated by the Democrats and "progressives". Perhaps it is no surprise, then, that the response of Democrats to Trump is to double-down on the ethnicity-based spoils system. Like Trumpism, this politics of identity practiced by Democrats is morally corrosive because it suggests that identity rules over character. All to say, progressives (e.g., the so-called "squad") and Democrats have participated in this appeal to lowest common denominator every bit as much as Trump. Trump is not some isolated "phenomenon", but emerges from our cultural zeitgeist. The solution, then, is not of party, but must come from the people, who own the responsibility to push forward candidates that speak the values Brooks enumerates.
@terrance savitsky
I don’t disagree with your suggesting identity politics has engendered a knee jerk reaction in American political zeitgeist (it is difficult to not feel the election of our first black president was the starting bell, and it is still reverberating), but I am baffled as to how Trump’s base is okay with “to the Uber wealthy go the spoils” because that is the system the current administration is doggedly peddling.
@JH It seems that most of us are "mood" motivated. Trump supporters perceive a double standard in the disapproval Trump receives in the mainstream press while Democrats are lauded for focusing on identity. The result seems to be that Trump supporters are willing to ignore his venality, narcissism and utter childishness in order to deliver a blow against the liberal establishment. Democrats, however, appears to implicitly - if not explicitly- recognize this slap and have responded by doubling-down on identity politics. All to say, it's not enough for voters disgusted with Trump to pick someone else. That someone needs to move us past divisive moodiness towards real solutions; for example, let's all get behind addressing endemic urban poverty.
This a most thoughtful, accurate and useful analysis. Indeed, Mr. Trump has laid bare the inherent weaknesses in the political system for us to see if we care. He has shrewdly and cunningly exploited them to further his and his family's financial interests for years to come. The presidency is no better than a business opportunity except it is on the taxpayer dollars. His verbal and written assaults of the last years are so un-American as any reasonably successful immigrant would vouch. It is simply not one faces in their daily lives, quite the opposite. So, this is the crux of the matter that needs consideration, recognition, and embracing by the Democrats. Yes, indeed, you are correct that all of them are blissfully unaware and will likely miss the boat again.
3
Touché David Brooks! I too am awaiting this yet to be determined Democrat in this moment to step up. We are battling for the soul of this country. Who is with us?
1
@Swimming Mother
Even a perfect candidate cannot fix the collective "soul" of America. Anyone who has grown up in an alcoholic family (which could be the majority of us!) knows that you can't fix anyone other than yourself.
Denial of reality and denial of complicity are the norms in this country. Until we each individually acknowledge our national delusion of limitless consumer capitalism and oil dependence and do something to correct course, we are doomed. This is a spiritual matter of the highest order.
She may be right about decency, but in the past she has not extended that to women with postpartum depression-anxiety.
Her words about using medications to alleviate the severe suffering that that condition causes have shamed and still shame women who choose to get medical treatment for the life-threatening condition that postpartum depression is, and discourages other women and their families from seeking or maintaining what can be life-saving relief -- relief that can have long-lasting benefits not just for the new mom, but for her children and her family.
Is medication the only treatment needed? No. Is it often a, or the, critically important piece of the healing & recovery puzzle? Yes, indeed; and the Marianne does much harm, lasting harm, by using her fame and the trust vulnerable others place in her to promote her bad advice in this regard.
[the democratic party] . . . "is a secular party, trapped in a Lockean prison: Politics should be separate from faith. Politics should be separate from soulcraft. Democrats believe they can win votes by offering members of different groups economic benefits and are perpetually shocked when they lose those voters."
Why is this not a debate topic during the democratic primaries. Why aren't there any references to God or gods in our constitution, and, why does it seem that the vast majority of voting citizens in the U.S. have forgotten this?
42% of all eligible voters of the most prominent democracy in the world sat home in 2016. 87% of eligible voters under 30 sat home in 2016.
Obama energized the vote. Hilary lost 4 key core states that Obama won. She was more than qualified and spoke of unity, but did not have what it took to get out the vote.
Is kindness and talks of unity good? Yes. Is it what will motivate more voters to get to the booths? Doubt it.
Will talks of free health care and free college get some rural republicans to switch hit? Quite possibly. Will it motivate young people to get out the vote? Undoubtedly.
Elections are won with votes.
3
@doc007
Actually talks of unity and kindness has worked! Recall Obama's campaign slogan: Hope and Change.
David: Points well taken but RE: "Bernie Sanders has been a dialectical materialist all his life ....": That term does not mean what I take you to mean by it. If you check it out, I think that you will agree, and possibly retract that turn of phrase.
2
I agree that asserting values is critical, but
Brook's values are too numerous and too heady. I would say:
Opportunity to succeed or fail based on our actions, not birthright.
Freedom to not have our words, beliefs, and behavior regulated by government.
Goodness to care for and respect others around us.
Thank you for this thoughtful and wise essay...I am left wondering why the call to act is only up to Democrats? I wish there were more Republicans willing to come forward in support of those same values.
5
"If only Donald Trump were not president, we could have an interesting debate over whether private health insurance should be illegal. If only Trump were not president, we could have an interesting debate over who was softest on crime in the 1990s. If only Trump were not president, we could have a nice argument about the pros and cons of NAFTA."
David is, of course, NOT referring to the working class here, when he says "we." He is talking about his own cohort. He is talking about the media elite. He is not interested in allowing us unwashed masses to have a say in these debates, because he fully disagrees with their policy preferences.
2
What I like about Williamson is that she is a visionary.
In his own way, Donald Trump is a visionary too. But Trump's vision is one of fear, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and homophobia. It is a vision of white supremacy--African-Americans on the back of buses, women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, and LGBT people in the closet. And many of the people who he has appointed to help him carry out his vision have been cronies, incompetent, or crooked. The few people who did not fit these categories, such as Nikki Haley and Rex Tillerson, have left his administration.
Williamson's vision is one of love, hope, inspiration, and renewal. We don't necessarily need a policy wonk in the White House. That is what Cabinet officers and the executive departments are for. Their job is to carry out this vision. Imagine Kamala Harris as Attorney General, Elizabeth Warren as Secretary of the Treasury, Cory Booker or Pete Buttigieg as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Julian Castro as Secretary of Homeland Security, Steve Bullock as Secretary of the Interior, and Jay Inslee as Director of the EPA, among others.
I'm not ready to jump on the Williamson bandwagon. Not yet. However, I have serious doubts about whether any of the four leading candidates (Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Harris) can beat Trump. In the meantime, I agree with Mr. Brooks and his contrast between Trump and Williamson needs to be taken seriously, in my opinion.
3
I understand she is anti-vaccine. So like Trump her appeal is to emotion rather than reason. Trump is not the problem. The problem is trusting emotion over reason.
2
"This election is about who we are as a people, our national character. This election is about the moral atmosphere in which we raise our children."
Then what was the last election about? It is not as though the character and (lack of) morals of DJT ever required a decoder ring in order to identify them.
7
Oh David Brooks, I so agree with you that rational economic arguments are not going to defeat Donald Trump. But I’m hard pressed to believe that the values that you mention will get there either. Trump has successfully cast minorities as the “other” and therefore appealing to unity and Pluralism don’t work to the group he’s speaking to. Honesty? That’s out the door. I think he has successfully portrayed the media as dishonest. Sympathy. Well I think the belief is that sympathy should be reserved for the in group first, not immigrants. Opportunity is a good one but that message pales in the face of fear. Fear that Democrats will give the house away to illegals.
I think the Democrats need to create some fear messages of their own. Fear that every person of color might be told to go back to where they came from. Fear that Medicare and Medicaid will be taken away. Fear that women’s rights will be taken away. Fear that the drinking water and the air we breathe in will not be safe. And these are legitimate fears.
And hand-in-hand with that they need to be getting every single person registered to vote right now.
10
I read this and I think of Cory Booker. He consistently provides a positive unified vision for the country that is based on healing. I agree with your points on what the Dem's need, but I think you are focused on the wrong candidate.
3
Jesus of Nazareth was also a "materialistic wonk" who had a "plan." He said feed the hungry, heal the sick, attend to the children, give hospitality to the stranger, provide for the widow and orphan, and visit the prisoner. Those were his "plans" and he himself modeled those "values." In case you haven't noticed, Mr. Brooks, people need that material stuff to stay alive and strong enough to work and care for their families. Was Jesus not "spiritual" enough for you? Meanwhile, the Republican Party that not so long ago preached "family values" and "pro-life" morality has done nothing of substance to help struggling families survive, much less thrive and abandons children once out of the uterus. The life of the planet that supports human life is no concern of theirs. Talk about Republican spirituality, morality and decency for a change.
9
The one quibble I have with this piece is the idea that New Deal programs aimed at addressing material need might have somehow lacked a spiritual component. On the contrary, helping our fellow countrymen to rise out of poverty had an element of moral decency that transcends dollars and cents, and such efforts always will. But in the meantime, restoring the spiritual health of this country is critical to going forward in any meaningful way. Rise up indeed!
7
Its what neoliberals have been doing since the 90's and people just tune it out. Should be obvious to anyone, especially people like DB. Of course the media class wish that words meant more. It would would mean they have more influence on society. But unfortunately for them people would rather have good health care, stable jobs, and a good standard of living rather than a good inspirational speech. Bernie and Warren can offer that and should run on it.
2
This country is so massively at spiritual odds with itself from within that no one human being is capable of uniting it. There is always a rise and fall of the great powers throughout history. Were it not for our vast military complex, we would already be at the declining end of that trajectory sometime in this century. A divided country without a united people and a shared set of values will inevitably become a weakened power in the world for the great nations have always been stronger when its citizens are working together for the common good of all.
