I am shocked at the inclusion of Greece's Syriza party in a list that includes the Tea Party, France's National Front and England's UKIP. Syriza is a progressive party, not a xenophobic or radical one. There IS one of those in Greece, it's called Golden Dawn. Syriza simply doesn't fit Brooks' overall analysis since it represents an elecorate who rejects eurozone austerity but also rejects neo-nazi thuggery.
17
I seldom agree with David Brooks, but I never fail to read his views.
Perhaps the conflicts which have erupted have less to do with abstractions such as "Democracy" and more to do with the hazards of the ubiquitous power Capitalism reins over government functions. An alternative goal such as a better life for ordinary people everywhere, would lessen the fear of the public now compelled to support greed and vicious anti-working class movements.
Perhaps the conflicts which have erupted have less to do with abstractions such as "Democracy" and more to do with the hazards of the ubiquitous power Capitalism reins over government functions. An alternative goal such as a better life for ordinary people everywhere, would lessen the fear of the public now compelled to support greed and vicious anti-working class movements.
9
There are no zero sum games. Not really.
And the past was no where near as 'it's a small world after all' as Brooks paints here.
If we can manage to tamp down our proclivity to go to war on each other mankind has always lived in a win-win environment. Technology and society both advance and improve whenever and wherever we are not tearing down what we have built.
On the other side when we do go to war with each other we go from win-win to lose-lose. The only question in dispute is who will lose more. A lot of allied wealth was destroyed and millions of allied sons and daughters died in World War Two. But we won?! And world wide depression came to an end?!
Beyond the 48 million who died and the tens of millions damaged or displaced there were all their relatives and friends. Quite a way to win. Quite a way to end a depression. Especially as the winners lost 40 million while the losers only lost about 8 million. (In truth Russia, a winner, has still not really recovered 70 years later).
So there is not zero-sum. Just win-win or lose-lose. We are not built to balance, only grow or die.
And the past was no where near as 'it's a small world after all' as Brooks paints here.
If we can manage to tamp down our proclivity to go to war on each other mankind has always lived in a win-win environment. Technology and society both advance and improve whenever and wherever we are not tearing down what we have built.
On the other side when we do go to war with each other we go from win-win to lose-lose. The only question in dispute is who will lose more. A lot of allied wealth was destroyed and millions of allied sons and daughters died in World War Two. But we won?! And world wide depression came to an end?!
Beyond the 48 million who died and the tens of millions damaged or displaced there were all their relatives and friends. Quite a way to win. Quite a way to end a depression. Especially as the winners lost 40 million while the losers only lost about 8 million. (In truth Russia, a winner, has still not really recovered 70 years later).
So there is not zero-sum. Just win-win or lose-lose. We are not built to balance, only grow or die.
8
Sorry David, you are being a shill for Netanyahu. PERIOD. You are trying to support Netanyahu albeit in your subtle way. Netanyahu said in no uncertain terms that there WOULD BE NO TWO_STATE SOLUTION. That he redacted that statement right after the election does not mean that he was just pandering to get the votes. His past actions belie the redacted statement. And why is anti-semitism ONLY be a good barometer of the worsening mood? Why not anti- arab, anti-muslim, anti-immigrants, anti- gays - in fact anti everything which should be of grave concern? I fail to understand why everything is about Israel as the epi-center. We and Israel penalize Gaza and the Palestinians for once upon a time having elected Hamas. We penalize Iranians for bringing in the Ayatollahs. In the same vein should'nt we penalize Israelis for electing a bombastic, lying Despot like Netanyahu? And it has happened JUST YESTERDAY!! Just dismissing it as "Pandering" does not wash away the deadly intent.
20
Ha, so this is what the center-right punditry will concern itself with over the next several months: Loads of words about this or that, with the subtextual intention of making Netanyahu's reversal on Palestinian statehood seem inconsequential.
10
This is not just a moment of zero-sum mentality. It's an era of (going from bad to worse) Reagan-Gingrich-Tea Party conservatism that seems bent on eliminating opportunities for the vast majority of Americans, cementing the advantages of a wealthy and politically powerful elite.
12
Mr. Brooks:
By way of clarification,could you give us a list of things that do not take place in "a specific global moment"?
By way of clarification,could you give us a list of things that do not take place in "a specific global moment"?
9
The Republican Party also has gotten votes from the extreme right by becoming more like them - after having pandered them to power in the first place.
"In general," you said, "the power of the cultural moment shapes the candidates. But occasionally there is a leader who can turn a negative popular mood into a positive one. F.D.R. and Reagan did this. But you have to be very, very good." Very very good? Or willing to appeal to the worst in people? The negative mood in Reagan's time was the result of the hippie movement that said Love is the answer. The far right didn't agree and had been simmering, so when Reagan spouted his Morning in America tough guy patriot stuff, the white supremacists and the John Birch Society got a new lease on life, the Southern Democrats became Southern Republicans, unions began to decline, welfare mothers became outcasts, fundamentalists became Republicans, a war on drugs put a good part of our population in prison, etc., etc.
I didn't see it as being good then, and I don't now. I switched parties too - from being a Republican all my life to being a Democrat for the rest of it.
"In general," you said, "the power of the cultural moment shapes the candidates. But occasionally there is a leader who can turn a negative popular mood into a positive one. F.D.R. and Reagan did this. But you have to be very, very good." Very very good? Or willing to appeal to the worst in people? The negative mood in Reagan's time was the result of the hippie movement that said Love is the answer. The far right didn't agree and had been simmering, so when Reagan spouted his Morning in America tough guy patriot stuff, the white supremacists and the John Birch Society got a new lease on life, the Southern Democrats became Southern Republicans, unions began to decline, welfare mothers became outcasts, fundamentalists became Republicans, a war on drugs put a good part of our population in prison, etc., etc.
I didn't see it as being good then, and I don't now. I switched parties too - from being a Republican all my life to being a Democrat for the rest of it.
21
Brooks writes "anti-Semitism is a good barometer of a worsening public mood. I totally disagree with this facile and self-serving analysis which has been inserted into a serious article on another subject entirely. I see anti-Semitism as partly a reflection of negative world-wide reaction to Israeli excesses which violate normal standards of morality and international law. The widespread response to the recent outrageous remarks by Netanyahu show us all how anti-Zionism can be dishonestly portrayed as anti-Semitism.
15
There CAN be win-win outcomes, and "pugnaciousness" overall is a losing strategy. Game theory was developed during the cold war (by among others, the Rand Corp) to prevent "pugnaciousness" from escalating into a nuclear exchange. So far so good. http://edge.org/conversation/evolution-of-cooperation-nowak
Computer simulations of a game called "prisoner's dilemma" where players have the option to cooperate or betray, show that variations of the "always betray" strategy lose very quickly. The simplest strategy, "tit-for tat" (ie never betray first, then respond in kind), is very robust in the short term, but can still lead to out of control escalation. Over the long run, with continuing interactions, "nice" wins.
So who's following what strategy? Not always so easy to tell.
Obama started off "Nice" but shifted towards tit-for-tat to avoid being exploited by the never-cooperate Republicans. Merkel has pretty much done tit-for-tat, "cross her and you wind up dead," but has shifted on Greece towards Nice. We thought Putin might play nice, but he always betrays.
Netanyahu? Worse than Putin, who's at least predictable. Bibi looks either erratic or like a cynical liar, who pretends to cooperate, but actually betrays. I think YOU wish he hadn't renounced a two state solution, but if you look at his behavior, it seems like that's what he's always meant.
FDR; tit-for-tat, moved cooperative. Reagan; looked cooperative, but only for the rich. Betrayed the rest.
Computer simulations of a game called "prisoner's dilemma" where players have the option to cooperate or betray, show that variations of the "always betray" strategy lose very quickly. The simplest strategy, "tit-for tat" (ie never betray first, then respond in kind), is very robust in the short term, but can still lead to out of control escalation. Over the long run, with continuing interactions, "nice" wins.
So who's following what strategy? Not always so easy to tell.
Obama started off "Nice" but shifted towards tit-for-tat to avoid being exploited by the never-cooperate Republicans. Merkel has pretty much done tit-for-tat, "cross her and you wind up dead," but has shifted on Greece towards Nice. We thought Putin might play nice, but he always betrays.
Netanyahu? Worse than Putin, who's at least predictable. Bibi looks either erratic or like a cynical liar, who pretends to cooperate, but actually betrays. I think YOU wish he hadn't renounced a two state solution, but if you look at his behavior, it seems like that's what he's always meant.
FDR; tit-for-tat, moved cooperative. Reagan; looked cooperative, but only for the rich. Betrayed the rest.
22
"Reactionary forces like the Islamic State and Iran are winning."
Brooks has joined the Bibi "coupling" brigade. The game is to conflate ISIS to Iran. Brooks did this deliberately and it's very misleading. ISIS is surely reactionary and brutal, but Iran is a stable government that is far more religiously liberalized than Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE: our allies. In Iran, women drive cars, they drive taxis and the younger ones wear blue jeans. Americans would know the differences if journalists, including broadcast journalists brought Iran into focus. Instead, they prefer it and comparisons to Saudi Arabia to remain out of focus.
Please put an end to the machinations, David.
Brooks has joined the Bibi "coupling" brigade. The game is to conflate ISIS to Iran. Brooks did this deliberately and it's very misleading. ISIS is surely reactionary and brutal, but Iran is a stable government that is far more religiously liberalized than Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE: our allies. In Iran, women drive cars, they drive taxis and the younger ones wear blue jeans. Americans would know the differences if journalists, including broadcast journalists brought Iran into focus. Instead, they prefer it and comparisons to Saudi Arabia to remain out of focus.
Please put an end to the machinations, David.
56
The saying goes, "It's not paranoia if they are out to get you." The paradigm line of our age is from the movie, "Wall Street": "The money never sleeps." Concentrated private and corporate wealth is relentless and ruthless in its pursuit of more. No, I'm not a Commie. "Too much of good thing," should not be hard to understand, and it applies to Capitalism as well as to ice cream and other wonderful things. Between Climate Change and Geo-politics, if one is not fearful and anxious, one is brain-dead. Obama did what he could, and met ferocious opposition and precious little intelligent support. It remains to be seen that anyone can arouse a somnolent populace and get a grip on this runaway plutocracy before it leads to a great disruption.
49
Granting the thesis for the sake of argument, I see one big exception: current theories about how to run a corporation. Here, its all about leaders eating last, scrum, multidisciplinary teams, empowerment, enthusiasm and loyalty. Southwest Airlines is the poster child. Inside the company, empowering workers succeeds. Outside the company, it's class warfare.
1
Mr. Brooks is sounding the alarm; the West is under attack from the Rest. Never mind the fact that in its attempts to integrate the "Non-Integrated Gap," the US and the European Union greatly contributed to the destruction of the internal economic, social, and political structures of those countries and the unrest that ensued.
This oped is clearly an apologetic piece for Netanyahu's flip-flopping during and after the election. No, sir! Netanyahu clearly said that there will not be a Palestinian state during his tenure. He is not a partner for peace in the region. He is a fear and war monger and you, sir, you are a purveyor of extreme right propaganda.
This oped is clearly an apologetic piece for Netanyahu's flip-flopping during and after the election. No, sir! Netanyahu clearly said that there will not be a Palestinian state during his tenure. He is not a partner for peace in the region. He is a fear and war monger and you, sir, you are a purveyor of extreme right propaganda.
12
"People who are economically insecure (and more likely to lean left)"
Really? What accounts then for all the economically insecure people who happily vote Republicans into office?
Really? What accounts then for all the economically insecure people who happily vote Republicans into office?
17
Netanyahu's victory was due to a blatant display of racism and fear mongering in the 11th hour on his part. He is nothing more than a power hungry bully as are Scott Walker and Chris Christie. Being strong and being a bully are not homologous. A bully often eggs others on to do his or her fighting because they are in truth weak individuals given to outburst of false bravado. Such is the case with Netanyahu's ludicrous address to Congress. Israel has now spoken, and so be it. It is now time for the U.S. to disengage from supporting an essentially apartheid nation.
And please refrain from equating FDR with Reagan, that is a false equivalency.
And please refrain from equating FDR with Reagan, that is a false equivalency.
25
Ninety-five years ago, the brilliant Irish poet, William Butler Yeats, eloquently summed up the same situation we are in now:
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Zero-Sum indeed.
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Zero-Sum indeed.
17
The specific truth is that nations and their leaders generally reflect common perceptions of reality and/or opportunity. When those shade towards kinder/gentler as in the late 80s/early 90s, we love it. The bent since 911 is much, much more harsh but the seeds of that go back many years in many ways. Netanyahu, it seems to me, appears more rightwing as he confronts the reality of unabating anti-Jew hatreds in many sheres. Now is simply the most pervasively dangerous time for Israel and Jews in my life time. Netanyahu understands that. Those who blame Netanyahu ignore history and the fact that Jews are and have been hated by way too many with a plethora of excuses for thousands of years.
JEB and HC both seem to understand that tough is the only way to interact in the international spheres where plenty wish to advance their own agendas at the expense of the USA. How to balance a need to intimidate vs taking opportunities to persuade with carrots is where we need to see the character of R and D leadership. The world is a brutal sphere, in some places because of murderous intent that is really a barbaric form of survival of the fittest. In other "civilized" cultures, the brutality is business and trade based. That survival of the fittest is the reallity. Learn to live with it.
JEB and HC both seem to understand that tough is the only way to interact in the international spheres where plenty wish to advance their own agendas at the expense of the USA. How to balance a need to intimidate vs taking opportunities to persuade with carrots is where we need to see the character of R and D leadership. The world is a brutal sphere, in some places because of murderous intent that is really a barbaric form of survival of the fittest. In other "civilized" cultures, the brutality is business and trade based. That survival of the fittest is the reallity. Learn to live with it.
1
Leave it to Mr. Brooks to defend the indefensible GOP, praise Reagan for things he did to destroy the middle class, and -----if that was not enough------Mr. Brooks now praises and encourages the indefensible behavior of Netanyahu. Brooks is smart enough to know he is not defending conservative policies-----he is defending reactionary, undemocratic, and un-American behavior that destroys the values and policies Mr. Brooks claims to cherish. David Brooks should be ashamed of himself.
32
Brooks, you mistake a moment in the 24 hour news cycle for the larger historical moment. Its pretty hard to read this particular historical moment because the wheel's still in spin; when its slows we'll see who its naming.
3
Brooks says the pseudo intellectual (see Socrates' rendition of Walker's climate change ignorance), Scott Walker; the guy who never met a special interest(Exxon) that couldn't buy him - Chris Christie, and Jeb "Monarchy" Bush. What a taste tempting selection - reminds one of eating at vending machines during a lunch break when you're just too lazy or apathetic to go out to eat.
13
When the opposition exists merely to oppose then the result is, as, Mr. Brooks' states, " "Cooperative skills are less valued while confrontational skills are more valued." Fortunately zero-sum solutions historically have a poor track record – if they didn't Mr. Brooks' article would be one very short sentence to the effect of, "Nothing new. Have a nice day."
3
Yeah, but Reagan's "positive mood" was actually quite negative and unfounded in reality. He began our long slide by substituting fluff for substance and we are paying for it now. He essentially said, don't work on making government serve us better, have faith in greed and we will be all right.
43
"Not now", then when
How disappointing to see Mr. Brooks, once again, abandon his usual fair and analytic appraisal of world affairs in an attempt to mitigate and explain away the effects of the Netanyahu campaign and election. The "not now" emphasis that Mr. Brooks tries to inject was certainly not evident during the raging bull speeches made by Netanyahu prior to the election. Every thinking and rational person has by now realized that Israel's "not now" means "not ever" or at least "until we have taken even more territory that we will never relinquish". It has never, and can never, be viewed as a precursor to a just and fair two state settlement. Netanyahu's racist rants against voting Arabs and prior threats to "remove" Arab villages from Israel goes unnoticed and accepted by most of the U.S. press, which is apparently blind to the expressed hatred except in those instances where any and all criticism of Israeli behavior is deemed to be anti-Semitic.
How disappointing to see Mr. Brooks, once again, abandon his usual fair and analytic appraisal of world affairs in an attempt to mitigate and explain away the effects of the Netanyahu campaign and election. The "not now" emphasis that Mr. Brooks tries to inject was certainly not evident during the raging bull speeches made by Netanyahu prior to the election. Every thinking and rational person has by now realized that Israel's "not now" means "not ever" or at least "until we have taken even more territory that we will never relinquish". It has never, and can never, be viewed as a precursor to a just and fair two state settlement. Netanyahu's racist rants against voting Arabs and prior threats to "remove" Arab villages from Israel goes unnoticed and accepted by most of the U.S. press, which is apparently blind to the expressed hatred except in those instances where any and all criticism of Israeli behavior is deemed to be anti-Semitic.
34
Though I seldom agree with Mr. Brooks, I think he makes two astute points. First, in a time of such constant and well-covered conflict, the tough guys (and women) come off more like leaders. Netanyahu is a liar extraordinaire, but he beat out his "softer" competition. Obama is not a fighter by nature and his Presidency has been a disappointment (it might have made no difference if he had been more pugnacious, but there's no way to know that). Chris Christie's Presidential campaign seem over before it started, but Scott Walker's chief qualification seems to be his willingness to punch. I personally would prefer more thoughtful leaders, but I'm not sure how we get them.
14
David Brooks writes that in the current political climate:
"Progressives emphasize compassion less and redistribution more."
No.
Progressives, at all times, emphasize equality of opportunity on a playing field that's level.
Simple to say; difficult to achieve much less sustain.
"Progressives emphasize compassion less and redistribution more."
No.
Progressives, at all times, emphasize equality of opportunity on a playing field that's level.
Simple to say; difficult to achieve much less sustain.
53
I have decried David Brooks's columns in the past, mostly to myself, because he probably means well but unconsciously must struggle to continue meaning well. He writes for The Times to fill a position opposite to most readers of the newspaper. This is an attempt at balanced journalism. Rather a columnist who ranks with Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, we readers should kindly settle for a mild intellectual with a conscience. Mr. Brooks is a thinker. He deserves to have his column. So do we.
The idea that progress occurs in politics or ethics is an interesting delusion. Technology is progressive -scientific advances are generally permanent ; human behavior follows historic cycles -what has been gained may be lost. The belief that it can change is nothing more than secular faith.
2
This column truly is just to cover the back/hindquarters of the Netanyahu election -- it's damage control -- and a heck of a lot of wordsmithing.
What it reveals and lays bare is that David Brooks puts right wing, Likud Israeli interests and visions foremost.
What it reveals and lays bare is that David Brooks puts right wing, Likud Israeli interests and visions foremost.
5
FDR created.
Reagan destroyed and gave us what we have today.
We need a Roosevelt, not a Reagan.
Reagan destroyed and gave us what we have today.
We need a Roosevelt, not a Reagan.
13
I enjoyed Mr. Brooks’ March 10 column on “The Cost of Relativism.” It is ironic that he is guilty of the sin he condemned so eloquently in today’s defense of Mr. Netanyahu.
Mr. Netanyahu has no interest in two-solution. If he did, he would not continue to build settlements, withhold tax dollars, and oppress Palestinians.
In pleading for votes on election eve, Mr. Netanyahu proclaimed that “[r]ight-wing rule is danger. Arab voters are streaming in huge quantities to the polling stations.”
If an American politician made the same plea and you substituted ‘black’ or ‘Jewish’ for ‘Arab’, he or she would be, rightly, lambasted in the media and no longer have a political career.
While there is plenty of blame to go around for the stalled peace process, Mr. Brooks ignores the failings of Israel and seeks to rehabilitate the anti-Arab, anti-peace position of his candidate. Mr. Brooks ‘explains’ that “[h]e didn’t literally renounce the idea of a two-state solution forevermore. He just said that it would be too dangerous in the near term as long as Islamist-style radicalism is on the march. (A defensible proposition.)”
That sounds an awful lot like Relativism to me.
Mr. Netanyahu has no interest in two-solution. If he did, he would not continue to build settlements, withhold tax dollars, and oppress Palestinians.
In pleading for votes on election eve, Mr. Netanyahu proclaimed that “[r]ight-wing rule is danger. Arab voters are streaming in huge quantities to the polling stations.”
If an American politician made the same plea and you substituted ‘black’ or ‘Jewish’ for ‘Arab’, he or she would be, rightly, lambasted in the media and no longer have a political career.
While there is plenty of blame to go around for the stalled peace process, Mr. Brooks ignores the failings of Israel and seeks to rehabilitate the anti-Arab, anti-peace position of his candidate. Mr. Brooks ‘explains’ that “[h]e didn’t literally renounce the idea of a two-state solution forevermore. He just said that it would be too dangerous in the near term as long as Islamist-style radicalism is on the march. (A defensible proposition.)”
That sounds an awful lot like Relativism to me.
8
"Today it's harder to have faith in rapid progress." Let's accept for the moment this statement is true. Do we draw the same conclusion about the strength of our belief in slow, but steady progress? Do we even have the metrics necessary to measure such progress, never mind the belief which would be based upon them?
The reason we have to think long and hard about this last question is that we reflexively understand it within the dynamics of national sovereignty, the rise and fall and rise again of nation states.
Yet when we focus instead on human sovereignty we can see surprising examples of some measures of steady, encouraging progress. One is the Green Belt Movement, inaugurated in 1977 by Wangari Maathai, a future Nobel Laureate, which in Kenya alone lead to the planting of 30 million trees while at the same time providing 30,000 indigent women with new skills. By some accounts this movement has lead worldwide to the planting of 40 million trees-- a bold counterstroke to the devastation of deforestation.
And then there's the simple but profound heroism of the youngest Nobel winner ever, Malala Yousafzai. More than any government pronouncement or program, her courage has spearheaded a renewed and robust dialogue on universal education, and for girls in particular.
There are many examples of ordinary heroism, a lot of them women. This is the progress we're really yearning for I think. One that amounts to the hope a single person-- even me-- can change the world.
The reason we have to think long and hard about this last question is that we reflexively understand it within the dynamics of national sovereignty, the rise and fall and rise again of nation states.
Yet when we focus instead on human sovereignty we can see surprising examples of some measures of steady, encouraging progress. One is the Green Belt Movement, inaugurated in 1977 by Wangari Maathai, a future Nobel Laureate, which in Kenya alone lead to the planting of 30 million trees while at the same time providing 30,000 indigent women with new skills. By some accounts this movement has lead worldwide to the planting of 40 million trees-- a bold counterstroke to the devastation of deforestation.
And then there's the simple but profound heroism of the youngest Nobel winner ever, Malala Yousafzai. More than any government pronouncement or program, her courage has spearheaded a renewed and robust dialogue on universal education, and for girls in particular.
There are many examples of ordinary heroism, a lot of them women. This is the progress we're really yearning for I think. One that amounts to the hope a single person-- even me-- can change the world.
3
Obama may not lead like Putin or the other leaders described as more fitting for these times, but that does not mean he is ineffective or soft. He has a more subtle way of influencing outcome. Take for example his reaction Netanyahu's sloppy stance that there would be no two state solution. Obama called him on it, said Israel has stopped negotiations, and that we should put the wheels in motion to make Palestine a state. Netanyahu immediately conceded that he didn't really mean it, and reversed his claim. Another example is Obama's highly effective sanctions on Russia. Domestically, Obama has stared down a dysfunctional Congress at every turn. Take another look. Obama has a way of standing up to the bullies of the world with grace, style, wit, and wisdom. I would argue that he is exactly what we need right now.
25
Mr. Brooks:
Elections aren't the only things that take place in a "specific global moment".
If we substitute the word change for the word progress perhaps we can expand our understanding of why we are where we are. Perhaps, the meltdown of the global economy has something to do with it. Perhaps, the invasion of Iraq had something to do with it. Perhaps, the prevalence of fear mongering had something to do with it
This laundry list of change that has led us this "specific global moment" you present here doesn't seem to be at all interested in causality. This seems a bit odd coming from a meticulous thinker like yourself. Could it be that causality is being shunned because a conservative leadership in this country is directly responsible for this dangerous global meltdown?
But, who cares about causality? We have to live in the crisis of the moment and whatever it takes to deal with the threats it presents. We'll let history sort it out. If lying is called for, let's support the best liars. So, Bibi isn't a crass megalomaniac he's the man for this "global moment". We all know that liberals don't do pragmatism; I guess we'll have to vote Republican next time.
Maybe we'll get another Reagan to save us from ourselves by selling us amnesia.This "global moment" is "the morning in America" he sold us.He was no FDR., nice try,but, they are diametrically opposed politically. So, thanks but, no thanks to another round of trickle down war mongering.
Elections aren't the only things that take place in a "specific global moment".
If we substitute the word change for the word progress perhaps we can expand our understanding of why we are where we are. Perhaps, the meltdown of the global economy has something to do with it. Perhaps, the invasion of Iraq had something to do with it. Perhaps, the prevalence of fear mongering had something to do with it
This laundry list of change that has led us this "specific global moment" you present here doesn't seem to be at all interested in causality. This seems a bit odd coming from a meticulous thinker like yourself. Could it be that causality is being shunned because a conservative leadership in this country is directly responsible for this dangerous global meltdown?
But, who cares about causality? We have to live in the crisis of the moment and whatever it takes to deal with the threats it presents. We'll let history sort it out. If lying is called for, let's support the best liars. So, Bibi isn't a crass megalomaniac he's the man for this "global moment". We all know that liberals don't do pragmatism; I guess we'll have to vote Republican next time.
Maybe we'll get another Reagan to save us from ourselves by selling us amnesia.This "global moment" is "the morning in America" he sold us.He was no FDR., nice try,but, they are diametrically opposed politically. So, thanks but, no thanks to another round of trickle down war mongering.
12
I wish Brooks would stop tossing around misused notions that apparently he believes convey deep thinking when in reality they show off confused and empty thinking. It's annoying and tiring. Two examples:
- He talks about zero-sum gains. That notion has a precise technical definition. It's hard to understand where the zero-sumness applies to the examples he gives. Conclusion: It sounds impressive but no one understands what on earth he is talking about.
