Does this covenant process include the 1 percent at the top? Can you tell us how to get them on board? Will this covenant be enforced by laws? Or, is this just another platitudinous way to say we should all be getting along - with no real change for the masses?
22
Yeah, well, I don't like the word. I'm old enough to remember the gated communities, with their restrictive covenants. People like me, Cory Booker, the Pope, and even you were allowed in only to mow the lawn, fix the pipes, and deliver the groceries. Grow up David and vote for Bernie.
18
My fantasy of the day: requiring Mr. Brooks' response to each of the Top 10 Reader's Picks for each of his columns.
21
David, you are a secret Progressive! Social Security is a covenant. Health Care for all is a covenant. Free or affordable College education for all is a covenant. Strong Union representation for all workers is a covenant. Effective Government over-site of unruly Market forces is a covenant. Now, if you could attempt to persuade your Conservative friends that, no, Reagan was wrong, the Government is part of the Covenant Solution. Belief that the "Market" will deliver your Covenant is silly. Markets care only about profit not people or Covenants.
26
Every junior high student in America owes a debt to David Brooks for laying out the template for a solid B+ theme on Our Current State. On the other hand, it’s possible that David Brooks owes every junior high student in America an apology for stealing their template and using it day in and day out here while still being paid for trenchant commentary.
Here’s the template.
1. State the obvious. “When you think about it, there are four big forces coursing through modern societies.”
2. Suggest that you have some new insight into the obvious by rephrasing the obvious. “Global migration is leading to demographic diversity. Economic globalization is creating wider opportunity but also inequality. The Internet is giving people more choices over what to buy and pay attention to. A culture of autonomy valorizes individual choice and self-determination.”
3. Quote someone serious-sounding and platitudinous corroborating the obvious: “As Ralph Waldo Emerson put it, ‘Other men are lenses through which we read our own minds.’”
4. Restate the obvious as though it needs repetition: “It’s hard to live daringly when your very foundation is fluid and at risk.” And then do so again in slightly more obscure sounding terms so it looks like it’s not obvious: “What we want, she suggests, is ‘separability amid situatedness.’”
5. Big finish: a crescendo of the obvious: “That emotion is what it means to be situated in a shared national life.”
Here’s the template.
1. State the obvious. “When you think about it, there are four big forces coursing through modern societies.”
2. Suggest that you have some new insight into the obvious by rephrasing the obvious. “Global migration is leading to demographic diversity. Economic globalization is creating wider opportunity but also inequality. The Internet is giving people more choices over what to buy and pay attention to. A culture of autonomy valorizes individual choice and self-determination.”
3. Quote someone serious-sounding and platitudinous corroborating the obvious: “As Ralph Waldo Emerson put it, ‘Other men are lenses through which we read our own minds.’”
4. Restate the obvious as though it needs repetition: “It’s hard to live daringly when your very foundation is fluid and at risk.” And then do so again in slightly more obscure sounding terms so it looks like it’s not obvious: “What we want, she suggests, is ‘separability amid situatedness.’”
5. Big finish: a crescendo of the obvious: “That emotion is what it means to be situated in a shared national life.”
15
If we want to know why the middle class is disappearing and the rich are getting richer and the poor are being overwhelmed, we should look in the mirror. The fact is that Americans have become very selfish. They don't want higher taxes that will affect them. They don't want unions that they might have to support financially. They don't want social programs unless they personally benefit. Everything we think about has to benefit us and not anybody else. We don't want trade with other countries unless we're always the winner.
But that's not how government works. We can't get those things that we want (jobs, better pay, social security) if we aren't willing to come together and pool our resources (taxes, etc.) so that everyone can have those things. The bosses aren't going to pay you more out of the goodness of their hearts, that's why we have unions. We have organizations like AARP, because someone has to have our back when we're seniors or we'll eat pet food and freeze to death. Most of us don't want children (or anyone else) starving on the streets so we have social programs to help them. We can only do this together.
If you have concerns you want addressed (like the potholes on your street) I'd be glad to help you with it, but not if you don't want to help with the leaking water main on mine. We're all in this together -- we've got to remember that.
But that's not how government works. We can't get those things that we want (jobs, better pay, social security) if we aren't willing to come together and pool our resources (taxes, etc.) so that everyone can have those things. The bosses aren't going to pay you more out of the goodness of their hearts, that's why we have unions. We have organizations like AARP, because someone has to have our back when we're seniors or we'll eat pet food and freeze to death. Most of us don't want children (or anyone else) starving on the streets so we have social programs to help them. We can only do this together.
If you have concerns you want addressed (like the potholes on your street) I'd be glad to help you with it, but not if you don't want to help with the leaking water main on mine. We're all in this together -- we've got to remember that.
20
One of these days David Brooks should trade essays with Nicolas Kristoff. I'd love to read the reaction of readers if Kristoff name appeared on this article. I have little doubt that nabobs responses would be 180 degrees different.
3
It is tough to enforce any morality when the government appears to have none and be bought by the highest bidder.
9
Patriotism as love of other Americans? How about patriotism as love of a common belief in a way of life with freedom at it's core? It is much more about respect for the beliefs of others than love.
6
David Brooks' often writes thoughtful pieces like this that reflect on what our country is going through and what we ought to be. But bringing this back down to earth, with what he has written about this 'covenant,' how can he be fiscally conservative, while socially liberal?'
There is no covenant that Brooks speaks so naively about, but at this point there is a continuous struggle for power in our country because many of our leaders believe we should not take care of our own. If we cannot guarantee something as simple housing, food, clean water and air, a living wage, quality education, and all that is necessary to live a life in our country, then how can we expect there to be a covenant among our people. A 'contract' between a master and its slaves is not a covenant.
There is no covenant that Brooks speaks so naively about, but at this point there is a continuous struggle for power in our country because many of our leaders believe we should not take care of our own. If we cannot guarantee something as simple housing, food, clean water and air, a living wage, quality education, and all that is necessary to live a life in our country, then how can we expect there to be a covenant among our people. A 'contract' between a master and its slaves is not a covenant.
16
It seems very hard to work within the definitions of these terms. I think that people need to reconize the humanity in all of us and forget the situation which @ the end of the day is nonsense, time order and function who cares?
I think of Adler and the 6 original ideas idea what were they and how little you actually have to stray...I live in a 3 mile radius of everything I need.
Picasso said he liked to live poor but with a lot of money...Pretty Cool.
I think of Adler and the 6 original ideas idea what were they and how little you actually have to stray...I live in a 3 mile radius of everything I need.
Picasso said he liked to live poor but with a lot of money...Pretty Cool.
1
The American covenant begins with liberty and justice for all, except for no liberty to violate the liberty of others of course
David Brooks smashes this covenant to bits with his loathsome hatred of recreational cannabis, and support for flagrant alcohol supremacist bigotry.
Alcohol is so much more dangerous than cannabis to life, limb and fetus that there is utterly no comparison. How dare people use alcohol and order fellow citizens not to use cannabis. If they want a broken covenant, they're got one.
David Brooks smashes this covenant to bits with his loathsome hatred of recreational cannabis, and support for flagrant alcohol supremacist bigotry.
Alcohol is so much more dangerous than cannabis to life, limb and fetus that there is utterly no comparison. How dare people use alcohol and order fellow citizens not to use cannabis. If they want a broken covenant, they're got one.
3
Good liberal David Brooks tellingly omits the ravages that global migration has visited upon the citizens of the Western democracies. Sorry, David, but workers need to have a job, and American and European women deserve a chance to live without being raped or murdered - especially in Germany.
David made more sense before he fell in love with EpicFail Obama's appearance. If you really want civil rights cred, go help some poor black adult find employment - which your political choice made MUCH more difficult.
David made more sense before he fell in love with EpicFail Obama's appearance. If you really want civil rights cred, go help some poor black adult find employment - which your political choice made MUCH more difficult.
2
At last I found the word that best describes the article: condescending. The readers might find a special pleasure to notice how superior they are compared to the wretched souls below. Good work.
5
Mr. Brooks:
There are none so blind as those who will not see. Clinging to wilfull ignorance
is not a way forward. Your endless romantic fixations do not improve anyone's
understanding of how we got in this lamentable mess. Profits before people is a good place to start. You continue to show a remarkable lack of understanding
of human nature and the nature of greed.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. Clinging to wilfull ignorance
is not a way forward. Your endless romantic fixations do not improve anyone's
understanding of how we got in this lamentable mess. Profits before people is a good place to start. You continue to show a remarkable lack of understanding
of human nature and the nature of greed.
6
Thank you for a thoughtful an heart lifting piece on the need to connect with community and having that special feeling for our neighbors through covenant. The "Do your own thing." motto of the later part of the 20th century did not bring us to a good place. The support for developing minds in poorer communities especially need help beyond the first circle of parents. They need good schools that are not afraid to talk about ethics and morality and community based supports for families and individuals in crisis. Churches used to fill that vacuum and in some communities still do. Sadly, young men seem sadly absent from traditional churches. Can they find a way to attract more youth and elder men to mentor the former? Government is often too distant and overwhelmed to do all that's needed. It can however continue to legislate for a higher minimum wage (Thank you Governor Cuomo and NY legislators) and do more to make working class housing more affordable in decent neighborhoods. Lets work together NY!
3
Thanks again David for surfacing an old concept; how to reweave our social fabric in a society being strained by global forces. One force that will not help our common cloth are leaders who denigrate immigrants, women, and religions.
How do we improve our critical thinking skills to understand what is relevant and what is irrelevant in our campaigns, our values, and our lives.
You have pointed out some small steps.
Corey Booker provided some more paths to get there.
How do we improve our critical thinking skills to understand what is relevant and what is irrelevant in our campaigns, our values, and our lives.
You have pointed out some small steps.
Corey Booker provided some more paths to get there.
I feel sorry for Mr. Brooks. The poor man has lived through the shattering of his party, has adjusted his views, and genuinely learned something and, I think, become a better and kinder person because of it. Then the liberal commentors, who pride themselves on inclusivity and diversity of thought, or so they claim, rally to his articles to decry him as a conservative, as if that single descriptor defines who he has become, then immediately ignore or disagree with everything he says. Many times they even prove his point, which shows a staggering lack of thoughtfulness and self awareness. The sheer lack of any kind of tolerance or intelligence on display from the left in these comment sections staggers the mind
5
Not exactly a new idea:
No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
-John Donne, 1624
No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
-John Donne, 1624
8
Good men (and women) don't have a problem with admitting when they have been mistaken. They never feel they have no need to learn more. And their love of their country does not blind them to its faults which - being good - they seek to amend. Well said David. A US that makes sense is indispensable to a Humanity that endures. American democracy that shines is democracy that shames Russian and Chinese disdain for it. They need to find they are wrong, learn more, amend their ways and secure Humanity's future too. Currently the right-wing of American politics is not facilitating this at all. It hasn't for some time. What passes for its left-wing has been scarcely better - President Obama aside. This needs to change. I consider this article and this comment to be humble contributions to the effort to make it so: a future we survive and do not disgrace ourselves in.
"A culture of autonomy valorizes individual choice and self-determination." "All of these forces have liberated the individual... but they have been bad for national cohesion and the social fabric."
The growth of individuality and opportunity imagined here is a fiction, at least for the US and Europe, and its fictional nature is the cause of the unrest and unraveling. When society assists the individual to identify and make use of their talents, it increases the individual's harmony with society and themselves. The problem is that this is not happening, leading to dissatisfaction and bitterness.
The growth of individuality and opportunity imagined here is a fiction, at least for the US and Europe, and its fictional nature is the cause of the unrest and unraveling. When society assists the individual to identify and make use of their talents, it increases the individual's harmony with society and themselves. The problem is that this is not happening, leading to dissatisfaction and bitterness.
The holes in the social fabric, the lack of social cohesion resulting in political polarization, may be due in part to unintended consequences of government-funded charter and choice schools. Children now--as opposed to generations ago--may grow up in ideological silos of religion, news access, political beliefs or cultural activities. Parents may choose to send their children to schools based on "values" or "interests" compatible with individual families or students, at the expense of the incredible educational advantage of interacting with others from differing "silos". Is exposure to differing talents, intellectual achievement, skin color, or culture something to be avoided? As a student in the 1950's, I attended public schools with classrooms comprised of children from a variety of economic backgrounds, religions, educational achievement levels, cultural and political beliefs. It was impossible to ignore the threads of our community that had the potential to be woven into a strong social fabric. The impact on political and economic stability of public school experiences should not be underestimated. For generations, playing with, eating with, arguing with and learning with children from various homes has been a critical building block in our country. In an effort to please parents with a "school of choice", do we sacrifice the stability of our democracy by supporting ideological silos that encourage "me" rather than "we"?
Hhm, this is the other side of what we have seen lately in the Sanders and trump campaigns: identity politics, which can get out of hand. They tend to be divisive and agressive, antagnozing. One side, composed of many different 'fabrics' is the victim, and there is blame for the other side. The reality is that the question of whether in the end, it boils down to class/ income inequality, or whether it is the culture of individualism, the me centeredness of today, with every kind of 'liberation' one could look for, looms over the bigger picture. How much freedom, how much tolerance? We don't seem to know. The melting pot does not seem to be melted. I think that in an effort to accommodate what are seen as rights, when one wants to be just and fair, one may need to have certain conversations about what the ramifications could be down the road, what does this imply for our children. We seem unable to set limits, anywhere from guns, food, outlandish earnings that go untaxed, outlandish poverty that should never be, to transcending our biology. Always a nation of extremes, always diverse. Information technology may in itself contribute to the developement of trends. I think there can be too much freedom, which puts pressure on individuals. For me, the family unit is where it all starts, that is best experienced when there is less income inequality. Love, stability, sense of self from home is the foundation for all cohesion, and togetherness. If only all could know this.
As the mother of two grown adopted children who are nothing like me, it is clear to me that nature is much stronger than nurture. My children grew up in a warm, loving home, with exposure to a wide spectrum of cultural opportunities. They were encouraged to pursue higher education by two parents with two graduate degrees each, and who have pursued well respected professions. As adults my daughters have chosen to live a life on the edge of society. Neither really works. Neither finished college or any form of career training. One complains that the welfare system does not give her enough to take care of a family, and her live in ""Baby Daddy" can't even support himself let alone his family. The other daughter at almost 30 years of age, lives in her bedroom at her father's house. I have fought against our developing country of Idiocracy but apparently I have failed.
3
So much to consider here, but I'm limit myself to this: "Out of love of country, soldiers offer the gift of their service."
This may be true for some who enlist; however, many young people enlist in the military as an employment program. They've graduated from high school without the wherewithal, skill set or desire to attend college. A lack of factory or foundry work (work with which one once could reasonably purchase a home, provide for a family, enjoy a modicum of security), a desire to move from their local environment, and a desire for respect and community, often drive military enlistment. Patriotism and religiosity may also play into their decision.
Quoting Mr. Brooks, "Alienated young men...so they can have a sense of belonging. Isolated teenagers...Many people grow up in fragmented, disorganized neighborhoods. Political polarization...Racial animosity stubbornly persists." Mr. Brooks is suggesting reasons leading young people to join ISIS. These seem to me many of the same drivers for U.S. military enlistment in the lower ranks.
Perhaps young people are not so different. Agreed, ISIS is pathological in a way national organized military service (under normal circumstances) is not. However, the underlying reasons driving young people to join militaries are not dissimilar.
Which political party was foremost in promoting and deregulating an economic system which created these conditions? Probably 'both' is the correct answer; Republican, the most correct.
This may be true for some who enlist; however, many young people enlist in the military as an employment program. They've graduated from high school without the wherewithal, skill set or desire to attend college. A lack of factory or foundry work (work with which one once could reasonably purchase a home, provide for a family, enjoy a modicum of security), a desire to move from their local environment, and a desire for respect and community, often drive military enlistment. Patriotism and religiosity may also play into their decision.
Quoting Mr. Brooks, "Alienated young men...so they can have a sense of belonging. Isolated teenagers...Many people grow up in fragmented, disorganized neighborhoods. Political polarization...Racial animosity stubbornly persists." Mr. Brooks is suggesting reasons leading young people to join ISIS. These seem to me many of the same drivers for U.S. military enlistment in the lower ranks.
Perhaps young people are not so different. Agreed, ISIS is pathological in a way national organized military service (under normal circumstances) is not. However, the underlying reasons driving young people to join militaries are not dissimilar.
Which political party was foremost in promoting and deregulating an economic system which created these conditions? Probably 'both' is the correct answer; Republican, the most correct.
True freedoms are interdependent, and globalized. If this globe was meant for something, meant to be guided, on some sort of evolving path; our love of freedom locally must "weave" into a social cloth that serves. This must be far above few dictating how to define freedom. Science illuminates the building blocks. Yet something else, a higher algorithm, is invisibly revealed; mirroring the global direction. http://distilledentries.blogspot.com/search?q=cloth
The “defined social roles” that Brooks advocates for are what got us into this mess. The more I cling to a specific identity, whether it’s based on the work I do, my role in the community, my sex, ethnicity, nationality, or religion, the less likely it is that I will be able to attend to the entirety of the social fabric. There are people who inhabit this world who have different ways of thinking and being than I do. Some of them live in this country, and some of them live elsewhere on our shared planet. Between climate change, and the ability to move and communicate globally, it’s more important than ever that those of us who have the education, the means, and the ability to BROADEN our sense of identity do so.
Real community is not created from fixed identity, but from a shared purpose, a willingness to take ownership rather than assign blame, and a concern for the well-being of the whole, among other things. See Peter Block’s Community: A Structure of Belonging for more ideas.
Real community is not created from fixed identity, but from a shared purpose, a willingness to take ownership rather than assign blame, and a concern for the well-being of the whole, among other things. See Peter Block’s Community: A Structure of Belonging for more ideas.
2
A "covenant" in one definition is a bond or commitment. It does not "make us"; it is an agreement about how the individual will put their talent to work and how society will help that happen by supporting the individual's development of their talent. A person's sense of themselves is related to their feeling of capacity and usefulness. We don't need "patriotism" or other "ism" to be motivated - we need opportunity.
2
Both parties need to take to heart the Booker premise, but especially Republicans. Democrats want a strong, thoughtful opposing party to critique their proposals and governing philosophy. Two thirds of Democrats believe cooperation is more important than fidelity to some Liberal wish list. Republicans tolerate, with considerable effort, rather than love Democrats, with less than a third placing cooperation over their wish list. The belief is that they would not be indifferent to Democrats disappearing but manifestly better off.
For a minor fringe party this might be expected and put up with, but for one of the two governing parties to be this insular, this self obsessed is extremely dangerous.
For a minor fringe party this might be expected and put up with, but for one of the two governing parties to be this insular, this self obsessed is extremely dangerous.
3
I find it hard to offer the complexity of human relations in such short articles, though Mr. Brooks does an excellent job.
I would respond to Senator Booker that patriotism does not inherently require love of others; indeed, it has often been invoked in defense of murderous racism.
Instead, love of others must be intentionally promoted and struggled to achieve. We can choose to be a society united around our love of those who differ on the surface and in deeper ways - that can be a covenant we choose to form with each other, and one that unites us. I have been a part of faith communities who make this an identifying characteristic, and it is not always easy, but it is wonderful and occasionally overpoweringly beautiful.
I would respond to Senator Booker that patriotism does not inherently require love of others; indeed, it has often been invoked in defense of murderous racism.
Instead, love of others must be intentionally promoted and struggled to achieve. We can choose to be a society united around our love of those who differ on the surface and in deeper ways - that can be a covenant we choose to form with each other, and one that unites us. I have been a part of faith communities who make this an identifying characteristic, and it is not always easy, but it is wonderful and occasionally overpoweringly beautiful.
1
Brooks neglects to mention the one thing that has always sealed covenants of any kind, that is the sine qua non of any convenant, and is precisely that which many in our timid times feel is impossible, and therefore idiotic: the vow to lay down one's life for another. The soldier doesn't just offer the "gift of their service." The soldier offers his or her very life, puts it on the line. Self-sacrifice is what makes the difference - binding yourself to another and being faithful unto death. That's what makes a convenant different from a contract, and what makes it the only possible foundation for the community. Marriage, of course, is the covenant, par excellence, and all other convenants are in some way analogous to it.
3
This nation has been called a "melting pot" for many generations of both natural citizens and immigrants. It works best when you give yourself to the spirit of this thought: there is a degree of compliance which yields and allows the rights we historically have had in this country.
The Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, Jews and others gave up language and expectations of maintaining old world ways in the new world of the USA during the last century. They melted into the whole. It worked. America became stronger, smarter, more powerful and financially stable than any nation on this planet. Now we have groups which demand extreme accommodation: that they be singled out for special treatment because of where or how they were born. Foreigners expect to maintain their own language and societal practices, yet demand we spend money and change our nation to allow them to remain unchanged, yet benefit from all America has to offer.
It has drained us as a nation.
A thread bends - or tolerates - but never joins with the others. Such a metaphor supports divisive thoughts and practices. Once you emphasize your difference and demand society change for you, it is the same as saying we should be weaving wires into silk cloth: it defeats the weaver before they begin. And destroys the very cloth - the very people you wish to accept and support you.
The Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, Jews and others gave up language and expectations of maintaining old world ways in the new world of the USA during the last century. They melted into the whole. It worked. America became stronger, smarter, more powerful and financially stable than any nation on this planet. Now we have groups which demand extreme accommodation: that they be singled out for special treatment because of where or how they were born. Foreigners expect to maintain their own language and societal practices, yet demand we spend money and change our nation to allow them to remain unchanged, yet benefit from all America has to offer.
It has drained us as a nation.
A thread bends - or tolerates - but never joins with the others. Such a metaphor supports divisive thoughts and practices. Once you emphasize your difference and demand society change for you, it is the same as saying we should be weaving wires into silk cloth: it defeats the weaver before they begin. And destroys the very cloth - the very people you wish to accept and support you.
2
We need to feel that everyone is part of this nation and that nobody will be denied their basic rights nor left to suffer in want because of poor circumstances. It's an old concept that people who are happy are more likely to suffer the greatest challenges than are those who are sad and in despair. The totalitarian dictatorships of the 1930's all insisted that democracy and joyful lives made for frail character and poor soldiers and so were ripe for defeat by their hardened peoples, hardened by cruelty and authoritarian harsh rule. The reasoning was that if life was not that much fun and individuals knew that they were expendable, risking all would be less difficult. They all were defeated by the democracies with armies of people who lived as free people and in prosperity. These free people had to learn to fight but they were willing to sacrifice themselves to learn and they did.
2
David Brooks is not the first to write about the rents in the social fabric of our society. These divisions are mirrored in many ways by our differences in education, neighborhoods, views on religion, family support, and employment. I grew up in a middle class neighborhood in a medium sized industrial city, lived and went to school with rich and poor and participated in sports with others across the social spectrum but this is not the America of today and the chasm between rich and poor is growing. There will always be rich and poor but we must grow the middle class if we are to stop the disintegration of our social fabric. We have allowed public education, our legal system and our government to become impediments to a more cohesive society. I wish I had some answers but it's also obvious that our leaders don't have answers either. America needs a new awakening and a rededication to our principles of equal opportunity, enhanced education and job training and equality under the law. At this time of year it's also a poignant reminder of the need to simplify our tax code and eliminate the hundreds of subsidies and preferences that turn one of the first obligations of a citizen into a nightmare of confusion. We should also end our professional military and make service an obligation of the citizenry. We would then have an anchor on our endless state of war and at least one place where rich and poor worked together. The separation of politicians and citizens is growing.
3
There is something horribly wrong in this article, and it's the idea that in order to be happy we must be part of a group that shares ideals. Mr. Brooks suggests that we find an "updated love of America", but America is not a country that offers love to other countries or even its own citizens. Our national ideal is wealth.
Furthermore, nationalism is no less divisive than religion. When we become part of the clique of a nation we instantly assume that we have the right idea and that other nations don't, and over time those fine lines develop into huge cracks.
What is wrong with tolerance? If I don't care if someone vanishes off the face of the Earth, so what? No harm done, and that person didn't have to put up with my B.S. during her life.
Contrary to what Mr. Brooks, a very wise man, says, what we really need to do is develop a new paradigm for social living itself, in which the borders between people thinking A and those thinking B are much more loosely defined and open to easy crossing by all.
Furthermore, nationalism is no less divisive than religion. When we become part of the clique of a nation we instantly assume that we have the right idea and that other nations don't, and over time those fine lines develop into huge cracks.
What is wrong with tolerance? If I don't care if someone vanishes off the face of the Earth, so what? No harm done, and that person didn't have to put up with my B.S. during her life.
Contrary to what Mr. Brooks, a very wise man, says, what we really need to do is develop a new paradigm for social living itself, in which the borders between people thinking A and those thinking B are much more loosely defined and open to easy crossing by all.
5
I think patriotism as most people understand it is obsolete. A long time ago, we began to become citizens of the world. Truly "No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
John Donne
When I saw the super patriotism that exploded after 9/11, I worried. The seeds of super patriotism led to an exaggerated view of our country and our place in the world. We can't afford that kind of thinking. It only leads eventually to conflict and self-delusion. We must care for more than ourselves. We must care for all the others as well or perish.
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
John Donne
When I saw the super patriotism that exploded after 9/11, I worried. The seeds of super patriotism led to an exaggerated view of our country and our place in the world. We can't afford that kind of thinking. It only leads eventually to conflict and self-delusion. We must care for more than ourselves. We must care for all the others as well or perish.
3
Of course, Mr Brooks conveniently forgets the covenant that used to bind certain classes of workers to their employers: in exchange for their service, they could expect some security of tenure. Teachers loved their children, but they also enjoyed the additional recognition of being hired for at least a year, if not permanently. Short-term contracts have been immensely profitable for those wishing to wring out every last cent of profit from the work of others, but the fall-out has been neglected. Commitment is a two-way deal: if the employer will not commit to the employee, do not expect the employee to commit to anything.
8
We don't want to be the guarantor of world order. That is extremely costly in lives, mangled bodies, and hits to our economy and federal deficit. This is part of the problem and I'm surprised you propose it as the solution. We need a new definition of patriotism which doesn't make us the policeman of the world or has us wallowing in the splendor of our self-perceived exceptionalism. We need a patriotism that focuses on creation of a vibrant, just American society and full participation in the world as a good global citizen in which we recognize that other nations and societies have good ideas to offer for our adoption.
We need to broaden our definition of what it means to be 'one of us' or 'like me'. The past hundred years have seen many prejudices die away as first Germans, then Irish, Jews, Italians, Poles, etc. have been transformed from hated and demonized 'other' into 'generic white persons'. Asians have progressed farther in terms of acceptance as 'part of the core us', but we need to fully include them and unify around the principle of just being fellow Americans, including our Hispanic and African-American citizens.
We don't need an assigned place in the world. We need an economy and justice system that are stable and fair so we can go through the process of developing into our fully-fledged adult selves, without fear, discrimination, and lack of opportunity.
We don't need a return of the conservative's core moral values as the rules we all must live by.
We need to broaden our definition of what it means to be 'one of us' or 'like me'. The past hundred years have seen many prejudices die away as first Germans, then Irish, Jews, Italians, Poles, etc. have been transformed from hated and demonized 'other' into 'generic white persons'. Asians have progressed farther in terms of acceptance as 'part of the core us', but we need to fully include them and unify around the principle of just being fellow Americans, including our Hispanic and African-American citizens.
We don't need an assigned place in the world. We need an economy and justice system that are stable and fair so we can go through the process of developing into our fully-fledged adult selves, without fear, discrimination, and lack of opportunity.
We don't need a return of the conservative's core moral values as the rules we all must live by.
5
I think whether we are open and tolerant of others depends a lot upon our economic circumstances. When the economy is strong and continuing to grow we can afford to be tolerant and we believe there is plenty for everybody. When times are tough we tend to pull the wagons in a circle and be more exclusive and less charitable towards outsiders.
It's very important, for the sake of social cohesion and the flourishing of our varied talents, that we have a strong social safety net. Otherwise, instead of pulling together when times are tough we will attack each other and become weaker.
It's very important, for the sake of social cohesion and the flourishing of our varied talents, that we have a strong social safety net. Otherwise, instead of pulling together when times are tough we will attack each other and become weaker.
5
I am puzzled that David Brooks would give us a single quote from Emerson ("Other men are lenses through which we read our own minds") as a guide to understanding the importance of the loss of social unity and harmony in our time. Half a century ago when I was a doctoral student, I wrote an essay, "The Roots and Effects of Emerson's Resignation from Society," in which I pointed out that it was Emerson's extreme emphasis on individualism that allowed him to undervalue the social, political and economic factors that shape the very "individualism" he purported to see as the essence of democratic selfhood.
It may have looked that way to a comfortable young man spending his formative years growing up in small-town Boston (c. 1803-1826) and later Concord. Human relations could have seemed essentially personal in nearly every regard, even though they weren't. But his "reality" was far from our own, when, if anything, most Americans feel oppressed by gigantic social, political and economic forces largely operating far from their view.
Brooks speaks as an Emersonian Transcendentalist, slighting the powerful impact of those hidden institutional forces on the lives of plain people. They both seem better at seeing what sociologists call "micro" aspects of society, rather than shedding light on the "macro" side, something Emerson's contemporary, Karl Marx, did rather potently during his writing career. For an interesting blend of the two, the works of Erich Fromm are insightful.
It may have looked that way to a comfortable young man spending his formative years growing up in small-town Boston (c. 1803-1826) and later Concord. Human relations could have seemed essentially personal in nearly every regard, even though they weren't. But his "reality" was far from our own, when, if anything, most Americans feel oppressed by gigantic social, political and economic forces largely operating far from their view.
Brooks speaks as an Emersonian Transcendentalist, slighting the powerful impact of those hidden institutional forces on the lives of plain people. They both seem better at seeing what sociologists call "micro" aspects of society, rather than shedding light on the "macro" side, something Emerson's contemporary, Karl Marx, did rather potently during his writing career. For an interesting blend of the two, the works of Erich Fromm are insightful.
4
Why are so many of Mr. Brooks' columns just the summaries of books that he has read? We need some more original thought.
1
Brooks is very good today. Maybe he should give the keynote address at the Republican convention...better, Trump's nominating speech.
... and good luck with that!
Wow! David Brooks, the Democratic Socialist....who knew?
2
Technology and discoveries may advance....but not human behavior. Human behavior remains the same from the very onset of the birth of humanity. Humans are not reinventing themselves. Humans are not evolving into something different. All the same capricious, self serving, pompousness, egotistical elements in human behavior will always remain....untouched, unchanged. In terms of human behavior, the more things seem to change....the more they remain the same.
In the attempt to create a perfect human.....even if you were able to clone humans.....you would unfortunately also clone all of man's mental and physical imperfections. Be that in a virtual reality computer type, or in the human flesh.
In the attempt to create a perfect human.....even if you were able to clone humans.....you would unfortunately also clone all of man's mental and physical imperfections. Be that in a virtual reality computer type, or in the human flesh.
Perhaps if we went back in time and redid the 1980's this could happen...
Much of what Mr. Books says is true. The only trouble is that it's been true since at least the time of the Romans and maybe before. New times bring new challenges but essential human conflicts remain unchanged because human nature itself remains unchanged.
Marriage is a covenant too, David. What happened to yours?
1
How can we become a place of community with covenants? Corporations cannot be led by greed, but be willing to pay a wage that drives up the standards of living for "communities." Social fabrics are much easier when we actually have a society on the same playing field.
4
"How can we become a place of community with covenants?"