2
I support Warren, but I agree on Ms. Williamson's message, and that she may have needed to be on the debate stage to get it out to a wide audience, although Williamson has little chance of being nominated.
4
So does Stormy Daniels know how to beat him. Not to compare the two women, but rather we need a competent president who will lead us back from the brink of ruin. Marianne should stick to leadership in the Oprah forum.
Save America from the decline and fall of our empire, and regain moral leadership at home and abroad. We have many good candidates for President, VP, and a strong new cabinet.
2
Marianne Williamson is proof that one can be articulate and astute, while being totally devoid of any political experience; which therein lies the problem.
As usual, Brooks pretends decency while pulling an intellectual slight of hand. And as usual, it doesn't work with me. He says, "Elizabeth Warren is a social scientist from Harvard Law School who has a plan for everything — except the central subject of this election, which is cultural and moral." No, Brooks, Warren has a plan for everything because when executed, these plans will help people in ways that speak directly to, and uplift, the cultural and moral ethos of America. Progressives solve moral questions with plans. Conservatives hide plans behind moral questions.
23
This is exactly right.
1
I will agree that Marianne Williams made a heartfelt and accurate description of the dark force that Trump is- but that a President does not make. How would she even begin to approach the mess Trump has created domestically and even most important , how is she qualified to deal with running the most powerful Nation in the world? What does she know of foreign policy making? Just the thought of Marianne meeting with Kim is worthy of a SNL sketch. Please, let's not repeat 2016 and go down the path of celebrity.
5
If this is only about Trump, then Republicans win. They get their policies, while we all talk about how to get a better personality at the top.
How about Republicans worry about their own character. How about they lose votes for that.
How about Democrats focus on policy, on what they mean to accomplish. They are all good people, none of them remotely like Trump. That isn't a needed debate, except to serve Republicans by preventing any discussion of what Republicans don't want to talk about.
4
I see fewer "dark forces" in the election of Trump than a new age thinking that smart, articulate, educated and experienced people are not more capable than celebrities and slogans. Simple minds -- thanks public schools? -- prefer simple answers, prefer celebrity (who's paid more, top thinkers or top performers?). People attend Trump rallies while he's president and elections are nowhere near because it's a show.
America (and Brexit) is showing the concerns about democracy that have always been around. Trusting the common man for elections and for juries creates weird results when the populace has faith in people like Trump or Williamson or their faiths or their spirituality.
4
The conventional wisdom is that the Democrats can't win merely by attacking Donald Trump; that they must put forward specific plans for what they want to do. But that conventional wisdom proved wrong in 2016 and I believe it's wrong now. Trump and his enablers in Congress and the Senate, pose an existential threat to our democracy and our nation. We do need to contrast the Democrats with Trump as much on values as on policy, but Williamson, with her pseudo-scientific new-age nonsense is not the person to do it. I think Joe Biden, although not the most exciting or policy-oriented candidate is the only one running who can do that.
2
There is a connection between the cultural and the economic realities. If you have a job, that pays a living wage, you have value. Society validates that value and recognizes your productivity and participation. You feel part of the whole, a valuable part and entitled to respect. Mining jobs gave coal miners that but there was nothing to replace it when it evaporated. Our cultural identity is impacted by job loss and economic insecurity and loss of respect. When we can give everyone a job that pays a living wage we will have a country that respects itself and other cultures. That's what Democrats are fighting for.
1
We liberals have been shouting these things from the rooftops since the disastrous 2016 election, and before. But Mr. Brooks seems to just be catching up to the obvious, dark reality of how much damage has been done — and continues to be done at an accelerating pace — to “American” values, democracy, and world standing.
I’m not sure why Mr. Brooks attributes these insights to Ms. Williamson as though they’re original to her, but if her style of messaging is what it took to stir his imagination, I’m grateful. Now he should also listen to Mr. Inslee’s apoclyptic messaging regarding climate change, which is equally correct, urgent and obvious.
Neither of these Democratic hopefuls are likely to be the party’s candidate for president in 2020, but they do demonstrate the potential advantage of having a large and diverse field of debaters at this point in the campaign: they bring strong voices to the issues and priorities that must be wrestled to the ground if America is to recover from its present state of dysfunction and lead the world into a new, sustainable future.
6
These debates have thrown Joseph Biden's decency into sharp relief. I also enjoyed Marianne Williamson's surprisingly eloquent riffs, but Biden actually embodies decency in a way the others don't, even though many of them (perhaps all) are also decent people. His grace under pressure, even while trying to hit back hard, is the image I most strongly took away from the debates.
3
Decency doesn't do uprisings. Besides, the problem is not that we have no "decent" politicians, but that few would bother to vote for them. Both parties want combative ideologues to represent them and the electorate has no stomach for politicians that are willing to see both sides of an argument. Our preferences are inimical to modesty, fairness, and principled compromise. What used to be a dynamic balance between the parties has morphed into a no-holds-barred fight for complete domination.
4
@George
As a progressive who usually votes Democratic, I never gave you permission to speak for me (nor did any of the other caring people I know who vote likewise.) "Complete domination" appears to be the goal of the current Republican Party, yes, as they deny climate change and ignore the opinions and needs of the majority of the population.
The "Democrats" I know want our government to serve the highest good of all, including the ignorant, racist, greedy, cut-throat, and amoral, who appear to dominate the Republican Party.
We definitely need a leader with decency, but we need to make sure that he or she also has knowledge of how our government works. (Heaven knows we don't have that now.)
4
The Walter Cronkite Republican observes that both policy and and the identification and correction of the corruptions of our national narrative are important.
1
My thought is a viable Marianne candidacy would show democracy is working. She likely has more support than reflected in the polls, given many might like her, but don't think she can win. That's the opposite of Biden's situation. If people want Marianne, and are excited about Marianne, then that is the people's choice and she should be invited to debates whenever she qualifies. If the preference is for experienced candidates, then we should have a system that gives party leaders gatekeeper power, which is consistent with a republic. Ideally her "moment" should inspire traditionally developed candidates to engage the electorate with her optimism and enthusiasm.
You know everyone laughs at her candidacy but the lady is right on message. We need to heed our better angels before it is too late.
4
I agree completely. Except: why shouldn’t or couldn’t the needed person you articulate emerge from the Republican side?
4
A problem I have here is with claims like “He’s redefining...” “He’s operating...” etc. These terms infer that Trump is some sort of mastermind who is consciously altering our country and society. I think nothing is farther from the truth. It has been clear for a long time Trump can’t control himself. If that is so, how could anyone believe he controls anything else?
5
Williamson is a self-promoting New Age charlatan. Her brand of "spirituality" is a mixture of New Thought and its idea of a "higher self," Christian/Religious Science and its "heal thyself," negativity-is-an-illusion approach, and A Course in Miracles channeling spiritualism. Sure, there are assorted truths in the first two, but New Age-ism also has many of the traps of a cult: a lack of critical thinking, a denial of reality, belief in illogic and wishful thinking. She's heir to people like Louise Hay and Terry-Cole Whitaker, women who preached to people dying of AIDS in the 1980s that all they had to do was "love themselves" more and they'd be okay.
These false teachings aren't much better than those that have evolved into the current trump party: Social Darwinism, the material idolatry of Libertarianism, and white supremacy.
11
@Gustav Aschenbach Personally, I think the people going to the mall to buy more kitchen gadgets and gewgaws because they think it will make them happier are pretty cult-like. But hey, maybe we can team up and stamp out a lack of critical thinking wherever we happen to find it!
I'm reminded of Luke's story of Martha and Mary. Jesus visits these two independent sisters, and Mary sits at his feet soaking up the spirit, while Martha makes, serves, and cleans up after dinner. Martha loses her temper and criticizes Mary, but the Teacher tells her not to blame Mary for choosing "the better path."
It's often used to justify spirituality and denigrate material service to humanity. Brooks would say Brooks has chosen the better path.
But this story is contrived. Who were these sisters, living independently? Roman citizens, surely, or some kind of elite. Like today's Coastal Elites. They have no material disappointments to speak of. Mary can afford to soak up the spirit. And Jesus says Martha is as free to choose as Mary. So they must have been friends of Oprah.
Middle income Americans have lots of material needs, and face a downhill slide, materially.
Middle America is a spiritual disaster. Churches today are often rightwing nuthouses. They're often hate groups. Or they've often harbored sexual predators. So, where's this Teacher at whose feet Brooks would have us sit? Marianne? Has Marianne chosen the better part? David Brooks says yes to that.
We live in a spiritual wasteland; we also live in a material wasteland. The question is, how to we prevail in times of economic and spiritual decline, of exhausted or diminished personal and social resources?
4
I'm surprised that David Brooks doesn't see the moral leader who's right in front of us, living all the qualities Brooks thinks our next president must embody: Senator Elizabeth Warren.
9
I'm waiting for the candidate who has a message and solution for me, because recently I was told that even though I have a master's degree and graduated with highest honors, and even though I have worked very hard, my "skill set is incompatible with today's market." I was told by a successful person that I need to forget what I've spent my life studying and doing, to forget my passion, and just consider it a hobby, because I need to go out and just earn money. I am heartbroken and in despair.
7
One of these days Americans are going to wake up and realize not only is Trump a cultural revolutionary ((by far for the worse) but that TRUMPOCRACY is not a political movement; but a cult for those who no longer believe in the American system; and have hitched their wagon to a political Jim Jones. And we all know how that ended. Williamson has struck a nerve about how "Politics as Usual" is as dead as the dinosaurs; and the sooner the Ivory Tower folks wake up to that truth, the sooner they will reconnect to where Main Street America is truly at these days.