- He mentions: "People who are economically insecure (and more likely to lean left) ..." Well, no. Quite the opposite: Insecurity and low-end opportunities breed racism and a turn to the far right. There are are many examples of this. Europe in the 30s is one giant example. The French and Soviet Revolutions are traditionally thought of as 'left' but conditions there were significantly different and to warrant nuanced considerations. And more to the point, we are witnessing the well-doing of many far-right parties in Russia and in Western Europe (Syriza is collaborating with ANEL in Greece). Not to mention the abysmal turn of the GOP into quasi-fascist conservatism.
Reading Brooks I am reminded of a short satirical passsage by Mark Twain, where he quips something to the tune of "The more I read it, the less I understand it".
- He talks about zero-sum gains. That notion has a precise technical definition. It's hard to understand where the zero-sumness applies to the examples he gives. Conclusion: It sounds impressive but no one understands what on earth he is talking about.
- He mentions: "People who are economically insecure (and more likely to lean left) ..." Well, no. Quite the opposite: Insecurity and low-end opportunities breed racism and a turn to the far right. There are are many examples of this. Europe in the 30s is one giant example. The French and Soviet Revolutions are traditionally thought of as 'left' but conditions there were significantly different and to warrant nuanced considerations. And more to the point, we are witnessing the well-doing of many far-right parties in Russia and in Western Europe (Syriza is collaborating with ANEL in Greece). Not to mention the abysmal turn of the GOP into quasi-fascist conservatism.
Reading Brooks I am reminded of a short satirical passsage by Mark Twain, where he quips something to the tune of "The more I read it, the less I understand it".
55
Reagan and FDR were two sides of the same coin -- one was for Social Responsibility, the other for No Responsibility.
That's a big difference. To that extent, there really isn't a comparison that matters; there is only contrasts in power.
Rationalizing the Righteous requires communication skills, not facts. We know the facts, and they don't measure truth.
That's a big difference. To that extent, there really isn't a comparison that matters; there is only contrasts in power.
Rationalizing the Righteous requires communication skills, not facts. We know the facts, and they don't measure truth.
6
It was interesting to read the nod given to Reagan in the last paragraph as throughout the piece, I had been thinking that the mood described was presaged in the US by the Reagan era. Before then, going back to the New Deal, the operating ethos in this country was that if something bad happened to someone and it wasn't their fault, then we had to do something about it. Reagan told us -- with tales like the Cadillac welfare queen --that if something bad happened to someone and it wasn't our fault, then we didn't have to do anything about it. Combine that with tax cuts (and no spending cuts) and you have the recipe for the type of selfish, self-centered behavior that inevitably led to us hunkered down in our bunkers peering out suspiciously at the other. Reagan may have turned a negative popular mood into a positive one, but he did that by telling us that they didn't have any responsibility toward our fellow citizens. People were happy to be relieved of that burden.
13
Of course we should be afraid! What else do the republicans have to sell. It is becoming ever clearer what we should be afraid of in 2016. As they work to ensure there is no nuclear agreement with Iran they'll remind us how afraid we should be of Iran. How we can't wait for a 'mushroom cloud' to deal with them. And of course, how only they, the republicans can ensure our security, safety and very existence. Not that it was needed but, Netanyahu's campaign was a sort of pilot program to this end: be afraid, the world is against us and I am the only who can save us. Needless to say, this tact worked again. And it very well may work in 2016.
6
How does David Brooks explain Obama's shameless pandering to Iran by celebrating their New Year at the White House and begging their youth to accept the nuclear deal he's desperate to broker so that Iran is no longer his problem.
"In these moments, right-leaning parties tend to do well and have a stronger story to tell on national security. They speak the language of nationalism and cultural cohesion. People who are economically insecure (and more likely to lean left) drop out of the political process."
Except, you know, that time when "economically insecure" Americans handed the Democrats 472 electoral votes, 59 Senators, and 313 Representatives in 1932. Or when, four years later, the totals came out to 523(!) electoral votes, 76(!) Senators, and 334 Reps. Instead of "dropping out" they banded together and voted in a bloc that proceeded to strongly regulate Wall Street, sharply tax the rich, and vastly empower working people.
Seems like there's a lesson in that.
Except, you know, that time when "economically insecure" Americans handed the Democrats 472 electoral votes, 59 Senators, and 313 Representatives in 1932. Or when, four years later, the totals came out to 523(!) electoral votes, 76(!) Senators, and 334 Reps. Instead of "dropping out" they banded together and voted in a bloc that proceeded to strongly regulate Wall Street, sharply tax the rich, and vastly empower working people.
Seems like there's a lesson in that.
9
David Brooks writes, “In the 1990s, there was a presumption that we were living in an age of rapid progress. Democracy was spreading. Tyranny was receding. Asia was booming. The European Union was building. Conflict in the Middle East was lessening. The world was cumulatively heading toward greater pluralism, individualism, prosperity and freedom.” And then, George W. Bush was appointed president, and he and his cohort proceeded to take us on a train-wreck of a ride, the results of which are still reverberating world-wide as evidenced by today’s gloomy column.
11
You are one of the few conservative pundits that I have great respect for. I believe you actually use your considerable intelligence and experience to actually think about important issues, not merely propagate conventional Republican wisdom or parrot the (Tea?) party line. Oh that some of your peers and Bureau Chiefs at the NYT would do the same!
Keep it up. I assure you there are many centrist Democrats who appreciate what you have to say.
As far as today's piece, I think you are on the right track in trying to sort out some of the dynamics of the change gripping the world.
By the way I also congratulate you for being one of the few pundits on either side who's willing to think beyond the issue de jour or the next election.
Keep it up. I assure you there are many centrist Democrats who appreciate what you have to say.
As far as today's piece, I think you are on the right track in trying to sort out some of the dynamics of the change gripping the world.
By the way I also congratulate you for being one of the few pundits on either side who's willing to think beyond the issue de jour or the next election.
3
Granted, every U.S. President has made less than stellar decisions while in office and Ronald Reagan is certainly no exception. But then shouldn’t the real question be “why did people re-elect him and other Presidents if they did such a horrible job while in office?”
3
Racial ethnic sectarian colored hate and selfishness rather than socioeconomic political doubt and fear are what rule and reign over us.
Benjamin Netanyahu channeled the likes of the very dead late George Wallace and the very alive Avigdor Lieberman and Naftali Bennett in his election eve bigoted demonization of Christian Muslim Arabs. With 8.4 million people there are more people in New York City than the 8.2 million citizens of Israel. But 4.6 million Christian Muslim Arab Palestinians living under Israeli dominion are not created equal with certain unalienable human civil voting rights. While the 1.5 million Christian Muslim Arab Palestinian Israeli's were coldly reminded of their 2nd class citizenship.
With hundreds of thousands of dead and injured and wounded Arabs and millions of displaced and refugee Arabs leave it to David Brooks to proclaim that rising anti-Semitism is a relevant pervasive indicator of our times. Boko Haram has killed and injured and displaced tens of thousands of Nigerians.
Why bother with foreign examples of our troubled times ?America has a President who won two popular and electoral vote majorities despite 57% and 59% of the white American majority voting against his half white by biological nature and all white by cultural nurture self. For some Americans Mr. Obama is an imaginary Kenyan Luo Arab Muslim socialist usurper.
Benjamin Netanyahu channeled the likes of the very dead late George Wallace and the very alive Avigdor Lieberman and Naftali Bennett in his election eve bigoted demonization of Christian Muslim Arabs. With 8.4 million people there are more people in New York City than the 8.2 million citizens of Israel. But 4.6 million Christian Muslim Arab Palestinians living under Israeli dominion are not created equal with certain unalienable human civil voting rights. While the 1.5 million Christian Muslim Arab Palestinian Israeli's were coldly reminded of their 2nd class citizenship.
With hundreds of thousands of dead and injured and wounded Arabs and millions of displaced and refugee Arabs leave it to David Brooks to proclaim that rising anti-Semitism is a relevant pervasive indicator of our times. Boko Haram has killed and injured and displaced tens of thousands of Nigerians.
Why bother with foreign examples of our troubled times ?America has a President who won two popular and electoral vote majorities despite 57% and 59% of the white American majority voting against his half white by biological nature and all white by cultural nurture self. For some Americans Mr. Obama is an imaginary Kenyan Luo Arab Muslim socialist usurper.
9
Ronald Wilson was the worst possible choice for President at the worst possible time.
In 1980 we were leaving the Industrial Age and entering the Age of Technology. Great change requires the most conservative governance, it requires the insight and vision to make the kinds of changes necessary to embrace and profit from the future. We had a very conservative nuclear engineer at the helm who put solar panels on the White House and turned down the thermostat. Carter believed in the power of education and knowledge. Carter believed in democracy and personal empowerment.
We chose a right wing technologically ignorant right wing reactionary and his merry band of oligarchs to lead us into the future. We are at the mercy of the mindset and ideas of the 19th century media of William Randolph Hearst, the corporate rapaciousness Standard Oil of New Jersey and Buckley Petroleum and the capitalism of early 20th century US Chamber of Commerce.
We need to embrace the present and we have decided to retreat into a past that will never come again.
Back in 1992 Leonard Cohen recorded The Future which presented both a Dystopian and Utopian future. Instead of the future Reagan gave us "which is murder" maybe it is time to listen to "Democracy" and its promise of some better future.
Obama was right we are the change we have been looking for. It is time to listen to our better voices and discard the calls for hatred and blame. The time has come for cooperation instead of competition.
In 1980 we were leaving the Industrial Age and entering the Age of Technology. Great change requires the most conservative governance, it requires the insight and vision to make the kinds of changes necessary to embrace and profit from the future. We had a very conservative nuclear engineer at the helm who put solar panels on the White House and turned down the thermostat. Carter believed in the power of education and knowledge. Carter believed in democracy and personal empowerment.
We chose a right wing technologically ignorant right wing reactionary and his merry band of oligarchs to lead us into the future. We are at the mercy of the mindset and ideas of the 19th century media of William Randolph Hearst, the corporate rapaciousness Standard Oil of New Jersey and Buckley Petroleum and the capitalism of early 20th century US Chamber of Commerce.
We need to embrace the present and we have decided to retreat into a past that will never come again.
Back in 1992 Leonard Cohen recorded The Future which presented both a Dystopian and Utopian future. Instead of the future Reagan gave us "which is murder" maybe it is time to listen to "Democracy" and its promise of some better future.
Obama was right we are the change we have been looking for. It is time to listen to our better voices and discard the calls for hatred and blame. The time has come for cooperation instead of competition.
12
Several readers noted, as I did, that David Brooks was not forthright in describing what Netanyahu said regarding the two-state solution. From all reports I read, Netanyahu clearly said a Palestinian state would not be established while he was prime minister. After he was elected, he attempted to qualify that statement. That was one of the biggest and quickest flip flops in my memory, and I'm disappointed in Brooks for attempting to gloss it over.
22
Reagan turned the population into a happy one? I don't think history shows this. He created division amongst the people. He pandered to an extreme religious group, he gave wealth to the rich and took from the working class, he created high unemployment, he bashed "welfare' types, he began the decline of cooperation between parties, he started our great debt and inequality. No, David he is not a good example. Maybe try Eisenhower next time as the last Repub President that was rasonable.
The Repubs are playing the FEAR cards, blacks, immigrants, liberals, gays,elites are all the enemy and the Repubs will protect you.
The Repubs are playing the FEAR cards, blacks, immigrants, liberals, gays,elites are all the enemy and the Repubs will protect you.
29
We should be very cautious about a leader such as Mr Netanyahu whose desperation to get re-elected as leader of Israel became very apparent in his behaviour on the last weeks of the election.
20
"Progressives emphasize compassion less and redistribution more" Huh? Perhaps Mr. Brooks could perhaps research this a bit by reading the Congressional Progressive Caucus' budget proposal rather than making unsubstantiated blanket statements. And I'll provide the link to help him:
http://www.epi.org/publication/the-peoples-budget-analysis-of-the-congre...
http://www.epi.org/publication/the-peoples-budget-analysis-of-the-congre...
15
The USA can make enough enemies all by ourselves without being complicit in those Israel creates.
We have to stop pretending USA and Israel's interests are the same without divergence. There has to be two minds in this relationship where USA is ultimate guarantor of its existence, but be steadfast not allowing use of our resources for their oppression of Palestians.
We have to stop pretending USA and Israel's interests are the same without divergence. There has to be two minds in this relationship where USA is ultimate guarantor of its existence, but be steadfast not allowing use of our resources for their oppression of Palestians.
34
It's too bad Brooks didnt delve into the means used to frame and actualize these tactics: the tried and true art of scapegoating.
5
Mr. Brooks,
Yes, I'm very much a liberal and I often get depressed, angry or outraged when reading your column. But today, you actually made me feel a bit relieved - even happy! The reason why is this sentence: "I’d guess that the cultural moment favors Scott Walker and Chris Christie, who have records of confrontation, over Jeb Bush, who hasn’t won election in this era and has a softer mien." I feel confident that either Walker or Christie as presidential candidates will guarantee that our next president (Hillary or not) will be a democrat. On the other hand, Jeb Bush strikes me as the best shot at a republican president. I can only hope you are right at last
Yes, I'm very much a liberal and I often get depressed, angry or outraged when reading your column. But today, you actually made me feel a bit relieved - even happy! The reason why is this sentence: "I’d guess that the cultural moment favors Scott Walker and Chris Christie, who have records of confrontation, over Jeb Bush, who hasn’t won election in this era and has a softer mien." I feel confident that either Walker or Christie as presidential candidates will guarantee that our next president (Hillary or not) will be a democrat. On the other hand, Jeb Bush strikes me as the best shot at a republican president. I can only hope you are right at last
8
It is apparent that Obama׳s policy of "change" ( to a "lead from behind" policy ) and "hope" ( for the best) is apparently not working ...
In an age of uncertainty of people tend to vote for security...
In an age of uncertainty of people tend to vote for security...
1
After all, that's always worked out great in Germany.
5
"If you cross me, you end up dead," he (or she) said, chomping fiercely on his (or her) cigar. "Cause I'm a tough guy, and I'll knock you into another walk of life. Or nuke you into it. So whether you're a friend or an enemy, a citizen or not, you'd better do what I say, whether you're in a mansion like me, or in whatever house, hovel or ditch you live. Or else."
The crowd goes wild. And David nods from his box seat over the stage. Everything will be all right now.
The crowd goes wild. And David nods from his box seat over the stage. Everything will be all right now.
5
Mr. Brooks, do you really believe that these changes occur in a vacuum? The Middle East is such turmoil because bush/cheney stirred up a hornet's nest without a plan of action regarding the hornets.
Obama came into office on the wings of hope it is true, but he has dealt much steadier with events than the preening cock of the walk he succeeded.
Iran is winning, what? It's rightful place back at the table of Nations?
Netanyahoo won reelection because he ginned up fear and hatred within the radical base of fundamentalists opposed to sharing the land with the rightful owners (sounds like frontier America). Right wing arguments do not win elections. But fascists like Netanyahoo and O'Connell know how to pander to their base as there will never be an end to stupid.
Since Arabs are Semites also; with the bombing campaign bibi launched against Gaza last year I would say Netanyahoo is the world's biggest anti-Semite.
If our vaunted 4th Estate, especially you, do not begin to do a better job of informing the electorate we will go the way of other noble experiments in democracy, we will see the rise of the oligarchs and a fascist takeover of our government.
Obama came into office on the wings of hope it is true, but he has dealt much steadier with events than the preening cock of the walk he succeeded.
Iran is winning, what? It's rightful place back at the table of Nations?
Netanyahoo won reelection because he ginned up fear and hatred within the radical base of fundamentalists opposed to sharing the land with the rightful owners (sounds like frontier America). Right wing arguments do not win elections. But fascists like Netanyahoo and O'Connell know how to pander to their base as there will never be an end to stupid.
Since Arabs are Semites also; with the bombing campaign bibi launched against Gaza last year I would say Netanyahoo is the world's biggest anti-Semite.
If our vaunted 4th Estate, especially you, do not begin to do a better job of informing the electorate we will go the way of other noble experiments in democracy, we will see the rise of the oligarchs and a fascist takeover of our government.
23
What surprises me, and Mr. Brooks does not mention, is the absence in the U.S. of any serious isolationist movement. From reading comment sidebars and/or listening to public radio, it certainly seems a sizable segment of the American populous would happily disengage from the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa and other troubled regions, but these sentiments simply don't make it into the political conversation.
5
Fine column as usual, but to mention Reagan in the same breath/paragraph as FDR, for any comparison, is a reach.
12
I guess Obama has "toughened up" a little bit with his slower policies on normalizing relations with Cuba and Venezuela and on withdrawing our forces from Afghanistan. Better late than never after the embarrassing disasters of his and the State Department's strategies in Libya, Egypt, and Syria.
It is gratifying to see that the 1960's nostalgic spirit of the Che Guevara leftist academic elitist thing that inspired so many tee shirts is finally mellowing into an understanding that revolutionary idealism in Latin America produces in the end aging military dictatorships in nations that are economic train wrecks.
So Che is dead at last. Stay dead, Che!
Europe will inexorably move to the right faced with serious and continuing challenges from radical Islam and Greater Russia. France is only another serious terrorist incident or two from making Marine Le Pen the Joan de Arc of our day. If only England could produce a new Maggie Thatcher we would have a trio of formidable sisters to face the backwards bullies that have been doing more swaggering in the abdication of superpower leadership by the USA. (Don't even think that Hillary would be a suitable addition to the heroine trio.)
It is gratifying to see that the 1960's nostalgic spirit of the Che Guevara leftist academic elitist thing that inspired so many tee shirts is finally mellowing into an understanding that revolutionary idealism in Latin America produces in the end aging military dictatorships in nations that are economic train wrecks.
So Che is dead at last. Stay dead, Che!
Europe will inexorably move to the right faced with serious and continuing challenges from radical Islam and Greater Russia. France is only another serious terrorist incident or two from making Marine Le Pen the Joan de Arc of our day. If only England could produce a new Maggie Thatcher we would have a trio of formidable sisters to face the backwards bullies that have been doing more swaggering in the abdication of superpower leadership by the USA. (Don't even think that Hillary would be a suitable addition to the heroine trio.)
1
If we accept Mr. Brooks's main thesis for a moment (though I have trouble with the Ronald Reagan analogy), only time will tell if we have another FDR on the horizon. We'd do well to remember that, in his time, Roosevelt v.2 was as despised by his antagonists as BHO is today.
16
Yes, these times are very much like the early 20th century, with danger all around us, particularly the danger of a Hitler-like figure rising to "address" people's anger, and their need to hold some weak group responsible. We demonstrate every day that we do not study history, in order to avoid repeating it, but it seems the same "solutions" always work for humans, due to their sad inherent nature. In many ways, I'm glad I only have about 20 years left on this planet. I hope it doesn't explode before I leave, lest I become a suffering victim. Today, there is no Franklin D. Roosevelt, or Winston Churchill, to pull us out of the sucking bog.
8
David Brooks, in his role as cultivated cheerleader for the GOP, fails to indicate that the GOP has traded (successfully) on promoting fear and ignorance in its goal of achieving permanent political power and turning Constitutional democracy into something of this country's past.
The Project for the New American Century ("PNAC") was a think-tank whose works were originally published online (1997-2006), ignored by most Americans, and provided the template for our unending "war on terror" in general and our disastrous war in Iraq, premised on 9/11, in particular. Participants in this effort included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and (yes!) Jeb Bush, who signed the original Statement of Principles in 1997.
There was no Al Quaeda in Iraq until our invasion, and our abortive war did not seize control of Iraqi oil for this country; instead it gave the balance of power in the region to Iran.
Meanwhile, the "base" was kept fat and happy by a junk-food combination of antonymic euphemisms for what is going on, promulgation of hate of the "other" (Muslims, LGBT people, people of color, mesoamerican immigrants, etc.), a cynical take on "christianity," denial of global warming and science in general, and a discounting of education and learning.
Netanyahu is doing the same sort of thing in Israel--and here--thanks to his GOP sponsors. He's made me ashamed of my religion and my nation.
Both Israel and the United States are reaping what we've sown.
The Project for the New American Century ("PNAC") was a think-tank whose works were originally published online (1997-2006), ignored by most Americans, and provided the template for our unending "war on terror" in general and our disastrous war in Iraq, premised on 9/11, in particular. Participants in this effort included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and (yes!) Jeb Bush, who signed the original Statement of Principles in 1997.
There was no Al Quaeda in Iraq until our invasion, and our abortive war did not seize control of Iraqi oil for this country; instead it gave the balance of power in the region to Iran.
Meanwhile, the "base" was kept fat and happy by a junk-food combination of antonymic euphemisms for what is going on, promulgation of hate of the "other" (Muslims, LGBT people, people of color, mesoamerican immigrants, etc.), a cynical take on "christianity," denial of global warming and science in general, and a discounting of education and learning.
Netanyahu is doing the same sort of thing in Israel--and here--thanks to his GOP sponsors. He's made me ashamed of my religion and my nation.
Both Israel and the United States are reaping what we've sown.
40
Personally, I believe that the entire world wide rise of 'right wing' frenzy and panic has arisen due to the increasingly obvious signs that significant change is afoot.
The information age is bringing a tsunami of information and facts that undermine the essential 'reality filters' of conjecture, tradition, and absolutism that conservatives rely on to support the artificial canvas of certainty that they construct and paint to fend off the happenstance and impermanence of life.
Their world is crumbling, and they are scrambling to preserve the salt-based pillars that support their canvas at any cost. The lives and welfare of "others" are completely irrelevant, and folks everywhere are dying for the cause of delusion.
It would help a lot if even a few of these delusionists could find a way to check the reality that's behind the canvas to see the core truth that 'uncertainty' drives our universe, and we, now more than ever, need to adjust to the 'speed up' of progress, and give up some of the 'old ways' to make room to incorporate new colors and ideas into our paintings.
It may be that the only solution to human progress is death and destruction, but couldn't we at least try another alternative this time?
Sorry, I know this whole face reality and 'make love not war' idea is just a wishy-washy, liberal, commie, progressive thing, but I can't seem to help myself.
The information age is bringing a tsunami of information and facts that undermine the essential 'reality filters' of conjecture, tradition, and absolutism that conservatives rely on to support the artificial canvas of certainty that they construct and paint to fend off the happenstance and impermanence of life.
Their world is crumbling, and they are scrambling to preserve the salt-based pillars that support their canvas at any cost. The lives and welfare of "others" are completely irrelevant, and folks everywhere are dying for the cause of delusion.
It would help a lot if even a few of these delusionists could find a way to check the reality that's behind the canvas to see the core truth that 'uncertainty' drives our universe, and we, now more than ever, need to adjust to the 'speed up' of progress, and give up some of the 'old ways' to make room to incorporate new colors and ideas into our paintings.
It may be that the only solution to human progress is death and destruction, but couldn't we at least try another alternative this time?
Sorry, I know this whole face reality and 'make love not war' idea is just a wishy-washy, liberal, commie, progressive thing, but I can't seem to help myself.
19
Good piece from Brooks. Reminds me that history can be broken down to the thesis-antithesis- synthesis thing.
I think Hillary fits pretty well into this picture and it explains why Jeb's time passed him while he was standing still.
Hillary should, like any candidate for President, think of 3 big things she wants to identify with her campaign. Hopefully at least one or two will be things one could consider "getting done" in the first 100 days of her first term like Reagan's tax issues and Obama's Affordable Care Act.
However, I think Brooks makes a good point. The themes that will appeal to voters will likely address the species of antithesis to history that Is playing out.
I think Hillary fits pretty well into this picture and it explains why Jeb's time passed him while he was standing still.
Hillary should, like any candidate for President, think of 3 big things she wants to identify with her campaign. Hopefully at least one or two will be things one could consider "getting done" in the first 100 days of her first term like Reagan's tax issues and Obama's Affordable Care Act.
However, I think Brooks makes a good point. The themes that will appeal to voters will likely address the species of antithesis to history that Is playing out.
2
I often disagree with the contents of your op-eds, but always respect your ability to communicate your perspective. This is an excellent analysis, as I have been discussing many of these trends with my leftie friends for years now.
These are systemic issues that can be asymmetrical across many fronts (the Republican Party has really escalated obstruction politics more than Democrats – and Putin is taking similar advantage of the more tolerant West in his blatant land grabs) but they are all destructive to our global civilization.
I would add two other key drivers; (1) the rise of global communications via the internet that enables much of the discord and fear you reference. Unfortunately FEAR is more readily stoked than tolerance and pragmatic problem solving, and that fear can now be readily spread by fringe groups because of the internet. (2) Across the globe, power and money is concentrating. In America, the notion that ‘Corporations are people’, and that ‘money = speech’ has quickly distorted our political process. Incentives drive behavior, so politicians MUST play the influence game – or their competitors will. Our Democracy is being diluted. A very systemic problem indeed.
These are systemic issues that can be asymmetrical across many fronts (the Republican Party has really escalated obstruction politics more than Democrats – and Putin is taking similar advantage of the more tolerant West in his blatant land grabs) but they are all destructive to our global civilization.
I would add two other key drivers; (1) the rise of global communications via the internet that enables much of the discord and fear you reference. Unfortunately FEAR is more readily stoked than tolerance and pragmatic problem solving, and that fear can now be readily spread by fringe groups because of the internet. (2) Across the globe, power and money is concentrating. In America, the notion that ‘Corporations are people’, and that ‘money = speech’ has quickly distorted our political process. Incentives drive behavior, so politicians MUST play the influence game – or their competitors will. Our Democracy is being diluted. A very systemic problem indeed.
4
There are to particularly revolting false equivalences in this typical Brooksian musing on the moment.
One, the equation of Syriza in Greece with the Tea Party here, UKIP in England, or the National Front in France. In fact, Syriza is not some communist throwback but a social democratic party that merely wants a fair shake for Greece from the plutocrats who run the planet, whose fronts are Wall Street, the City in London, the banks, and the Angela Merkel's of the world. This is not quite the same thing as the Cro-Magnon levels of bigoted stupidity, racism, fear-mongering, and infantile nationalism that are the very core of the Tea Party UKIP and the National Front.