Move to a neighborhood with an HOA. That's the short answer, and not an entirely flip one either.
Move to a neighborhood with an HOA. That's the short answer, and not an entirely flip one either.
I'm gratified that David has found an enough warm generalities to almost obscure the fact that people are struggling in what within memory was the richest national populace in the world.
This has occurred in a span of time that almost exactly coincides with Brooks' career ambit, as well as that of the Clintons and most of the commentariat.
This is an issue that all interested New York-Harvard-Washington parties have successfully eliminated from national political conversation until Sanders. After Bernie , it will be buried again.
This has occurred in a span of time that almost exactly coincides with Brooks' career ambit, as well as that of the Clintons and most of the commentariat.
This is an issue that all interested New York-Harvard-Washington parties have successfully eliminated from national political conversation until Sanders. After Bernie , it will be buried again.
4
The covenant part is precisely what is needed this Presidential election year, as we witness the greatest division ever seen in modern America, inequality the likes most of us have ever experienced, racism on the march, as bad as it ever was, police departments ruling communities, towns and cities, instead of serving, untrustworthy and dishonest politicians vying for the Presidency, war promulgated on an historic scale, arms sales to any / all nations good and bad, the highest ever in the history of the world, with the United States the leader of an avaricious pack.
Society as we used to know it, is splintering, falling apart, and the contract part is being used to unfairly reward the more astute and devious party.
Where do we go from here ?
In my opinion we must begin at the top, which means here in America, and in every nation, with our leaders.
Our President must be exemplary in all respects, trustworthy, honest to a fault, unquestionably empathetic, with concern for the well-being and welfare of the nation, and the world, rooted in his or her being, and when faced with any issue, must be able to act with certainty, authority, and fairness, confident in the belief that doing the right thing is the clear and only option.
The current "grey" choice of dealing with issues is not an option.
Society wants strong leaders, leaders who do not equivocate, leaders who listen to the populace, hear them, and act accordingly.
Society as we used to know it, is splintering, falling apart, and the contract part is being used to unfairly reward the more astute and devious party.
Where do we go from here ?
In my opinion we must begin at the top, which means here in America, and in every nation, with our leaders.
Our President must be exemplary in all respects, trustworthy, honest to a fault, unquestionably empathetic, with concern for the well-being and welfare of the nation, and the world, rooted in his or her being, and when faced with any issue, must be able to act with certainty, authority, and fairness, confident in the belief that doing the right thing is the clear and only option.
The current "grey" choice of dealing with issues is not an option.
Society wants strong leaders, leaders who do not equivocate, leaders who listen to the populace, hear them, and act accordingly.
1
"Society wants strong leaders, leaders who do not equivocate, leaders who listen to the populace, hear them, and act accordingly."
Dictatorship of the proletariat, in other words? I'm not convinced that "society" wants any such thing.
Dictatorship of the proletariat, in other words? I'm not convinced that "society" wants any such thing.
Oh, please! Prolonged April Fool's Day.
1
I am sorry you find two clowns are headed for leadership of your party. They offer nothing I understand or embrace as part of myself. There is no basis for a "covenant," let alone a contract, with either man.
You have the gift of words, ideas and acts to reweave the portion of fabric, the symmetry of the garment America makes and wears, but a romantic frame of mind will not be sufficient.
If you and your party cannot fire them now, then the American people will in November. Do not stop with these two only. Clean House and the Senate and each state. That is your patriotic duty. I continue mine in an act of . . . (let's just call it) patient resolve.
You have the gift of words, ideas and acts to reweave the portion of fabric, the symmetry of the garment America makes and wears, but a romantic frame of mind will not be sufficient.
If you and your party cannot fire them now, then the American people will in November. Do not stop with these two only. Clean House and the Senate and each state. That is your patriotic duty. I continue mine in an act of . . . (let's just call it) patient resolve.
2
The Washington Post just ran a piece about not enough jobs around the world for all the people as the masses aren't consuming enough. The Centrist Democratic think tank, "Third Way," says we just need to pour money into building. But building for the sake of building? Not a good plan, as China is still reeling from doing just that. The Holy Grail of unspeakable truths by politicians is that the world is overpopulated by double, and they all know it. For the foreseeable future, it would be better to give everyone free birth control. A livable planet with fewer people has less crime, less pollution, less costs for education, health care, unemployment compensation, etc., and more peace!
5
If we agree to stipulate that an individual's action within a society are driven by personal interests rather than altruism, it becomes easier to see why the societal breakdowns have eventuated. Behaving in a more unified way had, for many years, benefits for the individual. Public service was somewhat honorable, neighborhoods functioned more frequently as family support mechanisms and schools enjoyed a higher degree of community importance.
I imagine that we will bear witness to more "togetherness" when individuals decide there is something in it for them.
I imagine that we will bear witness to more "togetherness" when individuals decide there is something in it for them.
1
The PACE of change in the areas discussed by DB and areas mentioned by commentators, is the real culprit. When a person, a family, creates a home, they expect a high level of sameness over time. Sure they expect things will change, but at a pace allowing for adaptation. Today, local, national, international change occurs so quickly, adaptation is impossible. Thus resistance and alienation.
As Charles Pierce advised him, David is wisely returning to social philosophizing, having been treated rather roughly by electoral politics lately. And who could quarrel with the kind of gauzy generalizations offered here? Well, there is one thing: how on earth does he derive from "the old themes" of American history the notion that "we're . . . the guarantor of stability and world order"? Kissinger and Cheney somehow just don't stir "the mystic chords of memory" quite like the Declaration of Independence and Lincoln.
4
Okay, Professor Brooks, I get the lesson: we need a covenant. But your goal is too modest. We don’t just need a national covenant. How about a species level one? It’s not just our nation that’s in trouble; it’s our species. How about a covenant among all human beings, no matter what their nationality, politics, ethnics, religion, metaphysical philosophy, economics, etc., an agreement that the survival and happiness of ALL human beings should always take precedence over all those other things, because our common humanity & our desire for happiness is something we all know actually exists for sure & that we axiomatically need & want, and that we are in grave danger of losing -- forever.
We’ll get to other sentient beings on our planet & elsewhere later. One thing at a time.
Class dismissed.
We’ll get to other sentient beings on our planet & elsewhere later. One thing at a time.
Class dismissed.
2
Tolerance" is recognizing each individual's human dignity and his/her civil right to first amendment freedoms.
"Love" in the Christian sense of agape is a religious commitment for those who choose it.
"Patriotism" is a pride in and loyalty to all the noble, but not the ignoble, aspects of a country.
It's important not to confuse these.
"Love" in the Christian sense of agape is a religious commitment for those who choose it.
"Patriotism" is a pride in and loyalty to all the noble, but not the ignoble, aspects of a country.
It's important not to confuse these.
1
A review of history will show that there is always, in every society, those who have "power" and those who do not. Those with the power have always gone as far as they are able to secure that power, and even grow it, for themselves. They use whatever tools are at hand to divide and conquer to remain in power. They use any diversions (e.g. religious freedom) they can to shroud their power grabs so the mass of people cannot know what is happening to them. So it was when the ruling class (royalty) of old used religion to hold the masses in servitude by having religion say they reigned by the choice of God. Today, the God that the powerful use to rule is the god of money. Until the human race either grows onto another level or our economic system turns from money as the currency of success, it will always be a source of conflict and an anchor on society's ability to serve all.
2
This old system was put on acid on the day that politicians realized that they could grasp power over people by delivering taxpayers' money to constituents.
However, the predictably pointless attack on other peoples' religion only clouds the issue.
However, the predictably pointless attack on other peoples' religion only clouds the issue.
As I read this piece, one word kept bubbling-up. "Clueless."
4
Good starting point for a discussion, but the concepts of covenants contrasted with contracts should not be couched in misty idealism. Marriage is a good example, as it's really not necessary, since it hardly exists in Iceland, where parenting and family relationships are solid without this contract.
Patriotism relates to this discussion, as it certainly explained the American mood during WWII when willingness to die to protect our country was the norm. Now things have changed, we have a force of warfighters that is given a career, and are separate from most people, something compensated by lauding praise for their actions, irrespective of how it affects the "enemy."
We are not a unitary country by any stretch. An example are, the two classes of landlords and tenets in the low income market. There may be affection for the families who rent, but if they don't pay, lose a job or family breaks up -- they are evicted and the children's lives are destroyed. "Hey, I'm not a social worker," the owner says. And he's not!
We seek the kind of affiliation that allows mutual tacit covenants, whether among criminal street gangs or the unionized police forces that are united in combating them. Covenants and the aggregations formed by both of them do exist, are vital, yet they are the source of conflict in an open society. Managing this ongoing reality is the challenge.
AlRodbell.com
Patriotism relates to this discussion, as it certainly explained the American mood during WWII when willingness to die to protect our country was the norm. Now things have changed, we have a force of warfighters that is given a career, and are separate from most people, something compensated by lauding praise for their actions, irrespective of how it affects the "enemy."
We are not a unitary country by any stretch. An example are, the two classes of landlords and tenets in the low income market. There may be affection for the families who rent, but if they don't pay, lose a job or family breaks up -- they are evicted and the children's lives are destroyed. "Hey, I'm not a social worker," the owner says. And he's not!
We seek the kind of affiliation that allows mutual tacit covenants, whether among criminal street gangs or the unionized police forces that are united in combating them. Covenants and the aggregations formed by both of them do exist, are vital, yet they are the source of conflict in an open society. Managing this ongoing reality is the challenge.
AlRodbell.com
Bunk: "A man must have a code."
Omar: "Oh no doubt."
--From the HBO series The Wire
For those of you who have yet to watch the best television ever produced: Bunk is a detective that is taking a witness statement from Omar, who robs drug dealers for a living. Omar's code is: "I ain't put my gun on nobody who ain't in the game." "Game" means drug dealing and gang banging. Go watch The Wire if you want a great illustration of what is wrong with America.
Omar: "Oh no doubt."
--From the HBO series The Wire
For those of you who have yet to watch the best television ever produced: Bunk is a detective that is taking a witness statement from Omar, who robs drug dealers for a living. Omar's code is: "I ain't put my gun on nobody who ain't in the game." "Game" means drug dealing and gang banging. Go watch The Wire if you want a great illustration of what is wrong with America.
2
Agreed Galen. The portrayal of the "hoppers" broke my heart. I wonder how many of those kids we've lost since The Wire ended so many years ago?
My wife and I have become David Brooks fans, much appreciating his thoughtful reflections and perspectives on national politics. Thank you.
3
I see a lot of dichotomy here.
We like being part of a supportive group, but want our independence.
We like the opportunities of a big city, but find them soul-less.
Groups can be supportive, but they can also impose their own codes on members.
We get our social downloads from our parents when we are young, and often these are accepted with little question until later in life. If I could bestow one attitude on young people it would be: "Question Everything."
This would not be unreasoning rebellion, rather a deliberate review of what I have been told about our society and how it works, with the idea "Does this work for me, is this the kind of society I want to live in?" It must be OK to say, "I don't know, I don't have enough knowledge / experience to decide this particular question." That issue is then put off until later in life. Most people never do this questioning, it is too scary, too difficult. It also requires one to take responsibility for when the answer is "No." Then the issue becomes, "OK, now what?"
I think this is what is fueling a lot of the anger in this election, a whole group of people have decided that they do not like the status quo. Of the national candidates there are two who favor disruption and three who prefer a version of the status quo. I don't think we are to the point where our society needs to be torn apart, but some disruption would be a good thing. How to achieve it is the question.
We like being part of a supportive group, but want our independence.
We like the opportunities of a big city, but find them soul-less.
Groups can be supportive, but they can also impose their own codes on members.
We get our social downloads from our parents when we are young, and often these are accepted with little question until later in life. If I could bestow one attitude on young people it would be: "Question Everything."
This would not be unreasoning rebellion, rather a deliberate review of what I have been told about our society and how it works, with the idea "Does this work for me, is this the kind of society I want to live in?" It must be OK to say, "I don't know, I don't have enough knowledge / experience to decide this particular question." That issue is then put off until later in life. Most people never do this questioning, it is too scary, too difficult. It also requires one to take responsibility for when the answer is "No." Then the issue becomes, "OK, now what?"
I think this is what is fueling a lot of the anger in this election, a whole group of people have decided that they do not like the status quo. Of the national candidates there are two who favor disruption and three who prefer a version of the status quo. I don't think we are to the point where our society needs to be torn apart, but some disruption would be a good thing. How to achieve it is the question.
1
In the end it is the ebb and flow, the maintenance of the human balance between individualism verses collectivism. As societies traditionally dominated by one of these Hofstede cultural dimensions transition in the modern age of social globalization to the other side of the yin and yang equation.
Mr. Brooks, as he often does, tables some important ideas that invite a dialogue. Good for him. I find it interesting that patriotism is cited so positively with regard to a healthy social fabric. Surely there must be more positive means of pulling people together than the old cry for "love of country" that devolves all too often in America into jingoism and militaristic strutting.
2
"When you [Brooks] think about it"--is not a reason to believe it--not a proof.
Global migration is hardly a new phenomenon; otherwise the Western Hemisphere would be populated only with indigenous people--who were even earlier migrants.
But corporate globalization is new. The multinational corporations are themselves polities (making and enforcing policy)--some bigger than many cities and states and some countries So they take over the geo-polities, making them colonies. All backed by US military might--paid for by the US middle class--with both taxes and lost jobs.
The internet is giving SOME people more choice--provided they enjoy an honest efficient public postal service.
"A culture of autonomy valorizes individual choice and self-determination." It depends on who enjoys "auto-nomy" (self-rule).
Making geo-polities autonomous (free from foreign rule) does not necessarily make the individuals more autonomous (as it did for the USA). Rather it can make them subject to corrupt locals officials who are often the beneficiaries of corporate kickbacks and collusion.
And Corporate Globalization is really "Corporate Autonomy" --the details of trade agreements often give corporations control over governments--both in the US and others. This further diminishes local autonomy and aggravates today's migration problems--to Europe and to the US.
Global migration is hardly a new phenomenon; otherwise the Western Hemisphere would be populated only with indigenous people--who were even earlier migrants.
But corporate globalization is new. The multinational corporations are themselves polities (making and enforcing policy)--some bigger than many cities and states and some countries So they take over the geo-polities, making them colonies. All backed by US military might--paid for by the US middle class--with both taxes and lost jobs.
The internet is giving SOME people more choice--provided they enjoy an honest efficient public postal service.
"A culture of autonomy valorizes individual choice and self-determination." It depends on who enjoys "auto-nomy" (self-rule).
Making geo-polities autonomous (free from foreign rule) does not necessarily make the individuals more autonomous (as it did for the USA). Rather it can make them subject to corrupt locals officials who are often the beneficiaries of corporate kickbacks and collusion.
And Corporate Globalization is really "Corporate Autonomy" --the details of trade agreements often give corporations control over governments--both in the US and others. This further diminishes local autonomy and aggravates today's migration problems--to Europe and to the US.
"Abraham Lincoln aroused a refreshed love of country. He played upon the mystic chords of memory and used the Declaration of Independence as a unifying scripture and guide."
Yes, and less than 6 weeks later the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter, so you can see how effective that appeal was.
Yes, and less than 6 weeks later the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter, so you can see how effective that appeal was.
1
Something else I just noticed: "mystic chords of memory" is from the First Inaugural, but Lincoln's evocation of the Declaration is from the Gettysburg Address - more than two and a half years later, on Oct. 17, 1863.
Mr. Brooks needs either a new research assistant or an extended book leave. Because this is just sloppy.
You can do better, Mr. Brooks, and Times readers deserve better.
Mr. Brooks needs either a new research assistant or an extended book leave. Because this is just sloppy.
You can do better, Mr. Brooks, and Times readers deserve better.
Mr. Brooks, you might have gotten a view of what this cohesion can be last night at the Bernie Sanders organizing meeting I attended. There were about 100 of us, of all ages and income brackets, and we were there for a common purpose - to work to make this country into one in which we could all care about each other, take care of each other, look out for each other. None of us want to continue to see a country that works for the few at the expense of the many.
1
I would think that many terrorists came from loving families - who may be desperate over their kid's decision.
I see many developments contributing to the weakening of our social fabric, starting with the focus on materialism/consumerism by the rich as well as by the poor. Employers show zero loyalty to their workers. The media gushes about the 1% on all channels, giving the impression here and abroad that only their small circle is deprived. The uneducated look for someone to blame and demagogues (usually deflecting that they also are part of the 1%) show them the way, whether they are called Limbough, Trump or ISIS.
I see many developments contributing to the weakening of our social fabric, starting with the focus on materialism/consumerism by the rich as well as by the poor. Employers show zero loyalty to their workers. The media gushes about the 1% on all channels, giving the impression here and abroad that only their small circle is deprived. The uneducated look for someone to blame and demagogues (usually deflecting that they also are part of the 1%) show them the way, whether they are called Limbough, Trump or ISIS.
1
Many here take David Brooks to be a shill for the GOP, and blame David for the GOP's activities. He does think there is danger in big government, and likes the idea of individual responsibility. I don't usually agree with his balancing of the two, and this article in particular seems off-base, suggesting that patriotism is a vehicle for reconciling the two. However, it's hard to see this misconception as support for the GOP.
The goal is a society supportive of individuals identifying and making sue of their talents. These things are not properly defined in terms of patriotism, but in terms of individual talents and a society that supports the individual in putting their talents to work. There's the failing of today.
The goal is a society supportive of individuals identifying and making sue of their talents. These things are not properly defined in terms of patriotism, but in terms of individual talents and a society that supports the individual in putting their talents to work. There's the failing of today.
3
Great comment, Tom
Michael Barone argues that differences in social connectedness correlate with differences in support for Donald Trump, with higher social connectedness resulting in rejection of Trump. He points out that Mormons have the highest level of social connectedness of any group in America, with Utah giving him only 14% of the vote. Interestingly, Mormons consider themselves to be the Covenant people, like unto ancient Israel. The voter models produced by the Times’ Nate Cohn add further insight to this phenomenon. Cohn notes that the traditional core of Republican support, northern Yankees, of English (including Utahns), Dutch, German, and Scandinavian descent, are rejecting Trump. These northern Republicans, with their Puritan roots, have a long history of social connectedness. Ironically, the acceleration of global migration mentioned by Mr. Brooks is accelerating the dilution of the Puritan culture once dominant in America and in turn strengthening an immigration demagogue, Mr. Trump. We seem to be torn between the extremes of Trump’s know-nothingism and the liberal rejection of the need for immigrants to assimilate to American values. I believe America is at her best when we can assimilate manageable numbers of immigrants who through their own traditions enrich our hybrid culture, but who do not supplant our remarkable heritage that has uniquely combined individual liberty with a sense of covenant.
1
And where do the roots of this uncivil discourse come from?
Could 45 years of republican southern strategy, pitting the fortunes of white working class stiffs against the fortunes of black working class stiffs have had anything to do with this divide we suffer?
Could a republican propaganda machine that equates President Obama with terrorists, that posits him as an alien, that stokes the flames of seeing him as anti-American have anything to do with our current lack of covenants between US?
Could it be the gutting of the National commons by corporations wishing to own and profit from everything from war to prisons to water and sewers?
Republicans have spent a long time and a lot of effort in undermining the commons that We the People all own and need to protect.
Perhaps M. Brooks would like to do a column on the party he has shilled for these many years, explaining how their policies have lead to abandonment of our National covenants in an everybody for themselves movement.
Could 45 years of republican southern strategy, pitting the fortunes of white working class stiffs against the fortunes of black working class stiffs have had anything to do with this divide we suffer?
Could a republican propaganda machine that equates President Obama with terrorists, that posits him as an alien, that stokes the flames of seeing him as anti-American have anything to do with our current lack of covenants between US?
Could it be the gutting of the National commons by corporations wishing to own and profit from everything from war to prisons to water and sewers?
Republicans have spent a long time and a lot of effort in undermining the commons that We the People all own and need to protect.
Perhaps M. Brooks would like to do a column on the party he has shilled for these many years, explaining how their policies have lead to abandonment of our National covenants in an everybody for themselves movement.
8
"The weakening of the social fabric has created a range of problems."
Mr Brooks, Republicans, but especially the reviled Trump Republicans, would like to blame the liberal led civil rights movement for weakening the social fabric of America. Social fabric is a code word for opposition to civil rights reform and progress for women, non-Christians and all kinds of minorities.
There it is, the essential Republican cop-out bait-and-switch that is Mr. Brooks' bread and butter. The social fabric has ruined the economy? Or is it the other way around? Never mind that the GOP "business wing" has been waging war on democratically elected democrats for decades by any means available. It is becoming more and more obvious in places like Arizona and the Supreme Court that Republicans don't just hate Democrats, they hate democracy. Mr. Brooks has had to scramble like never before to put a nice face on the oligarchs true agenda. So I have to give thanks to Mr. Trump and his supporters for showing us what they're really made of. Now let us have hearings for Garrick and all the other judges that are being obstructed by the GOP Congress. Let's have mandatory voting by mail with pre-paid postage. Let's make every single vote count and let's count them accurately. If that were to happen I "betcha" we'd have a better happier and more prosperous citizenry and a stronger America. Social Fabric indeed.
Mr Brooks, Republicans, but especially the reviled Trump Republicans, would like to blame the liberal led civil rights movement for weakening the social fabric of America. Social fabric is a code word for opposition to civil rights reform and progress for women, non-Christians and all kinds of minorities.
There it is, the essential Republican cop-out bait-and-switch that is Mr. Brooks' bread and butter. The social fabric has ruined the economy? Or is it the other way around? Never mind that the GOP "business wing" has been waging war on democratically elected democrats for decades by any means available. It is becoming more and more obvious in places like Arizona and the Supreme Court that Republicans don't just hate Democrats, they hate democracy. Mr. Brooks has had to scramble like never before to put a nice face on the oligarchs true agenda. So I have to give thanks to Mr. Trump and his supporters for showing us what they're really made of. Now let us have hearings for Garrick and all the other judges that are being obstructed by the GOP Congress. Let's have mandatory voting by mail with pre-paid postage. Let's make every single vote count and let's count them accurately. If that were to happen I "betcha" we'd have a better happier and more prosperous citizenry and a stronger America. Social Fabric indeed.
5
A covenant involves equals and a common goal. As long as the wealthy and the corporations set the terms, the rest of us are stuck with those terms. Using the language of love to describe it is the height of hypocrisy.
You remind me, Mr. Brooks, of the old joke about "let's have the rich give more to the poor" where somebody replies, "I'll get the consent of the poor; you get the consent of the rich."
You remind me, Mr. Brooks, of the old joke about "let's have the rich give more to the poor" where somebody replies, "I'll get the consent of the poor; you get the consent of the rich."
6
This is a thoughtful essay. However, it's not clear how more and stronger "covenants" can get made. I've studied teachers and students engaged in civic action in schools, in a new book, "From Inquiry to Action." Students in a class or after-school club identify issues or needs in their school or community, research them, and plan and carry out actions to try to address them. Kids have tackled juvenile justice issues, neighborhood gun violence, teenage date violence, better policies for the homeless, getting their school building rehabbed. They not only work together as a team but learn the SKILLS of constructive change. This is how the social fabric gets re-woven.
3
Imagine a world with finite sustainable resources and new production functions that delivers lower middle class American consumption levels to the world with technology, robotics, and 20% of the willing & trained workforce. What do the other 80% of humanity do? Most want to be engaged in paths to better lives and discovery for their families, communities and local/global networks. Will we adequately pay women in the rloes of mothers and care-takers; not relying on family potentates for trickle-down dignity? Can we advance beyond neo-classical free market economics?
1
Re the Cory Booker comment.
The definition of tolerance is an extremely superficial, negative and self centered view of the concept. Tolerance actually indicates the ability to see with objectivity and a lack of value judging beyond one's personal opinions of what constitutes value.
Patriotism usually involves thinking that one's own country or group is superior to others. The concept of Love one another recognizes no boundaries of any kind including national origin, race, gender, religion, even political affiliation.
Without Tolerance, the abiolity to include all with in the circle of love, love is not possible.
The historical facts indicate that so-called patriotism, along with Religiousism has been and is being used to divide and separate people into warring groups.
The definition of tolerance is an extremely superficial, negative and self centered view of the concept. Tolerance actually indicates the ability to see with objectivity and a lack of value judging beyond one's personal opinions of what constitutes value.
Patriotism usually involves thinking that one's own country or group is superior to others. The concept of Love one another recognizes no boundaries of any kind including national origin, race, gender, religion, even political affiliation.
Without Tolerance, the abiolity to include all with in the circle of love, love is not possible.
The historical facts indicate that so-called patriotism, along with Religiousism has been and is being used to divide and separate people into warring groups.
2
"Out of love of country, soldiers offer the gift of their service. Out of love of their craft, teachers offer students the gift of their attention."
and in David Brooks world, run by his Tea Party colleagues and sponsors, they all live happily ever after.....
and in David Brooks world, run by his Tea Party colleagues and sponsors, they all live happily ever after.....
It's difficult to hold patriotic views of your fellow citizens, when those citizens are progressively trained to assume you owe them something, and to despise you for having what they do not. The society where everyone gets by according to their ability to access each other's pockets, is not one that can ever be cohesive. It is permanent antagonism.
1
This view is the antithesis of a socially cohesive group. It's dog-eat-dog greed and "I've got mine, the heck with the rest of you." And it's the creed of the Republican.
Here's the uncomfortable truth lurking beneath the surface of that word covenant: Going all the way back ancient Mesopotamia, the terms of the covenant are established by the one with all the power in the relationship; the powerless have a choice to accept the terms and enjoy the benefits of obedience, or reject the terms and be damned.
1
You're describing the Suzerain Treaty or Covenant. The more powerful in the agreements promised to protect the weaker party and make their enemies its enemies. The weaker paid tribute and provided men and arms in a conflict when called upon. Rome typically made these agreements with its vassal states.
These were common and can be found throughout the Old Testament.
These were common and can be found throughout the Old Testament.
The weakening of our social fabric has many causes but just a few are: Liberal activists and intellectuals have spent many decades tearing it down with the notion that it was flawed and now it's every man for himself and we are grounded in nothing; People are more aware than ever thanks to the internet that government is corrupt and is dominated by big money and business which really kills patriotism; The political parties and government officials are rotten to the core and by design don't care or scorn about 50% of the population which leads to constant conflict and disruption as they battle for the crown and control of our wealth and power; Because of identity politics we have moved from a country of assimilation to actually encouraging people to not assimilate and work to change America rather than enter in the covenant that is America. We have people in America trying to sway the democratic process that are not even legal citizens and the Dem party wants them for their votes. Very cynical.
America of the past had a clear covenant which was the land of opportunity. It was economic. Women went to work to help families so we became busier and busier but now America cannot even give its own citizens economic opportunity and companies move out or ask for foreign workers to be brought in. That severely damages our fabric as families break up under the stress and children's prospects dim.
We are way off the rails and need dramatic change.
America of the past had a clear covenant which was the land of opportunity. It was economic. Women went to work to help families so we became busier and busier but now America cannot even give its own citizens economic opportunity and companies move out or ask for foreign workers to be brought in. That severely damages our fabric as families break up under the stress and children's prospects dim.
We are way off the rails and need dramatic change.
1
The most dramatic and best change would be a new covenant that allows states that want to to leave and form a covenant with others.
Brooks seeks the kind of country that emerged from World War II, one in which everyone knew that they shared a common fate and despite considerable diversity of ancestry and cultures and of economic success and of different religions still believed that we all shared a common bond as citizens of the same nation. That nation could practice democratic processes of policy making and of decision making because all agreed that the majority's decisions would apply to everyone. It was a nation that was ready to end Jim Crow and to become more egalitarian than every before.
That nation is history. Democracy is defunct. If the majority makes a decision, the minority in many situations simply refuses to accept the decisions of the majority and provides a myriad of reasons not to cooperate. Programs that ended the most common causes for poverty and poor health paid for by everyone become entitlements, meaning unjust redistributions of wealth to the vice ridden miserable masses. Religious freedom is no longer a respect for people's freedom of conscience, it's making public policy of the beliefs of which ever religion can gain the more political influence. We have become a nation so divided that the minority Party that refuses to cooperate in governance with a Democratic President out of both a loathing of having endure the majorities egregiously annoying attitudes and a subconscious racism that makes them unable to offer the President the minimal respect for the office.
That nation is history. Democracy is defunct. If the majority makes a decision, the minority in many situations simply refuses to accept the decisions of the majority and provides a myriad of reasons not to cooperate. Programs that ended the most common causes for poverty and poor health paid for by everyone become entitlements, meaning unjust redistributions of wealth to the vice ridden miserable masses. Religious freedom is no longer a respect for people's freedom of conscience, it's making public policy of the beliefs of which ever religion can gain the more political influence. We have become a nation so divided that the minority Party that refuses to cooperate in governance with a Democratic President out of both a loathing of having endure the majorities egregiously annoying attitudes and a subconscious racism that makes them unable to offer the President the minimal respect for the office.
2
"...We have become a nation so divided that the minority Party that refuses to cooperate in governance with a Democratic President out of both a loathing of having endure the majorities egregiously annoying attitudes and a subconscious racism that makes them unable to offer the President the minimal respect for the office, is undergoing deep and bitter divisions over candidates and policies and with animosities not previously seen..."
Bring back the draft but not just for military service. Give young people a chance to be part of something bigger than themselves for good causes.
3
Yes, and no exemptions for the oligarchy's offspring.
Deception and abuse of power break down the bonds of patriotism, community, and love. In order for families, communities and our country to survive, honesty, truth and Justice must always prevail. Lately, it seems like those phrases are a comic book pastime. Truth and Justice? Honesty? With families it's become about upgrading material goods, come hell or high-water; with communities it's become about privilege and access, wall off the needy with a smile and a donation from a car window; and with our country it's become about leadership securing power, by any means necessary. At every level the individual is a planning a type of calculated separation, with a smile. The smile is not inviting, more like: I got mine, good luck to you, but by the way we need community, wink wink, just don't mess with me and mine.
To a certain degree this is natural, I guess, to preserve the self, but lately everything seems off the rails. The only "covenant" sought is individual security, individual success, a "sacred" agreement with one's inner ego, a narcissistic hand shake conspiring to win win win win. Rules matter only for those that get caught. See cheating in sports. See the movie "The Big Short". See Donald J. Trump. Sadly, I think this is what American culture teaches.
To a certain degree this is natural, I guess, to preserve the self, but lately everything seems off the rails. The only "covenant" sought is individual security, individual success, a "sacred" agreement with one's inner ego, a narcissistic hand shake conspiring to win win win win. Rules matter only for those that get caught. See cheating in sports. See the movie "The Big Short". See Donald J. Trump. Sadly, I think this is what American culture teaches.
1
To understand the four forces and their interaction requires critical thinking and that skill is in short supply these days. Just look at how simplistic political campaigns and various campaign followers are phrasing the debate on the issues and you can see how low we have fallen in the US.
"Economic globalization is creating wider opportunity but also inequality."
Well, when you think about it David Brooks, actually globalization has greatly reduced inequality. Just not among Republican voters in the USA.
Well, when you think about it David Brooks, actually globalization has greatly reduced inequality. Just not among Republican voters in the USA.
1
It is ironic for DB to write about covenants in the usual sense. The only "covenants" the republican party holds these days is those of unfettered capitalism and tax cuts.
2
I am all for idealism and community, etc. But that also means tolerance and solidarity, not greed and polarizing language. Responsible leadership fights for the common good and the principals of fairness and truth. And leadership is needed to look out for and respect the little guy or in a "democracy" the little guys will go out and vote for something crazy.