9
"They are what Michael Dukakis would be if he emerged in an era when the party had swung left. This model has always had appeal to a certain sort of well-educated Democrat."
David, we keep telling you the Dems haven't moved left, the Repubs and Fox News have moved the discourse right.
10
Exactly. The Dems have spent decades moving right to appease the republicans to the point of becoming very like them. Then the republicans moved to the very extreme right. The current democrat “move to the left” is merely a correction that may not even go as far as FDR dems.
1
David Brooks writes as though the dark underbelly of the US never existed until Donald Trump appeared. That’s wrong.
Maybe dealing with the issues instead of the ‘oh, dear, oh dear’ handwringing, hoping it will go away if only people would just stop talking about it, would be the smarter way.
You have people dying because they can’t afford insulin and people going blind because they can’t afford glaucoma drops! If that’s not a dark underbelly, I don’t know what is.
7
Bingo.
The closest espouser of decency is Mayor Pete. His eloquence lifts the spirit like no other.
13
Marianne IS the one candidate that CAN keep us focused on the best way because she HAS done her spiritual work here in her life! All of us get caught up in the way things have been set up by our fore bearers and in politics, today, its been set up terribly, slowly chipping away at ethical considerations for decades. So we NEED a Lincoln, or FDR, or Kennedy that can help us SEE a greater vision.
And truthfully, only Marianne can do that because she has sorted out her egoic (what’s in it for me or mine) thinking from her higher visionary thinking, while most have been busy fighting one another and pointing fingers of blame. She uses ‘love’ and ‘God’ and ‘psychic forces,’ but it is not the words so much as what they point to - a visionary way of ‘getting above the fray’ so we keep our eyes on what will ULTIMATELY help humanity. Anger (Harris, Warren, Sanders) will only generate more anger. Vision (what Marianne calls love) will generate more vision. That is simply how it works. If she is not elected, she ought to be given an important spokesperson position because she is a far clearer vessel than any of our other candidates.
4
Great wisdom from David Brooks, Alas! I don't believe that what he suggests is going to happen. It appears from watching the debates that the tone adopted is the one Donald Trump uses. It looks as if the Democrats think they have to conduct themselves with aggression and vitriol,
combative and often disrespectful. Someone in the NYT wrote some time ago that they hoped the Democrats would not devour each other. They are doing that , and it appears to be fodder for DT and the republicans. This public display of division and conflict makes one feel increasingly desperate. It is also clear that someone like Donald Trump does not have the intellectual faculties to understand David Brooks thoughts and ideas.
Why do the cable networks feel they need to make the debates
appear to be a spectacle, a show and a circus. The whole situation is profoundly disheartening.
6
What are her numbers in swing states? Would she play in the Rust Belt? Feelings aren’t facts. The process of electing a president is a numbers game. America doesn’t need another amateur politician. Brooke is right, she is typical of the kind of candidate favored by an (over) educated segment of the electorate. So far, she is only famous for being famous. Alternatively, Tulsi Gabbard has the moral spine, derived from being a medic in Iraq, and years of experience in government. Williamson is a reactionary candidate.
1
The best candidate to beat Trump in 2020 is Elizabeth Warren, hands-down. She is tough, knowledgeable on policy, can tackle anything Trump throws at her, and give it back with effect.
10
@alank
indeed...and the author of this opinion piece knows this to be true.
which is why he has written 800 words of obfuscation, misdirection and dissemblance.
1
The reason for the vitriol in our nation is that it's a democracy with a free speech clause. In some nations there is no hatred expressed but only silence. The price of our democracy is that I have to listen to people less thoughtful and knowledgable than me and not sever their vocal cords. Most people in any nation aren't bright, aren't interesting, and have nothing to say that isn't false. Welcome to the bell curve. Maybe people should need a license to opine based on an objective test.
2
This nomination process reminds me of a workplace seminar I was once required to attend. HR had two of their people give a talk on 'respectful workplace behaviour.'
During the talk, one of the points stressed to us was to try to refrain from malicious gossip about co-workers.
During the Q&A at end of seminar, one of my colleagues stood up and defended the practice of spreading dirt about colleagues on the basis that it was 'human nature' to do so.
What I felt like saying at the time, but didn't, is this: "Why are you so terrified of participating in a collective effort to better ourselves?"
Ms. Williamson is asking Americans to make a collective effort to build a better, more ethical country. Her only problem is that she's ahead of her time.
(As an aside, sometimes it's 'human nature' to want to seduce someone else's spouse - and that will sometimes happen because we are flawed human beings. But does that mean we should encourage it?
Spare me the 'human nature' argument.)
8
I don't understand the human nature argument either. Humans are quite interesting in that it is the species that has both the capacity for self destruction and advancement. It is and always has been the struggle of human nature at various periods of time, which option do we choose? Fortunately, the choice of advancement has been more frequent than destruction. Without conscious choice of betterment, may as well return to caves and live a life of subsistence and violence.
1
Every time Marianne Williamson says something that seems to make sense, it makes me think I’m having a stroke.
I yearn to see the Democratic candidates talking about things which are actually realistic, and not their big ideas of an idyllic world that is never going to exist.
4
Marianne Williamson is delivering a message that all of us, Dems in particular, need to hear and act on. The people of this country will not be moved by wonky messages, as proven by the Trumpsters; we need to critically look at our values and declare a new era of morality and ethics. And we need to face our collective shadow, and stop blaming Putin and Russia and everyone else for what we need to acknowledge about our collective past, if we want to go forward.
3
It is as impossible to reason with emotions as it is to sway science with emotive invective. We think and feel with very different parts of our brains. David Brooks adroitly points our that Donald Trump and Marianne Williamson both reach out emotionally. Unsurprisingly neither is reasonable.
David points out that an effective candidate cannot fail to address Donald Trump's most important argument -- not his socio/political ones-- but his fundamental emotional argument; that competition, not cooperation is the road to a better life.
4
I think it would be very reasonable not to pollute our water, air and food, and not to sell off National Parks to frackers. Healthcare, as Williamson correctly pointed out, is more than an insurance policy. As a nation, we have accomplished the unusual: spending more than any other developed country and having the worst outcomes in many healthcare stats including infant mortality. Way to go! Having doctors, senators, and congressmen and women getting pay offs from the pharmaceutical industry is selling out our citizens and indeed killing them. This is not an insignificant issue. I love watching the authoritative network evening news when health issues are reported on. Thank God for objective fact! Oh wait, that report was followed by five Pharma ads...By the way this country and New Zealand are the only ones to allow this. What do all the other nations know that we don’t?
1
Spiritual is nice, but it's also extremely divisive. Someone with economic woes isn't going to respond to the healing balm of spiritualism, they need a good job and affordable healthcare, housing, etc. With that, they're not going to as likely to respond to the hate mongers.
Besides that, the spiritual crisis is so deeply entwined with our economic system that you really can't separate them.
So give me solid, materialist programs that result in jobs, infrastructure development and affordable basic needs.
5
Yes!
Today's column reminds me a bit of what Nick Lowe wrote in 1974 and Elvis Costello later sang:
As I walk on through troubled times
My spirit gets so down hearted sometimes.
So where are the strong who are the trusted?
And where is the harmony sweet harmony?
Cause each time I feel it slippin' away
Just makes me want to cry
What's So Funny bout Peace, Love, and Understanding?
9
@Tim Haight
...that train left the station 40 years ago mate.
David, you're right. We tried a policy wonk with Mrs. Clinton, and while it worked well enough for the popular vote, it failed in the Electoral College.
I'd like to think there's enough decency in the critical precincts that can win the Electoral College if we can find the right candidate who can appeal to our better angels rather than our fears.
President Trump should not define us. And a policy wonk won't do it. The leader we need is out there, somewhere, someone who can reach the soul, and stay the id.
5
@T Norris
"Trump should not define us." However deplorable, here we are, and he has, to the nation and the world. It's deplorable!
1
@T Norris
Clinton a policy wonk?
Sift through the wreckage of her health care "reform" plan co-authored by Mitt Romney's former partner and fellow plunderer of worker's pensions Ira Magaziner.
The Trump phenomenon demonstrates the power of a leader to influence individuals, for good or bad ends. Contrast the effect of this president on the one hand vs. the effect of Winston Churchill on the citizens of Great Britain during the war. Where is our Winston Churchill?
Lack of experience seems to not matter based on the election of the current T.V. Personality turned President .
I am hopeful the values mentioned are really the majority of Americans, but I struggle to understand the vast population that is the underbelly of America who voted for Trump
6
Please don’t make this mistake again. I agree with the sentiment but this strategy was already tried by Clinton in 2016 and it did not work. Yes I know she lost for other reasons too (likeability being one) but it was pretty much agreed that her strategy of making the campaign all about Trump and his temperament did not work in her favor because people didn’t care. And I’m afraid we will make the same mistake again if we nominate Williamson or Biden who has adopted a similar strategy. We need a candidate who inspires people first with their vision, like Obama did, while still speaking about the moral failings of the party of Trump. It’s not enough to just talk about him (no matter how truthful), that won’t drive anyone on the fence to vote for the Democrats. Don’t ignore the moral aspect, but don’t make it the main focal point of the campaign.