The other false equivalence has been noted by other commenters: the FDR, who helped create the middle class, is ranked alongside Reagan, who began its destruction. Again, not the same thing.
But when you shill for extremists for a living, as Brooks does, you have no choice but to the point to the other side and assert "They do it too." That, in itself, is a fallacy of reasoning - but reasoning is in short supply on the right these days.
One, the equation of Syriza in Greece with the Tea Party here, UKIP in England, or the National Front in France. In fact, Syriza is not some communist throwback but a social democratic party that merely wants a fair shake for Greece from the plutocrats who run the planet, whose fronts are Wall Street, the City in London, the banks, and the Angela Merkel's of the world. This is not quite the same thing as the Cro-Magnon levels of bigoted stupidity, racism, fear-mongering, and infantile nationalism that are the very core of the Tea Party UKIP and the National Front.
The other false equivalence has been noted by other commenters: the FDR, who helped create the middle class, is ranked alongside Reagan, who began its destruction. Again, not the same thing.
But when you shill for extremists for a living, as Brooks does, you have no choice but to the point to the other side and assert "They do it too." That, in itself, is a fallacy of reasoning - but reasoning is in short supply on the right these days.
6
The prelude to dictatorship is often noted to be, 'One man, one vote, once.' After that it's the goons with guns and blame the Jews (that seems to always work when nothing else does). No one ever figures out that in the eyes of power and the gun carrying goons we are all Jews.
2
David confuses what Bibi actually said with what he said after the election. He could not have been more clear: Indeed, there will not be two states as long as I'm Prime Minister. There was no need to stretch the truth to make his essential point.
1
The existential glass can either be viewed as half full or half empty. When leaders & their media mouthpieces play on ordinary citizens fears, they contribute to the endgame scenario where the only options are those that can stand up to terror. Leaders who manipulate their citizenry using fear tactics are actually contributing to global conflict. Netanyahu won the election by setting up Iran as the big bad wolf who is hungry to gobble up Israel thus perpetuating an us. vs. them dynamic.
True leaders like President Obama use tactics of diplomacy, cooperation & dialogue in order to achieve their objectives. As President Kennedy once said so very eloquently, "the only thing to fear is fear itself." Iran is at the negotiating table willing to halt its nuclear program precisely because of a willingness to engage in dialogue because of hope rather than fear. If only Netanyahu understood that a willingness to meet halfway on issues including a Palestinian two state solution would add to the peace process, his leadership would've been respected by the greater international community. Instead, like those political leaders in the U.S. who use dog whistle messages to rile up the worst instincts within the base, he simply pandered to the fear element & propped himself up as the strong leader required to fight the existential enemy. The world is facing real life crises like climate change & water shortages which will ultimately require brains not brawn from our political leaders.
True leaders like President Obama use tactics of diplomacy, cooperation & dialogue in order to achieve their objectives. As President Kennedy once said so very eloquently, "the only thing to fear is fear itself." Iran is at the negotiating table willing to halt its nuclear program precisely because of a willingness to engage in dialogue because of hope rather than fear. If only Netanyahu understood that a willingness to meet halfway on issues including a Palestinian two state solution would add to the peace process, his leadership would've been respected by the greater international community. Instead, like those political leaders in the U.S. who use dog whistle messages to rile up the worst instincts within the base, he simply pandered to the fear element & propped himself up as the strong leader required to fight the existential enemy. The world is facing real life crises like climate change & water shortages which will ultimately require brains not brawn from our political leaders.
4
I am a liberal and am always looking forward to read David Brooks articles for his thoughtful analysis of events. I was surprised to see him equate ISI and Iran in this article. ISIS is without a doubt the most barbaric organization today and destroyers of priceless archeological sites. Iran on the other hand is a functioning civil society trying to recover from our actions in the 50s that destroyed a vibrant and emerging democracy to serve the interest of British and our oil companies.
It is important that thoughtful people like Mr. Brooks refrain from hyperboles at this time when all the major powers in the world are trying to negotiate a nuclear deal with iron and lift sanctions. This will enable the Iranian people to restart their economic growth, which will strengthen their aspirations and struggles for a free society.
Bhaskara Chary,
141 Mitchell Road,
Somers, NY 10589
Phone: 914-276-3017
It is important that thoughtful people like Mr. Brooks refrain from hyperboles at this time when all the major powers in the world are trying to negotiate a nuclear deal with iron and lift sanctions. This will enable the Iranian people to restart their economic growth, which will strengthen their aspirations and struggles for a free society.
Bhaskara Chary,
141 Mitchell Road,
Somers, NY 10589
Phone: 914-276-3017
15
Why anybody would take seriously the musings of Mr. Brooks on Israel while his son serves in the Israeli army is beyond me.
13
Maybe that's a reason TO take him seriously?
At least, seeing someone actually staking something in the service of protecting his countrymen gives their words weight.
At least, seeing someone actually staking something in the service of protecting his countrymen gives their words weight.
And another zero-sum column from Mr. Brooks. One of fear, paranoia, distrust and militarization.
That, apparently, is the republican playbook. Again. Taken straight from the playbook of Joseph Goebbels - keep them in fear and you can make them do anything.
That, apparently, is the republican playbook. Again. Taken straight from the playbook of Joseph Goebbels - keep them in fear and you can make them do anything.
16
Global politics, as we now see them, should not be a surprise to anyone that knows history. The financial crisis of 2007-2008 put this wheel in motion. While the US mitigated a full on depression, the major players in Europe did not. Since the global financial system is one entity, it should come as no surprise that we will experience the same mood as was present in the world after the 1929 crash.
Toss in the debacle of our illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 and our questionable destruction of Afghanistan (The country of Afghanistan did not order the attack on the Twin Towers, a group of extremists did) and you have effectively added an exponential component to the unrest. All of this can be laid at the feet of the US. So now, we're unhappy with the outcome. Really? Call it the butterfly effect, call it karma, I recall a adage from high school - When you gamble, be as prepared to lose as you are to win.
Toss in the debacle of our illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 and our questionable destruction of Afghanistan (The country of Afghanistan did not order the attack on the Twin Towers, a group of extremists did) and you have effectively added an exponential component to the unrest. All of this can be laid at the feet of the US. So now, we're unhappy with the outcome. Really? Call it the butterfly effect, call it karma, I recall a adage from high school - When you gamble, be as prepared to lose as you are to win.
6
Our political system is gridlocked, and I believe for a good reason. Progress is a subjective term, and some feel we are moving too slow. But our founding fathers realized that fast movement in government policies was a bad thing.
Just yesterday Obama ponders the thought of requiring all Americans to vote. He thinks it is a stellar idea. The next thing you know the left will be screaming this concept is settled logic. "The Australian model proves it!" they will demand. All the while, this is just a ploy to get votes from those who are currently not allowed to vote.
The liberal logic starts as a simple suggestion. The suggestion is then repeated over and over for some time. Next they release studies which are fixed to support their cause. Finally, they wait until they are in power to make the radical change.
Just yesterday Obama ponders the thought of requiring all Americans to vote. He thinks it is a stellar idea. The next thing you know the left will be screaming this concept is settled logic. "The Australian model proves it!" they will demand. All the while, this is just a ploy to get votes from those who are currently not allowed to vote.
The liberal logic starts as a simple suggestion. The suggestion is then repeated over and over for some time. Next they release studies which are fixed to support their cause. Finally, they wait until they are in power to make the radical change.
1
Where do we stand on the slippery slope towards justifying apartheid in our time? Apparently this is the moment to argue that it is a temporary, pragmatic, and necessary evil.
5
Mr. Brooks conveniently overlooks the strongmen, tinpot dictators and thugs the US has installed, propped up and maintained in power over the years. He seems to be doubling down on Netanyahu's fearmongering, which makes perfect sense, given the GOP talking points he trots out whenever he waxes political. David, the world will continue to lurch along as it always has, no single country or people has the moral high ground, the US may find itself bereft of its superpower status and then even Israel may one day suffer a fate similiar to the one the Paelstinians are living now.
7
We have indeed become a zero-sum society within America. Politics have been transformed from a sometimes contentious means of governing the country to a blood sport or outright warfare.
It is insane that legislative hostage takers in Congress took 3 weeks to pass 1 week extension of homeland security funding. That a nomination for a key office is stalled because of language secreted into a child trafficking bill. Or that basic Congressional protocol is ignored.
These divisions have been amplified and in part created by political entertainment entrepreneurs, who give disproportionate voice to extreme partisans, who are cheered on by viewers like an NFL team, ripping wide the social fabric of the country. How many terrorists have done more to undermine our nation? In this climate, political opponents are no longer Americans with different ideas but enemies in a hot ideological war. The Supreme Court added further ammunition for this war, cutting loose the financial arms merchants via Citizens United.
Leaving this zero-sum mentality will not be easy and may require explicit efforts to reunite Americans. Compulsory national service may help provide the social mixture that knit together earlier generations. Changes in media selection by major advertisers would provide a financial incentive to tone down the rhetoric. Unfortunately it may take a catastrophic challenge to the country to leave the zero-sum mentality behind.
It is insane that legislative hostage takers in Congress took 3 weeks to pass 1 week extension of homeland security funding. That a nomination for a key office is stalled because of language secreted into a child trafficking bill. Or that basic Congressional protocol is ignored.
These divisions have been amplified and in part created by political entertainment entrepreneurs, who give disproportionate voice to extreme partisans, who are cheered on by viewers like an NFL team, ripping wide the social fabric of the country. How many terrorists have done more to undermine our nation? In this climate, political opponents are no longer Americans with different ideas but enemies in a hot ideological war. The Supreme Court added further ammunition for this war, cutting loose the financial arms merchants via Citizens United.
Leaving this zero-sum mentality will not be easy and may require explicit efforts to reunite Americans. Compulsory national service may help provide the social mixture that knit together earlier generations. Changes in media selection by major advertisers would provide a financial incentive to tone down the rhetoric. Unfortunately it may take a catastrophic challenge to the country to leave the zero-sum mentality behind.
20
Progressives seek redistribution BECAUSE they have compassion.
20
Redistribution necessarily involves thievery -- thievery is not compassionate.
It does not take much compassion to redistribute what is not yours.
1
No progressives ARE NOT compassionate. They are statists. How is it compassionate to create large bureaucracies that make people dependent?
Redistributionist schemes (scams) have failed everywhere they have been tried. Thats why millions of people have fled high tax states like New York and have moved to places like Texas and Florida.
Did you realize than in 1972 New York had 41 electoral votes? Today it only has 29..... because middle class residents have fled to places like Texas and Florida. You call that compassion?
Redistributionist schemes (scams) have failed everywhere they have been tried. Thats why millions of people have fled high tax states like New York and have moved to places like Texas and Florida.
Did you realize than in 1972 New York had 41 electoral votes? Today it only has 29..... because middle class residents have fled to places like Texas and Florida. You call that compassion?
News flash!
The redistribution is what happened from 1980 until now. The gutting of the middle class, the destruction of unions, the off shoring of manufacturing etc., etc., etc., the changes in the tax structure are all things that have redistributed money from the 99% to the 1%. We progressives would like to see the pie sliced more fairly, more like it was sliced up when America was a great country.
The redistribution is what happened from 1980 until now. The gutting of the middle class, the destruction of unions, the off shoring of manufacturing etc., etc., etc., the changes in the tax structure are all things that have redistributed money from the 99% to the 1%. We progressives would like to see the pie sliced more fairly, more like it was sliced up when America was a great country.
3
Extreme parties rarely take power? David, where have you been during the Greek mess? Also, you forgot BO's continued reach for power, in all things. Zero sum? I don't think so, more like the new math, where 2 plus 2 is equal 5, that is entitlement math.
I was with you every step of the way, until you ended with "Reagan" and "very, very good" in the same sentence.
3
and still no discussion of a real compromise led agenda through the fear just anther half hearted attempt to rationalize fear as a solid understandable motivation. stop giving comfort to the forces of reactionism David, try mentioning what a failed foolish and frightening weakness it is and promote the significance if not the necessity of progress....Putin, Israel and republican congress are sad, backwards and dangerous. our congress in particular, because we suppose to be leaders, is a waste land. holding up a snowball to claim no climate change is a core issue many of these parties as well as the eve more evil ones do: they are just STUPID.
2
"Autocrats like Vladimir Putin of Russia."
"The pugnacious Nicolas Sarkozy"
"Angela Merkel is the paradigmatic leader of the age: shrewd, unemotional, nonidealistic, austere and interested in power."
Huge fan of your pieces, David, but it looks like your biases are clearly showing where Benjamin Netanyahu is concerned. His move to the extreme right is just as about *power* and about himself as it for the others. If you ask me, Packer's description of Merkel fits the man perfectly.
"The pugnacious Nicolas Sarkozy"
"Angela Merkel is the paradigmatic leader of the age: shrewd, unemotional, nonidealistic, austere and interested in power."
Huge fan of your pieces, David, but it looks like your biases are clearly showing where Benjamin Netanyahu is concerned. His move to the extreme right is just as about *power* and about himself as it for the others. If you ask me, Packer's description of Merkel fits the man perfectly.
1
Nowadays I prefer to look at politics through the prism of human behavior research. I do not identify myself with neither left, or right. That said, the current political strife is grossly exaggerated, and amplified by the social media compartmentalization. Both liberals, and conservatives have a claim on vast conspiracy against the tenets of their ideology without much basis in real life.
1
Traditionally, when anti-Semitism rises it's because the situation for the community or polity is not going well and the reasons are far from understood but somebody has to be blamed. I think that is what is going on now, the discontent across the world is up, the problems that seem to be related to that sense of discontent are not well understood but too many people have lost patience to make the effort to more sense of them and just want somebody to fix them. Any leader who tries to appeal to reason is appealing to minds that are not receptive.
Almost all of the problems that are worrying everybody have been familiar for many decades and they have never been successfully addressed. The efforts used to gain and to maintain power are amoral and indifferent to the affects they have on people, that is inescapable, but people's cooperation with those wielding power is decisive, more decisive than any other forces that those in power can wield to keep it. We can choose how we allow ourselves to be governed but it requires accepting that we could lose all in the resulting struggle. We want to live in a free country with a sustainable way of life where all live well, well we know the way we do things now cannot achieve that, so we have a lot of hard efforts ahead. The problem lies with us not our leaders.
Almost all of the problems that are worrying everybody have been familiar for many decades and they have never been successfully addressed. The efforts used to gain and to maintain power are amoral and indifferent to the affects they have on people, that is inescapable, but people's cooperation with those wielding power is decisive, more decisive than any other forces that those in power can wield to keep it. We can choose how we allow ourselves to be governed but it requires accepting that we could lose all in the resulting struggle. We want to live in a free country with a sustainable way of life where all live well, well we know the way we do things now cannot achieve that, so we have a lot of hard efforts ahead. The problem lies with us not our leaders.
Hillary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu in terms of elections are both willing to do whatever they have to do to win. The Clintons have proven to be brutal election opponents. Remember Bill Clinton playing the race card as an explanation for Obama's huge victory over Hillary in the 2008 Primary. The Clintons will go as far as they have to into dark deep recesses to win. Netanyahu likewise with his scaring right wing Israeli Jews to the polls citing high Arab Israeli turnout. I suspect when Hillary and Bibi have sit down together it is a meeting of the mutual Machiavellian Admiration Society.
1
David Brooks seems to write the same column more or less daily. Always a gentle nudge in perception, observations that are less on target about reality and more in line with the way he thinks we all saw/see things. The stuff on the 1990's has me scratching my head. As was noted recently in the Nation magazine, Brooks, as a "one percenter" seems convinced that we all see the world as he does. At least he's more restrained than George Will and will not end up at Fox News.
4
Whenever too much wealth accumulates in the hands of too few and the rest of the population is in decline and despair, that is when the time is ripe for wars and revolutions.
Maybe we need to revisit Piketty's tax on wealth in order to prevent WWIII more critically than simply to achieve economic equality and justice.
Maybe we need to revisit Piketty's tax on wealth in order to prevent WWIII more critically than simply to achieve economic equality and justice.
5
Mr. Brooks is right when he describes the world of the 1990's. What happened? Eight years of bush-cheney happened. For starters that administration set up the economic inequality of our times with those massive tax cuts for the wealthy. Then the most colossal blunder--the lapses in security that gave us the 9/11 attacks. Every catastrophe following that one came from the bush-cheney botched responses to major challenges.
What is almost unimaginable is that now another Bush is laying claim to the presidency. Let's pray the American People remember and have recovered sufficiently from bush-cheney traumas to reject even one step backward with the Republicans or any Bush.
What is almost unimaginable is that now another Bush is laying claim to the presidency. Let's pray the American People remember and have recovered sufficiently from bush-cheney traumas to reject even one step backward with the Republicans or any Bush.
7
The Republican ploy to paint the world as desperate and crumbling so it can be somehow attributed to President Obama has become tired and silly. It's the basic theme of Fox News. People have brains enough to know that economic woes in Europe stem directly from the bad behaviour of unregulated banks well before Obama was elected. And if anything started the rise of ISIS and the stuggles for power in the Middle East it was the invasion of Iraq and Israel's military expansion. We can also trace Putin's autocratic behaviors back to our military invasions which emboldened him to "liberate" the Krimea, and to the great recession which backed him into a deflationary corner. It was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein which led to the Arab Spring which is still playing out and making everyone from Putin to Netanyahu paranoid and defensive, and in turn makes Republican candidates rail against Muslims and immigrants. I suppose you can argue that a President is responsible for the mood of the country (at least as much as Fox News) but my guess is that if there is a leader who might change our mood it's the one person who hasn't changed his resolve or succombed to the knee-jerk temptation to act tough (or invade anyone). As the ecomony improves, healthcare costs moderate, and the lives of middle-class American's improve, we may feel much better.
6
We, as a people, are more impatient than ever. Gone are the days when an idea or concept is given any appreciable time to develop. Big countries, big economies and big political systems are not easily altered in short spans of time, nor by simplistic solutions.
What leader wants to assume power only to be evaluated on a daily basis rather than on his/her accomplishments over time?
Perhaps this explains the lack of bright, well-rounded citizens opting to enter the political arena.
What leader wants to assume power only to be evaluated on a daily basis rather than on his/her accomplishments over time?
Perhaps this explains the lack of bright, well-rounded citizens opting to enter the political arena.
1
Does the success of "Fifty Shades of Grey"
show that Amerikan women are ready to
submit to their men as shown in the Koran.
"The story of 'O' " is used to convince
the character in "Soumission"
to convert to Islam!!!
show that Amerikan women are ready to
submit to their men as shown in the Koran.
"The story of 'O' " is used to convince
the character in "Soumission"
to convert to Islam!!!
We need an FDR right now. Obama's greatest failure was that he did not even grasp that it was his duty to create something called an "Obama Democrat," a la "Reagan Republican" or "FDR Democrat." When you do not see a spot of real estate over the mountain that can be a new, coherent stable status quo, as FDR did in 1932 (and Reagan did in 1980), and drive toward it, the result is stasis and reversibility of any policy progress you might make. FDR created the New Deal that dictated the baseline of all political arguments for the next 48 years. Reagan's tax cuts and military buildup spurred the economy and convinced most of America that things were good and he was the reason - and changed the baseline of politics to put Democrats on the permanent defensive. Obama had a DUTY to knock heads together in his party and SUCCEED, and to be SEEN to succeed, and to put the other party on the defensive - and no party ought to be easier to put on the defensive than these Republicans. But Obama's not a natural politician; neither is Hillary. The nation ought to be crying out for a strong politician on the moderate left, but it has to be TOLD why it needs one. Democrats need to tell a coherent Big Story NOW. They needed to do it in 2008, and they badly needed not to lose in 2010 and 2014, because the country needed them to win. But there was absolute abdication and an assumption they would lose. Unacceptable. The nation depends on a Democrat arising in 2016 with a Big Vision for the future.
3
No wonder Obama's approval ratings are up since he's told the Republican Congress where to go. And no wonder he's going to win the battle with Bibi, Boehner, and Shel Adelson so very handily. Just read the NY Times threads on Israel and Bibi if you don't believe me. The more Obama does the unthinkable--gives Bibi's Israel the Merket treatment--the more his popularity will soar.
2
David, did your boss tell you to become more conservative, or did you just slap something together to meet your deadline.
4
The next step for you David is ask: What IS the difference between the Republican and Likud Parties? It's "all war all the time isolationism" that appeals during the down times. True, Hillary Clinton is a hawk. Maybe the debate between Clinton and the Republican nominee will be: "I'm more for all war all the time isolationism that you are".
3
In zero-sum moments when control over territory is at stake, conservatives like Netanyahu are the worst kind of leaders, because they tend to ratchet up conflict, such as by Israel's land-grabbing and disproportionate use of force.
When threats are on the rise we need leaders who know the difference between threats that must be met with violence, and threats where violent attack or response would trigger even worse consequences overall. Conservatives seem incapable of distinguishing between the two. They are over-reactive, they don't stay calm under pressure, and they don't know how to negotiate with an adversary. Conservatives don't even believe that diplomacy and restraint are good leadership skills, evidently because they lack those skills. Conservatives are not necessarily bad people -- we need soldiers and security forces who are trained to kill in case of necessary war -- but they are dangerous in command.
In zero-sum moments we need leaders more than ever who are not easily excitable, who know when not to use force, and who have the wisdom and determination to reduce conflict through diplomacy, leaders like President Obama.
When threats are on the rise we need leaders who know the difference between threats that must be met with violence, and threats where violent attack or response would trigger even worse consequences overall. Conservatives seem incapable of distinguishing between the two. They are over-reactive, they don't stay calm under pressure, and they don't know how to negotiate with an adversary. Conservatives don't even believe that diplomacy and restraint are good leadership skills, evidently because they lack those skills. Conservatives are not necessarily bad people -- we need soldiers and security forces who are trained to kill in case of necessary war -- but they are dangerous in command.
In zero-sum moments we need leaders more than ever who are not easily excitable, who know when not to use force, and who have the wisdom and determination to reduce conflict through diplomacy, leaders like President Obama.
6
Remember Bush/Cheney in 2004 trotting out 9/11 ad nauseam, New York and purple heart bandaids to make fun of Kerry's record?
I didn't think politicians could get much worse, but than Netanyahu proved me wrong. Here is a man who speaks out of both sides of his mouth, shrieks the Arabs are coming and does an extreme shift to the extreme right in order to do anything to get reelected. Of course then I found out the genius behind his campaign is the man who got Tom Cotton elected to the Senate. So sad that we are exporting our worse political traits to the UK, France, Russia and now Israel. Let's also not forget that the bulk of Biibi's reelection funds came from American donors. And of course DB paints this as "tough guys doing well," instead of charlatans and liars doing well.
You're welcome, world!
I didn't think politicians could get much worse, but than Netanyahu proved me wrong. Here is a man who speaks out of both sides of his mouth, shrieks the Arabs are coming and does an extreme shift to the extreme right in order to do anything to get reelected. Of course then I found out the genius behind his campaign is the man who got Tom Cotton elected to the Senate. So sad that we are exporting our worse political traits to the UK, France, Russia and now Israel. Let's also not forget that the bulk of Biibi's reelection funds came from American donors. And of course DB paints this as "tough guys doing well," instead of charlatans and liars doing well.
You're welcome, world!
11
In response to Arydberg, I think you miss the point.
Reagan was very good: as an actor, suspending our disbelief in the disastrous policies that his handlers foisted upon us.
Reagan's only role was that of spokesperson. And his years in Hollywood prepared him for that role better than any politician before him or after him.
The goals and results of his Presidency were disastrous, but Reagan was exceptionally good at getting a large segment of the American population to accept and believe in them.
Reagan was very good: as an actor, suspending our disbelief in the disastrous policies that his handlers foisted upon us.
Reagan's only role was that of spokesperson. And his years in Hollywood prepared him for that role better than any politician before him or after him.
The goals and results of his Presidency were disastrous, but Reagan was exceptionally good at getting a large segment of the American population to accept and believe in them.
6
F.D.R. and Ronald Reagan did more than merely turn a "negative popular mood into a positive one". During President Roosevelt's tenure in the White House, he created the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps), the WPA (Works Program Administration), established Social Security, the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), and FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). During President Reagan's term, his actions led to the reduction of nuclear arms with the signing of the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) treaty; the ending of the Cold War; and the nomination and appointment of the first female Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor. The above are revolutionary concepts and accomplishments. But more importantly, both men helped restore hope and confidence which many people felt were lost. They were extremely strong and effective leaders and people believed in what they were trying to accomplish.
1
I see the primary division in the "specific global moment" as less about toughness vs. weakness and more about emotion vs. reason. The wars in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, anti-Semitism in Europe (see an excellent article by Jeffrey Goldberg in the current Atlantic Monthly), Putin's nationalism, the antagonism to Obamacare, the police shootings of unarmed black boys and men, even the Wall Street greed that crashed the economy have all been driven not by sober calculation and commonsense but by blind passion, much of it stoked by politically motivated fear. Obama is probably the most reasonable American president in years and yet his Republican adversaries have succeeded in thwarting much of his agenda through inflammatory rhetoric, facts be damned. Pope Francis is proving to be an inspiring voice of reason and moderation, but he cannot re-build Rome in a day. And yet, in America there are signs that reason (at least pragmatism) is staging a comeback: declining joblessness, the successes of the ACA, the widening embrace of gay marriage, the rebuilding of older cities, the strengthening of manufacturing. Life can't be sustained by fury and fear. Sooner or later, cool heads will prevail.
3
I believe that the country is ready for change and that there is opportunity here for a visionary leader with integrity who is also ready to set aside ego and forego sniping, because he/she truly values collaboration and bringing people to the table. There is too much talk of collaboration purely as a buzz word.
1
Duplicitous politicians like Mr. Netanyahu can exist because deceptive columnists such as Mr. Brooks, and Mr. Krauthammer in my local paper, spin a web of false equivalance and fear to hide the obvious truth.