The GOP especially has not respected this covenant for décades now and it is incredibly irresponsible and short sighted. It is an uncomfortable truth that people need to be governed for their own good through unselfish leadership adhering to principals. You lose that and you lose the "fabric" you are searching for.
The GOP especially has not respected this covenant for décades now and it is incredibly irresponsible and short sighted. It is an uncomfortable truth that people need to be governed for their own good through unselfish leadership adhering to principals. You lose that and you lose the "fabric" you are searching for.
David Brook’s definition of “strong identity” is nothing more than mindless conformity based on a concept of external validation that is subjective at best. We are what others think of us or who admires us? Yikes! How about we think highly of ourselves, from a well developed emotional awareness, and that we take good care of ourselves and each other through our commitment to compassion? The Republican Party bailed out on this concept 30 years ago when its leaders chose to divide and conquer. To value the perception of those that would have so little compassion towards others while they fret the social fabric fraying around them is the problem we face. The “covenant” starts with self awareness and it is all too clear that one political party avoids this at all costs.
Did I miss something? I recall Mr. Brooks years ago saying he is an Independent Conservative not a Republican. And he recently said he had been living in a bubble and needed to get out of it and do more reporting. So give him a break. Let us wait and see if he grows.
1
David, I'm glad you are learning new words and concepts to explain why "Alienated young men join ISIS so they can have a sense of belonging" and "Isolated teenagers shoot up schools." By all means, let's get some "covenants" going to reinforce some "defined social roles" (apparently for men): "father, plumber, Little League coach".
Many reasonable people would point some fingers at religious extremism, insane firearm policy protected by the coward/avar-ice of lawmakers, an immoral GOP "trickle down" economic theory, and a violently interventionist role in the foreign policy of recent Republican Presidents. But let's channel our inner Ward Cleavers and get out there and toss that old ball around.
And please don't pretend your side is the Party of Lincoln. Lincoln would have left long ago, when the parties switched core missions. The GOP is the party of Trump, who is the apotheosis of decades of Republican racism, misogyny, hypocrisy, willful ignorance, and class warfare, a system for which you continue to be an abstruse philosopher and tireless apologist.
Many reasonable people would point some fingers at religious extremism, insane firearm policy protected by the coward/avar-ice of lawmakers, an immoral GOP "trickle down" economic theory, and a violently interventionist role in the foreign policy of recent Republican Presidents. But let's channel our inner Ward Cleavers and get out there and toss that old ball around.
And please don't pretend your side is the Party of Lincoln. Lincoln would have left long ago, when the parties switched core missions. The GOP is the party of Trump, who is the apotheosis of decades of Republican racism, misogyny, hypocrisy, willful ignorance, and class warfare, a system for which you continue to be an abstruse philosopher and tireless apologist.
3
I'll believe in a better future when I see folks calling themselves American, not African-American, Mexican-American, and all the other hyphenated forms ad nauseam.
1
Mr. Brooks, let's start with a centuries old covenant, i.e., "the Writ of Habeas Corpus", which is an integral part of the woof and warp of our social fabric. I didn't hear a word of protest from you repudiating the actions of your esteemed Republican cadre when the GWB administration ripped it up prosecuting the War on Terror.
1
This column bandies about the term "social fabric" as if we all know what that means. The "social fabric" used to work for (allegedly) religious white men -- that's the problem some of us have with the term. (But thank you for not bringing up single moms again).
And patriotism? The warmongers, who in recent times never bothered to themselves fight for their country, have hijacked "patriotism" and transmogrified that lofty ideal into jingoism. So I'm not sure that's the answer either.
And patriotism? The warmongers, who in recent times never bothered to themselves fight for their country, have hijacked "patriotism" and transmogrified that lofty ideal into jingoism. So I'm not sure that's the answer either.
2
So that's what is wrong with the world - the fact that the rich social fabric has been torn away from us by the lack of social solidarity that come from covenants that are now lacking? And here I was thinking that it was actually the escalating growth of poverty, ignorance, and violence created by the policies and politics of nation-states serving the interests of a group of people small enough to forge a covenant with the relatively small number of government officials who do their bidding.
2
Yes, we need our'tribes' for social cohesion and personal fulfillment. What we don't need is demagogues who keep shrieking at us that prosperity and safety are zero sum games, where someone else getting or having something automatically reduces the size of our portion. That paradigm does exist, most notably when you stifle the source of creativity and innovation that causes business and communities to thrive. When the capital markets cease to do what they were originally created to do - provide funding for businesses to expand and create - and instead just start shuffling the money around into different piles while siphoning off large amounts at the top, then you see how businesses (and jobs) begin to wither. Just as the ACA required insurance companies to use at least 80% of their receipts to pay for healthcare (the ostensible reason for their existence), we should reform the markets to require that 80% of profits from investing be reinvested in R&D, employee education, startups, or anything other than just bonus checks. Wall Street has been systematically killing the goose that lays the golden egg by busting unions and treating workers as widgets instead of as assets worthy of conservation and enhancement. Any fast food manager can tell you that the biggest cost of business is training new employees - if you can reduce turnover, you can increase profits.That means treating people that work for you like people: pay them a living wage and a path for growth and they will stay.
CONVENANTS Are extensive, interwoven social contracts, which David Brooks describes in sensitive and detailed ways. There is another aspect of covenants, as with all human behavior, that has begun to reveal itself in ways both expected and unexpected. Brain science shows us how different parts and functions of the brain are activated during our lives. For example, social relationships are built upon our identification with each other, a process supported by the mirror and spindle cells, referred to as attachment. Strong positive attachments in all life domains are the basis for social covenants. Other systems in the brain dovetail with basic attachment in ways both intricate and powerful. For example, the survival instinct that operates through the amygdala iby means of fight or flight reflexes. In order to access hire mental functions, including the executive functions of logic, reasoning, judgment, evaluation, frustration tolerance, problem solving and decision making. These three areas of brain function are what we build upon to form covenants. If any of the three is disrupted or absent, the results on both individual and society can be profound. Knowing this information enables us to identify activities that strengthen attachment, survival and the higher mental funcitons, all of which are necessary in order to form cohesive social structures based on covenants. Current cultural shifts stress people, hence the brain functions needed to support covenants.
"As it is, there are many members, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” I Corinthians 12: 20-21
Senator Booker's quote on patriotism is a restating of Paul's famous passage from I Corinthians. At a time when so many want to prevent all religious thought from being voiced in the public square, Booker's quote reminds me that our religious heritage has much wisdom to offer us. Paul's words resonate through the ages.
Senator Booker's quote on patriotism is a restating of Paul's famous passage from I Corinthians. At a time when so many want to prevent all religious thought from being voiced in the public square, Booker's quote reminds me that our religious heritage has much wisdom to offer us. Paul's words resonate through the ages.
Much of what religion - including that of Pauline Christianity and other monotheistic faiths - has to offer us is not only not wise, but bitterly divisive. Absent from the Christian version of history is the fact that for the most part the polytheistic cultures of Greece and Rome were tolerant of multiple faiths. Aside from Nero, who used the Christians as scapegoats for the fire that destroyed Rome, it was the Abrahamic faiths who rejected the ethic of tolerance. Subsequently, when Christianity rose to be the dominant religion, it turned on itself, rooting out 'heresy' in between persecutions of the Jews.
Yup, there is much to be learned from our religious heritage - mostly, that we need to move past it.
Yup, there is much to be learned from our religious heritage - mostly, that we need to move past it.
mr booker's sliding narrative "definitions" of tolerance and patriotism rather obfuscate than illuminate..."tolerance" is an unfortunate construct that may be effected and worn as a mask, it has no connection to "acceptance" which seems essential to mr. booker's notion of patrioism, an extension of love of country and we could begin there with some actual awareness and respect for the country as defined by its historical documents and the debate that produced them, (just what is that we said we'd do?) before we move on his add-on version of the golden rule...if we do that, we'll likely find that the consortium of gamers, (corporate, media and political institutions included), that has taken over and commodified the ideal for its own special interests (as opposed to the preamble's promise to "promote the general Welfare") are at the root of our alienation from one another and the growing tangle of covenants that rather emphasize and ensure than harmonize and resolve our differences (our strength lies in the harmony, it says here)...fundamental to our healing and renewal, is a recognition of and an effort to reform, (as any therapist would suggest for a patient) the root causes of our disorder...we could try, first thing, to repair the damage done to the native tribes whose land we took and the imported tribes whose freedom we took...the wager here is that the fresh start would do away with any need for tolerance and define patriotism to a capital P.
David, in his acceptance speech at the 1992 Democratic Convention, Bill Clinton made the same points about the need for a new covenant. In fact, he called for a "New Covenant for America," hoping to use the phrase as a unifying principle much like FDR had used "New Deal" and JFK had used "New Frontier."
Immediately, the buzz among conservative commentators was, as Pat Robertson called it, Clinton's "blasphemy" in using the word "covenant," which Robertson insisted could only be used in the religious sense. The reaction was so strong among Republicans and conservative commentators that Clinton largely abandoned the phrase. Looking back, maybe Bill Clinton was the wrong messenger, but the far right was certainly the wrong audience.
You end your column invoking the themes of President Obama's 2004 speech at the DNC and the themes of his 2008 campaign. You never mention Obama's name. In fact, you shift the attribution of the ideas to Sen. Cory Booker. Watching that interview with Maher, I was struck that Booker wasn't saying anything Obama hadn't already said and tried.
We all know the movers and shakers of the conservative movement were meeting the night Obama took the oath of office, determining how best to defeat his momentum. We know that by April, 2009, they were rallying their supporters "to take back the country."
Just how is it that many of us can form a covenant with people like that? History tells us they would rather take out a contract on us and our beliefs.
Immediately, the buzz among conservative commentators was, as Pat Robertson called it, Clinton's "blasphemy" in using the word "covenant," which Robertson insisted could only be used in the religious sense. The reaction was so strong among Republicans and conservative commentators that Clinton largely abandoned the phrase. Looking back, maybe Bill Clinton was the wrong messenger, but the far right was certainly the wrong audience.
You end your column invoking the themes of President Obama's 2004 speech at the DNC and the themes of his 2008 campaign. You never mention Obama's name. In fact, you shift the attribution of the ideas to Sen. Cory Booker. Watching that interview with Maher, I was struck that Booker wasn't saying anything Obama hadn't already said and tried.
We all know the movers and shakers of the conservative movement were meeting the night Obama took the oath of office, determining how best to defeat his momentum. We know that by April, 2009, they were rallying their supporters "to take back the country."
Just how is it that many of us can form a covenant with people like that? History tells us they would rather take out a contract on us and our beliefs.
2
David Brooks- Thank you for this wonderful piece! It is like a breath of fresh air in a very stale room.
I am so tired of being emotionally beat up by the racism "conversation."
I am so tired of being emotionally beat up by the racism "conversation."
There is a fifth force coursing through modern society, or maybe underpinning the first 4 named by Mr. Brooks: the gradual but inexorable decline of religion and its replacement with science-based objectivity and rationalism.
This may seem odd to say at a time when, for example, America denies what science tells us about climate change or even evolution, and when radical Islam is beginning (but only beginning) to rival Christianity in its ruthlessness for domination. But these are the last gasps of those trying to hang on to a simplistic world where the Bible or the Quran provides all the answers at the same time that they justify the domination or killing of anyone who thinks differently.
Religious people argue that without religion, there would be no ultimate authority to give humans morality or purpose. That may or may not be true; it's up to humanity to figure out. A world without religion is not necessarily a happier world, at least for those whose happiness is tied into having easy answers.
But 2000 years of the Catholic Church, the Protestant Reformation and its aftermath, and radical Islam prove that religion-based societies are neither just, nor moral, nor in any way averse to oppression or killing. It’s time to move on.
This may seem odd to say at a time when, for example, America denies what science tells us about climate change or even evolution, and when radical Islam is beginning (but only beginning) to rival Christianity in its ruthlessness for domination. But these are the last gasps of those trying to hang on to a simplistic world where the Bible or the Quran provides all the answers at the same time that they justify the domination or killing of anyone who thinks differently.
Religious people argue that without religion, there would be no ultimate authority to give humans morality or purpose. That may or may not be true; it's up to humanity to figure out. A world without religion is not necessarily a happier world, at least for those whose happiness is tied into having easy answers.
But 2000 years of the Catholic Church, the Protestant Reformation and its aftermath, and radical Islam prove that religion-based societies are neither just, nor moral, nor in any way averse to oppression or killing. It’s time to move on.
David Brooks tells us that to answer that age-old question "Who am I?," we are to look at the roles we fill in life. And it's undoubted that, divorced from those roles, one can feel uprooted, at-sea.
But is that all we are? Well, one might further answer that we are also the qualities that we have and exhibit -- I am kind, generous, patriotic --- or its opposite. And Mr. Brooks would likely agree but would argue that those qualities arise in intimate interrelationship with the roles we fill.
Still, though, is that it? Well, we used to turn to our priests and philosophers for guidance on that which used to be of such profound concern to thinking human beings. And various answers were offered. Some said we are "children of god." Others, that we are part of something greater than ourselves but would abjure in using the word "god" arguing that we can only speculate as to that which will forever remain mysterious to finite minds.
Our current priests and philosophers (i.e., our scientists), however, disagree with those priests and philosophers-of-old proclaiming that we are NOTHING MORE than the roles we fill and the qualities we have. Beyond that, we are simply random, purposeless mutants born of a universe which, though seemingly awesome, arose as a consequence of mindless-molecules-in-motion.
Perhaps this disconnection from something beyond our selves has bred a nihilistic culture which is at the true root of modern dysfunctions and not some "covenant."
But is that all we are? Well, one might further answer that we are also the qualities that we have and exhibit -- I am kind, generous, patriotic --- or its opposite. And Mr. Brooks would likely agree but would argue that those qualities arise in intimate interrelationship with the roles we fill.
Still, though, is that it? Well, we used to turn to our priests and philosophers for guidance on that which used to be of such profound concern to thinking human beings. And various answers were offered. Some said we are "children of god." Others, that we are part of something greater than ourselves but would abjure in using the word "god" arguing that we can only speculate as to that which will forever remain mysterious to finite minds.
Our current priests and philosophers (i.e., our scientists), however, disagree with those priests and philosophers-of-old proclaiming that we are NOTHING MORE than the roles we fill and the qualities we have. Beyond that, we are simply random, purposeless mutants born of a universe which, though seemingly awesome, arose as a consequence of mindless-molecules-in-motion.
Perhaps this disconnection from something beyond our selves has bred a nihilistic culture which is at the true root of modern dysfunctions and not some "covenant."
Is this article related to politics and the current turmoil or is it observational and sociological?
Are we being told one possible way how Americans should think, feel and interrelate to get things on a better track?
And/or
Is this article suggesting that our political leaders and the political parties could support and advance domestic tranquility and prosperity by recognizing and using the concepts in the article to create a functioning and supportive governmental background?
To go beyond the scope of the article as written to the politics of today and extrapolating the thoughts:
Do our leaders and the political parties have implicit or explicit covenants and contracts with individuals, the citizenry as a whole, and the country as a nation?
If so, where do the leaders and parties stand in relation to the ideas presented in this article? What is the mindset of our leaders and the parties regarding these concepts, especially, the four forces and what, if anything, are they (proposing?) doing about them?
Or are the covenants and contracts only between individuals and, also, individuals and society but which should be understood and honored by our political leaders and parties?
For the good of the country, America needs ideas concerning and practical solutions for both the present and the future. Hopefully, the thoughts expressed in the article may in some way contribute to working towards that. But realistically, who knows?
Are we being told one possible way how Americans should think, feel and interrelate to get things on a better track?
And/or
Is this article suggesting that our political leaders and the political parties could support and advance domestic tranquility and prosperity by recognizing and using the concepts in the article to create a functioning and supportive governmental background?
To go beyond the scope of the article as written to the politics of today and extrapolating the thoughts:
Do our leaders and the political parties have implicit or explicit covenants and contracts with individuals, the citizenry as a whole, and the country as a nation?
If so, where do the leaders and parties stand in relation to the ideas presented in this article? What is the mindset of our leaders and the parties regarding these concepts, especially, the four forces and what, if anything, are they (proposing?) doing about them?
Or are the covenants and contracts only between individuals and, also, individuals and society but which should be understood and honored by our political leaders and parties?
For the good of the country, America needs ideas concerning and practical solutions for both the present and the future. Hopefully, the thoughts expressed in the article may in some way contribute to working towards that. But realistically, who knows?
1
A "true conservative" and "patriot" said to me that we need to teach our children to be good Americans.
I suggested why don't we just teach them to be good people.
I suggested why don't we just teach them to be good people.
2
"A culture of autonomy valorizes individual choice and self-determination," but is antithetical to group cohesion that starts with the family and extends outward to others. This is the social fabric that has been fraying as the country becomes more and more polarized--economically, socially and politically. Economically we have the greatest wealth gap or "income inequality" since just before the Great Depression leaving fewer and fewer winners and more and more angry losers. Socially, we have also become more distant as we connect through the internet more and personally less. And politically, we have seen a recent seismic shift toward polarization that has now paralyzed Congress and has seen many, especially red, states become even more extreme with numerous laws showing less and less tolerance for others. This is a recipe for chaos and conflict that we've not experienced since the years leading up to and through the Civil War here. The question is: How do you get people to feel the essentially relatedness to others that leads to "local covenants" when they're so alienated from society and prodded by the harsh voices of social disintegration that dominate our airwaves and political discourse?
The sociopathic murderer, Winston Moseley, died yesterday. He killed Kitty Genovese in a prolonged duration while no one intervened. The case becomes a seminal case study in sociology.
Fast forward half a century, now everyone wants to intervene at every turn. Internet lynching and bullying go into overdrive. We have Tea Party and we have OWS. Racists demonstrate and ACLU sues.
Police brutality is met with gang violence while armchair critics criticize. Down deep, there is no social compact but driven by ego.
Fast forward half a century, now everyone wants to intervene at every turn. Internet lynching and bullying go into overdrive. We have Tea Party and we have OWS. Racists demonstrate and ACLU sues.
Police brutality is met with gang violence while armchair critics criticize. Down deep, there is no social compact but driven by ego.
“In a globalizing, diversifying world, how do we preserve individual freedom while strengthening social solidarity?”
The very way you have phrased that question reveals to me what is wrong. What is wrong is libertarianism.
Libertarianism, disguised as the “individual freedom” you speak of preserving, fosters selfishness, thoughtlessness, insularity, and disconnectedness.
What we need is communitarianism.
Build beautiful towns and cities, not ugly sprawl, such that we may be less dependent on cars. That stabs at the heart of your “individual freedom,” but it will strengthen communities.
Build secular meeting houses, not houses of worship for divisive sectarian religions. Reject supernaturalism entirely.
Get everyone on board for building better social safety nets, and for socializing education and health insurance.
The part that you are missing, David – that we’re missing – is that in order to build social solidarity, you have to give up at least a little individual freedom.
The very way you have phrased that question reveals to me what is wrong. What is wrong is libertarianism.
Libertarianism, disguised as the “individual freedom” you speak of preserving, fosters selfishness, thoughtlessness, insularity, and disconnectedness.
What we need is communitarianism.
Build beautiful towns and cities, not ugly sprawl, such that we may be less dependent on cars. That stabs at the heart of your “individual freedom,” but it will strengthen communities.
Build secular meeting houses, not houses of worship for divisive sectarian religions. Reject supernaturalism entirely.
Get everyone on board for building better social safety nets, and for socializing education and health insurance.
The part that you are missing, David – that we’re missing – is that in order to build social solidarity, you have to give up at least a little individual freedom.
39
Amen! The Ayn Randian view of life so beloved by Libertarians will be the undoing of our country.
I also saw that interview with Cory Booker and his words were touching in an Obama way. Bill Maher responded that Cory Booker "should go into Politics" wryly. It was beautiful poetry but I think it's too late.
A lot of what underlies the "Covenant" has been badly torn if not destroyed outright. It starts with naked Corporate greed and treating all employees as mere providers of productivity to be laid-off at the first sign of quarterly downturn. This shortsightedness is good for stockholders but not so good for employees.
Whatever was left of the "Covenant" was further shredded by the Catholic Church Scandal. Then came Penn State and on and on. Decades (perhaps centuries) of Institutional Systematic failure by our basic institutions has left the individual scared to death, standing alone and angry and disappointed.
The social contract is null and void and I do not think it was the average person who broke the contract. Put another way, there may have never been a social "covenant". Just an endless stream of sham-now salesmen telling us what we longed to hear. Just an endless stream of sheep waiting to wake up or grow up and realize the true situation. I think we can skip the poetry.
A lot of what underlies the "Covenant" has been badly torn if not destroyed outright. It starts with naked Corporate greed and treating all employees as mere providers of productivity to be laid-off at the first sign of quarterly downturn. This shortsightedness is good for stockholders but not so good for employees.
Whatever was left of the "Covenant" was further shredded by the Catholic Church Scandal. Then came Penn State and on and on. Decades (perhaps centuries) of Institutional Systematic failure by our basic institutions has left the individual scared to death, standing alone and angry and disappointed.
The social contract is null and void and I do not think it was the average person who broke the contract. Put another way, there may have never been a social "covenant". Just an endless stream of sham-now salesmen telling us what we longed to hear. Just an endless stream of sheep waiting to wake up or grow up and realize the true situation. I think we can skip the poetry.
29
For over a year I have been struggling with the ideas Mr.Brooks gave voice to in his article. I was born into a cultish religion steeped in patriarchy and fraud. It taught me that women were unsuitable for leadership, to manage money, or to aspire to anything beyond or in addition to motherhood. Roles were rigidly defined and violently enforced. Leaving this environment is liberation, enlightenment, discovery.
Still the cult/religion breeds fear and continues to inundate my mind with logic similar to that in Brooks's article. I can never be happy without submitting to oppression? My traditions and place in the culture give me vital context? I fight these insidious and fear based ideas so deeply imbedded in my psyche. I remind myself of the myriad of stories of people like Rosa Parks who stood up to those rigid roles and told the world how they deserved to be treated. And in so doing improved rather than destroy their social fabric.
I suspect the real power behind my culture's teachings and Mr. Brooks's article comes from a deeply buried truth that we seek belonging and support from one another. But I refuse to belong to any culture or religion who defines me or others as anything other than a fully deserving participant.
Still the cult/religion breeds fear and continues to inundate my mind with logic similar to that in Brooks's article. I can never be happy without submitting to oppression? My traditions and place in the culture give me vital context? I fight these insidious and fear based ideas so deeply imbedded in my psyche. I remind myself of the myriad of stories of people like Rosa Parks who stood up to those rigid roles and told the world how they deserved to be treated. And in so doing improved rather than destroy their social fabric.
I suspect the real power behind my culture's teachings and Mr. Brooks's article comes from a deeply buried truth that we seek belonging and support from one another. But I refuse to belong to any culture or religion who defines me or others as anything other than a fully deserving participant.
40
The link below is to John F. Kennedy's inaugural address. Americans were as hopeful then, thanks to JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr., Bobby Kennedy and the droves of Americans passionate about true democracy, as they were when President Obama was elected - twice. There is reason for hope now. The money master corrupters of the republican party would have us believe differently. Please take sixteen minutes to see what democracy looked like before it was hijacked by the corporate elite.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/BqXIEM9F4024ntFl7SVAjA.aspx
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/BqXIEM9F4024ntFl7SVAjA.aspx
4
Covenants are about promises and "situatedness," but that doesn't mean we have to be nice to each other. The 17th and 18th-century New England church records in our collection here at the Congregational Library certainly testify to that. These were churches founded on covenants, and their records contain accounts, often verbatim, of conflicts over everything from baptism to errant pigs in a neighbor's garden. What's more laypeople called their pastors "sniveling dogs" or got so angry that they threatened to go after each other with knives. They weren't afraid to disagree because their church covenants provided a durable structure for containing even the worst kinds of conflict. Puritan congregations could take time to build consensus over difficult decisions, knowing that that things wouldn't fall apart in the meantime.
The shortest church meeting I ever attended was in a congregation on its last legs. No one dared to quibble about anything because they couldn't afford to scare a single person away. Brooks is right about our need for a stronger social fabric, and that a biblical notion of covenants rather than contracts might make a difference. But being socially situated, at least in the old Puritan style, means more conflict rather than less. It will even let us dislike each other, maybe a lot, not in the back alleys of op ed comment pages and blog postings, but openly and honestly.
The shortest church meeting I ever attended was in a congregation on its last legs. No one dared to quibble about anything because they couldn't afford to scare a single person away. Brooks is right about our need for a stronger social fabric, and that a biblical notion of covenants rather than contracts might make a difference. But being socially situated, at least in the old Puritan style, means more conflict rather than less. It will even let us dislike each other, maybe a lot, not in the back alleys of op ed comment pages and blog postings, but openly and honestly.
15
Beyond noting that the word "capitalism," is curiously absent here, let me just note that it ain't us lefties and god-doubters who've been running about the country shrieking at everybody, demanding absolute purity, waving guns, and fantasizing about the collapse of America.
4
Bravo, Cory Booker !
2
Oh, please. People do not join ISIS (or affiliate themselves with other Islamist groups) because they feel alienated/disenfranchised/discriminated/poor. This is a myth that needs to stop.
There are many ethnic and religious groups around the world (e.g. Tibetan Buddhists, Australian aborigines, Canadian First Nations, etc.) who are poor, persecuted and/or uneducated who do not resort to slaughtering scores of cartoonists and other innocent people in their backyard or in faraway lands.
Bin laden was a rich engineer. Many of the 9/11 hijackers were PhDs in science and architecture. “Jihadi John” was a middle-class Londoner with a degree in computer science. ISIS’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic Studies. Middle-class, educated white men and women have left Australia, Europe, and Canada to fight in Syria. On and on and on…
Something else is at work here, and it has nothing to do with wealth, education, nationality or ethnicity. Yes, personal identity plays a huge role, but personal identity in terms of what? It all has to do with specific beliefs from specific books. If you want to stop ISIS you have to get to its roots. Civilization is paying a huge price for the free pass it gives to faith. Faith isn’t a virtue.
There are many ethnic and religious groups around the world (e.g. Tibetan Buddhists, Australian aborigines, Canadian First Nations, etc.) who are poor, persecuted and/or uneducated who do not resort to slaughtering scores of cartoonists and other innocent people in their backyard or in faraway lands.
Bin laden was a rich engineer. Many of the 9/11 hijackers were PhDs in science and architecture. “Jihadi John” was a middle-class Londoner with a degree in computer science. ISIS’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic Studies. Middle-class, educated white men and women have left Australia, Europe, and Canada to fight in Syria. On and on and on…
Something else is at work here, and it has nothing to do with wealth, education, nationality or ethnicity. Yes, personal identity plays a huge role, but personal identity in terms of what? It all has to do with specific beliefs from specific books. If you want to stop ISIS you have to get to its roots. Civilization is paying a huge price for the free pass it gives to faith. Faith isn’t a virtue.
8
Oh, good, it's so simple: The weakened social fabric is to blame for "a range of problems". It causes youngish men with no "sense of belonging", to become psychotic, join ISIS or other gangs, and get automatic weapons to slaughter masses of innocent people. It wasn't always this way, when the craziest guys and gangs were national leaders waging senseless wars, but now we have our very own monster right on our block. Mass shootings have absolutely no connection to the insane lack of gun control in the US and the unfettered sales of automatic weapons to kill as many as quickly as possible. Right?
This weak social fabric led to fragmented, disorganized neighborhoods". Hmm. You mean gangs? Lack of city planning? People have come from poor, desolate neighborhoods for centuries and it's no different today, but for more drugs, drug money, and hostility toward abusive police.
And this howler: "Political polarization grows because people often don’t interact with those on the other side." Like republicans actually cold cocking democrats, you mean? It seems there's plenty of 'interaction' between the parties, none of it productive. Republicans simply won't consider anything democrats propose and will destroy anything the president tries to do. Like the ACA or his Supreme Court nominee. Polarization came straight from the radical right who think it's okay to insult our president, shut down government, neglect the country. Maybe the republicans have no "sense of belonging".
This weak social fabric led to fragmented, disorganized neighborhoods". Hmm. You mean gangs? Lack of city planning? People have come from poor, desolate neighborhoods for centuries and it's no different today, but for more drugs, drug money, and hostility toward abusive police.
And this howler: "Political polarization grows because people often don’t interact with those on the other side." Like republicans actually cold cocking democrats, you mean? It seems there's plenty of 'interaction' between the parties, none of it productive. Republicans simply won't consider anything democrats propose and will destroy anything the president tries to do. Like the ACA or his Supreme Court nominee. Polarization came straight from the radical right who think it's okay to insult our president, shut down government, neglect the country. Maybe the republicans have no "sense of belonging".
3
And all this will happen how?
What is interesting is that New Agers and other liberals have been trying to craft the sort of transcendent covenants Brooks envisions for decades and have been largely met with indifference or derision by the Establishment types Brooks exemplifies. They've been written off as narcissistic or as cultists.
I guess what the woo woo set needs are great lashings of patriotism. Think DAR meets Burning Man.
What is interesting is that New Agers and other liberals have been trying to craft the sort of transcendent covenants Brooks envisions for decades and have been largely met with indifference or derision by the Establishment types Brooks exemplifies. They've been written off as narcissistic or as cultists.
I guess what the woo woo set needs are great lashings of patriotism. Think DAR meets Burning Man.
9
What the woo woo set needs is brains.
It was easy for Jesus to preach 'take no thought for the morrow' because others took it for him. He and his followers gave up paying work - carpenter, fisherman, toll collector - to couch-surf among believers who did work, eat their food, accept their offerings, and then rebuke them for being too materialistic. (Jesus' excuse, though, was that he thought the world was going to end any second.) Same with Francis of Assisi - if everyone were as 'holy' as he, there'd be no one to fill the begging bowls and all would starve.
A meaningful covenant means participating in the material world. Burning Man et al. are mere self-indulgent weekend dabbling. Either drop out or get in. But if you're going to denounce the Establishment and not be a hypocrite, you should renounce its benefits. Go live in the woods like Ted Kaczynski or be a survivalist. Do not sponge off the people you deride. Otherwise, you're indeed a narcissist and a cutist - and a dilettante and a fool.
It was easy for Jesus to preach 'take no thought for the morrow' because others took it for him. He and his followers gave up paying work - carpenter, fisherman, toll collector - to couch-surf among believers who did work, eat their food, accept their offerings, and then rebuke them for being too materialistic. (Jesus' excuse, though, was that he thought the world was going to end any second.) Same with Francis of Assisi - if everyone were as 'holy' as he, there'd be no one to fill the begging bowls and all would starve.
A meaningful covenant means participating in the material world. Burning Man et al. are mere self-indulgent weekend dabbling. Either drop out or get in. But if you're going to denounce the Establishment and not be a hypocrite, you should renounce its benefits. Go live in the woods like Ted Kaczynski or be a survivalist. Do not sponge off the people you deride. Otherwise, you're indeed a narcissist and a cutist - and a dilettante and a fool.
The quality of your covenant is what counts. If you are part of a Party that talks about family values and community then votes for voter suppression, against the rights of women, against helping those needy who need help or against even talking to those with different opinions then your stand only seems like a form of hypocrisy.
