Aren't a lot of those suggestions effectively what Hillary wrote about in "It Takes a Village"? Sure, add in some new data; good idea. I'm probably supposed to throw in a #tbt or something.
26
If only it could be true. Sigh.
6
"steady temperament, deep knowledge and good sense."
Apparently Mr. Brooks is unaware that we have had such a President for seven years now.
Apparently Mr. Brooks is unaware that we have had such a President for seven years now.
106
The most useful suggestion in Brooks' column is, "... we’ve got to get integrationist, to integrate different races and classes through national service...." In other words, we need to bring back the draft and make it for everyone this time.
The draft accomplishes a number of positive things but, in reference to Brooks' column, it is the best way to integrate races, classes, and ethnic groups. As with sports teams, working together intensely as a group makes one quickly look past the superficial to the essential.
The draft also would do much to further the equality of women, and not just because it institutionalizes equal pay for equal work. I have always thought that the reason the Equal Rights Amendment fell three states short of ratification after Congress approved it in the 1970s, was not so much the conservative women who organized against it as it was that women were not subject to the draft during the Viet Nam War. Had women come out and supported a draft for women -- the ultimate equality: an equal chance to get killed -- it would have been the boost the ERA needed.
Yes, there are logistical problems in a universal draft at this point, inasmuch as the military only needs relatively few people and it can't drain its resources training ten times as many. But those things can be worked out, especially if one embeds it in a concept of universal service, something like a domestic Peace Corps, which one would enter after Basic Training.
The draft accomplishes a number of positive things but, in reference to Brooks' column, it is the best way to integrate races, classes, and ethnic groups. As with sports teams, working together intensely as a group makes one quickly look past the superficial to the essential.
The draft also would do much to further the equality of women, and not just because it institutionalizes equal pay for equal work. I have always thought that the reason the Equal Rights Amendment fell three states short of ratification after Congress approved it in the 1970s, was not so much the conservative women who organized against it as it was that women were not subject to the draft during the Viet Nam War. Had women come out and supported a draft for women -- the ultimate equality: an equal chance to get killed -- it would have been the boost the ERA needed.
Yes, there are logistical problems in a universal draft at this point, inasmuch as the military only needs relatively few people and it can't drain its resources training ten times as many. But those things can be worked out, especially if one embeds it in a concept of universal service, something like a domestic Peace Corps, which one would enter after Basic Training.
12
"A former general or business leader with impeccable outsider status"
What is wrong with this phrase? Anyone? ... Anyone?
What is wrong with this phrase? Anyone? ... Anyone?
25
It sounds like the person Brooks describes exists, and his name is Michael Bloomberg. Of course, both sides of the political spectrum were deep in Bloomberg fatigue by the end of 12 years. It's hard to imagine him working with a benighted Congre$$, even if he could buy the lot of them for what's in the cushions of his couch.
Bernie js a "statist?" What do you mean by that? Sanders isn't socialist enough for Lord Brooks. As Reagan used to say, "there you go again. "
Bernie js a "statist?" What do you mean by that? Sanders isn't socialist enough for Lord Brooks. As Reagan used to say, "there you go again. "
12
Are you announcing your candidacy, Mr. Brooks?
3
Another message sent from LA-LA land. Pure fantasy. The closest candidate to that described by Brooks is Obama.
49
Bravo! I don't know if you're red or blue either, but you are red, white, and blue to me. If you combine good common sense that pays attention to what is happening in this country and what works best to keep the American dream alive for all young people in this country, you would just do as you propose. Fix government, listen to the people, pay attention to research and let's get going again. Thank you Mr. Brooks!
6
"Pick someone outside the rigid partisan mentalities that are the real problem here."
BOTH Hillary and Bernie and a majority of Democrats would support your thesis! OH and remeber Hill's book, "It Takes a Village"
Now try and find any consensus from the conservatives to help the needy?
BOTH Hillary and Bernie and a majority of Democrats would support your thesis! OH and remeber Hill's book, "It Takes a Village"
Now try and find any consensus from the conservatives to help the needy?
13
Brook's proffering the idea of " NATIONAL SERVICE" is refreshing to read but to implement with today's entitled generations is, sadly, pure laughing stock. I do sincerely believe if some worthwhile proposals were offered (e.g. troubled youths agreeing to a short term 3mos military style trainng & work to expunge police arrest records etc. ) just this one thing could create hope in these youngsters.And, If they are behaving properly during this time, then give them a ride (for example) on an aircraft carrier at sea, so they could witness the coolness of landing jets . I do not think they would ever ever forget this experience ( girl or boy!) There are many examples along this line of thinking that will assist the heath & greatness of our country. These disenfranchised kids need hope! Let's move to help them. Thanks Brooks, good article
1
Wow!!! So well thought out, so supremely argued. So, whoever wants to do this should be our POTUS!
3
The idea we need some nonpartisan/bipartisan outsider to say this is complete fantasy. What Brooks describes here fits perfectly within the Democratic mainstream but would be opposed to the death by the GOP. (1) Middle-class Americans want poor people to move to OTHER middle-class neighborhoods, not their own. NIMBY is killer—and the GOP routinely panders to the worst of the NIMBYs. (2) For the GOP to embrace infrastructure spending as economic stimulus, it would have to reject its economic—and, more importantly, cultural—dogma since Reagan. In the GOP catechism, government is always the problem, and people are unemployed or low-paid because they're too lazy to get a job, or to put themselves through college. The fantasy Brooks is peddling here is that the Democrats aren't advocating these things well enough, and that the GOP would be amenable to sensible and important things just because they're sensible and important. An outsider would run into the exact same obstacles, no matter the merit of his/her agenda.
7
I feel for you Mr. Brooks - since there are no plausible Republican candidates this election cycle you have been driven to create an imaginary candidate!
Face it - the closest real candidate to your imaginary one is Bernie Sanders!
Face it - the closest real candidate to your imaginary one is Bernie Sanders!
17
DB is looking for creative solutions beyond politics and “rigid partisan mentalities” … I can tell you about one.
I volunteer in an “environment of opportunity” (short term and purposeful) in my non-affluent community: a non-profit bike shop. The shop accepts donated used bikes, stripping some down for parts, setting aside others to build-up and sell. We offer tools and know-how to anyone stopping by who wants to work on a bike. Clients pay a $5 shop fee to get started.
Located a mile from a homeless shelter, more than half the clientele are homeless and on sub-standard bikes – poor quality components, unnecessarily fully-suspended, knobby tires for street riding, etc.. The volunteers are typically college-aged kids, single young professionals and older bicycle enthusiasts. We are always busy.
Many lessons can be learned from this raw, gritty, often chaotic environment. One is that we fix bikes; we cannot fix lives. I repeat this to myself, but questions inevitably creep in: How did this person get this way? Did they make bad choices (conservative thinking)? Did society or “the system” let them down (liberal thinking)? Can this happen to anyone (general fear)? Me (personalized fear)? There certainly are a lot of these folks …
Five AmeriCorps volunteers in khaki uniform came for orientation last night.
I volunteer in an “environment of opportunity” (short term and purposeful) in my non-affluent community: a non-profit bike shop. The shop accepts donated used bikes, stripping some down for parts, setting aside others to build-up and sell. We offer tools and know-how to anyone stopping by who wants to work on a bike. Clients pay a $5 shop fee to get started.
Located a mile from a homeless shelter, more than half the clientele are homeless and on sub-standard bikes – poor quality components, unnecessarily fully-suspended, knobby tires for street riding, etc.. The volunteers are typically college-aged kids, single young professionals and older bicycle enthusiasts. We are always busy.
Many lessons can be learned from this raw, gritty, often chaotic environment. One is that we fix bikes; we cannot fix lives. I repeat this to myself, but questions inevitably creep in: How did this person get this way? Did they make bad choices (conservative thinking)? Did society or “the system” let them down (liberal thinking)? Can this happen to anyone (general fear)? Me (personalized fear)? There certainly are a lot of these folks …
Five AmeriCorps volunteers in khaki uniform came for orientation last night.
8
It’s a problem vs. it’s not my problem.
It’s not a problem vs. it’s not a problem for me.
It’s not a problem vs. it’s not a problem for me.
2
David, you are suggesting putting Section 8 housing in the middle of upper middle class and middle class neighborhoods, and you think you could get local politicians to support this? They not only would they be voted out of office in the next election, they would be subject to recall or impeachment (or at least death threats) the minute they raised such a program, regardless of how blue the community might be.
5
These are nice thoughts, Mr. Brooks. But this is not even remotely possible in the selfish, grim and deluded world we currently inhabit.
5
The notion that a Brooks essay passes for genuine thought on any subject is in itself an affront to the mind exceeding that of Trump's political spectacle.
4
I've been eating healthy fast food and watching educational television in a house heated by clean coal, while thinking about a sensible version of Donald Trump.
Later I'll feed my unicorn.
Later I'll feed my unicorn.
28
The time to have done all this was the 1950s and 1960s, when prosperity, political realism, and youthful enthusiasm for change, were all abundant.
Instead, we chose to wage the Vietnam War.
Instead, we chose to wage the Vietnam War.
16
David Brooks is right, as far as he goes, and yet ... .
The research he points to suggest that if we could just move the poor into prosperous middle-class neighborhoods, things would improve for society as a whole. Duh, Mr. Brooks.
Sticking around to parent the children you have is much easier when a quarter of your friends are not being shipped off to prison, or being legally discriminated in jobs and housing when they eventually do come out.
School vouchers are not a solution of the schools that are within reach are not the right ones for your child; the best charter schools may be factories of wonder but studies show that they are as few and far between as the best public schools. Again, no magic bullets there.
It's true that I see most of the same problems as my conservative friends, but the solutions, such as they are, are poles apart.
And the gridlock that everyone on all sides keeps decrying seems to be an artifact of gerrymandered voting districts and surpress-the-vote tactics, which both sides may be morally responsible for, but which the Republicans have been the major practitioners of in the last decade or so.
The research he points to suggest that if we could just move the poor into prosperous middle-class neighborhoods, things would improve for society as a whole. Duh, Mr. Brooks.
Sticking around to parent the children you have is much easier when a quarter of your friends are not being shipped off to prison, or being legally discriminated in jobs and housing when they eventually do come out.
School vouchers are not a solution of the schools that are within reach are not the right ones for your child; the best charter schools may be factories of wonder but studies show that they are as few and far between as the best public schools. Again, no magic bullets there.
It's true that I see most of the same problems as my conservative friends, but the solutions, such as they are, are poles apart.
And the gridlock that everyone on all sides keeps decrying seems to be an artifact of gerrymandered voting districts and surpress-the-vote tactics, which both sides may be morally responsible for, but which the Republicans have been the major practitioners of in the last decade or so.
7
Thanks for this article. I just came back from a trip out west, and one of the places I visited was the Hoover Dam, an incredible project built with a great deal of pride in what we can do when we put our minds to it. The sacrifices were incredible to complete this project, but we rallied around the leadership and pulled it off. This article points to several areas that need a "Hoover Dam" like project to make things better. Providing water and electricity to the west coast was a worthy venture in the post-Depression 1930s. Are we throwing in the towel and saying the education of our children, the health of our neighborhoods is not sexy enough to rally people around. This will remain fantasy only if we let it. We need a New Deal, and we need it now. We need to change the conversation, as Brooks suggests, to develop the kind of leadership that can move beyond the system in place and the greed it fosters to pull this off. It can be done.
7
There's much here that's just David's slight of hand going on, but putting that aside, the idea of integrating neighborhoods by race and class is not only a good idea, but a very old one. In fact it originates in the Johnson administration in 1966 and took shape in the Fair Housing Act of 1968. It contained a provision that local communities develop plans for integrating low income housing into their existing housing plans.
Unfortunately, most efforts by HUD were met with resistance both within and outside the agency and to this day the enforcement of that provision has been almost nonexistent. So local communities still get billions in federal block grants without any commitment to change their housing policies and for many without even doing the paper work saying they're at least thinking about it.
The biggest stumbling block is now what it was in 1966, race. Middle class black communities aren't large enough to absorb many residents from the inner cities and middle class white communities simply don't want to.
There is one area however where Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on, and that's military spending. They stumble all over themselves trying to spend more of our hard earned tax dollars on the least socially productive things imaginable without consultation or even explanation to their constituents. Lack of bipartisanship certainly harms us, but for them the money keeps rolling in.
Unfortunately, most efforts by HUD were met with resistance both within and outside the agency and to this day the enforcement of that provision has been almost nonexistent. So local communities still get billions in federal block grants without any commitment to change their housing policies and for many without even doing the paper work saying they're at least thinking about it.
The biggest stumbling block is now what it was in 1966, race. Middle class black communities aren't large enough to absorb many residents from the inner cities and middle class white communities simply don't want to.
There is one area however where Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on, and that's military spending. They stumble all over themselves trying to spend more of our hard earned tax dollars on the least socially productive things imaginable without consultation or even explanation to their constituents. Lack of bipartisanship certainly harms us, but for them the money keeps rolling in.
5
Mr. Brooks it's time you switched allegiances. You are welcome into the Democratic fold. " Basically we've got to get socialist. " That was the clincher. I guess you have been disillusioned with Capitalism. I can completely relate to that.
4
I nominate Don Quixote!
Mr. Brooks has been reduced by his party to writing about unicorns.
Mr. Brooks has been reduced by his party to writing about unicorns.
4
What you suggest sounds fine and dandy except, it'll take generations, not a few years. There's still too much instilled in too many for anything you suggested to happen. They live to fight anything that benefits all of us.
3
Why dont you run? You sound like you would fit this bill quite perfectly. Might not be such a bad idea. You are one of the very few republicans I am forced to admire.
Articulate, moderate, non crazy, actual humanitarian, intellectual, mild temprament, non confrontational. Over all an actual conservative moderate nice guy with good intentions, who might just win the middle voters in general election. But the billion dollar question is: will you get past the primaries Mr. Brook ;)
Articulate, moderate, non crazy, actual humanitarian, intellectual, mild temprament, non confrontational. Over all an actual conservative moderate nice guy with good intentions, who might just win the middle voters in general election. But the billion dollar question is: will you get past the primaries Mr. Brook ;)
2
Yes indeed, Mr. Brooks. Righty-o! If only Louis Armstrong's mother had married his father: surely Louis would've gone to law school and we'd have been spared all that boring trumpet music.
5
After becoming permanently disabled after sustaining a non-service related Traumatic Brain Injury ('90), in '94, I had the privilege of serving a one-year term as an Americorps*VISTA Volunteer (http://www.nationalservice.gov/). This is often referred to as the domestic PeaceCorps.
Under the VISTA program, I worked full-time as a volunteer and received a monthly stipend; it did NOT count against my monthly Social Security Disability Insurance. From '07-'08, after sustaining another head trauma and leaving the public sector, I served a term in the AmeriCorps*State program. At the end of each term, I rec'd a time-limited educational grant between $4,500-5000.
AmeriCorps is just one of the programs that can/could help [re-]build infrastructure.
From the web link provided:
We are the Corporation for National and Community Service, a federal agency that helps more than 5 million Americans improve the lives of their fellow citizens through service. Working hand in hand with local partners, we tap the ingenuity and can-do spirit of the American people to tackle some of the most pressing challenges facing our nation.
Under the VISTA program, I worked full-time as a volunteer and received a monthly stipend; it did NOT count against my monthly Social Security Disability Insurance. From '07-'08, after sustaining another head trauma and leaving the public sector, I served a term in the AmeriCorps*State program. At the end of each term, I rec'd a time-limited educational grant between $4,500-5000.
AmeriCorps is just one of the programs that can/could help [re-]build infrastructure.
From the web link provided:
We are the Corporation for National and Community Service, a federal agency that helps more than 5 million Americans improve the lives of their fellow citizens through service. Working hand in hand with local partners, we tap the ingenuity and can-do spirit of the American people to tackle some of the most pressing challenges facing our nation.
3
Wonderful suggestions, good sourcing, and strong messaging. But the piece is structured around a central fantasy, which is that a candidate with such as message could find any refuge in the know-nothing miasma of the Republican party. My frustration with Mr. Brooks is that he is constantly writing about a party that no longer exists. He poses reasoned thoughts that crumble against the cruel shell of modern Republicanism. Mr. Brooks, it's time to lament what your party has become, not offer paeans to what you think it can still be.
5
Really. If we really want to address all the things that Mr. Brooks is raising, and I certainly agree that they need addressing, the first thing we have to do is WANT to address them The fact is that too many Americans (and I include Canadians in this as well) just don't care.Their sense of brotherhood and real community stops at the church door as they retreat to their ideological enclaves.
3
In order to regain his lead in the Republican race, Trump must be consistent with his previous bold challenges to conventional politics. For instance, to really appeal to the Republican base, he could declare something like, "I am in favor of deporting all Native Americans back to whatever country they came from."
1
"Locally administered social entrepreneurship funds could help churches and other groups expand their influence."
So emerges one of David's favorite themes, the country just isn't religious enough. Let's get the government involved in pushing it.
So emerges one of David's favorite themes, the country just isn't religious enough. Let's get the government involved in pushing it.
1
In my extremely Red State, I come across many people who sound like moderate democrats, but do not tell them that! There is nothing sensible about the GOP platform anymore and rational people know it. If only identifying as a democrat was not equated with treason (as many in my state seem to believe).
Come on in David, the water is fine.
Come on in David, the water is fine.
4
These suggestions by Mr. Brooks is convoluted and impractical. The reason kids from poor neighborhoods do not do as well, is because the schools they attend are not as good as the schools in wealthy neighborhoods.
As long as we have the property tax based funding for schools, this divide will remain. If instead the funding was coming from general tax revenue and all schools irrespective of where they were located, were funded equitably, with the same quality of staffing and other support systems, the result would possibly be different.
How practical do you think such an idea to get traction without raising all kinds of noise about socialism etc. ? I wonder.
As long as we have the property tax based funding for schools, this divide will remain. If instead the funding was coming from general tax revenue and all schools irrespective of where they were located, were funded equitably, with the same quality of staffing and other support systems, the result would possibly be different.
How practical do you think such an idea to get traction without raising all kinds of noise about socialism etc. ? I wonder.
5
Power to local communities? That won't fix the problems of poor localities that are stuck in a vicious cycle of poverty. They are not an attractive location for business or homeowners. They have concentrations of needy people but lack the tax base to provide good quality public services at reasonable tax rates. They can't lower their tax rates without hurting public services needed to contend with their circumstances of crime, social problems, etc. Well-off localities can offer amenities (parks, libraries, etc.) that poor communities can't.
Can anyone name one poor locality that has turned itself around over the past 30 years? No, because they are stuck in a hopeless cycle where they remain poor and unattractive locations. When people who live there succeed in improving their personal circumstances, they promptly move OUT.
Can anyone name one poor locality that has turned itself around over the past 30 years? No, because they are stuck in a hopeless cycle where they remain poor and unattractive locations. When people who live there succeed in improving their personal circumstances, they promptly move OUT.
2
The federal government certainly isn't the answer. Their solutions never work and only add debt that endangers the rest of us.
"The first is that we have a polarized, dysfunctional, semi-corrupt political culture that prevents us from getting anything done. To reverse that gridlock we’ve got to find some policy area where there’s a basis for bipartisan action."
The solution isn't to "find some policy area where there's a basis for bipartisan action." As today's budget deal makes clear, there are plenty of issues on which a bipartisan majority of Republicans and Democrats in Congress might be able to find compromise solutions. One major impediment to such solutions has been the Republican leadership's unwillingness to allow consideration of a bill unless a majority of Republicans support the bill -- even if a bipartisan majority might vote for it and a Democratic President might sign it. Today's compromise is a reminder of how it's possible to move the ball forward by isolating the obstructionists who have no interest in moving the ball -- in governing, that is -- at all.
The solution isn't to "find some policy area where there's a basis for bipartisan action." As today's budget deal makes clear, there are plenty of issues on which a bipartisan majority of Republicans and Democrats in Congress might be able to find compromise solutions. One major impediment to such solutions has been the Republican leadership's unwillingness to allow consideration of a bill unless a majority of Republicans support the bill -- even if a bipartisan majority might vote for it and a Democratic President might sign it. Today's compromise is a reminder of how it's possible to move the ball forward by isolating the obstructionists who have no interest in moving the ball -- in governing, that is -- at all.
3
"The best charter schools radiate diverse but strong cultures of achievement."
The exact same thing can be truthfully said of the best public schools. Here in New York City, for example, the high schools that all the best students aspire to attending are public high schools - Stuyvesant, The Bronx High School of Science, The High School of American Studies, and many others. These public schools are among the best in the nation. The administrators and teachers at these schools are unionized; their work as educators is respected and valued. The conservative argument that all public schools are failing is a lie designed to (1) divert tax payer dollars to politically connected "entrepreneurs," running for-profit charter schools and (2) to crush the last vestiges of unions and the middle class jobs they support in our country. The last thing we need are more charter schools.
The exact same thing can be truthfully said of the best public schools. Here in New York City, for example, the high schools that all the best students aspire to attending are public high schools - Stuyvesant, The Bronx High School of Science, The High School of American Studies, and many others. These public schools are among the best in the nation. The administrators and teachers at these schools are unionized; their work as educators is respected and valued. The conservative argument that all public schools are failing is a lie designed to (1) divert tax payer dollars to politically connected "entrepreneurs," running for-profit charter schools and (2) to crush the last vestiges of unions and the middle class jobs they support in our country. The last thing we need are more charter schools.
7
Socialism for republicans:
If I were smart I could pick a 12 yr old Ben Carson out of the crowd, write him a government check so I could send him to medical school and see him pay back the oft loan in record time with everybody demanding his services at outrageous prices after he graduates.
But I am not smart. I am government. So, I will write 10,000 checks and some may not pay back their loans but that is the price I pay for getting a Ben Carson. Then Ben Carson invents a patented device that pays off billions to society which pays back the other 9,999 government loans
See how that works? Gummint Spending for Dummies.
If I were smart I could pick a 12 yr old Ben Carson out of the crowd, write him a government check so I could send him to medical school and see him pay back the oft loan in record time with everybody demanding his services at outrageous prices after he graduates.
But I am not smart. I am government. So, I will write 10,000 checks and some may not pay back their loans but that is the price I pay for getting a Ben Carson. Then Ben Carson invents a patented device that pays off billions to society which pays back the other 9,999 government loans
See how that works? Gummint Spending for Dummies.
2
Relocation vouchers? Really? Move people around to different neighborhoods?
1
You don't believe your way into behaving differently, you behave your way into believing differently. If we want poor people to behave like middle class folks what we need to do is provide middle class jobs and incomes.
7
Typical Republican punditry - imagine something that doesn't exist, re-frame obvious problems in false but simple analogies and provide vague assurances all will be fixed if only...
Go north of the border and you will find plenty of those integrated middle class communities and real life politicians who crafted the system that maintains them.
You won't find too many republicans though...
Go north of the border and you will find plenty of those integrated middle class communities and real life politicians who crafted the system that maintains them.
You won't find too many republicans though...
6
After Barry, Donald is welcomed. I mean, it couldn't get much worse, and we might get back to the notion of America.
1
What on earth makes anyone think that generals and big businessmen are outsiders?
They ARE the government. Electing one of them merely cuts out the middle man.
They ARE the government. Electing one of them merely cuts out the middle man.
7
Mr. Brooks continues to pretend that he is not firmly allied with the GOP in its current wacky incarnation. As a key propagandist he helped to bring it to power over the past 20 years or so. (D. Frum was eliminated when he vocally criticized it, remember?) And Brooks continues to disparage and misunderstand Sanders' view of socialism. His hypothetical proposal is Democratic in exactly the ways that the Republican Nihilism Machine™ would never get behind. Brooks is writing more and more fiction these days. Time for another book contract.
6
Leaving aside the social science conclusions, Mr. Brooks, do you really think that any candidate running on a platform of bipartisanship, and any Republican candidate running on a platform of helping the poor would last 10 minutes in this primary environment? Hardly the red meat the GOP primary voters want. Remember, most are responsive to the "foreigners are all rapists" and "the earth is flat" arguments these days!
3
It seems like the last line when the hypothetical speaker says that he/she does not know if he/she is red or blue, perhaps Brooks is talking about himself. And possibly, that's something we should all be saying--we are neither red or blue; we are people that live in the same country, and we should work together to solve poverty and lack of upward mobility. Mesh the best of both parties when they are at their best, not focus on the obvious failings we all bring. Going forward, it's the only way fruitful legislation starts passing.
1
David Brooks is a broken record. The bottom half of the income distribution is not just full of the people with less education, who don't marry and the rest of his regular assumptions. In case he hasn't noticed a college education today gets too many young people jobs at Starbucks, or if you college degree (even advanced) was acquired too many years ago and you are 50 or older (or maybe even 40 these days) your prospects are not that good.
For 40 years now the middle class has been standing still or losing ground. It's not a lack of education or a cultural aversion to marriage. But for a hammer everything looks like a nail and for David Brooks, who can't seem to write the same trope over and over again, he sees individual reasons for failure everywhere and institutional reasons nowhere.
For 40 years now the middle class has been standing still or losing ground. It's not a lack of education or a cultural aversion to marriage. But for a hammer everything looks like a nail and for David Brooks, who can't seem to write the same trope over and over again, he sees individual reasons for failure everywhere and institutional reasons nowhere.
7
I usually don't read Brooks, and this column is an excellent example of why. But I tried this one because I thought I might find an amusing promotion for, say, Marco Rubio or John Kasich.
Instead there are 770 or so words of pablum, with occasional nutty bits, i.e., Bernie Sanders isn't a socialist, he's a statist (what can this possible mean?) And "some charter schools are doing very well" _ leaving unsaid that so do some public schools, and some charter schools and public schools don't do so well.
It's cruel and unusual punishment to force Brooks to provide two conservative-leaning columns per week. Nobody could do it. Although, given that Brooks chooses the job, and no doubt is paid very well for it, I don't feel or sympathize with his pain.
Instead there are 770 or so words of pablum, with occasional nutty bits, i.e., Bernie Sanders isn't a socialist, he's a statist (what can this possible mean?) And "some charter schools are doing very well" _ leaving unsaid that so do some public schools, and some charter schools and public schools don't do so well.
It's cruel and unusual punishment to force Brooks to provide two conservative-leaning columns per week. Nobody could do it. Although, given that Brooks chooses the job, and no doubt is paid very well for it, I don't feel or sympathize with his pain.
6
Seems to me that what republican voters are despising is government period, thus the focus on outsiders.
Republican propagandists have convinced their voters to despise government. Without considering the consequences of doing so.
Republican propagandists have convinced their voters to despise government. Without considering the consequences of doing so.
6
Mr. Brooks brings deep insight into the self-delusions of so-called "thinking conservatives".
Moving poor families to middle-class neighborhoods doesn't improve their kids' futures because they're attending better-funded schools, oh no - they're being exposed to a higher-quality "social fabric" thanks to churches and two-parent households. And instead of assisting low-income communities financially, we need to "give control" back to them - or is it actually to fix the blame on them when they fail?
These and more are the delusions of aging, financially secure white males.
Moving poor families to middle-class neighborhoods doesn't improve their kids' futures because they're attending better-funded schools, oh no - they're being exposed to a higher-quality "social fabric" thanks to churches and two-parent households. And instead of assisting low-income communities financially, we need to "give control" back to them - or is it actually to fix the blame on them when they fail?
These and more are the delusions of aging, financially secure white males.
2
The column is worth reading, even if it describes a fantasy world, just for the statements:
"Basically we’ve got to get socialist. No, I don’t mean the way Bernie Sanders is a socialist. He’s a statist, not a socialist. I mean we have to put the quality of the social fabric at the center of our politics."
The contention that Bernie Sanders is a statist rather than a socialist probably infuriates a lot of people, but it is a great spur to reflective thought. The primary difference between compassionate conservatives and compassionate liberals is not that the conservatives are liars, or even naive (although they are IMO) but that conservatives want to improve society by emphasizing religion and increased societal pressure on the individual to behave consistently in an ethical way (as defined conservatively). That is what Brooks is arguing here when he uses the word "socialist." He's trying to break down liberal commitments to the boundaries and definition of "socialist."
Some may be angry, and assume that Brooks is just trying to distort or co-opt the word for his own agenda; much like conservatives distorted the meaning of "liberal." I believe he is more sincerely trying to find common ground on which liberals and conservatives can both stand- albeit occasionally. That is, after all, why he works for the NYT and not the Wall Street Journal.
"Basically we’ve got to get socialist. No, I don’t mean the way Bernie Sanders is a socialist. He’s a statist, not a socialist. I mean we have to put the quality of the social fabric at the center of our politics."
The contention that Bernie Sanders is a statist rather than a socialist probably infuriates a lot of people, but it is a great spur to reflective thought. The primary difference between compassionate conservatives and compassionate liberals is not that the conservatives are liars, or even naive (although they are IMO) but that conservatives want to improve society by emphasizing religion and increased societal pressure on the individual to behave consistently in an ethical way (as defined conservatively). That is what Brooks is arguing here when he uses the word "socialist." He's trying to break down liberal commitments to the boundaries and definition of "socialist."
Some may be angry, and assume that Brooks is just trying to distort or co-opt the word for his own agenda; much like conservatives distorted the meaning of "liberal." I believe he is more sincerely trying to find common ground on which liberals and conservatives can both stand- albeit occasionally. That is, after all, why he works for the NYT and not the Wall Street Journal.
So, Brooks proposes we relocated poor people into richer neighborhoods to improve their culture.
How would this be accomplished? Oh, by "relocation vouchers".
That is, a fixed sum of money to buy into a modestly higher income neighborhood, since a voucher certainly will not be able to pay for the additional rent of mortgage cost of truly well off community - like the community where Brooks was lived as a child, or live in now. The wealthy would not need to worry about any of these poor people moving into their neighborhoods - only the Middle Class would need to deal with issues of this social integration experiment.
How about this David: instead we establish a per capita quota of poor families for all communities above a certain income level? Thus the rich gated communities will get to share equally by participating in this noble social project?
How would this be accomplished? Oh, by "relocation vouchers".
That is, a fixed sum of money to buy into a modestly higher income neighborhood, since a voucher certainly will not be able to pay for the additional rent of mortgage cost of truly well off community - like the community where Brooks was lived as a child, or live in now. The wealthy would not need to worry about any of these poor people moving into their neighborhoods - only the Middle Class would need to deal with issues of this social integration experiment.
How about this David: instead we establish a per capita quota of poor families for all communities above a certain income level? Thus the rich gated communities will get to share equally by participating in this noble social project?
2
The lack of statesmanship among presidential candidates and government officials is by no means exclusive to the US political landscape.
The phenomenon has taken global proportions--with a handful exceptions of course.
Many of us are simply sick and tired of bigotry and populism.
What the world needs is enlightened political candidates, philosophers, selfless thinkers prepared to take steps not necessarily conducive to widespread personal approval and recognition. As a matter of fact, Chancellor Angela Merkel is perhaps the only major leader willing to sacrifice popularity and praise for a cause that transcends Germany´s interests.
Technology has given us an undeniable sense of interconnectedness, one which is hard to overlook. Therefore, wise politicians should be in a position to improve education, health, environmental protection and justice standards at home while building bridges to the world beyond their borders.
I thoroughly enjoy your pieces because they delve deep into the essence of our nature. For how can we strive for a more progressive civilization if we can´t find our own paths to self-improvement, moral integrity and compassion?
Alejandra
The phenomenon has taken global proportions--with a handful exceptions of course.
Many of us are simply sick and tired of bigotry and populism.
What the world needs is enlightened political candidates, philosophers, selfless thinkers prepared to take steps not necessarily conducive to widespread personal approval and recognition. As a matter of fact, Chancellor Angela Merkel is perhaps the only major leader willing to sacrifice popularity and praise for a cause that transcends Germany´s interests.
Technology has given us an undeniable sense of interconnectedness, one which is hard to overlook. Therefore, wise politicians should be in a position to improve education, health, environmental protection and justice standards at home while building bridges to the world beyond their borders.
I thoroughly enjoy your pieces because they delve deep into the essence of our nature. For how can we strive for a more progressive civilization if we can´t find our own paths to self-improvement, moral integrity and compassion?
Alejandra
1
Dear ExPat Annie --
Since the time of Andrew Jackson, the nation has relied on what were called "prairie fires" that swept across the Great Plains states and territories that fought for distributive policies of all manner of policies. However, after WWII national policy literally drove people off the plains into the industrializing cities. In 1940 we had 6 million farms -- representing people who owned their means of production. In 20 years that number slide to 4 and then 2 million farms. Until today, most are the farms are owned by absentee landowners (family members living in cities) or corporations (managed or owned). We have now less than 1.5 million farms. The voice of farmers with the means of production has lost its ability to speak for distributive policies.
Everyone works for the 'man.' This was the problem Jefferson anticipated and is widely misunderstood. He was not so much arguing for agrarian society as fear of the trappings of those who can feed on people work for them. Read Louis Brandeis life -- he became wealthy as a lawyer so he did not need to be paid for going after the big trusts. He was extremely successful.
What triggered this latest rise in populist sentiment? A consequences of the Great Recession have exposed the lack of fairness and the excesses of Big Money in its many manifestations. Increases in productivity has not translated into increase wealth of middle class. The Prairie Fire has a new source of fuel but it will be no less potent.
Since the time of Andrew Jackson, the nation has relied on what were called "prairie fires" that swept across the Great Plains states and territories that fought for distributive policies of all manner of policies. However, after WWII national policy literally drove people off the plains into the industrializing cities. In 1940 we had 6 million farms -- representing people who owned their means of production. In 20 years that number slide to 4 and then 2 million farms. Until today, most are the farms are owned by absentee landowners (family members living in cities) or corporations (managed or owned). We have now less than 1.5 million farms. The voice of farmers with the means of production has lost its ability to speak for distributive policies.
Everyone works for the 'man.' This was the problem Jefferson anticipated and is widely misunderstood. He was not so much arguing for agrarian society as fear of the trappings of those who can feed on people work for them. Read Louis Brandeis life -- he became wealthy as a lawyer so he did not need to be paid for going after the big trusts. He was extremely successful.
What triggered this latest rise in populist sentiment? A consequences of the Great Recession have exposed the lack of fairness and the excesses of Big Money in its many manifestations. Increases in productivity has not translated into increase wealth of middle class. The Prairie Fire has a new source of fuel but it will be no less potent.
2
When you suggested: "imagine if we had a sensible Trump in the race. Suppose there was some former general or business leader with impeccable outsider status but also a steady temperament, deep knowledge and good sense."
I thought: Mitt Romney.
Shame that America didn't trust him to be more than his religion.
I thought: Mitt Romney.
Shame that America didn't trust him to be more than his religion.
"I'm just a boring guy who knows how to run things until I have to take bankruptcy."
--- Now, that's more like it.
--- Now, that's more like it.
2
"There are certain patterns of behavior, like marrying before you have kids and sticking around to parent the kids you conceive, that contribute to better communities." The GOP has been saying that for years, and the Dems. and this paper have labeled such talk "racist" because of high rates of unwed mothers in communities of color.
So... we redistribute wealth- from what level? Bernie rails about billionaires, but even if you took everything from every billionaire in the country and redistributed it, it would be a drop in the bucket. The reality is that you would have to confiscate all monetary wealth over a certain, very low (1 mil, 500K?) level of total assets to really make a dent. What would be the incentive to be fiscally responsible if you know it will be taken and given to others who lived by the Gov't's unspoken mantra - mo' slack gets you mo' jack?
So... we redistribute wealth- from what level? Bernie rails about billionaires, but even if you took everything from every billionaire in the country and redistributed it, it would be a drop in the bucket. The reality is that you would have to confiscate all monetary wealth over a certain, very low (1 mil, 500K?) level of total assets to really make a dent. What would be the incentive to be fiscally responsible if you know it will be taken and given to others who lived by the Gov't's unspoken mantra - mo' slack gets you mo' jack?
Currently the top 20% of households take 51% of the national income. the bottom 20% take just 3.4%. Giving the top 20% an average income haircut of 6.8% would double the income of the bottom 20%: and enormous, life-changing, community-changing, society-changing difference.
http://www.russellsage.org/research/chartbook/percentage-share-aggregate...
No, the claim that "would have to confiscate all monetary wealth over a certain, very low (1 mil, 500K?) level of total assets to really make a dent" is not "reality" - it is nonsense.
http://www.russellsage.org/research/chartbook/percentage-share-aggregate...
No, the claim that "would have to confiscate all monetary wealth over a certain, very low (1 mil, 500K?) level of total assets to really make a dent" is not "reality" - it is nonsense.
6
Aren't you forgetting that as long as big business owns our elected officials it will be impossible to make these neighborhood efforts a reality without raising the minimum wage and making housing affordable.
4
The fatal flaw of this article is that this imaginary candidate speaks in complete sentences and paragraphs.
Mr. Brooks, have you ever considered that part of the appeal of Trump and Carson is that they speak in provocative and near-incoherent out bursts, the only difference being that one does so loudly and the other softly?
I do not think it is an outsider that these voters want. I think they want someone who is brutish of mind. That *is* their "sensible."
Mr. Brooks, have you ever considered that part of the appeal of Trump and Carson is that they speak in provocative and near-incoherent out bursts, the only difference being that one does so loudly and the other softly?
I do not think it is an outsider that these voters want. I think they want someone who is brutish of mind. That *is* their "sensible."
14
Very impressive ideas and analysis of our current situation. Sadly, the partisan dysfunction seems to become more and more entrenched. Somehow the Republican party has become synonymous with punitive and moralistic attitudes about our own citizens who are struggling and immigrants in general.
How about you for President, Mr. Brooks?
How about you for President, Mr. Brooks?
"To reverse that gridlock we’ve got to find some policy area"
Are you kidding me, or yourself, with this pablum Mr Brooks?
This makes our gridlock sound simply like a bad choice that we make, out of immaturity or naivete. It completely ignores the structural reasons for this nation's dysfunctional politics. Unlimited private money, and the computerized gerrymander, both requiring more than just a 'better' candidate, or a more discerning voter, need to be recognized as things neither party should be willing to accept as legitimate 'politics'.
No amount of happy talk or wishful thinking is going to get us there. We're going to have to grind this out until one side or the other gains an edge and has the opportunity to do (or argue) for the right thing for the right reasons.
Are you kidding me, or yourself, with this pablum Mr Brooks?
This makes our gridlock sound simply like a bad choice that we make, out of immaturity or naivete. It completely ignores the structural reasons for this nation's dysfunctional politics. Unlimited private money, and the computerized gerrymander, both requiring more than just a 'better' candidate, or a more discerning voter, need to be recognized as things neither party should be willing to accept as legitimate 'politics'.
No amount of happy talk or wishful thinking is going to get us there. We're going to have to grind this out until one side or the other gains an edge and has the opportunity to do (or argue) for the right thing for the right reasons.
2
I'd say it's "economic determinism". It's been around much longer than the Clinton years. I learned the term in college back in the 70's. The problem we have, and David Brooks touches upon it but doesn't label it, is that we need to get politics out of our political system. Quite a contrary statement isn't it. If we don't get power and money out of the political process we will never stop attracting those who want power and money. Perhaps we need to bring back the draft? Not to fill out the military ranks, but to fill out the political ranks. The politician I would trust, is the politician who does not want to be a politician.
1
Mr Brooks is really off this time. He seems to think that it is outsider status that is determinative. These guys are popular not only because they are outsiders but they say what their supporters want to hear. And what is that exactly. It's an appeal to racism, exclusion, religious discrimination (Muslim), macho posturing, anger, self righteousness, appeals to force ( we will make those Mexicans, Chinese, pay) and an assertiveness that assumes we can force results and is apparently very satisfying for some. Mr Brooks doesn't seem to hear their message.
6
I come from a working class background. I am a retired researcher (35 years in Chemical and Oil Company research organizations. I was very lucky.
I suggest you look closely at the Fiver Foundation ( www.fiver.org ) which is operated out of New York. It provides mentoring all year round and summer camp experiences to children in NYC and parts of rural NY. If one child gets in, his or her siblings will get in also to build family unity. Its success rate is phenomenal. Young adults are now going to college.
This is a concentrated effort which helps a limited number of children. However, it does offer some clues as to how to make a change. It was started by a former finance industry veteran - not a bueaucrat or pol.
I suggest you look closely at the Fiver Foundation ( www.fiver.org ) which is operated out of New York. It provides mentoring all year round and summer camp experiences to children in NYC and parts of rural NY. If one child gets in, his or her siblings will get in also to build family unity. Its success rate is phenomenal. Young adults are now going to college.
This is a concentrated effort which helps a limited number of children. However, it does offer some clues as to how to make a change. It was started by a former finance industry veteran - not a bueaucrat or pol.
2
We all want someone who's sane and pays attention to scientific data in politics--the two things that today's Republican party of angry, anti-science, nearly insane zealots don't want whether it be the science on climate change, evolution, integration, or the the failure of tax cuts for the rich. What we have is what they want: a nutty neurosurgeon who's a religious fanatic, and a blathering billionaire who's seems to have a borderline (pun intended) personality disorder.