6
I thought Marianne brought some great thinking to the Democratic debate and you, David and she have presented an excellent path to victory for our country. For our country.....not just a single party. Of course, we need to know about plans and thoughts of candidates, but righting the moral and cultural soundness of our ship which is sinking right now is a powerful direction to take and one we need so badly. Thank you, David and Marianne; push this forward please!
4
Most candidates got lost in the weeds this week, but they have been working on this message. Biden started with Charlottesville; Harris says we are better than this; Booker speaks of radical love; Castro talks about policy that reflects our values; Klobuchar talks about leading with integrity; Gillibrand wants to Clorox the Oval... Everyone knows that the core argument against Trump is decency.
Trump won in 2016 by saying that if you don't have strong borders you don't have a country. In 2020, Democrats need to say that America is defined by its values, not by its border.
9
I agree with her and with DB, but she is not someone I believe can be a President in this world. Maybe there is a place for her as an advisor, "pastor". I keep thinking of all the candidates in the Dem. debates who can stand up to Putin and Kim Jong "oy vey". I want to see Putin with fear in his eye when the US Pres. sits next to him. Certainly that hasn't been with trump, Putin looks like he's sitting with his youngest nephew. MW has a lot of good things to say, but not Pres. material.
2
Democrats, homegrown Democrats true to their best spokesmen and spokeswomen represent our best values. I trust our party. It can meet the loudest by adhering to its best principles. All the rest is commentary.
2
Conservatives clearly love the word "illegal," so when they use it, I get suspicious.
No one's proposing that private health insurance should be illegal, so the first full sentence of David Brook's column is at best misleading. "Sir, you've offered private health insurance, you're going to jail."
Several of the candidates are suggesting that tax funded health care can deliver a better results at a lower costs, without health insurance stockholders seizing a massive quantity of cash.
No one's saying private health insurance should be illegal. They just want to stop the insurers from taking our money and making obscene profits by denying us health care. Perhaps it should be illegal for insurers to cover insulin so poorly that diabetics are dying.
We could have an interesting debate over whether health insurers are entitled to their obscene profits made by denying care. It'd be more honest than the one David Brooks wants.
3
Re: Marianne Williamson - We do not need, CANNOT HAVE, will suffer greatly and never regain global political, ecological or financial footing with another lightweight as POTUS. Has Ms. Williamson ever been a CEO, COO, managed or lead or saved a large company? No. And, yes, Marianne Williamson is an excellent author, contributes dignity and clarity and stirring, valuable sound bites during this very early early 20-candidates-to-choose-from, 13-debates-to-confuse-us period. But should voters REALLY be so unfocused on the realities of policy that more time and more money is wasted? NO. AND, as has been true since the current POTUS 45 announced his candidacy 4-5 years ago, have we not as USA citizens (in the base or not) AND especially 101% of our media for 101% of OUR time not already had enough of being hypnotized by the CELEBRITY FACTOR? Forcefully, very much like McCarthyism, divided our strengths and beliefs as humans, families, friends, community leaders? I don't mean to be cruel here, BUT...With a candidate and a celebrity and a late-night talk show bench warmer like Marianne Williamson, who has already been a profoundly noble human being, a leader of joy, decency, faith and hope, who is an acknowledged advocate and an inspiration to awaken our better/best selves BE CAPABLE OF LEADING THE COUNTRY? Capable of SELECTING and RETAINING qualified security, economic, military key staff and advisors? No.
2
"An uprising of decency?" -- Not going to happen in a country where 45% don't even know what decency means. If they did Trump's numbers would be a lot lower.
6
Thanks, Michael, but no thanks.
I have a hard time -- even with the passage of years -- forgetting someone whose suggested cure in the early days of the HIV/AIDS pandemic was meditation and visualization.
We are already far too deep into yet another age of pseudo-science, conspiracy, quackery, and science-bashing.
4
Elizabeth Warren IS leading the way culturally and morally! She doesn't want to wealthy in this country to be the only group that benefits. She wants this country to be one of peace, equality and prosperity for all. And she doesn't just talk about it, she has figured out how we can do it. What could be more moral?
11
She's just another version of Trump. Read the bizarre tweets (angels helping plug oil spills?) her odd take on science (see vaccinations, vague statements about chemical policies, and especially her statements on depression). Not to mention she, like Trump, seems to be in it for money (he for TV deals, she to promote her books and conferences). No thanks. We can do better.
5
Amen to that!
1
Well said...
1
Once again David Brooks speaks the truth. Come on Democrats get you moral act in gear. Start talking like Brooks!!
3
"Have We No Decency? A Response to President Trump from the Washington National Cathedral."
https://cathedral.org/have-we-no-decency-a-response-to-president-trump.html
5
David Brooks for President!
3
As ever, Brooks believes America’s problem is moral. The logical conclusion is we need moral leadership. Anything less risks addressing mere material wants.
What rot! Why does the NYT pay the salary of this fancy pants pseudo-intellectual?
The president executed our laws and makes policy. The president is not our national chaplain.
2
@James K. Lowden --Sure, why should the president take a moral stand agianst slavery. After all the president is elected to administer the laws of the country. No wonder Trump supporters follow him -- they can't see beyong the tip of their noses and neither can Trump.
Wow! Well said!
2
And how do the Clintons stack up against your visions of moral superiority?
Who cares? They're not nor going to be our leaders again.
Too bad brooks only decided to champion decency after his parties traitor took over.
7
Marianne Williamson :: politics
Rupi Kaur :: poetry
Hello Liberals:
Remember this column, and all the others like it that Brooks and his cohort at the Times will write over the next two years.
And, by all means, nominate a moderate--Old Joe Biden will do, or maybe even Marianne Williamson (why not?).
And then be sure to watch Trump's inaugural address in January, 2021. At least you'll have something to complain about in this "comments" section while you look for a job, figure out how to pay for health care, or advise your kids on alternatives to college.
Best of luck.
2
He had me until he used "wackadoodle."
2
Right on David
That Democrat has always been Biden!
2
Would you vote for her David?
1
Trump is nothing but a dictator bully. Republicans, all American Republicans...are racists. Trump is simply fanning the fire of intolerance and hate; but the hate was always there. Republicans are racists. How do I know? I am a child of an off the boat immigrant. We gots perspective. And I ain't stupid. I was a democrat when I was 8. I ain't ever liked 1 Republican in over 40 years. NONE. They have all been racists.
1
"We need an uprising of decency!"
Trump appeals to the lowest part of our nature - hate!
Trump is a "spewer" of hate!
If you support him - you spew hate!
If you oppose him - you spew hate back!
Our nation is going through a MASSIVE DIARRHEA of hate!
"How will the patient (nation) come out the other side?"
Yeah, like that's going to work.
if purpose of a column is to convert others, to enlighten , and to lead them to say, "Well, this guy has ideas worth listening to" then this column constitutes "un echec!"Do u think, Mr. Brooks, that u r making contact with anyone but mainly white liberals, anti TRUMP TO THE CORE, AS I BELIEVE u r when u quote MW or urself and speak about DT's lack of respect for our
' moral values,degradation of the American soul?" Whom do u convince except urself and other liberals? RECALL line from "History Boys,"in which headmaster lectures his students,"There's no such thing as general studies,"and this can't be repeated often enough. U don't like Trump? Criticize his policies, not him personally.HOW has he degraded the American soul? See little point from a lecture on immorality of Trump presidency from someone with an upper class background. except perhaps to give a plug to Ms. Williamson!Reason Trump was elected is that 63 million of us were FED UP being condescended to by elites. We r the masses; u and MS. WILLIAMSON regard urselves as the elites., FAVORED.
Father worked as a seagoing butler for half a century for $12,000 a year, pensioned off at $150.00 monthly. Mother was a chambermaid and scrubbed floors to be able to help me afford tuition at Tulane. If they were here today, what RESONANCE would your commonplaces, your platitudes have for them? "ENTRE PARENTHESES," comment on Mr. BRUNI's article yesterday ,published, then censured. Hope ABH has better luck this time!
1
Calling Tom Hanks...your country needs you.
Can I hear an amen?
Pete Buttigieg.
7
Amen, David.
We need another Barack Obama along with control of the House and Senate.
1
Michelle Obama we need you!
3
An uprising of decency means President Bernie Sanders 2020 with his decency, integrity, courage, vision and bold ideas!!!! Finally, A Future To Believe In!
A more thriving society!
A sustainable planet!
Establishment media bias, again... a recent [7/19/19] Gallop poll showing Sanders, again, as being the most well liked candidate, got very little coverage... https://news.gallup.com/poll/260801/biden-sanders-best-images-among-democrats.aspx
It is tough to beat a criminal, mentally ill, narcissistic bully. It will take decency and work
Vote!! ... and convince others to vote blue in 2020.
4
I respectfully beg to differ on Warren and Sanders. Their “materialist” platforms are really pocket book issue platforms and Americans vote primarily with their pocketbooks in mind. Sadly, Americans seem to be in a mood to willfully bear a racist, nativist incompetent in the White House and all of the nonsense that comes with it if they think it will increase their disposable income. Full stop. Decency be damned. It’s an economic downturn and sound economic / health care / education policy by the Democratic candidate that will consign Trump to the trash bin of history.
1
David Brooks is the only Times op-ed columnist who genuinely wants to see Trump out of office.
Trump has always been on the wrong side of these values. What about the GOP? Brook's party? What is their excuse for supporting a racist president?
2
Bingo.
Until Brooks apologizes for his repeated demonization of Hillary Clinton, he has no credibility to write about decency.
4
"We need an uprising of decency"
David, start with yourself and leave the Republican party!!!
You have been an apologist and enabler, but you could still lead a stampede of people.