3
The covenant in tatters is the one between the people and Congress. Shutting down government or passing major legislation unilaterally is not putting country first. Compromise in Congress is only a legend but the people LOVE compromise because the vast ignored majority are pragmatic centrists. I don't care which party finds solutions or which party compromises as long as they address the problems of the nation. If Congress spends money they don't have and just borrows more and more, how patriotic is that?
The drawback to capitalism is that its first order is to serve capital, not humanity. The direction in which the US is headed, towards oligarchal corporate feudalism, is seemingly inevitable. Lower wages, more work hours, less job security.
Add to that our "social" (antisocial) media obsession, which disconnects us from our immediate environment in favor of a shallow virtual world, and it's no wonder people feel insecure, detached and anxious.
Add to that our "social" (antisocial) media obsession, which disconnects us from our immediate environment in favor of a shallow virtual world, and it's no wonder people feel insecure, detached and anxious.
1
I could cite a few other forces that have helped erode our political, social, economic and cultural cohesiveness:
1) The breakdown of institutional loyalty, especially in the corporate sector where mergers and acquisitions and leveraged buyouts have led to massive layoffs, where unions are dismantled, where cheap overseas labor costs have sent jobs to foreign shores, where executive salaries and stock options are grossly disproportionate to those of ordinary employees, and where Wall Street's obsession with driving up stock value trumps long-term planning and thinking.
2) The loss of authority in the national media (newspapers like the Times and Wall St. Journal, magazines like Time, Newsweek, major TV networks), accelerated by the proliferation of politically rabid Internet "news" sites and cable TV.
3) The education/opportunity gap between the more affluent and the less affluent (see abandoned public urban school systems and soaring costs of higher education);
4) The permanent campaign mode that entrenches political warfare at the expense of getting things done;
5) The cult of selfishness, of me-first-ism, and the opposition to responsibly managed change that have replaced intellectually honest principle and a sense of the common good among American conservatives.
No wonder the center can no longer hold . . .
1) The breakdown of institutional loyalty, especially in the corporate sector where mergers and acquisitions and leveraged buyouts have led to massive layoffs, where unions are dismantled, where cheap overseas labor costs have sent jobs to foreign shores, where executive salaries and stock options are grossly disproportionate to those of ordinary employees, and where Wall Street's obsession with driving up stock value trumps long-term planning and thinking.
2) The loss of authority in the national media (newspapers like the Times and Wall St. Journal, magazines like Time, Newsweek, major TV networks), accelerated by the proliferation of politically rabid Internet "news" sites and cable TV.
3) The education/opportunity gap between the more affluent and the less affluent (see abandoned public urban school systems and soaring costs of higher education);
4) The permanent campaign mode that entrenches political warfare at the expense of getting things done;
5) The cult of selfishness, of me-first-ism, and the opposition to responsibly managed change that have replaced intellectually honest principle and a sense of the common good among American conservatives.
No wonder the center can no longer hold . . .
1
Perhaps we have a situation where capitalism may be the big destroying agent of healthy societies. If life is analogous to the "Monopoly game," once the choicest hotels are in place the game becomes that of a single wealthy winner and all other players being impoverished. Today we see pharmaceutical companies gouging the public because, well, they can. And banks selling rubes bad investments because, well, they can. And companies replacing American workers with cheaper others because, well, they can. It does not bode well for the survival of a healthy country.
1
Oh the good old days. When men were in charge and women knew their place. Forgive me, Mr. Brooks, when, as a woman, I have no love for 'the good old days'. Maybe you see all the old ideals gone astray, but I see only liberation. For me, for my daughter and for whatever female generation is to come in the future.
Lovely words from a man surveying the decimated political landscape his party has wrought and is raging, raging at the dying of the light.
4
"People in a contract provide one another services, but people in a covenant delight in offering gifts. Out of love of country, soldiers offer the gift of their service." With no job opportunities, not enough savings to afford college,
and no social network to supply job training many young men volunteer for the armed forces. There is little love of country in most of these cases. This hardscrabble group has been part of the republican party and probably the most under served part. These boys risk their lives for politicians who wrap themselves in the American flag in national misadventures that left the people in countries we supposedly were trying to help in much worse shape the before we were involved. We are no longer cheered as liberators but regarded as invaders forcing our vision of what the world should be.
Re-instituting the draft for all young Americans would be a fair and timely
course of action for the country. Once the children of the wealthy are at risk you would discover that we are will no longer be involved in these questionable conflicts. Then we will have a real covenant.
and no social network to supply job training many young men volunteer for the armed forces. There is little love of country in most of these cases. This hardscrabble group has been part of the republican party and probably the most under served part. These boys risk their lives for politicians who wrap themselves in the American flag in national misadventures that left the people in countries we supposedly were trying to help in much worse shape the before we were involved. We are no longer cheered as liberators but regarded as invaders forcing our vision of what the world should be.
Re-instituting the draft for all young Americans would be a fair and timely
course of action for the country. Once the children of the wealthy are at risk you would discover that we are will no longer be involved in these questionable conflicts. Then we will have a real covenant.
Brooks discovers that humans are as tribal as the other apes. Fantastic revelation.
Along the way to his rose-tinted summary, he just ignores the ever-proven fact that it's exactly that tribalism that causes the worst in society: war, segregation, oppression. In exchange for the (innate) comfort of belonging, we reject change and progress.
I'm not at all upset by the rise of individuality.
Along the way to his rose-tinted summary, he just ignores the ever-proven fact that it's exactly that tribalism that causes the worst in society: war, segregation, oppression. In exchange for the (innate) comfort of belonging, we reject change and progress.
I'm not at all upset by the rise of individuality.
Volunteering is a great way to be within a community.
There is something for everyone, all ages and dispositions. Instead of TV or a video game, give blood, help at the vet run thrift store, hold the hand of someone dying, drive a cancer victim to their chemo appointment, deliver meals, mow the old neighbor's lawn, etc. etc.
The opportunities are limited only by your imagination and time.
There is something for everyone, all ages and dispositions. Instead of TV or a video game, give blood, help at the vet run thrift store, hold the hand of someone dying, drive a cancer victim to their chemo appointment, deliver meals, mow the old neighbor's lawn, etc. etc.
The opportunities are limited only by your imagination and time.
People can feel patriotic when they have a secure job, enough to eat, a roof over their heads, and can live their lives with the security of a social safety net that will be there for them in their old age, or when life deals them a blow. They can feel patriotic when they have some assurance an illness will not take away their home and leave them destitute. These things gives people dignity and self worth. These things tell a person "you are part of my whole, part of the promise of this country". These are the very things Republicans have tried to deny people.
Republicans have voted against and are still trying to get rid of Social Security, Medicare, and the ACA. Republicans value the wealthy over anyone else. Listen to the Republican contenders for the Presidency. They promote the very things that are tearing at the fabric of our unity: misogyny, racism, xenophobia and homophobia. Patriotism is inclusive, not exclusive, because as Senator Booker pointed out, patriotism "necessitates love of each other".
Republicans have voted against and are still trying to get rid of Social Security, Medicare, and the ACA. Republicans value the wealthy over anyone else. Listen to the Republican contenders for the Presidency. They promote the very things that are tearing at the fabric of our unity: misogyny, racism, xenophobia and homophobia. Patriotism is inclusive, not exclusive, because as Senator Booker pointed out, patriotism "necessitates love of each other".
1
Nice social philosophy, David. However your column appears directly beneath an editorial documenting again the Republican voter suppression campaign. I have never read any comment from you about that appalling effort.
Perhaps we could improve the social fabric if your Party would accept the fundamental precepts of democracy.
Perhaps we could improve the social fabric if your Party would accept the fundamental precepts of democracy.
2
Our social fabric would be just fine if politicians stop pulling any and all loose strings (and creating loose strings when they can't find any) for political gain. Actually, that's probably also true in much of the rest of the world.
1
Mr. Brooks' collective work over the last couple years seems to orbit a core that never gets addressed: the state and functioning of religious institutions in the world today. This always seems to be the last dot in his analysis that never gets connected.
Over the great span of human history, religious institutions in all cultures have served as the glue that Brooks sees missing, and as the context for moral discussions that Brooks sees ebbing from our social life. He wants to steer us the right way but I really wish he would focus some of his laser intellect to explain objectively how and why religious institutions have become almost completely marginalized in dominant media culture, how and why they are not performing their historical functions in mainstream society, and start suggesting what we should do about it.
My personal view is we need a religion refactored for the modern age, compatible with sociology and social science, transcending mythologies and mysticism and the "legacy religions" of ancient cultures, while still capturing the heart and binding people together and promoting spiritual growth and doing all the good things that religion does. I don't know of anyone more qualified than Mr. Brooks to talk about this, but I suspect he may be too subjectively deep in the subject to have the necessary perspective, and that's a real shame because I think he's on the right path and we need this last dot connected.
Over the great span of human history, religious institutions in all cultures have served as the glue that Brooks sees missing, and as the context for moral discussions that Brooks sees ebbing from our social life. He wants to steer us the right way but I really wish he would focus some of his laser intellect to explain objectively how and why religious institutions have become almost completely marginalized in dominant media culture, how and why they are not performing their historical functions in mainstream society, and start suggesting what we should do about it.
My personal view is we need a religion refactored for the modern age, compatible with sociology and social science, transcending mythologies and mysticism and the "legacy religions" of ancient cultures, while still capturing the heart and binding people together and promoting spiritual growth and doing all the good things that religion does. I don't know of anyone more qualified than Mr. Brooks to talk about this, but I suspect he may be too subjectively deep in the subject to have the necessary perspective, and that's a real shame because I think he's on the right path and we need this last dot connected.
L.R of Chicago: There is such a binding force as you envision, it's called secular humanism and its strength and credibility and value to a forward vision for humanity, is based on the fact that is has NOTHING to do with religion.
1
David Brooks is on point but, I couldn't help noticing, still tied to the old paradigm as he defines a "love of country" or "patriotism" that has to include "being the guarantor of world order". What if this latter drains the resources that the "individual" need to be less stressed? Would less stress in peoples' lives facilitate the covenant that Mr. Brooks aspires to? Or is it unpatriotic to wish for a covenant that includes a stronger safety net, decent paying jobs, a fair share of the tax burden to support our needs, decent health care for all, but leaves out the "imperial elements of our national identity" that many think we can no longer afford?
What do you do about people who have retired? Do they still have "a rich social fabric?" Or, as so much of who we are and what we do is defined by our job or profession, do they become "uncertain about who they really are?"
David,
How will we know the meaning of Patriotism...love of country, which necessitates love for each other...
The current Political climate shows screaming, angry and infantile politicians who cannot work together or in a sandbox. Until we can compromise, the promise of the individual and the nation are tethering on the brink of destruction.
There was also a time long ago and far away, when Corporations cared for the individual worker and the worker reciprocated by doing their best for the business. This fabric has been totally tattered, Corporations only wish to increase their bottom lines and the employee is expandable.
How will we know the meaning of Patriotism...love of country, which necessitates love for each other...
The current Political climate shows screaming, angry and infantile politicians who cannot work together or in a sandbox. Until we can compromise, the promise of the individual and the nation are tethering on the brink of destruction.
There was also a time long ago and far away, when Corporations cared for the individual worker and the worker reciprocated by doing their best for the business. This fabric has been totally tattered, Corporations only wish to increase their bottom lines and the employee is expandable.
1
"As Ralph Waldo Emerson put it, 'Other men are lenses through which we read our own minds.'"
I've never seen that Emerson quote before, but it reminds me of a similar saying in South Africa: Ubuntu ngumuntu ngabantu. "People are people through other people."
I've never seen that Emerson quote before, but it reminds me of a similar saying in South Africa: Ubuntu ngumuntu ngabantu. "People are people through other people."
People have lost faith in the ability of the government to do what is best for the nation rather than what is best for the party, their wing of the party, or themselves. The people are for improvement and solutions, regardless of their source or origin, for the good of the country. The vast majority, moderate and pragmatic, only want problems addressed rather than this foolish ideological warfare that tears us apart.
"Covenant" is a hierarchical concept.
As a female I know exactly where I stand under "covenant': I'm at the lower, lowest rung of whatever Ladder it is being discussed.
It's telling that my status wasn't in your list: "father, plummer, Little League coach".
Now, for your information, the opposite of "covenant", the hierarchical concept, is "constitution", the equality concept, not "patriotism", which is merely a nation-state bug-a-boo, usually backed up by force to force you to put your body where someone else wants it to be to enrich them, not you.
"Covenant" is the one at the top rung swearing there is someone "above" him, the "Seen" and the "Unseen" and all "reality" is to be organized to reflect that ladderism.
"Constitution" is an "eyeball to eyeball" concept. Yes, you still get to say that females are demonized inferiors, but, I get to punch you in your empirical, "real" nose for saying it.
The foulest of ruling concepts, which is what you are REALLY talking about, is the Genital Ruling Concept, a covenantal form, the simplest of ladderism. I am so "embedded" that I have only one Constitutional inclusion: I can vote. I am not "equal" in any other way. The rest of my inclusions are under the Jane Crow Laws, the "Titles", which can be removed at any moment Congress wants to.
You've strung together a laundry-list of words that I value, but in the end I am left with a handful of steaming poo.
How sad that you weren't born a woman, David.
You would have been smarter.
As a female I know exactly where I stand under "covenant': I'm at the lower, lowest rung of whatever Ladder it is being discussed.
It's telling that my status wasn't in your list: "father, plummer, Little League coach".
Now, for your information, the opposite of "covenant", the hierarchical concept, is "constitution", the equality concept, not "patriotism", which is merely a nation-state bug-a-boo, usually backed up by force to force you to put your body where someone else wants it to be to enrich them, not you.
"Covenant" is the one at the top rung swearing there is someone "above" him, the "Seen" and the "Unseen" and all "reality" is to be organized to reflect that ladderism.
"Constitution" is an "eyeball to eyeball" concept. Yes, you still get to say that females are demonized inferiors, but, I get to punch you in your empirical, "real" nose for saying it.
The foulest of ruling concepts, which is what you are REALLY talking about, is the Genital Ruling Concept, a covenantal form, the simplest of ladderism. I am so "embedded" that I have only one Constitutional inclusion: I can vote. I am not "equal" in any other way. The rest of my inclusions are under the Jane Crow Laws, the "Titles", which can be removed at any moment Congress wants to.
You've strung together a laundry-list of words that I value, but in the end I am left with a handful of steaming poo.
How sad that you weren't born a woman, David.
You would have been smarter.
4
Part of the question is how much of society should be based on covenant and how much should be based on contract. Following the financial crash, for example, perhaps relationships between homeowners and mortgage companes should have been treated like covenants as opposed to contracts. Employers-employee relationships should be more covenantal as well - especially in terms of parental leave. The relationship between law enforcement and communities would look radically different if it was more covenantal and less contractual.
If Brooks is heading in this direction, then more power to him.
If Brooks is heading in this direction, then more power to him.
The idea that a covenant should replace a contract seems beside the point to me. In a functioning society the individual can find a role that expresses their individuality without either of these. The desire for self-realization is innate: the artist, the scientist, the educator, the religious leader etc. have identified a calling that contributes to society and oils its mechanisms. Family exists to nurture the growth of the young to find themselves.
Impediments to this self-realization lead to bitterness, disillusion, and anti-social behavior.
We don't need patriotism, or love of country. We need an enabling society that assists individuals to discover and to realize their talents, and inhibits those forces that promote the fake individuality of parochialism and identification with a mob.
Impediments to this self-realization lead to bitterness, disillusion, and anti-social behavior.
We don't need patriotism, or love of country. We need an enabling society that assists individuals to discover and to realize their talents, and inhibits those forces that promote the fake individuality of parochialism and identification with a mob.
Religions for many millennia provided people with this sense of belonging and will likely deteriorate as science and communication improve to displace many of the foundational tenants/covenants of all religions. Where religious leaders used fear of others to give themselves a platform to lead we are now figuring out we, people of the world, are creators and destroyers of our own environments. We have a human need for inclusion in some group so we will need to figure out new ways to have communities without thinking other communities have evil intent.
President Carter moved us to include Human Rights as part of our aspirational goals. President Obama pushed us to seek and respect universal values as a way to integrate the world.
As a species we are going to have to work together for the benefit of all or continue to fight over petty differences if we are to survive. The Declaration of Human Rights form the 1940s was a start but too many selfish groups, political and religious, want to ignore the concepts for their own gain.
President Carter moved us to include Human Rights as part of our aspirational goals. President Obama pushed us to seek and respect universal values as a way to integrate the world.
As a species we are going to have to work together for the benefit of all or continue to fight over petty differences if we are to survive. The Declaration of Human Rights form the 1940s was a start but too many selfish groups, political and religious, want to ignore the concepts for their own gain.
"We’re not going to roll back the four big forces coursing through modern societies".
You are not. We are.
Outsourcing, offshoring, inverting, illegal hiring, tax scamming, Panama corporation types have no incentive to change.
You are not. We are.
Outsourcing, offshoring, inverting, illegal hiring, tax scamming, Panama corporation types have no incentive to change.
1
Patriotism is similar to religion. It is based on a shared mythology that helps create a shared sense of identity while simultaneously creating divisions and ultimately barriers to coexistence. This need to get our identity and authorization from the Group stems perhaps from our prehistoric need to belong to a tribe in order to survive. This seemingly innate psychological need feels fundamental to our existence, yet has become the greatest threat to our survival as a species. With globalization, the sharing of resources and interdependencies has grown exponentially, but we still insist on maintaining and dying for our arbitrary borders and belief systems. We are not yet able to see the globe as one place, as all humans as one tribe. The big picture still eludes us, though I think, when wearing my rose colored glasses, that things are moving in that direction. It is an evolutionary, not revolutionary, process that is occurring. Conservatives, by definition, try to hold on to the tribal traditions and in good times create a balance against change that might otherwise be too rapid. In tougher times, conservatives become reactionary and try to turn back the clock, a process that requires extreme and dangerous control of the population. So goes the current Republican Party.
35
"But it will probably also require leaders drawing upon American history to revive patriotism. They’ll tell a story that includes the old themes. That we’re a universal nation, the guarantor of stability and world order. But it will transcend the old narrative and offer an updated love of America."
Nice summary of the US National Security Strategy there, since 1992 the US National Security Staff have been quietly but persistently transforming our country to try to ensure no new rivals to 'National Security led' powers are allowed to develop. If we in the US redefine how we view ourselves to 'we are the guarantor of stability and world order' then obviously our government will have to continue diverting more and more of our resources to defense contractors and focus on trying to force other countries to 'self determine' their futures in the specific way we want them to. All through history leaders use war to revive patriotism, stories don't cut it. I hope Mr Brooks isn't letting us know a war is coming--to fix our social fabric. Really, this piece reads very similar to a lot of the writing that was published in the period before WWI. I hope that's just a coincidence.
Nice summary of the US National Security Strategy there, since 1992 the US National Security Staff have been quietly but persistently transforming our country to try to ensure no new rivals to 'National Security led' powers are allowed to develop. If we in the US redefine how we view ourselves to 'we are the guarantor of stability and world order' then obviously our government will have to continue diverting more and more of our resources to defense contractors and focus on trying to force other countries to 'self determine' their futures in the specific way we want them to. All through history leaders use war to revive patriotism, stories don't cut it. I hope Mr Brooks isn't letting us know a war is coming--to fix our social fabric. Really, this piece reads very similar to a lot of the writing that was published in the period before WWI. I hope that's just a coincidence.
“love of country, which necessitates love of each other, that we have to be a nation that aspires for love, which recognizes that you have worth and dignity and I need you. You are part of my whole, part of the promise of this country.”
Mr. Brooks, thank you. Well said Senator Booker.
Contracts versus Covanants.
Could you spend more time on this. The problem seems systemic. We've built system after system in the country that almost by design destroys a sense of "us". Too many our institutions don't enhance our communities they become almost parasitic. Finance, education, health care, criminal justice, our political parties... To much of food makes us sick and our health care leaves us destitute. We enter into contracts, yet not amongst equals. (I mean really, do you ever check no when asked by your software if you agree to the new terms of service contracts??)
Seems like we need a new language and a new accounting. A new measure of our worth as individuals and collectively.
Mr. Brooks, thank you. Well said Senator Booker.
Contracts versus Covanants.
Could you spend more time on this. The problem seems systemic. We've built system after system in the country that almost by design destroys a sense of "us". Too many our institutions don't enhance our communities they become almost parasitic. Finance, education, health care, criminal justice, our political parties... To much of food makes us sick and our health care leaves us destitute. We enter into contracts, yet not amongst equals. (I mean really, do you ever check no when asked by your software if you agree to the new terms of service contracts??)
Seems like we need a new language and a new accounting. A new measure of our worth as individuals and collectively.
The Declaration was a covenant. ('We pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honour,' and note well which of the three the founders held to be sacred.) The Constitution is a contract.
I earned another merit badge by carefully reading through another Brooks column filled with sociological meta-claptrap. Maybe I'm an intellectual, maybe not. Brooks plays one on TV. A disquisition about covenants and patriotism is not going to move the ball. How soon will he shift back to his GOP apologist meme?
Decency is trickling away and I'm not sure how we get it back.
Decency is trickling away and I'm not sure how we get it back.
1
Doing something for someone because we are obligated by contract or law to do so is never as satisfying to us or to the recipient as making a gift. But, we have to be careful about this thinking.
Conservatives who want to abandon the social safety net and entitlements for working people argue that the needy will still be taken care of through private charity – gifts.
We run into the same trouble when we aspire to greater national cohesion. The far right is perfectly willing to join in a national identity with us – as long as we bend to their will on various issues like abortion over choice, intelligent design over evolution and literal interpretation of the Bible over everything.
A better model is promoting a democracy in which the will of the majority prevails, but the rights of the minority are respected. Love, if it comes, can come later
Conservatives who want to abandon the social safety net and entitlements for working people argue that the needy will still be taken care of through private charity – gifts.
We run into the same trouble when we aspire to greater national cohesion. The far right is perfectly willing to join in a national identity with us – as long as we bend to their will on various issues like abortion over choice, intelligent design over evolution and literal interpretation of the Bible over everything.
A better model is promoting a democracy in which the will of the majority prevails, but the rights of the minority are respected. Love, if it comes, can come later
Mr. Brooks might - or might not- enjoy Marilynne Robinson's recent book "The Giveness of Things" which includes writings on Christianity and community.
If I read her correctly, Robinson saves special disapproval for those who hold political office whose agenda includes punishing and starving the poor and less fortunate.
Because there's lately much talk that Paul Ryan may be drafted as the nominee at the Republican Convention, I was reminded of various comments Ryan made when trying to pitch his odious budget, including a lot of talk from him about how we should not provide free school lunches to poor children because - at least in Ryan's mind - it shames them to eat free food. Many of us know that Ryan's 'highmindedness' on this score is not really about the sensitivity of school children but rather a perverse attempt to make a case to starve those - including children! - who don't have enough to eat.
Brooks being a staunch supporter of the GOP and their 'values' - if that's what you call the thoughts of people like Paul Ryan - makes columns like this a joke.
If I read her correctly, Robinson saves special disapproval for those who hold political office whose agenda includes punishing and starving the poor and less fortunate.
Because there's lately much talk that Paul Ryan may be drafted as the nominee at the Republican Convention, I was reminded of various comments Ryan made when trying to pitch his odious budget, including a lot of talk from him about how we should not provide free school lunches to poor children because - at least in Ryan's mind - it shames them to eat free food. Many of us know that Ryan's 'highmindedness' on this score is not really about the sensitivity of school children but rather a perverse attempt to make a case to starve those - including children! - who don't have enough to eat.
Brooks being a staunch supporter of the GOP and their 'values' - if that's what you call the thoughts of people like Paul Ryan - makes columns like this a joke.
2
We are becoming both less covenantal and more intertwined simultaneously — a disastrous combination. One tiny example: as we care less and less for each other we indulge in distracted driving — texting, reading a newspaper et. al. — more and more, because that's what we, as individuals want to do. At the same time more and more of us are driving on more and more crowded highways. That deadly combination — selfishly individualistic behavior combined with more intertwining — kills and maims more of our fellow citizens, those people we no longer care about, every year. Could we please get back to the very American covenant of neighbor respecting neighbor, neighbor sacrificing some personal comfort for the greater good?
My grandfather taught me from the poetry he memorized:"If life were a thing that money could buy the rich would live and the poor would die. But God in his mercy made it so that the rich and the poor together may go."
My grandfather walked to a one room schoolhouse where he became teacher after finishing grade 8. At the end of his long life he had been a local civic leader, president and chair of the local bank, and father of a daughter adopted from someone who had lived through the horrors of World War I. He and Grandma wove simple strong life patterns where wealth was not a tool to separate people but to share and enhance the community of their small struggling town. lessons Learned
My grandfather walked to a one room schoolhouse where he became teacher after finishing grade 8. At the end of his long life he had been a local civic leader, president and chair of the local bank, and father of a daughter adopted from someone who had lived through the horrors of World War I. He and Grandma wove simple strong life patterns where wealth was not a tool to separate people but to share and enhance the community of their small struggling town. lessons Learned
26
St Ronnie once said " Government is the Problem". And apparently it didn't appear to Mr Brooks that a Democratic elected Government is the Covenant he is talking about here.
"All of these forces have liberated the individual, or at least well-educated individuals" If that is the Case, why does Education suffer from Budget Cuts each time Republicans are in Position of Power.
"All of these forces have liberated the individual, or at least well-educated individuals" If that is the Case, why does Education suffer from Budget Cuts each time Republicans are in Position of Power.
1
Man lives in society. That means that he is at the same time the creator of the group and the beneficiary
of the same. An individual separated from society is a solitary and incomplete identity. He simply cannot exist. See the recent arguments against the extreme example represented by solitary confinement.
At the same time, society cannot stifle individuality without destroying its component element. It is thus that the delicate balance is created: one cannot dominate without destroying the other and itself. The ways that bring about this destruction are many; the way to keep the balance but one: human solidarity.
of the same. An individual separated from society is a solitary and incomplete identity. He simply cannot exist. See the recent arguments against the extreme example represented by solitary confinement.
At the same time, society cannot stifle individuality without destroying its component element. It is thus that the delicate balance is created: one cannot dominate without destroying the other and itself. The ways that bring about this destruction are many; the way to keep the balance but one: human solidarity.
Mr. Brooks speaks of covenants as horizontal bonds between people of similar localities and demographics. This is fine enough, but we should not forget the Biblical model of the covenant which is between distinctly unequal parties, namely God and His people. It is initiated by the greater party and begins by a promise of unconditional fidelity to the covenant and elaborating what the greater will do for the lesser. In return, it requires loyalty and obedience.
I am not an advocate of applying biblical models to secular society, but if there ever was a need for the affirmation of the responsibilities of the greater (the wealthy and ruling class) for the lesser (the poor and dispossessed), now is the time. And it needs to be affirmed willingly and unconditionally by the greater.
I am not an advocate of applying biblical models to secular society, but if there ever was a need for the affirmation of the responsibilities of the greater (the wealthy and ruling class) for the lesser (the poor and dispossessed), now is the time. And it needs to be affirmed willingly and unconditionally by the greater.
18
Here is what the good Mr. Brooks is describing: the philosophy of Amatai Etzioni, to whit, communitarianism. "Communitarianism is a 20th Century political doctrine which emphasizes the interest of communities and societies over those of the individual. While not necessarily hostile to Liberalism or Social Democracy per se, it does oppose individualist doctrines like Libertarianism (which stresses human independence and the importance of individual self-reliance and liberty) and most aspects of modern Conservatism, advocating instead ideas such as civil society (the concept of voluntary civic and social organizations and institutions, as opposed to the force-backed structures of a state and commercial institutions)."
If only Brooks would just come out and say that the tenets of conservatism, with its strong emphasis on individual responsibility, is morally bankrupt and he now regrets being a spokesman for it.
If only Brooks would just come out and say that the tenets of conservatism, with its strong emphasis on individual responsibility, is morally bankrupt and he now regrets being a spokesman for it.
1
Patriotism of the Republican kind is still best described by Oscar Wilde's quote:
"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious".
They wave the flag ad infinitum while sending not their own, but the children of others to fight their wars.
"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious".
They wave the flag ad infinitum while sending not their own, but the children of others to fight their wars.
1
Brooks names the 4 forces that are eroding national cohesion, and then says that they cannot be solved. They were created for and by profits, but for some reason, conservatives refuse to believe that they can be corrected.
For as long as we value profits over prosperity, Brooks is correct. As soon as we get back to valuing people and community, these issues diminish.
For as long as we value profits over prosperity, Brooks is correct. As soon as we get back to valuing people and community, these issues diminish.
This is one of the more exasperating essays from Mr. Brooks. Using a fancy word like "covenant" he asserts that "local" solutions to social problems are somehow better than federal, as logic is tossed out the window.
Why should people's well being depend on geographical luck? Brook's feudal perspective defies history.
Why should people's well being depend on geographical luck? Brook's feudal perspective defies history.
1
David as is often the case I very much enjoy your eloquent verbage but when I try to desciminate what I have just read it sometimes doesn't remain clear. Globalization for instance was never about doing good or creating covenants, it was always about cutting costs and keeping more of the profits. It's wonderful to romanticise but the fact is, in my opinion, the four changes you discuss have had very few positive impacts. I suppose having more information at your fingertips is a good thing. but to what end? Having more options to buy more stuff? Hardly a great moment in time. It seems to me that we have created a system of dog eat dog in globalization of commerce and through the breakup and dispersion of communities of like histories, beliefs and backgrounds even commonalities of ethnic similarities would render fewer of the covenants that you describe, or perhaps ideally in a hundred years, if we survive in a world of insatiable greed and reluctance to address issues which endanger our fragile Eco system we will indeed all be one and the same acting in concert for the common good. Unforturtunately most of us won't be here to see the final result of the four covenants you describe but your optimism is always a welcome respite from reality.
17
The social fabric has been shredded by a political machine based on hate, fear, separation, and division. And you've enabled it, for years.
Pundit, heal thyself.
Pundit, heal thyself.
2
It’s difficult (not hard, steel is hard life is difficult) "to live daringly when your very foundation is fluid and at risk." Really, you have it backwards. It is difficult to live daringly when you are a father, plumber and a little league coach... or a member of a club an association, rotary, the school board. Joiners are rarely daring,
1
This is a thoughtful piece. However, the four forces you mention are distributing power, not to mention wealth, unevenly across the globe. And this ramifies back into our national situation. They are also not abstract forces of nature, but driven, in part by the intentions of those whose power dwarfs the many.
There is no covenantal situatedness without a grasp of the situation one is in. It make communication and the coordination it suggests solving common problems, essential for the emotion you extol, possible.
So, in essence, the identity you cherish in our situation is not possible without more wealth sharing and more power sharing. Empower people to change their own lives through this sharing of wealth and power (the guts of 'equal opportunity' ) and America will have a fighting chance for a future it can be proud of.
There is no covenantal situatedness without a grasp of the situation one is in. It make communication and the coordination it suggests solving common problems, essential for the emotion you extol, possible.
So, in essence, the identity you cherish in our situation is not possible without more wealth sharing and more power sharing. Empower people to change their own lives through this sharing of wealth and power (the guts of 'equal opportunity' ) and America will have a fighting chance for a future it can be proud of.
1
Hold the door open for somebody you've never met. Shake at least one new hand ever day. Say hello often, make eye contact, talk to strangers in line at the store. You will find that for the most part people are very nice regardless of their station in life. Practice niceness everyday.
Mr. Brooks’ column resonates.