8
If only the republican voter base was pining for such a candidate! No, the republican base is angry; angry at how "their" country is transforming in front of their own eyes from a "European values" based society to a "multi-cultural" one. They fear not only being marginalized in their own country, but also the erosion of everything that made this nation great. They are angry and want a candidate who can take this fight to the progressives who are, in their view, taking the US away from the values that made her a great nation in the first place. Because their fears are misplaced for the most part, they can only recruit a demagogue to lead their cause.
5
A sensible Donald Trump - is that like a nuclear reactor without radiation?
If the idea is that we need a CEO to run the country, I'll pass. A country is not a business, it's a homeland. And the qualities that make a successful CEO are mostly not suited to a country based on democracy. And they are the very qualities that have led to things "going badly for those in the lower half of the income distribution". CEOs more than anyone else believe in using unfettered market forces to drive costs to a minimum, and these people represent little more than costs.
Interesting that the first Republican president's most famous quotation included the poignant intent "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth". Where is that party now?
If the idea is that we need a CEO to run the country, I'll pass. A country is not a business, it's a homeland. And the qualities that make a successful CEO are mostly not suited to a country based on democracy. And they are the very qualities that have led to things "going badly for those in the lower half of the income distribution". CEOs more than anyone else believe in using unfettered market forces to drive costs to a minimum, and these people represent little more than costs.
Interesting that the first Republican president's most famous quotation included the poignant intent "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth". Where is that party now?
14
Oh perfect. David Brooks is one of my favorite conservatives -- you know those folks who are rational and reasonable. . .like many of the more moderate Republicans I knew growing up when politics, when I become college-age in the turbulent late 60's and 70's pushed into many of our lives. But today, especially on that side of the aisle, being articulate, rational and balanced is eschewed in favor of declamatory rhetoric or insane ideas is playing to a crowd that itself is probably not that articulate or thoughtful (forgive if I offend those few that are!). Mr. Brooks is presenting in articulate, elegant language both linguistic forms and social norms that are not practiced by the very candidate of which he is speaking. We do not live in the age of admiring educated communication. Thoughtful, pragmatic, elegant speech hardly plays well in our rapid, linguistically abbreviated world. Therefore, articulation of ideas suffers or has to be retracted because of 'misspeaking' or worse, saying nothing -- e.g., 'stuff happens.' Good luck hoping this essay will make sense to those popularizing Trump. He probably would make fun of this. . .if he could wade through the sophisticated terminology.
5
Simply put, it's all about moving All citizens to Equality.
Is is about recognizing that all persons should have the Opportunity of acquiring a good education, living in a culturally nurturing, safe environment that fosters hope, integrity and responsibility.
It is not Socialism. It is not Right vs. Left.
It is an intelligent, very large investment in America. It increases the prosperity - the safety - the "better" life for all citizens. Rampant poverty, hunger, ignorance, broken homes and violence pull down and destroys civilizations.
It is common sense. It is about humanity to all, not just to those who were born into conditions that favor those in more favorable conditions.
I once had an administration an assistant, a 30-year-old Black woman, who told me every day she walked to school, she didn't know if she would be raped before returning home.
Honestly, search your soul: What if you were born in opposite conditions, with little opportunities to succeed? Without opportunity, how realistic are your possibilities?
I, a successful white male who has lived the "good" life, highly doubt I would have risen very far above them.
Is is about recognizing that all persons should have the Opportunity of acquiring a good education, living in a culturally nurturing, safe environment that fosters hope, integrity and responsibility.
It is not Socialism. It is not Right vs. Left.
It is an intelligent, very large investment in America. It increases the prosperity - the safety - the "better" life for all citizens. Rampant poverty, hunger, ignorance, broken homes and violence pull down and destroys civilizations.
It is common sense. It is about humanity to all, not just to those who were born into conditions that favor those in more favorable conditions.
I once had an administration an assistant, a 30-year-old Black woman, who told me every day she walked to school, she didn't know if she would be raped before returning home.
Honestly, search your soul: What if you were born in opposite conditions, with little opportunities to succeed? Without opportunity, how realistic are your possibilities?
I, a successful white male who has lived the "good" life, highly doubt I would have risen very far above them.
3
"The second big problem is that things are going badly for those in the lower half of the income distribution. People with less education are seeing their wages fall, their men drop out of the labor force....."
"Fortunately Democrats and Liberals see this the same way" (my paraphrase)...
Any outsider candidate who tried to get elected on such pseudo-consensus film-flam would be laughed out of the field.
This is not about "the lower half" or "people with less education" but about more like the vast majority enjoying a smaller and smaller share of an ever-more-efficient economy's fruits, regardless of education levels. Do the recently minted JDs, drowning in debt, litigating against law schools who sold them an unmarketable degree, count as "less educated"? (Actually, arguably so.)
The problem of this characterization is it's a whitewash on major structural changes few are prepared to acknowledge. The "social contract" of educational dues-paying (get a degree, get a job) and reciprocal loyalty among employer-employee, rich-less affluent as been cast aside. The human capital/homo economicus crowd (Wall Street/Bain/McKinsey/uchicago economics) exposed, asserted, and embraced the raw Hobbesian underpinnings (sauvez qui peut/Every man for himself).
"Fortunately Democrats and Liberals see this the same way" (my paraphrase)...
Any outsider candidate who tried to get elected on such pseudo-consensus film-flam would be laughed out of the field.
This is not about "the lower half" or "people with less education" but about more like the vast majority enjoying a smaller and smaller share of an ever-more-efficient economy's fruits, regardless of education levels. Do the recently minted JDs, drowning in debt, litigating against law schools who sold them an unmarketable degree, count as "less educated"? (Actually, arguably so.)
The problem of this characterization is it's a whitewash on major structural changes few are prepared to acknowledge. The "social contract" of educational dues-paying (get a degree, get a job) and reciprocal loyalty among employer-employee, rich-less affluent as been cast aside. The human capital/homo economicus crowd (Wall Street/Bain/McKinsey/uchicago economics) exposed, asserted, and embraced the raw Hobbesian underpinnings (sauvez qui peut/Every man for himself).
4
What those who fear the "Social" word understand is that our entire Constitution is a "social contract". It begins and ends with ideas about ensuring justice, domestic tranquility and the common defence(common means for everyone, for all Americans, in common), and to promote the general welfare. Not welfare like a monthly check but welfare as in caring for all the people of the nation.
It is a social contract-it is the 'signers' making clear what the aims of the new government should be and how the new nation shall be "constituted" in order to assure society-the people. More politicians need to learn that "social" does not mean communist; that general welfare does not mean free lunch.
How hard are these simple concepts? How did they get so conflated with the ideology of foreign dictatorships, or extreme right wing ideologues?
Unless more members of the government and the various states, and other people on the right side of the table, learn what real governing is, we'll all end with next to nothing out of the inability to understand our common language.
It is a social contract-it is the 'signers' making clear what the aims of the new government should be and how the new nation shall be "constituted" in order to assure society-the people. More politicians need to learn that "social" does not mean communist; that general welfare does not mean free lunch.
How hard are these simple concepts? How did they get so conflated with the ideology of foreign dictatorships, or extreme right wing ideologues?
Unless more members of the government and the various states, and other people on the right side of the table, learn what real governing is, we'll all end with next to nothing out of the inability to understand our common language.
3
Mr. Brooks, culture can be a fuzzy, inexact concept and it is perceived in myriad ways depending upon one's mindset. When liberals accuse conservatives of blaming the victims, because they say culture matters, it goes deeper than the word. "Culture" matters positively when police see the people who call from "good" (i.e. affluent) neighborhoods as needing respectful help and it matters negatively when those who call from "bad" (i.e. poor) neighborhoods are regarded as being less deserving of help or as criminals "too." It matters that the culture the conservatives may mean is in a single parent household which in their minds can only be a bad situation. A "culture" that is non-prejudging and information seeking is more likely to produce growth and compassion.
1
You were on target with a lot of your suggestions, though I've been wondering how just relocating inner city families gives them the income to afford apartments or homes in suburban neighborhoods.
I also marveled at your suggestion to open more charter schools. Their track record on balance is for more failures than traditional public schools, even though many charters reject or 'counsel out' special needs students and English language learners. Charters are re-segregating students according to test scores, family involvement, family wealth, students' special needs (or rather the lack of such special needs) and ethnicity. We're not supposed to use public monies to segregate students, but it's even more disappointing that even the NY Times and its columnists either haven't done their homework or condone such segregation.
I also marveled at your suggestion to open more charter schools. Their track record on balance is for more failures than traditional public schools, even though many charters reject or 'counsel out' special needs students and English language learners. Charters are re-segregating students according to test scores, family involvement, family wealth, students' special needs (or rather the lack of such special needs) and ethnicity. We're not supposed to use public monies to segregate students, but it's even more disappointing that even the NY Times and its columnists either haven't done their homework or condone such segregation.
5
So, this is just another way of saying that teen pregnancy and single parents maintain the cycle of poverty, no education, and crime.
Mr. Brooks wants to make that better by moving these citizens into your neighborhood. What a great idea. It will lower property values in 30 seconds!
So, lets start with Mr. Brooks' neighborhood, followed by the neighborhoods of every politician who supports this program.
Mr. Brooks wants to make that better by moving these citizens into your neighborhood. What a great idea. It will lower property values in 30 seconds!
So, lets start with Mr. Brooks' neighborhood, followed by the neighborhoods of every politician who supports this program.
I remember when Edwards ran with Biden and they LIED straight to everyone's face: they promised to bring the manufacturing jobs back to Illinois, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan. So much for that.
Thoughts:
"... I’m just a boring guy who knows how to run things."
So, what have your run? What are you running now? As a Wise Man said, "If you can do it ain't braggin'."
"We’ve got to devolve a lot of power from Washington back to local communities."
Mr. Brooks, you really need to get out and about more often. "Localism" is a major part of the problems you discussed. Try living in a small town that refuses to tax itself to improve its local schools, hire more local police, support a local medical center. Try living in a county whose economy was based on logging and fishing and who refuses to recognize the present, much less the future.
These are the people who send the recalcitrant 40 to the House and Ted Cruz to the Senate. These are the people who would rather cripple and/or stop government than compromise and have a functioning government.
To borrow an idea: Localism isn't the solution. Localism is the problem.
Mr. Brooks, every so often you sound like The Professor in Joseph Conrad's "The Secret Agent", "I have no future, but I am a force."
"... I’m just a boring guy who knows how to run things."
So, what have your run? What are you running now? As a Wise Man said, "If you can do it ain't braggin'."
"We’ve got to devolve a lot of power from Washington back to local communities."
Mr. Brooks, you really need to get out and about more often. "Localism" is a major part of the problems you discussed. Try living in a small town that refuses to tax itself to improve its local schools, hire more local police, support a local medical center. Try living in a county whose economy was based on logging and fishing and who refuses to recognize the present, much less the future.
These are the people who send the recalcitrant 40 to the House and Ted Cruz to the Senate. These are the people who would rather cripple and/or stop government than compromise and have a functioning government.
To borrow an idea: Localism isn't the solution. Localism is the problem.
Mr. Brooks, every so often you sound like The Professor in Joseph Conrad's "The Secret Agent", "I have no future, but I am a force."
9
Mr. Brooks, most of this is all well and good, but an ugly, deep-seated, gender bias is blatant in this sentence: "The girls raised in the better neighborhoods were more likely to marry and raise their own children in two-parent homes." The girls? Really? Um, what about the boys? Don't boys have something to do with producing children and then, hopefully, with taking lifelong responsibility for raising them?
Same sex marriage and parenting are well and good, but those are not the majority, and most likely not who you meant to highlight with your really offensive comment about "girls." Females don't independently produce children who have to be raised by single moms. Your insinuation that the problem lies solely in girls' sexuality and choices, and the implication that girls should be held to some other standard than boys, are deeply problematic and seriously offensive.
Same sex marriage and parenting are well and good, but those are not the majority, and most likely not who you meant to highlight with your really offensive comment about "girls." Females don't independently produce children who have to be raised by single moms. Your insinuation that the problem lies solely in girls' sexuality and choices, and the implication that girls should be held to some other standard than boys, are deeply problematic and seriously offensive.
4
I don't think he meant any of that. It's just a word.
I assumed he was referring to research showing that moving to a better neighborhood alone benefits girls more than boys, statistically. The girls are easily assimilated, and the research isn't as strong as for boys vis-à-vis the benefits of a move.
But I agree he needs to give up moralizing against single mothers; just stop.
But I agree he needs to give up moralizing against single mothers; just stop.
Nice idea. But with aamiddle class being eviscerated by the .01% and hedge fund pirates who "creatively destroy" their jobs and ship jobs to slave labor conditions in the third world, upward mobility in the US has disappeared. How about the gated communities accepting some of these same folks?
4
Everybody respects pollsters, don't they? Pollsters are above the fray and far more objective than any climate scientist. Who would dare tell a pollster a falsehood, and risk eternal damnation?
The basic premise of this column--that Trump would be a wonderful candidate, if only he weren't so outrageous--has no real meaning. A sensible version of Donald Trump wouldn't be Donald Trump at all. Without the bullying, the baldly unsupported claims of competence, the sneering, and the shamelessness, he would be someone else entirely. He isn't a "boring guy who knows how to run things"; he's a media creation who owns a brand name. The whole "outsider" business is actually another version of false equivalence. Mr. Brooks has admitted that the GOP has a serious competence problem, and that the current field of presidential candidates is entirely out of touch with reality. But if you can't stomach becoming a Democrat, all you've got is a fantasy about an outsider candidate who doesn't exist. Fantasy doesn't get the job done. Time to face up to the real situation.
4
There was a very successful program that brought so many working-class families solidly into the middle class. It happened under the GI Bill and involved low cost loans for housing and greatly expanded opportunities for education, among other benefits. It did involve higher taxes as well, but the middle class expanded and thrived up through the 1960s. Forget about relocating the ones who don't fit into preconceived ideas of what middle class life looks like and instead offer first-class public education, healthcare, job opportunities, and affordable housing for all.
6
Pope Francis was born outside the U.S., right? Oh well....
1
Here's the rub on charter schools. Here in Colorado far too many "charter schools" are code for creationism, global warming deniers, and "American exceptionalism" history re-writers. If you think that's the exception, look at the Texas school book board.
12
Also they are a means to weaken teacher unions. Brooks could have said the "the best schools". I don't believe there is evidence to support that the majority of charter schools are any better than than public schools.
2
David, you try hard to sound objective and thoughtful but it is clear you are paid to be a voice for conservatism. The problem is you can't do that today without joining the adults in America and stop apologizing for the fools in the Republican party who are destroying our democracy. One column every 2 months criticizing their extremism is not enough when you pander to their bad ideas each week. You are just as responsible for Trump, Carson, and Cruz as their not so mature followers.
7
David Brooks, Michael Gerson, Kathleen Parker... all the sane normally Republican pundits, have all spoken now. To read their more recent columns, you'd almost swear they were Democrats. So it has come to this in the GOP: if you are a centrist, even a right-leaning centrist, the wing-nut faction of the GOP has chased you out of your house and you can either sit home on election day, or vote for a democrat. Currently, they are the only adults in the (political) room, as Bush careens herky-jerky farther right to attract attention (all of it seemingly BAD). Jeb! is making W look like a mensch, and that's not easy. So David Brooks is out searching for the last sane Republican Centrist. The GOP better hope he finds one.
5
A "sensible trump" is like a "round square." What makes Trump appealing isn't just his "outsider" status. In fact it's precisely his lack of touch with reality--often political reality--that makes him a deus ex machina in the minds of many.
My solution would be the opposite. Politics will always be frustrating, but it can work if we accept that we will not always get what we want. Witness the budget deal apparently in the offing. Let's say, for the sake of argument at least, that Boehner and McConnell made a political calculation that it would be far more harmful to their party in 2016 and beyond to cater to the fringe at the expense of everyone else in the country. Does that mean they don't have principles? No, it means they are politicians--they should be. They should be responsive to what they think will move voters. It's up to us to care about the right things and vote.
Maybe we should embrace the system we've got instead of blaming "politics as usual" all the time. It's not getting us anywhere and neither will this fantasy "outsider."
My wife frustrates me all the time. (and I do her) It doesn't mean our marriage is broken, it just means we are people.
My solution would be the opposite. Politics will always be frustrating, but it can work if we accept that we will not always get what we want. Witness the budget deal apparently in the offing. Let's say, for the sake of argument at least, that Boehner and McConnell made a political calculation that it would be far more harmful to their party in 2016 and beyond to cater to the fringe at the expense of everyone else in the country. Does that mean they don't have principles? No, it means they are politicians--they should be. They should be responsive to what they think will move voters. It's up to us to care about the right things and vote.
Maybe we should embrace the system we've got instead of blaming "politics as usual" all the time. It's not getting us anywhere and neither will this fantasy "outsider."
My wife frustrates me all the time. (and I do her) It doesn't mean our marriage is broken, it just means we are people.
2
The idea of a "sensible Donald Trump" is a contradiction in terms. The idea of a clear-minded, good-hearted, and disingenuous Republican increasingly seems to be one, too. I honestly find it harder and harder to understand what planet Mr. Brooks thinks he lives on. Perhaps the distortions in his view of things is a product of the gradualness with which we've allowed political description to drift ever more rightward. For instance, where is the "center right" these days. My guess is that, with Trump, Carson, Fiorina, and the rest saying such outrageous things without concerted public shaming, political reporters are tempted to use the term to describe Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and even John Boehner and Paul Ryan. None of the latter look like Nelson Rockefeller or Bob Dole, or even Richard Nixon, to me. Something more to thank Ronald Reagan for, I suppose--and, I'm afraid, commentators like Mr. Brooks, who seems to imagine he himself stands in the middle somewhere. True, he has turned into a George Will. But is a Real Little Boy anymore?
2
The middle of the road outsider candidate ready to help was Obama. But he was kneecapped from the start by the bias Mr. Brooks supported through thick and thin.
13
Let's set aside the unrealistic suggestion that conservatives would spend large sums of money on most of David's fantasy exercise. It's never going to happen. They only want to cut government spending, not increase it. Ideology over reality.
What David says about moving families to middle-class neighborhoods so that the children in these families will do better in life as adults is mostly true, but not for the reasons he notes. It's rather that the schools in these middle-class neighborhoods are funded much better than the poor neighborhoods the families came from. Why? Because the U.S. is one of a very few developed economies that spends more per student on middle and upper class schools than schools in poorer neighborhoods. It's inane and contributes to the problem of so little socio-economic mobility.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
What David says about moving families to middle-class neighborhoods so that the children in these families will do better in life as adults is mostly true, but not for the reasons he notes. It's rather that the schools in these middle-class neighborhoods are funded much better than the poor neighborhoods the families came from. Why? Because the U.S. is one of a very few developed economies that spends more per student on middle and upper class schools than schools in poorer neighborhoods. It's inane and contributes to the problem of so little socio-economic mobility.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
10
So many easy platitudes and unstated assumptions, so little time.
"We’ve got to devolve a lot of power from Washington back to local communities. These neighborhoods can’t thrive if they are not responsible for themselves."
I have no idea what you are talking about. Which neighborhoods are under the 'control' of Washington? Last I looked, places under that sort of 'control' were put there to remedy civil rights injustices.
"Then we’ve got to expand charter schools. The best charter schools radiate diverse but strong cultures of achievement."
Possibly, but many fail, and many suck funding from public schools without providing true public education. And we pay for it all.
"Locally administered social entrepreneurship funds could help churches and other groups expand their influence."
What "influence"? Social? Financial? Business? This looks like a thin candy coating on the idea that private charities, rather than governmental agencies, should take care of our social problems.
"We’ve got to devolve a lot of power from Washington back to local communities. These neighborhoods can’t thrive if they are not responsible for themselves."
I have no idea what you are talking about. Which neighborhoods are under the 'control' of Washington? Last I looked, places under that sort of 'control' were put there to remedy civil rights injustices.
"Then we’ve got to expand charter schools. The best charter schools radiate diverse but strong cultures of achievement."
Possibly, but many fail, and many suck funding from public schools without providing true public education. And we pay for it all.
"Locally administered social entrepreneurship funds could help churches and other groups expand their influence."
What "influence"? Social? Financial? Business? This looks like a thin candy coating on the idea that private charities, rather than governmental agencies, should take care of our social problems.
8
You are red. So you know the problem is the republican congress that will do nothing at all to help the regular people. They are too ingrained in only catering to the rich donors. Nothing will change until we have term limits but I dont imagine that will happen in my lifetime.
3
Brooks is still "red" enough to press--in the words of his boring outsider hypothetical candidate--for charter schools. They will be the ruination of this country's educational system. If there is something about charters that's so appealing, why not put that focus on existing public schools and make them superb. I know as I grew up attending great public schools, grades 1 - 12. But the community, a small town, was behind it 100%. Parents, too! Those are the keys to good schools, not vouchers.
11
Brooks is hoping for an Eisenhower. I agree.
He is hoping for this now because he is getting desperate for someone to rescue the Republicans from impending electoral disaster.
I am hoping for someone to rescue us from a return of the neocons in foreign policy, and neoliberals with their trade agreements and outsourcing domestically, in the form of Hillary.
It is worth reminding that both parties tried to recruit Eisenhower. He chose the Republicans, in what they at the time felt was a considerable coup. Everyone knew he'd win, and the only question was which party would win with him.
Therein lies the problem -- we don't have anyone like that just now. He or she would have to arise from obscurity late in the game. That seems unlikely.
He is hoping for this now because he is getting desperate for someone to rescue the Republicans from impending electoral disaster.
I am hoping for someone to rescue us from a return of the neocons in foreign policy, and neoliberals with their trade agreements and outsourcing domestically, in the form of Hillary.
It is worth reminding that both parties tried to recruit Eisenhower. He chose the Republicans, in what they at the time felt was a considerable coup. Everyone knew he'd win, and the only question was which party would win with him.
Therein lies the problem -- we don't have anyone like that just now. He or she would have to arise from obscurity late in the game. That seems unlikely.
7
Eisenhower should have taken one look at McCarthy and run as a Democrat.
3
Steve -- I agree. Nixon too, his VP.
However, his election did gut the hard right wing of the Republican party, the Hoovers and Tafts and Deweys.
It got us Earl Warren instead of hate, hate, hate that FDR. The Republicans knew then that they'd been robbed of what they thought they'd won, because Eisenhower just wouldn't do it.
However, his election did gut the hard right wing of the Republican party, the Hoovers and Tafts and Deweys.
It got us Earl Warren instead of hate, hate, hate that FDR. The Republicans knew then that they'd been robbed of what they thought they'd won, because Eisenhower just wouldn't do it.
2
As David Brooks knows better than most, the potential for significant progress, rightward or leftward, is dependent on a responsive, functional Congress. There is no sign of that happening anytime soon. Ask John Boehner how long he thinks it will be before anyone like him, a very conservative legislator interested in legislating, might hope to strike one of those flawed but still useful laws that just might incrementally improve peoples lives. David Brooks will no doubt agree- not anytime soon. Fantasy Presidents, leftward or rightward, hoping to lead by inspiration or hopeful research are just that, a fantasy. For me its Bernie whom I love and for Republicans this week its the good doctor. Come November 2016 it will be the Iron Lady and an also ran, because until the 40 right wing radicals in Congress are removed we don't need a fantasy, we need a guardian.
And, sad to say, when the American voters wake up, that is who they will elect, some one to stand in the schoolhouse door and say, "not until you behave yourselves." So much for nifty policy experiments, improved schools, energy and climate legislation or "moving to opportunity."
And, sad to say, when the American voters wake up, that is who they will elect, some one to stand in the schoolhouse door and say, "not until you behave yourselves." So much for nifty policy experiments, improved schools, energy and climate legislation or "moving to opportunity."
2
We have the experience but choose not to apply it; create a 'work culture' a la FDR. If you can get a job in the marketplace great; if not society (yes government)provides you with a job. No public assistance, public works; everyone contributes. There's plenty to do, if you have a skill, you get to apply it or there's lots of other needs; childcare, visiting the sick, caring for the elderly, after school programs, sweeping up, patrolling the community, etc. If your in school or getting training (hopefully in free community colleges) your hours are adjusted accordingly. If you don't take part, you lose support.
2
Two years of mandatory national service at the age of 18 , without regard to race, economic status, educational experience, on a level playing field, might inculcate an appreciation for others who come from different backgrounds.
6
You do know the affluent would have no part of conscription, don't you?
2
Brooks dreams of a man and a time that has come before and maybe someday will come again following a national and global calamity that these current yokels both domestic and foreign are threatening to create:
Eisenhower and the 50s.
Eisenhower and the 50s.
1
So it really does "take a village",
Who said that?
Who said that?
5
Why not instead of “some former general or business leader with impeccable outsider status but also a steady temperament, deep knowledge and good sense” perhaps there was someone like a community organizer. Someone who through their experience saw value in government, didn’t automatically think government was the problem but could in fact, provide solutions.
Now would that be a candidate Mr. Brooks would support?
Now would that be a candidate Mr. Brooks would support?
3
Thanks for an inspiring op-ed, Mr. B. However, the reality may be recently found in the ugly partisan behavior by the five Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi. If your ideals could reach them, then you've got something to crow about. But as long as our embarrassingly dysfunctional congress continues on its current path, then we can only shrug, I guess.
4
Brilliant again Mr. Brooks. Penetrating, sensible and hopeful. So hopeful. In my long life, I have learned that some folks just don't like to share their good fortune...letting those less fortunate move into their hard-earned middle class neighborhood....well, you know...there goes the neighborhood. I applaud your position, and also hope that in time more people will realize that when the least of us are strong and happy, all of us are.
1
Very often I can't go beyond the first paragraph of a David Brooks Op-Ed piece....I can't believe what he's saying....but today I left after the first sentence. "The voters, especially on the Republican side, seem to be despising experience this year and are looking for outsiders." The part that gets me....that lies...is "especially on the Republican side". Not especially, but completely. The Democrats are not seeking anyone from the outside. They are content with the two major candidates and the one not so major candidate, Mr. O'Malley. Mr. Brooks never, almost never, tells it like it really is.He is not worth reading.
9
It's not just the poor who need help. So-called "middle class" families have seen their wages stagnate for over 30 years, going back to the dreamland of Ronald Reagan. Single paycheck families used to be common. Not anymore. Meanwhile, the super rich have gotten vastly richer. This can't continue. There will be riots in the streets one day if "the 1 percent" don't grow a conscience.
8
What Democrat do you have in mind?
3
A "sensible Donald Trump" is an oxymoron. The whole point of Trump's appeal is that he's crazy, careless and doesn't want to really do the job of being President.
5
Mrs. Clinton is the only person running for the office with no illusions about what it entails.
1
Donald Trump is correct, there are things wrong with and in America. BUT, this is a man who has made a living, and a really good one, by manipulating the law, twisting the law, and making sure that he never gets his fingers dirty. It is hard, no it is difficult for me to see a man or women like this as the President of the United States. No matter how nice a person, or how generous a person, or how trusting a person is, "IF" it is that person TELLING me these things. well ? It always reminds me of an old adage. " Self praise stinks!" That is all I hear from the Donald, and THAT alone makes it nearly impossible for me to believe in his candidacy or to ever vote for him.
3
Sorry, Mr. Brooks, there are no "sensible Trumps". Business leaders and military generals today are all about ego and feathering their own nests. It's all about getting into the top 1% global financial elite any way you can. DT doesn't want to run America - he wants to own it and boss it around. He's fired before he begins. Since money took over OUR political systems the qualified, socially conscious people who want to serve have been tossed aside to attack ads and out-and-out lies by "conservative' operatives. We need to strengthen public education, and nationalize standards, NOT destroy it with for-profit charter schools. If the wealthiest want better education they can home school their children in their palaces and pay BIG taxes to pay for the education of the other 99% of other children in the United States. The vast majority of Americans want a stronger union and a much stronger social safety net to help ALL Americans prosper. That is the exact opposite of what "conservatives" want. WE are at a crossroads in America and the Vast Majority is going to WIN!
10
David,
Very good. Now try tackling the things that aren't so pleasant.
the fact that a lot of ability and drives are shaped as much by genes as by environment.
the fact that you in supporting gay marriage have said that dad's in a household, or mom's in a household don't matter. Ergo traditional marriage.
The fact that what's driving most friction and wars is overpopulation. Look at the unbelievable population growth in Africa. But you can't talk about that without being called racist.
How about getting real and recognizing that illegal immigration costs a fortune when you work in costs of education etc., social services.
So the real problem is not what you have outlined, the real problem is political correctness and for that Donald Trump is great medicine.
Very good. Now try tackling the things that aren't so pleasant.
the fact that a lot of ability and drives are shaped as much by genes as by environment.
the fact that you in supporting gay marriage have said that dad's in a household, or mom's in a household don't matter. Ergo traditional marriage.
The fact that what's driving most friction and wars is overpopulation. Look at the unbelievable population growth in Africa. But you can't talk about that without being called racist.
How about getting real and recognizing that illegal immigration costs a fortune when you work in costs of education etc., social services.
So the real problem is not what you have outlined, the real problem is political correctness and for that Donald Trump is great medicine.
2
There are 0very intelligent and creative people who read David Brooks, and who comment here. Where is the think tank that taps into this ("exceptional?") assemblage of ideas?
Last year, I attended a City Council meeting in my affluent suburb. The item being discussed was subsidized, supported housing for young people who had survived homelessness, and were on a trajectory of self-support and community contribution.
My "neighbors" were concerned that there would be panhandling on our glorious streets, that back doors in the senior community would be broached by black people who were being handed housing in our community, etc.
The sensible-ness of building these 25 apartments for young people who had graduated from the school of hard knocks completely escaped the denizens of my community, despite the nearness of medical tech jobs, retail jobs, and institutes of higher learning and technical ed. All they could see was sharing the sidewalk with people who were not like their upper-middle-class selves. The proposal was passed by our somewhat liberal council. Then came the lawsuit, filed by the neighboring dermatologist, who said her patients would be frightened to come to early-morning appointments with "those people" so close by.
After a year, the long-empty bank building will finally be razed and these resourceful young people will, indeed, be housed in our midst.
David, that's the reality. How are you going to "sell" the relocation idea in the face of this ignorance?
Last year, I attended a City Council meeting in my affluent suburb. The item being discussed was subsidized, supported housing for young people who had survived homelessness, and were on a trajectory of self-support and community contribution.
My "neighbors" were concerned that there would be panhandling on our glorious streets, that back doors in the senior community would be broached by black people who were being handed housing in our community, etc.
The sensible-ness of building these 25 apartments for young people who had graduated from the school of hard knocks completely escaped the denizens of my community, despite the nearness of medical tech jobs, retail jobs, and institutes of higher learning and technical ed. All they could see was sharing the sidewalk with people who were not like their upper-middle-class selves. The proposal was passed by our somewhat liberal council. Then came the lawsuit, filed by the neighboring dermatologist, who said her patients would be frightened to come to early-morning appointments with "those people" so close by.
After a year, the long-empty bank building will finally be razed and these resourceful young people will, indeed, be housed in our midst.
David, that's the reality. How are you going to "sell" the relocation idea in the face of this ignorance?
6
But in fact, after the fuss, it happened.
See HBOs brilliant short series "Show Me a Hero"-the same story.
Nothing good gets done without a fight.
See HBOs brilliant short series "Show Me a Hero"-the same story.
Nothing good gets done without a fight.
Invest in infrastructure, including public daycare and schools up through college and graduate degrees and there will be not only plenty of jobs, but more liquidity for families to stimulate the consumer marketplace and raise the economy to generate more taxes to pay off the debt incurred for the original investments in infrastructure.
10
Bernie Sanders often repeats that the so-called one percent, who own, possess and control more than ninety-five percent of the wealth and resources of this nation, should be dislodged by the voters from controlling our government. He has made this the core theme of his presidential campaign, repeating it to the hundreds of thousands who flock to hear him speak.
In his column this morning, David Brooks seems to scornfully imply that this renders Senator Sanders “a statist,” who believes that the state should own everything.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. The voter should beware this gross distortion of and distraction from the progressive agenda which Bernie Sanders advances and promotes.
In his column this morning, David Brooks seems to scornfully imply that this renders Senator Sanders “a statist,” who believes that the state should own everything.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. The voter should beware this gross distortion of and distraction from the progressive agenda which Bernie Sanders advances and promotes.
8
David Brooks meets My Fair Lady.
Bravo David. Great column and great ideas. It seems like thinking out of the box but in fact, your suggestions are just plain common sense. Too bad the current crop of Conservative Republicans lack common sense or any sense at all.
2
I have a name - Colin Powell.
Any possibility that sensible Republicans could draft and rally around him?
Any possibility that sensible Republicans could draft and rally around him?
2
They tried circa 1996 and he declined.
2
He was also complicit in fooling the UN and the American public by leading us into the Iraq war. In broad day light.
1
That alone makes me want to vote for him.
Besides his disinclination to run, Colin Powell will be a few months shy of 80 years old on inauguration day.
We are seeing an older group of candidates, but knowing how much the job ages one, this seems to me just too old.
For better or worse, General Powell's time to consider running for President has passed.
Besides his disinclination to run, Colin Powell will be a few months shy of 80 years old on inauguration day.
We are seeing an older group of candidates, but knowing how much the job ages one, this seems to me just too old.
For better or worse, General Powell's time to consider running for President has passed.
Mr. Brooks: Your informed policy prescriptions are well-known to quite a few outsiders who have managed to keep a distance from the distracting noise of the infotainment industry. If am right, then perhaps Americans would be better served when they learn to filter, scan, and tune out the socially disabling effects of the infotainment industry. In any case, congratulations to you for promoting an important new skill Americans need for their well-being.
2
David says: ".....we have to get a little moralistic....". Correct. And it's about time, when it comes to justification of warfare. We have to return to the lost tradition of weighing the moral justification of warfare, and the recognition that unnecessary war is murder, the culpability for which lies with those who give the orders to go to war, not soldiers who must follow the orders.
7
The first problem to recognize is that "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is a myth. DC is a snake pit. Someone without so-called "infighting skills" would be lost. Just look at what happened to Arnold in California. An intelligent, honest man could not compete with the corruption and back stabbing.
The second problem to recognize is that politics does not actually break out into an easy right and left dichotomy. That is a sideshow to distract the public while the evil goes on in closed sessions.
Instead, what politics is, more than anything else, is money. What projects are going to get funded, who is going to be hired, and who is going to pay. The real struggle in politics is for who gets to ride in First Class. It has nothing to do with economic justice.
The third problem is that if the people realized that they have more in common than they have differences, they could take back the country. Who doesn't believe that we should have safe streets, good schools, good jobs, and good medical care?
Unfortunately, and I'm not sure if it's because these are genuine disputes or disputes entrenched by brainwashing, if the people ever did take back the country, i.e., if the inmates were allowed to run the asylum, they probably would get right back to arguing about guns, abortion, and homosexuals. And the folks who profit mightily from calculating on these divisions would be right there to exploit the situation.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The second problem to recognize is that politics does not actually break out into an easy right and left dichotomy. That is a sideshow to distract the public while the evil goes on in closed sessions.
Instead, what politics is, more than anything else, is money. What projects are going to get funded, who is going to be hired, and who is going to pay. The real struggle in politics is for who gets to ride in First Class. It has nothing to do with economic justice.
The third problem is that if the people realized that they have more in common than they have differences, they could take back the country. Who doesn't believe that we should have safe streets, good schools, good jobs, and good medical care?
Unfortunately, and I'm not sure if it's because these are genuine disputes or disputes entrenched by brainwashing, if the people ever did take back the country, i.e., if the inmates were allowed to run the asylum, they probably would get right back to arguing about guns, abortion, and homosexuals. And the folks who profit mightily from calculating on these divisions would be right there to exploit the situation.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
3
"Look, I don’t know if I’m red or blue."
Stop that. You've proved you are dyed in the wool red for going on 30 years now. Your make-believe pose of world weary, above-it-all centrism is as tiresome as it is mendacious. There's a barnyard term that cuts to the chase, but the Times won't allow it.
Stop that. You've proved you are dyed in the wool red for going on 30 years now. Your make-believe pose of world weary, above-it-all centrism is as tiresome as it is mendacious. There's a barnyard term that cuts to the chase, but the Times won't allow it.
3
David, You need to come to Atlanta and visit Tom Cousins, a remarkable developer/social activist who has created an organization called Purpose Built Communities. Tom and his followers transformed Atlanta's most crime-ridden neighborhood using the methods you describe. Now, with the help of people like Warren Buffett they are transporting their work to other US cities.
Michael Bloomberg
Has no loyalty to any political party, is totally independent of the donor class and sees politics as a public service. Fiscal conservative and social liberal. Extremely smart and extremely accomplished.
Has no loyalty to any political party, is totally independent of the donor class and sees politics as a public service. Fiscal conservative and social liberal. Extremely smart and extremely accomplished.
2
As to the importance of neighborhoods, my daughter was very much influenced by her peers. The actually pulled her up. A later PhD was the result.
1
Has David Brooks gone around the bend? “Sensible” and “Trump” don’t go together in any way. I’m not taking issue with the policy Mr. Brooks offered up, but you’d have to take Trump and the Republicans out of the picture to even begin to go down this road.
5
The problem with "devolving" to the local communities is that while some will enthusiastically embrace the concept (or are already there), many, many others would not. Some states don't want to take Federal $$ to improve the healthcare of their citizens, why would they get on board with another good idea to help folks?
If you toss out great ideas with no mandate and no or limited funding then you're back in the land of "A Thousand Points of Light". Nothing wrong with church bake sales to help the needy, but absent a strong, coherent, well-supported and funded national program we're just going to lose a couple more generations.
If you toss out great ideas with no mandate and no or limited funding then you're back in the land of "A Thousand Points of Light". Nothing wrong with church bake sales to help the needy, but absent a strong, coherent, well-supported and funded national program we're just going to lose a couple more generations.
7
As always, David Brooks thinks deeply, writes practically and respects differences. Why generals and CEOs are not qualified to be chief executive: they give orders, insist on obedience and fire people who don't measure up, or their underlings do it for them. The President is not a king. JFK was more visionary and inspiring, but LBJ was more effective because he knew how Washington gets things done. The President is at the top of a large pyramid of people he brings with him, appointees invisible to voters. Let's elect an insider wise enough to bring in and listen to outsiders such as Brooks suggests.
2
How about equal per-pupil educational funding for each student in the United States? For instance, Germans and Australians don't want some of their fellow citizens to be less educated than others, because they realize that it is bad for the future stability of their country. We essentially guarantee that poor American kids stay poor through bad schools (and then we blame them for being poor, criminalize poverty, ban access to family planning and keep wages low...neat huh?). That might be a start.
A lot of what Brooks is talking about in this column is so bizarre; morality, ethics, creating an additional underclass with vouchers (if your parent/guardian won't fill out forms for you, you are stuck), calling the only socialist standing a statist (evidence?), I don't even know how to process what he is talking about. But educating people aggressively and maybe raising the minimum wage might go a long way.
A lot of what Brooks is talking about in this column is so bizarre; morality, ethics, creating an additional underclass with vouchers (if your parent/guardian won't fill out forms for you, you are stuck), calling the only socialist standing a statist (evidence?), I don't even know how to process what he is talking about. But educating people aggressively and maybe raising the minimum wage might go a long way.
8
H.G. - your basic stance is, unfortunately, of another space/time continuum...
While this column makes some good points, it fails to recognize that no one needs "moralistic" finger-wagging. Give people jobs and decent schools, not lectures. Mr. Brooks, while you are a nice person, you fail to recognize that there have been too many other "moralistic" scolds that have themselves been exposed as outrageous hypocrites for anyone to stomach government morals policies. This vision of all of us guilt-tripping unwed mothers -- that idea isn't going anywhere, not with the reasonable people you are trying to convince.
6
Brooks gets this partly right when he says: "Pick someone outside the rigid partisan mentalities that are the real problem here."
But he doesn't quite see why Donald Trump, flawed though he is, speads a truth that has been denied by both political parties.
Over the long run, population growth is destroying the nation.
Don't believe me? Consider California. The population of California was a little over 10 million in 1950 and is now approaching 40 million.
To provide for all of the people, Los Angeles built a great freeway system but it's always jammed. Residents live under a sea of smog. Workers drive for an hour to suburbs, often in the desert. We pump water from the distant mountains. Now the water is running out.
Yet Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and San Jose are all sanctuary cities which openly defy the nations laws on immigration.
Californians and Americans in general are in denial about the impact of population growth. In fact, they never consider this issue because it is "politically incorrect" to do so.
Donald Trump finally said something many have long believed.
Illegal immigration must come to an end.
It is true that he used inflammatory language. But the underlying message is still being ignored by the electorate.
Donald Trump and Ben Carson are highly flawed candidates. But their success is an indication that the Republican party needs a reset.
Yes, Republicans can do better than Trump. But why throw away his key issue?
But he doesn't quite see why Donald Trump, flawed though he is, speads a truth that has been denied by both political parties.
Over the long run, population growth is destroying the nation.
Don't believe me? Consider California. The population of California was a little over 10 million in 1950 and is now approaching 40 million.
To provide for all of the people, Los Angeles built a great freeway system but it's always jammed. Residents live under a sea of smog. Workers drive for an hour to suburbs, often in the desert. We pump water from the distant mountains. Now the water is running out.
Yet Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and San Jose are all sanctuary cities which openly defy the nations laws on immigration.