The Israeli elections were greatly clarifying and for that we should be grateful. No longer can we believe Mr. Netanyahu and his duplicitous "support" for a two state solution. Instead, the 2015 election will be seen as the moment that Israel confronted the stark choice of beoming a non-Jewish democracy or a Jewish non-democracy (kudos to Friedman). "Times they are a changin' " for apologists like Mr. Brooks.
The Israeli elections were greatly clarifying and for that we should be grateful. No longer can we believe Mr. Netanyahu and his duplicitous "support" for a two state solution. Instead, the 2015 election will be seen as the moment that Israel confronted the stark choice of beoming a non-Jewish democracy or a Jewish non-democracy (kudos to Friedman). "Times they are a changin' " for apologists like Mr. Brooks.
8
And you, David Brooks, with your "I'm not a scientist" friends spread fear, hate and discontent better than anyone. You hide at the New York Times, like the snake that you are, amid thinking, researching, writers and play with yourself out loud.
6
We have a negative popular mood not because we have no leader who is very, very good (we do, President Obama), but because one political party is collectively very, very bad. Republicans have not wanted to work cooperatively such that America can address many of its own problems and be more effective abroad. Republicans have been working to gain power for its own sake (as Bill Clinton observed), and for the White House in particular. America cannot change things for itself or the world under these conditions. OBSTRUCTIONISM HAS CONSEQUENCES.
13
Mr. Brooks:
One of your best columns. I would only add that the culture will change, as it did for FDR in 1932 and, to an extent, for Reagan in 1980, when the electorate feels—or is actually—so dealt out of the game they go in a different direction.
I sense the moment coming when the voters realize that they have been "had" by the power of great wealth on our politics and on our politicians. The increasing economic and political distance between voters and the so-called 1% cannot go on forever without a reaction.
One of your best columns. I would only add that the culture will change, as it did for FDR in 1932 and, to an extent, for Reagan in 1980, when the electorate feels—or is actually—so dealt out of the game they go in a different direction.
I sense the moment coming when the voters realize that they have been "had" by the power of great wealth on our politics and on our politicians. The increasing economic and political distance between voters and the so-called 1% cannot go on forever without a reaction.
2
FDR turned a negative and incorrect view of government into a positive one, a view that the GOP remains determined to undo. FDR supported worker and the common man as shown by supporting the National Labor Relations Act and the passage of the Social Securit Act (and its companion benefit, unemployment insurance). Reagan, for example fired thousands of air traffic controllers and supported legislation which now taxes unemployment insurance payments. The best way to compare these two Presidents is by contrasting them, not aligning them.
7
This survey column by David Brooks of right-leaning changes among political leaders in various world capitals, including Washington, contains some generalities which undoubtedly are true. The attempt by Brooks, however, to position the recent posturing and actions and words of Benjamin Netanyahu as simply another example of a general rise in nationalism and confrontation is a real stretch.
Netanyahu, in fact, did “literally renounce the idea of a two-state solution”, and today he is busy trying to walk that back, as well as his unabashed appeal to the anti-Arab racism of many Israeli voters. It would be interesting if David Brooks would identify which of the other world heads of government have attempted to sabotage ongoing negotiations by another head of government by going directly to the legislative branch of that other nation.
Apparently, it requires an entire column about a number of world leaders to fashion a defense of the outrageous conduct of the leader of Israel and the leaders of the Republican Party in America. For good measure, Mr. Brooks throws in a paragraph about the unfortunate increase in anti-Semitic incidents in Europe. Presumably, the paragraph was inserted to discourage or soften criticism of Netanyahu. Or, perhaps, Mr. Brooks is implying that Barack Obama is somehow responsible for the European bigotry.
Netanyahu, in fact, did “literally renounce the idea of a two-state solution”, and today he is busy trying to walk that back, as well as his unabashed appeal to the anti-Arab racism of many Israeli voters. It would be interesting if David Brooks would identify which of the other world heads of government have attempted to sabotage ongoing negotiations by another head of government by going directly to the legislative branch of that other nation.
Apparently, it requires an entire column about a number of world leaders to fashion a defense of the outrageous conduct of the leader of Israel and the leaders of the Republican Party in America. For good measure, Mr. Brooks throws in a paragraph about the unfortunate increase in anti-Semitic incidents in Europe. Presumably, the paragraph was inserted to discourage or soften criticism of Netanyahu. Or, perhaps, Mr. Brooks is implying that Barack Obama is somehow responsible for the European bigotry.
10
"Right-leaning parties tend to do well and have a stronger story to tell on national security." Really? What is the strong story on national security that the Republicans have to tell? Disastrous, hugely expensive but unfunded military conflicts? Sending a treasonous letter to Iran to interfere with nuclear non-proliferation talks? The surveillance state they set up using the Patriot Act (that Obama has regretfully failed to dismantle)? The only "strong story" Republicans have to tell is a fear-mongering, race-baiting one with lots of talk and no solutions.
11
And how will the power of our cultural moment shape our writers, Mr. Brooks? When will it "set their teeth, stretch their nostrils wide, hold hard their breath and bend up their spirit to its full height" to fight "all the smelly little orthodoxies which are now contending for our souls"?
2
Yes, reform will fail in win-win/zero-sum environments. Solving human and natural problems requires the intelligence to gather and analyze, the will to implement and observe, and the patience to fail and begin the process again. None of these attributes exist in our political class or in the insatiable appetites of 24 hour news cycles. There were moments in our history when all these attributes were aligned (e.g. New Deal), but for the most part we continue to stumble through history, feeding our environment and humanity to short-term we won, you lose strategies.
4
I take issue with Mr. Books comments:
"This is what Netanyahu did in Israel. He didn’t literally renounce the idea of a two-state solution forevermore. He just said that it would be too dangerous in the near term as long as Islamist-style radicalism is on the march. (A defensible proposition.)"
1. He DID renounce a two state solution "while I am in office". Those are his words. The Palestinians must deal with him, not a leader 50 years from now. You are echoing Netanyahu's recent spin.
2. "Islamist-style radicalism is on the march" is matched by the march of right wing Israelis to build illegal settlements. The time is (conveniently) never right. Everything everywhere is always changing. (That's why some people read the Times)
3. Brookes concludes: "A defensible proposition." Who is defending it? Not the US which has given Israel, since its inception, a total of 122 billion dollars, not Europe, not the UN. Who? Netanyahu and right wing Israelis.
4. Many Israelis believe the myth that god gave them this land. Mr. Brook's son apparently believes this as well and has joined the IDF. Even if you buy into the myth, Israel has no moral or legal right to steal more land by building on it. Stealing is a topic covered in the Bible.
"This is what Netanyahu did in Israel. He didn’t literally renounce the idea of a two-state solution forevermore. He just said that it would be too dangerous in the near term as long as Islamist-style radicalism is on the march. (A defensible proposition.)"
1. He DID renounce a two state solution "while I am in office". Those are his words. The Palestinians must deal with him, not a leader 50 years from now. You are echoing Netanyahu's recent spin.
2. "Islamist-style radicalism is on the march" is matched by the march of right wing Israelis to build illegal settlements. The time is (conveniently) never right. Everything everywhere is always changing. (That's why some people read the Times)
3. Brookes concludes: "A defensible proposition." Who is defending it? Not the US which has given Israel, since its inception, a total of 122 billion dollars, not Europe, not the UN. Who? Netanyahu and right wing Israelis.
4. Many Israelis believe the myth that god gave them this land. Mr. Brook's son apparently believes this as well and has joined the IDF. Even if you buy into the myth, Israel has no moral or legal right to steal more land by building on it. Stealing is a topic covered in the Bible.
9
Not sure why people put a lot of stock in the "legal" opinions of the UN, a political organization just as cynical an corrupt as any other. And, as a matter of fact, Israel has every "moral" right to structure the West Bank as it sees fit for its security needs, since this land was captured in a war (participated in by Palestinians) started against Israel.
Mr. Brooks does not tell the truth about Netanyahu's statements about the two-state solution. Actually, before the election, when he was pandering for right wing votes, he did "literally renounce the two-state solution forevermore", a position which he undoubtedly holds. He only said that he only meant for the "near term", after the election and when he was faced with world wide outrage at his comments.
This has been said before, but I am uncomfortable with American citizens serving in the armed forces of another country. David Brooks has said that his son is in the Israeli Defense Force, which would be fine if he renounced his American citizenship and became an Israeli citizen. It is certainly not being anti-Semitic or jingoistic to question the wisdom of allowing U.S. citizens to participate in the foreign policy of another country (such as being in the military of Israel). The Times should also question its policy of allowing David Brooks to pontificate about Israel and be an apologist for its policies, at the very least without a prominent disclaimer before every column pertaining to the Middle East.
Also, regarding anti-Semitic acts increasing in Europe, are they, inexcusable though they might be, not a result of a widespread opposition to Israel's policies, especially among the large Moslem population of Europe. And with Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a "Jewish state", such acts will surely increase.
This has been said before, but I am uncomfortable with American citizens serving in the armed forces of another country. David Brooks has said that his son is in the Israeli Defense Force, which would be fine if he renounced his American citizenship and became an Israeli citizen. It is certainly not being anti-Semitic or jingoistic to question the wisdom of allowing U.S. citizens to participate in the foreign policy of another country (such as being in the military of Israel). The Times should also question its policy of allowing David Brooks to pontificate about Israel and be an apologist for its policies, at the very least without a prominent disclaimer before every column pertaining to the Middle East.
Also, regarding anti-Semitic acts increasing in Europe, are they, inexcusable though they might be, not a result of a widespread opposition to Israel's policies, especially among the large Moslem population of Europe. And with Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a "Jewish state", such acts will surely increase.
12
"Passionate conservatism",
where would that be? I can see only conservatism that tends to destroy the social fabric. I can see substantial support, however, for anything that builds up the military.
Tell me about it.
where would that be? I can see only conservatism that tends to destroy the social fabric. I can see substantial support, however, for anything that builds up the military.
Tell me about it.
6
Brooks' steady stream of detractors, on display here again, must believe the world is whirling in an upward spiral pattern, like a "perne in a gyre". Well, it ain’t necessarily so. Read Collapse, by Jared Diamond? Leading from behind (Libya), naively cheering the Arab Spring, casting aside old friends, appeasing adversaries, winning the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing besides not being your predecessor, playing the perpetual victim and the like are not the kinds of things that would make any leader great. It takes more than that, and the Roosevelts and Regan, among others, did.
Good analysis, but why bring up Don Regan?
I don't think citizen are looking for the next big show-off (like Putin or Bush), that simplifies a complicated world by naivete and arrogance. Facing insecurity with prudence just has the appearance of weakness.
A bland politician like Merkel, an east german bumchuck with no political coteries but a science degree in nuclear physics, only could gain such a power by a likewise electorate. Merkel wouldn't survive a week in the US-Congress. Hillary could succeed, if the american society is getting as tired of macho dogmatics as the germans are.
A bland politician like Merkel, an east german bumchuck with no political coteries but a science degree in nuclear physics, only could gain such a power by a likewise electorate. Merkel wouldn't survive a week in the US-Congress. Hillary could succeed, if the american society is getting as tired of macho dogmatics as the germans are.
4
Apparently Ms. Merkel's foes don't last long in the Bundestag or the Ministries.
We need to starting calling our democracy what it is. Semi-democrcy. Sure, we vote but most of the time we don't get what we voted for. We get a little bit, but not much. They barley keep the nation running. President Obama is "sometimes a great leader." He would be always a great leader If the GOP prejudice was in play.
The rest of the purportedly democratic world runs with the parliamentary system because it naturally evolved to represent like-minded groups in the negotiation of public policy for all.
Having David Brooks in the NYT is invaluable to me. His insight into contemporary conservative thinking, in an environment that draws me to it because of its otherwise progressive atmosphere, is certainly enlightening. But I often leave his columns wondering about the conservative mindset. He talks admiringly about tough guys (and gals, i.e. Chancellor Merkel, Hillary) dominating at this time in history. I try to recall which tough leaders over the course of modern history left a positive and permanent mark, as opposed to burning ruins as their legacy. Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Churchill, Gorbachev, Golda Meier, and Mandela come to mind. All have their detractors, but all had to be tough enough to succeed but all left lasting progressive legacies. Reagan left us massive debt, a myth about himself, and acolytes and false theories galore. W and Cheney left a disaster that no amount of historical perspective will erase. Clinton and Obama will be judged over time but the indications are that their legacies will be much more positive than not. Putin, Assad, the Kim’s, and the Mullah’s are temporary and their hold on power are personality and fear based, not legitimate. It’s pretty clear that contemporary history rewards being tough, but that can’t be the only attribute for successful leadership. In the end, progressive thinking, calm and reasoned choices, and taking a long view are better barometers of success than toughness alone.
111
David teaches us that it is considered virtuous and sophisticated in the right wing to hold mutually-contradictory beliefs simultaneously. That is why they come across as schizophrenics to me.
2
The age we're in often feels dark and foreboding because we don't care for the unpredictability of the future. Only in hindsight can we reflect on what times were really like.
That said, the late 90's were pretty good. The Onion had one of its best satirical headlines ever at George W. Bush's first inaugural--"Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity Is Finally Over.'" Spot on.
That said, the late 90's were pretty good. The Onion had one of its best satirical headlines ever at George W. Bush's first inaugural--"Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity Is Finally Over.'" Spot on.
3
Perhaps there is some cultural lag that produces current angst. Back when Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher came to power, there were some real issues with high taxation and government activity in the economy. The fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the threat of International Communism made the idea that "reform" meant less government meddling in the economy. The meme against taxation resonated in a lot of places.
Today, trust in the government has disappeared. There's political advantage in advocating letting "free markets" control the economy. There's also political advantage in promoting fear. Netanyahu and the 2010 US election demonstrate how useful fear can be in the political process. If it works, we can expect that to continue.
When everything seems to move so rapidly, political ideas can get out of date in a flash. Maybe we need to get back to supporting more government intervention to ameliorate the effects of the market. Unfortunately, there's a very effective PR industry funded by the very rich that is working very hard to shape opinion. Most of the time we're not even aware of what's happening. I think it's time to ask: What kind of country do we want to live in?
Today, trust in the government has disappeared. There's political advantage in advocating letting "free markets" control the economy. There's also political advantage in promoting fear. Netanyahu and the 2010 US election demonstrate how useful fear can be in the political process. If it works, we can expect that to continue.
When everything seems to move so rapidly, political ideas can get out of date in a flash. Maybe we need to get back to supporting more government intervention to ameliorate the effects of the market. Unfortunately, there's a very effective PR industry funded by the very rich that is working very hard to shape opinion. Most of the time we're not even aware of what's happening. I think it's time to ask: What kind of country do we want to live in?
1
The politics is the reflection of the citizen's emotional state at the time of election - rarely a rational process. It is true, politicians use both rational and emotional arguments to get the flocks on their side, but ultimately the emotional drive wins the election.
The foundation of human emotion is supported on their spiritual strength - less the spiritual strength in the citizens more the effects of fear mongering on the electorate. I am sure, politicians understand this dynamics and use their message and body language to invluence the electorate.
The wining strategy on difficult election time is a cocktail of vision and fear and Regan understood it. The ISIS, Ukraine, Iran are only contexts to create the message for fear mongering, they have little bearing to our security. 14 years have passed since 911 and we spend trilingual of dollars, but today we are less secured. Our only security is our economic strength.
Let us see how our new leaders do their acting in 2016.
The foundation of human emotion is supported on their spiritual strength - less the spiritual strength in the citizens more the effects of fear mongering on the electorate. I am sure, politicians understand this dynamics and use their message and body language to invluence the electorate.
The wining strategy on difficult election time is a cocktail of vision and fear and Regan understood it. The ISIS, Ukraine, Iran are only contexts to create the message for fear mongering, they have little bearing to our security. 14 years have passed since 911 and we spend trilingual of dollars, but today we are less secured. Our only security is our economic strength.
Let us see how our new leaders do their acting in 2016.
I reluctantly have to agree that the international mood is turning confrontational and rightist; indeed the terms may be synonymous. Belligerence is always a scary climate for everyone but gunslingers. Given the weapons all too readily available, the prospects for a more humane world dwindle in direct proportion. Power interests strengthen their position when a climate of caution or outright fear predominates, and that is indeed what we are seeing most everywhere. The human animal can truly be a predatory beast, a threat to everyone, including its sponsors. Too bad.
1
F.D.R. had the dubious advantage of the short period when the oligopoly lost it's clout. Reagan benefited from the heavy lifting that Carter and Paul Volcker had done to get the economy back on track. For a repeat of either we need either a worse great recession or huge increases of public borrowing and spending. Based on hearing my parents talk about the "hard times" of their childhood in the 30s and living through the stagflation of the 70s I'll take more spending and inflation over bread lines and soup kitchens.
2
It is only natural that conservatives would see this moment as a zero-sum game. The arc of progress is bending toward an era of reform. The notion of conservative ascendancy is dying. We have a reasonably successful center-left President and a Pope who is more John XXIII than John Paul II.
Bibi and Putin are the exception rather than the rule and Angela Merkel is simply a good and talented pol.
The times are changing, mostly for the better and in the wake of the complete failure that was the GWB administration.
Bibi and Putin are the exception rather than the rule and Angela Merkel is simply a good and talented pol.
The times are changing, mostly for the better and in the wake of the complete failure that was the GWB administration.
4
The article says that "acts of hostility toward Jews are now rampant in 39 percent of countries, up from 26 percent in 2007. The U.K. Community Security Trust registered 1,168 anti-Semitic incidents in Britain in 2014, more than double the number from the previous year."
I think these stats should be looked into to determine the cause of such acts in Britain. I doubt that the stats are tied to a "worsening public mood." I suspect something else is at play at Britain.
I think these stats should be looked into to determine the cause of such acts in Britain. I doubt that the stats are tied to a "worsening public mood." I suspect something else is at play at Britain.
Mr. Brooks:
I've noticed that when you give geopolitical reference points to bolster your arguments that they are almost always northern hemispheric. Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia are rarely mentioned.
I've noticed that when you give geopolitical reference points to bolster your arguments that they are almost always northern hemispheric. Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia are rarely mentioned.
Three comments:
1) “In the 1990s, there was a presumption that we were living in an age of rapid progress. Democracy was spreading. Tyranny was receding.”
I lived through it. It wasn’t a presumption. It was true.
2) “This is what Netanyahu did in Israel. He didn’t literally renounce the idea of a two-state solution forevermore. He just said that it would be too dangerous in the near term as long as Islamist-style radicalism is on the march. (A defensible proposition.)”
For Netanyahu there never will be a good time, it will always be “too dangerous.” Stay on that path and Islamist-style radicalism will only increase.
3) “But occasionally there is a leader who can turn a negative popular mood into a positive one. F.D.R. and Reagan did this. But you have to be very, very good.”
F.D.R gave us the New Deal and got the Nation out of the horrors of the Great Depression. Reagan gave us a huge military build-up, bigger government, raised taxes, a rise in unemployment, enabled Wall St. greed, Iran-Contra, did nothing for women's rights, and the SNL crisis contributing to the recession of the late ‘80’s early ‘90’s. That's being a very, very good leader?
1) “In the 1990s, there was a presumption that we were living in an age of rapid progress. Democracy was spreading. Tyranny was receding.”
I lived through it. It wasn’t a presumption. It was true.
2) “This is what Netanyahu did in Israel. He didn’t literally renounce the idea of a two-state solution forevermore. He just said that it would be too dangerous in the near term as long as Islamist-style radicalism is on the march. (A defensible proposition.)”
For Netanyahu there never will be a good time, it will always be “too dangerous.” Stay on that path and Islamist-style radicalism will only increase.
3) “But occasionally there is a leader who can turn a negative popular mood into a positive one. F.D.R. and Reagan did this. But you have to be very, very good.”
F.D.R gave us the New Deal and got the Nation out of the horrors of the Great Depression. Reagan gave us a huge military build-up, bigger government, raised taxes, a rise in unemployment, enabled Wall St. greed, Iran-Contra, did nothing for women's rights, and the SNL crisis contributing to the recession of the late ‘80’s early ‘90’s. That's being a very, very good leader?
4
Also Reagan started the Southern Strategy that has lead us too a nation of people who have the lowest approval ratings for Congress, The President, the Supreme Court and the press. Well done Ronnie.
This might be titled "The Father of an Israeli soldier looks at the World".
3
This reactionary essay would have made more sense if it was written 10 or 12 years ago.
"Politics is less about win-win situations and more about zero-sum situations. It is less about reforms that will improve all lives and more about unadorned struggles for power. Who will control the ground in places like Ukraine and Syria? Will Iran get the bomb? Will the White House or Congress grab power over treaties and immigration policy?"
My English-to-conservative dictionary does not explain how these are examples of zero sum situations.
And if Jewish Americans want something in this world to fear, then how about the fact that there is not a single Jewish American in the entire GOP caucus.
Talk is cheap; it's actions that count.
"Politics is less about win-win situations and more about zero-sum situations. It is less about reforms that will improve all lives and more about unadorned struggles for power. Who will control the ground in places like Ukraine and Syria? Will Iran get the bomb? Will the White House or Congress grab power over treaties and immigration policy?"
My English-to-conservative dictionary does not explain how these are examples of zero sum situations.
And if Jewish Americans want something in this world to fear, then how about the fact that there is not a single Jewish American in the entire GOP caucus.
Talk is cheap; it's actions that count.
2
The world is changing in a way that is undermined by anyone over the age of 55 yrs (David you must fall into that crowd).
Average person is more informed. Average person is more globalized than when FDR and Reagen were roaming afoot around the world.
Israel's third party is Arab party....was that even possible 20yrs ago, how about 10, how about 7yrs?
I truly believe if the next time a president tries Bush style presidency, there will be an impeachment. I doubt the public can no longer be duped as bad as even 2006!
Yes things are becoming extremes but that goes both ways.
People will put you on power but they can easily take you down too.
As per Bibi's pandering as you put it, that may have worked before information overkill or before people were not as informed, but today pandering is no longer just a talk...why dont you ask Romney? Bibi always wanted to be in the text books for Israel but sometimes what we want the most might be our downfall...I think he may be the man who changes Israel's direction after over 60yrs in existence...so he will be in the books but in a different way than he planned.
It would have been better for him to step down while he was on a high note.
Average person is more informed. Average person is more globalized than when FDR and Reagen were roaming afoot around the world.
Israel's third party is Arab party....was that even possible 20yrs ago, how about 10, how about 7yrs?
I truly believe if the next time a president tries Bush style presidency, there will be an impeachment. I doubt the public can no longer be duped as bad as even 2006!
Yes things are becoming extremes but that goes both ways.
People will put you on power but they can easily take you down too.
As per Bibi's pandering as you put it, that may have worked before information overkill or before people were not as informed, but today pandering is no longer just a talk...why dont you ask Romney? Bibi always wanted to be in the text books for Israel but sometimes what we want the most might be our downfall...I think he may be the man who changes Israel's direction after over 60yrs in existence...so he will be in the books but in a different way than he planned.
It would have been better for him to step down while he was on a high note.
There is nothing "defensible" about what Netanyahu said about a two state solution and Arab voters. Enemies of Netanyahu - but even more so Israel's friends - need to be very clear about this. It is time for tough love for Israel and Netanyahu.
5
The current political leadership, powered and enhanced by new media which generates traffic through heightened tensions, has found that playing to their extremists bases is far more effective than finding compromise. The left promotes a hopeless world of the rich stomping on the poor with the only solution wealth redistribution and punishing the wealthy. The right promotes a world of chaotic, disenfranchised poor with pitchforks tearing down society in cahoots with a government that is socializing the country step by step. The only solution is to build bigger moats and tear down government.
There are real solutions but the rely on destroying the base of the two parties. One needs to start by understanding that the economy is not a zero sum game and that government is not inherently bad or incompetent. We currently spend 41% of our entire economy on the government. This is a huge asset (or liability). The issue is how we spend our money. The wealthy are not all evil and the poor are not all "honey boo boos". Minorities are neither all saints kept down by the man or all criminals that rely on handouts. Taxes are evil nor are they all paid by poor people and not the rich. Unfortunately, a deeper and more nuanced examination of virtually every argument shows that thoughtful solutions abound. Frankly, President Obama's aborted attempt with Simpsons Bowles laid out a pretty solid middle ground that was immediately ignored by both sides.
There are real solutions but the rely on destroying the base of the two parties. One needs to start by understanding that the economy is not a zero sum game and that government is not inherently bad or incompetent. We currently spend 41% of our entire economy on the government. This is a huge asset (or liability). The issue is how we spend our money. The wealthy are not all evil and the poor are not all "honey boo boos". Minorities are neither all saints kept down by the man or all criminals that rely on handouts. Taxes are evil nor are they all paid by poor people and not the rich. Unfortunately, a deeper and more nuanced examination of virtually every argument shows that thoughtful solutions abound. Frankly, President Obama's aborted attempt with Simpsons Bowles laid out a pretty solid middle ground that was immediately ignored by both sides.
2
By definition, democratic politics mean that we live in an era of American Idol style governance. It's the flavor of the month, and this month's flavor is the Republican kind. It's not dissimilar from the struggle between the Dark Side of tIhe Force and the Jedi Knights. The Jedi Knights get purged and can only come back as a rebel force. Once the dark side takes power, it doesn't give it up. That's why it's so hard to undo the damage they wreak on the world.
So we are in a constant struggle between the incompetent do-gooders and the competent, but evil Empire. So who will win? I'm looking for a sign--perhaps we will all get in the next Star Wars movie.
So we are in a constant struggle between the incompetent do-gooders and the competent, but evil Empire. So who will win? I'm looking for a sign--perhaps we will all get in the next Star Wars movie.
1
David Brooks analysis assumes that that we see today isn't the result of "America's international order." It assumes that we, the noble ones of the world only project our "leadership" to promote individual liberty and democracy.
But the facts just don't support this. There was a schedule for early elections in Ukraine, but "our side" decided that a coup was the preferred option. The Egyptian Arab spring held real possibilities for democracy. But we supported Mubarak until the last moment and now are back to giving military aid the the generals who seized power. Iraq, Libya and Syria are all on the verge of being failed states. But rather that help build genuine democratic institutions within those nations we opted for regime change through civil wars in society's too fragile to withstand the shock of that level of disruption. You left out the military coup in Honduras, which of course we supported over the objections of the OAS.