Isn’t this a powerful argument for John McCain’s idea of mandatory national service? What connected us during and after World War II? It was shared experience and the connections that came from that shared experience. It was the Ivy League undergrad sitting in the same foxhole or B-17 bomber or PT boat with a wheat farmer from Kansas and a dockworker from Long Beach. One learns quickly that we have more in common than we might imagine otherwise under such conditions. It was through the shared experience of the Kansas farmer knowing that the Ivy Leaguer had his back when it counted, or when the Ivy League undergrad needed help badly, the California longshoreman was there for him, that lasting connections and respect are built.
These things don’t just happen and they cannot be taught; they have to be learned empirically. A year or two post-secondary school national service requirement, whether in the military or VISTA or Teach for America that compels people of profoundly different backgrounds to live and work and sweat and struggle together for a common goal might just be a positive catalyst for change in the manner Mr. Brooks suggests.
Isn’t this a powerful argument for John McCain’s idea of mandatory national service? What connected us during and after World War II? It was shared experience and the connections that came from that shared experience. It was the Ivy League undergrad sitting in the same foxhole or B-17 bomber or PT boat with a wheat farmer from Kansas and a dockworker from Long Beach. One learns quickly that we have more in common than we might imagine otherwise under such conditions. It was through the shared experience of the Kansas farmer knowing that the Ivy Leaguer had his back when it counted, or when the Ivy League undergrad needed help badly, the California longshoreman was there for him, that lasting connections and respect are built.
These things don’t just happen and they cannot be taught; they have to be learned empirically. A year or two post-secondary school national service requirement, whether in the military or VISTA or Teach for America that compels people of profoundly different backgrounds to live and work and sweat and struggle together for a common goal might just be a positive catalyst for change in the manner Mr. Brooks suggests.
56
well taken...the unity that marked our war (I & II) efforts was followed by separation...getting what was to be gotten displaced giving what was needed... and, so, here we are.
national service would be a good place to start restoring perspective...
restoration of infrastructure through a national job should be a part of that as should a civics curriculum intended to inform young citizens of our founding principles (honored rather in the breach than the observance these days, to borrow a phrase) and qualify them for participation in substantive debate.
national service would be a good place to start restoring perspective...
restoration of infrastructure through a national job should be a part of that as should a civics curriculum intended to inform young citizens of our founding principles (honored rather in the breach than the observance these days, to borrow a phrase) and qualify them for participation in substantive debate.
The Great Recession may have officially ended years ago, but the pain and fear haven't been forgotten by individuals and communities that have suffered and continue to suffer. Pundits and professional politicians find Trump and Sanders' candidacies so surprising because they are so out of touch with the frustrations felt by those outside of the 1%. You can't underestimate the simmering rage felt by all of those who saw the financial elites get bailed out while the "social contract" was torn up and thrown in their faces.
When conservatives talk on about individual liberty, personal responsibility, and "I made this", the implication is that if people are down, it is their own fault and they should get off their butts and work harder.
When the "commoners" get fed up with how badly the political/economic system is rigged in favor of the wealthy and express their frustrations, then conservative leaders tell them to shut up, salute the flag, and give each other hugs.
When conservatives talk on about individual liberty, personal responsibility, and "I made this", the implication is that if people are down, it is their own fault and they should get off their butts and work harder.
When the "commoners" get fed up with how badly the political/economic system is rigged in favor of the wealthy and express their frustrations, then conservative leaders tell them to shut up, salute the flag, and give each other hugs.
64
When you think about it, David, why arbitrarily pick those four big forces: Why not the decline of organized religion and the rise of sects; the rapid increase of new technologies, such as gene editing and small nuclear weapons; climate change; terrorism
What these trends have in common is the inability of politics and political institutions to deal with them. As sociologist Daniel Bell wrote years ago, the nation-state is both too large and too small: too large for the individual to connect to; and too small to deal with global problems, such as climate change, international crime and terrorism. The individual retreats to tribal associations, which give him a sense of community. The nation-state fails to coordinate policies at a global level.
What these trends have in common is the inability of politics and political institutions to deal with them. As sociologist Daniel Bell wrote years ago, the nation-state is both too large and too small: too large for the individual to connect to; and too small to deal with global problems, such as climate change, international crime and terrorism. The individual retreats to tribal associations, which give him a sense of community. The nation-state fails to coordinate policies at a global level.
29
Mr. Brooks considers the forces that inhibit the weaving of individual citizens into our "societal fabric". He espouses the usual conservative values as ideals, but fails to dig deeper into the brutally real economic and social forces that lever and twist the aspirations of most Americans into frustration, fear, anger, and isolation.
These are not forces of nature, David. They have arisen because our economic and political systems have been highjacked by a small group of greedy sociopathic power-mongers who are more than willing to rend and erode the social fabric and social safety nets for their private profit.
The Republican party has been their lap-dog, eagerly following the orders of its billionaire masters by sowing misinformation and mismanaging our commonwealth.
And then there are the pundits, like Mr. Brooks, who wrap the Republican party in our flag, and denigrate those, like President Obama who work tirelessly to mend and strengthen the social fabric. They should know better.
These are not forces of nature, David. They have arisen because our economic and political systems have been highjacked by a small group of greedy sociopathic power-mongers who are more than willing to rend and erode the social fabric and social safety nets for their private profit.
The Republican party has been their lap-dog, eagerly following the orders of its billionaire masters by sowing misinformation and mismanaging our commonwealth.
And then there are the pundits, like Mr. Brooks, who wrap the Republican party in our flag, and denigrate those, like President Obama who work tirelessly to mend and strengthen the social fabric. They should know better.
7
One of the stated premises of the essay is that "[e]conomic globalization is creating . . . inequality." Yes, there's inequality between relatively well-paid workers and poorly-paid workers making the same things in different countries, and usually it's the well-paid workers who suffer as a result of outsourcing. But inequality is mainly driven by national tax policies that impose relatively light tax burdens on those who are able to pay more but have the political power to shift the tax burden to those who don't.
A prime example is the US. When Reagan and GW Bush slashed income tax rates, it was the 1% who benefited far more than the lowest paid workers. After the disastrous, much publicized Enron and WorldCom collapses, the top executives of those companies withdrew millions of dollars from untaxed corporate deferred compensation plans available only to them while other employees lost their jobs. But instead of abolishing such plans, Congress and Treasury developed a safe harbor for them so that people at the top could continue to defer paying taxes on up to 100% of their compensation. That's just one example of how institutionalized and entrenched national tax systems favoring the 1% have become. Even under Obama, the US continues to tax capital gains, most of which are realized by upper income taxpayers, at lower rates than money earned by actually working for a living. And of course private fund managers can treat their income as capital gains.
A prime example is the US. When Reagan and GW Bush slashed income tax rates, it was the 1% who benefited far more than the lowest paid workers. After the disastrous, much publicized Enron and WorldCom collapses, the top executives of those companies withdrew millions of dollars from untaxed corporate deferred compensation plans available only to them while other employees lost their jobs. But instead of abolishing such plans, Congress and Treasury developed a safe harbor for them so that people at the top could continue to defer paying taxes on up to 100% of their compensation. That's just one example of how institutionalized and entrenched national tax systems favoring the 1% have become. Even under Obama, the US continues to tax capital gains, most of which are realized by upper income taxpayers, at lower rates than money earned by actually working for a living. And of course private fund managers can treat their income as capital gains.
7
Patriotism has long been quietly discouraged as a virtue by the liberal intelligentsia of this and other Western countries. Isn't it a little ironic that the bien pensants are asked to turn to it in this column?
Patriotism is love of country and its traditions, not unreasoning love, but love. It the effort is to redefine it as something more resembling liberal values, which are often inversions of traditional values (anti-family, anti-military, anti-lawenforcement, etc.), I don't think it will work.
Patriotism is love of country and its traditions, not unreasoning love, but love. It the effort is to redefine it as something more resembling liberal values, which are often inversions of traditional values (anti-family, anti-military, anti-lawenforcement, etc.), I don't think it will work.
Unfortunately, by turning on President Obama, the Republicans signaled that covenants only apply to white people. Love of country is only recognized in those who are white. And Obama is half-white! How do they expect any minority to believe that any good will come out of selfless love of country when someone like Obama was crucified?
3
It is possible to oppose some of Obama's policies without being racist. This is something the left has yet to grasp. The cry of 'racism' is too easily wielded as a cudgel to beat down your opponents and cut off dialogue.
BTW Obama is not 'half white' or 'half black' though he is African American, if one must have a label. He's a whole Obama.
The compulsion to parse and label our identities - and the identities of others, who may then be stereotyped and demonised based on who their great-grandparents were - is a big part of the problem. (It reaches the height of absurdity in the TV commercial for DNA tests, in which, humorously, a man discovers that the German ethnic tradition in which he was raised is belied by Scots ancestry in his DNA, so 'I traded in my lederhosen for a kilt!' The commercial isn't quite satire, since it's actually urging the consumer to subscribe to the fallacy it lampoons.)
BTW Obama is not 'half white' or 'half black' though he is African American, if one must have a label. He's a whole Obama.
The compulsion to parse and label our identities - and the identities of others, who may then be stereotyped and demonised based on who their great-grandparents were - is a big part of the problem. (It reaches the height of absurdity in the TV commercial for DNA tests, in which, humorously, a man discovers that the German ethnic tradition in which he was raised is belied by Scots ancestry in his DNA, so 'I traded in my lederhosen for a kilt!' The commercial isn't quite satire, since it's actually urging the consumer to subscribe to the fallacy it lampoons.)
Capitalism is unceasingly creative in its deployment of contracts to bludgeon social covenants. Housing, education, healthcare, religion, criminal justice: all of these and more have been weapons in the non-stop mugging of the lower and middle classes by the obscenely rich.
A fine philosophical piece by Mr. Brooks this morning, containing ideas that resonate personally. Mr. Booker's summation of patriotism is a fine one. I think the difficulty we encounter as a nation in regards to that, is the rise of self-interested media outlets that seek to identify and divide Americans to gain viewership and sell advertising. The internet and cable TV have created echo chambers of like minded extremes that shout down and denigrate opposing views without contemplating their worth. Even our leaders aspiring to national office suggest thinking differently than their rigidly held beliefs brings to question one's patriotism. This has added to the challenge for national cohesion.
1
The weakening of the social fabric that supports our identity is also an opportunity to place identity on firmer foundations. The familiar -- and local -- social groups rely too often on enabling only those who belong, rejecting those who do not. Somehow, our need for close human reinforcement must find balance with the expanding horizons the internet and globalization is bringing to us, whether we welcome this unfamiliar territory or not. We may find ourselves aligned more strongly with groups not geographically defined and fear a loss of human connection. Or that we will be lost somehow within the group, however it may be defined. Maybe we need to remember that individuality impacts the group it commits to and is not necessarily lost within it. Belonging to a larger world means also that that world belongs to us.
7
This is a wonderful column. I wonder, though, if we can discuss social cohesion while setting aside organized religion, perhaps the primary traditional underpinning of community. It seems to me that as religion's position in public life has become less assured, the debate and dialog that all engaged communities of faith house have languished, providing an opportunity for a rogue, emphatic doctrine like the one espoused by ISIS to lay down roots. For the health of our community, we need other voices.
the only contract that seems corrupted is the NYT's contract with you that allows you to write like a preacher from another time castigating his flock for losing their way. All because the world he created in his mind - which really never existed ( conservativism as balm for our ailments as a society - a balm that had stale date when issued) - is collapsing and crumpling around him. I appreciate your trying to make sense of how your entire past was build on a foundation of falsehoods, but please spare the rest of us, we were not as lost.
3
But David, there's a big problem here. Consumer culture relies on fragmentation; 'divide and conquer'.
It pits individual against individual while debasing communal values and communal wisdom. There's no profit in the wisdom of the community when it's in competition with the 'wisdom' of the market or of the advertisers !!
It's why unions have diminished, why depression and anxiety are so high, why an array of social and psychological ailments are burgeoning, why families disintegrate, why real, spiritual religions are on the wane.... and why clannish groups are assuming unwarranted power and authority.
And unregulated markets just exacerbate the problem.
If our collective moral culture made sense, on a plane higher than profit, I think most people would embrace it. Instead, many are flocking to the extremes, wanting to destroy the perceived 'status quo' for its many failures.
Our crises are complex. Identify the problem, but then confront the reality of the difficulty of resolution.
It pits individual against individual while debasing communal values and communal wisdom. There's no profit in the wisdom of the community when it's in competition with the 'wisdom' of the market or of the advertisers !!
It's why unions have diminished, why depression and anxiety are so high, why an array of social and psychological ailments are burgeoning, why families disintegrate, why real, spiritual religions are on the wane.... and why clannish groups are assuming unwarranted power and authority.
And unregulated markets just exacerbate the problem.
If our collective moral culture made sense, on a plane higher than profit, I think most people would embrace it. Instead, many are flocking to the extremes, wanting to destroy the perceived 'status quo' for its many failures.
Our crises are complex. Identify the problem, but then confront the reality of the difficulty of resolution.
2
In the year 1893 Swami Vivekananda came to America and told the "sisters and brothers" of America - understand your divinity and interconnected ness, replace "Tollerance" by "Acceptance" and learn the greatness of spirit over matter. The American culture in a subtle way, since then is influenced by these thoughts. Two world wars and economic power of the great society detoured the country during the last 50 years. Time has come to go back to those messages again.
Cory Booker is my senator, and I'm glad to have voted for him (particularly considering the hard-right goofus the GOP put up against him). But he, and Swami, are wrong. (The Swami was speaking from a specific religious perspective, but that's a tangent I won't go off on.)
Tolerance is a survival skill. You are not going to like everyone. Nor should you, for that matter. To be completely 'accepting; and nonjudgemental requires your brains to fall out. You will not like everyone. You simply have to put up with them, and they with you.
Martin Luther King said it best: 'Look, we're not asking you to love us. Just get off our backs'.
Tolerance is a survival skill. You are not going to like everyone. Nor should you, for that matter. To be completely 'accepting; and nonjudgemental requires your brains to fall out. You will not like everyone. You simply have to put up with them, and they with you.
Martin Luther King said it best: 'Look, we're not asking you to love us. Just get off our backs'.
What is a covenant? Perhaps it is an oath to uphold the Constitution, violated daily by Republicants in Congre$$ given to no more a promise than preferring a nonbinding covenant to Grover Norqui$t to never raise taxes than to uphold the putatively binding one to uphold the Constitution.
Not only does Lord Brooks have no answer to that inteactable issue, he doesn't even touch it with a ten foot pole here.
Not only does Lord Brooks have no answer to that inteactable issue, he doesn't even touch it with a ten foot pole here.
2
Lord Brooks of Fantasy Island, the plane is leaving without you. You are stuck here in America where the GOP has run amok. You have shilled for them for years. You have supported their destructive tendencies when it comes to the social safety net for all but the very, very rich. You have applauded the erosion of the social covenants that used to exist between employers and employees, government and the governed. In other words, until Trump came along, you were wildly in favor of unfettered capitalism. It didn't upset you to hear about homeless families with jobs that didn't pay enough: that was their problem.
Interesting how your columns about social problems always blame the victims, never the perpetrators of these same problems. How can a person care about anything more than the next minute when he/she is hungry, homeless, jobless, and likely to remain so because our throwaway economy views everyone as disposable, especially those over the age of 45 or those who are not extremely wealthy. How are we supposed to aspire to something better when we can't pay for medical care that we need, find a decent place to live, etc. You might have everything you need on your Fantasy Island but many of us are close to having nothing. What we want are decent lives not the crumbs that the 1% drop our way once they are bored of their new toys.
Interesting how your columns about social problems always blame the victims, never the perpetrators of these same problems. How can a person care about anything more than the next minute when he/she is hungry, homeless, jobless, and likely to remain so because our throwaway economy views everyone as disposable, especially those over the age of 45 or those who are not extremely wealthy. How are we supposed to aspire to something better when we can't pay for medical care that we need, find a decent place to live, etc. You might have everything you need on your Fantasy Island but many of us are close to having nothing. What we want are decent lives not the crumbs that the 1% drop our way once they are bored of their new toys.
4
What Covenants have worked in the past? Even the Covenant between God and Israel did not work out for either party.
3
Thank you, Mr. Brooks.
1
You want a society "which recognizes that you have worth and dignity and I need you"
So tell your party to stop the voter suppression.
So tell your party to stop the voter suppression.
4
Patriotism means knowing that at your death, it's a community that sends you off.
1
Thank you David Brooks.
1
One point Mr. Brooks: 'Strong identities' as you put it--not a bad phrase actually: there is strength in knowing yourself. But that's the point, knowing ourselves is why we are here. It is the spirituality of 'man' as he/she became man-humanity.
Knowing yourself means knowing why you do not achieve your most meaningful goals: what blocks you; then overcoming the blocks.
Gotta go. Check out "philosophical midwifery" on the web.
Knowing yourself means knowing why you do not achieve your most meaningful goals: what blocks you; then overcoming the blocks.
Gotta go. Check out "philosophical midwifery" on the web.
Alas, no act of altruism goes unpunished. 'Can't even start an honest conversation about social trends without the jackals pouncing....
Fiddling while Rome burns comes to mind. The quoting of Maher and Booker speaks volumes. Come on David!!! Become a Democrat!!!! You can do it!!!!
1
"community cohesion... people who understand they are part of one another…Your people shall be my people…love of country, which necessitates love of each other…” So, Mr. Brooks, if you believe what you write – you’re voting for Bernie?
3
Ahhh...The trad-con speaks. Well put, and hopeful, but sadly there is no covenant without cultural solidarity, and there is a direct, inverse relationship between solidarity and diversity. Do the math and weep.
Patriotism, as Cory Booker notes, rises above tolerance. Unfortunately, too many "patriots" don't necessarily have a "love of each other." Acceptance is an essential middle ground for the reduction of enmity and friction in community relationships. It is acceptance that has allowed the myriad sects of Christian religion to co-exist in relative peace (with exceptions, Northern Ireland for example), though to say they truly "love" one another can be a bit of a stretch. It is acceptance that will undo Islamophobia. It will not happen overnight. Acceptance is still a work in progress in this country. Racial acceptance is still only partial after a century and a half. Gender identity acceptance is barely out of the birth canal.
If tolerance can be seen as acknowledging another with a polite nod as you pass in the street rather than reaching for your gun, and love as embracing the person in a warm embrace, then acceptance is the shaking of a hand with a smile and not reaching for the hand sanitizer as soon as you go your separate ways.
If tolerance can be seen as acknowledging another with a polite nod as you pass in the street rather than reaching for your gun, and love as embracing the person in a warm embrace, then acceptance is the shaking of a hand with a smile and not reaching for the hand sanitizer as soon as you go your separate ways.
Dear David,
You raise an interesting problem but your answer is very muddled. You ascribe the sense of powerlessness to some impersonal forces: global migrations, technological advances, etc. This is a cop out. There is only one source of this sense of powerlessness and that is exclusion. And this exclusion is not a result of some impersonal forces, but rather of some very concrete actions by specific individuals and groups. Let’s take your newspaper. NYT systematically censors my responses if they do not fit its agenda. There is a specific person who reviews these responses and this person has guidelines on what he/she should do, and they do it. It is not that I feel excluded (which I do), this kind of action actually excludes me.
Now, sociability, or what you call “social fabric,” is a product of inclusion. Inclusion empowers and creates your “social fabric.” Also, inclusion and interactions among equals are a source of creativity and power. Exclusion (or what your paper or our elitist political system practice) is the source of domination. And domination has nothing to do with power. Power empowers everyone. Domination destroys creativity and disempowers all, including those who exercise it.
Hiding behind abstractions is not the way to address problems. The way to solve problems is by being honest and open with each other in a very personal way.
P. S. I am not sure what will happen to this message. So, I make a copy just in case.
You raise an interesting problem but your answer is very muddled. You ascribe the sense of powerlessness to some impersonal forces: global migrations, technological advances, etc. This is a cop out. There is only one source of this sense of powerlessness and that is exclusion. And this exclusion is not a result of some impersonal forces, but rather of some very concrete actions by specific individuals and groups. Let’s take your newspaper. NYT systematically censors my responses if they do not fit its agenda. There is a specific person who reviews these responses and this person has guidelines on what he/she should do, and they do it. It is not that I feel excluded (which I do), this kind of action actually excludes me.
Now, sociability, or what you call “social fabric,” is a product of inclusion. Inclusion empowers and creates your “social fabric.” Also, inclusion and interactions among equals are a source of creativity and power. Exclusion (or what your paper or our elitist political system practice) is the source of domination. And domination has nothing to do with power. Power empowers everyone. Domination destroys creativity and disempowers all, including those who exercise it.
Hiding behind abstractions is not the way to address problems. The way to solve problems is by being honest and open with each other in a very personal way.
P. S. I am not sure what will happen to this message. So, I make a copy just in case.
1
Gennady, interesting points about exclusion and inclusion. But your example of the NY Times comment section policies leads me to a different conclusion: A little exclusion is often a good thing. Have you tried to read the comments section in newspapers that don't moderate? Depressing and ultimately unreadable.
1
Democracy works best in smaller entities...as it did in Greece long ago as
city states.
Republics are the larger coalitions of these city states nowadays.
Rather like small jigsaw puzzles (democracies) within a global jigsaw puzzle
(republics)...this I believe is the new world composite or configurations which
we find to be so baffling...
I believe that the United Nations needs a renaissance...and should have
more sway over what republics are becoming...and what the USA has
almost devolved into as an oligarchy..
I hope that either Kasich or
Bernie Sanders are the candidates...since though very different in long
range views...they have a vital passion in common...that is regarding themselves as public servants...and having government experience as
governor or mayor and long term responsibilities in the US Congress.
We need a public servant as our President...whom we can trust.
and none of the other three are at all trustworthy.
I hope that the Editors get more serious about what they as the Fourth Estate
are responsible for....which is accurate and responsible reporting and opinion.
city states.
Republics are the larger coalitions of these city states nowadays.
Rather like small jigsaw puzzles (democracies) within a global jigsaw puzzle
(republics)...this I believe is the new world composite or configurations which
we find to be so baffling...
I believe that the United Nations needs a renaissance...and should have
more sway over what republics are becoming...and what the USA has
almost devolved into as an oligarchy..
I hope that either Kasich or
Bernie Sanders are the candidates...since though very different in long
range views...they have a vital passion in common...that is regarding themselves as public servants...and having government experience as
governor or mayor and long term responsibilities in the US Congress.
We need a public servant as our President...whom we can trust.
and none of the other three are at all trustworthy.
I hope that the Editors get more serious about what they as the Fourth Estate
are responsible for....which is accurate and responsible reporting and opinion.
Why when I read this can't I get Mitch McConnell's face out of my mind, when he walks up to a microphone to announce that under no circumstances will he behave, as you are defining it, as a patriot. A patriot would be holding hearings on the President's nominee right now, but there are no covenants in your party anymore.
22
"But it turns out that people can effectively pursue their goals only when they know who they are — when they have firm identities."
*sigh* ...There you go again.
I formally give up on trying to change your mind, Mr Brooks. Your commenters shout from rooftops the very obvious realities of economic, political, and social ineqiality, but you always make it about values. You never listen. You never learn.
I have no arguments for you, just a suggestion: on your next vacation, drive Upstate. Stop at a roadside diner and ask people about their lives, their identities. Don't worry, you can start your wine tour when you're done. You will find people very much know themselves, so why can't they pursue their goals? The answer is simple, so simple that someday maybe even you might come to understand it.
It's the economy, stupid.
*sigh* ...There you go again.
I formally give up on trying to change your mind, Mr Brooks. Your commenters shout from rooftops the very obvious realities of economic, political, and social ineqiality, but you always make it about values. You never listen. You never learn.
I have no arguments for you, just a suggestion: on your next vacation, drive Upstate. Stop at a roadside diner and ask people about their lives, their identities. Don't worry, you can start your wine tour when you're done. You will find people very much know themselves, so why can't they pursue their goals? The answer is simple, so simple that someday maybe even you might come to understand it.
It's the economy, stupid.
5
Ah David, your list in incomplete. How could you leave out rampant population growth, depletion of resources, environmental degradation on land and seas, and a growing disparity in wealth between “haves” and “have nots?” Oh wait, I know. You left those out because they are not part of the Grand Republican Morality Tale that boldly claims America’s Golden Age (that never existed) can be reclaimed if everyone would stop their self-absorbed focus on feeding their families and achieving economic stability and instead buy into the alternative reality of Brook-land. Tell you what David, when you convince the Republicans in the Senate and House to DO THEIR JOBS, when you convince Republicans in state legislatures to stop interfering in the lives of Americans whom they do not like or respect very much, and when you find a Republican candidate whose plan for our nation is not based on fear, hatred, divisiveness, and greed, then I and millions of others will take you seriously. Until that happens, well you just keep turning out these turgid and predictable homilies.
10
It seems that Mr. Brooks might be projecting his identity onto everyone else, assuming they too need what he needs.
4
Thank you, Mr. Brooks, for this insightful essay. In particular, the idea that tolerance is merely a springboard -- although a necessary foundation -- to real acceptance and covenant with others that can overcome individual feelings of alienation. It is alienated people who shoot their fellow students, who show no remorse when stealing (whether from a corner store or from investors), and who thoughtlessly reel off racial slurs. I hope that the leader who triumphs in the election of 2016 can help to direct the country into "covenant" relationships and not foment alienation in the multicultural fabric of our society.
David Brooks' call for a renewed covenant based on patriotism sounds plausible until you consider how broken the American social contract is and how it got that way. Starting with Reagan, it became fashionable to argue that the marketplace should be free from regulation, that government was evil, and that private charities should take up the slack. That philosophy -- for which Mr. Brooks was one of the chief spokesmen -- has failed spectacularly. By diminishing justice and equality, the Reagan philosophy undermined the American social contract -- the covenant Americans have with one another. Now we have hollow calls from the likes of Mr. Brooks to rebuild it based on patriotism.
The irony is staggering. It was Brooks' own philosophy that destroyed the American covenant. And now he calls on "patriots" to rebuild it? Please! And who are these patriots? They are certainly not his conservative buddies in government; not the oil companies; not the Wall Street barons. It's you and me who are supposed to be "patriotic" and prop up the unjust society Mr. Brooks and his buddies have created for themselves.
No, thank you! It almost makes me want to let the whole thing burn. But I won't because I am -- in the authentic sense of the word -- a patriot. I will hold my nose and bail out the banks when they screw up, and clean up the Gulf of Mexico when BP fills it with oil. But then I will work within the system for a covenant based on justice, rather than Brooks' shallow "patriotism."
The irony is staggering. It was Brooks' own philosophy that destroyed the American covenant. And now he calls on "patriots" to rebuild it? Please! And who are these patriots? They are certainly not his conservative buddies in government; not the oil companies; not the Wall Street barons. It's you and me who are supposed to be "patriotic" and prop up the unjust society Mr. Brooks and his buddies have created for themselves.
No, thank you! It almost makes me want to let the whole thing burn. But I won't because I am -- in the authentic sense of the word -- a patriot. I will hold my nose and bail out the banks when they screw up, and clean up the Gulf of Mexico when BP fills it with oil. But then I will work within the system for a covenant based on justice, rather than Brooks' shallow "patriotism."
8
"Strong identities can come only when people are embedded in a rich social fabric."
I'm not sure I would sing on to the "only," but the general sentiment here speaks positively to how community can surround us, help us clarify purpose, and guide our choice-making. Unfortunately Brooks immediately links this power to traditional roles and only male ones at that.
Part of what individuals have been liberated from is feeling handcuffed by limiting roles and restricted access to who gets to fulfill them. How would Brooks describe himself? TV personality? Author? Columnist? Public intellectual? Thought leader? Opiner? Whiner? Journalist? All of the above?
Much of what Brooks amplifies as Republican orthodox is dualistic, authority-privileged, and too black and white. In contrast, liberated individuals need strong social fabrics that support them in experimenting with identity and pursuing ways in which they can use their interests, talents, knowledge, and energies to support the community (ies) that surround them. We need partners and collaborators, not just bosses.
I'm not sure I would sing on to the "only," but the general sentiment here speaks positively to how community can surround us, help us clarify purpose, and guide our choice-making. Unfortunately Brooks immediately links this power to traditional roles and only male ones at that.
Part of what individuals have been liberated from is feeling handcuffed by limiting roles and restricted access to who gets to fulfill them. How would Brooks describe himself? TV personality? Author? Columnist? Public intellectual? Thought leader? Opiner? Whiner? Journalist? All of the above?
Much of what Brooks amplifies as Republican orthodox is dualistic, authority-privileged, and too black and white. In contrast, liberated individuals need strong social fabrics that support them in experimenting with identity and pursuing ways in which they can use their interests, talents, knowledge, and energies to support the community (ies) that surround them. We need partners and collaborators, not just bosses.
1
Interesting how conservative Republicans, like David Brooks, wax eloquently about the virtues of a contract, except when it's a union contract. When it's a union contract, they're all for creating artificial budget shortfalls with tax cuts for the wealthy, or, if it's a private company, initiating a bankruptcy proceeding so a judge will tear up the contract in court. Either way, working people are robbed of deferred wages and Mr. Brooks and his ilk wonder why the masses are fed up.
8
Strong identities can come only when people are embedded in a rich social fabric. They can come only when we have defined social roles — father, plumber, Little League coach. They can come only when we are seen and admired by our neighbors and loved ones in a certain way. As Ralph Waldo Emerson put it, “Other men are lenses through which we read our own minds.”
What about mother, lady doctor or women's soccer league coach? C'mon, David. At least make an attempt to pretend that your vision of the world isn't through the male eyes of a 1950s lens.
What about mother, lady doctor or women's soccer league coach? C'mon, David. At least make an attempt to pretend that your vision of the world isn't through the male eyes of a 1950s lens.
5
The only covenant that matters in human relations is the so called Golden Rule of treating every other human being the same way that you want and expect to be treated. Civil humane humble empathy is the root of all good. Some covenants are more inhuman inhumane harmful and evil than others.
The Americans Founding Fathers made a covenant with human enslavement, misogyny and Native American genocide. While the Nazis made a covenant with white Aryan Christian supremacy. And the Bolsheviks made a covenant with totalitarian oppression. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and
Buddhists made a covenant with members of their own faith traditions.
Among the most humbling real truth is that we are vertebrate mammal ape primates. And that there is only one biological evolutionary fit DNA genetic human race that began in East Africa 180-200-000 years ago dusky small furless and walking upright. We are driven to crave and seek fat, salt, sugar, water, food, habitat, sex and kin.
"At his best man is the noblest of animals. Seperated from law and justice he is the worst" Aristotle
"Am I my brother's keeper?" is the ultimate denial of any worthwhile human covenant that has shed oceans of blood, sweat and tears across human history.
The Americans Founding Fathers made a covenant with human enslavement, misogyny and Native American genocide. While the Nazis made a covenant with white Aryan Christian supremacy. And the Bolsheviks made a covenant with totalitarian oppression. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and
Buddhists made a covenant with members of their own faith traditions.
Among the most humbling real truth is that we are vertebrate mammal ape primates. And that there is only one biological evolutionary fit DNA genetic human race that began in East Africa 180-200-000 years ago dusky small furless and walking upright. We are driven to crave and seek fat, salt, sugar, water, food, habitat, sex and kin.
"At his best man is the noblest of animals. Seperated from law and justice he is the worst" Aristotle
"Am I my brother's keeper?" is the ultimate denial of any worthwhile human covenant that has shed oceans of blood, sweat and tears across human history.