Californians and Americans in general are in denial about the impact of population growth. In fact, they never consider this issue because it is "politically incorrect" to do so.
Donald Trump finally said something many have long believed.
Illegal immigration must come to an end.
It is true that he used inflammatory language. But the underlying message is still being ignored by the electorate.
Donald Trump and Ben Carson are highly flawed candidates. But their success is an indication that the Republican party needs a reset.
Yes, Republicans can do better than Trump. But why throw away his key issue?
1
We need a leader who will get things done. Not grandstand.
We need a leader who will collaborate. Not bark orders like a CEO.
We need a leader who will sympathize with the poor. Not demonize them and try to squeeze profit from them.
A businessperson is the last candidate we need. Mitt Romney and Carly Fiorina destroyed thousands of jobs (I would say 100,000 between them). They are completely unfit to serve.
We need a leader who will collaborate. Not bark orders like a CEO.
We need a leader who will sympathize with the poor. Not demonize them and try to squeeze profit from them.
A businessperson is the last candidate we need. Mitt Romney and Carly Fiorina destroyed thousands of jobs (I would say 100,000 between them). They are completely unfit to serve.
11
A sensible Trump is an oxymoron. And Mr. Brooks, you are red. It's not even close.
5
Sounds like Colin Powell, if you ask me.
Take closed public schools and turn them into community hubs. Let the neighborhoods run them. They can include pre-schools, senior centers, health clinics and neighborhood gardens. High school students could run a tea shop and serve the elderly; films could be shown on family nights. So many possibilities. It's all about community - the lack of which is the root of our political dysfunction.
3
Another article that supports the notion that a good POTUS is all we need! We have one. And his opponents--his enemies--have clearly demonstrated that we need a legislature that legislates.
Maybe the cancer of infantile obstructionism has hit a nerve. Maybe Boehner has decided to leave a real legacy. Maybe Ryan will ditch the Hastert rule. Maybe, together, Congressional leaders can perform a bipartisan surgery to isolate the cancer and end its existential threat to American politics.
Maybe the cancer of infantile obstructionism has hit a nerve. Maybe Boehner has decided to leave a real legacy. Maybe Ryan will ditch the Hastert rule. Maybe, together, Congressional leaders can perform a bipartisan surgery to isolate the cancer and end its existential threat to American politics.
14
I've been reading David Brooks for years and i still find him inscrutable. Is he a man in search of real 21st century solutions? Is he a man whose nostalgia for the 1950s blinds him to the realities of that period and drives his vision to recreate what never really was? Or is he an apologist for the GOP who tries to paper-over his party's loathing for information, science, and intellectualism by being every liberal's favorite Republican? A sensible version of Donald Trump - what is he talking about?
8
I love it when I see this kind of naivety and cluelessness on the part of anyone, especially Mr. Brooks, who places that much belief in the current GOP's relevance, or legitimacy. I think it's the same kind of obliviousness that leads the GOP to think they can try things like nominating a ticket with a Sarah Palin on it. I hope they all stay that way through the next election.
6
Perhaps the bizarre behavior exhibited by Republicans choosing to support off-beat, all personality/no substance amateurs versus seasoned pols might be a fad building over recent elections that is reaching its tipping point.
Since the disappointment of the George W. Bush Administration, even with the VP steering the ship of state, and despite the consistently obstructionist position taken by them, Republicans are unhappy about what they perceive as not enough being done to curtail our "Socialist" President.
Fed by a daily diet of FOX "News", Right Wing Radio, Tea Party Patriots rhetoric, Republicans hear nothing but despair, the loss of "their" country. Though they control the House and the Senate, they still feel defeated and betrayed. They fail to comprehend how a republic really works. They seem to understand that they must also win the Executive branch to effectively control the agenda.
Their plan? Apparently it is finding the most unqualified non-politician type whom they hope will mount a winning campaign returning them to the White House. Republicans have become so narrowly focused they fail to understand the Presidency is the only national office on which the entire country votes. The nation has been telling them it disagrees with what they stand for, yet the hearing-challenged GOP refuse to listen.
Until they do, Republicans are sure to face continued defeat.
DD
Manhattan
Since the disappointment of the George W. Bush Administration, even with the VP steering the ship of state, and despite the consistently obstructionist position taken by them, Republicans are unhappy about what they perceive as not enough being done to curtail our "Socialist" President.
Fed by a daily diet of FOX "News", Right Wing Radio, Tea Party Patriots rhetoric, Republicans hear nothing but despair, the loss of "their" country. Though they control the House and the Senate, they still feel defeated and betrayed. They fail to comprehend how a republic really works. They seem to understand that they must also win the Executive branch to effectively control the agenda.
Their plan? Apparently it is finding the most unqualified non-politician type whom they hope will mount a winning campaign returning them to the White House. Republicans have become so narrowly focused they fail to understand the Presidency is the only national office on which the entire country votes. The nation has been telling them it disagrees with what they stand for, yet the hearing-challenged GOP refuse to listen.
Until they do, Republicans are sure to face continued defeat.
DD
Manhattan
11
If not Trump (Yikes!) or Carson (God please save us from this fool!) or Rubio (Mr. Passive Aggressive.) then, wait for it, there's the abominable Ted Cruz! What is wrong with the Christian Right (Wrong?) in this country? This is the best they have?
2
Alas, poor David Brooks, reduced to fantasies about a sensible Donald Trump.
Don't worry, Mr. Brooks. Since American politics are the first to be fully commodified as a marketable service you can get any sort of president you like---- provided of course you pay a billion for each candidate feature you want. (Sorry, no discounts for the dirty little 99ers.)
Don't worry, Mr. Brooks. Since American politics are the first to be fully commodified as a marketable service you can get any sort of president you like---- provided of course you pay a billion for each candidate feature you want. (Sorry, no discounts for the dirty little 99ers.)
2
Yes David, but there is reason for hope! Since the candidates share the same values and political philosophies it is difficult to choose between them. However, Jeb Bush and Donald Trump have distinctly different versions of the events leading up to 9/11. These will doubtless be confronted at their next debate, thereby clarifying the history of what did and didn’t happen in the first year of President George W. Bush’s term in office.
Perhaps Mr. Brooks should declare his candidacy. Then the Republicans might actually have a viable candidate.
1
Other countries don't have concept of school district where if you stay in rich neighborhood your kids go to school with higher funds than if you stay in poor neighborhood. Health bill for this country is too high. USA has more obese people than any other country
They are partly to blame, what can they do if grocery stores are full of stuff filled with sugar, high fructose corn syrup. To me it seems more poor people have obesity problem than rich. Country has highest defense budget in world, not sure for what, is Mexico going to launch attack or Canada, we don't have border with China or middle east. I am not sure if any of the current candidate can solve the problem this country is facing. Ideas of Trump like rounding and deporting all illegal will definitely collapse economy like what Idi Amin did with Asians in Uganda. Considering radical views of candidates it seems it would be good if they maintain status quo. Hillary from Democrat seems would be good in that respect, sadly better candidates from Republicans are not leading in poll.
They are partly to blame, what can they do if grocery stores are full of stuff filled with sugar, high fructose corn syrup. To me it seems more poor people have obesity problem than rich. Country has highest defense budget in world, not sure for what, is Mexico going to launch attack or Canada, we don't have border with China or middle east. I am not sure if any of the current candidate can solve the problem this country is facing. Ideas of Trump like rounding and deporting all illegal will definitely collapse economy like what Idi Amin did with Asians in Uganda. Considering radical views of candidates it seems it would be good if they maintain status quo. Hillary from Democrat seems would be good in that respect, sadly better candidates from Republicans are not leading in poll.
The barrier to all of this is: Self-segregation.
People do not mix. They prefer to only engage with those who are similar. And it's across all demographics: race, class, gender, income, culture, sexual orientation, politics. We may work together, we may attend church together, we may wave at one another as we pass in the supermarket but we don't get to know one another. We don't form lasting relationships. And the result: we grow apart. This alienation of the other contributes to the "neighborhood" issue raised by Mr. Brooks.
People do not mix. They prefer to only engage with those who are similar. And it's across all demographics: race, class, gender, income, culture, sexual orientation, politics. We may work together, we may attend church together, we may wave at one another as we pass in the supermarket but we don't get to know one another. We don't form lasting relationships. And the result: we grow apart. This alienation of the other contributes to the "neighborhood" issue raised by Mr. Brooks.
1
In the last paragraph Mr. Brooks says he doesn't know if he's red or blue. Trust me, he's red. The main point he makes here is good. The federal government should create pilot programs to rebuild failing neighborhoods. And yes, let the program be run by local people. But beyond this, why does Mr. Brooks suddenly recommend charter schools? Why not improve the existing public ones? What about the relationship of citizens and law enforcement? What about making sure everyone has good medical care? What about getting rid of guns? And what about jobs? What about programs that will create opportunities for adults? Especially young adults? These are blue ideas, Mr. Brooks.
2
Had me for a second with "Basically, we've got to get socialist."
Then, lost me immediately with "..I don't mean..Bernie Sanders".
David Brooks knows the truth, but cannot bring himself to come clean! All those "socialist", government-run solutions will address the problems head on but, they are so far from "conservatism", support will come exclusively from the Ds.
The cultural "problem" (not getting married??) canNOT be legislated away. Surely Brooks know this too because he offers NO solutions there.
Keep going David. You're on the right track. Eventually, you'll be able to say it out loud: "Socialism is not communism and IT is what WE need MORE (not less) of to save our nation". Try it, you'll like it!!
Then, lost me immediately with "..I don't mean..Bernie Sanders".
David Brooks knows the truth, but cannot bring himself to come clean! All those "socialist", government-run solutions will address the problems head on but, they are so far from "conservatism", support will come exclusively from the Ds.
The cultural "problem" (not getting married??) canNOT be legislated away. Surely Brooks know this too because he offers NO solutions there.
Keep going David. You're on the right track. Eventually, you'll be able to say it out loud: "Socialism is not communism and IT is what WE need MORE (not less) of to save our nation". Try it, you'll like it!!
4
Block grants to shore up failed state policies and charter schools to break the teachers union. Sigh. Mr. Brooks stays on the dark side even though he acknowledges that nurture is more important than nature. Do republicans have any common sense?
1
One of your best, Mr. Brooks. You're my favorite conservative writer.
For a sensible version of Donald Trump, I nominate former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer. Gifted orator.
Not for sale. Harvard grad. Successful business man. He's not a "fantasy candidate".....he's REAL.....
For a sensible version of Donald Trump, I nominate former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer. Gifted orator.
Not for sale. Harvard grad. Successful business man. He's not a "fantasy candidate".....he's REAL.....
A former general?
Perhaps people do not recall that General Colin Powell declined running for president...repeatedly. Arguably, Gen. Powell could have been elected the first African American president - as he had credibility, experience, and bipartisan appeal.
But Gen. Powell realized that the rigors of a political campaign would put both he and his family through the ringer. That and he allegedly received numerous death threats.
Alas, the potential candidates with common sense that David Brooks describes in his column actually exist. They just don't want the job...
Perhaps people do not recall that General Colin Powell declined running for president...repeatedly. Arguably, Gen. Powell could have been elected the first African American president - as he had credibility, experience, and bipartisan appeal.
But Gen. Powell realized that the rigors of a political campaign would put both he and his family through the ringer. That and he allegedly received numerous death threats.
Alas, the potential candidates with common sense that David Brooks describes in his column actually exist. They just don't want the job...
It's not the lower half that is struggling, it's the lower 95% or so. Two professionals with two kids who spend 80K/year on school are worse off than a one income family back when schools (and roads) were good. We've utterly given up on shared investments or responsibilities. Those who think their neighborhood schools are good despite national problems are typically deluding themselves, as Chetty has also shown. Things are bad and are getting worse. We have fundamentally given up the notion of shared experience. There are lots of reasonable ideas in this article, but expanding divisive enterprises like churches will not help. Is this meant to be serious, or to point out that religion is most of the problem? Take away religion and the insanity it breads and we'd have lots of candidates for office. Religion is the anti pragmatism view. It makes progress impossible.
1
Great ideas Mr. Brooks - if only there were some great politicians to listen and implement them! Ok it's simplistic to say there aren't any at all - truthfully there are some members of one party that I can envision bending a bit in order to invest in the way you're describing. But the folks in the other party won't - cannot, because the party no longer believes in the concept of investment in governance.
What does this have to do w the Trump phenomenon? Impeccable credentials as an outsider with deep understanding of the issues has nothing to do with his appeal to the Republican electorate.
1
Is this some sort of phase that a guilt-ridden educated moderate Republican goes through now? Sitting back and pining for some thoughtful and positive leader like Dwight Eisenhower is fine until you wake up and find Col. Batguano is in charge- it must shake you to your core.
1
This is certainly a God's-eye view of things! We have to improve neighborhoods, create jobs, and improve culture. 'Put the quality of the social fabric at the center of our politics'. Sorry, but this is a deeply authoritarian vision. And I don't think we all agree on what the 'quality of our social fabric' should be.
Even if the Republican Party could find such an individual, the problem is with the construct of the political districts that elect the members to the House of Representatives. Until the culture of the House changes any forward thinking conservative is unlikely to be nominated or elected. There is simply no hope for another Dwight Eisenhower
In order for things to change, people like Mr. Brooks have to concede that the major reason for "...a polarized, dysfunctional, semi-corrupt political culture that prevents us from getting anything done." is the political strategy adopted by the Republicans upon the election of Obama in 2008. The strategy has been that what is good for the country will be good for Obama and therefore must be blocked at all costs. This strategy has resulted in an anti-American political party that effectively undermines the functioning of our democracy for its own benefit. We don´t need outsiders, we need more people inside and outside government calling out the Republicans for what they are doing to our nation.
2
Sounds like to me you are talking about a closet socialist after all. Not many Times readers will know who Nolan Dalla is, but here is what he proposes:
First he would run as a Republican. He feels like he would have a good chance against the current candidates.
Then, when he was debating Bernie Sanders in the general election debates, he would say, "Bernie, you are right. I quit."
First he would run as a Republican. He feels like he would have a good chance against the current candidates.
Then, when he was debating Bernie Sanders in the general election debates, he would say, "Bernie, you are right. I quit."
That would be Dwight D. Eisenhower but he's deceased. And he'd be considered even more communist today than he was by the right wing wackos back then.
Mr. Brooks, you give Trump and Carson far more credibility than they deserve. They are far less than just outsiders, they are both ignorant of the world around us, racists, misogynists, gun crazy and ready to start another war at the drop of a hat. They both have nothing but contempt for the poor and the middle class. In other words, they appeal to the GOP of today because they are extreme in a GOP captured by extremists. The fantasy candidate you propose would be called a RINO and shouted down in seconds. You should be asking how did one half of the two party system allow itself to be compromised by the extreme right and what if anything can be done to bring it back to a boring "Normalcy".
2
Cowbirds also like to drop their eggs in another species nest to raise. It allows the cowbird unfettered opportunity.
Unfortunately, the species that is the victim of cowbird depredation doesn't raise enough of it's own chicks to continue the species.
Therefore, both the cowbird and the species it preys upon to raise its chicks, both perish.
Unfortunately, the species that is the victim of cowbird depredation doesn't raise enough of it's own chicks to continue the species.
Therefore, both the cowbird and the species it preys upon to raise its chicks, both perish.
"The girls raised in the better neighborhoods were more likely to marry and raise their own children in two-parent homes."
Yeah, because God forbid they aspire to something more than marriage and kids.
Yeah, because God forbid they aspire to something more than marriage and kids.
2
Thank you David. It is staggering to me that we need experts to tell us that better neighborhoods lead to better outcomes for children. Really?
Why do so many cling to the romantic notion of kids in bad neighborhoods somehow rising above it and triumphing? For every one that makes it, ten do not. We repeatedly fund failed wars yet cannot seem to prioritize making our neighborhoods, our infrastructure, our education the best.
Why do so many cling to the romantic notion of kids in bad neighborhoods somehow rising above it and triumphing? For every one that makes it, ten do not. We repeatedly fund failed wars yet cannot seem to prioritize making our neighborhoods, our infrastructure, our education the best.
1
As a Democrat, I am thrilled with 2 major accomplishments of the Trump campaign so far. In trashing and slandering the wonderful Mexican people, he has probably destroyed any hope of Republicans carrying the Hispanic vote in the coming election. Secondly, in wisely advocating a single payer health plan, he has shown there is widespread support on the right for this enlightened approach, and he has single handedly moved the Republican party to the left. I may have to donate to his campaign!
3
Does Mr. Brooks, is that Dr.Brooks?, know that this experiment has been tried for many decades in many neighborhoods. Busing kids to better neighborhoods for education. Building public housing in middle class neighborhoods. Building low income schools, rehabilitation programs for juvenile delinquents and minimum security prisons in middle class suburbs.
Several things happened:
1) A new kind of middle class fright and flight took place, and the middle class neighborhood turned into a ghetto or a ghost town after twenty, thirty or forty years.
2) In places like Detroit, Oakland and some parts of Chicago the middle class declined in quality of life as "crimes went up, drug trafficking went up, truancy went up, police harassment and shooting went up..."
3) Short of "inter class and inter-race marriage" very little integration or improvement occurred.
Middle class "psychology" is not something that comes with one year, one decade or even one generation. It takes many generations to create a so called middle class value system.
And also, who said middle class is about "two parent family" only?
There are many older educated women who choose to have kids through their boyfriends, or through a sperm bank, or through adoption or through invitro fertilization programs. These women are not dumb or irresponsible or bad parents. I'd recommend late marriage and/or late parenthood with plenty of support from government and the community. Better for society.
Several things happened:
1) A new kind of middle class fright and flight took place, and the middle class neighborhood turned into a ghetto or a ghost town after twenty, thirty or forty years.
2) In places like Detroit, Oakland and some parts of Chicago the middle class declined in quality of life as "crimes went up, drug trafficking went up, truancy went up, police harassment and shooting went up..."
3) Short of "inter class and inter-race marriage" very little integration or improvement occurred.
Middle class "psychology" is not something that comes with one year, one decade or even one generation. It takes many generations to create a so called middle class value system.
And also, who said middle class is about "two parent family" only?
There are many older educated women who choose to have kids through their boyfriends, or through a sperm bank, or through adoption or through invitro fertilization programs. These women are not dumb or irresponsible or bad parents. I'd recommend late marriage and/or late parenthood with plenty of support from government and the community. Better for society.
I'm reminded of Hubert Humphrey's unfortunate comment in his 1968 campaign against Richard Nixon: "He's trickle-down Dick, and I'm trickly-up Hubert." In those days, people with high incomes were still paying high taxes. The tax cuts for those fortunate people didn't come until the Reagan years. How Reagan got those tax cuts through a Democratic Congress is still a mystery to me.
Nowadays, the Republican Party seems to cling desperately to the long-discredited trickle-down notion, which has been largely successful at the polls by means of voter suppression. Republican presidents from Lincoln through Ford must be spinning in their graves at the depths of depravity to which their once-honorable party has sunk.
Nowadays, the Republican Party seems to cling desperately to the long-discredited trickle-down notion, which has been largely successful at the polls by means of voter suppression. Republican presidents from Lincoln through Ford must be spinning in their graves at the depths of depravity to which their once-honorable party has sunk.
1
Ridiculous hypothetical...and the reality is....that the GOP no longer
really exists...
That is NOT hypothetical...and Mr. Brooks
YOUR wishful thinking...is just that wishful thinking.
The GOP has been killed by the Tea Party puppets of the greediest US
citizens in US history...the PAC masters who are trying to govern with their
puppets in the US congress and in every State of our Republic...
so
NO MORE wishful thinking...and let's try to simply get rid of the PAC
master puppets like Rubio...and Walker...et all who are funded by
the likes of KOCH and Adelson....et al..and talk about getting
rid of Citizens United...their tool...which they rule with..
Get REAL David..GET REAL !!!
really exists...
That is NOT hypothetical...and Mr. Brooks
YOUR wishful thinking...is just that wishful thinking.
The GOP has been killed by the Tea Party puppets of the greediest US
citizens in US history...the PAC masters who are trying to govern with their
puppets in the US congress and in every State of our Republic...
so
NO MORE wishful thinking...and let's try to simply get rid of the PAC
master puppets like Rubio...and Walker...et all who are funded by
the likes of KOCH and Adelson....et al..and talk about getting
rid of Citizens United...their tool...which they rule with..
Get REAL David..GET REAL !!!
1
David,
a person with 'impeccable outsider status' who believes they can run the executive branch of the United States is inherently lacking in 'steady temperament, deep knowledge and good sense'. Any person who says that they just 'know how to run things' and therefore can run all things is arrogant and insane. The government is not a business and attempts to treat it as such tend to end in disaster. Only in your universe can these fundamental points be overlooked in the service of a broader narrative.
And how the heck did this turn into a column about housing policy and integration? Why would this be the first thing that your perfect politician would automatically act on? It sounds like you had a daydream about some perfect candidate (congratulations President Brooks, what will be your first policy initiative...) and one draft later, we have this column.
a person with 'impeccable outsider status' who believes they can run the executive branch of the United States is inherently lacking in 'steady temperament, deep knowledge and good sense'. Any person who says that they just 'know how to run things' and therefore can run all things is arrogant and insane. The government is not a business and attempts to treat it as such tend to end in disaster. Only in your universe can these fundamental points be overlooked in the service of a broader narrative.
And how the heck did this turn into a column about housing policy and integration? Why would this be the first thing that your perfect politician would automatically act on? It sounds like you had a daydream about some perfect candidate (congratulations President Brooks, what will be your first policy initiative...) and one draft later, we have this column.
David Brooks says, " Every time conservatives say culture plays a large role in limiting mobility, progressives accuse them of blaming the victim."
I would say just the opposite.
Conservatives are much more apt to blame the poor person saying things like "their problems are the result of their poor choices."
Liberals are much more apt to say the problem is environment, which is to say culture.
Conservatives say these things mostly because it avoids having to fix the problem which might mean they would have to pay a little more in taxes.
I would say just the opposite.
Conservatives are much more apt to blame the poor person saying things like "their problems are the result of their poor choices."
Liberals are much more apt to say the problem is environment, which is to say culture.
Conservatives say these things mostly because it avoids having to fix the problem which might mean they would have to pay a little more in taxes.
1
"Ladies and gentlemen, I’m no politician. I’m just a boring guy who knows how to run things."
Where 'things' equals "places where everybody has to do what I say when I say it, because I'm the boss."
It's always fun to watch when those bozos suddenly learn what the real world of government is like.
Where 'things' equals "places where everybody has to do what I say when I say it, because I'm the boss."
It's always fun to watch when those bozos suddenly learn what the real world of government is like.
"We’ve got to reform and expand early childhood education programs, complete with wraparound programs for parents."
Since conservatives and neoliberals seem increasingly likely to believe that lack of educational opportunity is the major cause of economic inequality, we now see this phenomenon where conservatives try to create social services - but only in the context of education. They start by trying to create schools with "better teachers" and "higher standards," and eventually they realize what progressives have always known - inequality is caused by countless material factors that can't be addressed by teacher and curriculum quality. So suddenly they start talking about "wraparound programs for parents," but only in the context of education. They want to create privately run "welfare schools" so that they can dismantle the public welfare state. It goes without saying that carrying out this fantasy would be a disaster for the people it purported to aid.
"treat people as full human beings, not just economic units you fix by writing checks."
No one thinks people are "units you fix by writing checks." Instead, some people understand that a safety net costs money and is necessary for a stable and humane society. That doesn't mean that it's sufficient! But it is actually the most necessary thing for people without earning power, and conservatives oppose it at every turn. For them to turn around and say "it's not good enough! it's dehumanizing!" is entirely disingenuous.
Since conservatives and neoliberals seem increasingly likely to believe that lack of educational opportunity is the major cause of economic inequality, we now see this phenomenon where conservatives try to create social services - but only in the context of education. They start by trying to create schools with "better teachers" and "higher standards," and eventually they realize what progressives have always known - inequality is caused by countless material factors that can't be addressed by teacher and curriculum quality. So suddenly they start talking about "wraparound programs for parents," but only in the context of education. They want to create privately run "welfare schools" so that they can dismantle the public welfare state. It goes without saying that carrying out this fantasy would be a disaster for the people it purported to aid.
"treat people as full human beings, not just economic units you fix by writing checks."
No one thinks people are "units you fix by writing checks." Instead, some people understand that a safety net costs money and is necessary for a stable and humane society. That doesn't mean that it's sufficient! But it is actually the most necessary thing for people without earning power, and conservatives oppose it at every turn. For them to turn around and say "it's not good enough! it's dehumanizing!" is entirely disingenuous.
1
Mr. Brooks,
How are any of these grand ideas and thoughts like Trump?!?
It is good to see your thought process has evolved over the course of the year. (at least for now till you get a Putin you like.)
Your coming around to sense.
Why throw out the one candidate that closely fits your qualifications ?
Bernie Sanders is the closest you'll find to this Dream POTUS.
You already typed and thought it out. Admit it. Open your eyes and mind.
Come over to the Light. Embrace the Good. Be the change you believe is needed.
Go Bernie!
Get. Out. and Vote!
How are any of these grand ideas and thoughts like Trump?!?
It is good to see your thought process has evolved over the course of the year. (at least for now till you get a Putin you like.)
Your coming around to sense.
Why throw out the one candidate that closely fits your qualifications ?
Bernie Sanders is the closest you'll find to this Dream POTUS.
You already typed and thought it out. Admit it. Open your eyes and mind.
Come over to the Light. Embrace the Good. Be the change you believe is needed.
Go Bernie!
Get. Out. and Vote!
1
Not a great speech, as political speeches go. But I do agree with the idea of improving the culture, except it's not the working class culture I would improve as this point, it's the culture of Washington. That's where change needs to start, and one single businessman or businesswoman "who knows how to run things" isn't going to be able to run something that's broken down.
Lord Brooks must have had a very enjoyable ayahuasca milkshake before writing this hallucination.
People who have consumed ayahuasca report having spiritual revelations about the true nature of the universe and deep insight into how to be the best person they possibly can be, and many have a spiritual awakening and what is often described as a rebirth.
Lord Brooks sounds like he had a great trip.
Welcome back to reality, David, which by the way, one American political party - on the Republican side - is vehemently opposed to, although they do seem to enjoy your general penchant for fantasy and being out of one's normal mind.
People who have consumed ayahuasca report having spiritual revelations about the true nature of the universe and deep insight into how to be the best person they possibly can be, and many have a spiritual awakening and what is often described as a rebirth.
Lord Brooks sounds like he had a great trip.
Welcome back to reality, David, which by the way, one American political party - on the Republican side - is vehemently opposed to, although they do seem to enjoy your general penchant for fantasy and being out of one's normal mind.
30
Its probably worth abandoning the tradition of paying lip service to Republican commitment to "small, local government". It is a fantasy and one which becomes increasingly obvious as one as time goes on.
Republicans don't want to devolve power to the states and local municipalities, as was plausibly the case 20 or 30 years ago. They are interested in tearing down all government and all restraint that they think "infringes" on their rights. You never hear Tea Party activists say that local states are better judges of what is good for their citizens than the federal government; that is a somewhat reasonable proposition. The modern Republican party doesn't have an agenda; it has anger. It is looking to tear down whatever it can and try and run back the political, demographic, and economic clock to the Reagan years. They're looking to destroy anything that has come since then and return to some sort of halycon golden era that exists in their collective imagination.
Republicans don't want to devolve power to the states and local municipalities, as was plausibly the case 20 or 30 years ago. They are interested in tearing down all government and all restraint that they think "infringes" on their rights. You never hear Tea Party activists say that local states are better judges of what is good for their citizens than the federal government; that is a somewhat reasonable proposition. The modern Republican party doesn't have an agenda; it has anger. It is looking to tear down whatever it can and try and run back the political, demographic, and economic clock to the Reagan years. They're looking to destroy anything that has come since then and return to some sort of halycon golden era that exists in their collective imagination.
1
I agree with most of this column, with the exception of expanding charter schools, which conflicts with his admirable goal of empowering neighborhoods. Charter schools largely have been a disappointment ( Mr. Brooks' "best" can probably be counted on one hand). They do not serve neighborhood communities, are overwhelmingly non-inclusive, and are notoriously corrupt. I could go on and on...
The big issue is "business leader". Government is not about using visions of greed, wealth, discrimination, and profits to leverage taxpayer dollars for personal gain.
It is most advisable to keep business wrapped tightly in it's regulated corporate bubble, and put humans in charge of human destiny Like it or not, this pretty much eliminates the Republican party from relevance.
It is most advisable to keep business wrapped tightly in it's regulated corporate bubble, and put humans in charge of human destiny Like it or not, this pretty much eliminates the Republican party from relevance.
2
Dear Mr. Brooks, I appreciate the fact that you may have insomnia, but I must remind you some people while taking drugs like ambien may sleep walk or in your case write out their dreams and send them as columns.
1
Mr. Brooks, we face a lot of very big, national problems today. A mediocre and stagnant national economy, unsustainable deficits and debt, massive and underfunded entitlement programs, a huge immigration problem, and a world that is burning. There are no easy solutions.
What we need are real leaders willing to address these big problems. There's no nice way of putting this: Democrats are burying their heads in the sand. They won't even talk about these problems. Every policy they promote involves spending more money we don't have. Or creating a new government bureaucracy. Or adding a new privilege or right to be enforced by ever-grateful plaintiffs' lawyers. Meanwhile, our biggest problems get bigger.
This is not a time to compromise for compromise's sake. Abraham Lincoln did not end slavery by looking for areas where he agreed with the Democrats. Winston Churchill did not defeat Germany through compromise. Leaders solve problems by leading.
What we need are real leaders willing to address these big problems. There's no nice way of putting this: Democrats are burying their heads in the sand. They won't even talk about these problems. Every policy they promote involves spending more money we don't have. Or creating a new government bureaucracy. Or adding a new privilege or right to be enforced by ever-grateful plaintiffs' lawyers. Meanwhile, our biggest problems get bigger.
This is not a time to compromise for compromise's sake. Abraham Lincoln did not end slavery by looking for areas where he agreed with the Democrats. Winston Churchill did not defeat Germany through compromise. Leaders solve problems by leading.
There are too few real guffaws created by the NYTimes writers, but Mr. Brooks has done it today! I just finished wiping the coffee that my laughter spewed onto the wall of my office after reading what should be nominated for the "Oxymoron of the Year Award."
"SENSIBLE TRUMP"
These are THE "apparently contradictory terms" conjoined to create the finest oxymoron ever produced by Mr. Brooks. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Brooks for being the levity in my day.
"SENSIBLE TRUMP"
These are THE "apparently contradictory terms" conjoined to create the finest oxymoron ever produced by Mr. Brooks. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Brooks for being the levity in my day.
4
Whenever anyone says that we need to get the federal government out of policies, I know that history is being ignored.
If not for the federal government, probably slavery would have continued long after it ended, states would still be using chain gangs, blacks wouldn't have the right to vote in many places, and interracial marriage would still be widely banned among other infamous things.
The reality also is that things worth doing take money and raising taxes has become the third rail of American politics.
If not for the federal government, probably slavery would have continued long after it ended, states would still be using chain gangs, blacks wouldn't have the right to vote in many places, and interracial marriage would still be widely banned among other infamous things.
The reality also is that things worth doing take money and raising taxes has become the third rail of American politics.
2
You're sounding more and more like Bernie Sanders.You'd better pay more attention to what he's saying. The proposition that environment matters to student achievement has been a "liberal" position for the last 50 years although it's new to you. You think this is a "conservative" idea? Talk about spin.I think that Moving To Opportunity was a federal program.If power to influence education were to "devolve from Washington back to local communities",the changes you're touting never would have happened.Witness education in Texas where Thomas Jefferson seems to have been forgotten about and the abolition of slavery
was not what the civil war was fought over.A good example of "local control."
As for charter schools.In most cases they are convenient devices for affluent white communities to protect their children from the influences of other cultures. Please don't tell me about a couple of charter schools in Harlem.
was not what the civil war was fought over.A good example of "local control."
As for charter schools.In most cases they are convenient devices for affluent white communities to protect their children from the influences of other cultures. Please don't tell me about a couple of charter schools in Harlem.
1
Mr. Brooks hypothetical politician cannot exist. Saying "I'm not a politician" only results in making you one; and a rather gimmicky, presumptuous one at that.
As wary I am to say it, Ben Carson may be the guy Mr. Brooks is looking for, even though he's right in front of his face and hasn't figured it out yet.
Though Dr. Carson has demonstrated an alarming ability to say outlandish things, there's a number of things about this guy that could transcend the normal political boundaries (Trump's bombast cannot "transcend" anything) and emerge above all the rest of the conventional candidates.
I think supporters of Mrs. Clinton should be wary of Dr. Carson too.
As wary I am to say it, Ben Carson may be the guy Mr. Brooks is looking for, even though he's right in front of his face and hasn't figured it out yet.
Though Dr. Carson has demonstrated an alarming ability to say outlandish things, there's a number of things about this guy that could transcend the normal political boundaries (Trump's bombast cannot "transcend" anything) and emerge above all the rest of the conventional candidates.
I think supporters of Mrs. Clinton should be wary of Dr. Carson too.
You have got to be kidding? Says a few outlandish things; abortion is like slavery; the ACA is another form of slavery; German Jews with guns could've stopped the Holocaust; we should all read Mein Kampf! Give me a break! This man is a G-D moronic fool!!
I have always read Mr. Brooks' articles in the NYT. Also watch him on Firdays evenings on PBS. He is obviously well read when it comes to Philosophy, - including Economic Philosophy. The problem with this article is that he is clearly"Whistling the Wind", when it comes to the Republican House, and even a few Senators in the Senate. It is kike he is expecting Moses to come down from the Mount, (an Outsider so to speak), and enact solid programs to benefit us all. I would suspect that Mr. Brooks in some ways mirrors Nicolo Machiavellis' tome "The Prince" in which Nicolo explains the benefits of Pragmatism in serving for the good of all those under their Authority!
Seems to me that few to none have ever read Nicolos' Tome. That also includes the current Republicans Candidates for the Presidency. If they have read it they most likely Shredded the Document long ago, as it would clearly mean to them that a pure Elitist would be negatively impacted for practicing Pragmatism! It would basically mean that they would have to visibly give power to the People, - especially the working poor.
Seems to me that few to none have ever read Nicolos' Tome. That also includes the current Republicans Candidates for the Presidency. If they have read it they most likely Shredded the Document long ago, as it would clearly mean to them that a pure Elitist would be negatively impacted for practicing Pragmatism! It would basically mean that they would have to visibly give power to the People, - especially the working poor.
1
You want to know what is scary? That underneath unelectables Trump and Carson is Marco Rubio whom the media has been awfully quiet about. From BBC, he is young, good looking, articulate and can easily fool gullible Americans because he talks nicely!
"Where Rubio stands
Immigration: Used to be pro-citizenship but now takes a harder line
Iran: Will undo nuclear deal "on day one"
Pro-life: Right to life "trumps virtually any other right"
Healthcare: Repeal Obama's signature law that extends insurance to millions
Climate change: No evidence that humans responsible
China: Promises to "get tough" about human rights
Gun laws: Violence is due to mental illness"
"Where Rubio stands
Immigration: Used to be pro-citizenship but now takes a harder line
Iran: Will undo nuclear deal "on day one"
Pro-life: Right to life "trumps virtually any other right"
Healthcare: Repeal Obama's signature law that extends insurance to millions
Climate change: No evidence that humans responsible
China: Promises to "get tough" about human rights
Gun laws: Violence is due to mental illness"
4
As Don Corleone said, only children can afford to live in fantasy. In fantasy, Brooks attempts to escape the reality of his Republican party and Republican ideology.
7
We had that choice in Mitt Romney,but Dems didn't want to end their massive welfare state,so he lost.
He lost because of his disdain for the middle class 47% and the needy who just want free stuff. Oh, and he was boring and totally lacking in charisma...maybe it wasn't wide spread support for the welfare state that lost Mittster the election after all.support. Furthermore, his name has come up for 2016 - but after bragging about ACA being modeled after his health plan in Massachusetts he is dead in the water.
certainly sounds good. but how exactly would you do this? ay, there's the rub.
1
A Sensible Trump? That’s essentially oxymoronic, like saying we need a milder jalapeno, or physics without all that pesky math. Trump’s success thus far is entirely the result of not being sensible. He’s loud, coarse, and delivers a simplistic message that resonates with the ill-informed voters the GOP has been cultivating for many years. A sensible version of Trump would never get off the ground.......... except maybe as a Democrat.
"I'm no politician. I'm just a boring guy who knows how to run things."
Sounds like the beginning of a fairy tale or better yet a sci-fi movie, like "The Day the Earth Stood Still." But instead of saying: "Klaatu barada nikto," it would be: "Go get 'em, Gort!"
Sounds like the beginning of a fairy tale or better yet a sci-fi movie, like "The Day the Earth Stood Still." But instead of saying: "Klaatu barada nikto," it would be: "Go get 'em, Gort!"
What a column! I loved it where you threw in, "...expand the charter school system..." Don't you really mean, "... separate but equal (unequal) ..." like before the Supreme Court got involved.
2
Interesting. The free market policies extolled by Brooks have cratered, so he is now endorsing strong interventions at the local level.
Two observations:
1. Federal funding is needed. Charities do not have the cash flow to sustain these initiatives.
2. The jab at Bernie Sanders is uncalled for and inaccurate. Sanders is correct that these initiatives must be funded at the federal level. And Sanders is hardly a statist. While federal taxes and the U.S. government would provide the funding, services would be delivered by the private sector (health care) and at the local and state levels (education). Remember: Sanders' Vermont is the home of town meetings and local control.
Two observations:
1. Federal funding is needed. Charities do not have the cash flow to sustain these initiatives.
2. The jab at Bernie Sanders is uncalled for and inaccurate. Sanders is correct that these initiatives must be funded at the federal level. And Sanders is hardly a statist. While federal taxes and the U.S. government would provide the funding, services would be delivered by the private sector (health care) and at the local and state levels (education). Remember: Sanders' Vermont is the home of town meetings and local control.
1
Toronto has made a point of spreading around people depending on government assistance for years. The lack of us style mega-slums alone is worth the effort.
The obvious point Brooks miss is the social destructiveness the US greed class that goes well beyond money grubbing. What of the morality of the most ostentatiously wealthy class in the history of the world fighting tooth and nail to keep the society they live and thrive in out of their neighborhoods, away from their children, and out of their consciousness, except when given the opportunity to wall themselves off a little more thoroughly. When asked what he would do for the poor in Florida while running for governor, Jeb Bush responded, "probably nothing". That about says it all. That is the extent of interest by the US greed class in society beyond their gates.
The obvious point Brooks miss is the social destructiveness the US greed class that goes well beyond money grubbing. What of the morality of the most ostentatiously wealthy class in the history of the world fighting tooth and nail to keep the society they live and thrive in out of their neighborhoods, away from their children, and out of their consciousness, except when given the opportunity to wall themselves off a little more thoroughly. When asked what he would do for the poor in Florida while running for governor, Jeb Bush responded, "probably nothing". That about says it all. That is the extent of interest by the US greed class in society beyond their gates.
3
I guess the proper liberal impulse here is to hammer Brooks for not-quite-succeeding in his attempt to propose a Solution to Everything. But that is totally missing the point.
Brooks's point is that we'd be much better off if the outsider candidates were (carefully!) mapping the no-man's-land of the political middle, rather than trying to test out new, piquant flavors of extremism.
I have to agree with him. I thought Jim Webb tried to do this in his platform, and he was practically booed off stage by Anderson Cooper for NOT being a raving ideologue.
Cooper's ridiculous questioning of Webb was just another symptom of a political environment that has erupted into full-blown ideological narcissism, where everyone involved is obligated to live in denial of the fact that their side has ANY significant weaknesses.
So you can have bog-standard liberalism or conservatism, (from a familiar name, no less) or you can try Extra-Sharp Vermont Progressivism, which may or may not pair well with Carson's Mellow Hellfire Salsa. But there are vanishingly few options in the middle.
Brooks's point is that we'd be much better off if the outsider candidates were (carefully!) mapping the no-man's-land of the political middle, rather than trying to test out new, piquant flavors of extremism.
I have to agree with him. I thought Jim Webb tried to do this in his platform, and he was practically booed off stage by Anderson Cooper for NOT being a raving ideologue.
Cooper's ridiculous questioning of Webb was just another symptom of a political environment that has erupted into full-blown ideological narcissism, where everyone involved is obligated to live in denial of the fact that their side has ANY significant weaknesses.
So you can have bog-standard liberalism or conservatism, (from a familiar name, no less) or you can try Extra-Sharp Vermont Progressivism, which may or may not pair well with Carson's Mellow Hellfire Salsa. But there are vanishingly few options in the middle.
2
For some time now, family and friends have heard me say that the best solution to inequality in America is for people to undergo class transplants in their formative years. How ironic that something very much like that happened during the Clinton administration with the Moving to Opportunity program and, of course, that David Brooks is lauding that initiative.
Imagine how far ahead many Americans would be today if even a fraction of the national treasury that was squandered in Iraq had gone into relocating poor families into middle- and upper middle class neighborhoods.