It is indecent that YOU are still in the party of Trump.
6
Mr. Brooks, why don’t you grab some of your cohorts and pay Bill Weld a visit? He espouses your values of limited government and appears to be a decent human being.
2
As long as this grotesque system of "debate" exists, we will see the sublime and the rediculous. Amy klobuchar was the only one who stayed on message. At no time did she malign any others, but concentrated on
the central issue which is the unseating of Trump. But the TV light keeps shining on Biden, when the future is more important than the past, unless we are delving into Russia's interference with the election.
Williamson, Gabbard, and Bullock are the people most likely to do well in an actual election, so hold on to their names for 2024.
But the progressive media voices running the Democratic Party into the ground want an ugly fire for an election next year.
Actual candidates won't matter as the 2020 election will be made into some sort of pretend reaction to the current American President, Mr. Economy.
1
“Trump has put himself on the wrong side of all these values. So Democrats, go ahead and promote your plans. But also lead an uprising of decency. There must be one Democrat who, in word and deed, can do that.”
There is a Democrat who can do that. And, the press and the DNC are doing everything they can to thwart her. At some point, we’re going to have to face just how much monied interests have corrupted not just our politics & government, but also science, journalism, healthcare and on and on...
@Jean When the monied interests come to penniless newspapers and quite a few college science departments and offer to fund them with the condition that they'll have to leave their journalistic/scientific independence out in the dust bin, the media types and professors agree enthusicastically. ''We always wanted to choose sides, anyway!''
Well written article. I hope the Democrats listen -- or at least whoever will be facing Trump.
As a stopped watch is right two times a day, so it is that Mr Brooks nails one today.
People should not dismiss Ms Williamson. Her message is a necessary one, and needs to be incorporated by whomever wins the Dem nomination.
After the last round of debates, these are the candidates I would like to see move forward, in this order: Warren, Sanders, Yang, Gabbard, Inslee, Booker, Williamson, Buttigieg, Castro.
Of them, I would be happy to see Warren, Sanders, Yang, Inslee or Booker ultimately prevail.
2
Though for various reasons I don’t view Williamson as a serious contender, I realized she was the only candidate to connect emotionally with Americans by addressing our collective trauma about the dangers to democracy that loom due to actions from the present administration. I connected with Williamson’s empathy- and that emotional connection will engage voters in ways that the wonky debates about policy will not.
2
If only David Brooks would pay more attention to how the Democratic candidates motivate their policy proposals, he would recognize that most of them do express them in terms of unity, honesty, pluralism, sympathy, and opportunity. But let’s face it, the GOP has spent the past half-century cynically sowing disunity, dishonesty, and hostility in the service of restricting opportunity for most while expanding it for the increasingly privileged few. Heal thyself.
2
I agree that we need a candidate who speaks to, and hopefully exemplifies, our aspirational moral values, but I disagree that the wonky policy ideas don't inherently represent those values. The policy ideas are necessary blueprints for how values can be achieved and an indication of the candidate's ability to achieve them. Uplifting rhetoric, authentically delivered, is how to awaken people's "better angels" and inspire them to rise up and follow. It's a winning combination and maybe especially necessary now, when our challenges are large and complex and our largest national deficit is the moral one. It's a wide open field for Democratic candidates and Trump's Achilles heel.
3
Our children are watching. I have to hope that the Americans who want to save our national character, morality and this Great Experiment are the majority! I now know that we do have many Americans who are ok and accept the 'degradation of America's soul'. This is about "the moral atmosphere in which we raise our children." If Trump wins another term - Who is going to want to expose their children to the immorality and cruelty of America. Did I just say that?!
4
Thank you Mr. Brooks. I knew it would be a matter of time before main stream, reputable journalist like you and others finally heard Marianne Williamson and realized she has much to say that is right on the money! I am reading the "Second Mountain" now and it is amazing Marianne Williamson has been saying the same things that are in that book for years. It is getting harder for people to marginalize the conversation of compassion. Before people attack MW and link her to trump they really need to get informed and read one of her books or listen to one of her lectures. Nothing is worse than trump as a leaded, but Williamson could be the antidote!
3
@RDW
writing about mountains—first, second, third; ad infinitum—will not undo the contribution of "Bobo's In Paradise" to the existence of Donald Trump.
Thank you Marianne Williamson for verbalizing what has been so apparent to so many citizens as we watch in horror at the three-ring circus in Washington. Although I doubt she will make it to the primaries perhaps our Democratic candidates will take a page from her book and realize that we are fighting for so much for than plans and systems. We are fighting for our integrity and the future of our country.
3
Amen!
1
Wow! Why has it taken this long for a NYT writer to put these words in print?
2
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!
1
For heaven's sake, David Brooks, what are you saying about Dems like Adam Schiff and Elijah Cummins who are trying to save our country from the immoral actions of Trump? I want to elect people who have high cultural and moral standards, not someone who is going to be my moral arbiter.
5
What I saw at the debates was an embarrassment of riches of thoughtful, decent, intelligent candidates. I am incredibly proud to be Democrat and hope I never have to be ashamed of the President of United States ever again.
10
She's right, something that amazes me are the percentage of Americans who support him, and the fact that, no matter what Trump says or does, that percentage doesn't change. They accept everything he says like it was written in he Bible. That shows, for example, that Racism is much more entrenched in the US society that we'd like and has a hard core formed by Trump's supporters.
3
Wow. While she isn't going to be the candidate, what she says, and how David Brooks explains it, are perfect. Thank you David (and Marianne).
2
David, She is dangerous. She's an anti-vaxxer. She believes if you are sick it's your fault and you should heal yourself. I agree that she hit the nail on the head when she talked about the soul of the nation, but she is not the one to lead the effort. She doesn't have the intellectual capability, nor the chops to govern. She has no idea how to fix our already decimated government. Please be careful, David. She is a dangerous one to lift up. You and your colleagues are ultimately responsible for trump's election because of all the press you gave him. Please, for the sake of our country, dial it back.
5
As the young folks say, dude, Chillaxe. Williamson hasn’t a chance in heaven or hell of getting the nomination. (I know - we said that about trump, but c’mon, this is the Democratic Party.) She is bringing up legitimate points that I for one am thankful of being brought to the table.
She claims not to be an anti vaxxer, but she once was and when pressed, still seems ambiguous on the subject. I understand her tendency towards victim blaming and New Age wishful thinking. Yet at the same time, she is the only one amongst the candidates who is focused on the basic moral issues that are at the heart of this election. I am thankful to Marianne for saying what needs to be said. Hopefully she has said her piece and will soon go away and let those who are qualified emerge to lead this nation out of the darkness.
David Brooks is correct in saying that the Democrats have grievously disappointed us in their debates.
Brooks is also correct in saying that repeating "Donald Trump is a racist" fifty times a day gets us nowhere -- or takes us further from our goal.
Brooks is wrong in identifying Williamson as the answer.
I desperately want to vote for anyone-but-Trump in 2020. I can't and won't vote for the free-everything party, the party that insists that we owe everything to illegal immigrants -- while ignoring the kind of inner city gun violence no one wants to talk about, the identity politics party so far gone that Julian Castro can say he wants to protect the rights of *men* to have taxpayer funded abortions, the party whose candidates cannot bring themselves to say, "I love America, and I will work hard for all Americans."
I want a Democratic candidate who talks the talk of loving America and actually means it. I'm still waiting, with despair in my heart.
3
WRT inner-city gun violence, we have nowhere to go after the terrible Heller decision. We can only hope to win the presidency &/or the Senate so we can appoint more intellectually honest justices than "Justice" Scalia was.
Mr. Brooks let's Republicans totally off the hook here. Or has he, like so many of us, simply given up on them when it comes to the subject of decency?
4
Marianne brings to the table the language that is needed, the other 20+ candidates need to consult with her in order to infuse their wonky messages with a level of psycho-spiritual development that is so needed to reach the Dems who just want Trump out of office--and for good reason.
4
speak for yourself: we are not ALL, as individuals, corrupted by Trump, and some of us are actually stepping up our ire and involvement to counter his scurrilous assault on our national character. it is primarily Republicans who are falling in line behind Trump and his retread Republican goose-steppers, and to a certain extent, unaffiliated voters (and yellers) focused on single issues such as abortion, Christian nationalism, and that old standby, racism.
4
Congratulations for your superb text. I do not live in the US, i do not know who would be my candidate of choice if I had the right to vote. What I do think I know is that for people living outside your country, those are the issues that shock us about America this days. How can the US allow such immoral and unethical man to lead your country? My concern therefore is that the "we" that you write at the start of your sentences represents less and less people day after day. Thanks for your text, anyway.
1
Mr. Brooks got it right this time. If listened to and acted on correctly could be a turning point.
1
I agree with the message that we need to remember our values to respond to DT. I do NOT agree that this is something Democrats are uniquely ill-equipped to do because we're a party of policy wonks. This makes no sense, is antagonistic, and divides us, just the way David Brooks argues we shouldn't be doing. Come on, David. Both parties have wonks, both have soulful idealists, decency and sneakiness. These are human traits; they don't grow out of political party.
1) If Republicans are more soulful and less wonkish than Democrats, how did they lead us into this DT nightmare, and why aren't they leading us out of it?
2) How do we deal with right-wing lies and propaganda, David? I believe many DT voters are decent people who have been misled by lies. I was stunned when a Republican acquaintance informed me that the Democrats were the racist party, not the Republicans (and cited George Wallace as an example). I don't think the majority's values are so different; I think we're reacting to different information. To me, the propaganda is the biggest problem in the country, and it will outlast DT.