2
David again fails to tell the whole story. All of us little people love the idea of a strong social and national contract. Yet, the overriding evidence is that the system is rigged against us from the beginning. Soldiers put their lives on the line for their nation, but when they come home, wounded and emotionally scarred, their government refuses to care for them. Workers go to their jobs everyday and save for retirement only to have the investor class strip their assets. Politicians seek our votes, but once in office bow down in servitude to the rich financiers of their campaigns.
Most people, as evidenced by the current political cycle, have become jaded regarding the validity of your covenants-it's a sucker's game. Perhaps, if we get money out of politics, people may believe again. Until the time when we clearly see a government, "of the people, by the people, and for the people", you are wasting your breath.
Most people, as evidenced by the current political cycle, have become jaded regarding the validity of your covenants-it's a sucker's game. Perhaps, if we get money out of politics, people may believe again. Until the time when we clearly see a government, "of the people, by the people, and for the people", you are wasting your breath.
4
Empty rhetoric. A covenant is needed in America that guarantees everyone a job with a pathway to a living, family supporting wage; everyone who is sick free healthcare; everyone who is capable a college education; a democracy returned to one person one vote instead of a one dollar one vote plutocracy; that no lives matter less by admitting that Black lives matter just as much.
Ethereal covenants such that David promotes are not linked to the true human condition. They are designed to inure us to the suffering in this life that is imposed by a system of covenants that gives the hierarchy its power and everyone else its soaring prose.
Ethereal covenants such that David promotes are not linked to the true human condition. They are designed to inure us to the suffering in this life that is imposed by a system of covenants that gives the hierarchy its power and everyone else its soaring prose.
4
"Rich social fabric"? Isn't yours the party which wants to drown government -- meaning what voice the people still have -- in the bathtub, in favor of the corporate megaphone?
What a lovely vision, "father, plumber, Little League couch" marching happily in step to the nostrums of Republican party politics. Trickle down economics, respect for authority and carpet bombing abroad are sure to fill all wants and needs, if only the public gave it an ear.
What a lovely vision, "father, plumber, Little League couch" marching happily in step to the nostrums of Republican party politics. Trickle down economics, respect for authority and carpet bombing abroad are sure to fill all wants and needs, if only the public gave it an ear.
4
The identity politics of the left have done their share in rending apart the fabric of 'community' by turning it into a continuous battle in which everyone is encouraged to pin a label on him/her/itself - preferably one that accompanies the word 'victim' - and set about nursing their grievances, curating 'microaggressions', beating thoroughly dead horses, and generally whining. While the ailing body politic festers, they are busy trying to tear down statues of Robert E. Lee and sandblasting Woodrow Wilson's name off buildings - thoroughly cheap achievements reminiscent of Falstaff kicking Hotspur's dead body after Prince Hal has done the actual work of defeating him. Racism is just as ugly and stupid when the left's 'social justice' agenda demonises white males a priori, blaming them for every evil from Cain on, as is the more traditional racism of the right. Many hands built these walls; no one's hands are clean.
This is a very thoughtful and meaningful column, and no one could disagree with the positive message. However, with Brooks, there is still the usual pattern of what's left out. He wants us to focus on "love" and not talk about more tangible obligations of paying for costly public services. He still hopes that charity can obviate the need for taxes.
Let's go back to his comment: "... it will probably also require leaders drawing upon American history to revive patriotism." Let's not forget that history included, very importantly, the twin concepts of taxation and representation - we need the representation to allow us to come to agreement about the best fiscal arrangements of who should be taxed how much and who should benefit (even "pure public goods' such as national defense require choices - is our national self interest best served by focusing on strategic resources such as oil? Or helping build stronger and more resilient institutions among our partners in this globalized world?).
In fact, globalization requires us to go beyond "patriotism" and strive to come to agreements (whether contracts or covenants) with people around the world. Unfortunately US "patriotism" tends to trumpet the false notion of "American exceptionalism" (read "US superiority"). For those truly interested in reading history with an open mind, try reading "Many Heads and Many Hands", which illuminates the lessons that Madison drew from earlier European experiences with representative governments.
Let's go back to his comment: "... it will probably also require leaders drawing upon American history to revive patriotism." Let's not forget that history included, very importantly, the twin concepts of taxation and representation - we need the representation to allow us to come to agreement about the best fiscal arrangements of who should be taxed how much and who should benefit (even "pure public goods' such as national defense require choices - is our national self interest best served by focusing on strategic resources such as oil? Or helping build stronger and more resilient institutions among our partners in this globalized world?).
In fact, globalization requires us to go beyond "patriotism" and strive to come to agreements (whether contracts or covenants) with people around the world. Unfortunately US "patriotism" tends to trumpet the false notion of "American exceptionalism" (read "US superiority"). For those truly interested in reading history with an open mind, try reading "Many Heads and Many Hands", which illuminates the lessons that Madison drew from earlier European experiences with representative governments.
"Out of love of their craft, teachers offer students the gift of their attention."
Yes, of course, but we should note that teachers need a contract also. They are professionals. And the rationalization that they are pursuing a calling and should not, therefore, complain about pay and benefits shows a misunderstanding of the profession. It may be a calling, but it's also a way to make a living.
Yes, of course, but we should note that teachers need a contract also. They are professionals. And the rationalization that they are pursuing a calling and should not, therefore, complain about pay and benefits shows a misunderstanding of the profession. It may be a calling, but it's also a way to make a living.
3
The covenant of the Republicans is simple, as expressed in the origins of the great recession--privatize the profits, and socialize the risk. There is no "society" that the Republicans want to preserve--only a host that it can continue to parasitize. Only when the host appears to be dying do we hear this nonsense from the parasite.
3
As infants, our only concern is for our own individual needs. As we mature, we start to love our family. Then our team or community. Then our ethnic group. Then our country. Then the human race as a whole. And finally, all of nature, or if you prefer, all God's creation.
So patriotism, while important, is not the end all be all. It is imbalanced and incomplete for us to place it at the top of our hierarchy of love.
So patriotism, while important, is not the end all be all. It is imbalanced and incomplete for us to place it at the top of our hierarchy of love.
48
sorry this one got a NYT pick. Loving "your ethnic group" before your country, before nature. How sad. I have NO loyalty to any ethnic group-- I am just your average American white lady, blended of many past cultures and nationalities.
3
You cannot demand or expect love. Not only must it be freely given, it must arise spontaneously, or not. Moreover, you need to define 'love', and I submit the word is meaningful only as a relative term. To 'love' something or someone is to endow it with special value differentiating it from other things. In other words, there will be things and people you love - by contrast with those you do not love. The 'universal love' so often promoted by sloppy thinking is either meaningless, or degenerates into a sort of mushy inoffensiveness. To 'love' everything is to love nothing. And to love and accept everyone, even if it were possible, would lead to accepting some pretty distasteful people and circumstances.
That's where toleration comes in. Accepting what you do not love (or may even dislike strongly). It's a survival skill. And even those who preach 'tolerance', much less 'love', don't really want to tolerate everyone and everything ... just read the comments.
That's where toleration comes in. Accepting what you do not love (or may even dislike strongly). It's a survival skill. And even those who preach 'tolerance', much less 'love', don't really want to tolerate everyone and everything ... just read the comments.
Another commentary by a David Brooks wedded to a Republican Party/conservative movement whose basic doctrines contradict every positive value he embraces. A Republican Party that:
--Has aggressively transformed itself into a redoubt of while, affluent males who unabashedly foster their own self-interests to the exclusion of everyone else.
--Praises to the hilt the policies that have produced such a widening disparity in wealth among Americans, it threatens the long-term survival of the American Republic. The Republican solution? Call for more, more, more.
--Has produced as its leading candidate for president a lying, xenophobic, sexist, bigoted, Islamophobic, Hispanophobic, racist bullying demagogue
--As discussed on the editorial page of this very edition of the NYT, is engaged in an aggressive campaign to limit the voter rolls, especially among minorities.
The massive gap between what David Brooks offers as conservative philosophy and what the Republican Party actually practices is breathtaking. The solution to this conundrum is one that the pathetic Republican/conservative presidential campaign has led increasing numbers of Americans to recognize: American conservatism, like the Republican Party, is a burnt-out case, bereft of any positive program, and overdue to be tossed on the dustbin of history. The biggest Big Lie of all is the conservative mantra that cutting rich peoples’ taxes and getting government off their backs will produce prosperity for all.
--Has aggressively transformed itself into a redoubt of while, affluent males who unabashedly foster their own self-interests to the exclusion of everyone else.
--Praises to the hilt the policies that have produced such a widening disparity in wealth among Americans, it threatens the long-term survival of the American Republic. The Republican solution? Call for more, more, more.
--Has produced as its leading candidate for president a lying, xenophobic, sexist, bigoted, Islamophobic, Hispanophobic, racist bullying demagogue
--As discussed on the editorial page of this very edition of the NYT, is engaged in an aggressive campaign to limit the voter rolls, especially among minorities.
The massive gap between what David Brooks offers as conservative philosophy and what the Republican Party actually practices is breathtaking. The solution to this conundrum is one that the pathetic Republican/conservative presidential campaign has led increasing numbers of Americans to recognize: American conservatism, like the Republican Party, is a burnt-out case, bereft of any positive program, and overdue to be tossed on the dustbin of history. The biggest Big Lie of all is the conservative mantra that cutting rich peoples’ taxes and getting government off their backs will produce prosperity for all.
2
Mr. Brooks, thanks once again for bringing thoughtfulness and a willingness to combine old values and new definitions of them to us. Rather than looking at your fresh interpretations of concepts of covenant, social fabric and patriotism, too many find it easier to believe that anyone who claims conservatism defines that term as it has manifested itself in the now, and forget a longer view of its value.
I get what you are saying about new covenants based on a deep understanding on love of country, in the most benevolent definition of "love." Patriotism can only mean the "sacred dirt" for a moment; we must quickly come to loving our neighbors in order to love our country. Your four "big forces" have radically changed the definition of "neighbor" to include many people who previously we could ignore without cost. No longer.
Remember the old saw of Benjamin Franklin? "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately." Never have I felt the presence of the noose for America than I have in this election cycle. And I am also reminded of Sinclair Lewis: "When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
Your fresh idea of patriotism is not flags flapping on the roof of a car while claiming to hate my government and everyone I disagree with. You are looking for something deeper, broader, and considerably more benevolent. I hope we find it before it is too late.
I get what you are saying about new covenants based on a deep understanding on love of country, in the most benevolent definition of "love." Patriotism can only mean the "sacred dirt" for a moment; we must quickly come to loving our neighbors in order to love our country. Your four "big forces" have radically changed the definition of "neighbor" to include many people who previously we could ignore without cost. No longer.
Remember the old saw of Benjamin Franklin? "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately." Never have I felt the presence of the noose for America than I have in this election cycle. And I am also reminded of Sinclair Lewis: "When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
Your fresh idea of patriotism is not flags flapping on the roof of a car while claiming to hate my government and everyone I disagree with. You are looking for something deeper, broader, and considerably more benevolent. I hope we find it before it is too late.
72
Our globalized planet is the quintessential example of an organism that has become to big to survive.
The logical endpoint of globalization is not the sovereign individual but rather, a single attenuated, amorphous, homogenized mass that is one antagonistic event away from extinction.
The logical endpoint of globalization is not the sovereign individual but rather, a single attenuated, amorphous, homogenized mass that is one antagonistic event away from extinction.
1
Thank you, David, for a beautiful essay. Really appreciate it. We need this under discussion in our public discourse and in our schools.
Our public schools are the only place this can occur. My son had a great public school experience, but I was always sad when it came to "multiculturalism." OK, interesting to a point, but not nearly as important as e pluribus unem. We need GREAT public schools in every neighborhood that help our youth become not "future workers" -- today's buzzword, even in college. We need schools to focus on being a good citizen. In the classroom, in their home and in the world at large.
25
Love of America "drawing upon American history to revive patriotism" is not my idea of what is needed. It sounds like a path to jingoism. We need to look at what's eating the social fabric. Maybe we could strengthen respect for one another? Maybe we could support education? Maybe we could support a penetrating press? Maybe we could cut out incessant stupid advertising that conveys that we are idiots? Maybe we could support the arts instead of reality TV? Maybe we could implement Zootopia?
1
America and the world has changed in my lifetime. It is a long way from the Great Depression and WWII to 9-11 and the mid east drone wars and the rise of people who have 14th century thoughts and 21st century weapons.
We now see a rise of a new feudalism where the castles are corporations and political parties and wage-slave surfs in an economy where the steady job paying a living wage is disappearing and machines replace workers and all of the savings go to the economic royalty. For the profit of a wealthy few, American workers compete with foreign workers who live in barracks and get 2 meals a day.
Social cohesion is difficult when you live in fear, where people have to chose between eating less and paying the rent and where their government which promises help is blocked from providing it. What we are seeing is the failure of Christianity. I wonder what Jesus would make of the Republican party and the employer class who steal the labor of the many for the enrichment of the very few where selfishness rules the day and bigotry and hatred is disguised as patriotism when it is a raging class war.
We now see a rise of a new feudalism where the castles are corporations and political parties and wage-slave surfs in an economy where the steady job paying a living wage is disappearing and machines replace workers and all of the savings go to the economic royalty. For the profit of a wealthy few, American workers compete with foreign workers who live in barracks and get 2 meals a day.
Social cohesion is difficult when you live in fear, where people have to chose between eating less and paying the rent and where their government which promises help is blocked from providing it. What we are seeing is the failure of Christianity. I wonder what Jesus would make of the Republican party and the employer class who steal the labor of the many for the enrichment of the very few where selfishness rules the day and bigotry and hatred is disguised as patriotism when it is a raging class war.
David, try to imagine ANY of your Republican friends being capable of making the statement that Cory Booker made. Try to think of even one. Sadly, would not, could not happen.
3
David, you are referring to "well-educated individuals" in our country and not to un-educated, economically disadvantaged and internet/cellphoneless Americans who are not winners in the individual choice and self-determination stakes. The social fabric of the United States rent for two centuries into strings, tatters and patches is not reweavable. Cohesion is not possible, given the racial animosity and diversity in the American melting pot of today. Hijabs, yarmulkas, evangelical conservatives who do not separate church from state. People who do not love their neighbors, people of rigid beliefs, bigoted and stumping for impossible and unviable GOP candidates in their demented quest for the White House, this is the skewed society in which we all sink or swim. Ms. Pally's "Commonwealth and Covenant" is fine but we do not have a healthy cultural infrastructure that imbues us with values and goals beyond mastery of the internet and cyberwidgets. Covenants existed and were respected in biblical times, but not today. Hoping that the social fabric of America can be rewoven "in a romantic frame of mind" is Key Lime Pie in the Sky. We live in an unshared national life. And Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, whom you quoted - "Patriotism...means love of country...love of each other...we have to be a nation that recognizes you have worth and dignity and I need you." - is an American patriot who deserves to be voted into higher office. Worthy of the Vice-Presidency this year.
42
Oh yes: Cory Booker as Hillary Clinton's VP, or Tulsi Gabbard as Bernie Sanders's VP. Proud to be a Democrat in either case.
Who on earth are you saying does not have a cell-phone? That is not a problem even worth mentioning. In fact the opposite is possibly true-- too many people of every economic class and every ethnic group plugged into their phones instead of smiling at their fellow human as they pass in the street.
"When you think about it, there are four big forces ..."
What a weird opening sentence. When you don't think about it, are there 27 big forces?
What a weird opening sentence. When you don't think about it, are there 27 big forces?
2
My poor father reads Mr. Brooks' drivel and can't get enough of it. Poor Mr. Brooks can't seem to fathom life beyond his 1950's version of Americana. Once the thin veil of social construct is lifted so that all the foibles and ludicrous "values" are exposed as calculated and crafted mind-traps to control workers, to control voters, to control soldiers and to control society as a whole, you might as well speak the limited truths that are self evident: religion is a fantastic sham; patriotism is at best bait to entice young men with a propensity for violence into violent service on behalf of the corporatatist masters, and the spector of voting in a election is a chance to be all but ignored in political reality. But Mr. Brooks either can't see these things, or can't quite fathom how sick most Americans are to be a party to such a gut wrenching farce. Such a pity, there's little hope for Mr. Brooks at this point, all we can do is witness his obscelecense as a commentator on all things societal.
2
The politicians in Washington have a covenant with the citizenry to provide good government. We have had decades of corrupt, bad government by both parties culminating in the refusal of the Republicans in Congress to accept the legitimacy of a Democratic president and working to obstruct and destroy his presidency. The Republicans have broken the covenant to govern by closing down the government and obstruction.
The Bush administration, enabled by the Democrats, led the country to war in Iraq based on lies breaking its covenant with the American people.
The Clinton administration deregulated the banks which led to the '08 banking meltdown and the home mortgage debacle. Nine million jobs were lost and many have never recovered. The government broke its covenant with the American public by its reckless destruction of our community banking system.
Bill and Hillary Clinton amassed over one hundred million dollars with 7 years after he retired and while she was a government official. Hillary is under investigation by the FBI yet she is about to become the Demcratic candidate for president.
The Republican candidates, except for Kasich, are scary.
Many of us have no one to vote for in November.
The political leadership of both parties has repeatedly broken faith with the American public they had a covenant to serve. What happens now?
The Bush administration, enabled by the Democrats, led the country to war in Iraq based on lies breaking its covenant with the American people.
The Clinton administration deregulated the banks which led to the '08 banking meltdown and the home mortgage debacle. Nine million jobs were lost and many have never recovered. The government broke its covenant with the American public by its reckless destruction of our community banking system.
Bill and Hillary Clinton amassed over one hundred million dollars with 7 years after he retired and while she was a government official. Hillary is under investigation by the FBI yet she is about to become the Demcratic candidate for president.
The Republican candidates, except for Kasich, are scary.
Many of us have no one to vote for in November.
The political leadership of both parties has repeatedly broken faith with the American public they had a covenant to serve. What happens now?
1
It is probably part of the isolationist trend that is so popular nowadays to make statements like "economic globalization is creating wider opportunity but also inequality," without citing any foundation. But in fact, freer global trade in goods and services causes wages among countries to converge, which is the opposite of increasing inequality. If you want to focus on rising inequality within the United States, a more proximate cause would be tax cuts for the rich, coupled with a concerted effort to reduce social protection, pretty much across the board, for the rest of us. And that isn't some unavoidable global trend, it's the express goal and purpose of the Republican Party and every single one of its candidates for president.
Nice thoughts, Mr. Brooks, but lift the thin veil on our covenants and we see that human history is replete with wholesale violence in "defense" of our species, our countries, our religions, our politics. Perhaps now, with the social fabric ripping all around us, we might begin to leave behind the old myths about arbitrary and shifting loyalties, and begin to see that the only covenant that will save us from ourselves is a shared stake in the survival of the planet.
My best contribution to this discussion is to send the reader to the post here by gemli of Boston. He/she nails it.
2
Another column in defense of positions staked out by those who seek to justify their exceptional gains.
The positions are indefensible because the laws are clearly rigged in favor of the wealthy among us.
Contracts are made, not by the voters, rather by representatives who almost invariably betray the public trust in favor of personal gain.
The positions are indefensible because the laws are clearly rigged in favor of the wealthy among us.
Contracts are made, not by the voters, rather by representatives who almost invariably betray the public trust in favor of personal gain.
1
Patriotism yes, but not in the traditional sense of pride in military capability and actions. I'd prefer adoration of our safety net, once the numerous holes are repaired and the stigma attached to those that need it is dissolved.
Globalization, aka "where can I make it cheaper?", is a good motivation for thinking inwardly about ways to make in more pleasant to live in the US for poor and rich alike. To Globalization us working class are just a commodity, like iron ore or timber - coveted today, maybe not tomorrow.
But when we converse about the safety net we are talking about our community, and the care we have for one another. We can't do much about a truck plant being moved to Mexico, but we can help a sick person get well, regardless of ability to pay.
Globalization, aka "where can I make it cheaper?", is a good motivation for thinking inwardly about ways to make in more pleasant to live in the US for poor and rich alike. To Globalization us working class are just a commodity, like iron ore or timber - coveted today, maybe not tomorrow.
But when we converse about the safety net we are talking about our community, and the care we have for one another. We can't do much about a truck plant being moved to Mexico, but we can help a sick person get well, regardless of ability to pay.
I'm not sure that it's all that useful to use the term 'covenant' to refer to the social connections that seem to be increasingly frayed in many communities. Saying we need stronger/better covenants begs the question of why the social fabric is frayed.
It's as if Mr. Brooks hasn't read American history. Local leadership maintained slavery and created economic depressions. Only federal reforms have improved the quality of American life.
Thanks FDR, LBJ, and Obama.
Thanks FDR, LBJ, and Obama.
2
Mr. Brooks,
A well written piece.
The covenant part is precisely what is needed this Presidential election year, as we witness the greatest division ever seen in modern America, inequality the likes most of us have ever experienced, racism on the march, as bad as it ever was, police departments ruling communities, towns and cities, instead of serving, untrustworthy and dishonest politicians vying for the Presidency, war promulgated on an historic scale, arms sales to any / all nations good and bad, the highest ever in the history of the world, with the United States the leader of an avaricious pack.
Society as we used to know it, is splintering, falling apart, and the contract part is being used to unfairly reward the more astute and devious party.
Where do we go from here ?
In my opinion we must begin at the top, which means here in America, and in every nation, with our leaders.
Our President must be exemplary in all respects, trustworthy, honest to a fault, unquestionably empathetic, with concern for the well-being and welfare of the nation, and the world, rooted in his or her being, and when faced with any issue, must be able to act with certainty, authority, and fairness, confident in the belief that doing the right thing is the clear and only option.
The current "grey" choice of dealing with issues is not an option.
Society wants strong leaders, leaders who do not equivocate, leaders who listen to the populace, hear them, and act accordingly.
A well written piece.
The covenant part is precisely what is needed this Presidential election year, as we witness the greatest division ever seen in modern America, inequality the likes most of us have ever experienced, racism on the march, as bad as it ever was, police departments ruling communities, towns and cities, instead of serving, untrustworthy and dishonest politicians vying for the Presidency, war promulgated on an historic scale, arms sales to any / all nations good and bad, the highest ever in the history of the world, with the United States the leader of an avaricious pack.
Society as we used to know it, is splintering, falling apart, and the contract part is being used to unfairly reward the more astute and devious party.
Where do we go from here ?
In my opinion we must begin at the top, which means here in America, and in every nation, with our leaders.
Our President must be exemplary in all respects, trustworthy, honest to a fault, unquestionably empathetic, with concern for the well-being and welfare of the nation, and the world, rooted in his or her being, and when faced with any issue, must be able to act with certainty, authority, and fairness, confident in the belief that doing the right thing is the clear and only option.
The current "grey" choice of dealing with issues is not an option.
Society wants strong leaders, leaders who do not equivocate, leaders who listen to the populace, hear them, and act accordingly.
2
I do not think we have progressed much if the love of our own nation sways us even today while we talk of multi-culturalism and diversity. When shall we rise up to the challenges of this world and partake in the glory of internationalism, which talks of universal brotherhood of man? Or is it still a pipe-dream?
I'd like to say thank you to all the readers who continue to comment on Mr. Brooks column. My decision to continue subscribing to the paper is due to their unpaid efforts. I started reading the comments BEFORE the column a while ago. What the readers have to say is usually much more interesting and relevant to my expectations of a newspaper.
10
You seem to be saying politicians who divide us along many fault lines are destroying our culture. I think you are right. It is a bit discouraging that two who believe in dividing us are the leading candidates for the Republican nomination.
5
I'm not sure they believe that, Curt. More likely, they are exploiting imagined fault lines for political gain. Just as bad, maybe worse.
David, you have done it again. This is a brilliant analysis of the consequences of change and the imperative to evolve from contract to covenant as the defining nature of relationships. If we only could, we would. This is a start. Thank you.
2
I'll take Joseph Heller's honest if cynical take on patriotism to Corey Booker's any day: “What is a country? A country is a piece of land surrounded on all sides by boundaries, usually unnatural. Englishmen are dying for England, Americans are dying for America, Germans are dying for Germany, Russians are dying for Russia. There are now fifty or sixty countries fighting in this war. Surely so many countries can't all be worth dying for.” Ditto for Heller's affirmation of life: “It doesn't make a damned bit of difference who wins the war to someone who's dead.”
1
Gemli wrote malarky. O.K., good, or how about unintentional obfuscation? Like Thomason wrote below, there's nothing new about global migration. And globalization does not, for me, equal wider opportunity. Globalization often provides a sip of opportunity to an impoverished, desperate group, thirsting for the basics that their threadbare "social fabric" failed to provide. But that little sip of opportunity came from a bucket of international capital that somebody somewhere else worked to fill, and now find themselves thirsting for.
This imagined distinction between contract and covenant is a waste of expensive wordage, they are synonymous.
And then we degenerate further into obfuscatory associations with and between tolerance, love and patriotism- the last refuge of the scoundrel.
How did Lennon put it? "imagine there's no country, it isn't hard to do, nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too."
A shared national life has been all too often a shared-or parsed- national bloody delusion.
Where is the love?
This imagined distinction between contract and covenant is a waste of expensive wordage, they are synonymous.
And then we degenerate further into obfuscatory associations with and between tolerance, love and patriotism- the last refuge of the scoundrel.
How did Lennon put it? "imagine there's no country, it isn't hard to do, nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too."
A shared national life has been all too often a shared-or parsed- national bloody delusion.
Where is the love?
3
David, as you suggest, the world is becoming more 'tribal', and that is not a good thing. If anything, we have the Muslin world, tribal by its nature, that has seen the rising of terrorism on a grand scale. In the Muslin world there is no place for the individual, tribal cohesion and settled social bonds prevail. The Muslin 'covenant' reinforces separability, and that has not created love. Why? not really sure but I think it is rooted in treatment of women as being unequal in their social fabric. It is what dooms their societies from ever changing to peaceful love of others, for if you believe women to be unequal, it is easy to believe that of 'others'.
42
I very much enjoyed your envy of the "social fabric," in the "Muslin," world.
Not only is it hallucinatory, but it's the funniest misspelling yet.
Not only is it hallucinatory, but it's the funniest misspelling yet.
1
This kind of theoretical speculation, devoid of any actual research, is the kind of thinking that leads to people fire-bombing mosques and smearing them with pig's blood.
1) Muslims are a religious group. Muslin is a fabric.
2) Muhammad's great accomplishment was the introduction of the concept of rule of law to a previously tribal culture. That is why there is an image of him on the front of the US Supreme court building.
3) Until the 19th century, women in the Muslim world had many rights denied to Christian women, including the right for married women to own property.
I'll grant you that many countries in the current Muslim world have gone insanely far from the principles that Muhammad introduced. But these abuses are correctable by a careful reinterpretation and extension of the principles that Muhammad introduced. Many moderate Muslims are trying to do this, but they don't get the publicity granted to the terrorists, even though they probably outnumber them.
1) Muslims are a religious group. Muslin is a fabric.
2) Muhammad's great accomplishment was the introduction of the concept of rule of law to a previously tribal culture. That is why there is an image of him on the front of the US Supreme court building.
3) Until the 19th century, women in the Muslim world had many rights denied to Christian women, including the right for married women to own property.
I'll grant you that many countries in the current Muslim world have gone insanely far from the principles that Muhammad introduced. But these abuses are correctable by a careful reinterpretation and extension of the principles that Muhammad introduced. Many moderate Muslims are trying to do this, but they don't get the publicity granted to the terrorists, even though they probably outnumber them.
Is Brooks seriously suggesting that in say 1900 there was in the US less inequality and less demographic diversity? This is another of those empty bits of philosophizing which provide cover for the fact that Brooks can't talk about the desire of his party the Republicans to turn the economic clock back to the 1890's, the demographic clock back to the 1940's and the cultural clock back to the 50's. And they don't care how they do it. Witness that blatantly anti democratic case of voter suppression that they lost in the supreme court yesterday. How this squares with creating new covenants Brooks doesn't tell us.
4
It is so convenient for you and white males in general to see (mostly minority) soldiers as giving a "gift" to the country, and teachers (mostly women) as giving their hard work as a "gift." Do you give your words as a "gift"? Are you underpaid? Since you bought a multimillion dollar townhouse where you can see dancers across the street, it seems that you actually get paid for your contributions. So do most other white males. When the "covenant" is written so white males retain all power and control over others, and determine what "gifts" the disempowered should give (to make society better for white males) then the covenant does not promote love, but the status quo that works for only a few. As usual, David Brooks, you just don't get it.
4
Sure David, we are a "universal nation", but only as long as "we" are white and male. Your article is representative of an archaic isolationist view of an 1950's America that has disappeared and old white conservative men long for its return. Sorry Mr Brooks. It's long gone.
4
So Mr. Brooks would now have us equate himself, the embattled GOP establishment, and all those loving, kind and generous folks who call themselves conservatives with the humanity and dignity of Senator Cory.
Nice try but we're not having it. Too many times we've read or heard Mr. Brooks and his brothers in arms pontificate at length on why and how suppression by the right is never wrong, how those with too much still need more, and why those at the bottom really need to stay there. And now, sickened with Trumpidis, unsure if he'll even survive, Mr. Brooks, like the humanist Lee Atwater on his death bed, pleads for some sort of compassionate consideration of his newly found, Dali lama-like patriotism.
As Samuel Jackson said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Nice try but we're not having it. Too many times we've read or heard Mr. Brooks and his brothers in arms pontificate at length on why and how suppression by the right is never wrong, how those with too much still need more, and why those at the bottom really need to stay there. And now, sickened with Trumpidis, unsure if he'll even survive, Mr. Brooks, like the humanist Lee Atwater on his death bed, pleads for some sort of compassionate consideration of his newly found, Dali lama-like patriotism.
As Samuel Jackson said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
2
Mr. Brooks offers us nice-sounding platitudes so he can avoid addressing the real problems head-on: economic inequality; military interventionism; low spending on fighting poverty and homelessness, and on education, research and infrastructure; the destructive side of the internet (identity theft, invasion of privacy, and inundation by spam and unwanted advertising) in service of billionaires and greedy corporations.
We do not need platitudes from the elites; we need real change.
We do not need platitudes from the elites; we need real change.
2
This is conservative malarkey.
The developments that Mr. Brooks claims are destroying "social fabric" around the world include the Internet, global migration, and a culture of autonomy. Everything's going to HIAHB thanks to Facebook?
Hmm. Look back 120 years and check out the conditions of nineteenth-century immigrants who flooded New York City during the Gilded Age. (For photos of their tenements, see "How the Other Half Lives," by Jacob Riis.) You want to study migration, disruption, hard conditions ... review US history. World history.
Let's remember that the Internet has made it possible for activists to report abuses in countries controlled by oppressive military regimes (i.e., East Timor vs. Jakarta).
That's what's called progress. Yes, it can be painful.
Brooks uses the word "covenant" to suggest that we all go back, backwards, into church. He's picking up on the "Bowling Alone" thesis ... not enough guys bowl together anymore.
This tickles me, since it's clear that new communities of people, speaking with one another, sometimes across long distances, are emerging, and many of them are female. Walking, talking. Posting, texting.
I don't agree that we need more "covenants." The US is chock full of churches. Check out the anti-abortion, anti-immigrant followers of Ted and Rafael Cruz. Do retrogressive guys like this repair our social fabric? No.
David, in the past I've advised you to become a Democrat. I now suggest that you try being a woman for a few days.
The developments that Mr. Brooks claims are destroying "social fabric" around the world include the Internet, global migration, and a culture of autonomy. Everything's going to HIAHB thanks to Facebook?