As for Netanyahu...I imagine the pundits are scratching their heads to try and explain why we should continue to support a leader who has openly proclaimed ethnic cleansing as his official policy.
We don't need faith in the potential for positive change in the world. We need more honesty, especially from the press. We need accountability for all the death and destruction wrought in our name. In other words we really need radically new leadership.
But the facts just don't support this. There was a schedule for early elections in Ukraine, but "our side" decided that a coup was the preferred option. The Egyptian Arab spring held real possibilities for democracy. But we supported Mubarak until the last moment and now are back to giving military aid the the generals who seized power. Iraq, Libya and Syria are all on the verge of being failed states. But rather that help build genuine democratic institutions within those nations we opted for regime change through civil wars in society's too fragile to withstand the shock of that level of disruption. You left out the military coup in Honduras, which of course we supported over the objections of the OAS.
As for Netanyahu...I imagine the pundits are scratching their heads to try and explain why we should continue to support a leader who has openly proclaimed ethnic cleansing as his official policy.
We don't need faith in the potential for positive change in the world. We need more honesty, especially from the press. We need accountability for all the death and destruction wrought in our name. In other words we really need radically new leadership.
4
All our pretensions to democracy are belied by the fact that our negotiation of public policy has completely broken down.
Oh yeah. We need another neo-tough like W and his side kick, Darth Vader, to get us into more non-elite global projects.
5
"In the 1990s, there was a presumption that we were living in an age of rapid progress. " Interesting observation. I seemed to have missed that "presumption," or at least any recollection of its being made by Republicans and their supporters. No, what I remember is a climate of crisis being manufactured. I recall culture wars, extreme claims from the right about the dire state of our country and the moral relativism that was undermining the very fabric of Western civilization. I recall a popular Democratic president being relentlessly hounded by the Republicans and finally being impeached over what most of us saw as nothing. And I recall the Project for a New American Century articulating exactly the same terrifying view of the international situation that Mr. Brooks is trying to sell us on here.
So defend this view if you like, Mr. Brooks, defend Netanyahu. Just don't pretend that you're doing so on the basis of anything that is actually happening in the world.
So defend this view if you like, Mr. Brooks, defend Netanyahu. Just don't pretend that you're doing so on the basis of anything that is actually happening in the world.
2
President Obama is desperately seeking a foreign policy accomplishment to claim as his legacy and views Iran as the answer.
Mr. Netanyahu was seeking a forum in the U.S. to express his views and gratefully latched on to the Republican offer.
If he had spoken at the Holocaust Museum instead of Congress, the President would still have been vehemently opposed to it.
Now he is upset because Israelis decided to go with Mr. Netanyahu. There is no satisfying some people when it comes to securing their legacies.
Mr. Netanyahu was seeking a forum in the U.S. to express his views and gratefully latched on to the Republican offer.
If he had spoken at the Holocaust Museum instead of Congress, the President would still have been vehemently opposed to it.
Now he is upset because Israelis decided to go with Mr. Netanyahu. There is no satisfying some people when it comes to securing their legacies.
Mr. Netanyahu spoke at AIPAC right before he spoke to Congress. I do not recall President Obama "vehemently opposing" that. He has often spoken in the US, to a variety of audiences; I do not recall President Obama opposing those speeches either. In 2013, he came to speak to AIPAC and also met with Obama; he was here speaking to AIPAC in 2012 as well, without Obama's objection. In each case, he focused extensively on his concerns about Iran. Clearly Obama has demonstrated no inherent objection to his directly engaging with American audiences on that or any other issue.
23
With respect, your argument is a fallacy to state that the US administration's silence on statements made at AIPAC by Netanyahu somehow implies a tacit agreement by the president of the United States. On the other hand Netanyahu's undermining of the political process in the USA by going outside channels and speaking directly to the US Congress, regardless of what he was saying,he is acting provocatively, and , as reality would have it,he is trying to effect policy outside his sphere. Your stance is not only illogical but is part of a war dance that is going to end up to be very bad for everyone,none more so than Israel.
I think where Brooks uses "tough" he actually means "aggressive."
Putin, the Tea Party, Netanyahu et al are aggressive in using whatever power they have to enhance their positions and hurt those they disagree with.
Being "tough" requires checking your baser instincts to crush those that disagree with you.
Putin, the Tea Party, Netanyahu et al are aggressive in using whatever power they have to enhance their positions and hurt those they disagree with.
Being "tough" requires checking your baser instincts to crush those that disagree with you.
1
Remember those essays you read aloud in English class with Mrs. Duffy? Those you ended by saying, in conclusion.
It is Obama's fault for not making that "changey-hopey" thing work. He is just not "very, very good."
But among the GOP in Congress is? And who among the GOP presumptive candidates to face Hillary Clinton (if she runs of course which now she is not) is that good?
Jeb Bush still retains that wonkish "softer mien" because he has not started pandering yet. Ask him if he believes climate change is real and supported by science? Ask him if he still believes we need to overhaul our immigration laws? Ask him if women have a right to equal pay for equal work and the right to choose when to have children without government interference?
Just ask him.
It is Obama's fault for not making that "changey-hopey" thing work. He is just not "very, very good."
But among the GOP in Congress is? And who among the GOP presumptive candidates to face Hillary Clinton (if she runs of course which now she is not) is that good?
Jeb Bush still retains that wonkish "softer mien" because he has not started pandering yet. Ask him if he believes climate change is real and supported by science? Ask him if he still believes we need to overhaul our immigration laws? Ask him if women have a right to equal pay for equal work and the right to choose when to have children without government interference?
Just ask him.
3
Hillary reminds us of the 90s, as illusory as that was. Bill in the kitchen fixing biscuits and gravy for three. Will we survive the idea?
reagan was very good - at being a pander and a fraud. he convinced americans they could always have something for nothing, because they were inherently great and the heavy lifting had already been done, say, by those boys in normandy. he was a charming huckster who sold us the snake oil of tax cuts for the rich, despising the poor, and empowering murderers in latin america. nationalism may be on the rise because it is so reflexive and soothing as it apeals to our basest natures.
4
I'd really like to understand this correctly? David, are you describing or advocating for leadership that does not appeal to "the better angels of our nature?"
1
FDR might get some traction these days, but Reagan? In today's Tea Party coopted GOP he wouldn't make it past Iowa despite the fact that his name is brought up as if a sacred mantra by republican hopefuls. The main difference between the two is that Roosevelt got the country out of a depression and Reagan laid the groundwork for getting us into one.
4
One sure way to drive progressives and liberals crazy and get them off point is to make a favorable comparison of FDR and The Gipper. David Brooks is a genius at it, driving even the most clear thinking person to extremism. He knows which buttons to push.
His weekly ploys usually work. With an innocent look on his face he can say he was just trying to provide a reasonable alternative view and all you people on the left do is go crazy. In spite of their killing ways he wants us to believe that Putin and Bibi are products of our times only doing what's necessary.
Don't fall for it, he's pulling your chain.
His weekly ploys usually work. With an innocent look on his face he can say he was just trying to provide a reasonable alternative view and all you people on the left do is go crazy. In spite of their killing ways he wants us to believe that Putin and Bibi are products of our times only doing what's necessary.
Don't fall for it, he's pulling your chain.
3
Brooks is batting 100%. He's wrong again. The belligerence and bullying that define Walker and especially Christie are what so many people find so loathsome about politics and politicians. Their time has come and is about to be gone. Netanyahu wasn't reelected for a day before he flamed out. Christie will be in jail before the Iowa balloting. This time next year, people will be saying, "Scott who?" And Ted Cruz will be remembered as the poster boy of 21st Century McCarthyism.
4
The best response to columns like this is to say "Yeah, David, sure. Whatever." and go about your business
3
Dear David,
Thank you for a enlightening article.The anti Semitism barometer you used to define a shift to the right & instability in the world is startling & disappointing, but not surprising.The Jew has always been the scapegoat of the world.We are the only people where the majority are judged by the actions of the few.The Jewish hatred was out in full Bloom during the recent conflict in Gaza, the Jews of the world were condemned from Poland to Chile,
Nothing has changed, mankind is flawed and is destined to repeat the same mistakes.
Thank you for a enlightening article.The anti Semitism barometer you used to define a shift to the right & instability in the world is startling & disappointing, but not surprising.The Jew has always been the scapegoat of the world.We are the only people where the majority are judged by the actions of the few.The Jewish hatred was out in full Bloom during the recent conflict in Gaza, the Jews of the world were condemned from Poland to Chile,
Nothing has changed, mankind is flawed and is destined to repeat the same mistakes.
"We are the only people where the majority are judged by the actions of the few." Surely not. All American Blacks are judged by the actions of a few. All Irish are drunks. All Scots are miserly...
"Today it’s harder to have faith in rapid progress..." A pity DB says "rapid." Why is speed a prerequisite for progress? Doesn’t such emphasis anoint technological progress and ignore the glacial movement to justice in society? Besides, the belief in the inevitability of progress has been seriously challenged through the centuries.
Rather than list the symptoms of retreat from imagined progress, I wish David had explored the causes of retreat. It's easy for me to say "the pendulum swings," and even to imagine that the amplitude of one swing is reflected in the amplitude of the next. It’s easy to look at specific cases and suggest a cause: saying, for example, that ISIS is an outgrowth of US foreign policy. But that would ignore the centuries-long enmities in the Islamic communities. However, the follow-up question is “why now?” And the answer must implicate the US.
No op-ed, or series, will answer the great questions, but it seems to me that unless we put our own house in order we have no business telling others how to do it, or worse, forcing them to do it our way. As long as David hunts for topics in the weeds, he’s wasting valuable time and passing up on a wonderful opportunity to be part of a real re-thinking of America.
Rather than list the symptoms of retreat from imagined progress, I wish David had explored the causes of retreat. It's easy for me to say "the pendulum swings," and even to imagine that the amplitude of one swing is reflected in the amplitude of the next. It’s easy to look at specific cases and suggest a cause: saying, for example, that ISIS is an outgrowth of US foreign policy. But that would ignore the centuries-long enmities in the Islamic communities. However, the follow-up question is “why now?” And the answer must implicate the US.
No op-ed, or series, will answer the great questions, but it seems to me that unless we put our own house in order we have no business telling others how to do it, or worse, forcing them to do it our way. As long as David hunts for topics in the weeds, he’s wasting valuable time and passing up on a wonderful opportunity to be part of a real re-thinking of America.
1
I think David Brooks has hit on one of the fundamental philosophical differences between left and right although he frames the discussion differently. The political left is not about zero-sum politics while the political right is more inclined toward such a view.
Indulging in the same generalizations as Brooks (and stipulating to the weakness of such broad strokes), I would posit that a healthy middle class and ladders out of poverty are a benefit to ALL economic strata in a society. The wealthy benefit in a country where poverty is reduced, education is valued, and investments today yield a healthier tomorrow.
Yet today we see politicians at home protecting their assets from taxation and politicians abroad supporting divisiveness by gender or ethnicity as policy. The Zero-Sum actors may indeed be having their moment on the stage these days and that is not good news for anyone because the consequences of zero-sum policies bode ill for everyone, including those accruing power & wealth at the moment.
Indulging in the same generalizations as Brooks (and stipulating to the weakness of such broad strokes), I would posit that a healthy middle class and ladders out of poverty are a benefit to ALL economic strata in a society. The wealthy benefit in a country where poverty is reduced, education is valued, and investments today yield a healthier tomorrow.
Yet today we see politicians at home protecting their assets from taxation and politicians abroad supporting divisiveness by gender or ethnicity as policy. The Zero-Sum actors may indeed be having their moment on the stage these days and that is not good news for anyone because the consequences of zero-sum policies bode ill for everyone, including those accruing power & wealth at the moment.
1
The right is totally about zero-sum economics, and you see it every day in the fearmongering about the Social Security "crisis."
The Social Security trust fund gets in trouble ONLY IF wages, and therefore contributions, remain stagnant. And nobody, left or right, bothers to unbeg that question.
The Social Security trust fund gets in trouble ONLY IF wages, and therefore contributions, remain stagnant. And nobody, left or right, bothers to unbeg that question.
David makes a list, and fails to check it twice. And it is loaded with spectacularly dishonest moments.
The "progressives emphasize compassion less and redistribution more." The most drastic redistribution in my lifetime (born 1958) has been the 35 year Republican obsession with tax cuts for the rich. David Stockman, Reagan's original architect, has *admitted* that it didn't work in boosting the economy as a whole, and that they knew full well that it wouldn't. Yet it is unshakable cant for Republicans, as is any attempt to rebalance to be shrilly mischaracterized as "redistribution."
"...right-leaning parties tend to do well and have a stronger story to tell on national security." This also relates to the claim that "economies are struggling." Right-leaning governments, whether ours, from the Bush-Cheney-Rice lies about Saddam Hussein (Rice: "Don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud.") to Netanyahu mongering wholesale fear about Arabs bused to the polls. Selling fear is the only reason why right-leaning governments, Germany excepted, do well, with the complicity of the Fourth Estate, David most emphatically included. And it helped hamstring our economy
Most objectionably: "Will the White House or Congress grab power over treaties..." Where was David's objection to the Bush Administration throwing ratified treaties in the trash with the "Torture Memos?"
A story to tell about national security that discarded "the supreme law the land?" David is utterly shameless.
The "progressives emphasize compassion less and redistribution more." The most drastic redistribution in my lifetime (born 1958) has been the 35 year Republican obsession with tax cuts for the rich. David Stockman, Reagan's original architect, has *admitted* that it didn't work in boosting the economy as a whole, and that they knew full well that it wouldn't. Yet it is unshakable cant for Republicans, as is any attempt to rebalance to be shrilly mischaracterized as "redistribution."
"...right-leaning parties tend to do well and have a stronger story to tell on national security." This also relates to the claim that "economies are struggling." Right-leaning governments, whether ours, from the Bush-Cheney-Rice lies about Saddam Hussein (Rice: "Don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud.") to Netanyahu mongering wholesale fear about Arabs bused to the polls. Selling fear is the only reason why right-leaning governments, Germany excepted, do well, with the complicity of the Fourth Estate, David most emphatically included. And it helped hamstring our economy
Most objectionably: "Will the White House or Congress grab power over treaties..." Where was David's objection to the Bush Administration throwing ratified treaties in the trash with the "Torture Memos?"
A story to tell about national security that discarded "the supreme law the land?" David is utterly shameless.
6
Please stop mentioning Reagan as though his simple act of being changed the national mood. Regan took office after years of a self-imposed (fed-induced) economic slump, the end of which (similarly fed-induced) happened to coincide with Reagan's political ascendancy.
To compare Reagan's Voodoo to FDR's New Deal is ridiculous. We are still suffering and laboring through the devasting economic misconception unleashed by him and embraced by his Republican minions.
To compare Reagan's Voodoo to FDR's New Deal is ridiculous. We are still suffering and laboring through the devasting economic misconception unleashed by him and embraced by his Republican minions.
9
Likewise, Thatcher came to power just as the North Sea oil came online. Better to be lucky than good.
1
Reagan "very, very good?" Putting him & your imagined goodness of him in the same sentence as FDR?? David, you need a vacation, if for nothing else than to get some perspective on history. Wars, whether class or political, are not zero sum, it's all about making the other guy lose & be left in a hole, in a less than zero state
7
I don't think David meant that Reagan's policies were good, Gabby. He's David Brooks.
Reagan was the best at getting the masses to feel good about condemning what they saw as the present society's ills, and dreaming of a retrogressive future. He won two overwhelming landslides that way.
Reagan was the best at getting the masses to feel good about condemning what they saw as the present society's ills, and dreaming of a retrogressive future. He won two overwhelming landslides that way.
Netanyahu not only played into the most cynical reactions of citizens, he exacerbated them, too. Arab residents know he considers them lesser, because of his stated concern that they would vote and because of the discriminatory citizenship legislation he supported. He's not going to move away from the strategy of settlement building he laid out. And there's no sense of trust from Americans or Palestinians that he wants a two-state solution. Bibi thrives on negativity and incites when he can. Leadership would mean an "All we have to fear is fear itself" moment.
1
"The world was cumulatively heading toward greater pluralism, individualism, prosperity and freedom."
Not so much. Greater individualism would mean less government involvement in individuals' lives, yet the 1990s saw increasing government interference in American lives (and we're more "individualistic" than any other country).
Not so much. Greater individualism would mean less government involvement in individuals' lives, yet the 1990s saw increasing government interference in American lives (and we're more "individualistic" than any other country).
1
Individualism could be fulfilled using something other that righteous self interest, and accumulation of mammon. If our species survives, cooperative-individualism will most likely be the norm. This will traumatize a few cave men and woodsmen, for a generation or two, but there just isn't any way to continue without sharing the caves and the woods (assuming that they don't get gobbled up by some wealthy individual who gets laws passed to fulfill his or her personal indivdualism).
The cold hard fact is that it is government that has enabled the individualism that exists in the United States, else we'd all be still be living in a more 'business like', and certain Republican world under the auspices of a more superior breed of neo Kings and Emperors.
The promotion of rights and the "regulations" that help to insure that others have them also is not interference, it's collaboration. The 'bigness' of government, and huge number of pages necessary to support all of that is due to the ingenuity of individuals to find ways to violate the rights of others. None-the-less, we should not just give up, because in a world of seven (going on 9) billion top predators, there are no better options on the table.
100%, true, raw, libertarian individualism would have us all squabbling and battling each other instead of working together to build something better and more suitable for our circumstances. Been there, done that. It doesn't work!
The cold hard fact is that it is government that has enabled the individualism that exists in the United States, else we'd all be still be living in a more 'business like', and certain Republican world under the auspices of a more superior breed of neo Kings and Emperors.
The promotion of rights and the "regulations" that help to insure that others have them also is not interference, it's collaboration. The 'bigness' of government, and huge number of pages necessary to support all of that is due to the ingenuity of individuals to find ways to violate the rights of others. None-the-less, we should not just give up, because in a world of seven (going on 9) billion top predators, there are no better options on the table.
100%, true, raw, libertarian individualism would have us all squabbling and battling each other instead of working together to build something better and more suitable for our circumstances. Been there, done that. It doesn't work!
1
"Reactionary forces like the Islamic State and Iran are winning." Mr. Brooks, perhaps you aren't aware that The Islamic State and Iran are fighting against each other. And that Iran is a traditional nation-state, while the Islamic State is a transnational revolutionary movement. Lumping them in the same sentence does not lead to clarity about anything.
40
Some people need to touch, feel, and experience ideas before they can view them holistically and compare them to alternatives.
The turmoil in the Middle East, and in south east Asia is all about the bursting of a 'conservative bubble' of tradition, conjecture, mysticism, and absolutism that has kept new ideas and progress bottled up for over 500 years.
The lesson is that the 'straight line segments of certainty' that are constructed by conservatives to control and structure reality eventually don't fit the curve of the spiral of time. That spiral inevitably that ushers in the continuous change that underlies the human condition. Straight lines are illusions resulting from the relative difference in human vs geologic time.
Just because conservative don't like change or even the perception of change, doesn't mean that we can stop it. In fact, all indications are that the pace of change in human knowledge, understanding, and endeavor is about to accelerate exponentially. This will effectively reduce straight lines to dots, and conservatives and progressives alike will have to either adapt to that, kill each other in the battle over whether or not it's actually happening, or foster some new dark age in which to 'think it over'.
The turmoil in the Middle East, and in south east Asia is all about the bursting of a 'conservative bubble' of tradition, conjecture, mysticism, and absolutism that has kept new ideas and progress bottled up for over 500 years.
The lesson is that the 'straight line segments of certainty' that are constructed by conservatives to control and structure reality eventually don't fit the curve of the spiral of time. That spiral inevitably that ushers in the continuous change that underlies the human condition. Straight lines are illusions resulting from the relative difference in human vs geologic time.
Just because conservative don't like change or even the perception of change, doesn't mean that we can stop it. In fact, all indications are that the pace of change in human knowledge, understanding, and endeavor is about to accelerate exponentially. This will effectively reduce straight lines to dots, and conservatives and progressives alike will have to either adapt to that, kill each other in the battle over whether or not it's actually happening, or foster some new dark age in which to 'think it over'.
Politics as we know it today is no longer politics, nor is it, as it should be, a zero-sum game. Since both sides refuse to play, there really is no game at all.
The current president, along with the entire Congress, are the worst politicians we have ever had. They do not do politics. They cannot hold two opposing ideas in their head at one time and negotiate the better parts of each.
Meanwhile, our president issues edicts, as he too is incapable of doing what he promised us all he'd do....negotiate and find a way to resolution.
FDR had a war to help him. Reagan's secret was jelly beans. We don't need another war, as our skirmishes are bloody enough. Let's hope the Easter Bunny is good to Barack this year. It's said that jelly beans are good for your mojo.
The current president, along with the entire Congress, are the worst politicians we have ever had. They do not do politics. They cannot hold two opposing ideas in their head at one time and negotiate the better parts of each.
Meanwhile, our president issues edicts, as he too is incapable of doing what he promised us all he'd do....negotiate and find a way to resolution.
FDR had a war to help him. Reagan's secret was jelly beans. We don't need another war, as our skirmishes are bloody enough. Let's hope the Easter Bunny is good to Barack this year. It's said that jelly beans are good for your mojo.
1
"Meanwhile, our president issues edicts, as he too is incapable of doing what he promised us all he'd do....negotiate and find a way to resolution."
And golly gee whiz, could there be a *reason* that he's incapable of doing it? A reason that has something to do
with Republican congressmen who disdain negotiation from any position other than "Give us what we want or we won't play"?
And golly gee whiz, could there be a *reason* that he's incapable of doing it? A reason that has something to do
with Republican congressmen who disdain negotiation from any position other than "Give us what we want or we won't play"?
1
Holding Obama and Republicans equally responsible when they never had any intention of working with him, but he spent his entire first term bending over backwards to offer compromises that gave them three-quarters of what they claimed to want (not realizing that what they really wanted was not to compromise with him), is completely misleading. There's a LOT to complain about with Obama, but an unwillingness to compromise with Republicans is not one of those things.
2
Why isn't this post an NYT pick? It's soooo full of deep insight.
At this point in the Bush administration (2007) there were over 870 military deaths ( the worst year of the Iraq war) by November. The housing bubble was in full bloom. Do you get that this laid the foundation for the doom and gloom you parade preelection? The uninsured population is down. The Bush recession and a half is resolving no thanks to the TP OP. You should read your buddy Dr. Krugman for a bit of the fair and balanced.
27
I'd love to see a year-by-year, side by side graphic of the parameters of the Bush and Obama administrations. It would make clear what Mitch McConnell wanted to get back to so quickly by making his first job to limit the President's term in office.
1
If anything, all of this conservative backlash is part of a coverup of the failed policies that they've fostered over the last 30 years.
When under attack, rattle sabers, and make noise!
When under attack, rattle sabers, and make noise!
1
This article sounds waaaaay too apocalyptic in tone. We are not exactly in the political "end times." American politics -- especially at the national level -- has always been rough and tumble.
Thus, the meek are unlikely to become President. (No matter what you may believe about President Obama!) If you want to be President, you need to be aggressive and to have a Kevlar hide. Unfortunately, these characteristics align too often with other undesirable personality traits like greed and narcissism. What we really want are leaders who are aggressively benevolent and who work for the common good, not personal gain.
Our perceptions of a leader's strength often depend more on situation than character. A president with a strong political hand is more likely to be perceived as a strong leader. Luck and circumstance have a much larger effect than we imagine.
Thus, the meek are unlikely to become President. (No matter what you may believe about President Obama!) If you want to be President, you need to be aggressive and to have a Kevlar hide. Unfortunately, these characteristics align too often with other undesirable personality traits like greed and narcissism. What we really want are leaders who are aggressively benevolent and who work for the common good, not personal gain.
Our perceptions of a leader's strength often depend more on situation than character. A president with a strong political hand is more likely to be perceived as a strong leader. Luck and circumstance have a much larger effect than we imagine.
6
Alfred E. Newman: "What, me worry?" That about sums it up.
Putin is strong for taking what he wants! Obama is weak for giving others a right to have an opinion in negotiations!
In spite of all of this conservative bolder-dash, we need to hope that Obama, not Putin is in charge of the world going forward.
We've lost world leadership under a regime of Republican hubris. Obama has made great strides in winning it back and in attempting to change the regimen of endless wars to one of peaceful negotiation and cooperation.
Iran is a dangerous situation, but I'm not quite seeing the benefits of a 'hair trigger' pursuit of nuclear war to stop nuclear proliferation. The problem is more related to our proliferation (to Pakistan and India), and to the fact that we don't exactly set a 'good precedent' by sanctimoniously exercising our 'exceptionalist' rights to use nuke to prevent nukes.
The proven Republican strategy of using raw, explicit emotional triggers to get votes by shouting out messages of gloom, doom, hate, fear, greed, jealousy, and bigotry are not directly adaptable to foreign policy without the introduction of some level of nuance.
In spite of all of this conservative bolder-dash, we need to hope that Obama, not Putin is in charge of the world going forward.
We've lost world leadership under a regime of Republican hubris. Obama has made great strides in winning it back and in attempting to change the regimen of endless wars to one of peaceful negotiation and cooperation.
Iran is a dangerous situation, but I'm not quite seeing the benefits of a 'hair trigger' pursuit of nuclear war to stop nuclear proliferation. The problem is more related to our proliferation (to Pakistan and India), and to the fact that we don't exactly set a 'good precedent' by sanctimoniously exercising our 'exceptionalist' rights to use nuke to prevent nukes.
The proven Republican strategy of using raw, explicit emotional triggers to get votes by shouting out messages of gloom, doom, hate, fear, greed, jealousy, and bigotry are not directly adaptable to foreign policy without the introduction of some level of nuance.
I'll tell you quite frankly that I believe that there are a lot more people out there who do not really care that much anymore about politics or religion because they both have very small positive attributes to Society as a whole. To me it's a distinct pleasure to live without both of them.