3) Once again, David, I find that you play the decency card (let's rise above our differences!) and then stab the Democrats. Can't you get away from the underhanded, partisan attacks, even in the face of desperate need? To me, you are a snake. Show some decency yourself before you preach it to others.
5
Thanks David. We needed this.I wonder if Williamson has any more ideas we should keep an eye on?
Point taken, David Brooks - but Marianne is NOT the one to lead us out of the moral wilderness we're in. Sure, the other candidates should have an emotional stake they can verbalize; yes, Elizabeth Warren's "plan for that" is wonky; yes, Bernie's rants have some value; they should all listen to the emotional tone Williamson sets - but her "crystals, spirit animal, spacey, flimsy cult" proclamations do not a great leader make!!
Dear David, We had 8 years of decency in the White House, have you forgotten? But we didn't have 8 years of decency from Republicans, Conservatives and RWingers during that time, now did we? Democrats tried for 8 years to be decent and govern in a decent manner and what did it get us? Trump. What conclusion do you draw? Democrats must lead a 'decency crusade'. Sad that you didn't call on your party to do so.
9
Cory Booker is pretty close to this model.
2
“A house divided against itself, cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South”...Abraham Lincoln.
No matter the issue, what is different in the year 2019 between all Americans and between the 7.7 billion humans on earth???
The general uprising never happens. It didn't happen for Ho Chi Min. It didn't happen for John Brown. And I think it won't happen here. People are far to skittish and easily scared. They are constantly hanging back to find out who looks like the winner before they commit. Therefore there will be no uprising of decency.
As for Marianne Williamson, she is at least as much of a conman as Trump. Her lies are less obvious though. I think she won't be in the race much longer.
@Jon
America—the United States of American not the either of the land masses north and south—has never been a moral country.
Once upon a time morality was defined by religious institutions, but human frailty has bankrupted the moral standing of the Catholic Church, and not a few Born Again Christian pastors who exploited their religious authority for personal pleasure or profit.
Icons of rectitude and authority have too often been revealed, in the harsh light of history, to have been lacking. Icons of simple goodness like Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama are regarded as ineffectual.
America lost it moral compass in pieces: the genocide of Native Americans, Slavery, the Civil War, the Vietnam War. The Trump phenomenon is a clarion wake up call for America, but it may be too late to rescue the lost moral conscience that could save the soul of this, once great, nation.
2
Davis Brooks, thank you for seeing a side of Marianne Williamson we all could benefit from. She is our 21st century Paul Revere, warning us of what we should already know, the black days are coming, unless we find some kind of moral, ethical, or spiritual compass, soon. And I don't mean that in any religious way, however, if religion gets you there, jolly good. MW speaks from a soul that is awake and well and is focused on what truly matters in this life. Unfortunately, unlike Paul Revere, she is being touted as a heretic. I believe she knows full well she will not win the election. Yet, she has put herself out there as a sacrificial lamb, for all the world to see and hear someone speak truth about our disappearing compass. To the rest of the world, that I have travelled in, and that is quite a lot, we appear rudderless in our ethical domain. They see us as a country riding hard into the dangerous territories of confrontations that lead to war, and at the very least, bad and ruined relationships. No one wins when we make those who oppose us small. Not countries, and not people. No country or person gets to greatness by being a bully. Trump cannot make us, "Great Again." He just doesn't have what it takes, greatness in himself. Way down deep, he is shallow. MW has called it like it is. We are, essentially, a time bomb ticking. Ecologically, ethically and humanely.
We cannot stand too much longer on our exceptionalism. Pride cometh before a fall.
@MS
your contention that the US has ever had a distinct "exceptionalism" is a case in point of pride coming before a fall.
Who would ever have believed, in 2003, that David Brooks would one day become the moral compass of the Democratic Party. This gives me hope.
I agree! The values you have identified are woefully missing in our current President and it has dragged our entire country down into a very dark place. It’s painful to see that so many Americans have been willing to cheer him on as he continues destroying us from within. Marianne Williamson is probably not our best bet as the Democratic nominee but she has added a valuable piece to the platform.
1
Good bye Trump!
Hello Sanders/Warren !
Biden, not ready for Presidency.
Mayor Pete, never really answers a question,
And America is...Just not ready for prime time husbands. We need 100% of voters.
Booker, too arrogant.
Oh, right, Marianne can preach the words, that is her vocation. She makes millions telling people how they can be happy. We need to know why the Republican base votes for a man
that tells them they are doing great and are happy, when they are not. Maybe they all have the secret to happiness, money. Including Ms. Williamson.
Mr. Brooks' nonsense would be funny if it wasn't so stale. He writes as if trump reared up out of a manhole one day and took over the GOP and all those angry, left-behind, older, white, male trump fans, the deplorables, the base.
Brooks has tried to explain trump before: trump was new; an aberration; different from more recognizable white, male, business-adoring republications; could never be nominee of the GOP; can't be president; even if president, the GOP will shrug him off and do the right thing.
Brooks denies that his party for the last 30 plus years has fought against the poor and blacks, against women in the work place and over their own bodies, against labor, the working class, middle class, unions; and is anti-immigrant to the point of xenophobia.
Trump's no different from any other hard-hearted republican on the wrong side of history. Dumber, crazier and uglier, but he's all GOP through and through.
The dems should use decency, values and truth against the GOP? Now that's hilarious.
The GOP base would brand you an elitist talking down to them and trump would tweet mock slime you. Because those things mean nothing to trump and the GOP now.
3
If there is any light at the end of the Trump tunnel it is that a great many Americans, like myself, see just how deeply ingrained racism is in this country. He has given license to all the hate mongers to crawl out from under their rocks and by so doing have exposed them to the light of day.
All Americans, especially white Americans need to take this opportunity to confront racism wherever it presents itself.
As a 73 year old white male, proud former Marine and Vietnam Vet many of the people I meet and know somehow feel it is OK to express there stupid and ridiculous racist views to me.
I make it a point to confront them with there ignorance and let them know that not only are there attitudes stupid and wrong, but they are also unAmerican and unpatriotic. I no longer feel I can let those attitudes go unchallenged.
Racism in America was manufactured by whites and it is up to whites to bring it to end. Not just because it is the right thing to do but also for the sake of our children and grandchildren and the sake of our country.
1
"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." Desmond Tutu
This is what the Republicans have chosen to become.
Marianne Williamson wants to have a discussion about what this current administration is doing to the soul of this country. Her voice is a light in the darkness.
Thank you Marianne!
2
Wrong. We don't need an uprising of decency, we need a revolt against indecency...of the type practiced by Trump and the Republicans.
For this, we need a fighter who takes a licking and keeps on ticking...until he or she has won decisively, on our behalf.
3
My response to Mr. Charles Blow's article on Andrew Yang was to put him on the ticket as VP or find another important cabinet position for him.
And my response to this article about Ms. Williamson is similar: find a way to engage her, put her on the ticket as VP or in a high level, important position in the cabinet.
Let's use these talents...
"We want all children to have an open field and a fair chance in the great race of life."
It's not a race, David. To live like it is, is another bad form of racism.
Life is an experience. One need not be top banana to enjoy it; but in America, many insist that only the view from the penthouse is worth having.
Your subtle agreement with this mind-set is part of the problem. Do we all have to strive to be rich, famous, and powerful?
Can't we, after earning our daily bread, just sit on a park bench and smile at the world?
2
Here are two instances of former TV stars making a difference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jMeby5ZIJs
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYwvzA2RlNc
Unless you miss the point here: only one of these performers has made a positive difference in the world, only one has encouraged even the smallest of us, only one who has seen the intrinsic good in all people, only one who would have deserved and admirably lead the greatest country on the planet had he ever chosen to do so.
Here's a hint: it's not the second one.
If Marianne Williamson has a strategy to remove the bloviating pustule who managed to trip and fall into the presidency and who, from that perch, every day finds new and exciting ways to embarrass and humiliate the country, there might still be time to actually KEEP America great.
As flaky as Ms. Williamson might be, she is assuredly less dangerous and much more well-intended than the sitting president. So, as far as I am concerned, she can only help here.
1
Dear Times readers,
We could help defeat Trump and Trumpism by encouraging and mobilizing center-right voters to vote Democrat. But we won’t, and it’s Democrats’ fault. Instead it’s up to the rest of you, and btw you’re doing it all wrong. Don’t worry, we can tell you all the things you’re doing wrong, and we will because, well, we know more than you. Our positions are nuanced.
Sincerely,
Your center-right Times columnists
2
Great. I agree with David Brooks. End times are definitely night.
(Except the part about her being wacko, David. Marianne Williamson is not in the least wacko, and it would behoove journalists who call her this to follow it up with facts. You won't find them and then maybe you'll finally stop calling her that. This woman is the real deal.)
It is interesting that she did not complete a degree ...and worrying. What a spectacle.
That lady is total snake oil saleswoman and does not seem to have almost any clue about almost any issue. Not sure why she decided to run and wasting so much money. It seems that such "spiritual healers" are popular and doing roaring business amidst of worsening epidemic of illiteracy and poor education in USA for many years now.
3
as you have it there is this mysterious mind numbing cloud that that has us powerless to create " interesting debate"...the problem with interesting debate (see your high school debate format book) is that it requires grasp of subject )and the skills of argument...heavy lifting for the sloganeers and brick tossers who have taken over the party''s voice.
the wager here is that interesting debate, of its own authority will, if we do the homework and resist the cheap shots of that most common of flawed arguments, ad hominum attacks, dispel the cloud...leaving its proprietors exposed in the clear light of reason.
better the effort to overcome than to continue cowering in the fog.