Hmm. Look back 120 years and check out the conditions of nineteenth-century immigrants who flooded New York City during the Gilded Age. (For photos of their tenements, see "How the Other Half Lives," by Jacob Riis.) You want to study migration, disruption, hard conditions ... review US history. World history.
Let's remember that the Internet has made it possible for activists to report abuses in countries controlled by oppressive military regimes (i.e., East Timor vs. Jakarta).
That's what's called progress. Yes, it can be painful.
Brooks uses the word "covenant" to suggest that we all go back, backwards, into church. He's picking up on the "Bowling Alone" thesis ... not enough guys bowl together anymore.
This tickles me, since it's clear that new communities of people, speaking with one another, sometimes across long distances, are emerging, and many of them are female. Walking, talking. Posting, texting.
I don't agree that we need more "covenants." The US is chock full of churches. Check out the anti-abortion, anti-immigrant followers of Ted and Rafael Cruz. Do retrogressive guys like this repair our social fabric? No.
David, in the past I've advised you to become a Democrat. I now suggest that you try being a woman for a few days.
6
David, whom are you addressing this to? As non-whites we have lived most of our adult lives (our kids were born here) in the US, we understand globalization as we ourselves participated in uprooting ourselves from our place of birth and immigrating to America, a land of better opportunities. We were not escaping persecution of social, economic or cultural kind, we came here willingly. We were embraced by Americans in a mostly white North East when people had not been exposed to multiculturalism yet, but they had read Emerson and Thoreau's essays enough to understand plurality and pluralism. The country we left behind was poor, with pockets of desperation but resistant to isolation, too many people living like sardines in a tin. The kids there were not drawn to movements like ISIS but to finding some way to get to a school even if they had to walk miles, barefoot. As naturalized citizens of the US, we greatly value patriotism. While taking the oath I was asked are you prepared to fight for the country, that was a jarring moment, because it implied violence, that either you would kill for the country or die if you didn't protect yourself and others. I did not hesitate to take the oath, but it did raise the question briefly, Patriotism here is not just love of a country, it means accepting that other countries, people of other nations, might be enemies.
3
I pretty much agree with everything here (why wouldn't I? I've been saying it, albeit in different words, myself). I, and I suspect most of us, can give specific examples from experience of the phenomena Mr Brooks describes in the broadest general terms.
However, as the saying goes: 'It's the economy, stupid'.
Bankruptcies; layoffs; evictions; an inadequate social safety net that, when it helps at all, is yanked out from under the destitute as soon as they save a bit of money or get even a subsistence income. Corporate 'management' that treated workers like serfs and Kleenex and pitted them against each other.
The sea change Mr Brooks decries started in the Reagan years. As Barbara Ehrenreich notes in her book 'Bright-Sided', Jack Welch at GE in 1987 pioneered mass layoffs and turned annual reviews into games of musical chairs in which the 'bottom 10%' were automatically fired - effectively pitting employees against each other. As late as 1990 the Business Roundtable's mission statement proclaimed that 'corporations are chartered to serve both their shareholders and society as a whole'. By 1997 that had been amended to state that directors owed no duty to any stakeholders except shareholders.
Shaw's Salvation Army lass Major Barbara said it best: 'I can't talk religion to a man with bodily hunger in his eyes.' Nor patriotism, nor brotherhood, nor community, nor any other fine concepts.
However, as the saying goes: 'It's the economy, stupid'.
Bankruptcies; layoffs; evictions; an inadequate social safety net that, when it helps at all, is yanked out from under the destitute as soon as they save a bit of money or get even a subsistence income. Corporate 'management' that treated workers like serfs and Kleenex and pitted them against each other.
The sea change Mr Brooks decries started in the Reagan years. As Barbara Ehrenreich notes in her book 'Bright-Sided', Jack Welch at GE in 1987 pioneered mass layoffs and turned annual reviews into games of musical chairs in which the 'bottom 10%' were automatically fired - effectively pitting employees against each other. As late as 1990 the Business Roundtable's mission statement proclaimed that 'corporations are chartered to serve both their shareholders and society as a whole'. By 1997 that had been amended to state that directors owed no duty to any stakeholders except shareholders.
Shaw's Salvation Army lass Major Barbara said it best: 'I can't talk religion to a man with bodily hunger in his eyes.' Nor patriotism, nor brotherhood, nor community, nor any other fine concepts.
4
Patriotism propaganda tool created in support of the modern nation state. Very handy for defining the "other", so we will know who to discriminate against and who to demonize should the power elite deem it worthwhile.
1
"A covenant exists between people who understand they are part of one another. It involves a vow to serve the relationship that is sealed by LOVE..." David, please consider this statement in the context of your party's electoral methods and messages. I am part of a disappearing white America. I am part of a threatened heterosexual America. I am part of an America that doesn't recognized the primacy of my particular God. I am part of an America where women want to act as equals. HATE is how I defend myself.
2
I sew and I know something about fabric. Fabric is all about appearance, feel, performance and stability. Fabric is real and made by people.
Republicans have been the party to make claims about appearance and produce a reality that has not performed, has destabilized our nation, and now simply feels false. Their claims---Government was the problem; taxes were the problem; insufficient Christianity; those outsiders; freeloading teachers; poor people; too many regulations; women who don't understand sex sufficiently; cheating voters; the demon liberals were the problem.
The American fabric we all have now feels weak and phony and unstable. We know that an illness, an accident or a job loss will bankrupt us-- or our kids. We know that our environment is getting dirtier and hotter; food and water is less safe. We see that institutions can't be trusted to do the right thing, the human thing, the honorable thing. Institutions may just as easily cut corners, put up road blocks, or let problems fester and decay. They can crush a person or a family and feel nothing. The rich are taking the best for themselves and distorting the social fabric for the rest of us .
The distortions mock common sense. War has no cost. Science is wrong. Diversity is danger. Congress does its job by doing nothing. Roads and bridges, schools and health require no money.
The fabric now looks and feels weak. Lies, excuses, posturing, prejudice, greed and magical thinking are rotting the threads.
Republicans have been the party to make claims about appearance and produce a reality that has not performed, has destabilized our nation, and now simply feels false. Their claims---Government was the problem; taxes were the problem; insufficient Christianity; those outsiders; freeloading teachers; poor people; too many regulations; women who don't understand sex sufficiently; cheating voters; the demon liberals were the problem.
The American fabric we all have now feels weak and phony and unstable. We know that an illness, an accident or a job loss will bankrupt us-- or our kids. We know that our environment is getting dirtier and hotter; food and water is less safe. We see that institutions can't be trusted to do the right thing, the human thing, the honorable thing. Institutions may just as easily cut corners, put up road blocks, or let problems fester and decay. They can crush a person or a family and feel nothing. The rich are taking the best for themselves and distorting the social fabric for the rest of us .
The distortions mock common sense. War has no cost. Science is wrong. Diversity is danger. Congress does its job by doing nothing. Roads and bridges, schools and health require no money.
The fabric now looks and feels weak. Lies, excuses, posturing, prejudice, greed and magical thinking are rotting the threads.
5
In conclusion, "That emotion is what it means to be situated in a shared national life." Strange sentiments from a man who defends and exults the Republican "American people", which plainly represents the 1%, to the exclusion of women, Black, Hispanic, working class and poor, veterans, the sick, immigrants, and LGBT. Generalizations made by Republicans must all be tempered with the certain knowledge that they always represent only those people with whom they associate. Romney was very clear. 47% of the population are not Americans but a sub-species of parasites.
There is a class war going on and Warren Buffet reports that the rich have won.
Propaganda has one goal to insinuate meaning from emotive claims, regardless of the validity of the claims. Brooks has been a useful purveyor of propaganda. False acceptance of the majority, makes the actions of the elite appear reasonable. We must keep in mind what he really means when he talks about the "community" and the "American people", despite his best efforts.
There is a class war going on and Warren Buffet reports that the rich have won.
Propaganda has one goal to insinuate meaning from emotive claims, regardless of the validity of the claims. Brooks has been a useful purveyor of propaganda. False acceptance of the majority, makes the actions of the elite appear reasonable. We must keep in mind what he really means when he talks about the "community" and the "American people", despite his best efforts.
3
"These days the social fabric will be repaired by hundreds of millions of people making local covenants — widening their circles of attachment across income, social and racial divides"
Or a thousand points of plight.
Here in NJ GOP "local leaders" are fighting to BURN established, earned pension contracts (covenants).
Chances are your "local" GOP congressman is fighting to end Medicare as well. Let your sick grandma seek a new covenant to heal her. She better expect the the kindness of strangers at the local emergency room.
Spare us your misty ruminations. Mr. Brooks.
Or a thousand points of plight.
Here in NJ GOP "local leaders" are fighting to BURN established, earned pension contracts (covenants).
Chances are your "local" GOP congressman is fighting to end Medicare as well. Let your sick grandma seek a new covenant to heal her. She better expect the the kindness of strangers at the local emergency room.
Spare us your misty ruminations. Mr. Brooks.
2
The only guy I know who calls himself a "patriot" is a guy in my neighborhood I try to deal with as little as possible. He has guns, and tells everybody about it. He seems to have no other interest in life than guns, a sense of victimization, and telling everybody he's a patriot. I haven't talked to him enough to be sure, but I think he's a Trump voter. He sure doesn't give two cents for comity and the rest of his neighbors or larger society.
When I think about the people that I think are patriots they are all people who have worked to make our country a better place; that means working with others inclusively. It also means doing what needs to be done and not complaining about it or needing attention for it. Not a one of them would call themselves "patriots."
Watch out for people who use "patriotism." One should remember two good aphorisms:
"Patriotism, n. Combustible rubbish ready to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name. In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit it is the first. Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)."
and
"“My country, right or wrong”, is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, “My mother, drunk or sober”.
G. K. Chesterton, The Defendant (1901), p. 166."
When I think about the people that I think are patriots they are all people who have worked to make our country a better place; that means working with others inclusively. It also means doing what needs to be done and not complaining about it or needing attention for it. Not a one of them would call themselves "patriots."
Watch out for people who use "patriotism." One should remember two good aphorisms:
"Patriotism, n. Combustible rubbish ready to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name. In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit it is the first. Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)."
and
"“My country, right or wrong”, is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, “My mother, drunk or sober”.
G. K. Chesterton, The Defendant (1901), p. 166."
9
Very few quote the full line from Stephen Decatur, which comes in two versions, depending on the source:
'Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong.' (1846 biography)
Or: 'Our country – In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right, and always successful, right or wrong.' (1816 Niles Weekly Register).
I think the 1816 quote is probably accurate and his biographer, sensing that 'always successful, right or wrong' implicitly condoned wrongdoing, cleaned it up. In any case Carl Schurz amended it further, to a version few would not endorse:
'My country, right or wrong. If right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.'
Chesterton's comment is superficially witty but doesn't stand up to close analysis. She is, in fact, your mother, drunk or sober; if sober, to be kept so; if drunk, to be sobered up. You owe her your loyalty either way; you don't turn your back on those who stray or are in need. So it is something no true patriot would NOT say, and Chesterton, as usual, is wrong.
'Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong.' (1846 biography)
Or: 'Our country – In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right, and always successful, right or wrong.' (1816 Niles Weekly Register).
I think the 1816 quote is probably accurate and his biographer, sensing that 'always successful, right or wrong' implicitly condoned wrongdoing, cleaned it up. In any case Carl Schurz amended it further, to a version few would not endorse:
'My country, right or wrong. If right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.'
Chesterton's comment is superficially witty but doesn't stand up to close analysis. She is, in fact, your mother, drunk or sober; if sober, to be kept so; if drunk, to be sobered up. You owe her your loyalty either way; you don't turn your back on those who stray or are in need. So it is something no true patriot would NOT say, and Chesterton, as usual, is wrong.
Perhaps if the last six paragraphs were included in the Republican Party platform there could be a strong social covenant.
1
"Many people grow up in fragmented, disorganized neighborhoods. Political polarization grows because people often don’t interact with those on the other side. Racial animosity stubbornly persists."
I covenant with many fellow readers to engage Mr. Brooks and many more of his cohorts in a communal effort to point out their consistent spin on ideological half-truths supporting the civic and socio-economic fragmentation in our communities.
Political polarization has always existed. It is now intensified by the forces of globalization and the systemic civic impoverishment of the electorate. The internet can serve to inundate the public with a nonsensical tide of non-facts and conspiracies to: defund Planned Parenthood, deport millions of people, deny climate change, prevent the Leviathan from taking your firearms, your money, your land, your religious freedom, and suppress the voting rights of your fellow citizens. All of it based on a literal reading of the US Constitution.
I covenant with many fellow readers to engage Mr. Brooks and many more of his cohorts in a communal effort to point out their consistent spin on ideological half-truths supporting the civic and socio-economic fragmentation in our communities.
Political polarization has always existed. It is now intensified by the forces of globalization and the systemic civic impoverishment of the electorate. The internet can serve to inundate the public with a nonsensical tide of non-facts and conspiracies to: defund Planned Parenthood, deport millions of people, deny climate change, prevent the Leviathan from taking your firearms, your money, your land, your religious freedom, and suppress the voting rights of your fellow citizens. All of it based on a literal reading of the US Constitution.
2
Mr. Brooks,
I am a social scientist, and my research has engaged with identity and social roles. You fail to mention an important point about those roles. Take the role 'mother.' One cannot understand that role outside of the many politics surrounding it. What does it mean to 'properly' being a mother? Well, for many it means not working, taking care of home and child, and accepting a subordinate role to the husband. Of course, we can construct the role differently, but free of politics it will never be. So, what roles do you suggest? Which politics ought we embrace so that we can return to these roles you view as so crucial?
I am a social scientist, and my research has engaged with identity and social roles. You fail to mention an important point about those roles. Take the role 'mother.' One cannot understand that role outside of the many politics surrounding it. What does it mean to 'properly' being a mother? Well, for many it means not working, taking care of home and child, and accepting a subordinate role to the husband. Of course, we can construct the role differently, but free of politics it will never be. So, what roles do you suggest? Which politics ought we embrace so that we can return to these roles you view as so crucial?
2
To me, a covenant will always mean an agreement not to allow minorities to move into a neighborhood. By the way, not all of us have families, so society is it. To a child from the ghetto, society is an urban jungle, the opposite of what you have in mind.
2
“We’re not going to roll back the four big forces coursing through modern societies….”
But we can roll back the first three.
Instead, the elites, the winners say otherwise when they want to convince everyone else that the status quo must be maintained forever. Why seek change when it is impossible? These folks (such as Mr. Brooks) have done very well, thank you. They do not want change.
But change is possible. It starts with knowledge.
“Free trade” was and is a stupid policy. It is man-made. We can reverse it with higher tariffs. We just have to elect people who support higher tariffs.
Nations also have the right to control immigration. Immigration has mostly benefitted migrants and the elites who employ them at low wages. It is bad for Americans with low incomes.
The internet was designed to make certain people and corporations extremely wealthy. The privacy of non-elites, identity theft, scams, spam, inundation of advertising: these issues had very low priorities. The greed of billionaires and huge corporations was supreme. (Don’t let anyone tell you that the internet could not have been designed differently, or that it can never be radically improved.)
Apr 5 @ 7.24 am
But we can roll back the first three.
Instead, the elites, the winners say otherwise when they want to convince everyone else that the status quo must be maintained forever. Why seek change when it is impossible? These folks (such as Mr. Brooks) have done very well, thank you. They do not want change.
But change is possible. It starts with knowledge.
“Free trade” was and is a stupid policy. It is man-made. We can reverse it with higher tariffs. We just have to elect people who support higher tariffs.
Nations also have the right to control immigration. Immigration has mostly benefitted migrants and the elites who employ them at low wages. It is bad for Americans with low incomes.
The internet was designed to make certain people and corporations extremely wealthy. The privacy of non-elites, identity theft, scams, spam, inundation of advertising: these issues had very low priorities. The greed of billionaires and huge corporations was supreme. (Don’t let anyone tell you that the internet could not have been designed differently, or that it can never be radically improved.)
Apr 5 @ 7.24 am
1
Individual choice and community cohesion have always been in tension, just as selfishness and altruism are forever at war in us. However, individual choice has been hi-jacked by the dark angels of consumerism. Where would America be without proliferation of consumer goods? More goods, more separation. More washing machines, less meeting at the laundry room. More TVs, more commercials blaring.
DB’s analysis ignores the phenomena of Trump and Sanders, and they assume that the populations they pretend to analyze are relatively uniform and equally well formed and informed. Actually, many of those dissatisfied have never made a contract with the political system. They were born into it, and derived some sustenance from it—until they found its swaddling to be inadequate.
Many of Trump’s supporters are said to be older, white, and under-educated. Their sense of place in society is defined by ancient totems like “racial” superiority. They are not equipped to know and value themselves without these GPS readings. Many of Bernie’s supporters are said to be young college students. They illustrate, once more, that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
How did it come to this? Short-term greed became the motivating force of the GOP. Its scribes and Pharisees excused and explained it all.
DB’s analysis ignores the phenomena of Trump and Sanders, and they assume that the populations they pretend to analyze are relatively uniform and equally well formed and informed. Actually, many of those dissatisfied have never made a contract with the political system. They were born into it, and derived some sustenance from it—until they found its swaddling to be inadequate.
Many of Trump’s supporters are said to be older, white, and under-educated. Their sense of place in society is defined by ancient totems like “racial” superiority. They are not equipped to know and value themselves without these GPS readings. Many of Bernie’s supporters are said to be young college students. They illustrate, once more, that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
How did it come to this? Short-term greed became the motivating force of the GOP. Its scribes and Pharisees excused and explained it all.
1
David keeps looking back to the 50s.
Why were the 50s so nice? The US was politically united after enduring a depression and winning a war. Everyone was happy to have peace and plenty. We had plenty, because Europe was in ruins and Russia and China were communist.
If you look at any other period of US history, what to you see? Instability, political fighting, ethnic conflict. You have to go back to the 1820s to find a comparable era of peace and plenty. It just doesn't happen very often.
Why were the 50s so nice? The US was politically united after enduring a depression and winning a war. Everyone was happy to have peace and plenty. We had plenty, because Europe was in ruins and Russia and China were communist.
If you look at any other period of US history, what to you see? Instability, political fighting, ethnic conflict. You have to go back to the 1820s to find a comparable era of peace and plenty. It just doesn't happen very often.
1
The fraying social contract. Ha! Who has frayed it?
FDR set out a social contract so that the scourge of elders dying in hunger, cold and impoverished, would be less common, and to help those unable to help themselves, to lessen the degree of suffering throughout these Unites States.
Cruel people, under the guise of budget cutting, have stripped these protections and once again we have rising homelessness and helplessness, against the feeling that the overall system is rigged for the wealthiest and most fortunate, and against the most vulnerable. Is there any wonder that drug abuse is so common? People are anesthetizing themselves against despair and the cognitive dissonance that comes from believing in the America we were taught about in school, while looking at the cruel reality of now.
Which brings us to the Panama Papers, released yesterday in several respected newspapers (yet barely mentioned in NYT) documenting worldwide corruption of the ruling class. Drug money, arms running, monies accepted/received/not reported and hidden away for private use of the corrupt while they starve their own countries of needed revenue.
Were this corruption cleaned up and dealt, and if our most fortunate paid their fair share in taxes, rather than hiding it away like the contraband it is, there would be plenty of money to clean up our schools and infrastructure - and give hope to the hopeless once more with a jobs program that builds on our sustainable energy future.
FDR set out a social contract so that the scourge of elders dying in hunger, cold and impoverished, would be less common, and to help those unable to help themselves, to lessen the degree of suffering throughout these Unites States.
Cruel people, under the guise of budget cutting, have stripped these protections and once again we have rising homelessness and helplessness, against the feeling that the overall system is rigged for the wealthiest and most fortunate, and against the most vulnerable. Is there any wonder that drug abuse is so common? People are anesthetizing themselves against despair and the cognitive dissonance that comes from believing in the America we were taught about in school, while looking at the cruel reality of now.
Which brings us to the Panama Papers, released yesterday in several respected newspapers (yet barely mentioned in NYT) documenting worldwide corruption of the ruling class. Drug money, arms running, monies accepted/received/not reported and hidden away for private use of the corrupt while they starve their own countries of needed revenue.
Were this corruption cleaned up and dealt, and if our most fortunate paid their fair share in taxes, rather than hiding it away like the contraband it is, there would be plenty of money to clean up our schools and infrastructure - and give hope to the hopeless once more with a jobs program that builds on our sustainable energy future.
13
Mr. Brooks, you never cease to amaze:
"People who understand they are part of one another" consider the poorest among us here and around the world. Ruth and her mother-in-law is not a good analogy.
When you mention our military and our teachers, I think private armies and private education. Ugh!
And "guarantor of stability and world order." Please! We have laid waste to the middle east and Africa in our pursuit of riches.
The question is, "can we make this country worthy of patriotism again?
"People who understand they are part of one another" consider the poorest among us here and around the world. Ruth and her mother-in-law is not a good analogy.
When you mention our military and our teachers, I think private armies and private education. Ugh!
And "guarantor of stability and world order." Please! We have laid waste to the middle east and Africa in our pursuit of riches.
The question is, "can we make this country worthy of patriotism again?
5
Gobbledygook was first used in the NYT magazine round 1944, so when I use it to characterize this latest punditry from David it won't be the first time it's been used in the Times.
5
I have been reading your columns for many years, for the past 8 years you have given almost every liberal politician a pass, talked about how Reagan is no longer relevant for prosperity and disavovded conservatives in general. As a result you write the most irrelevant stuff. Sorry, you can't dismiss genetics, people do have different abilities but you and the Liberals want equality of outcomes, which is not what makes America great. Europe is in a death spiral and this is the model you praise?
1
It's true that people have different abilities, but should the current system that almost exclusively rewards people for their luck, their draw at the genetic and social craps table, persist unchecked as the best system for society? You ignore the degree that inherited wealth plays in stratification. The argument that people rise to the level of their ability goes right out the door if one can leave one's gains to the next generation, passing a business or other wealth on to their heirs, including a better education. If everything recycled at each generation then perhaps. Even then you have to look at the launching point. I used to take my daughters past public housing projects when they were in school, and ask that if they had to start there, instead of where they did, did they think they would be going to Choate with the offspring of billionaires? Hopelessness breeds contempt for law, and desperate acts. There are entrepreneurs in the projects, they call them drug dealers. I wish the more fortunate were more aware.
1
Now that the backlash is finally here, Mr. Brooks wants to preach tolerance.
Forgive my cynicism, Mr. Brooks, but the rich have been ignoring any covenant with fellow Americans for a very long time. As a matter of fact, if they could grind the middle class into poverty to further line their already bulging pockets, they would. Hence, we have populist movements on both the left and the right.
Conjuring up Abraham Lincoln is not going to change the simple fact that Americans are disgusted with the status quo, and rightfully so. Patriotism has gone out the window for the majority, the same way it was abandoned years ago by the rich, who cared nothing for American jobs or America's future. But take heart, patriotism will be back, when we finally rid ourselves of the system and the people in Washington who have gleefully steered the middle class' into near ruin. Feel the Bern.
Forgive my cynicism, Mr. Brooks, but the rich have been ignoring any covenant with fellow Americans for a very long time. As a matter of fact, if they could grind the middle class into poverty to further line their already bulging pockets, they would. Hence, we have populist movements on both the left and the right.
Conjuring up Abraham Lincoln is not going to change the simple fact that Americans are disgusted with the status quo, and rightfully so. Patriotism has gone out the window for the majority, the same way it was abandoned years ago by the rich, who cared nothing for American jobs or America's future. But take heart, patriotism will be back, when we finally rid ourselves of the system and the people in Washington who have gleefully steered the middle class' into near ruin. Feel the Bern.
2
"It’s hard to live daringly when your very foundation is fluid and at risk." Here, David, I will agree with you. However, I don't think your dream that Churches and a rewoven social fabric will somehow emerge to save us.
When I was growing up in the 50s and 60s, these social structures were strong, but they were strong because the economic foundation of the community was stable - good paying union jobs, public service jobs in education and government that provided opportunity for those on their way up, and corporate management positions that rewarded loyalty and steady stewardship of the enterprise. The 1%'ers and the GOP (and external globalization forces, too) have been chipping away at this foundation for the past 30 years.
You can't ask folks to invest their social capital in a community if they have not expectation that they will be economically secure there. My kids don't want to buy homes and put down roots since they don't expect to stay at any one company or job for more than a couple of years. The question posed in the article - "how to reweave the social fabric" looks impossible if we don't allow folks to build some economic stability and share some of the economic pie.
When I was growing up in the 50s and 60s, these social structures were strong, but they were strong because the economic foundation of the community was stable - good paying union jobs, public service jobs in education and government that provided opportunity for those on their way up, and corporate management positions that rewarded loyalty and steady stewardship of the enterprise. The 1%'ers and the GOP (and external globalization forces, too) have been chipping away at this foundation for the past 30 years.
You can't ask folks to invest their social capital in a community if they have not expectation that they will be economically secure there. My kids don't want to buy homes and put down roots since they don't expect to stay at any one company or job for more than a couple of years. The question posed in the article - "how to reweave the social fabric" looks impossible if we don't allow folks to build some economic stability and share some of the economic pie.
15
To add a bit more to Booker's quote .... and you being here, being different makes me and the rest of us a better, more complete country.
1
Let's hear it for John Donne. What a shame no one gets a classical education any more.
2
There was a time not so long ago when we did not believe that shareholders' interests took precedent over the well-being of our country, when shareholders believed the long-term well-being of employees took precedent over short-term profits. Shareholder primacy took hold in the late 1970s and early 1980s when our President declared that government was the problem, taxes were a burden, and unions were an obstacle to economic growth and profit. Shareholder primacy led to the breaking of covenants in the private sector as corporations stripped employees of pensions and benefit packages and followed the lead of the President by replacing high-priced union workers with low wage contractors. Now those who experienced broken covenants are dismayed with the government who enabled corporations to offshore jobs, provided corporations with subsidies, and enacted trade deals that led to a race to the bottom in wages. The auto industry, technology corporations, communications businesses, and large companies have all downsized, right-sized, and outsourced. In doing so they have broken covenants with their employees many of whom expected to retire with a solid pension, a good stock portfolio, and full health benefits. We shouldn't be surprised that many of these employees are angry and supporting candidates who tap into their anger.
8
Reading the comments it is clear how “tribal” we have become in our views. In so doing we miss what I consider the “money quote” of this column: “Where you go, I will go. Where you stay, I will stay. Your people shall be my people.”
The origin of this quote is the story of an impoverished immigrant, of a different people often in conflict, coming to a country in a time of turmoil; and urged to return to her native land. This is the Book of Ruth; the Moabite became an Israelite; and she was the great-grandmother of David (and therefore an ancestor of Jesus).
The “covenant” community is inclusive, not exclusive. We need to unite, not divide. Most of all, we need to think in terms of “we” and “us,” not “me” and “them.”
The origin of this quote is the story of an impoverished immigrant, of a different people often in conflict, coming to a country in a time of turmoil; and urged to return to her native land. This is the Book of Ruth; the Moabite became an Israelite; and she was the great-grandmother of David (and therefore an ancestor of Jesus).
The “covenant” community is inclusive, not exclusive. We need to unite, not divide. Most of all, we need to think in terms of “we” and “us,” not “me” and “them.”
109
Bless you, somebody got it!
1
“Where you go, I will go. Where you stay, I will stay. Your people shall be my people.”
Now it's: Where you go, I may text you and meet you, but maybe not. Where you stay, I might stay, but I'll check the Yelp rating and might look for better accommodations. Your people are my people, but the party ends at 10:30--I'll call a Uber car for you, if you need it.
Now it's: Where you go, I may text you and meet you, but maybe not. Where you stay, I might stay, but I'll check the Yelp rating and might look for better accommodations. Your people are my people, but the party ends at 10:30--I'll call a Uber car for you, if you need it.
1
David - when I look at how the generations of citizens of the good state of Iowa poured their hard-earned money into the University of Iowa that helped me (and my classmates) get a great education at a fantastic price, I am frustrated and disgusted by the incessant clamor for privatization of education, jacking up tuition and demonizing of professors. Unfortunately, the din is not from the left - your favorite target for barbs and putdowns - but from the right, and from YOUR OWN PEN!
I agree that covenants make us - my colleagues, my friends, my relatives and my neighbors can rely on me to deliver what I promise. The GOP, on the other hand, can only be relied upon to wreck our country. How many times has the GOP voted to repeal Obamacare?
I agree that covenants make us - my colleagues, my friends, my relatives and my neighbors can rely on me to deliver what I promise. The GOP, on the other hand, can only be relied upon to wreck our country. How many times has the GOP voted to repeal Obamacare?
7
While not entirely a 20th century phenomenon, the rending of the social fabric accelerated with St. Reagan. American exceptionalism and the false notion of a meritocracy led folks to believe that "you get what you deserve and you deserve what you get." Conservatives have intentionally severed the very bond Mr. Brooks waxes nostalgic about.
Unions decimated, despite being a wonderful way to bind a community of workers; Gated communities designed to separate, not bind citizens; Relentless attacks on public schools, leading to re-segregation by race and class.
Yes, "Covenants Make Us." And the Republican party has viciously violated America's social contract for decades. Mr. Brooks has a breathtaking lack of political self-awareness.
Unions decimated, despite being a wonderful way to bind a community of workers; Gated communities designed to separate, not bind citizens; Relentless attacks on public schools, leading to re-segregation by race and class.
Yes, "Covenants Make Us." And the Republican party has viciously violated America's social contract for decades. Mr. Brooks has a breathtaking lack of political self-awareness.
334
Accurately and succinctly said. Well done, Steve.
Not to mention that he uses a quote from Corey Booker, interviewed by Bill Maher no less, to help make his point at the end of the piece.
"Strong identities can come ONLY when people are embedded in a rich social fabric". there is thousands of examples that proof this statement is wrong, following Ralph Emerson you should take a Trump's lenses and read your own mind Mr. Brooks.
1
Social cohesion arises from a society that at all levels acts in ways that promote social cohesion. We have since Reagan instead promoted profit over social cohesion. Just in the last 2 weeks Carrier announced plans to close a profitable factory in Indiana because moving it to Mexico will produce even greater profits for its shareholders. But what of the community it is leaving? Has there been any belief for 35 years in a covenant between an employer and the community in which it operates? Hell no! Corporations have 1st Amendment rights, but we've also been persuaded by the likes of you that their responsibilities extend ONLY to shareholder profits. Wake up, Mr. Brooks, and start relating your concerns regarding morality to economic activity. I know doing so contravenes the intellectual milieu that has so richly rewarded you, but take a look around at what it's done to the rest of us.
279
I hear the talk, but don't see people walking the walk. We bemoan a company moving its business overseas, or treating their people badly, but then shop those same companies: Amazon, Home Depot, Walmart, on and on. Make no mistake, when you make a purchase of foreign made goods or goods from an abusive company, you are saying: "I approve of your business plan, keep it up."
We like to talk home grown and humane, but our actions say "Low prices matter most!"
We like to talk home grown and humane, but our actions say "Low prices matter most!"
The word " covenant" is mentioned hundreds of times in the Bible, referring to our relationship to God. " Embedded in loving families and enveloping communities " is good for the individual but combining that with being embedded with a close relationship, a covenant, with a loving God makes life is so much better and meaningful. This relationship with God is what so many people are missing today.
1
Throughout human history, religious differences have too often divided people, in the most vicious ways.