5
So you don't care that the oligarchs own the SCOTUS? Maybe you don't have a wife, or daughter, or niece.
2
Ah, but you are not living without them. You are ignoring them, at your peril.
2
While insightful, this column seems to imply that the shifts from a win-win culture to a zero-sum culture is cyclical and beyond human control or influence. While I suspect that impersonal sociological forces do to some extent drive this phenomenon, I also believe that leaders can influence how the culture is shaped. In the 25 years after Ronald Reagan came to office, America and the world became a better place. The economy thrived, the values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence were on the march, and world became a more peaceful place. A good marker for the end of this golden era is September 11, 2001, which not coincidently occurred just a few months after the end of Bill Clinton's eight years of neglect. Now the downward spiral has accelerated under Barack Obama. The world is on fire, and the best President Obama can offer is that it is all the fault of George Bush. Obama's best argument is that it really did not matter who we elected president, because there is nothing he could do about it.
3
The fact is that the turmoil in the world is due to the sudden conservative realization (around the world) that the 'information age' is bringing information and facts that undermine virtually every delusion that they live by.
Things will get better when they adapt. Things will get worse if they continue to panic and rail against inevitable change rather than joining in the quest to let it flow as gently as possible into our lives.
For some, as in the Middle East, who have spent decades or centuries in their individual bubbles of 'conservative delusion' the harshness of a new reality may only be worked out in blood lust.
We would hope that, here in the US, we are more evolved and more able to accept change, but delusional views that cannot accept either progressive government or science is turning out to be a tough nut to crack.
The past may be prologue, but not quite as literally as conservatives would have it. Progress happens and lessons are learned because the past is always replayed with a 'twist'. The problem this time is that the spiral of progress in time seems to be delivering a package of human progress that's ripping out an entire fabric of false and bad ideas that have survived centuries, and perhaps even millennia of twists! Worse yet, since the fabric of conservatism, evolution, and other related human traits and processes are not linear, the interpretation and impact of change will not be consistent across all clusters of humans.
Things will get better when they adapt. Things will get worse if they continue to panic and rail against inevitable change rather than joining in the quest to let it flow as gently as possible into our lives.
For some, as in the Middle East, who have spent decades or centuries in their individual bubbles of 'conservative delusion' the harshness of a new reality may only be worked out in blood lust.
We would hope that, here in the US, we are more evolved and more able to accept change, but delusional views that cannot accept either progressive government or science is turning out to be a tough nut to crack.
The past may be prologue, but not quite as literally as conservatives would have it. Progress happens and lessons are learned because the past is always replayed with a 'twist'. The problem this time is that the spiral of progress in time seems to be delivering a package of human progress that's ripping out an entire fabric of false and bad ideas that have survived centuries, and perhaps even millennia of twists! Worse yet, since the fabric of conservatism, evolution, and other related human traits and processes are not linear, the interpretation and impact of change will not be consistent across all clusters of humans.
I always thought that we Israelis lack perspective on our position, but I see many comments that have blown the importance of the recent Israeli elections out of all proportion. Get a grip. Netanyahu may be an Israeli version of a Conservative Republican, but he looks like a social and political radical when compared to the forces (Hamas, Iran, ISIS) Israel is up against.
What happened in the recent election campaign was that Netanyahu outmaneuvered his political rivals, dismantled his parliamentary coalition, asked voters to give him a more stable mandate to govern, mobilized his voter base, and got what he asked for. Other things happened as well. Among them, Israeli Arabs finally ran as a unified political force with impressive results. THESE THINGS ARE CALLED DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.
Netanyahu said some ugly things. He also insulted the President of the United States and divided Democrats from Republicans on Israel, which I think was a stupid miscalculation on his part. There are now repairs to be made.
Israelis will go to the polls again in four years or less. In the meantime we are free to criticize Netanyahu and his policies. Women and gays have equal rights. Religious minorities worship freely. A citizen army defends us against extremist enemies. Israel may not be the ideal universalist democracy some Times readers would like it to be (what country is?), but we are part of the free world. I wish I could say the same for ANY of our neighboring countries.
What happened in the recent election campaign was that Netanyahu outmaneuvered his political rivals, dismantled his parliamentary coalition, asked voters to give him a more stable mandate to govern, mobilized his voter base, and got what he asked for. Other things happened as well. Among them, Israeli Arabs finally ran as a unified political force with impressive results. THESE THINGS ARE CALLED DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.
Netanyahu said some ugly things. He also insulted the President of the United States and divided Democrats from Republicans on Israel, which I think was a stupid miscalculation on his part. There are now repairs to be made.
Israelis will go to the polls again in four years or less. In the meantime we are free to criticize Netanyahu and his policies. Women and gays have equal rights. Religious minorities worship freely. A citizen army defends us against extremist enemies. Israel may not be the ideal universalist democracy some Times readers would like it to be (what country is?), but we are part of the free world. I wish I could say the same for ANY of our neighboring countries.
10
The comparison of Israel to its neighbors is always far too easy. Is Israel supposed to be judged by the standards of Syria, or by those of a supposed Western democracy, which is it always boasts that is? If by the latter, Israel is quite literally the worst democracy there is. Hands down. That's a problem.
Fred
How do you measure "best" vs, "worst" democracies:
Voter turnout? 72% turnout, and with no absentee balloting and 10-15% of citizens living outside the country, more like 82%.
Equality before the law and redress in court? Israel's judiciary is activist and has made bold rulings to assure rights of minorities.
Representation? Israeli parliament is elected proportionally. Pretty much every sector and opinion is represented and heard.
Political protest? Political scientists have shown that Israelis are among the most vocal, frequent and effective in the world.
On the other hand we also have lots of corrupt politicians and big money and tycoons (our version of the 1%) and foreign donors who unfairly influence our system. Sound familiar?
Pretty vibrant I'd say.
How do you measure "best" vs, "worst" democracies:
Voter turnout? 72% turnout, and with no absentee balloting and 10-15% of citizens living outside the country, more like 82%.
Equality before the law and redress in court? Israel's judiciary is activist and has made bold rulings to assure rights of minorities.
Representation? Israeli parliament is elected proportionally. Pretty much every sector and opinion is represented and heard.
Political protest? Political scientists have shown that Israelis are among the most vocal, frequent and effective in the world.
On the other hand we also have lots of corrupt politicians and big money and tycoons (our version of the 1%) and foreign donors who unfairly influence our system. Sound familiar?
Pretty vibrant I'd say.
1
F.D.R. and Reagan?!?! Do you really see them as belonging to the same historical-political category? Come on.
11
Suzy--POLAR opposites. But, Reaganites WOULD LIKE to put him in the same category as FDR. NOT.
Interesting how you frame lowering taxes on the rich so that they'll become so rich that they'll just have to spend some of that money to benefit "workers" as something other than redistribution, while framing giving people the benefits in the form of Medicare and Social Security that they've already paid for as redistribution. Interesting how lowering taxes on the rich that the rest of us will have to make up somehow is something other than zero sum, while cutting aid to the poor and those who have already paid for their benefits is zero sum.
15
I am not anti-Semitic. I am totally, 100% anti-Israel. Yahoo won on fear, just like the Republicans run on fear. Remember the Ebola scare right before our mid-terms? After the election? No problem with Ebola!
Scaremongers and liars. That's Bibi and our own Republicans. It truly disgusts me.
Scaremongers and liars. That's Bibi and our own Republicans. It truly disgusts me.
39
Add 500 to the recommends for this. Fear and lying is the stock-in-trade of the Republicans. That's what got us into Iraq, and the media duly went along like sheep. Thanks to the unrest the invasion and occupation unleashed, we will be paying the costs for years and the unfortunate residents of the region will live in REAL fear such as they would not have experienced even under Saddam.
1
This is a sad article. Toughness is a valuable quality, especially when you are dealing with hard times. But if Mr Brooks really finds Scott Walker's type of toughness--which is tough only on his political enemies--is admirable, then we really have moved into a debased time.
A pity we have moved from "breaking a few eggs" to "I'm going to break all of your eggs."
A pity we have moved from "breaking a few eggs" to "I'm going to break all of your eggs."
17
Thank you for the shout-out on Scott Walker. Here in WI. we live under the divide and conquer Republican Idealogy, just as citizens of Israel do under BIBi. There can be no win-win or even negotiation when the the system is built on and supports win lose. To consider Mr. Brooks column today it assumes we are all living in an Autocratic Plutocracy not a Democracy. It's easy to identify symptoms as the problem when you choose to ignore the cause. As for Scott Walker he is very much like BIBi, going outside the State pandering to far right voters, banging his chest on destruction of collective bargaining by making teachers enemies of the State. He gets funding from Sheldon Addelson's, just as BIBi does. Follow the money to find the real story of this time in history.
"Progressives emphasize compassion less and redistribution more." Apparently, Mr. Brooks has not seen the new Congressional Republican Budget proposals. If ever there was a redistribution ideology, this is it: it redistributes income and wealth to the rich from the rest of us, and on a scale never before seen in history.
27
Right on, Cassandra. Krugman's article today is on the same theme: Republican budgets aren't based on economic stupidity - they are all redistribution schemes on a massive level.
2
David,
I pray every day for that very special human being and patriot to rise out from the populous and take command, as did Lincoln, FDR, Churchill and Reagan. Unfortunately, that pool of talent from the Great Generation and before has past. Those statesman were forged from the great hardships and global turmoil of that era. It looks to me the men of that caliber are only spawn from great hardship.
If this is the case, things will get worse before they get better.
I pray every day for that very special human being and patriot to rise out from the populous and take command, as did Lincoln, FDR, Churchill and Reagan. Unfortunately, that pool of talent from the Great Generation and before has past. Those statesman were forged from the great hardships and global turmoil of that era. It looks to me the men of that caliber are only spawn from great hardship.
If this is the case, things will get worse before they get better.
5
Take command of what? A balkanized America, where politics must fit into a tweet? When a McConnell and a Boehner say "hell, no" you must know that they're doing their masters' bidding.
1
It's one thing to be a leader who is leads a transformative moment in history--from a negative to a positive setting--like Roosevelt did. It's another to be in office while a leader was the beneficiary of unfolding events that were more or less headed in a positive directions, which was Reagan. Reagan played the role as a front man doing ads like he spent his career doing. Reagan's impact was lightweight compared to the deep change Roosevelt made happen--granted Reagan ushered in an anti-New Deal era that has helped to dramatically transfer wealth from the middle class to the rich which helped reverse much of progress of the New Deal and Great Society. History will view that has a failure. Obama has managed to guide us both in the economy and international affairs though a perilous time after GW Bush brought us to the brink on both fronts--the mortgage crisis that nearly caused a meltdown of the economy and the disastrous Iraq war. Obama has been an adept leader as a crisis manager and we should be grateful we had him, even though his opponents blame those crises on him. Within the confines of the historical limitations and opportunities Obama was given, history will show he's been a very good president, maybe great.
17
Nothing is permanent because the geopolitical state that obtains at any given time is dependent on the mix of powerful personalities active in it, and their interactions; and new personalities constantly appear who interact very differently. Can anyone imagine tolerating a deadly pipsqueak like Bashar al-Assad thirty years ago? Yet what has caused the instability we see today is a U.S. unwilling to engage, to extend itself. That is a state as evanescent as any other, as it is dependent on the perceived constraints of the man occupying the Oval Office now.
Barack Obama is all ABOUT a zero-sum perception: for one cohort to advance, all others must recede; and there can be no thought of policies that cause ALL boats to rise. Ah, well, 671 days and we try something new -- both the Hillster and the Jebster are immensely more ad baculum in their approaches to the world.
Netanyahu would be both admired and condemned if he were to tell the honest truth about the Palestinians: they and Israel have very different interests, and the only way one defends interests is by legitimate leverage; yet Palestinians cannot combine and have spent decades complaining about Israel's founding and banging heads against stone walls about it, rather than in building economic power that would serve as TRUE leverage to protect their interests. Far worse than what he said is what Netanyahu clearly believes: the Palestinians don't have the power to compel respect ... and may never have.
Barack Obama is all ABOUT a zero-sum perception: for one cohort to advance, all others must recede; and there can be no thought of policies that cause ALL boats to rise. Ah, well, 671 days and we try something new -- both the Hillster and the Jebster are immensely more ad baculum in their approaches to the world.
Netanyahu would be both admired and condemned if he were to tell the honest truth about the Palestinians: they and Israel have very different interests, and the only way one defends interests is by legitimate leverage; yet Palestinians cannot combine and have spent decades complaining about Israel's founding and banging heads against stone walls about it, rather than in building economic power that would serve as TRUE leverage to protect their interests. Far worse than what he said is what Netanyahu clearly believes: the Palestinians don't have the power to compel respect ... and may never have.
3
"Today it’s harder to have faith in rapid progress."
Nah, progress is rapid, more so than ever. It just isn't in the direction sought by American conservatives. The neo-liberal and especially neo-con agenda are losing to other ideas.
That's good, to see those bad ideas lose.
It is not good that ideas I favor are not winning either.
Instead, Chinese ideas are winning, because they are the ones whose ideas are widely seen as proving themselves with obvious demonstrations of success in the form of growth in economic development and power in all forms.
Actually, some of the European ideas are working even better than China, and have done so for longer. The difference is that it is not seen to be so. It isn't so dramaticly new, and it is somewhat hidden in the larger EU troubles.
Some of the specifics cited here are just false. For example, the growth of anti-Semitism is almost entirely attributable to the criminal behavior of Israel, and its open self identification as Jewish used as an excuse for those crimes. Without that, there would be no motive nor any force to anti-Semitism except in a few wild crazy places like Ukraine. In those places, it is pushed by our friends as much as our enemies. It is used as excuse for their own failures in governance -- and the cure in those places would be good governance. Brooks throws it out as a boogeyman, then ignores any explanation other than dystopian fears.
We've had more than enough fear mongering. Let's get real.
Nah, progress is rapid, more so than ever. It just isn't in the direction sought by American conservatives. The neo-liberal and especially neo-con agenda are losing to other ideas.
That's good, to see those bad ideas lose.
It is not good that ideas I favor are not winning either.
Instead, Chinese ideas are winning, because they are the ones whose ideas are widely seen as proving themselves with obvious demonstrations of success in the form of growth in economic development and power in all forms.
Actually, some of the European ideas are working even better than China, and have done so for longer. The difference is that it is not seen to be so. It isn't so dramaticly new, and it is somewhat hidden in the larger EU troubles.
Some of the specifics cited here are just false. For example, the growth of anti-Semitism is almost entirely attributable to the criminal behavior of Israel, and its open self identification as Jewish used as an excuse for those crimes. Without that, there would be no motive nor any force to anti-Semitism except in a few wild crazy places like Ukraine. In those places, it is pushed by our friends as much as our enemies. It is used as excuse for their own failures in governance -- and the cure in those places would be good governance. Brooks throws it out as a boogeyman, then ignores any explanation other than dystopian fears.
We've had more than enough fear mongering. Let's get real.
20
Yeah, right. Blame antisemitism on Israel. What was the excuse for it before the creation of Israel?
2
Well, then, it will only get worse, as it becomes "less about reforms that improve all lives." And, as the tough guys clamp down, so will his adversary. And as my mom used to say, "you get what you deserve."
1
Governments were formed back in the very oldenest of days, to provide protection for the tribe, the hamlet, the village, and eventually the cities and the nation-states. Government was not invented to enrich the coffers of individuals, although it pretty much came to do that.
It would be nice to think that somewhere in our government there is room for the idea that the primary function is to support and secure the domestic tranquility of We, the People, of the United States.
FDR did a significantly good job in that milieu, but Reagan? Not even close. He (or rather his henchmen running the country) set the scene for the descent of the lower and middle classes with voodoo economics. It took a while, but you can trace the beginning to his reign. The first Iraq war began the second act, and Bush II's forays into nation building did the rest. It drained our coffers and our resolve.
The choices we face now are difficult; the dumbing down of our schools with endless cuts paired with anti-intelligence textbooks pretty much guarantee this isn't going to change any time soon.
Extreme parties are rarely _swept_ in power, Mr. Brooks; they do what they are doing now...the infiltrate the mainstream consciousness to convince voters that buck$, not brains, know how to solve their problems. And that was never more true than it is now.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
It would be nice to think that somewhere in our government there is room for the idea that the primary function is to support and secure the domestic tranquility of We, the People, of the United States.
FDR did a significantly good job in that milieu, but Reagan? Not even close. He (or rather his henchmen running the country) set the scene for the descent of the lower and middle classes with voodoo economics. It took a while, but you can trace the beginning to his reign. The first Iraq war began the second act, and Bush II's forays into nation building did the rest. It drained our coffers and our resolve.
The choices we face now are difficult; the dumbing down of our schools with endless cuts paired with anti-intelligence textbooks pretty much guarantee this isn't going to change any time soon.
Extreme parties are rarely _swept_ in power, Mr. Brooks; they do what they are doing now...the infiltrate the mainstream consciousness to convince voters that buck$, not brains, know how to solve their problems. And that was never more true than it is now.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
46
I read the first few paragraphs of this and thought to myself: "We have Ralph Nader to thank for the current state of affairs". But that's not really fair to Ralph Nader. He may be responsible for Dubya/Cheney being where they were, but not for their actions.
6
"People who are economically insecure (and more likely to lean left) drop out of the political process."
What in the world is Brooks talking about? The so-called blue states are among the most prosperous in the nation, while the Republicans manipulate the poorer southerns states and old rust best areas with the politics of fear and racial divides - and promises of easy access to guns - to their advantage. This statement is blatantly wrong.
What in the world is Brooks talking about? The so-called blue states are among the most prosperous in the nation, while the Republicans manipulate the poorer southerns states and old rust best areas with the politics of fear and racial divides - and promises of easy access to guns - to their advantage. This statement is blatantly wrong.
41
Agrred. The first half of Mr. Brooks' piece could be summarized simply as the President has done:
"There are no military solutions."
But just take a look at the reactionaries' budget! "Defense" "Defense" and a little slush fund in case of... "Defense".
"There are no military solutions."
But just take a look at the reactionaries' budget! "Defense" "Defense" and a little slush fund in case of... "Defense".
Lord Brooks, the world has always been filled with uncertainty, risk and instability.
What matters is that we try to do something to manage these uncertainties, risks and threats with a modicum of intelligence and adulthood.
What matters is that we don't succumb to fear, insecurity, inertia, cultured stupidity and 'Ebola'-'ISIS'-'Freedom' fear-mongering.
Today's biggest policy issue today is actually climate change and the massive weather, drought and ocean changes it is causing
Fortunately, President Obama is an adult who is actively fighting climate change through issuance of new EPA rules limiting emissions of greenhouse gases.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party grovels at the feet of Koch Coal, Oil and Tar Sands and steps on the gas pedal of climate degeneration.
And you tout the likes of Scott Walker, who came off as incoherent and possibly mentally unstable when recently answering the questions of a 2nd grader.
2nd grader Aaron Stark: "If you were president, what would you do about climate change?"
Walker: "Well, I...I...you know I was a Boy Scout, they always taught me a campsite should be clear, the way that you found it, so I try to work with the people that care about that issue to make sure we have a better place to live than we found it."
Aaron: "Do you care about climate change?"
Walker: "Ultimately to me I want to make sure that we have all the natural resources we have here...(inaudible)...we could possibly afford...(inaudible)."
Seriously, Mr. Brooks ?
What matters is that we try to do something to manage these uncertainties, risks and threats with a modicum of intelligence and adulthood.
What matters is that we don't succumb to fear, insecurity, inertia, cultured stupidity and 'Ebola'-'ISIS'-'Freedom' fear-mongering.
Today's biggest policy issue today is actually climate change and the massive weather, drought and ocean changes it is causing
Fortunately, President Obama is an adult who is actively fighting climate change through issuance of new EPA rules limiting emissions of greenhouse gases.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party grovels at the feet of Koch Coal, Oil and Tar Sands and steps on the gas pedal of climate degeneration.
And you tout the likes of Scott Walker, who came off as incoherent and possibly mentally unstable when recently answering the questions of a 2nd grader.
2nd grader Aaron Stark: "If you were president, what would you do about climate change?"
Walker: "Well, I...I...you know I was a Boy Scout, they always taught me a campsite should be clear, the way that you found it, so I try to work with the people that care about that issue to make sure we have a better place to live than we found it."
Aaron: "Do you care about climate change?"
Walker: "Ultimately to me I want to make sure that we have all the natural resources we have here...(inaudible)...we could possibly afford...(inaudible)."
Seriously, Mr. Brooks ?
229
If republicans refuse to have the conversation that possibly it is worse to leave our children with an uninhabitable planet than the massive debt, that they have managed to bamboozle the Country into thinking was done by others, then it is far past time to admit it is not about the Children.
2
So many generalizations are off the mark in this article. However, I agree with you that the "electorates" in Russia, Israel, and the U.S. have "gotten uglier." This ugliness comes from election-hungry politicians pandering to the lowest common denominator and aggressive fear-mongering, not from economic or "cultural" shifts.
The ugliness reflects ignorance and short-sightedness. For example, there is more fear and reluctance regarding thoughtful diplomacy, which is the precise way to improve security, but self-deluded "strong" politicians spin it as the opposite, and ignorant voters buy that.
"Iran is winning"? What an unhinged, evidence-free statement. Mostly because of Republican malfeasance and Israeli interference, Iran, the U.S. and the rest of the world are LOSING, and getting more dangerous, because we refuse to talk and negotiate about our differences, apparently preferring to fight about them. There's danger in the world, but the "right" is enhancing it.
The ugliness reflects ignorance and short-sightedness. For example, there is more fear and reluctance regarding thoughtful diplomacy, which is the precise way to improve security, but self-deluded "strong" politicians spin it as the opposite, and ignorant voters buy that.
"Iran is winning"? What an unhinged, evidence-free statement. Mostly because of Republican malfeasance and Israeli interference, Iran, the U.S. and the rest of the world are LOSING, and getting more dangerous, because we refuse to talk and negotiate about our differences, apparently preferring to fight about them. There's danger in the world, but the "right" is enhancing it.
28
But alas, we have Obama, a man whose leadership experience is limited to the oval office. Until America starts voting with their minds instead of their hearts, we will not have any such transformational and strong president. I would truly feel more optimistic about the state of the world if Romney were at the helm. He had a track record of making hard choices, managing people and scenarios, and turning bleak situations around. As for the next election, the only person in either party who might have a hint of these qualities is Jeb Bush. The rest of the Republicans have no track record on true leadership and Hillary has failed miserably in what leadership roles she's been given.
3
The idea that someone with private sector experience can transfer that experience to the public sector is absurd.
In Romney's executive suites there are no Mitch McConnells or Harry Reids to deal with.
In Romney's executive suites there are no Mitch McConnells or Harry Reids to deal with.
1
I wonder if you'll be around long enough and have enough honesty to eat your words when even the most befuddled will have to see how great a man Obama is.
2
When our information base as voters is comprised of never-ending talking points and accusations designed to "drive up negatives..", the result can only be that Americans will never find a person "Good enough".
Issues should be our focus, but it is so much easier for cynical money-driven power seekers to destroy the opponent with judgmental adjectives and accusations than to put forward an agenda that fits our needs.
Issues should be our focus, but it is so much easier for cynical money-driven power seekers to destroy the opponent with judgmental adjectives and accusations than to put forward an agenda that fits our needs.
1
The socially uprooted power centric politics of today sustains itself through false promises of security and prosperity made by demagogues who succeed luring voters to their side. What the ad blitzkrieg is to the marketing world the emerging high voltage political drama that promises moon is to the modern zero-sum game of exclusivist politics.
5
A nuttier than usual series of glances across the landscape by Brooks, leading to the inevitable conclusion that we Americans will turn to more authoritarian leaders (good luck on that Christie thing, BTW, as even most Republicans would not vote for him.)
The mess we are in, is of course, the failure of our leadership class not just in the past few years, but for decades.
Imagine, for example, if early on after shepherding Israel into existence and ensuring its survival, we had required Israeli leaders to find a path to reconciliation with the Palestinians they had displaced. Think South Africa.
Imagine if we had not set up and supported the Shah of Iran until revolutionary forces deposed him, taking control of a country whose people would like to live in the modern age.
More recently, imagine we had not, with the enthusiastic support of ''thinkers'' like Brooks, invaded Iraq and upset the balance of power that kept revolutionary Iran in check. The door was opened to ISIS by this most colossal blunder of our arrogant attitude and policy, with no end in sight to the resulting struggles for power.
Brooks, as usual, has it backwards. Political choices, and the exercise of power, shape the future. The use of American military power has quite clearly been pushed beyond practical limits, bringing to mind retired Defense Secretary Gates's comments about the insanity of waging another ground war in the Mideast.
But it feels like that is just what we are being asked to accept.
The mess we are in, is of course, the failure of our leadership class not just in the past few years, but for decades.
Imagine, for example, if early on after shepherding Israel into existence and ensuring its survival, we had required Israeli leaders to find a path to reconciliation with the Palestinians they had displaced. Think South Africa.
Imagine if we had not set up and supported the Shah of Iran until revolutionary forces deposed him, taking control of a country whose people would like to live in the modern age.
More recently, imagine we had not, with the enthusiastic support of ''thinkers'' like Brooks, invaded Iraq and upset the balance of power that kept revolutionary Iran in check. The door was opened to ISIS by this most colossal blunder of our arrogant attitude and policy, with no end in sight to the resulting struggles for power.
Brooks, as usual, has it backwards. Political choices, and the exercise of power, shape the future. The use of American military power has quite clearly been pushed beyond practical limits, bringing to mind retired Defense Secretary Gates's comments about the insanity of waging another ground war in the Mideast.
But it feels like that is just what we are being asked to accept.
42
"Reactionary forces like the Islamic State and Iran are winning. The Middle East is deteriorating.Who will control the ground in places like Ukraine and Syria? Will Iran get the bomb? Will the White House or Congress grab power over treaties and immigration policy?"
Well, seems to me, the more menacing threats today to the world are the US and Israel. While the threat ISIS and Iran has been dramatized by American media propaganda to instill fear in our people.They are currently at each other's throat, and hardly in a position to threaten us.