Imagine how far ahead many Americans would be today if even a fraction of the national treasury that was squandered in Iraq had gone into relocating poor families into middle- and upper middle class neighborhoods.
3
Implementing these proposals means "spending". Try running that through a Republican Congress and their conservative base that cannot think of anything other than tax cuts.
3
David, you are 47 years too late. Esquire magazine offered us J. Irwin Miller and we declined. We just couldn't wait to coronate you know who. BTW if you don't know who J. Irwin Miller was, expand your education.
"Chartered School" is code for Tailored Ignorance. Students are not well served when evolution is not taught in science class, the labor rights struggle is not taught in social studies and myopic religious beliefs replace critical thinking. They are simply and obviously another attack on public education from the "right".
3
It is well known that integrating neighborhoods with different economic classes works, Singapore has shown this for years. Can you imagine any neighborhood in America agreeing to this? Liberal or conservative, when it comes to actually getting involved and living next to poor , different ethnic people will not work. Its who we are as a nation. Try and get "low rent:" housing in most upper and upper middle class neighborhood, even a few, and you see the resistance.
A conservative would be in the trash can immediately if they suggested any of this.
A conservative would be in the trash can immediately if they suggested any of this.
2
Insider? Outsider? I would settle for the Republicans nominating any reasonable adult. John Kasich is one. That is why he is so far behind with "likely Republican primary voters." Isn't the problem, not with the candidates, but with the Republican rank and file, that has gone off the deep end.
4
Devolving "a lot of power from Washington back to local communities" is absolutely something Republican's would like...especially those communities supporting the likes of Trump, Carson, Cruz, et al and any other politician willing to gut government services at the local level and create an anti-tax civic free-for-all. Good luck creating "environments of opportunity" in communities not even willing to fund rescue squads, libraries, public health departments, ad nauseum. Pure fantasy.
2
I stopped reading at "I'm just a boring guy..." HELLO! how about a boring girl??? Women know how to run things, too. Check your subtle sexism!
4
Bloomberg would be perfect!
1
"Ladies and gentlemen, our great and stunningly rich country has been impoverished by our energy policies.
A focus on creating hydrogen fuels with solar energy would rid us of any interest in the middle east or Afghanistan, and would create hundreds of thousands of jobs with the additional benefit of using precious oil for manufacturing plastics and pharmaceuticals rather than burning it. Climate change, too, could be averted.
Interest rates are historically low. We should bond a trillion dollars in infrastructure rather than spend the same amount in foreign wars."
And thank you for your time.
A focus on creating hydrogen fuels with solar energy would rid us of any interest in the middle east or Afghanistan, and would create hundreds of thousands of jobs with the additional benefit of using precious oil for manufacturing plastics and pharmaceuticals rather than burning it. Climate change, too, could be averted.
Interest rates are historically low. We should bond a trillion dollars in infrastructure rather than spend the same amount in foreign wars."
And thank you for your time.
2
Dave, why do you pick on single parents, particularly women? Women have far greater economic opportunity than they did 50 years ago and don't necessarily need to marry for economic reasons. They can support a child on their own or with the support of family,friends and community. They don't don't need to marry. Bad marriages are far more destabilizing and traumatic for children than being raised in a good environment by a single parent. Our current president was raised by a single mother with the help of her parents. The same goes for former President Clinton. Stop blaming the ills of society on single parents. If you want to reduce teen pregnancy or unwanted births then advocate for free birth control and access to contraceptives. This is real problem.
2
Obama was primarily raised by his grandparents, an intact and married couple. He was only influenced by his mom. Big difference. Statistics simply do not bear out your theory on single moms.
SEMI-corrupt? That's something like saying a woman in the earliest stages of her first trimester is "SLIGHTLY pregnant."
3
As to your red/blue confusion, don't you think the red you may have subscribed to in your earlier years has been dirtied and turned into a color unknown to yourself. I can't believe in myself, that you, with all of your knowledge could subscribe to the "my way or the highway red" of today. Maybe today's blue is yesterday's red. Maybe you're not confused. Maybe they are.
Mr. Brooks, please just announce your support for Bernie Sanders and your renunciation of the Republican party. You know you want to. There's nothing left for you with those fools.
4
"The first implication of this research is that neighborhood matters a lot."
Why it almost sound like "It takes a Village".
I wonder who said that?
Why it almost sound like "It takes a Village".
I wonder who said that?
3
Great ideas!. But, unfortunately, many present day politicians won't implement them due to the fact that the positive results of the Moving to Opportunity program were only observed over a long period of time. Most politicians can't see beyond their next re-election.
Also, the Republicans won't like this since the idea originated with Bill Clinton, and they hate anything associated with him.
Also, the Republicans won't like this since the idea originated with Bill Clinton, and they hate anything associated with him.
2
Love ya David but I have worked hard to get away from undesirable populations. I don't want them next door to me or around my kids. Would you? Those of us who worked hard to get here don't feel like giving handouts to those who don't work for it!
Would you be amenable, Simon, to "giving handouts to those who" work very hard, but can't earn enough to make ends meet? How about to those how worked hard for years, but were let go when the factory closed and now cannot find work to pay the bills? Or, Simon, are you just not particularly interested in helping a neighbor, regardless of the circumstances? You know, sort of like the 1%.
This is classic David Brooks, wishing for what doesn't and couldn't exist to avoid dealing with the reality of what is.
3
The biggest problem is the focus on the Presidency alone. If someone is really serious about moving the needle in Washington, they need to step up with a slate of allies -- in both parties -- who are running for Congress.
That was the whole point of a political party in the first place: not to provide an alternative identity, but to say "elect enough people in my party and we'll get these things done." It provides a power base and a corps of people who have the right skills and positions to enact an agenda.
Outsiders have no such power base, no means of enacting their agenda other than by further strengthening the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch. (And even then, there are a lot of Federal agencies to staff -- will it be nothing but cronies?) It's all well and good to campaign against the Establishment, but guess who's sitting in Congress, remembering insults and controlling the purse strings? We've seen already just what this Congress thinks of an "electoral mandate", and I don't think highly of anyone who thinks they can get things done on the strength of their own rhetoric and expertise -- those people are just narcissists.
That was the whole point of a political party in the first place: not to provide an alternative identity, but to say "elect enough people in my party and we'll get these things done." It provides a power base and a corps of people who have the right skills and positions to enact an agenda.
Outsiders have no such power base, no means of enacting their agenda other than by further strengthening the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch. (And even then, there are a lot of Federal agencies to staff -- will it be nothing but cronies?) It's all well and good to campaign against the Establishment, but guess who's sitting in Congress, remembering insults and controlling the purse strings? We've seen already just what this Congress thinks of an "electoral mandate", and I don't think highly of anyone who thinks they can get things done on the strength of their own rhetoric and expertise -- those people are just narcissists.
3
The most useful suggestion in Brooks' column is, "... we’ve got to get integrationist, to integrate different races and classes through national service...." In other words, we need to bring back the draft and make it for everyone this time.
The draft accomplishes a number of positive things but, in reference to Brooks' column, it is the best way to integrate races, classes, and ethnic groups. As with sports teams, working together intensely as a group makes one quickly look past the superficial to the essential.
The draft also would do much to further the equality of women, and not just because it institutionalizes equal pay for equal work. I have always thought that the reason the Equal Rights Amendment fell three states short of ratification after Congress approved it in the 1970s, was not so much the conservative women who organized against it as it was that women were not subject to the draft during the Viet Nam War. Had women come out and supported a draft for women -- the ultimate equality: an equal chance to get killed -- it would have been the boost the ERA needed.
Yes, there are logistical problems in a universal draft at this point, inasmuch as the military only needs relatively few people and it can't drain its resources training ten times as many. But those things can be worked out, especially if one embeds it in a concept of universal service, something like a domestic Peace Corps, which one would enter after Basic Training.
The draft accomplishes a number of positive things but, in reference to Brooks' column, it is the best way to integrate races, classes, and ethnic groups. As with sports teams, working together intensely as a group makes one quickly look past the superficial to the essential.
The draft also would do much to further the equality of women, and not just because it institutionalizes equal pay for equal work. I have always thought that the reason the Equal Rights Amendment fell three states short of ratification after Congress approved it in the 1970s, was not so much the conservative women who organized against it as it was that women were not subject to the draft during the Viet Nam War. Had women come out and supported a draft for women -- the ultimate equality: an equal chance to get killed -- it would have been the boost the ERA needed.
Yes, there are logistical problems in a universal draft at this point, inasmuch as the military only needs relatively few people and it can't drain its resources training ten times as many. But those things can be worked out, especially if one embeds it in a concept of universal service, something like a domestic Peace Corps, which one would enter after Basic Training.
2
The only candidate, of either party, who will ever get anything done in Washington will be one with charisma and great speaking ability who is also willing to use it. Obama seemed to be that man in 2008, but then he never used the bully pulpit. We need a president who is willing to shame and condemn the wealthy on a daily basis until we have meaningful opportunity for all in this nation. A president who will call out the charlatans of society, condemn the latter day P T Barnums and shame the bankers. And we need a president willing to educate the American people.. not some new Republican president that sells snake oil budget kitchen table balancing or austerity as meaningful economic solutions for a nation. We need a President that says to Paul Ryan, the apparent future speaker of the house, and others like him. No you are not bright, you are not a wonk because anyone who believes in Ayn Rand is a schoolboy and a fool, and do it, again and again on a daily basis. We need a Franklin Roosevelt of speech and spirit combined with a Teddy Roosevelt of trust busting noise.
4
When you find him/her, please phone in the nominee to the DNC. They have been a little short of spirit since the humiliating appointment of GW. But the Dems have a way of eating their own: Gore divorced himself from the positives of the Clinton years (the last time most of us felt good about America) and look what happened. The Dems ran away from Obama, who though flawed, actually helped us come out of the ashes of the Bush years, and look what happened in the mid-terms. Now I hear Dems criticizing Hill, without acknowledging that she is better than any GOP any day. So what we get is vanilla, if we are lucky; a GOP pres if we are not.
It's difficult to harmonize the phrases "former general" and "impeccable outsider status."
1
Arizona is ground zero in the charter school fetish experiment. Students do no better or no worse with charter schools. Some charters do better than district public schools, some district public schools do better than charters.
The big difference? There is no $24 million slush find in the state budget the governor (called "The Scott Walker of the West") uses to back construction loans for public, taxpayer paid district schools the way there is one to back construction loans for private, for profit charter school owners.
Privatizing profits, socializing costs. That's what charters are all about.
The big difference? There is no $24 million slush find in the state budget the governor (called "The Scott Walker of the West") uses to back construction loans for public, taxpayer paid district schools the way there is one to back construction loans for private, for profit charter school owners.
Privatizing profits, socializing costs. That's what charters are all about.
2
"Ladies and gentlemen, I’m no politician. I’m just a boring guy who knows how to run things. But I’ve been paying close attention and it seems to me that of all the problems that face the nation, two stand out. The first is that we have a polarized, dysfunctional, semi-corrupt political culture that prevents us from getting anything done. To reverse that gridlock we’ve got to find some policy area where there’s a basis for bipartisan action."
Wow, I'm inspired. This sounds like a real leader. A "boring" guy whose central charge is to pass legislation that the parties already agree on. Ignore the really tough problems. Ignore what might be the best policy. Just seek out compromise for compromise's sake.
Thank GOD Lincoln, Washington, Churchill, and others never followed this kind of advice!
Wow, I'm inspired. This sounds like a real leader. A "boring" guy whose central charge is to pass legislation that the parties already agree on. Ignore the really tough problems. Ignore what might be the best policy. Just seek out compromise for compromise's sake.
Thank GOD Lincoln, Washington, Churchill, and others never followed this kind of advice!
David Brooks' fantasy of what rank and file Republican voters are willing to support is nothing short of bizzare.
Is Brooks saying that "It takes a village"?
3
Has Mr. Brooks just announced he is running for the presidency as a Republican candidate?
"Look, I don’t know if I’m red or blue. If you want a true outsider, don’t just pick someone outside the political system. Pick someone outside the rigid partisan mentalities that are the real problem here."
Good luck trying to find sensible compromisers among the present bunch.
"Look, I don’t know if I’m red or blue. If you want a true outsider, don’t just pick someone outside the political system. Pick someone outside the rigid partisan mentalities that are the real problem here."
Good luck trying to find sensible compromisers among the present bunch.
2
"Has Mr. Brooks just announced he is running for the presidency as a Republican candidate?"
If so, this is the day to lose all hope and move to Canada.
If so, this is the day to lose all hope and move to Canada.
****
YAY! David is back at his best. The political ego is set aside and he distinguishes himself as the best. I give this column 4 stars.
YAY! David is back at his best. The political ego is set aside and he distinguishes himself as the best. I give this column 4 stars.
Cheers from here, too ! Thank you, David Brooks, for writing what so many of us are thinking . Am presently reading your boom "The Road to Character", excellent. NOW , a way to prevent Ben Carson and Donald Trump from rising further ? Please ?!
You miss one reality that destroys your assumptions, the middle class you speak of is being eliminated from our society. During the Clinton Presidency, the middle class grew because of a strong economy which pulled many people out of the dregs of poverty, regardless of where they lived.
The reverse social engineering of the Bush tax cuts and conservative politics have stifled economic growth and caused the middle class to shrink considerably. There is no longer a place to move families because everyone is either poor or very rich and the wealthy don't want to even see the poor let alone have them living in their neighborhoods and going to school with their children.
The reverse social engineering of the Bush tax cuts and conservative politics have stifled economic growth and caused the middle class to shrink considerably. There is no longer a place to move families because everyone is either poor or very rich and the wealthy don't want to even see the poor let alone have them living in their neighborhoods and going to school with their children.
1
It sounds as if Hilary is your candidate, David. Good choice.
6
Mr. Brooks has discovered that if we could change the values of poor communities, it would help end the chain of failure seen among them.
This idea differs profoundly from the current view, that blames outside forces for all their failures.
Most of the misery seen in these communities is due to their chronic bad judgment. The chain of failure includes : teen moms, missing dads, non-existing parenting, rejection of education, rejection of authority, choosing crime over legitimate work, drug use, etc.
The great mystery is how does one change the value system of a population? Perhaps a start might be to drop political correctness, and try some tough love. Tell these communities that it is there own poor judgement that traps them in the cycle of poverty and not the invisible hand of "society".
We should provide aid to those who embrace this reality and bootstrap them. The notion of entitlement is destructive. That which is free is rarely valued. Requiring positive actions does not degrade their dignity. Rather, should begin to help restore it.
This idea differs profoundly from the current view, that blames outside forces for all their failures.
Most of the misery seen in these communities is due to their chronic bad judgment. The chain of failure includes : teen moms, missing dads, non-existing parenting, rejection of education, rejection of authority, choosing crime over legitimate work, drug use, etc.
The great mystery is how does one change the value system of a population? Perhaps a start might be to drop political correctness, and try some tough love. Tell these communities that it is there own poor judgement that traps them in the cycle of poverty and not the invisible hand of "society".
We should provide aid to those who embrace this reality and bootstrap them. The notion of entitlement is destructive. That which is free is rarely valued. Requiring positive actions does not degrade their dignity. Rather, should begin to help restore it.
The reality is that we are not going to get a "sensible version of Trump" until Citizens United is overturned.
Sensible candidates are repelled or prevented from running by the large sums of money required to run.
We are left with candidates with Billionaires in their pockets, self-funded candidates like Mr. Trump, or candidates who start fundraising from small donors years in advance of the election.
Sensible candidates are repelled or prevented from running by the large sums of money required to run.
We are left with candidates with Billionaires in their pockets, self-funded candidates like Mr. Trump, or candidates who start fundraising from small donors years in advance of the election.
4
Mr. Brooks do you think any of the Tea partiers who control the gang of 30 freedom Caucus that now controls the House would agree to funding this program or agree to the integration that it calls for?
To begin moving people in bulk from one place to another is a huge, expensive task. It would be better to implement programs that sanctioned the movement of companies into poorer areas, improve transportation, training and housing in these areas. But this would also cost huge amounts of money which Republicans reject out of hand.
Your assumption in this article is that contact with the white population will improve the morals and thus economic position of the great unwashed mostly minority poor. How condescending and aristocratic.
To begin moving people in bulk from one place to another is a huge, expensive task. It would be better to implement programs that sanctioned the movement of companies into poorer areas, improve transportation, training and housing in these areas. But this would also cost huge amounts of money which Republicans reject out of hand.
Your assumption in this article is that contact with the white population will improve the morals and thus economic position of the great unwashed mostly minority poor. How condescending and aristocratic.
1
Why is David Brooks wasting brain power pining about a Sensible-Version of Donald Trump? "Sensible and Trump" is an oxymoron.
4
What Mr. Brooks fails to mention is that local land use regulations, zoning, have been used for 90 years to prohibit apartments, and even small houses on small lots, from being built in middle class and upper class cities and towns. Several of the state supreme court decisions upholding zoning from constitutional challenges in the 1920s defend zoning explicitly based on its use for economic (and consequently racial, ethnic and national origin) segregation. This system has been called "American Apartheid" by housing scholars and critiqued in depth by Prof. Myron Orfield and others. Only a few states and localities (including the state of Oregon) have banned this "exclusionary zoning" and required all local governments, including wealthy suburbs and middle class cities and towns to zone land for apartments, modular homes and affordable housing projects. Until this reform is carried out Mr. Brooks' other proposals will be ineffective.
First, Mr. Brooks now is backing away from his identity as a Republican, as if that label has acquired the same visceral odiousness that his brethren have attached to the term "liberal."
Second, if Mr. Brooks is enamored of fact-based reality and university research, then he cannot advocate for more charter schools. First, they are the means by which neighborhood schools will be eviscerated. But second and more importantly, all the major studies of charter school's effectiveness have found that, despite a few positive standouts, charter schools by and large have not performed -- even by public school standards.
And when he attempts to sling around terms such as "socialist" and "integrationist" with clever "new" meanings, he's getting cutesy.
Your position in the next Clinton White House is nearly assured, Mr. Brooks. Say goodbye to your former brethren, who -- when you say you don't know if you're Red or Blue -- know very well where you stand.
Second, if Mr. Brooks is enamored of fact-based reality and university research, then he cannot advocate for more charter schools. First, they are the means by which neighborhood schools will be eviscerated. But second and more importantly, all the major studies of charter school's effectiveness have found that, despite a few positive standouts, charter schools by and large have not performed -- even by public school standards.
And when he attempts to sling around terms such as "socialist" and "integrationist" with clever "new" meanings, he's getting cutesy.
Your position in the next Clinton White House is nearly assured, Mr. Brooks. Say goodbye to your former brethren, who -- when you say you don't know if you're Red or Blue -- know very well where you stand.
1
All you say creates 'values', and that is not where the society wants to go. Whose values? Who is anyone to be a judge of some one else's values. All you said puts the government in the value business, which is really the role of economics. Yes, 'the hidden hand' vs. the heavy hand of government.
An irrational party doesn't get to have 'sensible' cantidates. Even John Ellis "my brother kept us safe" Bush has already tapped into the only thing that defines modern Republicans; denial.
3
Nothing will change unless and until Congressional districts are logically redrawn.
Millions of the underclass have tried to keep families together in the face of multinational corporatism and trickle-down. Their honest effort was rewarded with banks (including the nation's largest) steering them towards subprime loans based on their race. In addition to taking their home, this has annihilated their equity and ability to afford college.
Bernie Sanders is able to define what socialism is. It does American no favors to have a politician lie about what a word means. It is idiotic. Idiocy is killing this nation. Enough.
You still believe that Republicans have a branding problem because as a corporatist, you see everything in terms of marketability. Republicans have a logic, ideas and credibility problem.
Millions of the underclass have tried to keep families together in the face of multinational corporatism and trickle-down. Their honest effort was rewarded with banks (including the nation's largest) steering them towards subprime loans based on their race. In addition to taking their home, this has annihilated their equity and ability to afford college.
Bernie Sanders is able to define what socialism is. It does American no favors to have a politician lie about what a word means. It is idiotic. Idiocy is killing this nation. Enough.
You still believe that Republicans have a branding problem because as a corporatist, you see everything in terms of marketability. Republicans have a logic, ideas and credibility problem.
2
Well David the Republucan Party made its bed with its Southern Strategy, its nay saying members of Congress, the Tea Party, and the Freedom Caucus. All of the conservative Republican political pundits had predicted and hoped the outsiders would be gone by now. Hasn't happened. The monster created by the thirst for votes is out of control. God help this country if Carson, Trump or any of the Republican candidates is elected in 2016. Your Party has placed this country in the most precarious position it has ever been in.
2
David, you've done it again!
You've described a fantasy Republican candidate who in all likelihood (if he or she existed) would be a moderate Democrat.
The Republican Party in your mind no longer exists anywhere else (unless you include Dems in your dreams). It's time you came out of the closet and confess that you are not a 21st century Republican. It's the mirror of Ronald Reagan's quote that he did not leave the Democratic Party; rather the Party left him.
You seem to care about people, especially those in need. You seek sane immigration policy and reasonable control of deadly weapons. You don't allow religious faith to trump science when it comes to policy.
So stop pretending to be a Republican partisan - clinging to a mix of memory & fantasy. You may find it quite liberating.
You've described a fantasy Republican candidate who in all likelihood (if he or she existed) would be a moderate Democrat.
The Republican Party in your mind no longer exists anywhere else (unless you include Dems in your dreams). It's time you came out of the closet and confess that you are not a 21st century Republican. It's the mirror of Ronald Reagan's quote that he did not leave the Democratic Party; rather the Party left him.
You seem to care about people, especially those in need. You seek sane immigration policy and reasonable control of deadly weapons. You don't allow religious faith to trump science when it comes to policy.
So stop pretending to be a Republican partisan - clinging to a mix of memory & fantasy. You may find it quite liberating.
4
I of of course agree with your stated advantages of better neighborhoods what was left out was how strongly we humans identify with our surroundings. I am defined, in part, by where I live; such is the nature of our existence.
Who? How?
Somehow, this works (and has worked for centuries) for immigrants. All of them, from everywhere.
The fundamental problem is moral, assuming responsibility for one's life and actions. Religious revival? Unfortunately, the only one going is by the Islamists, which is why they attract converts from our lower classes.
Somehow, this works (and has worked for centuries) for immigrants. All of them, from everywhere.
The fundamental problem is moral, assuming responsibility for one's life and actions. Religious revival? Unfortunately, the only one going is by the Islamists, which is why they attract converts from our lower classes.
Political culture and economic inequity are second-tier issues. The first-tier issues are climate change and over-population. Of course, it would take a real outsider to campaign on these priorities.
2
Sorry, but saying "We've got to have charter schools" is wrong and implies some intrinsic superiority to those schools, which is not accurate.
"We've got to have better schools" is more accurate and avoids selling the charter concept as if it is the only educational solution to decreasing generational poverty. It is not.
"We've got to have better schools" is more accurate and avoids selling the charter concept as if it is the only educational solution to decreasing generational poverty. It is not.
4
Good ideas, Mr. Brooks, but its hard to imagine that doing these things will be cheap. Where would the money come from if not the federal govt - Lord knows local governments don't have the means to change neighborhoods - they've been trying forever (that's what housing projects were all about). I don't doubt that the best charter schools 'radiate cultures of achievement' but so do the best public schools. So far, I've haven't seen the evidence that on the whole, charter schools do this better or cheaper than public ones. The real key to better schools is not whether they are charter or public, but better parents - parents who demand the best from their children and then demand schools that allow their children to reach their potential.
I too would like to see a leader willing to run with the best ideas, no matter where they come from. But that leader would look nothing at all like Donald Trump. To even use the term 'sensible Trump' deflates the dream.
I too would like to see a leader willing to run with the best ideas, no matter where they come from. But that leader would look nothing at all like Donald Trump. To even use the term 'sensible Trump' deflates the dream.
2
So, when are you running?
Sounds like Obama before the Republican hate machine got him.
6
Well put Mr. Brooks!
Time to open up the window and bring some fresh air in to the political discussion.
Time to open up the window and bring some fresh air in to the political discussion.
Its a scary thing when the entire Republican field is so spectacularly unsuited for the presidency that we need to start inventing platforms for hypothetical candidates.
11
Just what are all these "things" that the government is not "getting done"?
If war is the health of the state, the US seems pretty healthy.
I'd prefer a lot less of that sort of "help" and "getting stuff done".
If war is the health of the state, the US seems pretty healthy.
I'd prefer a lot less of that sort of "help" and "getting stuff done".
Just look at a number of the responses to this column and those responses which are most favored by readers and you need look no further to understand why our politics is so dysfunctional and polarized.
Those reactions pretty much establish that however much self-proclaimed liberals and progressives claim to be more open-hearted and open-minded, knees jerk and ad-hominin attacks predominate when confronted even by an anodyne proposal made by the "other" (i.e., ignorant or evil or hypocritical or self-serving or all of the above plus more) side.
As one who thinks of himself as a progressive on many issues, my heart aches.
Those reactions pretty much establish that however much self-proclaimed liberals and progressives claim to be more open-hearted and open-minded, knees jerk and ad-hominin attacks predominate when confronted even by an anodyne proposal made by the "other" (i.e., ignorant or evil or hypocritical or self-serving or all of the above plus more) side.
As one who thinks of himself as a progressive on many issues, my heart aches.
2
If you removed from the equation the reality and extent of the dysfunctional extremism that's taken over the right, you might have a point.
It's not only liberals, as you present here, that are reacting to this state of affairs.
How about those of us with enough knowledge of history to show what can result from extremist thinking of this kind?
My feeling is that folks on the 'right' have legitimate concerns, as do people on the 'left' - but those on the right are being sold a bill of goods, to a much greater degree than are those on the left, by a party that no longer really represents, but badly exploits them. I think David is missing that fact.
And I'm sure not as many "knees jerk" as you might think, when people consider some of Trump's proposals - I think many are reacting more to the type of character that's doing the proposing.
It's not only liberals, as you present here, that are reacting to this state of affairs.
How about those of us with enough knowledge of history to show what can result from extremist thinking of this kind?
My feeling is that folks on the 'right' have legitimate concerns, as do people on the 'left' - but those on the right are being sold a bill of goods, to a much greater degree than are those on the left, by a party that no longer really represents, but badly exploits them. I think David is missing that fact.
And I'm sure not as many "knees jerk" as you might think, when people consider some of Trump's proposals - I think many are reacting more to the type of character that's doing the proposing.
Right. That's why I'm voting for either Hillary or Bernie.
6
Interesting!
After years of defending the increasingly indefensible Republicans Brooks may be finally seeing the light to look elsewhere for loyal opposition. The increasingly anti-science (anti-evolution, anti-climate change, anti-funding research) and increasingly anti-human rights (anti-planned parenthood and the right to abortion, anti-gay, and anti-health care for all) Republicans finally crossed the line into irrelevance.
Is Brooks turning purple?
Now we may need to pray for the salvation of Ross Douthat's from the inferno of Republican ideology.
After years of defending the increasingly indefensible Republicans Brooks may be finally seeing the light to look elsewhere for loyal opposition. The increasingly anti-science (anti-evolution, anti-climate change, anti-funding research) and increasingly anti-human rights (anti-planned parenthood and the right to abortion, anti-gay, and anti-health care for all) Republicans finally crossed the line into irrelevance.
Is Brooks turning purple?
Now we may need to pray for the salvation of Ross Douthat's from the inferno of Republican ideology.
6
This is happening through non-profits but with no govt. support or imperative, just a grain of sand, smaller than "local", which won't impact beyond its little scope. The "culture" or public ethos isn't there yet and I believe it's because all of those suggestions require a modicum of concerted and personal "work". People would have to recognize their role in the present "common bad" and embrace the idea that these efforts for the common good include themselves along with the "others" in the bigger and longer picture. That's a tall order for the majority of current American generations who drank the Koolaid of Meritocracy which was spiked with Social Darwinism making us all blind drunk to the fact that merit-based achievement and upward mobility was unattainable for over half of the population who entered the race miles from the starting line. A miniscule few persevered against all odds or got lucky, and happily left their peers behind. These happy few now obstruct our view of the increasing masses who are still just trying to get to the starting line, or got trampled, or gave up. It's a rosy theory, but that person would never get elected either because "Common Good" is passé.
1
Shouldn't be such an impossible task, after all the founding fathers and first presidents were all outsiders. More recently Wilson and Eisenhower were both outstanding presidents (although I have a bone or two to pick with Wilson).
"Semi-corrupt"? What does that mean? Are we a little corrupt? Partly corrupt? Which part is corrupt? Meaningless, really. And how is Sanders a "statist" and not a "socialist"? The socialism that Brooks suggests would be administered by the state - one way or the other. And since one party is adamantly opposed to spending tax dollars on the poor and working class - the rest of the column is wishful thinking. Absurd.
1
Mr. Brooks,
You left out one important obstacle in your formulation of the ideal, functioning society: Racism.
Until that is eliminated in this country, your society will not exist.
You left out one important obstacle in your formulation of the ideal, functioning society: Racism.
Until that is eliminated in this country, your society will not exist.
3
If a candidate announced that social science research from Harvard showed a new way to combat poverty, the Republican response would be to defund social science research.
10
After thoroughly debunking it in the minds of most of their misled and exploited supporters- by labeling those scientists as liberals etc.
What drugs were you on when you wrote this? Really. Americans simply don't share this particular vision. I agree it would be great to move in this direction but remain convinced it will only be real in your fantasy world.
A centrist, common sense approach has so little sizzle that Americans take virtually no notice of it when it raises it's head. Yes, I wish it weren't so, but this is not the time to go around spouting off about ideas that have clearly become completely irrelevant!
A centrist, common sense approach has so little sizzle that Americans take virtually no notice of it when it raises it's head. Yes, I wish it weren't so, but this is not the time to go around spouting off about ideas that have clearly become completely irrelevant!
2
Your "candidate" says: "The first is that we have a polarized, dysfunctional, semi-corrupt political culture that prevents us from getting anything done. To reverse that gridlock we’ve got to find some policy area where there’s a basis for bipartisan action."
Maybe we should also focus on the corruption (which is anything but semi-). That is what derails programs that might benefit the common good - mostly corporate interests who want Congress to do their bidding and get ALEC to write laws at every level of government that do just that. There is little time left for providing for the populace - and people on both sides of the political spectrum know this, hence the "unusual" candidates gaining support - Trump, Carson and Sanders.
There will be no fixing gridlock if there is no incentive for those engaging in it to stop, and they are amply rewarded for maintaining the status quo. The Trans-Pacific Trade deal (a secret!!) is just one egregious example.
So your "reasonable Trump" begins by misunderstanding the first problem - he/she won't even get to the second.
Maybe we should also focus on the corruption (which is anything but semi-). That is what derails programs that might benefit the common good - mostly corporate interests who want Congress to do their bidding and get ALEC to write laws at every level of government that do just that. There is little time left for providing for the populace - and people on both sides of the political spectrum know this, hence the "unusual" candidates gaining support - Trump, Carson and Sanders.
There will be no fixing gridlock if there is no incentive for those engaging in it to stop, and they are amply rewarded for maintaining the status quo. The Trans-Pacific Trade deal (a secret!!) is just one egregious example.
So your "reasonable Trump" begins by misunderstanding the first problem - he/she won't even get to the second.
2
One of your better columns. I could nitpick, but what you're saying makes a hell of a lot more sense than the typical conservative boilerplate prescriptions.
Devolving the government to local control in the communities Mr. Brooks is talking about has proven to be a disaster. Governance is impossible where there is no history of governance and no tax base revenue to govern with.
The best public schools radiate cultures of achievement and diversity and there are many thousands more of them than the best charter schools.
School and relocation vouchers only work when there are schools and communities willing to accept them. Poor communities find themselves holding vouchers with nowhere to cash them in. Wealthy communities across America are redistricting themselves to make sure they remain segregated
You are venturing into Dear Abby and Parade Magazine territory here Mr. Brooks.
The best public schools radiate cultures of achievement and diversity and there are many thousands more of them than the best charter schools.
School and relocation vouchers only work when there are schools and communities willing to accept them. Poor communities find themselves holding vouchers with nowhere to cash them in. Wealthy communities across America are redistricting themselves to make sure they remain segregated
You are venturing into Dear Abby and Parade Magazine territory here Mr. Brooks.
3
What a neutral sensible sounding solution, but local control is not a path to end inequality. America does have "local control": our school systems. This has produced widespread inequality in both education and housing. In fact the very program that Mr. Brooks praises was viewed with horror in the suburbs as inner city kids and their families were introduced into their neighborhoods and schools.
Whenever you hear the words "local control" substitute "it isn't going to happen here" whatever the lofty goal might be.
Whenever you hear the words "local control" substitute "it isn't going to happen here" whatever the lofty goal might be.
3
When David Brooks types,
"We’ve got to devolve a lot of power from Washington back to local communities. These neighborhoods can’t thrive if they are not responsible for themselves."
How can he do so without taking into account that so many states are engaging in, and will further engage in, a race to the bottom?
These are states led by the GOP and practice a brutishly selfish politics that elevate above all else the desire for the lowest possible tax rate - damning the consequences that ultimately end up hollowing out necessary social services.
It seems as if Mr. Brooks has given up on our current political scene and so does nothing more than write wispy sermons about what never can be as long as his GOP is peopled by those who agree that providing healthcare to all is no different than the Final Solution.
"We’ve got to devolve a lot of power from Washington back to local communities. These neighborhoods can’t thrive if they are not responsible for themselves."
How can he do so without taking into account that so many states are engaging in, and will further engage in, a race to the bottom?
These are states led by the GOP and practice a brutishly selfish politics that elevate above all else the desire for the lowest possible tax rate - damning the consequences that ultimately end up hollowing out necessary social services.
It seems as if Mr. Brooks has given up on our current political scene and so does nothing more than write wispy sermons about what never can be as long as his GOP is peopled by those who agree that providing healthcare to all is no different than the Final Solution.
4
"The second big problem is that things are going badly for those in the lower half of the income distribution. " The inequities in income distribution Bernie Sanders points out are not addressed in this column, probably because fixing this would cause the bloated income of Mr. Brooks, his friends, and the people who fund the NYTimes, to decrease.
No no! No leveling of wealth! Let's just move some poor families into better neighborhoods so those neighborhoods too can crash and burn.
No no! No leveling of wealth! Let's just move some poor families into better neighborhoods so those neighborhoods too can crash and burn.
1
I must credit Brooks for some positive thoughts and comments. Having said that, Brooks has been hoodwinked by the charter school movement, which has no honest advantage over public schools except for lack of accountability. He also seems to be rather ignorant about the actual political philosophy of Bernie Sanders, or he would have to acknowledge that Bernie is in truth much closer to Brooks' "mystery candidate" than any other living human being.
8
Yes. Let's do all that. And Brooks should lead the way, week in and week out with his column and TV appearance. Push the Teaderthals (thanks Maureen Dowd) to foster a culture of cooperation. Wait. Full stop. The Tea Party doesn't understand the meaning of cooperation.
Thanks David, next big idea?
Thanks David, next big idea?
4
Sure, many of the ideas you mention sound good, but it takes money to make them work. We can't simply shift control to local communities and tell them to more like the middle class without helping them make the transformation.
Yes, let's derail the professional politicians who are going to want to continue their wars, both the wars in the Middle East that waste billions of dollars and the culture wars that damage institutions, like the NEA, that make communities richer.
Yes, let's derail the professional politicians who are going to want to continue their wars, both the wars in the Middle East that waste billions of dollars and the culture wars that damage institutions, like the NEA, that make communities richer.
Donald Trump knows haw to get things done. You give money to the politicians to get their favorable ear for your business. This is, and always has been corrupt. Donald claims he won't be bought but he will still have to make promises and give away things of value to make deals. This leads to more corruption on a wider public scale. Mr. Trump has always promoted the rich and built casinos, housing, golf courses, etc. for their consumption. He has none nothing for the middle class and poor and has harmed millions of people with his planned bankruptcies for profit. He is not a nice man and nice people are beginning to wise up and support Mr. Carson.
1
Sounds like Socialism. Just like Sweden. Next, we'll be inviting all the Syrian migrants to settle in Manhattan and send their kids to charter schools. Whoever thought this up may be an outsider, but will never become an insider.
1
We already did. Small town Lewiston in Maine hosts a thousand Somalis. It's great, actually. We can do it, we have the capacity to absorb refugees.
1
The problem is not finding a reasonable candidate, it's finding reasonable Republicans to vote for him.
8
Great article but one critique - charter schools actually work against the social integration your are advocating. Charter school are purposefully segregationist and have an economic incentive to cull out those who struggle in an educational setting. If you want to merge these two societies, you must include all, something charter schools cannot do. Don't make two different school systems, improve the one we have. Make every American public school great and we will be the envy of the world.
6
David Brooks' analysis more or less captures the content and attractiveness of what Europeans mean by democratic socialism.
6
As many before me have stated, the toxicity of the political environment at this time tacitly removes the potential for the emergence of a reasonable, bright, capable leader. Degrees of this toxicity have existed for many years, but the era of the "sound bite" and the success of particular media experiments (Limbaugh, FOX News, etc.) have served to heighten the polarity.
History teaches us that citizens eventually tire of this condition and do return to a more civil discourse. Until then, it's as frustrating as it can get for all the reasonable people willing to do the nation's business.
History teaches us that citizens eventually tire of this condition and do return to a more civil discourse. Until then, it's as frustrating as it can get for all the reasonable people willing to do the nation's business.
Actually the Republican party leaders don't want an outsider, however it seems that more and more Americans want someone that is not controlled, corrupted and inclined to tell lies for political expediency. Trump and Carson is an alternative to a Bush or Clinton. More and more Americans are realizing that we need to move away from main-stream... may it be in politics or medicine.
Liberal = love.
Conservative = judgment (accountability).
Neither understands the unbending view of the other. And the truth, as Brooks clearly states, lies in the middle.
We all need love and accountability. That accountability might arrive in many forms. It is unfortunate that the well-meaning progressive feels that is merely a ruse for a conservative to remain heartless.
Conservative = judgment (accountability).
Neither understands the unbending view of the other. And the truth, as Brooks clearly states, lies in the middle.
We all need love and accountability. That accountability might arrive in many forms. It is unfortunate that the well-meaning progressive feels that is merely a ruse for a conservative to remain heartless.
"Look, I don’t know if I’m red or blue." Hah!
1
Good idea, David.
How about someone like... Michael Bloomberg? Okay, he's not a pure outsider, but most of his highly successful career has been outside government.
His experience as Mayor of NYC is a bonus - he knows a lot about the realties of the political world too.
Sadly, the nasty, destructive, political system will not allow such a marvelous solution come to pass until something truly awful makes Americans finally open their eyes to what has been happening.
How about someone like... Michael Bloomberg? Okay, he's not a pure outsider, but most of his highly successful career has been outside government.
His experience as Mayor of NYC is a bonus - he knows a lot about the realties of the political world too.
Sadly, the nasty, destructive, political system will not allow such a marvelous solution come to pass until something truly awful makes Americans finally open their eyes to what has been happening.
1
David Brooks is totally right, albeit a tad unrealistic. The truth is that middle class families in good school systems aren't going to lie down and let economically disadvantaged children, who they will assume are ill behaved and developmentally delayed, ruin the education of their own children. The middle-class parents will send their children to private schools or home school them, which will defeat the purpose of integration.
1
It is not just the "lower half" David. It is the lower 95%. Pay attention.
8
Mr. Brooks, the only connection between Donald Trump and your hypothetical Contra-Trump business leader is being... business leaders. All similarities end there.
Like so many of a conservative bent, you equate success in business with visionary capabilities in all pursuits - that a successful tort lawyer running a large firm would be equally adept at running a manufacturing enterprise, or running a country.
But assuming that's so, have you given any thought to the direction of successful business in American today and for decades past? Collective bargaining has been reduced to a quaint memory. Wages for work have fallen in real dollars. Robotics and international outsourcing have resulted in a grotesquely unbalanced buyers' market for domestic labor. Health benefits, pensions and any sense of community within most business enterprises are becoming concepts our grandchildren will write off to "old folks fantasies", like trudging five miles to school in the snow.
Your Contra-Trump business leader would be a product of that culture. His concerns are not directed toward improvement in the quality of life within his own business, much less that of the community. He will continue to expect high quality labor to be delivered to him on a silver platter by the very social systems nurtured by government that he despises, and whose "interference" in his business pursuits he fights against tooth and nail.
Mr. Contra-Trump would just be less abrasive than Mr. Real-Trump.
Like so many of a conservative bent, you equate success in business with visionary capabilities in all pursuits - that a successful tort lawyer running a large firm would be equally adept at running a manufacturing enterprise, or running a country.
But assuming that's so, have you given any thought to the direction of successful business in American today and for decades past? Collective bargaining has been reduced to a quaint memory. Wages for work have fallen in real dollars. Robotics and international outsourcing have resulted in a grotesquely unbalanced buyers' market for domestic labor. Health benefits, pensions and any sense of community within most business enterprises are becoming concepts our grandchildren will write off to "old folks fantasies", like trudging five miles to school in the snow.
Your Contra-Trump business leader would be a product of that culture. His concerns are not directed toward improvement in the quality of life within his own business, much less that of the community. He will continue to expect high quality labor to be delivered to him on a silver platter by the very social systems nurtured by government that he despises, and whose "interference" in his business pursuits he fights against tooth and nail.