1
David, you are a ditz. A great number of Trump supporters are Christian evangelicals. And you see how they've been moved by the moral argument. Not! You always "look to the soul" columns simply deny the reality: Trump supporters are racist deplorable who will bend and torture their morality to fit his. Adultery (we pray for his forgiveness); racism (well, the other side...); lying (all politicians do it). For every negative, there is always an excuse. Give it up, David. Insist that all your readers vote against Trump no matter who the Democratic candidate. Now there's a strong moral statement.
8
Why are dems afraid to take Trump on at his level of contempt?
They need to address his use of the lowest common denominator.
He is bringing out the incipient hate that Americans feel toward those they resent or are afraid of.
Trump is giving Americans permission to behave like fascists toward their perceived enemies.
If dems don’t confront Trump and the voters with this reality then they are joining the country’s decline downward!
1
"If only Donald Trump were not president, we could have an interesting debate over whether private health insurance should be illegal."
Wow. If that sentence were any more stuffed with straw, it would have to go to the Emerald City to ask the Wizard for a brain.
3
More nonsense from the Republican side who lost to Trump on how the Democrats can beat Trump.
2
Recent history has proved the Republican Party will do absolutely anything, no matter how vile and how evil no matter how Machiavellian to win power, for their sinister economic and religious reasons.
The Democrats in contrast will do anything to win a debate in some path to Utopia, but they don't care about winning elections; rather, they care about being right and being proved right by history.
Life is not a Hannah Barbara cartoon, this world is not the best of all possible worlds (duh, look who's President)
This election is a war not a pep rally
2
Absolutely right. I just said to my husband last night in ans. to his ques. why are you sad/mad today? I told him I'm mad about the Dem's., the debates. The enemy is Trump not each other on the stage. These folks; except for MaryAnn and Pete don't even try to go there. We have to shame him, we have to shame those who think they're going to vote for him again. He's a con job, a slimeball, a hater! We're not that in this USA. If we are then bring all our troops home!
4
For God's sake, people. Marianne Williamson thinks that depression is a spiritual failing and that antidepressants are therefore to be discounted. Even Dwight Schrute knows better than that.
Stop it.
2
Marianne Williamson is a credible commentator, not a credible candidate.
4
Great, just what we need. A lifelong Republican who tells Dems who they need. If you're so keen on Marianne then formally renounce your GOP membership and go work on Marianne's campaign. I'm ok with the conversations she's starting to raise the collective consciousness, but you must be smoking something if you think she has the chops to lead this nation (could you be Trojan horsing us?). When the right Dem is elected I'd figure out a national platform committee and name Marianne as chair to see what she does. President? Personally, I don't see it.
4
I would re-order these values so they create an easy-to-remember acronym: Sympathy, Honesty, Opportunity, Unity, Pluralism. This is how we need to SHO UP.
1
Too bad Oprah isn't running --she could do this...
What is a leader if there is no one that can think the same thoughts and follow enthusiastically? Why is Trump's following so strong? Please don't tell me Hillary was right - we are a basket of deplorables?
More “advice” from a professional, Party-uber-alles Republican about what Democrats ought to do and be? How predictable. Brooks starts his latest anti-Democrat attack by calling all Democrats stupid, a cheap tactic of someone who has no legitimate criticism, then moves on to bravely punch the usual Party-approved cartoonish straw men. Sure, he mentions Trump and a few of his flaws, but only in mild terms. Not once does loyal Republican, and supposedly newly-minted Christian, Brooks mention that Trump is a Republican. No mention that ninety five percent of his fellow Republicans wholeheartedly support Trump in everything he does and says. No, the problem is somehow entirely Democrats’ fault for allowing Brooks’ Republican Party to drag America down into the gutter. As for the “values we still share”, unity, honesty, pluralism, sympathy and opportunity are Democratic values demonstrably not shared by the majority of Republicans, Brooks included, who embrace Trump precisely because he rejects those values. Brooks is simply joining his fellow Professional Republican Commentariat members like Douthat and Stephens in pretending to care about the devastation wrought by their (never mentioned by name) Republican Party as a cover for campaigning for Trump’s reelection and, like them, the stench of his lying and his immoral, blind partisanship will cling to him for the rest of his life.
4
This has to be the dullest opion piece I've read on NYT.
Trump's election and presidency have been propped up almost solely on moral compromise. People turned their back on all the morals the writer talks about in exchange for Trump's "get rich quick" scheme. No one who voted for him is going to be swayed by a democrat singing "kumbaya."
And the notion that the democrats are the party of materialistic goals over morals is absolutely ridiculous. Democratic policies are the embodiment of the morals of which you speak. It's Republicans who have used their moral and spritual agenda to promote unrestricted capitalism and inequality for profit, at the expense of our future and collective success.
1
I take it that David would like to weaken the Democratic party with Ms. Williamson?
3
Does decency require noise to be noticed? David, I'd like to hear your take on Amy Klobuchar.
She may be right. Decency defeated Senator Joseph McCarthy and his anti Communist crusade in the early 1950s culminating in this before the nationally televised hearing when attorney Joseph Welch confronted McCarthy:
McCarthy charged that one of Welch's attorneys had ties to a Communist organization. As an amazed television audience looked on, Welch responded with the immortal lines that ultimately ended McCarthy's career: "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness." When McCarthy tried to continue his attack, Welch angrily interrupted, "Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?"
Overnight, McCarthy's immense national popularity evaporated.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Have_you_no_sense_of_decency.htm
She's the dark horse in shining armor. And absolutely right about the malevolent psychic force of Trump. Just think of how you day goes now, all the heavy coats of oppression and oppressiveness -- caged children, gravely imperiled planet, unchecked/unpunished criminal behaviors, feral white supremacy that is not only encouraged but exalted -- all these heavy coats we must smother under in even blistering heat. While most of the others wag and flail policy and symptoms, Ms. Williamson accurately names the disease.
Have you read Williamson’s early works? To be kind, they are naive, puerile and misleading. You don’t get what you want by wishing for it or meditating on it. That’s what she advocates. The “wonks” you deride are the ones with actual strategies to correct our disastrous national course. Anyone can plead for peace and love. But it takes a brilliant tactician to operationalize such ephemeral concepts. So, you think Williamson can pull that off?
Until the Democrats change their totally amoral position on abortion, they have no ethical standing with the center of the country. In addition, their constant harping on Republicans being "racists" belies the fact that they themselves live in gated communities, send their kids to all white private schools, live in communities where people of color can't afford to live (think Scarsdale, for example). They are hypocrites, so their voices about injustice, etc. are very hollow. How many of those politicians send their children to the D.C. public schools (except for Jimmy Carter).
@Anne
Most Democrats don't live in gated communities and send their kids to private schools. Most of them are people just like you, trying to make a living and raise their kids the best they can.
Williamson/Yang!
Sadly, the decency train left our station some time ago...
1
"We are all subtly corrupted while this guy is our leader." Speak for yourself, Mr. Brooks. Your elitist obsessive disdain for Trump has so corrupted your inner logic that you now tout the wackiest of Democrat candidates as the solution. Why is it so hard to accept the fact that Trump reaches a large swath of the electorate? Is that not how our system is supposed to work? President Trump has brought a refreshing honesty to political discourse. The "not my President" mentality that has fueled the angry opposition is simply a reaction of the unmasking of all those political taboos.
David, You have been heading deeper and deeper into a view of the world is blinding you to the simple and obvious. It is apparent that you yearn for an America that just does not exist.
That yearning is blinding you and it is showing up in your writing.
I suggest that you and only else who read your article today, take a look at Tara Isabella Burton's article in the Washington Post on the subject of Williamson and Trump. It is a much better analysis of both of them and why neither of them is worth much.
1
Donald Trump has released such evil in our country that no one remains unscathed. Only yesterday I saw a "well-fed" man wearing a Trump 2020 hat and I wanted to assault him. Let me assure you I'm a man of peace. Where did those thoughts come from?
1
Dream on, David. That ship has sailed, has foundered on rocks somewhere, and even the wreckage will never be seen again.
Trump will turn her into squash & noodle soup.
Oh, man! David, you are missing the boat here! Have you not been following what Elizabeth Warren has been saying and DOING? She not only has plans for change - economic and otherwise - she IS the change we all need and are looking for! She doesn't take ONE PENNY from big corporate donors! She consistently calls for us to remember our values as Americans and reclaim our integrity! She doesn't lip-sync the values that will redeem our nation - she LIVES them!!! Get on-board!!! How could you fall for the empty, gassy, wishful thinking of a wannabe when the real-deal is standing on stage just a few feet away??
1
So Brooks is now pushing Williamson...hmmm...
He’s giving Dems advice...hmmm...
Too bad he didn’t speak out against the GOP and its sermons of fear and hate over the last decades. Those sermons made Trump inevitable.
1
This analysis does not include the expert manipulations of Putin and his psy-ops teams. In fact, Donald Trump is not a phenomenon. He is a con man. Con men can “fool all of the people some of the time”. Mythologizing Trump is his dream. It’s also Putin’s dream.