On the other side, we see a bellicose republican congress with the support of an equally aggressive Israel spoiling for a fight with Iran in an effort to stop the inevitable. Once again, like with Vietnam, and Iraq as recent examples, the paranoia emanating from within the US, created primarily by the republicans, is going to lead us to war, if we the people don't come to our senses.
Now that Obama has stabilized our economy, the republicans are doing what they do best, distracting from the positives, and trying to lead us to yet another useless war we will never win. Like iraq. Like Vietnam.
We have seen the enemy, and They is us.
Well, seems to me, the more menacing threats today to the world are the US and Israel. While the threat ISIS and Iran has been dramatized by American media propaganda to instill fear in our people.They are currently at each other's throat, and hardly in a position to threaten us.
On the other side, we see a bellicose republican congress with the support of an equally aggressive Israel spoiling for a fight with Iran in an effort to stop the inevitable. Once again, like with Vietnam, and Iraq as recent examples, the paranoia emanating from within the US, created primarily by the republicans, is going to lead us to war, if we the people don't come to our senses.
Now that Obama has stabilized our economy, the republicans are doing what they do best, distracting from the positives, and trying to lead us to yet another useless war we will never win. Like iraq. Like Vietnam.
We have seen the enemy, and They is us.
34
Now, now, how can you say there is no "win-win" in today's politics, when millions of uninsured Americans now have health insurance because of Obamacare, the trend of rising health care costs has been broken and the Congressional Budget office has revised its cost estimates for the program substantially downward? Instea, what I think you mean, Mr. Brooks, is that there is no "win-win" in Republican politics, which is indeed very likely to be the case if Republicans continue to focus on wedge issues to please their narrow and increasingly conservative base.
17
Mr. Brooks,
You are my favorite columnist hands down. However today I must protest. Your suggestion that Benjamin Netanyahu's dismissal of a Palestinian State was only a reference to the near term, flies in the face of what he said, and spins the comment in the way Netanyahu himself did. I am very disappointed. You are brighter than that.
You are my favorite columnist hands down. However today I must protest. Your suggestion that Benjamin Netanyahu's dismissal of a Palestinian State was only a reference to the near term, flies in the face of what he said, and spins the comment in the way Netanyahu himself did. I am very disappointed. You are brighter than that.
14
What we need is honor in character and honesty with the American people. Then we need a Congress that will make law and change the paradigm to benefit the people and not the oligarchs. Jim Webb is my choice for next President.
3
BEING CONSERVATIVE IN APPROACHING LIFE . . .
So, Mr. Brooks, we should not assume that a period of optimism is suggestive of its continuation as history has so frequently demonstrated. We should never believe that a period which includes positive change will not sooner or later reverse its course.
In economics, one danger is to believe that a given trend will continue to follow the path it has taken recently or even for far longer. Most political and economic indicators continue to undulate. And, all we can hope for is that the general movement over time will be positive.
So, Mr. Brooks, we should not assume that a period of optimism is suggestive of its continuation as history has so frequently demonstrated. We should never believe that a period which includes positive change will not sooner or later reverse its course.
In economics, one danger is to believe that a given trend will continue to follow the path it has taken recently or even for far longer. Most political and economic indicators continue to undulate. And, all we can hope for is that the general movement over time will be positive.
2
"But occasionally there is a leader who can turn a negative popular mood into a positive one. F.D.R. and Reagan did this. But you have to be very, very good."
FDR did it by taking concrete action during the Depression and by insisting that all Americans were in it together, and that they'd climb out of the rut together. Roosevelt's actions matched his words.
By contrast, there was an element of hostility, anger and divisiveness underneath Reagan's "Morning in America" and "city on a hill" rhetoric. He invoked "welfare queens," defended segregation at institutions like Bob Jones University, and chose to invoke states rights in, of all places, Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers had been slain in the name of same just 12 years earlier. Not once during his administration did he utter the word "AIDS," and his refusal to do so was a reflection of his neglect and disdain for gay Americans generally. His approach to foreign policy was grounded in fostering fear--the "evil empire," e.g.--and convincing Americans that the only solution was to escalate militarily. He told us that big government was the problem--and then proceeded to make it even bigger and explode the deficit.
You have to be very good to change a negative popular mood into a positive one. You have to be truly outstanding to go beyond that, by changing the nation for the better.
FDR did it by taking concrete action during the Depression and by insisting that all Americans were in it together, and that they'd climb out of the rut together. Roosevelt's actions matched his words.
By contrast, there was an element of hostility, anger and divisiveness underneath Reagan's "Morning in America" and "city on a hill" rhetoric. He invoked "welfare queens," defended segregation at institutions like Bob Jones University, and chose to invoke states rights in, of all places, Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers had been slain in the name of same just 12 years earlier. Not once during his administration did he utter the word "AIDS," and his refusal to do so was a reflection of his neglect and disdain for gay Americans generally. His approach to foreign policy was grounded in fostering fear--the "evil empire," e.g.--and convincing Americans that the only solution was to escalate militarily. He told us that big government was the problem--and then proceeded to make it even bigger and explode the deficit.
You have to be very good to change a negative popular mood into a positive one. You have to be truly outstanding to go beyond that, by changing the nation for the better.
105
"F.D.R. and Reagan did this." Gag on my spoon. Reagan? There is nothing more risible in American conservatism than the desire to praise Ronald Reagan - and that's saying a lot.
225
"There is nothing more risible in American conservatism than the desire to praise Ronald Reagan"
That is especially so because Reagan would be far too moderate for today's Republican Party.
That is especially so because Reagan would be far too moderate for today's Republican Party.
6
There's a yawning gap between whatever it is that is being described, and maybe endorsed, here and the appeals in other columns for people to live their lives through their higher selves.
We won't get to the world we want through behavior we wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of ourselves. The tough guys' "win" is ultimately a loss for all, as their policies destroy economies, trust, social cohesion, etc. Assad of Syria is plenty tough -- he's willing to destroy his country to maintain his power. He may be an extreme example of the paradigm pointed to by the column, but sometimes an extreme case makes clearer the issues more camouflaged in other examples of it.
We won't get to the world we want through behavior we wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of ourselves. The tough guys' "win" is ultimately a loss for all, as their policies destroy economies, trust, social cohesion, etc. Assad of Syria is plenty tough -- he's willing to destroy his country to maintain his power. He may be an extreme example of the paradigm pointed to by the column, but sometimes an extreme case makes clearer the issues more camouflaged in other examples of it.
34
It would be far more accurate to say that reactionary forces like the Islamic State, Iran, and the American Republican party are winning, and that because of the Republicans' unadorned will to power the United Stats is deteriorating. Fear and distrust do not just result from a cultural context, they are promoted by right-wing propaganda. Redistribution is a morally necessary way to thwart that will to power.
106
Re Hillary Rodham Clinton's chances for election in 2016 - she has proven in her past to be "very very good". As strong and tough as Angela Merkel and such a familiar face! You are correct that the power of the cultural moment shapes the candidates for the Presidency. And yes, "occasionally there is a leader who can turn a negative popular mood into a positive one". Netanyahu was very very good - i.e. he won his election by being tough though he pandered to his Israelis of all parties. And yes, better the devil you know in these scary times. The Republicans have no one on their slate who can win in 2016. The GOP slate is as full of empty suit candidates as it was in 2008 and 2012. And Hillary Clinton is a known quanitity - like the little girl with the little curl right in the middle of her forehead - "when she was good, she was very very good, and when she was bad she was horrid".
35
... As strong and tough as Angela Merkel...
The difference is that Merkel successfully runs a major government, whereas Clinton was a carpetbagger US Senator then a show-boat Secretary of State. Now she is a celebrity living off the family business, the non-profit status of which is highly suspect. You should apologize to Merkel.
The difference is that Merkel successfully runs a major government, whereas Clinton was a carpetbagger US Senator then a show-boat Secretary of State. Now she is a celebrity living off the family business, the non-profit status of which is highly suspect. You should apologize to Merkel.
3
Nan,
Bush was also an empty suit, but he won two elections.For the first time in my life, as a Liberal Democrat, I am undecided as to whom to vote for.I can't speak for all American Jews, but I fear the left more than the right. It was the right that supported Israel during it's darkest hours, & it was the Left that led the marches & the chants against Israel.With the rise of Anti Semitism in the world, as Mr Brooks pointed out in his article, Israel is ever more important to the Jews of the world, & I trust the Republicans more than I do the Democrats to help Israel survive in this hostile world.
Bush was also an empty suit, but he won two elections.For the first time in my life, as a Liberal Democrat, I am undecided as to whom to vote for.I can't speak for all American Jews, but I fear the left more than the right. It was the right that supported Israel during it's darkest hours, & it was the Left that led the marches & the chants against Israel.With the rise of Anti Semitism in the world, as Mr Brooks pointed out in his article, Israel is ever more important to the Jews of the world, & I trust the Republicans more than I do the Democrats to help Israel survive in this hostile world.
2
Nan, Unfortunately you are not including the hoards of voters who have succumbed to the Republican negative-ists. For Hillary to do a successful presidency run, she needs someone to run against and to whom she can be compared.
Brooks tells us only the negatives and I related to his column. It's negative as can be, but it sounds about right.
Brooks tells us only the negatives and I related to his column. It's negative as can be, but it sounds about right.
So, Billy the Bully is back on the school playground. If you don't give him/her your milk money, your going to have big problems. Most likely you will get pushed down anyways, even after giving in to them.
26
Finally a column that offers good analysis and insight. Nicely done.
2
Good grief, what a list!
Somehow, Mr. Brooks, you have forgotten Roosevelt - Franklin Roosevelt, that is. Tough as nails in the face of a resentful and downright nasty Republican party. Willing to go on the radio and tell the American people just how devious and untrustworthy these Republicans really were. And then there were the European dictators, the ones the cowards in the GOP were unwilling to confront. So he devised the Lend-Lease program to help Britain in its most desperate hours.
Leadership doesn't need brutality to be strong. It needs integrity, and a belief in what you are doing.
Somehow, Mr. Brooks, you have forgotten Roosevelt - Franklin Roosevelt, that is. Tough as nails in the face of a resentful and downright nasty Republican party. Willing to go on the radio and tell the American people just how devious and untrustworthy these Republicans really were. And then there were the European dictators, the ones the cowards in the GOP were unwilling to confront. So he devised the Lend-Lease program to help Britain in its most desperate hours.
Leadership doesn't need brutality to be strong. It needs integrity, and a belief in what you are doing.
148
Read the column to the end and hang your head.
James,
I disagree on one salient point of your post: What FDR endured pales in comparison to the Republican attempts to delegitimize President Obama's very existence.
I disagree on one salient point of your post: What FDR endured pales in comparison to the Republican attempts to delegitimize President Obama's very existence.
1
It also needs a astute use of power, which FDR was very good at.
Correction: 180 degrees. Math was never my thing.
You were right the first time. He went all the way around the circle to claim he meant what he originally denied, all in about 48 hours.
3
No, you meant 360 degrees in 72 hours.
Oops!
In what parallel universe does America need another Reagan, with his fraudulent Voodoo Economics, combined with happy talk concealing huge wealth transfers to the plutocrats who financed his con- artistry while they looted the country? Or massively increased military expenditures in anticipation of our next trillion dollar war? Or portrayed the poor as lazy loafers, as compared to our victimized billionaire class? Or began the forty year assault on unions, the environment, and public education? Or appointed extremists like Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court? Or, in a shameful pandering to racists, began his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where the three civil rights activists were murdered? That was the real Ronald Reagan, as opposed to the myth created by his idolators.
267
Oh quit bashing Reagan! He didn't really intend for things to turn out like this.
You omit his main belief: In the Apocalypse.
His lunatic religious beliefs really made public policy irrelevant. He didn't expect anyone to be alive to suffer the consequences of his aw-shucks malevolence.
You omit his main belief: In the Apocalypse.
His lunatic religious beliefs really made public policy irrelevant. He didn't expect anyone to be alive to suffer the consequences of his aw-shucks malevolence.
1
And with all of that, he still wouldn't find a home in this cess pool he created that is now the republican party.
3
“Extreme parties rarely take power…” But when they do, what “cultural moment” produces them? Bolsheviks, National Socialists, Franco, Mussolini, Salazar, Mao, and Pol Pot will certainly be joined by equally scary guys on the history shelves. We’ve actually had some of our own, but only at the footnote level—J. Edgar and Senator Joe, for example.
Fear is a human survival mechanism. Long ago, the unscrupulous learned to manipulate it. But their tricks are dwarfed by the gross distortion of American politics that has been engineered by David Brooks’s party. For decades now, the mega-machine demonized not only Democrats but also decent Republicans. Where now are the intelligent and admirable Republicans?
The crusader against RINOs, Stephen Moore, was rewarded with a spot at the WSJ, and is now at the Heritage Foundation, that font of anti-social policy--he’s described as their chief economist. Thanks to people like him, people like Brooks can tout disasters like Christie and Walker as potential candidates for POTUS.
This column wriggles around the nastiness of Bibi and his gross opportunism and cynicism. This column tries to put us all in the same boat by conflating Reagan and FDR. It won’t wash.
Fear is a human survival mechanism. Long ago, the unscrupulous learned to manipulate it. But their tricks are dwarfed by the gross distortion of American politics that has been engineered by David Brooks’s party. For decades now, the mega-machine demonized not only Democrats but also decent Republicans. Where now are the intelligent and admirable Republicans?
The crusader against RINOs, Stephen Moore, was rewarded with a spot at the WSJ, and is now at the Heritage Foundation, that font of anti-social policy--he’s described as their chief economist. Thanks to people like him, people like Brooks can tout disasters like Christie and Walker as potential candidates for POTUS.
This column wriggles around the nastiness of Bibi and his gross opportunism and cynicism. This column tries to put us all in the same boat by conflating Reagan and FDR. It won’t wash.
88
How dare you place Reagan in the same sentence as FDR!
209
I think it's important to tie two seemingly unrelated issues to Brooks' analysis of where we are as a global society:
First and foremost, this is why we need strong regulation of our economies - and most certainly the capitalist ones - that would tend to lessen the occurrence and severity of financial crisis the way Glass-Steagall did successfully for so many decades. When we permit massive destruction of wealth and the crushing of peoples' hopes and dreams, we get the uncertainty that feeds global instability and zero-sum politics.
Second, we need a far more robust international development agenda. People need to pulled up from poverty and ignorance, not just as a matter of plain moral justice but also, and less altruistically, because we cannot afford the kind of anger unleashed by a combination of lack of development and economic security in a world where individuals can command weapons of mass destruction - and where everyone can see how the "other half" lives.
We need to be better humans. I, for one, believe that is well within our capabilities.
First and foremost, this is why we need strong regulation of our economies - and most certainly the capitalist ones - that would tend to lessen the occurrence and severity of financial crisis the way Glass-Steagall did successfully for so many decades. When we permit massive destruction of wealth and the crushing of peoples' hopes and dreams, we get the uncertainty that feeds global instability and zero-sum politics.
Second, we need a far more robust international development agenda. People need to pulled up from poverty and ignorance, not just as a matter of plain moral justice but also, and less altruistically, because we cannot afford the kind of anger unleashed by a combination of lack of development and economic security in a world where individuals can command weapons of mass destruction - and where everyone can see how the "other half" lives.
We need to be better humans. I, for one, believe that is well within our capabilities.
61
This seems like the age of uncertainty except "tough guys" on Wall Street and others leading (trying to lead) governments. Almost all of us qualify what we say with "sort of" and "kind of." We lack balance,assertiveness and confidence.
Chris Christie is my choice for president, and I have stuck with him throughout the manufactured TrafficGate. He has what Hillary and most GOP candidates lack - energy, passion and ideas. I would like to see a Christie-Warren clash in 2016 and would be okay with whoever wins.
Chris Christie is my choice for president, and I have stuck with him throughout the manufactured TrafficGate. He has what Hillary and most GOP candidates lack - energy, passion and ideas. I would like to see a Christie-Warren clash in 2016 and would be okay with whoever wins.
Brooks tells us all of the good things that were happening in the 90's. Who was President during this time? Why won't he connect the dots? If he did he would discover that it was a democrat. Wake up David. Wake up!!!!!
31
It's all an illusion. As a great man once said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
11
What is increasingly important this century and missing from this zero-sum conversation is the importance of human population growth. More people, less resources, less jobs, more discontent. The current rate of population growth is not sustainable for the planet or society.
8
"He just said that it would be too dangerous in the near term as long as Islamist-style radicalism is on the march. (A defensible proposition.)"
The argument is that actions by radicals in civil wars in other countries who are at most tangentially connected to any political grouping in occupied Palestine should justify the comprehensive denial of human rights of 4.5 million people? The extent to which West Bank and Gaza Palestinians may collaborate with ISIS is only marginally greater that the chances that Palestinian citizens of Israel may do the same. Can Israel put fences around these Palestinians as well and place them under martial law (as they were until 1966) for security sake?
Netanyahu is a territorial maximalist: he has never believed in a two state solution. All he has done is declare his beliefs and intentions publicly. And 60% of the Jewish electorate of Israel agrees with him.
The argument is that actions by radicals in civil wars in other countries who are at most tangentially connected to any political grouping in occupied Palestine should justify the comprehensive denial of human rights of 4.5 million people? The extent to which West Bank and Gaza Palestinians may collaborate with ISIS is only marginally greater that the chances that Palestinian citizens of Israel may do the same. Can Israel put fences around these Palestinians as well and place them under martial law (as they were until 1966) for security sake?
Netanyahu is a territorial maximalist: he has never believed in a two state solution. All he has done is declare his beliefs and intentions publicly. And 60% of the Jewish electorate of Israel agrees with him.
10
Bibi does a 360 degree turnaround in 48 hours and Brooks does a rhetorical belly-dance, twisting and contorting himself into a bizarre pretzel shape trying to apologize for blatant mendacity and hypocrisy.
164
"Brooks does a rhetorical belly-dance" -- priceless. Thank you.
2
Please don't mention F.D.R. in the same sentence as that actor.
52
Bad actor. On the screen, anyway.
"Will the White House or Congress grab power over treaties and immigration policy?" What? The White House doesn't need to grab power over treaties. The power of treaties is given to the Presidency by the constitution. There is no question to be asked here, except in the unthinking minds of 47 Republican tools. Another dangerous concept posed by an "innocent" question, except it isn't.
18
I disagree, a treaty is just a piece of paper until The Senate ratifies it.
1
The Republican Party, NRA, United Citizens, Supreme Court, Republican Congress, Fox News and their shills have all done a great job of instilling fear in everyone. We have seen the result of more guns (shoot first), constant wars, bought politicians, reduction of voting rights, and poor treatment of women (sluts by Rush Limbaugh), children born of illegal immigrants, and the poor (who by arrests are used as a major source of Ferguson's city funds) that do nothing to bring Americans together. Rather these actions are intended to drive us apart and dehumanize our fellow Americans. We need a Roosevelt (TR or FDR). We don't need dividers. We need uniters. Vote in 2016 to start reversing the trends started 30-40 years ago.
26
Regarding "instilling fear", most people over estimate their ability to perceive risk and under estimate what it takes to avoid it. Make no mistake, the world today is a very dangerous place, both politically and economically.
1
Only a few days later and David Brooks has begun allowing Bibi to walk back his unequivocal, directly-professed stand against a two-state solution and his desire to eliminate any and all Arab presence in Israel and the West Bank. I will never forget, so stop the "softening" campaign. Bibi is a dangerous man to both Israel and the US.
87
This is a not-so-blatant endorsement of Bibi Netanyahu and his right wing no-tw-state-solution policy. Mr. Brooks takes what is nothing more than extremely "blatant panders" and builds a broader theory that these tough times call for tough leaders, implying that pandering equals toughness. Deeper than that, somewhere in this psycho-political-social analysis, is the idea that bullies win these brawls and good guys will finish last. This is a bleak dystopian view that, besides being fear mongering, is also inaccurate.
A building is only as strong as its foundation. The foundation in this analysis is soft and mushy. This building will collapse.
A building is only as strong as its foundation. The foundation in this analysis is soft and mushy. This building will collapse.
20
The conservative as he-man, liberal as eunuch theme heads its ugly rear once again. Gosh, Merkel, our Thatcher du jour, even beat out the Alpha males growling and snapping around her. It's tiresome, sexist and homophobic, sure. But the real reason to worry about this deeply flawed analysis is that all of its chest thumping leads to war without end.
Still, it was almost worth it to watch David admit, by force of his own logic, that Hillary Clinton is über formidable in the climate he fantasizes about.
Still, it was almost worth it to watch David admit, by force of his own logic, that Hillary Clinton is über formidable in the climate he fantasizes about.
123
Scott Walker! Are you kidding me? He is not so much a tough man as a lame brain.
37
David, truthfully, I feel like I need a shower after reading your defense of Netanyahu.
This is what you you do, in fair weather or foul - spin, spin, spin - and what you do is why many of us can't help but confront you week after week, no matter how innocuous your subject matter first appears.
What Netanyahu did was shameful, shocking, and embarrassing to the United States. The two state solution is an important part of our attempt to woo Muslims to our side in the battle against Islamic fascism. And Bibi permanently undermined that entire argument, all so he could save his miserable skin in another election cycle - as if he was some kind of indispensable man, instead of a cynical, war-mongering politician, forever seeking to get the United States to fight his larger battles.
Now Muslim extremists can point to the US and say: "See, they support the apartheid state of Israel, the state that will never give the Palestinian people the air to breathe".
Sorry David, but the time has come to walk away from Netanyahu's Israel. It's looking a little too much like South Africa back in the day for our tastes. The AIPAC clowns will try to turn up the heat on us, but they are also likely to find the heat turned up on them. big time. This divided loyalty stuff has to end, and it has to end now.
Either you are with us, us as in the United States of America, or against us.
Nation first.
This is what you you do, in fair weather or foul - spin, spin, spin - and what you do is why many of us can't help but confront you week after week, no matter how innocuous your subject matter first appears.
What Netanyahu did was shameful, shocking, and embarrassing to the United States. The two state solution is an important part of our attempt to woo Muslims to our side in the battle against Islamic fascism. And Bibi permanently undermined that entire argument, all so he could save his miserable skin in another election cycle - as if he was some kind of indispensable man, instead of a cynical, war-mongering politician, forever seeking to get the United States to fight his larger battles.
Now Muslim extremists can point to the US and say: "See, they support the apartheid state of Israel, the state that will never give the Palestinian people the air to breathe".
Sorry David, but the time has come to walk away from Netanyahu's Israel. It's looking a little too much like South Africa back in the day for our tastes. The AIPAC clowns will try to turn up the heat on us, but they are also likely to find the heat turned up on them. big time. This divided loyalty stuff has to end, and it has to end now.
Either you are with us, us as in the United States of America, or against us.
Nation first.
77
Remember David's son is fighting for Israel not the US.
2
Remember, Brook's family is serving in Israel.
Not in the United States of America.
Not in the United States of America.
2
Post WW 2. Get over it. New ball game.
In 1981, David Stockman, St. Ray-gun's budget chief, admitted:
" None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers. "
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/12/the-education-of-dav...
confirming what Democrats had said during the 1980 election about GOP'ers and Ray-gun lying with voo-doo (hat tip Bush 41) and charlatanism to gain the White House.
Thus the stage was set for the all the GOP'er lying since.
St. Ray-gun's better days were when he was still a Democrat, and a union president (twice) for the oppressed Silver Screen masses in Hollywood.
" None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers. "
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/12/the-education-of-dav...
confirming what Democrats had said during the 1980 election about GOP'ers and Ray-gun lying with voo-doo (hat tip Bush 41) and charlatanism to gain the White House.
Thus the stage was set for the all the GOP'er lying since.
St. Ray-gun's better days were when he was still a Democrat, and a union president (twice) for the oppressed Silver Screen masses in Hollywood.
64
Dear Mr Brooks,
The one thing you don't mention is that the Dow Jones is doing just fine. Because we live in the "end of history," and since 1989 politics are finished, isn't that the only measure that matters to a conservative such as yourself?
The one thing you don't mention is that the Dow Jones is doing just fine. Because we live in the "end of history," and since 1989 politics are finished, isn't that the only measure that matters to a conservative such as yourself?
39
Consider that advancing technology could be the root cause of this problem.
Not everyone articulates it, but I do think that I everyone feels the feels the pressure of increasing surveillance and increasing automation in all areas of life. The stakes feel impossibly high. Once you lose something to a machine, you're never getting it back.
This doesn't have to mean that everything is zero-sum; technology could improve the global standard of living, to the point where the surplus of basic goods and leisure time redefines our notions of work, and careers and jobs become options rather than necessities for survival and dignity.
However, that would require visionary leadership, who embrace and reframe a revolutionary concept: sharing.
Thought leaders like Mr. Brooks could help by having this epiphany (already!), and helping to prepare our minds for the ethical challenges of an automated future. Instead, columns like this one take us in the wrong direction.
Not everyone articulates it, but I do think that I everyone feels the feels the pressure of increasing surveillance and increasing automation in all areas of life. The stakes feel impossibly high. Once you lose something to a machine, you're never getting it back.
This doesn't have to mean that everything is zero-sum; technology could improve the global standard of living, to the point where the surplus of basic goods and leisure time redefines our notions of work, and careers and jobs become options rather than necessities for survival and dignity.
However, that would require visionary leadership, who embrace and reframe a revolutionary concept: sharing.
Thought leaders like Mr. Brooks could help by having this epiphany (already!), and helping to prepare our minds for the ethical challenges of an automated future. Instead, columns like this one take us in the wrong direction.
6
After looking under my bed, I put fingers to the computer keyboard. Firstly, one dust bunny was giantic while another moved silently. Afterward, I had a feelings that I needed to vote for an authoritative personality, maybe someone that totes a machete or Bowie Knife. Then images of Netanyahu jumped into my head and soothing thoughts took over my mind and the world felt safe.