Mr. Contra-Trump would just be less abrasive than Mr. Real-Trump.
1
Brooks seems to be saying that Republicans will start solving real problems if we will allow them to call it something appealing to Republicans, like "moving the poor to better environments" and "promoting two-parent homes." I'm all for it. They can start calling guaranteed healthcare "disease prevention" and education spending can be called "prison reform." Free college tuition could be called "job training." Raising the minimum wage can be called "work rewards." At last, we can start focusing on income equality, but we'll have to call it something else, like "democracy."
2
What an amazingly article (I admit I did not read the whole thing, the first 10 lines were so ridiculous I stopped there). As we all know, the reason the Donald broke out like he did is that he is not just a boring guy but "The Donald", a TV reality star and a non stop PR machine for two generations. Good writing cannot disguise nonsense.
2
Common citizen has been sufficiently brainwashed to consider socialist as some kind of enemy who will take away everything from you.
Does it matter what we call it as long as it's good for the masses.
We need a leader who will do the largest good for the largest number of people. Call him whatever you want
Does it matter what we call it as long as it's good for the masses.
We need a leader who will do the largest good for the largest number of people. Call him whatever you want
4
Regarding the study you cite, correlation is not causation. Kids who are moved to better neighborhoods might do better because they have parents who care enough about them to make the move. And that may be because the parents somehow acquired an innate desire to have their children succeed. It is not necessarily the case that the move to a different neighborhood caused the better outcomes, and it in fact is highly unlikely, given what we know through twin and fraternal studies that it had much impact at all.
Environmental determinism, the idea implicitly underpinning the cited study, is the Progressive version of eugenics. It says that people are utterly and totally products of their environment, giving them no hope to rise above their surroundings. Mountains of evidence dispute the idea--that it is not environment that makes a person but the person that makes the environment work for them.
Aside from providing an infrastructure that allows for social mobility, it's hard to see what more government can do. That the poor will always be with us is both a lament and an observation. But as long as we provide opportunities for advancement, there is no reason someone who is poor has to remain poor against their will.
Environmental determinism, the idea implicitly underpinning the cited study, is the Progressive version of eugenics. It says that people are utterly and totally products of their environment, giving them no hope to rise above their surroundings. Mountains of evidence dispute the idea--that it is not environment that makes a person but the person that makes the environment work for them.
Aside from providing an infrastructure that allows for social mobility, it's hard to see what more government can do. That the poor will always be with us is both a lament and an observation. But as long as we provide opportunities for advancement, there is no reason someone who is poor has to remain poor against their will.
@S.D. Keith Birmingham, AL
That sounds reasonable. But realistically, what are the chances of a baby born to a single meth mom or single crack head mom where there are poor schools, crime, and gangs, compared to a baby born in an upper class suburb to two parent family with top notch schools and soccer and art and private SAT classes?
We are the richest country on the planet by far GDP / capita. Yet we rank 20 in education and have people working two part-time jobs without health care and below the poverty line.
If we can make the best (and most expensive) military in the world, why can't we reduce poverty?
If people don't want to fix this because it is morally the right thing to do, then fix it because it is in our own economic self-interest to get people educated, working and paying taxes instead paying for welfare or incarceration.
That sounds reasonable. But realistically, what are the chances of a baby born to a single meth mom or single crack head mom where there are poor schools, crime, and gangs, compared to a baby born in an upper class suburb to two parent family with top notch schools and soccer and art and private SAT classes?
We are the richest country on the planet by far GDP / capita. Yet we rank 20 in education and have people working two part-time jobs without health care and below the poverty line.
If we can make the best (and most expensive) military in the world, why can't we reduce poverty?
If people don't want to fix this because it is morally the right thing to do, then fix it because it is in our own economic self-interest to get people educated, working and paying taxes instead paying for welfare or incarceration.
"...things are going badly for those in the lower half of the income distribution. People with less education are seeing their wages fall, their men drop out of the labor force, their marriage rates plummet and their social networks dissolve."
This is too much like a sort of subtle version of the infamous blame the victim rationale. Bernie states the problem much more honestly and clearly, i.e. the greed and the corrupting influence of the 1%.
This is too much like a sort of subtle version of the infamous blame the victim rationale. Bernie states the problem much more honestly and clearly, i.e. the greed and the corrupting influence of the 1%.
"Improve culture??" Along with raising very good points, Mr. Brooks belies his fundamental elitism with statements such as this. Even among social scientists, 'culture' is a notoriously difficult concept to define--one book in the 1950s found 152 definitions under six different headings! But Mr. Brooks can confidently assert that a group of people needs its culture (whatever it is) 'improved.'
I see a lot of negativity here, the usual "Oh, that will never work. We tried that before." Of course such a change will be hard, if it was easy we wouldn't be talking. But if we are truly dissatisfied with the status of the poor, then we must be willing to make changes. Everyone agrees on the problems but they are afraid of the hard work necessary for the solutions. Yes, there will be failures, so what. Edison tried about 3,000 different combinations before he had a successful light bulb. The important thing is to get started and to keep going. Imagine what our country would look like if we had everyone contributing. I think it is worth the effort.
Mr. Brooks's grand solutions to the problems facing our country - deadlock partisanship in our political sphere, improving the lot of the poor among us, and restoring opportunities for all, advocates for solving the problems at the margin, not for real solutions. Many have been tried and failed (integrating neighborhoods for instance), or expanding charter schools (see New Orleans).
How about solutions which would help address the problems at the core, and not at the margin, namely:
1) Public funding of all elections to get rid of the influence of money in politics.
2) Tax reform to ensure real progressivity in the taxes paid by the richest among us.
3) Investment in "poor economic zones" using corporate tax incentives and creating jobs in those zones.
4) Investment in vocational schools and pre-kindergarten nationwide.
5) Investment in our infrastructure, and last but not least,
6) re-instating the draft (or two years of mandatory government service) for all male and female citizens at age eighteen, with the pay for this service allocated solely to two years of free vocational or community college education for all.
This latter alone would do more than any other measure to help "integrate" all classes in our society.
Yes, it's a long term endeavor, but it also took us a long time to get where we are.
How about solutions which would help address the problems at the core, and not at the margin, namely:
1) Public funding of all elections to get rid of the influence of money in politics.
2) Tax reform to ensure real progressivity in the taxes paid by the richest among us.
3) Investment in "poor economic zones" using corporate tax incentives and creating jobs in those zones.
4) Investment in vocational schools and pre-kindergarten nationwide.
5) Investment in our infrastructure, and last but not least,
6) re-instating the draft (or two years of mandatory government service) for all male and female citizens at age eighteen, with the pay for this service allocated solely to two years of free vocational or community college education for all.
This latter alone would do more than any other measure to help "integrate" all classes in our society.
Yes, it's a long term endeavor, but it also took us a long time to get where we are.
3
In the search for an outsider, both Republicans and Democrats need to realize that the current candidates are running first ( in the primary) for the leadership of their respective party and then for president (in the general election). Once nominated, the candidate becomes the ultimate insider. If voters truly want an outsider, then the country needs a third-Party candidate who would be a sensible version of a center-right republican and a center-left democrat and not a puppet of the elites who currently control the parties . Party control is the primary problem in Washington. If the voters truly want to change Washington, they need to rid the city of the existing parties.
Brooks loves to cite social research, if it supports the points he wishes to make, but utterly ignores it if it is not a convenient tool to push his agenda.
Consider his love for charter schools as a panacea to fix what ails society. Enormous, detailed studies of charter schools have been conducted for a couple of decades now and the evidence is in:
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/07/03-charter-schools-love...
They do no better than public schools. Period.
This is no secret. Indeed it is impossible to do even the slightest research on this subject and not discover this: when typing "charter school performance research" into Google the top eight links all devoted to the work that shows this.
Since they do not improve school performance overall Brooks must be pushing this for some other reason.
This column, like all of Brooks columns, are an elaborate song-and-dance - proposing vast, never-gonna-happen social engineering programs - to distract from simple things that would really, and immediately improves poor communities - like a decent minimum wage.
For those with the vision to propose such a thing all Brooks can do as throw out a sneering label, intended as an insult. Yeah, David, I'll take a "statist" any day if really improves the lives of working people.
Consider his love for charter schools as a panacea to fix what ails society. Enormous, detailed studies of charter schools have been conducted for a couple of decades now and the evidence is in:
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/07/03-charter-schools-love...
They do no better than public schools. Period.
This is no secret. Indeed it is impossible to do even the slightest research on this subject and not discover this: when typing "charter school performance research" into Google the top eight links all devoted to the work that shows this.
Since they do not improve school performance overall Brooks must be pushing this for some other reason.
This column, like all of Brooks columns, are an elaborate song-and-dance - proposing vast, never-gonna-happen social engineering programs - to distract from simple things that would really, and immediately improves poor communities - like a decent minimum wage.
For those with the vision to propose such a thing all Brooks can do as throw out a sneering label, intended as an insult. Yeah, David, I'll take a "statist" any day if really improves the lives of working people.
3
Brooks wants to reinforce neighborhoods, a good idea. But then he goes a step too far, arguing that strengthening neighborhoods will somehow change culture. There are many strong neighborhoods where children go to school and parents earn family-sustaining wages that are quite diverse "culturally" in terms of religion, child-rearing practices, political beliefs, sexual orientations, social control, materialism, and many other features of contemporary life. Perhaps Brooks means reinforcing social ties between local residents, which research shows is very important to sustaining the fabric of a neighborhood. Once we account for all those moving parts of what makes up a "neighborhood," there isn't much work left to be done by a vague and not very helpful concept like "culture" into the plan.
Brooks, you've been around long enough to know the realities of different political thinking on the many issues you sate could/would benefit from "someone outside the rigid partisan mentalities that are the real problem here." I would agree with your many readers who comment on the fact that in certain states this will never happen, and as one who lives in Texas, know the very rigidity of the thinking of the GOP who have run the state for the last few decades. Maybe we're not in the worst shape due to oil and gas revenue, but the rise of charter schools, school book controversies from the "rigid" GOP, and attacks on certain rights for women and poor people by refusing the federal grants for healthcare for senior and the poor have shown the results of their inflexibility. The problems are indeed deep ones and by choosing simplistic solutions only dilutes the problems. We are the government, but when one party refuses to compromise, it is tough to deal with real problems. And charter schools? Why? The idea of public transportation, schooling, and a sense of commonality would help toward more comity, less enmity.
1
"Then we've got to expand charter schools. The best charter schools radiate diverse but strong cultures of achievement." Not in Ohio. Charter schools operate in the red. Students test way below public schools throughout the state. They are an attempt to circumvent school integration, and avoid diversity. Republican funding of charter schools takes monies away from public schools. Further, Republicans, including Governor John Kaisch, rely on monies from Casino earnings and Lottery sales to make up any shortfall. Balanced budgets are more important than children's education. "Putting power in local communities"; we are a community that rarely defeats a school levy request, the result is the State of Ohio reduced its contribution by more than half. Improvement in education will not happen in Ohio if Republicans are in power and continue discount children's value, their health and education; and if they maintain Creationism is a science and history is the story of the winners.
Mr. Brooks keeps surprising us with what sounds very reasonable, a long-term process that requires 'caring' politicians for the welfare of the communities they came from...and ideally not divorced from them so to serve their donors (to keep them in power). A delicate balance in this capitalistic system is required, so to promote things that are doing well and useful, even essential, for most people, a balance for protecting corporations from a predatory behavior within, but with emphasis on those left behind, so that diversity and inclusion are sought- out and protected. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the poor, the disenfranchised, the marginalized, are not looking for victim status and a hand to feed them; instead, they would much prefer to earn their way to success, if only given a chance. Integrating the poor in wealthier communities, and better schools, and an environment 'free' of a daily fight for their lives, and the despair involved, and escape from drugs and violence. Our system may suggest, to some, a form of institutionalized violence, that accepts inequality, and the inequities that so poison the well, an impossible situation. Now I understand your impetus to consider an outsider, to escape the politicians' double talk, and the hypocrisy of promising one thing... but doing the opposite 'if convenient'. I can see that a non-politician, if well informed, and surrounded by folks that know reality as is, could possibly take us out of our current sinkhole.
David is today's Edmund Burke, a conservative who believed "the principles of true politics are those of morality enlarged" and who sought for ethics to triumph over Machiavellian pursuits of power. As a public columnist who applauds morality, pragmatism and traditional conservative ideas, David faces his own moral test. When will he acknowledge that the Republican party no longer represents Burkean conservatism and part from his supporting of the party? The Republican party has been taken over by its radicals -- anarchist crazies, Christian zealots and greedy rich who now dictate or constrain its policies. Burke's faith in wisdom, civil society, compromise and social action have lost their place in the Republican party. It would be better for David to champion these virtues rather than to fantasize about them coming from the Republican demagogues. Guilt by association can only be lifted by publicly rejecting the fanatics and the Republican party they now dominate.
2
There is, in all likelihood, not a single business person in America suitable to rising to the presidency overnight. The skills required by each job are diametrically opposed.
Business leaders are usually benign dictators. They decide, others follow. The job of an executive is to thrash through conflicting options and say, "Okay, here's where we are going to go." Then, with some resistance and difficulty, others follow.
Presidents in the White House are in the job of persuading others to follow or, to over time, consider the benefits of following. Except in matters of national defense and international diplomacy, a president can issue very few definitive orders to anyone. As soon as he does issue an one, a cacophonous caterwauling chorus of naysayers chimes in, taking to the air waves, the editorial pages and a million little blogs, to denounce.
Very few business executives of major corporations would ever want to trade life in the corporate jet and executive suite for a political position. It would be a big come down in many ways. Sure, the ego gets massaged by great power, but a lot of presidential power is more imagined than real. Okay, you get a bigger airplane (except for the Google guys, who have their own 747).
Ideally, a candidate might be one who had both significant executive experience outside of govt. as well as considerable inside exposure to the actual workings of the govt. Those examples are hard to find, almost non-existent.
Business leaders are usually benign dictators. They decide, others follow. The job of an executive is to thrash through conflicting options and say, "Okay, here's where we are going to go." Then, with some resistance and difficulty, others follow.
Presidents in the White House are in the job of persuading others to follow or, to over time, consider the benefits of following. Except in matters of national defense and international diplomacy, a president can issue very few definitive orders to anyone. As soon as he does issue an one, a cacophonous caterwauling chorus of naysayers chimes in, taking to the air waves, the editorial pages and a million little blogs, to denounce.
Very few business executives of major corporations would ever want to trade life in the corporate jet and executive suite for a political position. It would be a big come down in many ways. Sure, the ego gets massaged by great power, but a lot of presidential power is more imagined than real. Okay, you get a bigger airplane (except for the Google guys, who have their own 747).
Ideally, a candidate might be one who had both significant executive experience outside of govt. as well as considerable inside exposure to the actual workings of the govt. Those examples are hard to find, almost non-existent.
1
The basic problem with this column is that the solutions it offers are not those of an outsider: they are ones that are often proffered by mainly Democratic leaders in DC and at all other levels of government but are constantly and consistently shot down by the GOP. As Mr. Brooks notes, the Moving to Opportunity program he touts is a "Clinton-era program," in other words, the product of a professional politician. And it worked. The professional politicians do not want to continue the partisan war that has gridlocked our government. One of them, our current president, even put two members of the opposing party in his initial cabinet to make clear his bipartisan spirit. The result: one of them was shunned by his fellow party members until he resigned and was welcomed back with a standing ovation. One party's very non-professional politicians are behind the gridlock. They do not care about poor people. They do not care about income distribution. They care only about their narrow ideology and are pawns in the game of the wealthy donors who support them.
1
Really, with all his vast number of flaws, I would expect even Mr. Brooks to realize that the problem is not with individual Presidential candidates but with the system as a whole. Even if Mr. Brooks' sensible outsider showed up and was elected by some miracle, he or she would not be able to get any of the policies advocated by Mr. Brooks through a Republican-controlled House.
Then there is the fact that the American political system is controlled by a small number of wealthy individuals who really don't care about what happens to the rest of us. Rich people can live very well in third world countries, and America's plutocrats seem bent on turning us into one. For some reason, they don't seem to be content with being fabulously wealthy in a middle class country. I guess they will enjoy their wealth even more knowing that masses of people are starving outside the walls of their gated compounds.
Then there is the fact that the American political system is controlled by a small number of wealthy individuals who really don't care about what happens to the rest of us. Rich people can live very well in third world countries, and America's plutocrats seem bent on turning us into one. For some reason, they don't seem to be content with being fabulously wealthy in a middle class country. I guess they will enjoy their wealth even more knowing that masses of people are starving outside the walls of their gated compounds.
2
Still looking for the magic bullet. The easy way out. A Question never asked: were things ever better than now and if so, why? Everything is a study and the problem with that is that they always start with a premise to prove or disprove. How about simple historical observation: does religion help or hurt? Does an intact 2 parent family help or hurt? Does an adult there with the children help? Do discipline and standards in the home, the school and the neighborhood help? Does accountability with real consequences help or hurt? Does employment and self-sufficiency help or hurt? What hasn't worked well and what are we doing about it? Single parenting - going well or no? Low skills and uneven employment means what? Unstable circumstances. Uninvolved family and parenting - good or bad? Social educational laissez fare good or bad? Cultures of violence, meanness, materialism, victimhood, empty meaningless rites of passage instead of accomplishments and achievements. Help or hurt? Is changing a zip code the answer? Why is one better than the other? Change the building blocks, not the address.
The search for outsiders in politics never ends well. David Brooks who knows his twentieth-century history can, I am sure, come up with as many examples as I can, from Mussolini to Putin. Politics is a skill like everything else. I am not qualified to drill your teeth or fix your car, so I'd politely refuse if asked to do so. Equally I have neither the inclination nor the expertise for holding a political office. People who do are often not terribly attractive human beings: success in politics often correlates with propensity for lying, cheating, manipulation and ruthlessness. I don't care. As long as the politician holds the right ideas and actually believes in them (and you can always tell whether they do or don't just by listening to their rhetoric), I'm fine with them. I can never understand why Americans believe that private morality is important for public success. Some of the worst politicians of history were honest, upright and dedicated men: Robespierre was incorruptible; Hitler - a vegetarian.
"I’ve been paying close attention...we have a polarized, dysfunctional, semi-corrupt political culture that prevents us from getting anything done..."
Good for you, David. But finding some policy area where there's a basis for bipartisan action is akin to crawling around on all fours in a minefield in the pitch black night.
For long-term functionality and true progress, we need to remove the purse strings from politics. This entails: 1) overturning Citizens United, 2) abolishing super PACs, 3) have a federally mandated day off from work to vote, 4) ensure as much voter participation as possible, i.e., end the blatant voter disenfranchisement of poor and minority voters.
These actions will not only produce a "sensible" Donald Trump, but more transparent, honest, and courageous Hillary Clintons, as well as candidates of Sanders' ilk.
It's the money in politics, stupid.
Good for you, David. But finding some policy area where there's a basis for bipartisan action is akin to crawling around on all fours in a minefield in the pitch black night.
For long-term functionality and true progress, we need to remove the purse strings from politics. This entails: 1) overturning Citizens United, 2) abolishing super PACs, 3) have a federally mandated day off from work to vote, 4) ensure as much voter participation as possible, i.e., end the blatant voter disenfranchisement of poor and minority voters.
These actions will not only produce a "sensible" Donald Trump, but more transparent, honest, and courageous Hillary Clintons, as well as candidates of Sanders' ilk.
It's the money in politics, stupid.
Brooks is not confronting the core problem with conservative political philosophy, that base selfishness and want are good incentives to achieve a prosperous and vital civil society because they free up the most capable and accomplished to drive growth and national power to act without being slowed down by the indolent poor who are forced to work for their keep by themselves. He needs to argue the case the we are all in it together and we do well or not, together, and that conservatives need not ignore the Sermon on the Mount to remain conservatives.
Perhaps the problem is that we are all wrong in that we are all still looking for Washington to fix our problems. I am both liberal as well as being progressive, but I have all but given up on Washington as a change agent. Reagan was wrong when he declared that Washington is the problem, but I sadly believe that Washington can no longer be seen as the source of the solutions we so desperately need. Washington is not going to fix the problems my wife and I are facing right now: eldercare for our parents, college costs for our children, saving for our own retirement and eldercare, etc. etc. Nor is Washington going to fix my community's crumbling roads, escalating public school and sector costs and declining quality. I am to the point that I would be inclined to vote for a Presidential candidate that stated their goal was not to make things worse, and nothing more.
Washington is currently in political stalemate. Which is why, at this time, it is incapable of providing solutions.
But has the state or local government been able to fill the gap left by Washington? No.
Has the private sector, including businesses, churches and charities, filled the gap? No.
So this leaves individuals. Can they fill the gap? Not individually. But maybe together they could. Which brings us to the question of who or what entity best can solve the problems.
But has the state or local government been able to fill the gap left by Washington? No.
Has the private sector, including businesses, churches and charities, filled the gap? No.
So this leaves individuals. Can they fill the gap? Not individually. But maybe together they could. Which brings us to the question of who or what entity best can solve the problems.
I'm a little confused.
David Brooks, who admits that he continues to predict the downfall of Donald Trump and Ben Carson (what's the definition of insanity) and despite being wrong continues to do so--is lecturing us on sensibility.
Perhaps when you're out of that liberal straitjacket Mr. Brooks, until then this registered Republican will make his own choices and decisions about what is sensible.
David Brooks, who admits that he continues to predict the downfall of Donald Trump and Ben Carson (what's the definition of insanity) and despite being wrong continues to do so--is lecturing us on sensibility.
Perhaps when you're out of that liberal straitjacket Mr. Brooks, until then this registered Republican will make his own choices and decisions about what is sensible.
1
I think the most telling sentence in the column is in the last paragraph: "...I don't know if I'm red or blue." In other words, and sensibly, Mr. Brooks states that he is somewhere in the middle, where most sensible people are. When it comes to voting, most of us recoil from extreme positions. Right now, the Republican side is tilting toward, if not already captured by, its extreme elements. If they regain their senses, the Republicans may become the party of the middle that Mr. Brooks favors, but that's highly unlikely in 2016.
Sure, it would be nice if we had a president such as David Brooks describes. Wait minute, could he be describing the one we currently have - the sensible outsider who also happens to be black? The larger problem is that, as we've seen with Obama, trying to lead a country from within our deeply corrupted national political environment looks increasingly like a fool's errand. Still, constructive progress is ongoing on a local and community level - in the revitalization of urban cores, in the entrepreneurship driving real healthcare reform, in the partnerships between public and charter schools, in local initiatives that facilitate new business startups, in all the private philanthropic and volunteer work directed at keeping valuable cultural and educational institutions alive and alleviating social ills. Because of big media's fixation on national politics, much of this goes unreported. But it's happening and it's what gives some of us cause for hope.
It's funny. People on the left and the right like to beat up on Brooks. I think he's spot on. We have to love our children more than ourselves. This goes for every class.
Jacob Matthew
Jacob Matthew
This article begins with a false premise. "Bipartisanship" and "compromise" are not worthy goals if they result in bad policies. Our national leaders are always great at compromising when what they are compromising on is how best to spend more money that we don't have. And that's exactly what Brooks is imagining in this article. His bipartisan solution would inevitably require more federal oversight of local education and housing programs, and a flood of new federal cash.
But what about our debt and deficits? What about our underfunded entitlement programs? What about our immigration problems? These problems don't get solved by leaders who merely tackle issues where the parties already agree. They require leaders who are willing to fight for the right policies.
By the way, the Democrats tried that with single party rule from 2009-2011, and their policies have failed. I would now like to see what a Republican reformer can do in the White House with a Republican Congress. Not a squishy centrist set on enlarging the Department of Education.
But what about our debt and deficits? What about our underfunded entitlement programs? What about our immigration problems? These problems don't get solved by leaders who merely tackle issues where the parties already agree. They require leaders who are willing to fight for the right policies.
By the way, the Democrats tried that with single party rule from 2009-2011, and their policies have failed. I would now like to see what a Republican reformer can do in the White House with a Republican Congress. Not a squishy centrist set on enlarging the Department of Education.
Single party rule? Dolchstosslegende much?
Sorry we had that with "the Idiot Son" Have you forgotten how that worked out for us , We're still cleaning up Boy Georgie's mess while he's on recess painting doggies.
It was difficult to get beyond the sentence, "To reverse that gridlock we’ve got to find some policy area where there’s a basis for bipartisan action." Instead of searching for the needle in the haystack, how about getting rid of the haystack entirely, by focusing on eliminating the obstructions that are precluding bipartisan action -- the type of action that would be beneficial to the long-term prospects of this country, rather than the short-term prospects of politicians themselves, and those that have the means to fill their campaign coffers. Everyone knows the statistics, and the narrative -- why Brooks would choose to be one of the thousand striking at the leaves and not at the roots (that's Thoreau, as I found out last night watching Lawrence Lessig's TED talk about desperately needed campaign finance reform, the fundamental first step that he says must be taken before any further discussion of bipartisan action is possible) strikes me as a form of denial, in the sense that he is focusing on one of the few remaining scraps of viability that still exist in what is (currently) a dysfunctional Republican party. Stepping back to view the larger framework, it's a curious attempt at further validation of what 99.5% of us recognize to be a broken system, or are at least experiencing as such. A fish in a bowl full of dirty water gasping for air does not need a breathing-filtration device. It needs fresh water.
So in summary, I David Brooks don't actually have any problem with Donald Trump's policy proposals, I just would prefer someone less crass and outrageous in his personal presentation.
I have no problem with the idea that someone who made a lot of money and knows "how to run things" is actually suitable to run a macroeconomy like a country, after all business is all about maximizing profits and why should the government focus on anything but that?
I have no problem with the idea that someone who made a lot of money and knows "how to run things" is actually suitable to run a macroeconomy like a country, after all business is all about maximizing profits and why should the government focus on anything but that?
3
Dear Mr. Brooks
When you write: I mean we have to put the quality of the social fabric at the center of our politics you have discovered the Scandinavian model.
Which in many ways is much more conservative than perceived in the US. Sweden eliminated the inheritance tax in 2005, the wealth tax in 2007 and taxes on residential property in 2008. More recently, Sweden, lowered taxes and allowed private firms to run its schools.
But Swedes put the quality of the social fabric as their #1 political goal
Whereas in the US, every person is out for himself.
When you write: I mean we have to put the quality of the social fabric at the center of our politics you have discovered the Scandinavian model.
Which in many ways is much more conservative than perceived in the US. Sweden eliminated the inheritance tax in 2005, the wealth tax in 2007 and taxes on residential property in 2008. More recently, Sweden, lowered taxes and allowed private firms to run its schools.
But Swedes put the quality of the social fabric as their #1 political goal
Whereas in the US, every person is out for himself.
6
I don't know that I agree with all of these initiatives, but it would be nice if the Republican Party had many members who thought like this and proposed ideas along these lines. Then we could have meaningful public debates.
I don't always agree with the Democrats (for example, I favor free trade), but it is reasonably clear that by and large they are trying to govern our society, make it better place, and address the many problems that confront us.
The Republicans in contrast seem to be hostile to progress, decency and enlightenment. They deny climate change. They clamor for more guns everywhere. They refuse spending on infrastructure, schooling or research, but clamor more military spending and more spending to militarize the southern border. They are pathologically hostile to undocumented migrant workers. They are resolved to fund tax cuts for the very wealthiest in a time of unprecedented inequality, no matter how much public debt this entails. They have made it their principal cause to repeal Obamacare, which provides private health insurance for most while addressing health-care costs.
I don't see any public spirit at all in their positions. They speak of "values," but their priorities reflect ugly values.
We need at least two parties that can have a real debate on issues that matter for us, not one party of mean-spirited, ignorant people resolved to ruin the country and the world, and another flawed party that must try to work with them.
I don't always agree with the Democrats (for example, I favor free trade), but it is reasonably clear that by and large they are trying to govern our society, make it better place, and address the many problems that confront us.
The Republicans in contrast seem to be hostile to progress, decency and enlightenment. They deny climate change. They clamor for more guns everywhere. They refuse spending on infrastructure, schooling or research, but clamor more military spending and more spending to militarize the southern border. They are pathologically hostile to undocumented migrant workers. They are resolved to fund tax cuts for the very wealthiest in a time of unprecedented inequality, no matter how much public debt this entails. They have made it their principal cause to repeal Obamacare, which provides private health insurance for most while addressing health-care costs.
I don't see any public spirit at all in their positions. They speak of "values," but their priorities reflect ugly values.
We need at least two parties that can have a real debate on issues that matter for us, not one party of mean-spirited, ignorant people resolved to ruin the country and the world, and another flawed party that must try to work with them.
4
hahaha David. Thank you for your reasonable progressive thoughts. Although I may not agree w you, it is at least something we can talk about and research and maybe reach an enlightened accommodation.
Good luck trying to find any republican especially tea party who will feel the same way!
Good luck trying to find any republican especially tea party who will feel the same way!
1
If only Hillary hadn't wasted her post-Senatorial time as SecState, and went the Cheney CEO-for-connections route, would Brooks be endorsing her?
David, there is a sensible outsider running.
His name is Bernie Sanders.
His name is Bernie Sanders.
13
Mr. Brooks:
This sounds good on paper, for the most part. But, the contradictions start to arise the further ones goes. How much devolution of federal power do you think these initiatives will require? Are you suggesting we return to the draft and universal service? When you say "a little moralistic", whose morals and how little or much are you proposing? Who gets to go to charter schools and who runs them and possibly profits from doing so?
Aside from asking Jimmy Carter to run again, just where do you propose we start looking for this mystical outlier? Is this why we seek life on another planet? Should we channel Robert Heinlin or Madame Blavatsky?
Treating people as full human beings would be a huge step forward. I am looking forward to more columns that move beyond the rigid scolding of your former self. You sound as though you have finally become weary of the right-wing craziness that has created this mess. What took you so long?
This sounds good on paper, for the most part. But, the contradictions start to arise the further ones goes. How much devolution of federal power do you think these initiatives will require? Are you suggesting we return to the draft and universal service? When you say "a little moralistic", whose morals and how little or much are you proposing? Who gets to go to charter schools and who runs them and possibly profits from doing so?
Aside from asking Jimmy Carter to run again, just where do you propose we start looking for this mystical outlier? Is this why we seek life on another planet? Should we channel Robert Heinlin or Madame Blavatsky?
Treating people as full human beings would be a huge step forward. I am looking forward to more columns that move beyond the rigid scolding of your former self. You sound as though you have finally become weary of the right-wing craziness that has created this mess. What took you so long?
1
This is the best and most thoughtful article David has written in a long time. But Bernie is a statist....who woulda thought?
1
Poor David. You Are now on of us. Stymied by the ingrained insensitivity of the Republican Party that is hell bent on stripping America of every social program that has made us great.,,,Affordable housing and free public education. Safe and secure neighborhoods create stable families? dud!!!
3
Republicans have men like this: Jon Huntsman and Michael Bloomberg are examples.
1
"The voters, especially on the Republican side, seem to be despising experience this year"?
Maybe the just don't like the "experience" of stalking horses like Walker, Jindel, or Christie, all of whose states have done FAR WORSE under them than before? Of the "experience" of one-term wonders like Cruz and Rubio, who've apparently spent all their time in office campaigning for president--"voting isn't all senators do, crows Ribio"!
There's a LOT to "despise" about the "experience of those 5 guys, David, not to mention the holders of such experience!
Maybe the just don't like the "experience" of stalking horses like Walker, Jindel, or Christie, all of whose states have done FAR WORSE under them than before? Of the "experience" of one-term wonders like Cruz and Rubio, who've apparently spent all their time in office campaigning for president--"voting isn't all senators do, crows Ribio"!
There's a LOT to "despise" about the "experience of those 5 guys, David, not to mention the holders of such experience!
3
This year? Where has Mr. Brooks been for the last, oh, 50 years? A large and vocal share of Republicans has always yearned for a take-charge outsider. Consider what E. M. "Ted" Dealey, publisher of The Dallas Morning News, told JFK to his face at a 1961 White House luncheon.
“We need a man on horseback to lead this nation,” Dealey said, “and many people in Texas and the Southwest think that you are riding Caroline’s tricycle.”
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/jfk50/reflect/20131012-extremists-in-dall...
Yearning for a genteel man on horseback - as if such a thing might exactly exist - is absurd. Sorry, Mr. Brooks, but you lost me at the lede.
“We need a man on horseback to lead this nation,” Dealey said, “and many people in Texas and the Southwest think that you are riding Caroline’s tricycle.”
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/jfk50/reflect/20131012-extremists-in-dall...
Yearning for a genteel man on horseback - as if such a thing might exactly exist - is absurd. Sorry, Mr. Brooks, but you lost me at the lede.
1
president Bloomberg?
Draft Bloomberg?
Nice try, Mr. Brooks, but anything the government attempts to do in order to resolve the problems you're addressing is going to require the expenditure of money. As any good businessman can tell you, you've got to spend money to make money. Unfortunately our Congressional "leaders" have demonstrated as much incentive to raise and to spend money as a shark has to befriend a minnow. Those Congressfolks are the ones in your Party, not mine.
6
Both federal tax revenue and federal spending are at all-time record levels and all you want to do is "raise and spend money". Who's the real intransigent?
Yup, I've been saying it for decades, and have been called racist for it: want to stop Black crime and high rates of Black unemployment, etc - break up high population Black enclaves. At most, a 13% neighborhood population density. Really INTERGRATE the black population, and that will break the chain of lawlessness, poverty, high illegitimacy rates.
2
Would you want this in your neighborhood-honestly?
Oh David. You used the words "research" and "Harvard" ...the republican primary base heard nothing past that and has already decided that your fantasy candidate is a pointy-headed liberal elitist and trashed him/her right out of the gate. Why bother to listen to anything else?
Next?
Next?
4
Ah, Mr. Brooks. You are always dreaming about a president who has high intellect, good temperament, bi-partisan reasonableness, etc. Your dream president always sounds a lot like President Obama. What a shame that his second term is coming to an end without you every once in public acknowledging he is the one you dream about.
13
I believe that David is saying that we need to improve the environment for lower and working-class people. Duh.
"Returning" power to local communities is fine, put we still need regulation to prevent corporations from dumping garbage and pollution into their air and water.
Charter schools are a blight. Some achieve impressive results, but only at the expense of existing schools. If parents want private schools, they should pay for them. If they can't or don't want to pay outrageous tuition for a private school, then they should support their existing schools. Those schools do need reform, but taking a few students out and placing them in a school with fewer responsibilities (e.g., for special needs) does not serve the community, only those few students.
Yes some parents are not equipped to support local schools. That brings us back to community support.
So, good column David--except for the charter schools part.
"Returning" power to local communities is fine, put we still need regulation to prevent corporations from dumping garbage and pollution into their air and water.
Charter schools are a blight. Some achieve impressive results, but only at the expense of existing schools. If parents want private schools, they should pay for them. If they can't or don't want to pay outrageous tuition for a private school, then they should support their existing schools. Those schools do need reform, but taking a few students out and placing them in a school with fewer responsibilities (e.g., for special needs) does not serve the community, only those few students.
Yes some parents are not equipped to support local schools. That brings us back to community support.
So, good column David--except for the charter schools part.
7
>> If parents want private schools, they should pay for them.
If parents want statist schools, they - and only they - should pay for them as well
If parents want statist schools, they - and only they - should pay for them as well
Clearly some if not many of the readers sense Mr. Brooks is simply treading water, but I sense he is actually beginning to take the first tentative strokes of a person who may become a swimmer.
I don't know if I'm red or blue either, but I do know we don't have to have either color in the administrative offices we continually vie to fill with partisans who by their very nature will only serve themselves and their donors.
I don't want anyone to run the show or care whether their clothes are tinted red or blue, I just want the job done in the most honest and cost effective way.
I don't know if I'm red or blue either, but I do know we don't have to have either color in the administrative offices we continually vie to fill with partisans who by their very nature will only serve themselves and their donors.
I don't want anyone to run the show or care whether their clothes are tinted red or blue, I just want the job done in the most honest and cost effective way.
2
If you want to know why the likes of Trump and Carson of the GOP, warts and all, are leading in the polls, look at the Times/CBS poll of May.
80% of the GOP respondents said money has too much influence.
81% thought that “fundamental changes are needed” to the system for funding political campaigns or it should be “completely rebuilt.”
The fact that Jeb Bush, with big donors and all, is doing badly is a good thing.
Mrs. Clinton, with her big donors, is doing well thus far, although Bernie Sanders is giving her a good run for her money, though he has no big donors backing him.
Perhaps there is hope for the country after all.
80% of the GOP respondents said money has too much influence.
81% thought that “fundamental changes are needed” to the system for funding political campaigns or it should be “completely rebuilt.”
The fact that Jeb Bush, with big donors and all, is doing badly is a good thing.
Mrs. Clinton, with her big donors, is doing well thus far, although Bernie Sanders is giving her a good run for her money, though he has no big donors backing him.
Perhaps there is hope for the country after all.
1
Sanders is a democratic socialist, not a "statist."
13
YES! Thank you. Apparently Brooks has trouble accepting that such 'socialist' programs as Social security, Medicare & Medicaid & support of public education including public colleges & community colleges actually make our society better. Things Bernie & other Demcrats have been fighting for since forever.
1
Or suppose, inserting myself into your fantasy world Mr. Brooks, we had a Republican party that had not in recent decades built itself on a foundation of restricting the rights and liberties of blacks, Hispanics, women, gays and lesbians, and all others who do not look and act the part of themselves. Boy, oh boy, wouldn't that just be swell?
10
"This will mean doing some things Republicans like. We’ve got to devolve a lot of power from Washington back to local communities."...If we did that we would return to segregation, deny minorities the right to vote, persecute gays, put God in the classroom, dumb down our schools, greatly increase the number of people without health insurance, and increase environmental pollution. Do you really want everyone to live in Mississippi?
14
Thank you WA. In truth, if we want to be a leading country in the 21st century, we must empower the federal government, not dismantle it.
"Suppose there was some former general or business leader with impeccable outsider status but also a steady temperament, deep knowledge and good sense."....If such a person existed, today they would be running as a Democrat.
18
Mr. Brooks, there isn't a sensible Trump. There may be a sensible candidate, one who knows how to run things without filing chapter 11 for every over-leveraged venture, who respects women and immigrant workers, who functions in the real world, but his/her name won't be Trump. Linking the two words in one op-ed may have been a little bit wistful, and a little bit sneaky. And may we say there's no shame in a partisan mentality if it means we choose social justice as a party meme over corporate welfare and pseudo free-market economics?
2
What a typical David Brooks' column, filled with misrepresentations.
Right off the bat you say the voters are looking for outsiders when Hillary, the very definition of a seasoned, political insider is leading the polls, and Bernie is a Senator. Those are not outsiders. And, by the way, if Elizabeth Warren had run, a lot of Democrats would have lined up behind her as well.
And then you repeat the tired canard of gridlock, when you know quite well that it's the Republicans with their Hastert rule, a rule based on a man going to jail, as well as 40 some extreme rightwing representatives in the House who refuse to compromise, who have led to this impasse. But, even before that, it was people like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan having a clandestine meeting the night of Obama's first inauguration vowing to "make him fail."
And then finally, you whine about one study, which you think will change your entrenched, doomed party.
It won't.
You don't know if you're red or blue?
Face it, you're blue. Why don't you finally just admit that you're no longer a Republican?
Right off the bat you say the voters are looking for outsiders when Hillary, the very definition of a seasoned, political insider is leading the polls, and Bernie is a Senator. Those are not outsiders. And, by the way, if Elizabeth Warren had run, a lot of Democrats would have lined up behind her as well.
And then you repeat the tired canard of gridlock, when you know quite well that it's the Republicans with their Hastert rule, a rule based on a man going to jail, as well as 40 some extreme rightwing representatives in the House who refuse to compromise, who have led to this impasse. But, even before that, it was people like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan having a clandestine meeting the night of Obama's first inauguration vowing to "make him fail."
And then finally, you whine about one study, which you think will change your entrenched, doomed party.
It won't.
You don't know if you're red or blue?
Face it, you're blue. Why don't you finally just admit that you're no longer a Republican?
25
So Mr. Brooke, you mean for example someone who said it takes a village to raise a child and was pilloried for it?
The idea of involving entire communities to solve problems is a liberal idea. Contrary to the political ads, liberals don't believe in simply writing checks to solve problems.
What we don't believe is blaming individuals when healthy communities are non-existent. Yes, of course, good marriages are better for people than single parent households. However, where we differ with conservatives is the idea that bad marriages are better than single parent households.
What is good about marriage is not that it gives respectability to sex but that two people invest in each other with love and commitment. The need for respectability can't drive this commitment.
And so it goes in these distinctions between us. Conservatives don't want to make investments in society but expect people to be invested in it anyway. It doesn't work that way.
For a society to be healthy, everyone needs to be invested in each other, not out of shame, but because we are all in this together and because we care about each other. True for marriage. True for communities.
The idea of involving entire communities to solve problems is a liberal idea. Contrary to the political ads, liberals don't believe in simply writing checks to solve problems.