Should “Politics should be separate from faith. Politics should be separate from soulcraft.” Or should politics adhere to:“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” Introducing faith into politics is like relying on faith to stop climate change, cure Ebola, or balance the budget. Certainly, exploiting our lowest instincts can motivate many labile voters. The fearful, the angry, the the resentful, the racist, the religious zealots are all vulnerable to suggestion. They are vulnerable to a con. Republicans won a number of elections based on cons. Nixon beat Humphrey with a “secret plan” and McGovern with “Amnesty, acid, and abortion for all”, Reagan beat Carter with “Let’s make America great again”! GHW Bush beat Dukakis with Willie Horton racism. Winning is everything to Republicans. Can anyone imagine W conceding to Gore or to Kerry? Or Trump conceding to Hillary Clinton, for the good of the country? For that matter, can anyone imagine Republicans yielding to the Constitution, for the good of the country?
To beat Trump, Democrats need a candidate who will confront everyone of his lies and threats with dispassion and humor. Humor, like Obama’s, wins.
Every Democrat running for office should read this article - and take it to heart.
Corey Booker or Michael Bennet.
Anyone else find it rich that Republican Brooks is hectoring Democrats on "what they oughtta do"?
The answer we can all agree on is: physician, heal thy self.
Democrats didn't give us the growing darkness: Republicans did. Where, oh where, are the earnest moral and spiritual guidance tips for his party, which after all, elected fascists. When they stole Obama's SCOTUS nominee, where was Brooks? When Moscow Mitch is actively working with the KGB to harm our democracy, where IS Brooks?
My tip for Brooks: gather up one million Republicans and descend on DC with your message for the very people who have brought us to the brink. Report back.
2
This is such utter nonsense. A candidate who proposes practical reality-based solutions can also have a soul. Bernie, Elizabeth, Kamala... all the candidates running for the Democratic nomination are decent human beings. What we don't need is another candidate operating in the upside down. Brooks is just another conservative trolling the Democratic party and its voters.
2
The ABB (Anybody But Bernie) phenomenon of mainstream media can now be amended to ABBT (Anybody But Bernie or Tulsi).
1
I pray the DNC reads--and heeds--this incisive piece. Thanks, Mr. Brooks.
"We need an uprising of decency." Then stop bashing liberals in your column and recognize that maybe they have good ideas even though you may not understand the lure of them at present.
We need someone who can rattle off a top 20 list of Trump Top Atrocities every time they speak. Biden cannot do it because he is too old and cannot speak forcibly or in a linear manner. Kamala Harris actually has the same problem as Biden except she can talk faster but she goes off topic rambles even more, and she loses intensity often.
Please come back, Jimmy Stewart, and take Mr. Smith to Washington!
Remember "LOVE TRUMPS HATE" and "BETTER TOGETHER"? Hillary was way ahead of you.
Trump is a racist. Check the statistics on his appointments to the federal judiciary. How many women or Blacks? Almost all are white males.
Simple solution: Can we all agree that Trump is a congenital liar?
I will take Elizabeth's morale values any day over those of David Brooks, who proudly supported the Iraq war.
1
Superb, clearly articulated challenge for EVERY American citizen. We all know how and who we want to be in the world. Now, we must insist on that in the person we elect to be our president. It isn't complicated. But it is essential.
David, if you really want an uprising of decency, how about spending more time and space in the Times pinpointing the incredible indecency and hypocrisy among your beloved “conservatives”? Oh that’s right, you can’t without exposing your own sanctimonious hypocrisy—always sharing your lamentations over what you see as problems with the Democrats. Those apparent problems (often just your pretentious whining that we should all praise the conservatism of the wealthy) are molehills in relation to the staggeringly vicious evils so smilingly espoused by the class you want to belong to—the ones you want to impress, the ones from whom you desperately want approval.
3
One question for David Brooks: Are you still a Republican? Because if you are, this and everything else you’ve written in the past year or so Is just phooey. If you still think Republicanism has a chance post-Trump, you’re delusional. As weak, impulsive, and scattered as the Democrats are, they are the political party upholding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the only thing standing between US democracy and US autocracy. So, Mr Brooks, shut up or put up. Stop straddling the fence. It just makes you look weak and irritates those of us who have not gone down the rabbit hole.
Totally out of touch David. As usual.
2
I am wondering why Tumpuan love Trump?
He boasted about deal making prowess
Where is the deal?
Marianne 2020 - not electable doesn’t equal “wackadoodle” ideas, David.
I agree, David. You first.
David Brooks for President??? Has a nice ring to it!
She's as phony as a TV evangelist.
2
It would be great if the "uprising of decency" Brooks is hoping for started with the Republican Party death cult that he has so consistently advocated for throughout his career.
This can't be serious.
1
I think this article is on point.
1
Trump is a cultural revolutionary? What are you on, DAvid Brooks. He lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, and the only endorsement he lived up to in the two newspapers that endorsed him in 2016 is the KKK's official newspaper. (I believe the National Enquirer - the other newspaper - isn't too happy with him these days.)
Please stop referring to the lunatic king in the oval office as either "cultural" -OR- "revolutionary".
Just keep in mind that your party put a human wrecking ball into the White House. He can destroy your party, but we, the people, will prevail.
1
She's appears to be well meaning, but with zero experience. I'd sooner fly in an airplane with a student pilot than put someone in the WH whose never passed legislation.
In sharp contrast, Warren created the Consumer Protection Agency and participated in Dodd Frank. That underscores an intense understanding of legislating and how corrupt banking has eviscerated the 99%.
Marianne could serve as a spiritual guide, but when I want my car fixed, I go to an experienced mechanic.
Its amazing that Medicare For All seems to break the bank so to speak, but the last 18 years of wars that have no clear outcome, didn't touch the budget, didn't break the bank in a way that is obscene beyond words?. But taking care of our health care rights of the citizens is what is going to break our budget? Mean people just don't want "the other" to have healthcare because they don't want them in the front of the line competing with them when they call to get an appointment with the doctor, which already has long waits as it is. I have "friends" that have told me this to my face when I explain the need for universal healthcare. Yes Marianne Williamson is not our answer but she does speak the truth.
Thank you, sir, for reminding all of us that we cannot be "one nation under God" without living the values that make that possible. Materialism, greed, power and corruption - as espoused by many of our politicians - have become commonplace. We have forgotten who we are as The United States of America. I am grateful that you and Marianne have the courage to remind us. I only wish all the candidates understood this and would express it, not just Mayor Pete. The DNC is creating a culture of defeat for all of us.
3
Personally, I think any kind of uprising would help (just look at Puerto Rico). While decency is nice, I'll settle for any kind of uprising at this point.
1
What are the 'values' the Democrats stand for?
And how do these 'values' capture the hearts and minds of America's voters?
Nobody gets excited about 'policy papers' but they do get excited when leaders share who they are and what is important to them.
1
Amen. It's the winning strategy because it's uplifting and it allows promising great things that can actually happen.
How much difference is there between Trump saying we'll have fantastically great healthcare and Bernie saying it will be free for everyone and Republicans in congress will go along? Both amount to lies. But truly making America great again starts with removing and repudiating Trump. Let no child grow up wanting to be like Trump or thinking he is some kind of "success" story.
1
I agree with what Brooks has to say on some level, but Marianne Williamson is not qualified to be president.
I'm thankful for this piece, because after the closing arguments in the last round of the debates I was left thinking that Marianne Williamson was the only candidate to speak truthfully, movingly and powerfully about the root causes of the issues and what is truly at stake this election. It left me thinking that her force as a speech writer or campaign strategist would be invaluable, but saying that she should be president for this quality alone devalues the responsibilities of the presidency. What about her record shows us she deeply understands policy? Geopolitics? Military defense? The economy? Healthcare?
Yes, we need someone who can defeat trump.. but what comes next? What would the long term effects be for the democratic party for ousting trump in 2020 only to be stuck with another unprepared president.
I like her a lot and love what she has to say and how she says it, frankly because that is what she has done best all her life. She should absolutely be courted onto the team of the eventual democratic nominee but she is unqualified to be president.
1
What are the 'values' the Democrats stand for?
And how do these 'values' capture the hearts and minds of America's voters?
Nobody gets excited about 'policy papers' but they do get excited when leaders share what matters to them.
It is no longer about policies, its about our approach. Be cerebral when you make it to the White House. We need an idealist with charisma that is both approachable and a rock star. We need someone who is mature and not easily fazed. We need a leader that cares about the direction of the country and is able to articulate the delicate crossroads that we find ourselves at.
Brooks writes, "Elizabeth Warren is a social scientist from Harvard Law School who has a plan for everything — except the central subject of this election, which is cultural and moral."
First, Warren is not a "social scientist" no matter how convenient that label may be to Brooks' facile argument. She is an expert in bankruptcy law, the topic she taught at Harvard Law.
Second, if Brooks thinks Warren doesn't voice a cultural and moral vision in her plans, it can only be because he hasn't heard her speak. She is always all about talking to who we are as a nation and what we aspire to be.
3
@LenRI
"Warren..cultural and moral vision in her plans."
Agreed. How can someone who has the compassion to want all Americans to have access to affordable health care not be of the right moral fiber.
What about Jimmy Carter? His presidency was largely premised on moral uplift and ended up as one term only.
I do not mean to totally reject the idea of the column; what is needed is a mix: good policies combined with an appeal to decency.
1
"Trump is a cultural revolutionary, not a policy revolutionary. He operates and is subtly changing America at a much deeper level."
Trump is merely reflecting the change brought about by the likes of Gingrich and Limbaugh going back 30 years.
Change driven forward by the many conservatives who today would be pulling their hair if they had any.
Conservative Republicans sowed the seeds made the ground fertile for the likes of Donald Trump.
That includes Canadians writing about Bobos in Paradise.
I cannot split hairs between Warren's plans and promotion of decency. Concern for climate and DACAs and health costs are entwined in the call to decency and fairness.
2