22
First, there is no such thing as win-win. This is a hackneyed phrase pimped by pop psychology and business management authors who have nothing better to say. All transactions at the moment they occur are zero sum. David Brooks should never try to analyze any complex situation. He needs to get a job writing children our preteen story books. I really think he would be a big hit. We really need more Twilight type series. Brooks can write something like The Fault in Our Cars, a book about global warming, and how the Republicans get it right, and he knows cause St. Ronnie told him so.
59
Actually, win-win is the shorthand description of a positive sum game. It is contrasted with the lose-lose scenario or the negative sum game. The zero-sum game has one loser and one winner. If there is a positive sum outcome, that is better. While often used in business, the terminology is from mathematics, specifically Game Theory. IT means something important, even when ill, or wrongly used.
1
Understand now that extremists are not culpable for their actions because they are only a reflection of the mood of the world. Thanks.
8
From the 1990's boom to the "hard to have faith in rapid progress" days, there's no clue from Brooks what sort of transformation led to the current state of affairs. But forget all that (and the primarily GOP led programs and policies which led to the morass), Brooks seems to be saying. Now's the time for tough guys, word smithing the messages so the same stances can be taken to achieve coined terms like "zero sum moments." How cool is that, and who does it favor?
How Brooks reaches the conclusion that people like Christie and Walker might be able to handle these situations is completely ungrounded, but if it's John Wayne you want, then sign on for these bullying characters. Oh - and let's give Bibi a pass while we're at it, though Israel would have been much better off the leadership that didn't remind the Palestinians of the guy that ordered the Israeli military to take out Hamas wherever they found them, regardless of the collateral damage. Hamas used their people as human shields, but Netanyahu showed just how far he would go there. So there's no hope for a two state solution now.
Cooperation is less valued, Brooks is right. But the confrontations that are being played out now, from the GOP shakedown in Congress to the return of Bibi don't hold out much hope for any improvement, let alone "rapid progress." Well, I guess as long as the GOP can continue to blame Obama (note the references to FDR and Reagan - very, very good), we're all better off with bullies as leaders.
How Brooks reaches the conclusion that people like Christie and Walker might be able to handle these situations is completely ungrounded, but if it's John Wayne you want, then sign on for these bullying characters. Oh - and let's give Bibi a pass while we're at it, though Israel would have been much better off the leadership that didn't remind the Palestinians of the guy that ordered the Israeli military to take out Hamas wherever they found them, regardless of the collateral damage. Hamas used their people as human shields, but Netanyahu showed just how far he would go there. So there's no hope for a two state solution now.
Cooperation is less valued, Brooks is right. But the confrontations that are being played out now, from the GOP shakedown in Congress to the return of Bibi don't hold out much hope for any improvement, let alone "rapid progress." Well, I guess as long as the GOP can continue to blame Obama (note the references to FDR and Reagan - very, very good), we're all better off with bullies as leaders.
17
"It’s rare to have major realignments at a moment like this."
The record shows this is precisely when you have realigning elections, at least here in the US. Lincoln, FDR and Reagan were all brought to power by such realignments, and those moments were precarious indeed.
"These conditions will influence the 2016 American election, too. I’d guess that the cultural moment favors Scott Walker and Chris Christie, who have records of confrontation, over Jeb Bush, who hasn’t won election in this era and has a softer mien."
Christie is way down at the bottom of the polls, below the likes of Donald Trump. He's not going anywhere. And although a northerner like Walker (or Romney) may win the nomination, the GOP's base just doesn't get excited by non-southerners, in general.
Not that it matters much. The GOP had an historically bad presidency in G.W. Bush, and like Hoover before him, it is unlikely to see another conservative Republican in office for a generation or two. That is, unless the next Democratic president is as bad or worse. While that may seem to be a tall order for even the most incompetent of leaders, these are trying times that can make mincemeat of mediocre presidents. But they are also the kind of times that a leader during relative prosperity -- such as Theodore Roosevelt, for example (or maybe even a Bill Clinton) -- yearns for: a chance to rise to the occasion, defeat a dangerous enemy, and be considered among the pantheon of the greats.
The record shows this is precisely when you have realigning elections, at least here in the US. Lincoln, FDR and Reagan were all brought to power by such realignments, and those moments were precarious indeed.
"These conditions will influence the 2016 American election, too. I’d guess that the cultural moment favors Scott Walker and Chris Christie, who have records of confrontation, over Jeb Bush, who hasn’t won election in this era and has a softer mien."
Christie is way down at the bottom of the polls, below the likes of Donald Trump. He's not going anywhere. And although a northerner like Walker (or Romney) may win the nomination, the GOP's base just doesn't get excited by non-southerners, in general.
Not that it matters much. The GOP had an historically bad presidency in G.W. Bush, and like Hoover before him, it is unlikely to see another conservative Republican in office for a generation or two. That is, unless the next Democratic president is as bad or worse. While that may seem to be a tall order for even the most incompetent of leaders, these are trying times that can make mincemeat of mediocre presidents. But they are also the kind of times that a leader during relative prosperity -- such as Theodore Roosevelt, for example (or maybe even a Bill Clinton) -- yearns for: a chance to rise to the occasion, defeat a dangerous enemy, and be considered among the pantheon of the greats.
23
Have to disagree about Walker and Romney. You're not taking in account the GOP lockstep voting phenomenon. Romney came dangerously close to winning because Republicans coalesed behind him--even though they held their noses. And Walker not only is their new golden boy, but looks mainstream enough on the surface that independents might be fooled he's a moderate. (And you should never underestimate the power of Koch money.) My bet is that Jeb is a stalking horse who will get all the scrutiny, enabling Walker to slide in from off the radar.
3
Unfortunately, politics has become pure politics, wherein the participants are seeking personal gain of some kind, rather than seeking to help the country as a whole. It is too bad for us that "hope and change" has devolved into "hope and survival" as we watch our country go down much like the Roman Empire. Christians and Lions, anyone??
31
I do not believe that President Obama went into this looking for personal gain. His history belies this. He will end up rich, but I don't think he went into it looking to get rich.
3
I wish I could agree that extreme parties do not take power . They do, sometimes well camouflaged as Netanyahu has done in Israel or the more blatant extremist such as Erdogan in Turkey .
5
My words mean nothing
Says Bibi Netanyahu
Please just vote for me
Says Bibi Netanyahu
Please just vote for me
14
Haiku-ku-ka-choo.
3
"Will the White House or Congress grab power over treaties and immigration policy" a quote that reveals spin. Netanyahu, like all extremists of the right, relied on fear and won. What did he win? Antisemitism? Yes, one could make a solid case for Netanyahu's leadership has created a climate of cruelty, arrogance, and what right wing extremists have disguised fascism for: exceptionalism. Israel has become a focal point of anger throughout the Muslim world. Israeli treatment of Palestinians is the only thing that unites the Sunni and Shia extremists. Israeli dehumanization of Palestinians is turning the west against Israel. So now we have a combined effect in which nations have become anti-Israel and individuals have become anti semitic. When the Muslim world observes how Netanyahu treats Palestinians they imagine that all Jews are guilty because Netanyahu has framed the narrative that way. All nations that oppose him are anti semitic, all nations that surround Israel are anti semitic, all nations that oppose his government's policies are anti semitic. Netanyahu's strategy to retain power will have given cause for non-Israelis to detest Israel, because he says that they do....even when the do not and are his closest ally, generous supporter, and final protector he insults America.
"occasionally there is a leader who can turn a negative popular mood into a positive one. F.D.R. did this" Reagan and Netanyahu turned a positive mood more negative, divisive, and violent.
"occasionally there is a leader who can turn a negative popular mood into a positive one. F.D.R. did this" Reagan and Netanyahu turned a positive mood more negative, divisive, and violent.
23
Reagan was not "very, very good". He was, in fact, a example of the evil that is about to befall us.
299
Ronald Reagan opened his 1980 presidential campaign in Neshoba County, Mississippi, near where civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner were lynched in 1964. Reagan spoke of his support for states rights, code for slavery, segregation, Jim Crow and discrimination.
Ronald Reagan was evil.
Ronald Reagan was evil.
28
Whenever I think of all the unkept promises President Obama made when he first ran for office but never kept because of increased dangers to his country, I always think of Benjamin Netanyahu.
2
Yes, I agree. Mr. Netanyahu is, indeed, a walking, breathing non sequitur.
1
Netanyahu didn't "co-op" the extreme right views to get votes. He actually holds those views himself. Netanyahu is a disgusting, mean and hateful person. Not surprising that David is making excuses for him.
207
Reagan changed the popular mood by: tripling the federal debt, raising the debt ceiling 17 times in 96 months, on average, every 5.6 months, arming the Afghan fundamentalists who changed their name to Taliban, arming and funding Saddam Hussein, illegally selling missiles to Iran, illegally arming and funding the Contra terrorists, funding death squads in El Salvador, genocide in Guatemala, slaughter in Honduras, invading Grenada.
It certainly cheered many when 138 Reaganista's went to federal prison, still the record.
It certainly cheered many when 138 Reaganista's went to federal prison, still the record.
366
Scott Walker, one of Mr. Brooks's picks for tough guy candidate is following his hero St. Ronnie admirably when it comes to aides under investigation, so far one headed for prison, more to follow perhaps. Just this week, his state fell to 38 in job creation, but what the heck, he faced down teachers, state workers and won. ISIL shakes in their boots at such daring.
Chris Christie, tough guy number two, is famous for yelling at citizens during public meeting, while smirking aides flank him. He is also famous for poor job creation, poor decisions and is under investigation for Bridgegate, plus a sweetheart deal for Exxon Mobil. His chances to become president grow dimmer by the day even with the GOP base.
Chris Christie, tough guy number two, is famous for yelling at citizens during public meeting, while smirking aides flank him. He is also famous for poor job creation, poor decisions and is under investigation for Bridgegate, plus a sweetheart deal for Exxon Mobil. His chances to become president grow dimmer by the day even with the GOP base.
5
Where would politicians like Netanyahu be without pundits like Brooks to make their statements sound reasonable?
168
This is a delightful, elegant read -- putting the very best face on Bibi's victory in Israel (& using only plausible arguments).
Predictions are made about our own elections, & that is a game many of us relish playing. Will it be Scott over Jeb, in Team GOP? We politics addicts will enjoy the tournament. Will Hillary overcome her list of negatives, & take her historic place alongside Merkel on the planet's stage?
I'm one citizen who is worried more than I enjoy being, about the pervasive negativity, mistrust, & downright rudeness of us, the citizens of this amazing nation. I don't like us in this national mood, & I suspect this feeling is more common than not. David can't cure us. Each of us must cure her- or himself. It's high time, I suspect.
Predictions are made about our own elections, & that is a game many of us relish playing. Will it be Scott over Jeb, in Team GOP? We politics addicts will enjoy the tournament. Will Hillary overcome her list of negatives, & take her historic place alongside Merkel on the planet's stage?
I'm one citizen who is worried more than I enjoy being, about the pervasive negativity, mistrust, & downright rudeness of us, the citizens of this amazing nation. I don't like us in this national mood, & I suspect this feeling is more common than not. David can't cure us. Each of us must cure her- or himself. It's high time, I suspect.
2
Putin is currently marching to further isolation and ostracism; the Russian autocrat is now reduced to embracing North Korea and "South Ossetia" as allies. He is unifying the rest of Europe against his machinations, even as the people of Ukraine are greatly suffering. He does not dare move farther westward toward the Baltic states. Putin was in his element in 2007, glorified by Time as its Person of Year while rising energy prices increased his power. Russia's economy today is struggling mightily, weakened significantly by the collapsed price of oil and US-EU sanctions. He can keep telling himself that Crimea was worth it.
Also, FDR was very, very good; Reagan was very, very lucky. The two presidents both won election and reelection in decisive fashion, but the parallels should not be extended much further. FDR's policies made the American people better off; Reagan's made wealthy Americans better off, only making much of the rest of the country *feel* better. That's a key difference.
Also, FDR was very, very good; Reagan was very, very lucky. The two presidents both won election and reelection in decisive fashion, but the parallels should not be extended much further. FDR's policies made the American people better off; Reagan's made wealthy Americans better off, only making much of the rest of the country *feel* better. That's a key difference.
99
"Putin is currently marching to further isolation and ostracism"
That counts the chickens too soon, and believes too much US propaganda in the count.
Putin hasn't won, but he has not lost yet either. It is far from over.
That counts the chickens too soon, and believes too much US propaganda in the count.
Putin hasn't won, but he has not lost yet either. It is far from over.
1
Looks like David is gearing up for 2016 here. He is warming up with some old time NEOCON curve balls.
First of all, with respect to conflicts, we are probably in the most peaceful time in recent history. There are conflicts. But, there will always be conflicts. We are thankfully in a period with almost no war time casualties for our military.
Yes, the world is experiencing some economic issues. But, David totally ignores that the U.S. has recovered well and continues to under President Obama.
In David's Presidential race analysis, I sensed a few misdirections. Christie and Walker have both looked weak on the world stage. And Jeb has brought out the old NEOCON gang. I suspect David will be telling us about the great Jeb comeback in a month or two.
Finally, David tells us about a Merkel-like Hillary when he knows that Hillary is positioning herself as the congenial grandmother this time around.
Well, nice try David. I guess it's political season.
First of all, with respect to conflicts, we are probably in the most peaceful time in recent history. There are conflicts. But, there will always be conflicts. We are thankfully in a period with almost no war time casualties for our military.
Yes, the world is experiencing some economic issues. But, David totally ignores that the U.S. has recovered well and continues to under President Obama.
In David's Presidential race analysis, I sensed a few misdirections. Christie and Walker have both looked weak on the world stage. And Jeb has brought out the old NEOCON gang. I suspect David will be telling us about the great Jeb comeback in a month or two.
Finally, David tells us about a Merkel-like Hillary when he knows that Hillary is positioning herself as the congenial grandmother this time around.
Well, nice try David. I guess it's political season.
8
F.D.R. and Reagan did this. But you have to be very, very good= Mitt Romney
Conservatives support the mother of all redistribution in America: laissez-faire capitalim.
The American rich are getting richer; the rest, poorer. Redistribution writ large. Read Piketty.
"Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime."
-- Aristotle
Poverty and hopelessness are probably a large cause of instability at home and abroad.
The American rich are getting richer; the rest, poorer. Redistribution writ large. Read Piketty.
"Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime."
-- Aristotle
Poverty and hopelessness are probably a large cause of instability at home and abroad.
41
Uh oh, Brooks is here to warn us about a possible women US president. Watch out for Tough Women like Merkel....“If you cross her you end up dead. ... There’s a whole list of alpha males who thought they would get her out of the way, and they’re all now in other walks of life.” Wow.
And guess who David thinks has a Merkel-like toughness? Hillary, of course. We’ll see her toughness when those emails are revealed at last, right?
David is by contrast drumming up sympathy for poor Jeb Bush, who has “a softer mien.” But David, how is heart? And his judgment?
David, do you know that dozens of other countries have had women presidents already. See wiki on this. With varied degrees of toughness. How did their country’s ‘alpha males fare’? Any research on that?
And they have many more women in their congresses and parliaments than the US. We lag. Why do you think that is? You might apply your psychologizing to that perplexing question.
And guess who David thinks has a Merkel-like toughness? Hillary, of course. We’ll see her toughness when those emails are revealed at last, right?
David is by contrast drumming up sympathy for poor Jeb Bush, who has “a softer mien.” But David, how is heart? And his judgment?
David, do you know that dozens of other countries have had women presidents already. See wiki on this. With varied degrees of toughness. How did their country’s ‘alpha males fare’? Any research on that?
And they have many more women in their congresses and parliaments than the US. We lag. Why do you think that is? You might apply your psychologizing to that perplexing question.
23
More pseudo-sociology and vague, undefined terminology from Mr. Brooks, not to mention meaningless generalizations.
16
It is truly bizarre that a grassroots group that thinks we've been Taxed Enough Already can be classified as extreme. It goes to show how far left the country has shifted.
1
What country are you talking about?
13
Oh lord. This makes it seem like tough guys finish first and blames tough times for their success. What if it's the reverse?
Can't it be said that tough guys help create the very social and political malaise that allows them to play the saviors even as their policies destroy entire segments of the nation?
Can't it be said that tough guys help create the very social and political malaise that allows them to play the saviors even as their policies destroy entire segments of the nation?
44
I wish David Brooks would quit equating Ronald Reagan with Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt's policies led to the establishment of the middle class while Reagan's have led to its destruction.
555
“For example, anti-Semitism is a good barometer of a worsening public mood. According to the Pew Research Center, acts of hostility toward Jews are now rampant in 39 percent of countries, up from 26 percent in 2007. “
Mr Brookes, are you assuming we are all Muslims? What percentage of these acts are perpetrated by people other than Muslims? Funny thing statistics, they say just what you want them to say if you train them well!!
Once again a columnist used the same old rhetoric, but just what are you really trying to say?
Mr Brookes, are you assuming we are all Muslims? What percentage of these acts are perpetrated by people other than Muslims? Funny thing statistics, they say just what you want them to say if you train them well!!
Once again a columnist used the same old rhetoric, but just what are you really trying to say?
3
Overall a very good depiction of political reality.
Regarding Israel, it is actually it is very hard to know what Mr. Netanyahu is thinking. A most apt description is that of Yediot Ahronot columnist Nahum Barnea who stated that Mr. Netanyahu's promises are written on ice on a summer day. Yes Palestinian state, no Palestinian state, maybe once again. Who knows. This is mostly irrelevant because the Palestinians traditionally reject offers (2000, 2008 and the Molcho-Netanyahu negotiations). Mr. Brooks though is correct that there might have been fear regarding Mr. Herzog's ability to be steadfast in the face of adversity. The irony though is that Mr. Netanyahu has the aura of "tough guy", but he is more talk than tough.
Regarding Israel, it is actually it is very hard to know what Mr. Netanyahu is thinking. A most apt description is that of Yediot Ahronot columnist Nahum Barnea who stated that Mr. Netanyahu's promises are written on ice on a summer day. Yes Palestinian state, no Palestinian state, maybe once again. Who knows. This is mostly irrelevant because the Palestinians traditionally reject offers (2000, 2008 and the Molcho-Netanyahu negotiations). Mr. Brooks though is correct that there might have been fear regarding Mr. Herzog's ability to be steadfast in the face of adversity. The irony though is that Mr. Netanyahu has the aura of "tough guy", but he is more talk than tough.
4
Dear Mr. Brooks
You didn't listen to Mr. Netanyahu? He meant what he said. Most of us are really tired of Israel and that countries problems. Let them go it alone and good riddance.
You didn't listen to Mr. Netanyahu? He meant what he said. Most of us are really tired of Israel and that countries problems. Let them go it alone and good riddance.
149
I couldn't agree more. Treat Israel like any other country.
3
I couldn't agree more. Let them do without American support.
3
Yes, occasionally there is a leader who can turn a negative popular mood into a positive one. Obama unarguably did that in 2008, yet you don't mention him. Interesting.
129
Obama made the 99% feel positive. The 1% were arguably less-than-thrilled--and to Brooks, the latter are the only Americans who count, history-wise.
8
Brooks actually wrote,"Barack Obama started out as a hope-and-change idealist, but he has had to toughen to fit the times."
He had to toughen to rebuff and deflect the vicious, hateful, and bigoted attacks from the Dixiecrats turned Republicans whose lily-white country club culture couldn't stand the idea, let alone the the actual presence, of a black man in the White House. These are our times Mr. Brooks: Racism and bigotry bubble away just below the surface, MLK, Selma and the Civil Rights Act notwithstanding.
He had to toughen to rebuff and deflect the vicious, hateful, and bigoted attacks from the Dixiecrats turned Republicans whose lily-white country club culture couldn't stand the idea, let alone the the actual presence, of a black man in the White House. These are our times Mr. Brooks: Racism and bigotry bubble away just below the surface, MLK, Selma and the Civil Rights Act notwithstanding.
8
Neoliberalism has no excuse. Those that oppose it are not extreme. They are sensible. Neoliberalism is choking democracy and peace around the world. Call a spade a spade, David Brooks. Neoliberalism is about spreading its own power through force, business masquerading as nationalism and freedom, when it is nothing but the same old big three of financials, energy corporations and the war profiteers making money on the world's misery.
80
At a time when Republicans are merely signing letters that undermine our faith in democracy, David Brooks is writing one. Its message is one of fear, of suspicion, of arming ourselves, barring the door and drawing the wagons into a circle. It's practically the clinical definition of the conservative pathology. If there is any doubt, it concludes by conflating F.D.R. and Reagan in a near black hole of false equivalence, comparing the man who stood against the social and economic destroyers with the man who paved the way for their return.
To hear Mr. Brooks describe it, the tsunami of religious and social conservatism that is drowning the world is of mysterious origin, like global warming or rampant economic inequality. Who can say what causes it? We must simply expect our freedoms to be curtailed. Republicans like Scott Walker and Chris Christie may emerge as the ones best suited to close schools, gut pensions, shout down progressives and do the other things that will somehow ensure our future by removing our hope that there will be one.
Brooks needs to paint this bleak, black picture in order to hide the blot of Netanyahu's victory. Only in a world that is coming apart at the seams can we excuse his meddling in our foreign affairs, justify shelving the two-state solution, and welcome a more brutal and conservative Israel.
Conservatives are slouching toward Bethlehem to be born, and Brooks is in the delivery room, pacing like a nervous father.
To hear Mr. Brooks describe it, the tsunami of religious and social conservatism that is drowning the world is of mysterious origin, like global warming or rampant economic inequality. Who can say what causes it? We must simply expect our freedoms to be curtailed. Republicans like Scott Walker and Chris Christie may emerge as the ones best suited to close schools, gut pensions, shout down progressives and do the other things that will somehow ensure our future by removing our hope that there will be one.
Brooks needs to paint this bleak, black picture in order to hide the blot of Netanyahu's victory. Only in a world that is coming apart at the seams can we excuse his meddling in our foreign affairs, justify shelving the two-state solution, and welcome a more brutal and conservative Israel.
Conservatives are slouching toward Bethlehem to be born, and Brooks is in the delivery room, pacing like a nervous father.
487
Brilliant. Really. Just brilliant..... so true. (Query: Why hasn't the NYT come to you for an interview as a possible columnist? I would say you easily out-do Mr. Brooks in getting to the point. Smile)
15
Correction: Democracy is receding while autocrats like Vladimir Putin and Mitch McConnell are marching forward. btw, neither Scott Walker or Chris Christie invoke the term 'Culture'. "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society". Certainly not in the humanitarian nor social science sense which we like to attribute respectfully as a foundational block of 'Democracy', I don't think it is in their vocabulary nor their supporters, but i guess that makes your point.. Perhaps we will look back on Obama as you do Reagan, as Obama attempts to challenge the mood of the Marching Boots of the the autocrats/ plutocrats with more progressive, forward strategies for healthcare affordability/accessibility, the environment, education, immigration and infrastructure support which does invoke the pluralism, prosperity, individualism, good will and the freedom for which you pine.
2
Heh. Wait till Brooks really starts up the Walker-as-the-nation's-savior paeans. This is only the first strike. :)
6
David Brooks columns are remarkable artifacts. This one is essentially a defense of the extreme right-wing views of Benjamin Netanyahu, wrapped in a somewhat rambling package about the state of the world, which contains some accurate, though not particularly insightful or interesting observations about how economic hardship fuels extremism.
The endorsement of the extreme-right wing views of Netanyahu is the only actual position Brooks takes in the entire thing. Brooks accompanies this with mild criticism of Netanyahu for "blatant pandering", but this is fairly meaningless as criticism, since Brooks makes it clear that the extreme right-wing views that he's calling pandering were also "defensible".
In other words Brooks is criticizing Netanyahu for being disingenuous by adopting the extreme right-wing, racist views he espoused in a panic near the end of his campaign, but approving of the views themselves.
This will be overlooked by some readers who will stroke their chins and pronounce the column "interesting" or "thought-provoking", which is always somewhat astounding. It is slightly tricky to get to the always-present actual point buried in a David Brooks column, but an even moderately careful reading will always reveal it.
The endorsement of the extreme-right wing views of Netanyahu is the only actual position Brooks takes in the entire thing. Brooks accompanies this with mild criticism of Netanyahu for "blatant pandering", but this is fairly meaningless as criticism, since Brooks makes it clear that the extreme right-wing views that he's calling pandering were also "defensible".
In other words Brooks is criticizing Netanyahu for being disingenuous by adopting the extreme right-wing, racist views he espoused in a panic near the end of his campaign, but approving of the views themselves.
This will be overlooked by some readers who will stroke their chins and pronounce the column "interesting" or "thought-provoking", which is always somewhat astounding. It is slightly tricky to get to the always-present actual point buried in a David Brooks column, but an even moderately careful reading will always reveal it.
340
Your analysis strikes me as accurate. Thanks
7
When did Reagan have an original thought? Why is he adored by right wing conservatives? Scary.
33
A fine, succinct analysis, Jeo. I read Brooks' opinions pieces primarily to have a reference point for the always-enlightening Comments that follow. Nonetheless, his "worldview" is endlessly bemusing and (occasionally) amusing to me. I feel as if his opinions provide at least some insight into the convoluted, muddles "thinking" of those of Brooks' ilk.
As I read his latest example, I wondered how in the world one would ever begin to respond to such an illusory conglomeration of random straw-man arguments. You did it! Great job.
As I read his latest example, I wondered how in the world one would ever begin to respond to such an illusory conglomeration of random straw-man arguments. You did it! Great job.
9
In our country, Republicans have deliberately chosen to make President Obama a worse president than he could have been because it was in their interests to do so, even at the expense of the economic recovery of this nation.
In the Middle East, conservatives choose to emphasize the negative for electoral gain. Mr. Netanyahu was not speaking the truth, he was creating a fearful fantasy that, while grounded in certain aspects of reality, was deliberately designed to ignore the possible. Describing the situation with the Palestinians and Iran as only bad is not acknowledging the truth, it is a sign of immaturity and cowardice.
Every person on earth wants their government to be run by leaders who understand the worst in humanity so that they can bring out the best in humanity. However, leaders who try to do this are consistently confronted by others who gain power by marketing fear. I think we should be trying to shine a light on this deception rather than rationalize it.