What we don't believe is blaming individuals when healthy communities are non-existent. Yes, of course, good marriages are better for people than single parent households. However, where we differ with conservatives is the idea that bad marriages are better than single parent households.
What is good about marriage is not that it gives respectability to sex but that two people invest in each other with love and commitment. The need for respectability can't drive this commitment.
And so it goes in these distinctions between us. Conservatives don't want to make investments in society but expect people to be invested in it anyway. It doesn't work that way.
For a society to be healthy, everyone needs to be invested in each other, not out of shame, but because we are all in this together and because we care about each other. True for marriage. True for communities.
23
These prescriptions, even were they acceptable across the ideological spectrum, still leave many, many behind.
2
Let's get together and love each other right now...but...we have the self righteous of every stripe armed to the teeth. We ( whoever that is) can talk sweet all we want but the use of violence as a problem solver is the problem that needs fixing, but good luck with that locally or globally.
1
Nice fantasy. I guess Mr. Brooks never read or saw "Show Me a Hero"
No reason to get fancifully hypothetical; basically you're describing Hillary Clinton.
8
Now consevatives like Brooks are wishing for a political savior. It's no coincidence that the Republican field is looking back in time for modern problems. Not courageous enough to form bipartisan coalitions to advance a common cause, they fall back on bullcrap political fables from Tea Party glory. Fundamentalist in religion, science and culture, they will never be able to lead a diverse and dynamic nation like America.
You have to be IN the game to change it and Brooks and his conservative brethren sound ready to divorce their right wing Neanderthals.
Hurry up and make real and practical contributions to our government, the country needs you.
You have to be IN the game to change it and Brooks and his conservative brethren sound ready to divorce their right wing Neanderthals.
Hurry up and make real and practical contributions to our government, the country needs you.
5
Not a bad fairy tale but the real barrier to a successful corporate type running the country is the need to compromise as President. Successful business leaders usually don't have to compromise, they are the top of the heap and everyone knuckles under to their vision in the end. In a business, if you push for compromise, you usually end up without a job. Not so in politics, which used to be the playground for compromise - I get some, you get some and we all are better off in the end.
7
David Brooks for President. Start the draft movement now!
1
David Brooks never defines the socialism “we’ve got to get” into. All we know is that it is not “the way Bernie Sanders is a socialist.”
Bernie Sanders is a revolutionary and a reformer. He is embarking on rescuing the government of the people, by the people and for the people from the grip of a few oligarchs, so that it may again begin to serve all the people.
The ambiguous and often frightening label of “socialism” should not be used to tarnish his noble mission.
Bernie Sanders is a revolutionary and a reformer. He is embarking on rescuing the government of the people, by the people and for the people from the grip of a few oligarchs, so that it may again begin to serve all the people.
The ambiguous and often frightening label of “socialism” should not be used to tarnish his noble mission.
20
Adding more sense and reason to any old politician including the Donald will improve his or her chance of electability. Adding new brain power is more futuristic. However, smart advisors can be hired, but one has to include their recommendations in the decision making process.
1
David Brooks is much like John Boehner was as Speaker: His job depends on him retaining his conservative credentials, so -- against his own logic -- he does what self-interest requires.
As was always obvious and as became self-evident yesterday, Boehner gave lip service to extremists and drove the nation to the brink of default even though he knew better. He only did the right thing when he didn't have a selfish reason to pander.
While he may be in self-denial and is certainly more polite about it, Brooks faces the same predicament. His understanding leads him in the direction of moderation, with the natural conclusion being that the GOP has devolved into a corrupt, reactionary mess. But he must keep up the charade of being the Times' Reasonable Conservative columnist, so he writes fairytales pretending that Colin Powell, Nelson Rockefeller and Dwight Eisenhower would be welcome to the rescue of the Republican Party.
As was always obvious and as became self-evident yesterday, Boehner gave lip service to extremists and drove the nation to the brink of default even though he knew better. He only did the right thing when he didn't have a selfish reason to pander.
While he may be in self-denial and is certainly more polite about it, Brooks faces the same predicament. His understanding leads him in the direction of moderation, with the natural conclusion being that the GOP has devolved into a corrupt, reactionary mess. But he must keep up the charade of being the Times' Reasonable Conservative columnist, so he writes fairytales pretending that Colin Powell, Nelson Rockefeller and Dwight Eisenhower would be welcome to the rescue of the Republican Party.
4
If you want sensible insiders or outsiders, you need politicians that represent all the people not just the narrow party interests that elect them and doom them to serve their rigid agenda. You have to structurally change the system if you want a different outcome. You need election reform. You need open primaries!
3
If politicians DON'T represent the "interests that elect them", who should they represent? What sort of control does the act of HAVING elections give us in that sort of world?
Giving states the authority to do sensible things sounds good in theory. Until you look at Texas where the Republican Legislature does nothing but create havoc. Out of spite for President Obama they refuse Medicaid for the poor; they spend all their time creating stupid laws such as allowing guns on campus and open carry guns everywhere else, even bars where drunk people sometimes lose their common sense; they refuse to raise taxes that would help in so many areas. The list could go on and on. Yes, it would be nice to have states create sensible ways to work out their own problems. But first, you have to have sensible people running the states. We sure don't have that in Texas and neither do a bunch of other states.
7
To say, "...a sensible Trump," David, or to say, "...a sensible Ben Carson," is to say a square circle or a cool sun. A square is a square, a sun fiercely hot, and Donald Trump and Ben Carson exactly whom they painfully reveal themselves to be, broken human beings as far now in their advanced, self certain years from the help of reformative care, and as disdainful of it, as feral Tom Cats.
There is a sensible, non partisan candidate, David: Bernie Sanders.
Therein is your real problem; you don't want a sensible non partisan; you want YOUR candidate. And that's exactly what you have this cycle in the Republican Party. Your party has since the incorporation of the Dixiecrats, Birchers, Funamentalists, and anti-Tax factions cobbled together a party that's dysfunctional and is now run by those factions. They don't want YOUR sensible candidate. They want theirs.
Unfortunately for sensible people their candidate is as anti-social as they are.
The German generals were all well and good with their Furher in the '30s and early '40s when they were basking in the light of the success of surprise attack and victory. But he was still the same dysfunctional human being he'd always been when they tried to murder him. They were the ones who tried to change.
But too late. And it's too late for you to be day dreaming about a sensible candidate now David. You should have been protesting as loudly when Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush were running your world.
.
There is a sensible, non partisan candidate, David: Bernie Sanders.
Therein is your real problem; you don't want a sensible non partisan; you want YOUR candidate. And that's exactly what you have this cycle in the Republican Party. Your party has since the incorporation of the Dixiecrats, Birchers, Funamentalists, and anti-Tax factions cobbled together a party that's dysfunctional and is now run by those factions. They don't want YOUR sensible candidate. They want theirs.
Unfortunately for sensible people their candidate is as anti-social as they are.
The German generals were all well and good with their Furher in the '30s and early '40s when they were basking in the light of the success of surprise attack and victory. But he was still the same dysfunctional human being he'd always been when they tried to murder him. They were the ones who tried to change.
But too late. And it's too late for you to be day dreaming about a sensible candidate now David. You should have been protesting as loudly when Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush were running your world.
.
9
Little faith that Democrats will pass a sensible outsider through the primaries. Not sure one exists on their side. No faith that Republicans will. Their base doesn't want sensible. They want insane instead.
Michael Bloomberg
You talk about better neighborhoods producing upward mobility & personal responsibility in child rearing, yet I don't hear a thing about the system that lowers Walmart's stock price after they begrudgingly raise their lower tier wages. Greedy landlords wait to raise rents & gentrification appears on the scene. The increasingly desirable urban lifestyle pushes struggling people into another decayed area across another set of tracks.
The fish begins to rot at the head.
The fish begins to rot at the head.
2
As if moving poor families into middle class environments would work: where are you going to find the middle class anymore? You can't move an increasingly larger demographic into a smaller, shrinking one.
But why stop there? If David is correct, we should be moving middle class people into rich neighborhoods. Can you hear the screaming now?
But why stop there? If David is correct, we should be moving middle class people into rich neighborhoods. Can you hear the screaming now?
8
"You can't move an increasingly larger demographic into a smaller, shrinking one."
Cucumbers get pickled faster than pickle juice get cucumbered.
Cucumbers get pickled faster than pickle juice get cucumbered.
I don't agree that moving poor people into upper middle class areas even works.
However, what results they have are skewed, from just a few small samples. Sure, if ONE poor family moves in McMansion Acres, they may thrive. But when 40 families move in, it turns into a troubled, crime-ridden mess. Then the upper middle class folks move out. Now that once lovely place is a slum.
Thousands of formerly wonderful US communities can attest to exactly that phenomena.
Furthermore, if you move out EVERY poor family -- what happens to the POOR neighborhood? and where do the displaced middle class folks get to go?
However, what results they have are skewed, from just a few small samples. Sure, if ONE poor family moves in McMansion Acres, they may thrive. But when 40 families move in, it turns into a troubled, crime-ridden mess. Then the upper middle class folks move out. Now that once lovely place is a slum.
Thousands of formerly wonderful US communities can attest to exactly that phenomena.
Furthermore, if you move out EVERY poor family -- what happens to the POOR neighborhood? and where do the displaced middle class folks get to go?
It's the cumulative trauma for struggling people: unrealistic or poorly designed classes in health and family planning in JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL; lack of universal availability of affordable birth control combined with a moralistic insistence that an unmarried woman on birth control is a slut; poor and/or expensive child care; uncaring, inadequate schools; family and neighborhood violence; police racial profiling; lack of jobs for inner city men; disrespect by Republicans for every one who can't get a job with decent health insurance; completely inadequate mental health services which are mostly punitive in nature; and an economic system which fleeces the poor with fantasy football and other gambling "opportunities". Fantasy football is an opportunity only for those who entice Americans to play their RIGGED game.
We need universal non-profit health insurance: Remember the era of the non-profit blues? INvestment sharks took over those companies and paid off state legislatures to let them take the blues private. Profiting from providing health insurance is surely something Jesus wouldn't do!!
We need respect for employees including serious wage floors, real work week ceilings, and consistent work schedules.
We need our business community to recognize that America needs them to be responsible employers. A business whose employee gets food stamps should pay a fine!!!
And our public schools can do it: but they need resources, including pencils!!
We need universal non-profit health insurance: Remember the era of the non-profit blues? INvestment sharks took over those companies and paid off state legislatures to let them take the blues private. Profiting from providing health insurance is surely something Jesus wouldn't do!!
We need respect for employees including serious wage floors, real work week ceilings, and consistent work schedules.
We need our business community to recognize that America needs them to be responsible employers. A business whose employee gets food stamps should pay a fine!!!
And our public schools can do it: but they need resources, including pencils!!
7
"...we have a polarized, dysfunctional, semi-corrupt political culture that prevents us from getting anything done. To reverse that gridlock we’ve got to find some policy area where there’s a basis for bipartisan action."
If it makes you feel good, David, keep telling yourself that political polarization is the root cause of policy gridlock, however far from the truth it might be.
The reality, which you habitually ignore, is that policy gridlock is the result of one party's--your own GOP's--refusal to govern. This is the apotheosis of your beloved conservative movement: anarchy.
When will you take responsibility for the consequences of your own ideological choices, David Brooks?
If it makes you feel good, David, keep telling yourself that political polarization is the root cause of policy gridlock, however far from the truth it might be.
The reality, which you habitually ignore, is that policy gridlock is the result of one party's--your own GOP's--refusal to govern. This is the apotheosis of your beloved conservative movement: anarchy.
When will you take responsibility for the consequences of your own ideological choices, David Brooks?
7
The idea that "statism" is something that Sanders would see himself advocating is preposterous.
3
This country already did what Mr. Brooks suggests. In the 1970s I worked for two Model Cities programs, part of the Johnson-era War on Poverty. These programs sought to improve neighborhood, much the way he describes. There was definitely some success. The thing is, such programs cost a lot of money (but a lot less than pointless wars). Although such efforts are what we need now, can you imagine the Republicans, or even the Democrats, actually proposing anything this sensible nowadays?
4
Donald Trump has had many wives while being a distant dad mass media entertainer corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch welfare king. In other words he is an iconic conservative Reagan Republican. Where else can you find that type?
Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping are both proud experienced successful political socialists. Much admired by the Fox News/WSJ mass media herd for their perceived forceful personalities and actions. Putin is an absentee divorced dad with a girl friend who knows how to play the mass media reality TV game. Xi Jinping is an absentee dad on his starlet second wife while luxuriating in the limelight like a new Chairman Mao Zedong or Emperor Qing Shi Huang. Ronald Reagan was a distant dad on wife number two with a long Hollywood acting career well suited for political propaganda.
Then there is Barack Obama, the community organizing socialist usurper, who has absorbed and practiced the conservative socioeconomic political educational agenda. Obama is well too the political right of not only FDR and LBJ as expected, but he is too the political right of Ike and Nixon as well. Obama is a Reagan by practice while being an FDR/LBJ by rhetoric. Unfortunately Obama has done these things while being permanently black. And with only one wife Obama is an involved loyal dad. Obama is no Reagan.
In majority white European America that only leaves either the Donald or the Vladimir type.
Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping are both proud experienced successful political socialists. Much admired by the Fox News/WSJ mass media herd for their perceived forceful personalities and actions. Putin is an absentee divorced dad with a girl friend who knows how to play the mass media reality TV game. Xi Jinping is an absentee dad on his starlet second wife while luxuriating in the limelight like a new Chairman Mao Zedong or Emperor Qing Shi Huang. Ronald Reagan was a distant dad on wife number two with a long Hollywood acting career well suited for political propaganda.
Then there is Barack Obama, the community organizing socialist usurper, who has absorbed and practiced the conservative socioeconomic political educational agenda. Obama is well too the political right of not only FDR and LBJ as expected, but he is too the political right of Ike and Nixon as well. Obama is a Reagan by practice while being an FDR/LBJ by rhetoric. Unfortunately Obama has done these things while being permanently black. And with only one wife Obama is an involved loyal dad. Obama is no Reagan.
In majority white European America that only leaves either the Donald or the Vladimir type.
7
Reflecting on the different types of leaders of the most powerful countries in the world, it seems that no matter how ideal the candidate is, they will eventually meld into the existing power structure. Barack Obama was the perfect candidate who, we believed, would restore hope & change to a corrupt & power hungry political structure. Instead, the perfectly intelligent & ethical community organizer became the Manchurian Candidate, who was drugged after being sworn in & hypnotized to function as a sleepr leader, subconsciously activated by seeing the “Queen of Diamonds” playing card or hearing the code word "Agent Orange" to tow the Military Industrial Complex agenda. Even Jimmy Carter, the most genuinely Christian of any US president, was committed to the highest moral character in both foreign & domestic policy, although even he was capable of authorizing U.S. covert operations in Afghanistan to aid the mujahadeen's fight against the Soviet Union. This military training led to the formation of Al Qaeda & the rise of Osama Bin Laden's leadership. Also, the moral President Carter followed Zbigniew Brzezinski’s advice to push for a U.S. imperialistic role in the Middle East. Therefore, this proves that any US candidate for President will eventually become another cog in the US wheel to remain a dominant force on the world stage. The human cost of pursuing a strong military presence is that this leaves little money left for investing in the citizens through education.
1
David,
Yesterday I happened to look at the Urban Institute a middle class educated American Enterprise philosophy based outreach to the poor. They say what you say but poverty is a small part of America`s problem. America`s problem is one of spirit and purpose. To know America`s middle class is to know a real sense of despair and alienation.
The GOP and its freedom caucus are not suffering from want it is a nihilistic antidote to a poverty of spirit that is running rampant through the world.
America is an all you can eat salad bar filled with cesspool raised shrimp and chemically tenderized cow. It is cheap, it is filling but it nourishes neither the body nor the soul.
America needs hugs and affirmation but believes only in sticks and carrots. America is a spoiled child always wanting new toys and incapable of taking the responsibility for taking care of the old toys.
I am 67 years old and am still educating myself but the love of learning is not an intrinsic part of all of us. Most of us are social beings, we need to belong and America puts out a message of how to stand above the crowd. Bernie`s has more of the answers Americans are looking for because he is a democratic socialist looking to build not tear down. American does not need wealth creation we have too much. America needs purpose and wealth utilization.
Above all America needs to value all its people not just the .1% it needs to go back to creating a more perfect union not worshiping a past that never was.
Yesterday I happened to look at the Urban Institute a middle class educated American Enterprise philosophy based outreach to the poor. They say what you say but poverty is a small part of America`s problem. America`s problem is one of spirit and purpose. To know America`s middle class is to know a real sense of despair and alienation.
The GOP and its freedom caucus are not suffering from want it is a nihilistic antidote to a poverty of spirit that is running rampant through the world.
America is an all you can eat salad bar filled with cesspool raised shrimp and chemically tenderized cow. It is cheap, it is filling but it nourishes neither the body nor the soul.
America needs hugs and affirmation but believes only in sticks and carrots. America is a spoiled child always wanting new toys and incapable of taking the responsibility for taking care of the old toys.
I am 67 years old and am still educating myself but the love of learning is not an intrinsic part of all of us. Most of us are social beings, we need to belong and America puts out a message of how to stand above the crowd. Bernie`s has more of the answers Americans are looking for because he is a democratic socialist looking to build not tear down. American does not need wealth creation we have too much. America needs purpose and wealth utilization.
Above all America needs to value all its people not just the .1% it needs to go back to creating a more perfect union not worshiping a past that never was.
16
David Brooks for president.....
To create the fantasy world of David Brooks, we would have to retire every Republican in congress and quite a few Democrats as well. To do that American voters would have to be transformed from their prejudiced and low-information trap that believe a barbarian like Donald Trump has the answers. Congressional districts would have to be redrawn and all the petty rules of the Senate that allow one person to gum up the democratic works would have to be changed. And how would we pay for this absurd idea?. Tell me how Republicans are going to cough up billions more in taxes when they are knee-jerk anti tax, especially of the wealthy. As usual, Gemli is right. Brooks has been, more or less, writing this same column for ten years. He is bankrupt.
6
I think after another crazy comment from Trump that he is woefully out of touch with reality. When he said his Daddy "gave me a small loan of $1,000,000," wait a minute...small?...if he got it just out of college that is equivalent in today's currency of nearly $7,000,000...well, 99% of us would settle for $1,000,000 and could get a great start with that. These rich guys are born on 3d base and think they hit a triple. A lot of people are smart but it takes money to make money. It takes money to have access. He's way too delusional to be President.
138
Trump is so out of touch with reality that he casually mentions that his real estate/developer Dad lent him a small loan of one million, as if it was pocket change. He presents himself as if he's just another Joe the plumber while all the while he was born with a silver Trump engraved spoon & overly bombastic delusions of grandeur. His preoccupation with making America great again by making Mexico built a giant wall, to supercharging the military, to taking all of the oil out of Iraq, to cutting all taxes especially for the wealthy, to particular mean spirited tendency to scapegoat all of America's problems on the brown Hispanic immigrants & the Chinese is insulting to the ear. Trump claims that he will cut all taxes for every citizen by cutting loopholes is interesting although no one in the groups above $50,000 would agree to ending all loopholes especially the home owner deduction as well as child tax credits. He also neglects to mention in his tax plan, that most taxpayers who earn under $50,000 don't pay any federal taxes now & that the wealthiest billionaires (Trump's buddies) would benefit the most from his proposed tax plan. Also, it is inconceivable that traditional Republican religious voters would find anything attractive about either his offensive rhetoric or his personal life since he married "foreigners" & had an affair with his second wife while still married to his first. Eventually, voters who are attracted to his macho swag will eventually tire of him.
1
A few months ago I heard David Brooks speak in Cambridge. At the end of his talk a member of the audience asked him why he wasn't a Democrat. At the time he reiterated his conservative mind set. However, after reading his editorials, including this one, despairing over the current status and direction of the GOP perhaps we have reached the point where Mr Brooks should seriously entertain that question.
3
Brooks is still a conservative; the Democrats have moved to the middle while Republicans (especially Tea Partiers) are hanging out over the edge of insanity and oblivion.
6
Mr. Brooks:
I don't know where you get this notion that Bernie Sanders is a statist (which he certainly isn't. Nor is he, frankly, a socialist.) I do notice, however, that you don't seem to miss an opportunity to take a potshot at him.
I don't know where you get this notion that Bernie Sanders is a statist (which he certainly isn't. Nor is he, frankly, a socialist.) I do notice, however, that you don't seem to miss an opportunity to take a potshot at him.
8
When Brooks talks about "culture" he means that poor brown people need to learn to act more like college-educated white professionals if they want escape poverty. Ghettos and barrios are full of people who think the same but are rewarded with the same limited opportunities as their neighbors.
Culture matters to be sure. But Brooks gets the how of it wrong. Guarantee people a free college education and a living wage and they will create the culture to match their new conditions without the aid of condescending saviors like Brooks.
Brooks tries to grab the mantle of "socialism" by calling Sanders a "statist," but his eagerness to re-engineer the culture of the poor is far more authoritarian than Sanders moderate vision of treating the poor humanely and trusting them to rebuild the family and community ties that Brooks's billionaire buddies have so ruthlessly shredded over the past 40 years.
Culture matters to be sure. But Brooks gets the how of it wrong. Guarantee people a free college education and a living wage and they will create the culture to match their new conditions without the aid of condescending saviors like Brooks.
Brooks tries to grab the mantle of "socialism" by calling Sanders a "statist," but his eagerness to re-engineer the culture of the poor is far more authoritarian than Sanders moderate vision of treating the poor humanely and trusting them to rebuild the family and community ties that Brooks's billionaire buddies have so ruthlessly shredded over the past 40 years.
8
Mr Brooks, did you read "It Takes a Village"? I forgot who the author is; maybe you remember.
Whoever it was, she seems to have the American idea.
Whoever it was, she seems to have the American idea.
8
What about universal health care? What about better public schools, not charter schools unless they are run by the public school system (not by capitalists out to game the system)? What about knowledge of the world around us, as the president is a world leader. What about taxes to pay for infrastructure, as well as for the money Brooks wants to pass on to the states. (Then of course there are the social issues such as equal opportunity, choice, respect for all, etc.) We need not just a business man but a woman or man who knows many sides of the world, the culture, the people, basically everything, has good instincts, intentions, etc. Find me someone like that. I know, you tried, DB, but you can's describe what you mean in one short column.
5
Listening to an old-timer, a fine builder of houses keeping the wolves at bay, I payed attention to his depressed views on this political state of affairs.
The Democrats are responsible for everything apparently, this began in the 60s. Here my attention wandered off slightly, as my eye was caught by a splendid 'Burning Bush' on the property we were exploring, with a plea on my part not to trim this tree back.
Trump is on to something, he continued, when it comes to sending back these immigrants to their country. Here I froze as I was counting on him to drive me back to the train station. 'What about our ancestors who arrived and stayed on Ellis Island?'. This was overlooked by a bearish cough and muffled reply. Careful, I thought, he is planning to check the electricity in this small house.
On an upbeat note, glad to see the word 'Bipartisan' inserted here by David Brooks, and politics in America will never be the same after Mr. Trump woke some of us from a deep sleep (a 'sleeze-ball', breathed a famous American economist, dragging his heels to lunch with him in the early 90s, closing his door on return for the duration of the day).
A 'polarized, dysfunctional, semi-corrupt political culture?'. This is known as a blinding flash of the obvious.
At intermission, some of us entertained, while it has always been Jeb Bush, recently revived, and the glory of Hillary Clinton last week. I am red, white and blue, and fortunately the President is never boring.
The Democrats are responsible for everything apparently, this began in the 60s. Here my attention wandered off slightly, as my eye was caught by a splendid 'Burning Bush' on the property we were exploring, with a plea on my part not to trim this tree back.
Trump is on to something, he continued, when it comes to sending back these immigrants to their country. Here I froze as I was counting on him to drive me back to the train station. 'What about our ancestors who arrived and stayed on Ellis Island?'. This was overlooked by a bearish cough and muffled reply. Careful, I thought, he is planning to check the electricity in this small house.
On an upbeat note, glad to see the word 'Bipartisan' inserted here by David Brooks, and politics in America will never be the same after Mr. Trump woke some of us from a deep sleep (a 'sleeze-ball', breathed a famous American economist, dragging his heels to lunch with him in the early 90s, closing his door on return for the duration of the day).
A 'polarized, dysfunctional, semi-corrupt political culture?'. This is known as a blinding flash of the obvious.
At intermission, some of us entertained, while it has always been Jeb Bush, recently revived, and the glory of Hillary Clinton last week. I am red, white and blue, and fortunately the President is never boring.
How sad that the first assumption is it is a "...boring GUY."
Why is it necessarily a man? Disappointed in you, David.
Why is it necessarily a man? Disappointed in you, David.
2
Hey, nowadays when people say, "You guys" it is not gender-specific. Let's not get hung up right out of the gate.
A more sensible version of David Brooks might understand that the very people he wants to "integrate" are already stretched to the limit and have no tolerance for the social engineering of the feckless Democrats like DeBlasio and Obama, or studies that cherry pick data to present one side of a story.
A better view of the income inequality that is plaguing the middle class, the backbone of this country, is that the illegal immigration loved by the Democrats (for new voters and stirring up racial problems so they can blame Republicans) and Republicans (they love the low wage labor) is killing the ability of the middle and lower classes to make a living. Those starter jobs and low-wage jobs for those low wage/ low skill workers are going to the illegals.
And trade deals that are pushed by the "new" Democrats like Obama, and the US Chamber of Commerce. do nothing to protect US jobs, but protect the profits of US multinationals. And tax law encourages corporate tax "cheating" and "corporate welfare."
Other than the tax issue, that sounds like what Donald Trump has been saying. Oh wait, do we need a more "sensible" version so that these policies and issues are watered down so that they are acceptable to the party bosses?
NOPE. I like the current version. Go Trump.
A better view of the income inequality that is plaguing the middle class, the backbone of this country, is that the illegal immigration loved by the Democrats (for new voters and stirring up racial problems so they can blame Republicans) and Republicans (they love the low wage labor) is killing the ability of the middle and lower classes to make a living. Those starter jobs and low-wage jobs for those low wage/ low skill workers are going to the illegals.
And trade deals that are pushed by the "new" Democrats like Obama, and the US Chamber of Commerce. do nothing to protect US jobs, but protect the profits of US multinationals. And tax law encourages corporate tax "cheating" and "corporate welfare."
Other than the tax issue, that sounds like what Donald Trump has been saying. Oh wait, do we need a more "sensible" version so that these policies and issues are watered down so that they are acceptable to the party bosses?
NOPE. I like the current version. Go Trump.
3
What David is unwilling to acknowledge is that the Republican party to which he long ago gave allegiance no longer exists. That's the hard fact. There are no Eisenhower's to proclaim the hard right members of the party as "hysterical." There are very few true conservatives willing to call out the craziness of a Carson or the dangers of a Trump. There is no Romney this time around. There are no moderates in this gang of zealots, cons and self-deceiving pols. David - how do you justify belonging to a party that clearly would rather see Obama fail than the US succeed. Your party is heading down a dangerous path and it is time for voices like yours to call it out loud and clear. We don't need preachy, "wouldn't it be nice if" columns anymore. Rationalizing the decision to put Palin on the ticket in the last election was cynical and misguided, but it pales in comparison to ignoring the fact that the Republican party is wading into the dangerous waters of religiously justified fascism.
326
Lifelong Californian, liberal Democrat: at first I liked that Trump was talking about immigration honestly, because the open door policy we have had since the first Reagan amnesty has brought about the deterioration of my state in both the physical sense, and in something less tangible, that I guess I would describe as esprit De corps. But-- the Donald has crossed a line now, that jz correctly describes as a road to fascism. I stand corrected.
If this hypothetical person ran as a Republican he/she wouldn't have a snowball's chance to get elected. If he/she ran as a Democrat and won election to the presidency, you'd then have another of those famous inauguration day meetings where the Republican members of Congress would yet again agree to fight the sitting president on any and every initiative, even those previously sponsored or proposed by Republicans. Sound familiar?
3
Sensible comments, Mr. Brooks -- very sensible. Unfortunately, the comments fall on non-sensible ears - mostly. When we consider"sensible" comments emerging from the mouths of such people as Trump and Carson we should become VERY UNCOMFORTABLE. if only because of those origins. How very uncomfortable: an occasionable sensible comment coming from the those mouths..............I
guess it is time to, as they say, go back to "the drawing boards of politics"
guess it is time to, as they say, go back to "the drawing boards of politics"
"But imagine if... begins the first sentence of your second paragraph. And I agree with your vision but it relies on a shift to government prioritizing the quality of the lives of its citizens, personalism as you name it, and this is hard in a society where success is defined by wealth not by true quality of life. America needs to grow up and realize quality of life is what will sustain and enhance its status in our world and only then will America live up to its own ideals.
1
Harvard? Seriously? Some of us don't need Harvard scientists to tell us that neighborhoods are important. Unfortunately, those who need to face up to that reality, people in David's party, reject Harvard and all its pointy-headed pinko nonsense.
Charter schools? Paid for by whom? Koch Bros? Bill O'Reilly?
David: address the problems of public schools in inner cities. Turning "power" back to the communities served by those schools involves a lot of money. Where's that coming from? Local (housing) taxes contribute a lot to public schools in the kind of area where you live, David, but not so much in the South Bronx. So federal taxes should fund a crash program to improve those schools? I'll vote for that.
Charter schools? Paid for by whom? Koch Bros? Bill O'Reilly?
David: address the problems of public schools in inner cities. Turning "power" back to the communities served by those schools involves a lot of money. Where's that coming from? Local (housing) taxes contribute a lot to public schools in the kind of area where you live, David, but not so much in the South Bronx. So federal taxes should fund a crash program to improve those schools? I'll vote for that.
4
David recently diagnosed that the GOP had been taken over by crazies. This column is admirable in the sense that it seeks common--or compromisable--ground on a number of issues. However, his GOP is radicalized and post policy--a seething cauldron of resentments and fears. Trump is not leading despite these flaws in his outsider petsona--but because of them. Republicans want an outsider who stokes their fears, not reduce them through shared governance with a rightward tilt. Take away his immigration and misogynist rants, and Trump would be pilloried as a RINO--his previous policy positions being obvious disqualifiers. So David, let see some columns about how to drain your party's swamp before you build new neighborhoods.
91
He does not want to admit that he stood by and did nothing while the wackos became ascendant. He was afraid to criticize and name names. It would have affected his income, of course. He saw what happened to David Frum.
Sounds to me like Dvid Brooks just endorsed Bernie Sanders.
4
David, did you put Donald Trump in the title just to get our attention? Because the rest of your column really does not segue from the opening reference. You could have more aptly called this "In Search of a Non-Partisan Innovative Leader" but you know our eyes would have glazed over without the Trump bait.
1
Pretty much Leave It to Beaver, Father Knows Best, and Ozzie and Harriet. There were, and perhaps still are, families living these idyllic dreams of 60 years ago. Not so many today as then, though. I wonder, will it take another full-blown, six-continent World War, that forces the participation and contribution of every able-bodied man and woman, not just the mercenary military of today, to return to a time when David's dream was more than just that?
2
"The second big problem is that things are going badly for those in the lower half of the income distribution. People with less education are seeing their wages fall, their men drop out of the labor force, their marriage rates plummet and their social networks dissolve."
The problem is, no one who calls himself a Republican today cares a whit about the lower half. Mr. Brooks supports a party that kowtows to the 1% and he is their voice.
The problem is, no one who calls himself a Republican today cares a whit about the lower half. Mr. Brooks supports a party that kowtows to the 1% and he is their voice.
1
Local contral is good news?. Brooks makes the mistake of believing his own propaganda. Anyone who actually consults his experience knows that real government corruption and incompetence (as opposed to the rhetorical kind that serves an anti-government agenda) is pandemic at the local and state level. Anywhere we've lived, local politicians have ranged from lowlife scam artists to dolts left behind when their better peers went out and did something useful.
At the state level? Who's signing plainly unconstitutional abortion regulations to cozy up to anti-abortion fanatics? Who's proselytizing for a gun in every pocket, to appeal to the fools who keep them in power? Who's letting their state's poorest go without health insurance, in in order to kill a successful health care law for political spite? Who's issuing gag orders about climate science to state officials? Who's sucking up to religionist school boards who want to wreck science teaching in the public schools? Who's cooking the state's books to hide budget deficits? Who's doing the dirty work of suppressing the vote with crooked registration purges and elaborate voter ID schemes? Republican governors, that's who. There's never been a worse time to hand more power to the yahoos at city hall or their puffed up cousins in GOP state houses. No thanks! I'll have another Democratic administration and an assertion of federal power over states run amok, with a side of left-leaning Supreme Court appointments, please.
At the state level? Who's signing plainly unconstitutional abortion regulations to cozy up to anti-abortion fanatics? Who's proselytizing for a gun in every pocket, to appeal to the fools who keep them in power? Who's letting their state's poorest go without health insurance, in in order to kill a successful health care law for political spite? Who's issuing gag orders about climate science to state officials? Who's sucking up to religionist school boards who want to wreck science teaching in the public schools? Who's cooking the state's books to hide budget deficits? Who's doing the dirty work of suppressing the vote with crooked registration purges and elaborate voter ID schemes? Republican governors, that's who. There's never been a worse time to hand more power to the yahoos at city hall or their puffed up cousins in GOP state houses. No thanks! I'll have another Democratic administration and an assertion of federal power over states run amok, with a side of left-leaning Supreme Court appointments, please.
295
Make it so. Engage.
If I remember correctly we already have a candidate that believes that "it take's a village" - Hillary Clinton
2
I find this piece incomprehensible- even for David Brooks.
So, we're to solve poverty by mass moving everyone out of poor neighborhoods and relocating them into middle class neighborhoods? Where do you expect the people who are already living in the middle class neighborhoods to go? Are you proposing building new houses in the middle class neighborhoods to accommodate the influx of people from poor neighborhoods? Who pays for these homes for everyone? Once you move all these people, who will support them living in neighborhoods that have a higher tax base? Living in these neighborhoods usually requires a car. Who pays for cars for all the new families? If you don't have good jobs for all the people that you have now moved, who pays all their bills?
This proposal is insane on its own merit- but coming from a GOP cheerleader is really hysterical. The GOP who wants to slash existing social safety nets that people have paid into their whole lives now proposes to move poor people to nicer neighborhoods but doesn't say how it will be paid for and doesn't think about what it would do to the middle class neighborhoods nor doesn't think about the impact of this level of government intervention into the lives of so many. This concept is like busing on steroids- and we know how busing worked out.
Brooks is really scraping at the bottom of the barrel for his columns these days espousing ideas that have no basis in reality. I think it might be time to retire.
So, we're to solve poverty by mass moving everyone out of poor neighborhoods and relocating them into middle class neighborhoods? Where do you expect the people who are already living in the middle class neighborhoods to go? Are you proposing building new houses in the middle class neighborhoods to accommodate the influx of people from poor neighborhoods? Who pays for these homes for everyone? Once you move all these people, who will support them living in neighborhoods that have a higher tax base? Living in these neighborhoods usually requires a car. Who pays for cars for all the new families? If you don't have good jobs for all the people that you have now moved, who pays all their bills?
This proposal is insane on its own merit- but coming from a GOP cheerleader is really hysterical. The GOP who wants to slash existing social safety nets that people have paid into their whole lives now proposes to move poor people to nicer neighborhoods but doesn't say how it will be paid for and doesn't think about what it would do to the middle class neighborhoods nor doesn't think about the impact of this level of government intervention into the lives of so many. This concept is like busing on steroids- and we know how busing worked out.
Brooks is really scraping at the bottom of the barrel for his columns these days espousing ideas that have no basis in reality. I think it might be time to retire.
5
Our failure as a culture goes far past political dysfunction. Capitalism built this country, but unregulated capitalism has, historically, led to excesses that have caused economic collapse and the horrific suffering of the middle and lower economic classes. Like fire, capitalism is a valuable tool. Like fire, if left uncontrolled, it can burn you.
Having spent much of my career as a business executive, I am appalled at the lack of ethics and the moral bankruptcy of the current business culture. Capital is the "means of production", not a religion. It does not excuse profit at any cost behavior. Corporations and executives have a moral obligation to our Nation and our society to "do no harm"---not a license to do anything they can get away with. Even Adam Smith, in the "Wealth of Nations", makes a point of the necessity of regulation.
Having spent much of my career as a business executive, I am appalled at the lack of ethics and the moral bankruptcy of the current business culture. Capital is the "means of production", not a religion. It does not excuse profit at any cost behavior. Corporations and executives have a moral obligation to our Nation and our society to "do no harm"---not a license to do anything they can get away with. Even Adam Smith, in the "Wealth of Nations", makes a point of the necessity of regulation.
205
The 1940 revisions and the 1942 Internal Revenue Code, enacted to finance world War II, realized the moral obligation of corporations and executives. This was the rule until "trickle-down."
Today's GOP doesn't even offer "trickle-down"; it offers "Let them die!" shouted by Tea Party activists at a 2012 GOP presidential debate. It offers the "47%" comment, whose blatant monstrosity (somehow get rid of 150 million fellow Americans at no cost). They've totally perverted language to its antonym.
If this were 1942, the current GOP crop would battle for positions in line to collaborate with the Axis.
Today's GOP doesn't even offer "trickle-down"; it offers "Let them die!" shouted by Tea Party activists at a 2012 GOP presidential debate. It offers the "47%" comment, whose blatant monstrosity (somehow get rid of 150 million fellow Americans at no cost). They've totally perverted language to its antonym.
If this were 1942, the current GOP crop would battle for positions in line to collaborate with the Axis.
1
In fact Smith mentions the "magic hand" once and spends pages describing the role of government in guaranteeing the safety and security of those less fortunate.
1
A reasonable case can be made that the Reagan tax "reforms" promoted both the decline of business ethics and the migration of wealth from the middle to the upper economic strata. They made going for the quick buck profitable and encouraged the behaviors that are sapping our nation of its vitality.
a very sensible approach by David Brooks !
2
I nominate David Brooks for Progressive-Republican candidate for the Presidency of the U.S.
We need someone like Mr. Brooks who is purple in color, or whatever you get when you mix red and blue. Not a Royal Purple, either.
He's smart. He cares. He is thick-skinned. He can hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and take the best parts of each. Just like he says today: "putting more power back into the hands of local communities" and simultaneously "being more personalist." Yes!
Want some fresh new rivers that actually flow, folks? Start with bubbling Mr. Brooks! He's got my vote!
We need someone like Mr. Brooks who is purple in color, or whatever you get when you mix red and blue. Not a Royal Purple, either.
He's smart. He cares. He is thick-skinned. He can hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and take the best parts of each. Just like he says today: "putting more power back into the hands of local communities" and simultaneously "being more personalist." Yes!
Want some fresh new rivers that actually flow, folks? Start with bubbling Mr. Brooks! He's got my vote!
3
"I don't know if I'm red or blue." Admit it - you are red. Those are your Republican candidates running.
It sounds as if Brooks is trying to crawl out from under the monster that he helped create. You can't, Brooksie, you will have to go down with the ship like the rest of us, because even you aren't part of the 1%, even though they convinced you that there was room in the lifeboats for you.
3
"Sensible" and "Donald Trump" are mutually exclusive terms. If it's sensible, then it's not Donald Trump. Let '"sensible" stand alone without admixing it with the polluting brew of Trump.
1
We've had outsiders like that run for president in the past and win, and yes, they've been excellent choices for their times and our needs. This is a brilliant way to expose your own ideas couched in a make believe candidate. But I wonder if you'd be willing to run yourself, Mr. Brooks. I wish!
But of all your cogent arguments for change in areas of need for our society, I don't find one of extreme importance. There are also an increasing number of highly educated young and middle-aged men who are out of work and can't get rehired. What were those ivy league college and grad and post grad educaitons all about, the years of college loan payments holding the families and students hostage through their first 15 years of work, if all those PhD's and MBA's can't get work now? Now that they have their own families to support, where do they go with these educaitons and skills, to say nothing of an intense desire to work? There's something wrong with a country that looks only to the trouble in its lower classes. Anyone in trouble should be cared about. I'd like a candidate to address what's been going on in the workforce at those levels of jobs over the last 5 years, too. I'd pay attention to him or her in a heartbeat.
But of all your cogent arguments for change in areas of need for our society, I don't find one of extreme importance. There are also an increasing number of highly educated young and middle-aged men who are out of work and can't get rehired. What were those ivy league college and grad and post grad educaitons all about, the years of college loan payments holding the families and students hostage through their first 15 years of work, if all those PhD's and MBA's can't get work now? Now that they have their own families to support, where do they go with these educaitons and skills, to say nothing of an intense desire to work? There's something wrong with a country that looks only to the trouble in its lower classes. Anyone in trouble should be cared about. I'd like a candidate to address what's been going on in the workforce at those levels of jobs over the last 5 years, too. I'd pay attention to him or her in a heartbeat.
42
How about "A Sensible Version of David Brooks?"
No, that will never happen.
A sensible version of Donald Trump is more likely.
Hey, I just saw some pigs fly by my house.
No, that will never happen.
A sensible version of Donald Trump is more likely.
Hey, I just saw some pigs fly by my house.
4
Hogwash, Brooks, hogwash.
"Second, the research reminds us that to improve conditions for the working class it’s necessary to both create jobs and improve culture. Every time conservatives say culture plays a large role in limiting mobility, progressives accuse them of blaming the victim."
Where, when, who?
The culture of no jobs, no hope, no way out that your party has campaigned on for 35 years?
The culture that has to change is the culture that oozes out of the petri dish of the republican party; which blames the victim, not only for their own plight, but the disintegration of the entire Nation.
"Second, the research reminds us that to improve conditions for the working class it’s necessary to both create jobs and improve culture. Every time conservatives say culture plays a large role in limiting mobility, progressives accuse them of blaming the victim."
Where, when, who?
The culture of no jobs, no hope, no way out that your party has campaigned on for 35 years?
The culture that has to change is the culture that oozes out of the petri dish of the republican party; which blames the victim, not only for their own plight, but the disintegration of the entire Nation.
117
Culture is code for sexual behavior. Republicans want to put the genie back in the bottle. Better for them to accept the facts about sexual behavior and encourage sex education, contraception, and barrier contraception. Let's face it Republicans need to embrace scientific evidence instead of wedge issues that serve their current priority: wealth at the price of suppression. Stupidly, Republicans ignore the benefits of real reality, and cling to an imagined reality concocted by the misanthrope, atheist, sexual libertarian Ayn Rand. How perverse?
1
"But this research shows the importance of environment. The younger the children were when they moved to these middle-class environments, the more their outcomes improved. It’s likely they benefited from being in environments with different norms, with more information about how to thrive, with few traumatic events down the block."
I've been working class, and I've been middle-class, and I've been upper-middle-class, and I can tell you, David, that the outcomes for those kids improved because of one single reason – money. Money in America purchases stability. The culture you are describing is a culture of security. The disorder you are seeing among the working class and poor is the result of a lack of security, that it is in itself the result of lousy, tenuous jobs and low pay. When you commodify people, they act like commodities on the job and act out off the job.
If a child with learning disabilities and other issues is born in a poor family, the family cannot afford the treatment and other emotional support that he or she needs, the police see the child as a criminal, and the child ends up in big trouble. An upper-middle-class child has a completely different outcome In most instances.
You continue, David, to blame the victims and claim that liberals disagree with you based on ideology. I became a liberal because I lived the experience – I talk the talk because I walked the walk. You are just plain wrong.
I've been working class, and I've been middle-class, and I've been upper-middle-class, and I can tell you, David, that the outcomes for those kids improved because of one single reason – money. Money in America purchases stability. The culture you are describing is a culture of security. The disorder you are seeing among the working class and poor is the result of a lack of security, that it is in itself the result of lousy, tenuous jobs and low pay. When you commodify people, they act like commodities on the job and act out off the job.
If a child with learning disabilities and other issues is born in a poor family, the family cannot afford the treatment and other emotional support that he or she needs, the police see the child as a criminal, and the child ends up in big trouble. An upper-middle-class child has a completely different outcome In most instances.
You continue, David, to blame the victims and claim that liberals disagree with you based on ideology. I became a liberal because I lived the experience – I talk the talk because I walked the walk. You are just plain wrong.
338
Donald Trump was sent to military school as a teenager, for assaulting a teacher. Rich kids are sent to military school, poor kids are sent to juvenile hall or shot by a cop if they break the rules.
Yes, RCT, agree that Mr. Brooks does not comprehend the economic disparity because he apparently has not lived it.
I too have walked the walk of poverty with no family support and a string of irresponsible and even violent boyfriends and low-wage jobs and slum housing most of adult life in spite of college education. Now, finally at retirement age with some family inheritance, for the first time in adult life am experiencing stability--economic and hence emotional and spiritual. "It's easier to be spiritual when you have a dollar in your pocket," as a neighbor wisely once said.
It is all about economics, and the United States of America, courtesy of the selfish and arrogant and disdainful Republicans whose blame-the-less-fortunate mentality I know very well because a parent was a member of the GOP and crushed my spirit with that very mentality, does NOT take care of its citizens!
The entire U.S. culture from its inception has been built on cruelty, violence, exploitation, inequality and lies. I wish this were not true because the sad results have played out in history and play out currently every_single_day.
As last week here in Albuquerque a four-year-old was shot in a road rage incident. *****A FOUR-YEAR-OLD!!!!******
Let's support repairing and building new infrastructure including modern public transportation, affordable housing EVERYWHERE, strong public education, single-payer healthcare, free higher ed, and GUN CONTROL.
Feelin' the Bern!
I too have walked the walk of poverty with no family support and a string of irresponsible and even violent boyfriends and low-wage jobs and slum housing most of adult life in spite of college education. Now, finally at retirement age with some family inheritance, for the first time in adult life am experiencing stability--economic and hence emotional and spiritual. "It's easier to be spiritual when you have a dollar in your pocket," as a neighbor wisely once said.
It is all about economics, and the United States of America, courtesy of the selfish and arrogant and disdainful Republicans whose blame-the-less-fortunate mentality I know very well because a parent was a member of the GOP and crushed my spirit with that very mentality, does NOT take care of its citizens!
The entire U.S. culture from its inception has been built on cruelty, violence, exploitation, inequality and lies. I wish this were not true because the sad results have played out in history and play out currently every_single_day.
As last week here in Albuquerque a four-year-old was shot in a road rage incident. *****A FOUR-YEAR-OLD!!!!******
Let's support repairing and building new infrastructure including modern public transportation, affordable housing EVERYWHERE, strong public education, single-payer healthcare, free higher ed, and GUN CONTROL.
Feelin' the Bern!
1
Do you mean "It takes a village?"
But the village has been destroyed by the our semi-corrupt political system, i.e. the system borne out of Citizen United that has turned Senate and House seats into items for sale at auction.
As to the rest, it's all small bore feel-good alms: a charter school here, some housing vouchers there, maybe a medical clinic (but not geared to women's health -- no no no, god know what they would end up doing there.)
All this under the watchful eye of a benevolent Ayatollah-like umpire (Brooks) who is going to call strikes and outs based on his favorite -ism of the day: socialist, in; statalist, out; integrationist, in; multiculturalist presumably out.
But the village has been destroyed by the our semi-corrupt political system, i.e. the system borne out of Citizen United that has turned Senate and House seats into items for sale at auction.
As to the rest, it's all small bore feel-good alms: a charter school here, some housing vouchers there, maybe a medical clinic (but not geared to women's health -- no no no, god know what they would end up doing there.)
All this under the watchful eye of a benevolent Ayatollah-like umpire (Brooks) who is going to call strikes and outs based on his favorite -ism of the day: socialist, in; statalist, out; integrationist, in; multiculturalist presumably out.
1
Go for it, David.
Maybe the Times should consider "A Sensible version of David Brooks." Its not corrupt politicians, it's inept ones, the ones that go to govern with the belief that less government is better and go to work and sit on their behinds obstructing instead of legislating. I don't know what Mr. Brooks is having for breakfast but I would stear clear of whatever it is. All we need is smart, pragmatic people whom understand that governing is about compromise and getting things done for the good of the nation, not children that when things don't go their way want to take the ball home. Talk to your stinking party Mr. Brooks and try to beat some sense into it!
At least this "sensible" version of Trump is just as sexist as the real one -
"People with less education are seeing their wages fall, their men drop out of the labor force..."
"The girls raised in the better neighborhoods were more likely to marry and raise their own children in two-parent homes."
I assume in DB's America the men go to work and women stay home and raise the kids.
I've disagreed a lot with DB, sometimes even didn't totally disagree, but this column shows him to be a dinosaur and not worth reading anymore.
"People with less education are seeing their wages fall, their men drop out of the labor force..."
"The girls raised in the better neighborhoods were more likely to marry and raise their own children in two-parent homes."
I assume in DB's America the men go to work and women stay home and raise the kids.
I've disagreed a lot with DB, sometimes even didn't totally disagree, but this column shows him to be a dinosaur and not worth reading anymore.
1
The most sensible and qualified candidate to be Commander in Chief is Jim Webb. The 24-hour news cycle however favors the extreme sound bite, and ignores steady, good old-fashioned leadership and judgment.
1
There was nothing steady about Jim Web at that debate. Nothing. He came off as a man who expected others to defer to him not as a steady, sound leader.
The same Jim Webb who said he left the race because the Democrats are too involved with identity politics like Black Lives Matter and removing the Confederate flag from federal grounds instead of polling at around 1%?
A sensible Donal Trump...that implies he has 'presidental' characteristics beyond his 'non-sensibleness'.
He doesn't, he's NOT a good business man...5 bankruptcies, born of wealth he focused on casinoes, reality shows, catering to the rich and quickly dismantling his 'Trump University' after lawsuits. His inheritance came primarily from FHA contracts his father turned into personal wealth. He's a successful self-promoter. That's it.
He's not a good person: he bullies, insults adversaries on a personal level, he's expedient, inconsistent, self-congratulatory, disingenuous and simply lies. It's ALWAYS about him and his ego...that's all.
Why in this great nation would anyone ever, ever select Trump as a departure point for an 'ideal' candidate profile? Because he has some early lead numbers in polling in sad GOP lineup? The entire premise of this peice is fundamentally distortive and a quagmire of rationalization. You start with a blank piece of paper, and this is the result?
He doesn't, he's NOT a good business man...5 bankruptcies, born of wealth he focused on casinoes, reality shows, catering to the rich and quickly dismantling his 'Trump University' after lawsuits. His inheritance came primarily from FHA contracts his father turned into personal wealth. He's a successful self-promoter. That's it.
He's not a good person: he bullies, insults adversaries on a personal level, he's expedient, inconsistent, self-congratulatory, disingenuous and simply lies. It's ALWAYS about him and his ego...that's all.
Why in this great nation would anyone ever, ever select Trump as a departure point for an 'ideal' candidate profile? Because he has some early lead numbers in polling in sad GOP lineup? The entire premise of this peice is fundamentally distortive and a quagmire of rationalization. You start with a blank piece of paper, and this is the result?
165
"Ladies and gentlemen, I’m no politician. I’m just a boring guy who knows how to run things." How about someone that passed laws outlawing smoking in all public places, had calories listed on fast food, installed bikes for rent and bike lanes throughout the city, established pedestrian zones where none existed and left the streets cleaner and safer than they are today? MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, anyone?
3
"Suppose there was some former general or business leader with impeccable outsider status but also a steady temperament, deep knowledge and good sense."
Why don't you just name Patreaus and Bloomberg and get it over with.
Why don't you just name Patreaus and Bloomberg and get it over with.
2
A sensible version of Donald Trump? or Donald Trump in the image of David Brooks?
Donald Trump IS sensible, David. That's why he is appealing.
Donald Trump IS sensible, David. That's why he is appealing.
1
The major problems we face are not going to be solved by finding some "national leader." Neither an outsider nor an insider in the presidency is going to be able to have much of an impact on the rise of what James Galbraith has called the predatory state. Our institutions of government and especially our politics have, in great measure, become efforts to divert public money into private hands. Even those who call themselves "tea-partners" have the sensibility to know this, even if they mistakenly believe the problem is "big" government rather than, more accurately, "predatory" government.
1
When will Mr. Brooks be making his formal announcement?
2
Nice ideas from a GOP journalist that will NEVER happen because the GOP is incapable of governing their way out of a paper bag.
2
A more sensible version of David Brooks might understand that the very people he wants to "integrate" are already stretched to the limit and have no tolerance for the social engineering of the feckless Democrats like DeBlasio and Obama, or studies that cherry pick data to present one side of a story.
A better view of the income inequality that is plaguing the middle class, the backbone of this country, is that the illegal immigration loved by the Democrats (for new voters and stirring up racial problems so they can blame Republicans) and Republicans (they love the low wage labor) is killing the ability of the middle and lower classes to make a living. Those starter jobs and low-wage jobs for those low wage/ low skill workers are going to the illegals.
And trade deals that are pushed by the "new" Democrats like Obama, and the US Chamber of Commerce. do nothing to protect US jobs, but protect the profits of US multinationals. And tax law encourages corporate tax "cheating" and "corporate welfare."
Other than the tax issue, that sounds like what Donald Trump has been saying. Oh wait, do we need a more "sensible" version so that these policies and issues are watered down so that they are acceptable to the party bosses?
NOPE. I like the current version. Go Trump.
A better view of the income inequality that is plaguing the middle class, the backbone of this country, is that the illegal immigration loved by the Democrats (for new voters and stirring up racial problems so they can blame Republicans) and Republicans (they love the low wage labor) is killing the ability of the middle and lower classes to make a living. Those starter jobs and low-wage jobs for those low wage/ low skill workers are going to the illegals.
And trade deals that are pushed by the "new" Democrats like Obama, and the US Chamber of Commerce. do nothing to protect US jobs, but protect the profits of US multinationals. And tax law encourages corporate tax "cheating" and "corporate welfare."
Other than the tax issue, that sounds like what Donald Trump has been saying. Oh wait, do we need a more "sensible" version so that these policies and issues are watered down so that they are acceptable to the party bosses?
NOPE. I like the current version. Go Trump.
1
On scale of one to ten, if the Democratic far left were one and Republican far right ten, then Democrats have moved to about eight in the interest of salvaging some public good and keeping the government functioning, and Republicans have moved to about twenty in order to advance the "cause" of promoting private interest (greed) and undermining the functions of government. At this point "bipartisan compromise" requires Democrats to move to about nineteen. It's time for whatever rational Republicans are left to join with Democrats and dump the Tea Party.
3
"It takes a judgmental village," so to speak.
2
"The voters, especially on the Republican side, seem to be despising experience this year and are looking for outsiders.......
But imagine if we had a sensible Trump in the race."
No Mr Brooks. The Republicans are not 'despising experience" The Republican voters are despising so much of what is America, common good, social justice, shared values etc. They are championing , not Rockefellar Republicans, but Roger Ailes Republicans. A party built upon divide and conquer ( the 2010 elections), ' us against them " ( i.e whites against people of color, woman and gays) ,more guns everywhere, a party of war ( I'll show Putun whose the boss! thumb thumb) and so on
Sorry Mr Brooks , a 'sensible D Trump" is like saying a sensible Republican voter ( "keep the government out of my medicare!" ) exists, But like unicorns they do not.
No, a "sensible Republican " is called a Democrat!
One of these days before next November you will right an article acknowledging that the Party you championed for so many years no longer exits ...at all!
But imagine if we had a sensible Trump in the race."
No Mr Brooks. The Republicans are not 'despising experience" The Republican voters are despising so much of what is America, common good, social justice, shared values etc. They are championing , not Rockefellar Republicans, but Roger Ailes Republicans. A party built upon divide and conquer ( the 2010 elections), ' us against them " ( i.e whites against people of color, woman and gays) ,more guns everywhere, a party of war ( I'll show Putun whose the boss! thumb thumb) and so on
Sorry Mr Brooks , a 'sensible D Trump" is like saying a sensible Republican voter ( "keep the government out of my medicare!" ) exists, But like unicorns they do not.
No, a "sensible Republican " is called a Democrat!
One of these days before next November you will right an article acknowledging that the Party you championed for so many years no longer exits ...at all!
225
Noble thoughts Mr. Brooks and brave. By writing such reasonable babble, you risk loosing your conservative credentials. It must be very tough on you right now being a thinking, reasonable person trying to maintain your membership in the conservative club. Or maybe you've already been kicked out? You do write for the NYTimes after all. Hey, if you are still in can you ask your leaders (or maybe that's our leaders) at Koch industries for permission to do some of this great stuff?
The relocation plan I'd like to see is moving the 1%ers to the inner cities so they can live in cramped and unsanitary conditions and send their children to beseiged public schools and apply for Medicaid. I'd say, oh, about 30 years there for the relocated families. Then we can examine whether their attitudes change over time. Perhaps a decrease in sociopathy?
7
What they have done successfully in MA public schools is, BUS inner city kids to Boston suburbs under a METCO program. Upside is students get a great education that is at par with best private schools in the state. Downside is students never really integrate, at the end of the day the inner city kids return home and the suburb kids go back to their well off neighborhoods. In the school cafeteria it's not unusual to see kids seat at separate tables.
The whole "sensible Donald Trump" idea is an oxymoron. Trump's entire appeal lies in his outrageousness - his frontal assault on political convention. Same with Ben Carson, who is just a soft-spoken version of The Donald: Obamacare is slavery, gun control is for Nazis, people decide to become gay in prison.
The Republican Right is not looking for an "outsider," it's looking for someone who will turn the world on its ear. If Donald Trump were "sensible," the Right wouldn't like him at all.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
The Republican Right is not looking for an "outsider," it's looking for someone who will turn the world on its ear. If Donald Trump were "sensible," the Right wouldn't like him at all.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
133
I don't think it's so much a frontal assault, as an appeal to people's baser instincts. Both Trump and Carson say aloud what others may feel, but fear to say. It seems humans always need others to look down on, and these men are taking that need to the bank.
Sorry: Colin Powell isn't going to run. Too bad. He's experienced yet an outsider, sensible yet knows how to fire people up (he's making a living as a motivational speaker). Powell is the only former Bush administration official not guilty of war crimes. I'd vote for him-- and I'm an independent who voted for Obama and will likely vote for Hillary for lack of a viable alternative.
PS--David Brooks is an independent too now, since he's ashamed to be associated with today's Republicans.
PS--David Brooks is an independent too now, since he's ashamed to be associated with today's Republicans.
1
Powell may not be guilty of war crimes, but he perpetrated the lies about weapons of mass destruction (supposedly held by the Saddam Hussein regime) which led us into Bush's disastrous Iraq War.
So not a war criminal per se, but a lying war-monger.
So not a war criminal per se, but a lying war-monger.
Unfortunately, this candidate would never make it through the Republican primaries. Being "Sensible" would disqualify him/her.
4
The first thing we need to do is shed this absurd illusion that the next president is going arrive like a modern day superhero and relieve us of all our troubles. This is the narrative that the media is pushing and it sells. Ben Carson is up in the polls 13 months before Election Day among a handful of Iowans. The reality is that the voter is looking for the candidate that will inflict the least amount of damage. Inspiration is not what drives us to the voting booth. Rather it is fear that the "other" might actually get elected.
1
"I mean we have to put the quality of the social fabric at the center of our politics." --- Just by way of comparison, please tell us what, exactly, Republicans actually DO have at the center of their politics. Is it power for the sake of having power? Money and greed? Racial animosity? A relentless march toward a shining plutocracy on a hill, full of gated communities surrounded with ramparts to keep all of the little people at bay?
3
"Basically we’ve got to get socialist."
Dropped my dentures in my morning coffee seeing that David Brooks wrote this.
Dropped my dentures in my morning coffee seeing that David Brooks wrote this.
2
According to this piece in which (to follow one fellow commenter’s simile) Brooks is merely stomping the same grapes to create a new “whine,” while first noting that "we have a polarized, dysfunctional, semi-corrupt political culture that prevents us from getting anything done” all our tedious vintner says we need do is find a wonderkind who will reverse that gridlock by finding "some policy area where there’s a basis for bipartisan action.”
Apparently the charism of this wonderkind and magic of his chosen policy area will overcome that semi-corrupt political culture which Brooks admits. To which I say bullpuckey! I submit that a potential leader with impeccable credentials and a truly big idea happens to be the most ignored candidate already in the race - Professor Lawrence Lessig. Rather than offering some pie in the sky policy panacea, Lessig offers a multi-pronged spike aimed directly at the heart of the Brooks-admitted semi-corrupt political culture: money and power. He does so by offering a plan to go after the campaign financing, gerrymandering and voter suppression and/or irrelevancy and the oligarchic take-over of our republic - which, according to the title of Lessig’s watershed book has become a “Republic Lost."
Apparently the charism of this wonderkind and magic of his chosen policy area will overcome that semi-corrupt political culture which Brooks admits. To which I say bullpuckey! I submit that a potential leader with impeccable credentials and a truly big idea happens to be the most ignored candidate already in the race - Professor Lawrence Lessig. Rather than offering some pie in the sky policy panacea, Lessig offers a multi-pronged spike aimed directly at the heart of the Brooks-admitted semi-corrupt political culture: money and power. He does so by offering a plan to go after the campaign financing, gerrymandering and voter suppression and/or irrelevancy and the oligarchic take-over of our republic - which, according to the title of Lessig’s watershed book has become a “Republic Lost."
4
A "sensible Trump" is an oxymoron, as is a "sensible Carson".
“It’s called the ‘American dream’ but you have to be asleep to believe it.”
~ GEORGE CARLIN
“It’s called the ‘American dream’ but you have to be asleep to believe it.”
~ GEORGE CARLIN
6
American day dream.
The easiest and most obvious criticism of the political system in America today?
The political system has crushed independent intellectual thought in this nation--and really, true intellectual thought cannot help but be independent. The written word--obvious and most efficient means of transmitting idea through a populace--has clearly been crushed under committee, group thinking, team playing, with the result that the only ideas in word which come to public notice are on average, group vetted level, and if some mistake occurs then no one really takes the blame--after all, all is a group affair.
This means all politics in America is inside politics. It makes little sense to speak of choosing an outsider for politics--a person not firmly within system thinking--if the system itself does not first allow a healthy intellectual life, a life of literature, clear thinking and writing, along with science, preeminent place in the nation. If a healthy intellectual life does not exist no real outsider can arrive in politics because the outsider is already steeped, spoiled in the television, talk radio, education system, think tank system, business committee, etc. type thinking which warps and corrupts independent, non-partisan thought. Things are so bad in my opinion I suggest the educational system begin telling children that if a job is desired in politics and/or business it helps to have low, even criminal, tendencies. Learn to pass the buck and consider #1 when things go south.
The political system has crushed independent intellectual thought in this nation--and really, true intellectual thought cannot help but be independent. The written word--obvious and most efficient means of transmitting idea through a populace--has clearly been crushed under committee, group thinking, team playing, with the result that the only ideas in word which come to public notice are on average, group vetted level, and if some mistake occurs then no one really takes the blame--after all, all is a group affair.
This means all politics in America is inside politics. It makes little sense to speak of choosing an outsider for politics--a person not firmly within system thinking--if the system itself does not first allow a healthy intellectual life, a life of literature, clear thinking and writing, along with science, preeminent place in the nation. If a healthy intellectual life does not exist no real outsider can arrive in politics because the outsider is already steeped, spoiled in the television, talk radio, education system, think tank system, business committee, etc. type thinking which warps and corrupts independent, non-partisan thought. Things are so bad in my opinion I suggest the educational system begin telling children that if a job is desired in politics and/or business it helps to have low, even criminal, tendencies. Learn to pass the buck and consider #1 when things go south.
2
I worked in Corrections for many years. The average daily count of inmates in our custody went up from 245 in 1982 to 2020 in 2007. Mass incarceration and economic decline began to sweep more and more poor whites into the system too, although in much smaller numbers than non-whites. "Strangely", I noticed that white prisoners shared many of the same destructive cultural traits more widely seen among the non-white inmates who were poor. David, like so many others, you continue confuse the culture of poverty with a set of problems unique to one's race.
147
David, I thought for a second that you were writing to suggest that voters consider supporting a third alternative to the squabbling reds and blues: Jim Webb. Yes, indeed, we are looking for a leader, a uniter, not a hater. It's laughable (but destructive) to want to call Americans in one political party or the other (who just happen to have a different political opinion than your own) an "enemy." As long as you're not picky as to what Party a candidate represents, then Jim Webb pretty much fits into the boots of your dream candidate, David. Most of the press wrote him off too soon, and he was prevented from having a fair opportunity to present his ideas during the Democratic debate, but Jim Webb might still get something going as an Independent. (Debate: 14 minutes vs. 34 minutes for the "most favored" candidate? Does that seem *fair* to you?)
No more issue litmus tests for me. I'll vote for anyone of any party (or no party) who has these basic qualities: 1) They don't lie. 2) They put the country's interest above personal or party advantage. 3) They have successfully led people working within a bureaucracy to whittle away at bureaucratic absurdities. Jim Webb has all those qualities, in spades. It's a big plus that he's uniquely equipped to be Commander-in-Chief and that his ideas on issues tend to line up with where the bulk of the country stands. Please take a look at his website at www.webb2016.com and think some more about Jim Webb for President! Best wishes, Mary
No more issue litmus tests for me. I'll vote for anyone of any party (or no party) who has these basic qualities: 1) They don't lie. 2) They put the country's interest above personal or party advantage. 3) They have successfully led people working within a bureaucracy to whittle away at bureaucratic absurdities. Jim Webb has all those qualities, in spades. It's a big plus that he's uniquely equipped to be Commander-in-Chief and that his ideas on issues tend to line up with where the bulk of the country stands. Please take a look at his website at www.webb2016.com and think some more about Jim Webb for President! Best wishes, Mary
1
This is an amazing piece. It's almost more than an old Black guy can take early in the morning. It is so good to read a balanced, sensible, practical prescription for how to move "all of us" forward.
2
Calling Mike Bloomberg
What you say is laudable: "We’ve got to devolve a lot of power from Washington back to local communities. These neighborhoods can’t thrive if they are not responsible for themselves."
But here's the rub: do you think neighborhoods and states, especially in the deep South, will voluntarily take on that responsibility, that effort of creativity, without legal prompting from our national, federal Republic? We have a long and painful history from the Civil War to Desegregation all the way up Obamacare's implementation as fertile evidence to the contrary. What you say is true of rich urban/suburban neighborhoods willingly performing their jobs swimmingly.
But opt-out coupons for private schools, charter schools for all? Our nation was founded on the Jeffersonian idea of the necessity (not right) of universal public education for ANY real democracy to survive and grow. This goal seems to be long since lost on today's conservatives. There is no bridging the current Right with the Left on this issue, but nice try.
But here's the rub: do you think neighborhoods and states, especially in the deep South, will voluntarily take on that responsibility, that effort of creativity, without legal prompting from our national, federal Republic? We have a long and painful history from the Civil War to Desegregation all the way up Obamacare's implementation as fertile evidence to the contrary. What you say is true of rich urban/suburban neighborhoods willingly performing their jobs swimmingly.
But opt-out coupons for private schools, charter schools for all? Our nation was founded on the Jeffersonian idea of the necessity (not right) of universal public education for ANY real democracy to survive and grow. This goal seems to be long since lost on today's conservatives. There is no bridging the current Right with the Left on this issue, but nice try.
133
David's hypothetical outsider would get little support in today's GOP. For some reason they have a large group of voters attracted to crackpots like Trump and Carson. It's not just their outsider status that is so appealing. It's the promise to to deport all illegals, the silly claims that "every other country in the world is beating us, the vague promise the "make America great again" and the climate change and evolution denialism that is getting Trump and Carson the support their getting now.
130
Actually, Carson half-fits the bill. Seriously religious, an admirable history of saving lives as a neurosurgeon. The unfortunate other half is that he has no governmental or management experience---he's never run anything larger than an operating room.
The title turned me off, so I didn't read this article. But if it is a defense for considering Trump a viable candidate for the presidency, I can only scratch my head. What I have seen of him on the TV makes me think we are so desparate that we are scraping the bottom of the barrel for worthy candidates.
1
It sounds like Mt. Brooks is offering up the Democrats platform. Now let's get the Republicans aboard. Also, a "semi-corrupt political culture" is not possible. It's like being semi-pregnant.
3
"Semi-corrupt political culture"? Is "semi-corrupt" the "new corrupt"? Does Mr. Brooks mean to say our politicians only only vote for the interests of their campaign contributors and future K-Street employers half the time?
In fact, the centrist politician Brooks describes here is Barack Obama, minus the business lobby. We'd have pretty much what Brooks describes if we could only get rid of the Republican party, Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce. Modest proposal?
In fact, the centrist politician Brooks describes here is Barack Obama, minus the business lobby. We'd have pretty much what Brooks describes if we could only get rid of the Republican party, Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce. Modest proposal?
7
David Brooks claims "we've got to expand charter schools".
It would be better to expand high-quality schools. Here in Ohio we have a lot of evidence that the median charter school is lower-quality than the median traditional public school.
It would be better to expand high-quality schools. Here in Ohio we have a lot of evidence that the median charter school is lower-quality than the median traditional public school.
11
Not going to happen David. The Republican party, driven by it's wacky base, has eliminated this possibility. In fact the party dynamics even cause formerly reasonable candidates to renounce their own values and signature accomplishments. See also Mitt Romney. The calculus is that if you are reasonable, strong, and smart enough to do the job, you are smart enough not to go there, because that way lies ruin.
114
Why are charter schools always the "answer?" Why can't we fix the public schools so ALL our kids will thrive, even those whose parents don't give a damn, or don't know enough to negotiate the system???
18
First of all, conservative and progressive writers do NOT see the reality of income maldistribution similarly — the vast majority of the GOP still denies its reality or thinks that it is some sort of engine for economic growth and therefore a very good thing, even in the face of 3 decades of evidence to the contrary.
Second, the Republicans are not interested in new research, or old research, or any kind of actual investigation into, you know, reality. There is a huge amount already known about the facts of income disparity and the sociology of poverty, and I don't know of a single GOP member of congress who offers any view, much less any solution, that is consistent with the real world. They're too busy whipping up people's prejudices with distortions and outright lies.
Mr. Brooks is exceptional in his willingness to think reasonably about these issues, but he could never get into Congress by running on that platform in any red state. In fact there is no way that he would get elected to town alderman.
Second, the Republicans are not interested in new research, or old research, or any kind of actual investigation into, you know, reality. There is a huge amount already known about the facts of income disparity and the sociology of poverty, and I don't know of a single GOP member of congress who offers any view, much less any solution, that is consistent with the real world. They're too busy whipping up people's prejudices with distortions and outright lies.
Mr. Brooks is exceptional in his willingness to think reasonably about these issues, but he could never get into Congress by running on that platform in any red state. In fact there is no way that he would get elected to town alderman.
194
When was the last business man or general elected president? Eisenhower, and he'd essentially functioned as the very political chairman of the Anglo American military alliance (which he was very good at) and not a battlefield commander. The notion that running the US is remotely similar to leading a major corporation or an army corps both of which are essentially command and control organizations is one of the simplistic myths much beloved by the public and the more impressionable media chatterers. The non partisan man on the white horse has always loomed large in the popular imagination and the end results have seldom been happy. The fact of the matter is partisanship is baked into our essentially adversarial political system. Such common ground as once existed has largely disappeared under the scorched earth tactics employed by the Republicans over the last 25 years and in which Brooks himself has played a not insignificant role. Now he is trying to wish away the basic political reality that today's Democratic and Republican parties believe in very different things (Brownback/Ryan versus Clinton/Obama if you want to think of it in terms of personalities). These are not chimeras they are substantive issues that affect the lives of millions.
3
You lost me at "A Sensible Version of Donald Trump."
5
The responsibility for gridlock in Washington that even establishment politicians on the GOP side are starting to see is caused by extremists now dominating the party due to unchecked campaign contributions and the influence of Fox News and hate radio to stoke partisanship since President Obama was elected.
2
"The voters, especially on the Republican side, seem to be despising experience this year and are looking for outsiders." This insinuates that Democrats are looking for an outsider. Not true as Hillary and Bernie are both essentially life long politicians.
This is a stunt Brooks pulls all the time in equating Republican misguided activity is also done by Democrats. Thus, somehow the nonsense that the Republicans constantly do is somehow justified by having equal activity on the other side, the Democrats. Wrong, wrong--only the Republicans do it so stop the thought that the Democrats are also guilty.
This is a stunt Brooks pulls all the time in equating Republican misguided activity is also done by Democrats. Thus, somehow the nonsense that the Republicans constantly do is somehow justified by having equal activity on the other side, the Democrats. Wrong, wrong--only the Republicans do it so stop the thought that the Democrats are also guilty.
2
The fantasy here is not that there could be such a candidate, it's that he would poll well. The first problem such a hero would have to address is our system of elections, designed and run by partisans. Why should Iowa and South Carolina be so important? Why do we tolerate redistricting that makes collaboration impossible? In the information age, why is advertising the most potent source for political information? How can we be sensible about climate change or financial oversight if 158 families self-interested in finance and energy provide half the seed money to support candidates? Until these are the central issues of debate, we're painting over rot and rust.
2
Mr. Brooks lost me when he wrote: “…neighborhoods can’t thrive if they are not responsible for themselves. Then we’ve got to expand charter schools. The best charter schools radiate diverse but strong cultures of achievement.”
Sorry, Mr. Brooks, but charter schools are NOT the answer for neighborhoods that are “responsible for themselves”. The best public schools, those located in the communities cited in the research you referenced, are well funded by their responsible democratically elected school boards and they all “…radiate diverse but strong cultures of achievement”. Democratically elected school boards who are able to provide robust offerings for the ALL the children they serve are the best way forward for responsible neighborhoods. Give school boards in the city the same democratic oversight and expansive funding as those in Scarsdale and I believe you would see “diverse but strong cultures of achievement” everywhere in the city.
Sorry, Mr. Brooks, but charter schools are NOT the answer for neighborhoods that are “responsible for themselves”. The best public schools, those located in the communities cited in the research you referenced, are well funded by their responsible democratically elected school boards and they all “…radiate diverse but strong cultures of achievement”. Democratically elected school boards who are able to provide robust offerings for the ALL the children they serve are the best way forward for responsible neighborhoods. Give school boards in the city the same democratic oversight and expansive funding as those in Scarsdale and I believe you would see “diverse but strong cultures of achievement” everywhere in the city.
1
Brooks references the Chetty et al study, which shows that Moving to Opportunity produced some successes. It’s a case of top-down intervention producing some favorable results.
Later he states that we need to “devolve a lot of power from Washington back to local communities. These neighborhoods can’t thrive if they are not responsible for themselves.” The characterization of Washington’s power over local communities is dubious. But fine.
Doesn’t the study suggest that success resulted from taking families out of these communities, the ones to which Brooks wants to restore local power?
So are we supposed to conclude that it was federal power over local communities that was preventing family success within these neighborhoods?
Are we to conclude that middle-class communities, with their restored local power, will not only welcome poor families into their neighborhoods, but perhaps even court them?
We've got to get integrationist? Ok, I suppose your suggestion is we get the federal government out of local communities, and this integrationist spirit will spread throughout the land?
Dissonance.
Later he states that we need to “devolve a lot of power from Washington back to local communities. These neighborhoods can’t thrive if they are not responsible for themselves.” The characterization of Washington’s power over local communities is dubious. But fine.
Doesn’t the study suggest that success resulted from taking families out of these communities, the ones to which Brooks wants to restore local power?
So are we supposed to conclude that it was federal power over local communities that was preventing family success within these neighborhoods?
Are we to conclude that middle-class communities, with their restored local power, will not only welcome poor families into their neighborhoods, but perhaps even court them?
We've got to get integrationist? Ok, I suppose your suggestion is we get the federal government out of local communities, and this integrationist spirit will spread throughout the land?
Dissonance.
1
Beyond his usual promotion of charter schools, which, at least here in the South, are simply another tool used by white Republicans to re-segregate our schools at public expense, Mr. Brooks oddly doesn't seem to realize that a great many, if not most, progressives have been saying what he thinks "a sensible Donald Trump" would say about a dysfunctional political process and a sinking middle= and working-class population.
We don't need a "sensible Donald Trump" to tell us what we already know and have been talking about for years. We need a sensible group of Republicans in Congress who will work in a bipartisan way to resolve the very issues about which Mr. Brooks speaks.
MEMO TO DAVID BROOKS: The only "policy area where there's a basis for bipartisan" cooperation is the "policy area" advocated by radical, right-wing Republicans. They aren't going to cooperate in any other area. And they take pride in telling the world exactly that.
Give it up, David.
We don't need a "sensible Donald Trump" to tell us what we already know and have been talking about for years. We need a sensible group of Republicans in Congress who will work in a bipartisan way to resolve the very issues about which Mr. Brooks speaks.
MEMO TO DAVID BROOKS: The only "policy area where there's a basis for bipartisan" cooperation is the "policy area" advocated by radical, right-wing Republicans. They aren't going to cooperate in any other area. And they take pride in telling the world exactly that.
Give it up, David.
3
How is this in any way, shape, or form like Donald Trump?
2
I know that many of my fellow liberals will jump all over the notion of moving families to attain integration and community involvement, but I am old enough to remember the movement to build "projects," which was another name for housing for the poor. Part of the outcome was to bring us racial segregation on a large scale. It also brought poverty to a concentrated area. It brought illiteracy and ultimately violence where it didn't exist. I have long argued to integrate poorer and racially diverse folks into middle-class neighborhoods and burbs. If we all had the same goals -getting educated, getting a good job, getting a good wife or husband there would be less hostility and crime. Instead of a white America and a black America we could have and should have aimed for one America. However, realtors have actively steered "undesirable," (poor and black and brown and Latino) people away from "White," enclaves. They argued that integration would cause property values to drop and that frightened white people. The result, even in the burbs, was some middle-class but segregated communities emerged which helps to keep racial hostility alive. We are now a million years down track and little has been solved. The poor are still segregated and uneducated and likely to have their young enter into crime while the "white" community moralizes their disdain. The poor have no control of their fate. It is up to the rest of us to try to put a stop to this cruelty.
87
" However, realtors have actively steered "undesirable," (poor and black and brown and Latino) people away from "White," enclaves. They argued that integration would cause property values to drop and that frightened white people. The result, even in the burbs, was some middle-class but segregated communities emerged which helps to keep racial hostility alive."
Reads like a description of Easton CT.
Reads like a description of Easton CT.
Neighborhoods are successfully integrated when the residents - regardless of ethnicity - adhere to a shared value system. In my solidly middle-class suburban California neighborhood, the only problems we ever have arise when someone moves in next door and trashes the place, leaves small children to wander in the street, blasts music at all hours, permits unsupervised teenagers to party in the house, acquires animals that are neglected, parks cars in the weed-choked yard, and behaves abusively toward anyone who suggests that they are creating a problem for the neighborhood. It's pretty simple. Suggest we all agree that it doesn't constitute racism to insist that some sort of basic values be shared by everyone.
Hold on - the "projects" you seem to deride were originally built to house blue collar workers returning from the war, looking to start out and build lives and families. This was very much the case for example in Bridgeport CT, where Beardsley Terrace, the Green Homes and Marina Village among others, housed factory workers like my uncles. The white flight to the suburbs left the poorest of the poor behind, the factory jobs moved south, and then overseas, Reagan and then his war on drugs hit, abstinence took the place of sex ed, and wala!, our cities became the dumping grounds for everything the white suburban voters didn't want to see.
Let's not oversimplify.
Let's not oversimplify.
1
Trump would probably run the country as if a business. Who cares as long as the US has its king.
All dt can run is his mouth, even his casinos have gone bankrupt.
Be specific.
A "series of initiatives to create environments of opportunity in middle-, working- and lower-class neighborhoods" is government aid, government programs, redistribution of wealth, education, bussing, low-income housing in wealthy areas, medical care, training, justice & fair policing, creating revenue for these programs by asking the extremely wealthy to put a drop more in the bucket for the benefit of the whole, maybe even reigning in gratuitous military rabble-rousing which might conserve the more than 50% of revenue blown on the pentagon....
What were you thinking??
Rush & the red wing will fry you for dinner for even breathing such words!
You know full well they're not looking to improve the lot of the poor, they want the poor to be pacified, segregated & quarantined. They want the unfettered right to get rich at the expense of the poor, and blame poverty on the systemically disenfranchised.
A "series of initiatives to create environments of opportunity in middle-, working- and lower-class neighborhoods" is government aid, government programs, redistribution of wealth, education, bussing, low-income housing in wealthy areas, medical care, training, justice & fair policing, creating revenue for these programs by asking the extremely wealthy to put a drop more in the bucket for the benefit of the whole, maybe even reigning in gratuitous military rabble-rousing which might conserve the more than 50% of revenue blown on the pentagon....
What were you thinking??
Rush & the red wing will fry you for dinner for even breathing such words!
You know full well they're not looking to improve the lot of the poor, they want the poor to be pacified, segregated & quarantined. They want the unfettered right to get rich at the expense of the poor, and blame poverty on the systemically disenfranchised.
260
This sounds like a call to bring back Ike and Mamie. Ike would be viewed by his party today as a flaming liberal, however. I never thought I'd see the day when I missed them, but given the current GOP field - I like Ike. But really, charter schools? How about improving the ones we have?
3
Actually we do have an outsider who fits the bill with a perfect resume, his name is Michael Bloomberg. Not only he has built a media and communication empire from scratch - he worth approx. $38 billion and doesn't brag about it - but he has also a solid record of public service as the mayor of U.S. largest city for 3 terms. I agree everything was not rosy under Bloomberg; homelessness and poverty rose and robust policing alienated minorities. But on the positive side, he was able to keep the city's finances in check after the havoc of 9/11 and got rid of City Hall's corruption and clientelism. But you see his problem is that he's too reasonable for the average GOP voter since he wants to establish comprehensive gun controls and too "out of touch" for liberals because, well he's a multi-billionaire...
165
Nope, won't happen. And if it did he couldn't fix Congress.
He also tends to be (GASP!) more of a social liberal, anathema to the GOPers.
No thanks to Charter Schools that just milk resources from the Public School system, and no thanks to public funding of Church groups - as well meaning as they might be. How about strong, well funded, Public institutions.
8
Brooks seems to be saying that Trump has the right ideas in the wrong package. An interesting bserbation considering that Trump's persona is what moves the message. He is the bully republicans have been looking for. I cannot wait for the Clinton/Trump debates when the complete Trump will be revealed as a fraud....
You don't want much, do you, David Brooks - just "a former general or business leader with impeccable outsider status, also a steady temperament, deep knowledge and good sense"? You see opportunity turned into community hubs through "socialism" - and integrationism - social activity, not Bernie's socialism. You are correct that partisan mentalities are the real problem today. A sensible version of Donald Trump would be a sensible version of The Road Runner, beepbeep. David, you're an "outsider"; why don't you run?
1
The US is impossibly gridlocked, and this is only increasing.
Just read the posts here to see how the left, and in other places the right, hates the "other."
Just read the posts here to see how the left, and in other places the right, hates the "other."
1
David,
So we want a sensible Trump huh? Did you get that idea from the article that appears currently at the National Review entitled "If Donald Trump is George Wallace, who will be Richard Nixon?" The article argues that Nixon stole his way into the white house by using a softened version of George Wallace's race-based populism. I too wonder who this new character will be and what way he will tone down the blow-hard's message to steal his way into the white house. One wonders if this character will also steal his way out of the white house as Nixon did. I find that scenario likely, given the gang of rich, white crooks you support.
So we want a sensible Trump huh? Did you get that idea from the article that appears currently at the National Review entitled "If Donald Trump is George Wallace, who will be Richard Nixon?" The article argues that Nixon stole his way into the white house by using a softened version of George Wallace's race-based populism. I too wonder who this new character will be and what way he will tone down the blow-hard's message to steal his way into the white house. One wonders if this character will also steal his way out of the white house as Nixon did. I find that scenario likely, given the gang of rich, white crooks you support.
2
we should be so lucky to get this kind of candidate from either party. but politicians nowadays are only out for themselves. i think politicians should not be allowed to be lobbyists after serving government. sitting politicians should not be allowed to run for higher office -- how can they govern when campaigning.
and people are not willing to fund these great ideas with more taxes, because no one seems to want to help others out. when the USA was great, as trump says, the taxes were extraordinarily high. no one is willing to go back to those days. that's why they love reagan.
and people are not willing to fund these great ideas with more taxes, because no one seems to want to help others out. when the USA was great, as trump says, the taxes were extraordinarily high. no one is willing to go back to those days. that's why they love reagan.
"Basically we’ve got to get socialist. No, I don’t mean the way Bernie Sanders is a socialist. He’s a statist, not a socialist. I mean we have to put the quality of the social fabric at the center of our politics. And we’ve got to get personalist: to treat people as full human beings, not just economic units you fix by writing checks."
"Then we’ve got to get integrationist, to integrate different races and classes through national service and school and relocation vouchers. And finally, we have to get a little moralistic..."
So now you are looking for the Nirvana that your party, the GOP, destroyed?
David. Statist, shmatist, there is such a man that you are looking for. Bernie Sanders. The problem is that too many low information Americans aren't worthy of him and as long as they cower before the shadow government of bankers, oligarchs and corporation run this country, he'll never become president and neither will the average American get a fair break. The countries in Europe who became Social Democrats are the most successful in promoting the well-being of their citizens (well, until the Muslims arrived) so get over the "S" word; we are already a socialist country but no one wants to say it and the GOP wants to destroy it. In the meantime, much of the in-denial American uneducated schnook is cowering in the corner, afraid to, or unable to, confront the powers that be.
"Then we’ve got to get integrationist, to integrate different races and classes through national service and school and relocation vouchers. And finally, we have to get a little moralistic..."
So now you are looking for the Nirvana that your party, the GOP, destroyed?
David. Statist, shmatist, there is such a man that you are looking for. Bernie Sanders. The problem is that too many low information Americans aren't worthy of him and as long as they cower before the shadow government of bankers, oligarchs and corporation run this country, he'll never become president and neither will the average American get a fair break. The countries in Europe who became Social Democrats are the most successful in promoting the well-being of their citizens (well, until the Muslims arrived) so get over the "S" word; we are already a socialist country but no one wants to say it and the GOP wants to destroy it. In the meantime, much of the in-denial American uneducated schnook is cowering in the corner, afraid to, or unable to, confront the powers that be.
While David's decency show in what he hopes for, in fact, turning power over to the states is used mostly as a ruse to shift a few dollars to state coffers with no replacement programming. Sorry - the conservatives really don't want to help. They just want an excuse not to.
1
What about Lawrence Lessing?
1
Am I the only one who thinks of Jimmy Carter while reading this article.
Bless this courageous, kind, thoughtful man.
Bless this courageous, kind, thoughtful man.
12
Jimmy Carter has done more for the world than almost any other U.S. president in history. It is sad, though, that are age 90, Carter is one of the world's leaders for women's rights, while NO ONE in the U.S. is even close. But most Americans think Ronald Reagan, the president who betrayed his own country by selling weapons to the Ayatollah Khomeini to defeat Carter, is some sort of hero. Reagan was lucky; the Soviet Union's decision to invaded Afghanistan crippled that country, much as Bush's invasion of Iraq has crippled the U.S.
I think Mr. Brooks has some excellent ideas as humans lives are determined by their unique blend of genetics, environment & culture. Therefore, it makes sense that altering any of the three could result in improvement overall. If universal pre-school was provided with wrap around services, more impoverished people would have access to service whether they were in the form of adult education, job training, medical services, art & music classes, food & clothing bank, assistance with applying for government services like food stamps, housing, medicaid or Obamacare, parenting classes, etc. In fact, these services are already in place in most public schools around the country who serve as community hubs. Schools are natural magnets for all services that nurture community growth. This is why the deep cuts to education made in the last few decades have made it difficult for students & parents.
The idea that moving people to new locations to give them a fresh start is a good idea since peer pressure is similar to herd mentality. A child growing up without the negative influence of neighborhood drug dealing, gambling, gangs, graffiti, school drop outs & liquor stores. On the other hand, I doubt there are many families that willingly want to relocate from their community & move to an all American white city like Wheaton, IL, Fairbanks, AL or Billings, Montana. Invest in existing infrastructure & public education to improve lives instead of tax breaks for the 1%.
The idea that moving people to new locations to give them a fresh start is a good idea since peer pressure is similar to herd mentality. A child growing up without the negative influence of neighborhood drug dealing, gambling, gangs, graffiti, school drop outs & liquor stores. On the other hand, I doubt there are many families that willingly want to relocate from their community & move to an all American white city like Wheaton, IL, Fairbanks, AL or Billings, Montana. Invest in existing infrastructure & public education to improve lives instead of tax breaks for the 1%.
3
In times like these it's tempting to look for that person outside the system that will suddenly restore comity and sanity to politics. But what we fail to realize is that our politics are broken because we as a people are deeply divided and politics simply reflects that.
Over on the right, people are incensed about illegal immigration and scared about our fiscal issues. Yet over on the left, Bernie Sanders has built a considerable constituency calling for even more spending and expanding government even more, while virtually all Democrats wish to legalize those immigrants here illegally. Many feel the whole panoply of social grievance and affirmative action is wrong headed and hurtful while many others feel exactly the opposite. No savior is going to come down from on high and suddenly reconcile those opinions.
Which is also why partisanship is not necessarily bad. Yes, it can be and all too often is overdone. But the way this ends is when one party achieves electoral supremacy and imposes its solutions and those work. And just like FDR's experience, the process of doing so will eventually produce a new paradigm, a new societal consensus upon which we all will move forward.
It is also foolish to discount career politicians. In a democracy, politics is how you get things done. And someone pure of heart cajoling everyone to behave and pull together is just going to get ignored. Our politics aren't coherent right now because we are not. That takes work, not a savior.
Over on the right, people are incensed about illegal immigration and scared about our fiscal issues. Yet over on the left, Bernie Sanders has built a considerable constituency calling for even more spending and expanding government even more, while virtually all Democrats wish to legalize those immigrants here illegally. Many feel the whole panoply of social grievance and affirmative action is wrong headed and hurtful while many others feel exactly the opposite. No savior is going to come down from on high and suddenly reconcile those opinions.
Which is also why partisanship is not necessarily bad. Yes, it can be and all too often is overdone. But the way this ends is when one party achieves electoral supremacy and imposes its solutions and those work. And just like FDR's experience, the process of doing so will eventually produce a new paradigm, a new societal consensus upon which we all will move forward.
It is also foolish to discount career politicians. In a democracy, politics is how you get things done. And someone pure of heart cajoling everyone to behave and pull together is just going to get ignored. Our politics aren't coherent right now because we are not. That takes work, not a savior.
3
A sensible outsider by definition would not participate in the GOP candidate selection process. To attract sensible outsiders the Republican insiders must first rid themselves of their political nihilists.
1
A good deal of this sounds like the much-maligned Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, which did so much to bring blacks into government in the long term. Congratulations, Mr. Brooks--you've evolved up to the 1960s.
3
A candidate as David describes has a much better chance of succeeding as a Democrat than as a Republican. As a Democrat it would a struggle, as a Republican his chances are zero. No one sensible will advocate destroying Planned Parenthood, ban abortions in all circumstances,reduce taxes on the wealthy, deport all illegal immigrants, ignore climate change and pretend teaching evolution in high school should be balanced by presenting alternative views. Together those positions are what moves the majority of the GOP primary voters.
4
You want localism? Bernie's your man. He was the true localist that helped Burlington become one of America's most livable cities.
14
Not just that, they even have a sister city in Russia. That's cultural exchange at its best.
The column is actually pretty good - though I'm sure the Usual Gang will jump all over it - and I'd vote for the candidate who made a speech like this.
However, politics and government experience and private enterprise experience are not interchangeable. Private enterprise management is authoritarian, hierarchical, and exclusive (that is, it solves problems, a.k.a. externalities, by foisting them on society whenever possible). Government, to work, has to be cooperative and compromising, and much of its function is to restrain the excesses and mop up the messes of private enterprise. At best business and government are complementary; often they are antithetical.
So the skills for one are not easily transferable. Electing a businessman to govern is like taking the driver of American automatic-transmission SUV and putting him behind the wheel of an English stick-shift subcompact or a tractor. He may figure out how to get somewhere, but it'll take a lot of trial and error (and probably do some damage on the way.)
I have other caveats but no room to explore them here.
However, politics and government experience and private enterprise experience are not interchangeable. Private enterprise management is authoritarian, hierarchical, and exclusive (that is, it solves problems, a.k.a. externalities, by foisting them on society whenever possible). Government, to work, has to be cooperative and compromising, and much of its function is to restrain the excesses and mop up the messes of private enterprise. At best business and government are complementary; often they are antithetical.
So the skills for one are not easily transferable. Electing a businessman to govern is like taking the driver of American automatic-transmission SUV and putting him behind the wheel of an English stick-shift subcompact or a tractor. He may figure out how to get somewhere, but it'll take a lot of trial and error (and probably do some damage on the way.)
I have other caveats but no room to explore them here.
8
We have to closely analyze The Social Democratic Welfare State Model we pursue. The GOP has introduced considerable resistance, and that has developed into the popular term Dysfunction. So far, because of our economic malaise, brought on by lack of regulation and a corruption license, the middle class has nowhere to turn. The poor are obvious wards of the state. WW 2 curtain has finally come down, and we have no model to go forward other than Globalization. Globalization originally marketed as free trade is a sound model, however the result is it benefits few. Low consumer prices at Wal Mart and imported Apple gadgets are examples. Comprehensive tax reform is needed but our system doesn't have the tools to address it.
3
I actually agree with David Brooks: this is what Trump would propose if he were an NYT op-ed columnist who had to make the pretense of sounding sensible every week. It's all hogwash, of course, from the promotion of the great charter schools rip-off to redefining "socialist" so that it means communitarian. But Trump has always traveled in hogwash; is Brooks saying that he does, too? I would also agree with that.
8
Creating better neighborhoods is a fine idea but it's hardly possible in NYC where surveys tell us a 1-bedroom apartment now rents for $3500. And what happened to the basic rules: graduate (from HS), don't have children out of wedlock, get a job and stay there until you have another job offer.
1
Mr. Brooks is being his customary thoughtful and hopeful self. The best road to improvement for the working class will be decent paying blue collar jobs, not very likely any more in the anti-union, free trade, flat world era of thinking. Suggesting charter schools as a means of improvement and then in the next breath consigning preschool responsibilities to the public institutions is cherry picking and contradictory.
To create strong communities, well-funded PUBLIC schools need to be in place in towns wishing to improve the lot of the working class. The model described by Mr. Brooks is the one that red states use to keep taxes low at the expense of underfund schools.
In New Jersey, we attempt to do this by mandating affordable housing in all (more affluent) communities. The schools and social networks in these places provide strong support and models for those families fortunate enough to secure housing in them. While many criticize this as social engineering, it does provide some of which Mr. Brooks is recommending, and it does help families, especially children.
To create strong communities, well-funded PUBLIC schools need to be in place in towns wishing to improve the lot of the working class. The model described by Mr. Brooks is the one that red states use to keep taxes low at the expense of underfund schools.
In New Jersey, we attempt to do this by mandating affordable housing in all (more affluent) communities. The schools and social networks in these places provide strong support and models for those families fortunate enough to secure housing in them. While many criticize this as social engineering, it does provide some of which Mr. Brooks is recommending, and it does help families, especially children.
176
Bravo! I wholeheartedly agree with your point on public schools and housing.
I don't know about thoughtful. This piece sounds like he wrote it on his way in on the train. Seriously.
The study that showed that by moving to a better environments children that went on to live lives that were similar to those lived by those who resided in those better environments proved that children learn to adapt to the society they grew up in.
So the idea that creating "environments of opportunity" by changing the schools, and to provide funds to help churches and other groups expand their influence, will produce similar results misses the point of the studies.
Because the reason those raised in the better environments were more likely to have their children within a family and not out of wedlock, had nothing to do with the quality of the schools, as these are not things that are learned in school. It was because they adapted the ways and lifestyles of the people of the new environment.
And the reason they went on to get higher paying jobs was also not because of elementary schools or the influence of churches or other groups. It was because they took a different path through life, starting from the beginning with a higher target as their goal.
Values and lifestyles are not learned in schools, they are the natural product of the society one lives in. And so the "environment" is about the people that make the society. And a society with its values and outlook on life is something that runs very deep through generations. It is ludicrous to think that children will no longer be products of their societies by changing their schools and "wraparound programs for parents".
So the idea that creating "environments of opportunity" by changing the schools, and to provide funds to help churches and other groups expand their influence, will produce similar results misses the point of the studies.
Because the reason those raised in the better environments were more likely to have their children within a family and not out of wedlock, had nothing to do with the quality of the schools, as these are not things that are learned in school. It was because they adapted the ways and lifestyles of the people of the new environment.
And the reason they went on to get higher paying jobs was also not because of elementary schools or the influence of churches or other groups. It was because they took a different path through life, starting from the beginning with a higher target as their goal.
Values and lifestyles are not learned in schools, they are the natural product of the society one lives in. And so the "environment" is about the people that make the society. And a society with its values and outlook on life is something that runs very deep through generations. It is ludicrous to think that children will no longer be products of their societies by changing their schools and "wraparound programs for parents".
3
Is a Colin Powell going to expose himself and family to the tea party pillorying?
2
What you conservatives don't get is that when you talk about "workers" who are economically struggling and start in with the "family values" bit about marriage and "stay in school" about education, you presume there are "good jobs" out there that will support a middle class and allow people to consume and live a comfortable life while accumulating retirement assets and a nest egg of wealth line the great "American Dream" of yore.
Well, newsflash, look outside your bubble and ask around. You'll see that the great divide discussed by you colleague Paul Krugman means that there are basically two classes in America now: the working class from waitstaff to brain surgeons who are living paycheck to paycheck (and bearing the majority if the tax burden for the military and perpetual wars, crumbling infrastructure and transfer payments to the truly destitute) and the capital class owners discussed by Piketty, the 0.01% four hundred families that own everything including hundreds of paid off sock puppet politicians thanks to a corrupt Supreme Court and Citizens United.
Your hypothetical technocratic Panglossian businessman really has a lot more work cut out for him dealing with this situation than finding some elusive bipartisan issues he or she can build a consensus around (Obama failed there).
Well, newsflash, look outside your bubble and ask around. You'll see that the great divide discussed by you colleague Paul Krugman means that there are basically two classes in America now: the working class from waitstaff to brain surgeons who are living paycheck to paycheck (and bearing the majority if the tax burden for the military and perpetual wars, crumbling infrastructure and transfer payments to the truly destitute) and the capital class owners discussed by Piketty, the 0.01% four hundred families that own everything including hundreds of paid off sock puppet politicians thanks to a corrupt Supreme Court and Citizens United.
Your hypothetical technocratic Panglossian businessman really has a lot more work cut out for him dealing with this situation than finding some elusive bipartisan issues he or she can build a consensus around (Obama failed there).
12
There are 4 classes - the two you mentioned, and then the poor that are dependent on social services, and the illegal immigrants who are basically slave workers (and some of this overlaps). And these classes don't pay their fair share of the burden they place on the working class just as much as the 0.01%.
1
Paragraph 1: Since you are wrong about predicting collapse of Trump and Carson's campaigns, why do you think you are correct that "outsiders" is what those on the right are looking for? Being an outsider is a minor part of the allure. Nastiness is much more of an attraction. To get to the far right you have to be ignorant, intellectually lazy, selfish and angry. A carnival barker knows how to play that crowd.
Paragraph 2: A person with those qualities resembles Trump in no way. So why even label the hypothetical candidate as a "sensible Trump?"
The rest: Another boring misrepresentation of conservative argument. When will you see that progressives don't accuse conservatives of blaming the victim, so much as perpetuating a society that prevents victims from escaping the cycle of poverty? Your subsequent recommendations are not bad per se, but they don't get to the roots of the problem.
Paragraph 2: A person with those qualities resembles Trump in no way. So why even label the hypothetical candidate as a "sensible Trump?"
The rest: Another boring misrepresentation of conservative argument. When will you see that progressives don't accuse conservatives of blaming the victim, so much as perpetuating a society that prevents victims from escaping the cycle of poverty? Your subsequent recommendations are not bad per se, but they don't get to the roots of the problem.
5
Colin Powell, is not running and the only other General I know is married to a cold heartless woman - the White House would freeze over. Bernie is the closet thing I can find to "deep knowledge and good sense", and unlike the Donald, and many others, he is comfortable in his own skin and HAIR! And, I like things that are real!
You know, I don't claim to be well-read, like yourself, but I learned early on that a social fabric comes undone in hard economic times. You should know this, and so much more, better than myself. So, why, did it take you so long to come out for the down trodden? Where have you been all of my life, sir?
You know, I don't claim to be well-read, like yourself, but I learned early on that a social fabric comes undone in hard economic times. You should know this, and so much more, better than myself. So, why, did it take you so long to come out for the down trodden? Where have you been all of my life, sir?
6
Admirable suggestions to be sure, Mr. Brooks, and reasonable. Every one of them. Glad we got that out of the way, Now, we just have to execute!
Were it only so simple as expecting politicians holding such disparate views to pull together and actually accomplish something not strictly in their own self-interest, to do it at the federal, state and local levels of government, without corruption, and to successfully lead "the people" to achieve it.
Unfortunately, it sounds like a recipe for a bad reality show, which is what we have at all levels of government today, and the ratings aren't very good.
Were it only so simple as expecting politicians holding such disparate views to pull together and actually accomplish something not strictly in their own self-interest, to do it at the federal, state and local levels of government, without corruption, and to successfully lead "the people" to achieve it.
Unfortunately, it sounds like a recipe for a bad reality show, which is what we have at all levels of government today, and the ratings aren't very good.
2
Has your party thought about how taking money away from Planned Parenthood will result in more unwanted poor kids without fathers who stick around? Most of what this needed organization does is PREVENT pregnancies, not terminate them.
We are in black and white Kansas not colorized Oz Mr Brooks. I gained back a modicum of respect for you when you called out your party's crazies. Keep doing that column instead of trying to go to Oz because ding dong the witch ain't dead yet and the sky is teaming with flying monkeys.
We are in black and white Kansas not colorized Oz Mr Brooks. I gained back a modicum of respect for you when you called out your party's crazies. Keep doing that column instead of trying to go to Oz because ding dong the witch ain't dead yet and the sky is teaming with flying monkeys.
18
Let me get this right. Are you suggesting that they take poor inner city kids and put them in the neighborhoods that the likes of Romney, Trump, Clinton and the rest of the 1 percenters live in? Sounds great to me. Wonder what it sounds like to the one percenters?
And you don't know if you are red or blue? I'd say from previous columns that you are red.
And you don't know if you are red or blue? I'd say from previous columns that you are red.
3
Or better yet: we could put the one percenters in the inner city where the poor kids live and make their children go to the same schools those inner city kids go to. I bet the schools and the environment would change for the better in nanoseconds.
You lost half of the audience when you wrote the word "research."
6
From a lifelong Democrat..what would be a sensible Donald Trump ?
I have watched some of the rantings / impromptu speeches by Mr. Trump , all the news channels pr empties their own scheduled show to show him because Trump brings ratings.
I think Trump really doesn't want to win. But he has opened up an avenue to be a truth teller. So many things he has said about other Candidates needed to be said and rings a bell close to be the truth.
About Carly Fiona , Jeb Bush and so many others are refreshing to hear.
Dr. Carson the soft spoken good looking guy sounds more scary to me than Trump.
I have watched some of the rantings / impromptu speeches by Mr. Trump , all the news channels pr empties their own scheduled show to show him because Trump brings ratings.
I think Trump really doesn't want to win. But he has opened up an avenue to be a truth teller. So many things he has said about other Candidates needed to be said and rings a bell close to be the truth.
About Carly Fiona , Jeb Bush and so many others are refreshing to hear.
Dr. Carson the soft spoken good looking guy sounds more scary to me than Trump.
6
If we did nothing more than get money first and religion second out of US politics the US would be unrecognizably better. Then we could take on getting rid of war.
12
The outsiders of which you speak can't get enough money
1
Now I don't know about how things are done in Washington, but where I'm from when you care about someone you show it. Do we care about human life?
Yes!
Well, then, let's show it. Let's make sure that little kids in cities don't have to dodge bullets on their way to school. What causes such a thing to happen? Well, our drug laws and our gun laws. We have laws against drugs that merely make importing and selling drugs more lucrative for those who are willing to flout the laws. Our gun laws ... well ... what can I say that won't be said by a headline in tomorrow's paper? Australia banned guns, and Australia doesn't have massacres any more. Gun deaths are rare in Japan and England.
Now let's talk about Mr. Brooks's idea of moving poor kids into middle class neighborhoods and his other idea of getting the federal government out of the social engineering business. So, how many poor kids do we move, how many poor kids are left behind, and how does moving poor families into middle class neighborhoods change the neighborhoods? Also, how is a town council or a local church going to have the muscle to effect such a change?
Now, I'm just a simple guy from a simple place, but I can tell you one thing: If you want to spend less money and help more people, quit starting wars. Over the last half century, America has become the #1 troublemaker in a contentious world. We have hundreds of bases worldwide, and we spend trillions on arms and support.
Have we always been at war with Eurasia?
Yes!
Well, then, let's show it. Let's make sure that little kids in cities don't have to dodge bullets on their way to school. What causes such a thing to happen? Well, our drug laws and our gun laws. We have laws against drugs that merely make importing and selling drugs more lucrative for those who are willing to flout the laws. Our gun laws ... well ... what can I say that won't be said by a headline in tomorrow's paper? Australia banned guns, and Australia doesn't have massacres any more. Gun deaths are rare in Japan and England.
Now let's talk about Mr. Brooks's idea of moving poor kids into middle class neighborhoods and his other idea of getting the federal government out of the social engineering business. So, how many poor kids do we move, how many poor kids are left behind, and how does moving poor families into middle class neighborhoods change the neighborhoods? Also, how is a town council or a local church going to have the muscle to effect such a change?
Now, I'm just a simple guy from a simple place, but I can tell you one thing: If you want to spend less money and help more people, quit starting wars. Over the last half century, America has become the #1 troublemaker in a contentious world. We have hundreds of bases worldwide, and we spend trillions on arms and support.
Have we always been at war with Eurasia?
14
Jack well said as always, I think that that is a 1984 quote at the end?
Tom
Tom
The "sensible Trump" has his priorities wrong. Lawrence Lessig of Harvard is right. We have a system of legalized bribery in government, resulting in government by the rich, for the rich. And until we fix that (publicly funded campaign finance, ending Koch/Adelstein bribes and putting the lobbyists out of business), we can't work on the most serious problem -- climate change and our insane energy waste that contributes to it. The idiots, like Marco Rubio, who claim that dealing with the climate problem will hurt the economy have things bass-ackwards. If we don't deal with the climate, the economy won't matter.
8
"Some former general or business leader"? Sadly, Brooks too dreams that the ultimate answer in one person who can make everything sane again (like Trump promises but with real know-how and less bluster).
Instead, what we really need is to somehow (magically?) elect enough people who believe in government as the entity that restores democracy (and along with it, prosperity, honor, sanity) to give us back our American government -- that one we had when we were greatest, Government Of, By and For the People.
We need to elect SO MANY believers in government that they can grab it back from the owners of our government today -- the corporate powers and a handful of the richest people in the world.
It's not that no former general or business leader could have the belief in and determination for government-by-the-people. (We had Eisenhower!) It's that no one man can break through the wall of power erected by Big Money. Only we the people can do that.
It hardly matters who the next president is, UNLESS we provide him or her with the backing of a congress that understands the values of working together, of respecting the rules, accepting majority rule, and aiming to serve America and its people.
Instead, what we really need is to somehow (magically?) elect enough people who believe in government as the entity that restores democracy (and along with it, prosperity, honor, sanity) to give us back our American government -- that one we had when we were greatest, Government Of, By and For the People.
We need to elect SO MANY believers in government that they can grab it back from the owners of our government today -- the corporate powers and a handful of the richest people in the world.
It's not that no former general or business leader could have the belief in and determination for government-by-the-people. (We had Eisenhower!) It's that no one man can break through the wall of power erected by Big Money. Only we the people can do that.
It hardly matters who the next president is, UNLESS we provide him or her with the backing of a congress that understands the values of working together, of respecting the rules, accepting majority rule, and aiming to serve America and its people.
14
Bernie Sanders is a statist not a socialist. Let's hear who these "socialist" countries are. Denmark, Finland, Sweden. Is that who you're talking about, David? But Bernie would be quite comfortable there. Or do these never lands just exist in your mind?
4
Denmark is consistently rated as one of the happiest countries in the world, the studies indicating that this is in large part related tho their comprehensive social net
If he is a statist, why is VT in such bad shape. He will contend he wasn't the Governor, but he was part of the all-dem delegation that has plunged VT into economic despair. His own state, one where the majority receive assistance from the state and many go hungry, has economic disparities, an uncontrollable heroin/pill problem and no discernible economic base. Businesses cater to the leisure class and the rooms are cleaned by the immigrants. He doesn't practice what he preaches and talks to himself. As for the Republicans, they couldn't care less about anyone but themselves.
The person David Brooks is calling for isn't running. His name is Michael Bloomberg.
8
This is a good and constructive piece, and certainly demonstrates that good things come when a conservative writer gives up on apologetics for the current supposed conservative party.
Good answers to our problems will always involve a mixture of insights from both 'sides' as well as a rethinking of our Pavlovian antipathy toward the term 'socialist.' We are already 'socialist' in ways that enjoy vigorous support from the majority -- we just don't realize it, so enough already!
On the matter of finding an 'outsider' (which is tangential to the main point of this piece), I'd like to point out that the last president who ran as -- and actually was -- a (Washington) 'outsider' was Jimmy Carter. He was and is a good man who was also prescient on many issues, not the least of which was energy.
And yet he is vilified as a 'weak' and ineffective leader by the very people who clamor for an 'outsider.' Be careful what you wish for, folks. At least Carter had some experience in government as a 'Washington outsider.' A complete outsider who could effectively work the controls of government is as fanciful as a unicorn. We need to drop the idea that this is a meaningful qualification for a president. It's not.
I'd like to hear more about how Mr. Brooks would go about encouraging marriage before parenting, and fathers sticking around. Overcoming socioeconomic segregation is daunting enough! Higher income communities take advantage of abortion, while trying to deny it to others.
Good answers to our problems will always involve a mixture of insights from both 'sides' as well as a rethinking of our Pavlovian antipathy toward the term 'socialist.' We are already 'socialist' in ways that enjoy vigorous support from the majority -- we just don't realize it, so enough already!
On the matter of finding an 'outsider' (which is tangential to the main point of this piece), I'd like to point out that the last president who ran as -- and actually was -- a (Washington) 'outsider' was Jimmy Carter. He was and is a good man who was also prescient on many issues, not the least of which was energy.
And yet he is vilified as a 'weak' and ineffective leader by the very people who clamor for an 'outsider.' Be careful what you wish for, folks. At least Carter had some experience in government as a 'Washington outsider.' A complete outsider who could effectively work the controls of government is as fanciful as a unicorn. We need to drop the idea that this is a meaningful qualification for a president. It's not.
I'd like to hear more about how Mr. Brooks would go about encouraging marriage before parenting, and fathers sticking around. Overcoming socioeconomic segregation is daunting enough! Higher income communities take advantage of abortion, while trying to deny it to others.
11
Politics is essentially a societal activity entrusted to the people having a strong sense of public service and accountability. If society fails to correctly identify and choose its leaders who could really deliver on public service and governance, it's not because there's dearth of such right people, rather fault lies with the system that has gone dysfunctional due to gradual erosion of the institutions of government and democracy. It's only the insiders with political vision and live connect with public through periodically renewed mandate who could help repair the system, not the apolitical outsiders, however well meaning they might be. Finally, the bipartisan consensus on occasions is all right but not always, as differences and alternative policy perspectives sans deadlock are the very substance of democracy.
17
Yes, a big part of your opinion should be in capital letters: ACCOUNTABILITY.
2
The only real problem is rigid partisan Republicans. Democrats are adult enough to work within a system of compromise that is needed in democracy....the GOP is not. This entire article misses the point that most of the dysfunction in our process right now is coming from mostly one side.
34
The democrats are to blame for taunting and engaging with republicans instead of being more mature and grown up about it. As parents we know that in order to deal with rigid and stubborn brats, we cannot get down to their level, we have to rise above mud slinging. Bernie shows us how to.
Brooks wrote: "To reverse that gridlock we’ve got to find some policy area where there’s a basis for bipartisan action."
With the Modern Republican party as one of the key players in this "bipartisan action"? Good luck with that...
With the Modern Republican party as one of the key players in this "bipartisan action"? Good luck with that...
28
Yes.
Given that many Republicans claim "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape," I'm not hopeful.
Given that many Republicans claim "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape," I'm not hopeful.
moralistic, def. ''1. : characterized by or expressive of a concern with morality. 2. : characterized by or expressive of a narrow moral attitude.''
Brooks is using definition 2, based on his own narrow frame of reference. He sniffs at those in lesser circumstances than himself and prescribes at them. This disease, which has been actively spread by the Republicans that Brooks has backed for years, is what made Trump, Carson, Cruz, Christie, etc., etc. the dominant Republican voices.
By contrast, many would welcome a ''moralistic'' political outsider who considers every human being with the respect rather than dividing the population into ''us'' and ''them.'' It is late in the day to be recognize this eternal truth but first we'll probably have to wait for the dominant Republican memes to first go down in flames, which will take many years.
Brooks is using definition 2, based on his own narrow frame of reference. He sniffs at those in lesser circumstances than himself and prescribes at them. This disease, which has been actively spread by the Republicans that Brooks has backed for years, is what made Trump, Carson, Cruz, Christie, etc., etc. the dominant Republican voices.
By contrast, many would welcome a ''moralistic'' political outsider who considers every human being with the respect rather than dividing the population into ''us'' and ''them.'' It is late in the day to be recognize this eternal truth but first we'll probably have to wait for the dominant Republican memes to first go down in flames, which will take many years.
8
I think Brooks is quite clear in his definition of moralistic being the first one you cited. I sense no "sniffing"; if you read what he said, it aligns quite closely with the first sentence of the second paragraph of your letter, which you define as being just what we need. Describing some moral behaviors, as Brooks does, does not mean one has "a narrow moral attitude"; it means they understand that moral behavior will make our society better.
You really need to fundamentally change the monetary system and get rid of the debt based society. Every dollar entering an economy should not have to be borrowed, creating national debt than burdens each individual in society.
Manufacturing needs to be encouraged, and clean energy developed, that create jobs. Governments cannot sustain a jobs program that will last, but they can set the framework to support industry remaining in the country, to offer job security and opportunities.
Manufacturing needs to be encouraged, and clean energy developed, that create jobs. Governments cannot sustain a jobs program that will last, but they can set the framework to support industry remaining in the country, to offer job security and opportunities.
8
Amen. Too few are able or willing to grasp the relevance of the monetary-system, and how it is at the root of most of our socio-economic problems. We are in debt for something we have the sovereign right to create ourselves.
Republican voters, like those we are seeing in the early caucuses, would never vote for your imaginary candidate. They want the crazy one.
28
This is not a facetious comment. I think they want someone who reflects their absolute rage at the Dems holding the White House for the past eight years. Not some reasonable type.
It is telling how the only way to describe a reasonable-sounding Republican candidate in 2015 is through a counterfactual thought experiment, while the actual Republican voter base evokes the America portrayed in the (previously far-fetched) movie Idiocracy.
8
David Brooks is seeking leadership, and that is hard to find. Neither Ben
Carson or Donald Trump do not have any international experience, One has
only to examine how the U.S. has lost power and prestige during Obama's
administration. The Presidency is not a learning school. Leadership Is
follow me, not a place to hone political skills, that were learned in
other professions.
Carson or Donald Trump do not have any international experience, One has
only to examine how the U.S. has lost power and prestige during Obama's
administration. The Presidency is not a learning school. Leadership Is
follow me, not a place to hone political skills, that were learned in
other professions.
3
What! A conservative columnist touting a Clinton-era program that improved lives through social engineering? David, you may actually be evolving.
13
How did charter schools get snuck into your case for good neighborhoods? What about investing in our public schools so as to keep class size low?
121
Yes, the charter school case--which David barely argues for and is not defensible here--is absurd in this context. And did David mean to suggest we'd be transferring public funds to "help churches ... expand their influence"?! I thought that was the Taliban's mission.
1
The military was a lot like this when we had the draft.
7
"The first is that we have a polarized, dysfunctional, semi-corrupt political culture that prevents us from getting anything done. To reverse that gridlock we’ve got to find some policy area where there’s a basis for bipartisan action."
David you are asking for Obama again. He has tried to reach common ground only to be told no time and time again by the Republicans and writers like yourself. Unfortunately for you like Col. Nicholson in the Bridge on the River Kwai, you have suddenly awoke and have been asking what have I done? Tacitly you have approved all the Republicans have done is try to block a successful black man from having successful presidency and held the country back and allowed Trump and Carson to lead the party further into the dark ages. Yet Obama has had a successful presidency, you have assisted in keeping the US behind the world. Good Show David
David you are asking for Obama again. He has tried to reach common ground only to be told no time and time again by the Republicans and writers like yourself. Unfortunately for you like Col. Nicholson in the Bridge on the River Kwai, you have suddenly awoke and have been asking what have I done? Tacitly you have approved all the Republicans have done is try to block a successful black man from having successful presidency and held the country back and allowed Trump and Carson to lead the party further into the dark ages. Yet Obama has had a successful presidency, you have assisted in keeping the US behind the world. Good Show David
73
And continuing your analogy, all that many of us can do now is stand there looking at the results while saying "Madness. Madness!"
What has poor Mr. Trump done to become the wooden dummy in this ventriloquist act by Mr. Brooks? Why not just write a column articulating what you think is a sensible political approach rather than try and put it into the mind and mouth of any individual candidate?
4
The moment pursuit of profit is added to social efforts,
such as is happening with charter schools and prisons,
cost and destruction of original purpose begins to soar.
such as is happening with charter schools and prisons,
cost and destruction of original purpose begins to soar.
25
I live in a small rural community. It's been getting poorer since the 1950s. There are few jobs here so young people have to move somewhere else. The housing stock is declining and landlords have little incentive to improve things as their tenants' economic status declines. There's crime, mostly burglaries and drugs. Once in a while there's violence from domestic abuse or drugs gone bad.
Maybe it's true that we just need a better class of people here; those who will be moral and adhere to traditional values. But, the reality is that we're stuck with what we've got and it's gotten to the point where it's hard to see how to change the trajectory.
I suspect the same thing is true in the urban neighborhoods where the poor are ghettoized. It's not just race, it's the economic strata that seems to determine whether communities are rising or falling. I'd also like to see someone wise enough to chart an escape from the vicious circle these poor communities are experiencing, but I think that it's a cruel illusion to believe that all we need is better leaders. Increasing inequality plays a crucial role in this equation and we won't see changes until we figure out a way to stop that.
Maybe it's true that we just need a better class of people here; those who will be moral and adhere to traditional values. But, the reality is that we're stuck with what we've got and it's gotten to the point where it's hard to see how to change the trajectory.
I suspect the same thing is true in the urban neighborhoods where the poor are ghettoized. It's not just race, it's the economic strata that seems to determine whether communities are rising or falling. I'd also like to see someone wise enough to chart an escape from the vicious circle these poor communities are experiencing, but I think that it's a cruel illusion to believe that all we need is better leaders. Increasing inequality plays a crucial role in this equation and we won't see changes until we figure out a way to stop that.
599
Thank you, Betsy S, for your illuminating response. I was especially struck by "Maybe it's true that we just need a better class of people here . . ," Class, indeed. Certainly it's much easier for people to be "moral and adhere to traditional values" when they have a reasonable degree of economic security in their lives. What people need are decent jobs and the private sector has proven itself incapable of providing them. The government, therefore, must step in with a massive public investment along the lines of the GI Bill. Our airports, highways, bridges etc., are all in disrepair. Put people to work fixing them. Pay these workers with revenue from a fairer tax code i.e. pre Reagan levels. It may not be a permanent solution--but what solution is ever permanent? At least people would get decent jobs doing work that desperately needs doing.
126
You are looking for a Democratic Socialism model (see Norway, Sweden, etc) that has been demonized for decades by Republicans promising stuff that never happens—economic prosperity through trickle down economics, for just one example. Why do communities like yours all over the country vote Republican? That is the key question.
3
Once the entrepreneurial charter school leaders decide they've had enough, what happens to their successful schools? We haven't gone that far yet, to my knowledge, but it makes for an interesting and important thought experiment.
Once you have demolished the public school system, it will not be possible to resurrect it. Too expensive.
So who will buy out the charter school operators? Who will have enough money? And do we want them running our educational system? What issues will that create?
Just asking.
Once you have demolished the public school system, it will not be possible to resurrect it. Too expensive.
So who will buy out the charter school operators? Who will have enough money? And do we want them running our educational system? What issues will that create?
Just asking.
27
I thought that David Brooks began by describing Mitt Romney who is a competent boring business guy with a sensible social agenda that he displayed as governor of Mass.
6
David Brooks is of course out of touch with American reality. He decries the polarized politics but fails to state the obvious: it is a result of radical conservative shifts to the right and the republican refusal to engage in anything like bipartisanship. We have to stop saying it is the result of both sides. IT IS NOT. Democrats have resorted to taking republican legislation (Romneycare and Cap and Trade) and creating conservative legislation just to get somewhere on important issues. The result is a predictable rejection by the radicalized Republican Party. Further, he cannot help letting out his privileged and wealth dominated perspective to guide the rest of the country toward a socially engineered family utopia. So tired of his "reasonableness". He is no different than his wacky friends. Still thinks that an executive can enter government and pull off a miracle of efficiency. The fantasy world of Brooks is no different than those of the Party he still adores.
52
It is hardly sufficient to choose a presidential candidate outside the political zeitgeist of partisanship for the sake of partisanship. Massive constitutional overhaul is needed to free up the gridlock. Witness President Obama or even Mitt Romney for ample evidence.
Romney recently, proudly and accurately declared that, without Romney care in Massachusetts, Obamacare would never have been enacted. Shortly thereafter, Romney put his flak jacket back on to ward off incoming fire from his right flank. The problem? The GOP's deliberate association of the word "Obama" with "care."
It doesn't matter who we elect as President. (Well, sorry, yes it does matter but not for the purposes of this particular argument.) Any "democracy" where a handful of individuals finance the whole gerrymandered electoral show will never be represented by government remotely interested in useful policy-making.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Romney recently, proudly and accurately declared that, without Romney care in Massachusetts, Obamacare would never have been enacted. Shortly thereafter, Romney put his flak jacket back on to ward off incoming fire from his right flank. The problem? The GOP's deliberate association of the word "Obama" with "care."
It doesn't matter who we elect as President. (Well, sorry, yes it does matter but not for the purposes of this particular argument.) Any "democracy" where a handful of individuals finance the whole gerrymandered electoral show will never be represented by government remotely interested in useful policy-making.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
21
So, a "sensible Donald Trump" would think exactly like David Brooks?
9
Of course, David Brooks is always right about everything.
1