Running out of ideas for your opinion today must be embarrassing and frustrating. Reaching your word count talking about nothing, except maybe, worn-out, idiotic sociology drivel might keep the paycheck coming but little else. "The frabric of life" is irrelevant to everything going on in America today as Authoritrian Rule takes over the mindset of ordinary people politically through conservative radio and Fox News. No one cares about marriage breakup, religious intolerance or covenant shattering among uncivilized people.
When David Brooks Starts talking about liberating the individual, in a cultural of autonomy, I start scratching my head. Are we talking about moving away from common religious mores? Are we talking about moving away from the social culture of "Father Knows Best?"
Brooks makes it sound as if we decided to surrender the social fabric, and bad things happened. But really, bad things have been happening, and it is tearing at the social fabric, which cannot adjust all that quickly.
If we contend, that in this country at least, the social fabric was woven around the middle class - steady work, secure life lived in a single location, plentiful jobs within the educational strengths of the community, jobs which ended at 5 leaving time to coach, or volunteer - we started unraveling the fabric sometime ago. More and more people are expected to hop around. Jobs can be short term, or self contracted, unpredictable. Turning inward is a reaction to managing instability.
We do need to reset, to reinvestigate the social contract. Individuals can start thinking like a community - maybe a little thing like not tossing trash out the car window could be a start. But institutions have the bigger job. Considering it our responsibility to not let people die in the streets - that new standard ala Trump - or starve when they reach 62, because social security was moved to 70, or go broke educating their kids; we could knit a few patches in the social fabric.
Brooks makes it sound as if we decided to surrender the social fabric, and bad things happened. But really, bad things have been happening, and it is tearing at the social fabric, which cannot adjust all that quickly.
If we contend, that in this country at least, the social fabric was woven around the middle class - steady work, secure life lived in a single location, plentiful jobs within the educational strengths of the community, jobs which ended at 5 leaving time to coach, or volunteer - we started unraveling the fabric sometime ago. More and more people are expected to hop around. Jobs can be short term, or self contracted, unpredictable. Turning inward is a reaction to managing instability.
We do need to reset, to reinvestigate the social contract. Individuals can start thinking like a community - maybe a little thing like not tossing trash out the car window could be a start. But institutions have the bigger job. Considering it our responsibility to not let people die in the streets - that new standard ala Trump - or starve when they reach 62, because social security was moved to 70, or go broke educating their kids; we could knit a few patches in the social fabric.
149
The destruction of much of the social fabric has been a deliberate project by the elites to lower the cost of labor. This is what has fueled the huge increase in income inequality and the tossing of so many workers onto the scrap pile. It started with the war against unions waged by employers and conservative politicians. The push for globalization and especially the normalization of trade with the mercantilist communist dictatorship which is China, took it a step farther. CEO pay has skyrocketed. Corporate profits as a share of GDP have sharply increased. Wages as a share of GDP are sharply down. Government policies have deliberately increased the return to capital at the expense of the return to labor. Studies have shown that more education won't solve this. The gains from college and advanced degrees are larger for whites and males and those from middle-middle class and up families than for everyone else. The tax code benefits income from capital over income from labor and past and proposed changes aim to seal this social inequality in place by reducing/eliminating inheritance taxes. It these trends aren't reversed, we will end up with a class-based society, such as the British developed. Inheritance taxes have been the key tool used by Britain to try to diminish their class structure.
A whole lot of fluff! When less than 1% are rigging the system (elections, tax code, etc) to reap huge profits at the expense of the whole population, then of course the social fabric will get ripped. The rest is high falutin nonsense trying to obfuscate the reality.
11
An article that says nothing or offers any plan to accomplish his vision.
3
Durkheim got it right.
1
WOW! If I wanted to start off a Tuesday morning with an interesting question, I would ask, "In a globalizing, diversifying world, how do we preserve individual freedom while strengthening social solidarity?"
How exactly does one achieve "social solidarity" in a country of 320 million people when they are being rent asunder by politics and the difficult task of picking someone coherent to lead them? Oh yes, and I would also be interested in being shown a covenant evolving from our current garbage can of candidates.
Finally, you write, "These days the social fabric will be repaired by hundreds of millions of people making local covenants — widening their circles of attachment across income, social and racial divides." Let's see, we have Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Ryan, Clinton and Sanders from which to find a covenant inspirer.
Good luck with that.
How exactly does one achieve "social solidarity" in a country of 320 million people when they are being rent asunder by politics and the difficult task of picking someone coherent to lead them? Oh yes, and I would also be interested in being shown a covenant evolving from our current garbage can of candidates.
Finally, you write, "These days the social fabric will be repaired by hundreds of millions of people making local covenants — widening their circles of attachment across income, social and racial divides." Let's see, we have Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Ryan, Clinton and Sanders from which to find a covenant inspirer.
Good luck with that.
3
The next time Mr. Brooks wants to lecture his readers on the fraying of the social fabric, perhaps he can be bothered to point out the trillions the richest American corporations are hiding offshore in tax shelters:
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0S008U20151006
Just so they can avoid paying taxes. Then maybe he can point out that corporate profits are at an all time high, and wages at an all time low, as percentages of our economy:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/business/economy/corporate-profits-...
Because it seems odd that the corporate entities who bear so much responsibility for the fraying of our social fabric so rarely get mentioned in such lectures.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0S008U20151006
Just so they can avoid paying taxes. Then maybe he can point out that corporate profits are at an all time high, and wages at an all time low, as percentages of our economy:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/business/economy/corporate-profits-...
Because it seems odd that the corporate entities who bear so much responsibility for the fraying of our social fabric so rarely get mentioned in such lectures.
88
David leaves out marketing and the media, a relentless force in our lives that shapes who we are and what we think. The easy access to the customer that the Internet provides continues to amplify marketing's influence especially in how we think down to the lengths of our conversations.
4
The kindness which Brooks extends to his readers “love of country, which necessitates love of each other, that we have to be a nation that aspires for love, which recognizes that you have worth and dignity and I need you. You are part of my whole, part of the promise of this country.” seems to have fallen on deaf ears in these comments. Sad.
5
The "which necessitates..." part doesn't depend upon "love of country" but on "love of humanity".
to Robin Cumberland: I am more than willing to believe the kindness you refer to is genuine it's just that it rings hollow (if not downright hypocritical) coming from someone who aligns himself with a party who vehemently tears against that American covenant at every crucial turn. Mr. Brooks loves to wax nostalgic about values and patriotism he thinks Americans once held (cue in the violins) and ignores the reality: Republicans try strenuously to disfranchise any person they deem not an asset to that pretty fabric he imagines we weave.
He has attained a pedestal of sorts from which he preaches the dreamy and brave talk of the morally certain without any reference to the cold reality of his party's de facto code of exclusion, persecution, bigotry, xenophobia, and protectionism for the one percent.
Our obvious anger at the obvious disconnect may sound shrill but it's not based on whim or conjecture. No one has to "interpret" Republican political voices for America—I don't wholly form my opinions based on articles in the NYT or any other news) one has simply to listen and ponder to what comes directly out their mouths and the actions they try to perpetrate in public policy.
He has attained a pedestal of sorts from which he preaches the dreamy and brave talk of the morally certain without any reference to the cold reality of his party's de facto code of exclusion, persecution, bigotry, xenophobia, and protectionism for the one percent.
Our obvious anger at the obvious disconnect may sound shrill but it's not based on whim or conjecture. No one has to "interpret" Republican political voices for America—I don't wholly form my opinions based on articles in the NYT or any other news) one has simply to listen and ponder to what comes directly out their mouths and the actions they try to perpetrate in public policy.
2
Thanks to a book and a Booker, Mr. Brooks is inspired to reweave the shredded social fabric of America, a destruction decades in the making. “A contract protects interests, Pally notes, but a covenant protects relationships.” Back in 1994, Newt Gingrinch gave us the Contract with America, that Republican confabulation of Reagan’s 1985 State of the Union address, and various policy ideas from the Heritage Foundation. Ever since, Republicans have protected the interests of the donor class (but not their base) very well. Now, apparently, Mr. Brooks would like to see a Covenant with America. There’s just one problem: “A covenant exists between people who understand they are part of one another. It involves a vow to serve the relationship that is sealed by love: Where you go, I will go. Where you stay, I will stay. Your people shall be my people.” Alas for Mr. Brooks and his Republican confreres, where’s the love?
After having spent years whipping up hate and resentment, it seems unlikely that Republicans can be covenental agents of love. Perhaps Trump or Cruz will bring forth their new covenants, right after they tear up the Iran deal. Or maybe Senate Republicans will show their love of the Constitution, and hold a hearing for Merrick Garland. Republicans can’t even be counted to uphold the obligations they already have, much less usher in a world of loving and thoughtful covenants. There's just a whole lot of wishin' and hopin' going on.
After having spent years whipping up hate and resentment, it seems unlikely that Republicans can be covenental agents of love. Perhaps Trump or Cruz will bring forth their new covenants, right after they tear up the Iran deal. Or maybe Senate Republicans will show their love of the Constitution, and hold a hearing for Merrick Garland. Republicans can’t even be counted to uphold the obligations they already have, much less usher in a world of loving and thoughtful covenants. There's just a whole lot of wishin' and hopin' going on.
7
It is losing oneself in loving others - one's family, one's friends, one's neighbors, one's community - than one finds true meaning in life. Or, "unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Those who love their life in this world will lose it." and "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing." The covenant that truly binds us one to the other is love. Love in the face of evil. Love in the face of oppression. Love in the face of ignorance. Love in the face of scorn. Love in the face of doubt. Love in the midst of loneliness, isolation, and despair. It is and always has been - love for one another.
4
Bellah's "Civil Religion in America" is a start, and Benjamin Friedman's "The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth" can serve as a rejoinder to all those who are convinced that a growing and interdependent economy (if that's not a redundancy) is a bad thing.
I believe that the attributes of a successful entity - robustness, resilience and relevance - are a function of design, construction and management. Across the political spectrum, there is this misguided belief that all we need is sufficiently brilliant design and construction and we're all set. But management is, in fact, primo inter pares. Without good management, the best design and construction will fail. With good, sound management, even poor design and construction can be overcome. The secret to good management appears to be humility, which is hard to muster in an environment that mistakes individual liberty for individual responsibility.
I believe that the attributes of a successful entity - robustness, resilience and relevance - are a function of design, construction and management. Across the political spectrum, there is this misguided belief that all we need is sufficiently brilliant design and construction and we're all set. But management is, in fact, primo inter pares. Without good management, the best design and construction will fail. With good, sound management, even poor design and construction can be overcome. The secret to good management appears to be humility, which is hard to muster in an environment that mistakes individual liberty for individual responsibility.
3
And humility is born out of respect, respect for the complexity of solutions, and respect for the views of others. Neither is evident in politics today.
Good stuff, Mr. La Fountain. I would argue that a balance of meticulous management and creative, even off-the-wall, creativity is ideal. One rarely succeeds without the other. One more case of yin and yang.
One American writer forecast such a dissolution: Ayn Rand separated the Makers from the Takers and gave the former permission to withdraw to Galt's Gulch and take all the money with them.
In "It's A Wonderful Life," the banker-villain, played by Lionel Barrymore, had roots in the community he was despoiling. He was easy to hate because he was local. Let's rewrite the movie, and now Mr. Potter is ensconced in New York, London, or Bahrain. George Bailey can't even find him, ya see.
Creating industrial ghost towns where the zombies of formerly productive workers who provided cohesion in their communities wait for the grave and then hiring or convincing flacks to write sanctimoniously about the moral failings of those good working people is, I will admit, a perk of the great god capitalism.
We now have hard evidence that can be surveyed that tests the efficacy of raw greed vs. that tempered by some community (i.e., government) control. Let's examine the rampant alcoholism during the Gilded Age that inspired the Anti-Saloon League, look in on employed, middle-class America in the 1950's, and then fast forward to now to study the communities that Kevin Williamson called ".,. negative assets. The white American under-class is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles." Sound familiar, 1880's? Suck the hope out of a community by leaving it economically high and dry, and people take to the bottle and the pipe.
Nice try, David.
In "It's A Wonderful Life," the banker-villain, played by Lionel Barrymore, had roots in the community he was despoiling. He was easy to hate because he was local. Let's rewrite the movie, and now Mr. Potter is ensconced in New York, London, or Bahrain. George Bailey can't even find him, ya see.
Creating industrial ghost towns where the zombies of formerly productive workers who provided cohesion in their communities wait for the grave and then hiring or convincing flacks to write sanctimoniously about the moral failings of those good working people is, I will admit, a perk of the great god capitalism.
We now have hard evidence that can be surveyed that tests the efficacy of raw greed vs. that tempered by some community (i.e., government) control. Let's examine the rampant alcoholism during the Gilded Age that inspired the Anti-Saloon League, look in on employed, middle-class America in the 1950's, and then fast forward to now to study the communities that Kevin Williamson called ".,. negative assets. The white American under-class is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles." Sound familiar, 1880's? Suck the hope out of a community by leaving it economically high and dry, and people take to the bottle and the pipe.
Nice try, David.
11
Some history is necessary here to get a handle on this grab-bag of misinformation and projected hopes. The point seems to be that “Patriotism . . . means ‘love of country, which necessitates love of each other . . . .’ “ Of all the notions thrown out here patriotism, or more specifically nationalism, is the only truly modern one, and is the cause of so many problems. The rise of nation states in Western Europe is tied in with the rise of new means of enriching oneself (often groups of merchants allied with the rising state) at the expense of others, slavery, murder of indigenous peoples, exploitation (of women, children, and the poor in general), violence, and environmental destruction on a global scale that spread to where it never fit. Global migration and economic globalization go back to humans’ earliest times. Talk of the liberation of the individual is a Conservative cover for selfishness and privilege. Liberation of humanity is where it’s at. There has never been a large-scale well-woven social fabric of equal humans joined together in harmony. To create this requires not going back to our dark past or some fantasized traditional social fabric with all its hierarchies and dysfunctions, but forging a better way forward – without narrow patriotisms and alienated individualism getting in the way. Let's start with some fair taxes and regulations that put society first. Not very poetic, but very real.
7
Usually I only skim Brooks' articles and then vicariously enjoy the lashing he gets in the comments. But today I cannot stand reading this drivel. Am I then only one who notices the fact that Brooks only quotes men? Describes traditionally male jobs only (well, he threw in a gratuitous teacher)? "Father, plumber, little league coach". 40 years ago I was BANNED from little league, thank you very much, not even allowed to play much less coach, simply because I was a girl.
Oh, wait, he mentions one woman in the whole article. To bolster a neocon vision of biblical submission and servitude. And then add patriotism into the mix!
Can we get rid of him, please? I don't need any more old white men telling me how to submit to their power in a country they are currently destroying.
Oh, wait, he mentions one woman in the whole article. To bolster a neocon vision of biblical submission and servitude. And then add patriotism into the mix!
Can we get rid of him, please? I don't need any more old white men telling me how to submit to their power in a country they are currently destroying.
18
He doesn't mention Ruth ... he just quotes her without attribution.
2
The social fabric cannot be restored when the basic elements of the social CONTRACT have been broken. Try getting a loan from a bank, or look at the add-ons of a car purchase, or notice the debilitating effects of income inequality around you, the dirtier air and water, and the crumbling infrastructure. It doesn't matter that your loan is denied on a technicality, or that the municipality in which you live doesn't have enough money to fix the roads or repair leaking water lines for long periods of time.
If the delight in offering gifts actually led to something real, then that would be a good thing, but that's only possible when the social framework that's been constructed allows for it, like the vacuum of a school classroom. Shackles have been put on the public performing many jobs that make Jacob Marley's load look light.
So get a leader to reunify the country, and be friendlier to one another in our socially responsible efforts. The latter is possible, but none of the current candidates can perform the magic required. Whomever is elected, the discontent already evident will probably reach a boiling point, because the plutocracy is not about to hand over the keys to the vault, and if the GOP wins, it's basically over.
Brooks should stick to the mundane re the candidates, so we don't have to think about the larger ramifications of how disappointing any of them will be as President. There are no Lincolns left, at least after Obama departs - at least he came close.
If the delight in offering gifts actually led to something real, then that would be a good thing, but that's only possible when the social framework that's been constructed allows for it, like the vacuum of a school classroom. Shackles have been put on the public performing many jobs that make Jacob Marley's load look light.
So get a leader to reunify the country, and be friendlier to one another in our socially responsible efforts. The latter is possible, but none of the current candidates can perform the magic required. Whomever is elected, the discontent already evident will probably reach a boiling point, because the plutocracy is not about to hand over the keys to the vault, and if the GOP wins, it's basically over.
Brooks should stick to the mundane re the candidates, so we don't have to think about the larger ramifications of how disappointing any of them will be as President. There are no Lincolns left, at least after Obama departs - at least he came close.
4
At the end of the Viet Nam War the USA did away with the draft. I would suggest that national service would be one way of creatinga social understanding of the other in a diverse society. The draft would require military service or social service to our country for all high school graduates; for a minimum of 2-3 years. We would give the individual the choice of military or social service to the country.
The return for this service would be healthcare for life and a free 4 year public college or trade school for those that served. The added benefit that young Americans of differrent, ethnic, religious, political and economic backgrounds would have is an opportunity, in their young years, of getting some first hand understanding of, and empathy for their fellow Americans.
The return for this service would be healthcare for life and a free 4 year public college or trade school for those that served. The added benefit that young Americans of differrent, ethnic, religious, political and economic backgrounds would have is an opportunity, in their young years, of getting some first hand understanding of, and empathy for their fellow Americans.
17
Sounds like a recommendation from someone too old to be drafted.
And, in that same vein, Veterans Day should be a national holiday with elections scheduled for the convenience of the voter.
1
A thoughtful piece by Mr. Brooks. It should be stressed, however, that a desire for community, a need to belong, can unleash very harmful as well as positive forces.
Hitler created the community of the Third Reich around racial ties. In a society traumatized by defeat in war and fragmented by the effects of the first industrial revolution, a narrative that linked national greatness to race offered hope to a people who had lost their sense of identity. This new identity, however, required the rejection of the Jews, depicted as a negative force that threatened national unity.
America's sense of community, founded on political principles that reject the importance of ethnic and religious ties, offers a healthy alternative to Hitler's racial dystopia. Our formal commitment to diversity and individualism, however, fosters a kind of loose unity that yields to a strong united front only in the face of external threats.
An inclusive community preserves individual freedoms, but its loose bonds may make it vulnerable to the forces described by Brooks. A community forged by hatred of outsiders, on the other hand, lacks the positive ties that inspire confidence in the worth of one's fellow citizens. In a crisis, when a strong sense of mutual commitment can unify society, such a community must rely on force to substitute for voluntary loyalty.
Hitler created the community of the Third Reich around racial ties. In a society traumatized by defeat in war and fragmented by the effects of the first industrial revolution, a narrative that linked national greatness to race offered hope to a people who had lost their sense of identity. This new identity, however, required the rejection of the Jews, depicted as a negative force that threatened national unity.
America's sense of community, founded on political principles that reject the importance of ethnic and religious ties, offers a healthy alternative to Hitler's racial dystopia. Our formal commitment to diversity and individualism, however, fosters a kind of loose unity that yields to a strong united front only in the face of external threats.
An inclusive community preserves individual freedoms, but its loose bonds may make it vulnerable to the forces described by Brooks. A community forged by hatred of outsiders, on the other hand, lacks the positive ties that inspire confidence in the worth of one's fellow citizens. In a crisis, when a strong sense of mutual commitment can unify society, such a community must rely on force to substitute for voluntary loyalty.
1
Rev. Brooks! This morning's sermon reminds me of when Sammy Davis, Jr. went to give Nixon a hug and Nixon flinched as if under attack. Your Republican social fabric is more like the Emperor's new clothes.
17
Here's what people want. A home to live in. A safe place for their kids to grow up. Good schools for their kids, where the teachers are rewarded. Jobs that pay well enough that people don't have to have 3 of them. A political system that works for all of us, not just for the upper crust few, or for politicians lining their pockets. Clean streets. Infrastructure that looks like it belongs in the 21st century, not the 1800s. Decent health care so that people are not terrified of being homeless should they get sick.
It's not that much to ask.
It's not that much to ask.
597
Cave man , needed cave for the same reason.
what is new?
what is new?
Jan, the GOP, Greedy Obnoxious Popinjays, think it's too much to ask. It's not in their interests to have a middle class or a comfortable working class. The more ignorant we are the easier it is for them to control things. If we're struggling to keep body and soul together we don't think of voting, education, improving our lot, or other things. It's to the GOPs advantage if we're desperate. We can't stop to think of what needs to improve or how lacking in logic the GOP positions are. The one that galls this reader the most is that unemployment benefits are like a hammock: only a very rich politician who has not seen what prolonged unemployment can do to a person could say that. As someone who has lived through prolonged unemployment and repeated downsizings, I can swear to the fact that it destroys one's faith in everything because of how little help is out there. The same goes for people who wind up in medical bankruptcy.
It's infuriating to read or hear of how rich the US is only to experience how stingy we are to those in need especially when all many of us need is a brief helping hand until we find a decent job. Oh, wait, those have been outsourced to save money. Funny how corporate welfare is more important than the welfare of the citizens.
It's infuriating to read or hear of how rich the US is only to experience how stingy we are to those in need especially when all many of us need is a brief helping hand until we find a decent job. Oh, wait, those have been outsourced to save money. Funny how corporate welfare is more important than the welfare of the citizens.
2
Jan, what people want is a New World Order! However, not the NWO we got with more of the same septic business we get from politicians, corporations and the law, which is dictated to Americans and the world by the global economy.
1
Isn't it pretty to think so, Mr. Brooks. The Republican Party has led the way since 1948 in non-convenental attitude. You think the poor and the disenfranchised can just "choose" to break the cycle of poverty that has systemically buried them--caused by us? Read "Slavery Under Another Name" as well as Marcia Pally. The imposed brevity of your columns reduces your solutions to a few too-easy steps, like the Nike tagline: Just Do It! If only, sir. I loved your book on character but it's next-to-impossible to forge character when you live in a Hobbesian jungle, which our poor do. Covenants have to go two ways.
12
I agree, David. Patriotism is more than mere tolerance. Patriotism recognizes that the other side has worth and dignity and that we all need each other.
But your essay is abstract and hard-to-understand. No examples.
Maybe we can point out how the Republicans have refused to listen to Obama for seven years simply because he they say he is divisive (code word for uppity). Not patriotic.
Maybe we can point out how the Republicans refuse to even consider Merrick Garland (a centrist) for the Supreme Court, just because Obama nominated him. Not patriotic.
Maybe we can point out how the Republicans are the party to whom the racists and white supremacists flock. Not patriotic.
Oops. You're a Republican. So you gotta shroud the message in abstraction so nobody understands it. Sheesh.
But your essay is abstract and hard-to-understand. No examples.
Maybe we can point out how the Republicans have refused to listen to Obama for seven years simply because he they say he is divisive (code word for uppity). Not patriotic.
Maybe we can point out how the Republicans refuse to even consider Merrick Garland (a centrist) for the Supreme Court, just because Obama nominated him. Not patriotic.
Maybe we can point out how the Republicans are the party to whom the racists and white supremacists flock. Not patriotic.
Oops. You're a Republican. So you gotta shroud the message in abstraction so nobody understands it. Sheesh.
50
Covenants are what kept blacks in their place in housing as late as the 1970s so I guess it's only fitting that Brooks blithely use the term to mourn the loss of a strong social fabric, when everyone knew their place.
35
I would have liked to see the conservative Mr. Brooks go a little further and acknowledge that the policies conservatives have championed are largely to blame for this lack of shared identity. If we are to re-establish this "emotion" it won't come from a catchy turn of phrase. We need to look at how policies that make the people at the bottom feel less and less valued and less and less secure interfere with the development of the warm fuzzies that Mr. Brooks pines for. It's Maslow's hierarchy dude. You want people to feel love and belonging but are unwilling to provide for their physiological and safety needs. It won't work.
12
Social fabrics have contracts to prevent/repair rips, tears. The contract is known as government. Healthy governments promote healthy social fabrics. Republicans have demonized our government, demonized our president. Republicans have worked hard to shred our social fabric, attacking minorities, suppressing democracy, undermining safety nets. And let us not forget right-wing Republican talk radio that spews a message of hatred 24/7. These outlets of hatred incite rage in the "I" that divides the US (pun intended). David seems clueless of reality as he theorizes about the rents in our social fabric.
13
Certainly, and to the many suggestions that Brooks get out on the street to get his political compass recalibrated, I'd add that, as community service, he be required to listen to those talk radio hate-mongers non-stop for a month or two. Preferably with a device he couldn't turn off.
What has the once Grand Old Party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower done in the last 20 or even last 8 years to foster our rich social fabric and cultural infrastructure?
The 1% together with the congressional-military-industrial complex and a bunch of religious extremists have high jacked the party. The faces of Trump-Cruz are obnoxious intolerance pandering to our worst fears.
Time to call them out, Mr Brooks!
The 1% together with the congressional-military-industrial complex and a bunch of religious extremists have high jacked the party. The faces of Trump-Cruz are obnoxious intolerance pandering to our worst fears.
Time to call them out, Mr Brooks!
12
It seems that the followers of Islam are more cohesive in the 21rst. century than in many previous centuries. They are going about their worldwide agenda with no regard to anyone else. To date, they are the success of the 21rst. century.
2
"But it turns out that people can effectively pursue their goals only when they know who they are -when they have firm identities."
Knowing who we are is not the critical factor here. It's knowing that there is strength in numbers and knowing that taking collective action is the most effective way to pursue our goals. You know, like we used to do when we were union members. Amazingly we were much more effective at pursuing our goal of earning a living wage when we worked together.
Somehow I don't think that's the social fabric or covenant you were referring to. After all, to your preferred side of the aisle that's dirty socialism as is any other sort of social cooperation. If American patriotism means "love, which recognizes that you have worth and dignity and I need you" then your party is going to have to completely revamp how they think about those of us who work for a living. Right now they don't see anyone who's such a loser that they have to actually work to survive (gasp! horrors!) as having any value or dignity. And they certainly don't think they need us.
Wouldn't it be great if we had a government that saw the importance of being a "guarantor of stability" for Americans as its first priority? The Rs will never let that happen; they'd rather have us believe in the myth of rugged individualism as if we're all going to load up in our covered wagons and head to the frontier to seek our fortune.
None of this is going to get fixed unless and until you fix your party.
Knowing who we are is not the critical factor here. It's knowing that there is strength in numbers and knowing that taking collective action is the most effective way to pursue our goals. You know, like we used to do when we were union members. Amazingly we were much more effective at pursuing our goal of earning a living wage when we worked together.
Somehow I don't think that's the social fabric or covenant you were referring to. After all, to your preferred side of the aisle that's dirty socialism as is any other sort of social cooperation. If American patriotism means "love, which recognizes that you have worth and dignity and I need you" then your party is going to have to completely revamp how they think about those of us who work for a living. Right now they don't see anyone who's such a loser that they have to actually work to survive (gasp! horrors!) as having any value or dignity. And they certainly don't think they need us.
Wouldn't it be great if we had a government that saw the importance of being a "guarantor of stability" for Americans as its first priority? The Rs will never let that happen; they'd rather have us believe in the myth of rugged individualism as if we're all going to load up in our covered wagons and head to the frontier to seek our fortune.
None of this is going to get fixed unless and until you fix your party.
4
David Brooks is suggesting that everyone in the world spontaneously get together and join a social “covenant” rather than a social contract. Presumably this is because the word “covenant” has religious overtones while “contract” has legal overtones. This is worthless advice on par with Rodney King’s heartfelt supplication “… can we all just get along?” But what Mr. Brooks really longs for is a sense of having a common enemy as we did during the cold war. The cold war is not coming back. But we do have a common enemy, one that affects every creature on earth and for which there are real remedies. Think about it and stop showing us the naval lint that is the latest book that you've read.
9
footnote to my last post
YIKES its record breaking FRIGID out there but EVERYTHING COVERED by Her long white as snow gown reminding more of that warm long kiss from the woman without the belly button
YIKES its record breaking FRIGID out there but EVERYTHING COVERED by Her long white as snow gown reminding more of that warm long kiss from the woman without the belly button
The appeal to patriotism should include include 'e pluribus unum'. But sadly that principle has been replaced by 'caveat emptor' , the ugly first principle of the marketplace which usurps patriotism for many who wish to have and have more.
5
Nope, won't do it. Not gonna get emotional and fall for this well written sales pitch to be passive. This is the continuing David Brooks mea culpa series, attempting to apologize for supporting the policies that helped destroy the country. He suggests the damage caused by the cult of trickle down. Repaired with what? Platitudes and references to well written historical motivational speeches. Sorry Dave, it is going to take get down and dirty hard work, even by those in your educated class. This will not be easy. It will not come fast. But one thing I think is certainty, it will not come out of an idea by the GOP nor its number one courtesan.
16
WE WANT AND NEED TO BE BOTH INDIVIDUALS AND CONNECTED . . .
...as we are going through a period of hyper rapid changes. And it will take some time to become acclimated to this seemingly antithetical situation.
But, we have gone through many other revolutionary and paradoxical situations in the past. Galellio's conception of the universe and Newtonian physics presented significant challenges which, in the main, have been resolved.
The Enlightenment presented great changes to all of us ... even if most of the people were were not even aware of it.
The industrial Revolution wrought a an almost complete evolution in how we produced products ... some of this process has now visited some awful and unintended problems which we now are confronted with. E.g., global warming and its dire consequences.
Then Darwin seemed to present great resistance to religion ... and is still present among those who still believe in the oxymoronic Creationist Science folks.
Then Einstein and Hawkins... Watson and Crick...
And yet most of us have accommodated ourselves to these radical changes in our conception of life, the nature of man and in understanding that all of this mandated a great change in our understandings.
Humanity has used social connectivity in all its many evolutions of thought and to deal with the many manifestations of great revolutions.
So, we can be both individuals and use relationships with others to deal with these times and make them complementary.
...as we are going through a period of hyper rapid changes. And it will take some time to become acclimated to this seemingly antithetical situation.
But, we have gone through many other revolutionary and paradoxical situations in the past. Galellio's conception of the universe and Newtonian physics presented significant challenges which, in the main, have been resolved.
The Enlightenment presented great changes to all of us ... even if most of the people were were not even aware of it.
The industrial Revolution wrought a an almost complete evolution in how we produced products ... some of this process has now visited some awful and unintended problems which we now are confronted with. E.g., global warming and its dire consequences.
Then Darwin seemed to present great resistance to religion ... and is still present among those who still believe in the oxymoronic Creationist Science folks.
Then Einstein and Hawkins... Watson and Crick...
And yet most of us have accommodated ourselves to these radical changes in our conception of life, the nature of man and in understanding that all of this mandated a great change in our understandings.
Humanity has used social connectivity in all its many evolutions of thought and to deal with the many manifestations of great revolutions.
So, we can be both individuals and use relationships with others to deal with these times and make them complementary.
2
When I enter a subway car and see 100 faces, each staring intentently into her own gadget, or when i consider how the rich diversity of intelligence and perspective in our society gets reduced to the 2-sided shouting match of national poitics, or when I hear about children across the country all stepping as toddlers onto the same lifelong treadmill of competition for admissions, connections and jobs, I find it hard to believe that it's individual freedom that we've gotten in exchange for the dismantling of cultural institutions. As you say, freedom is rooted in groundedness. What's happening to our world is the disintegration of both. We haven't exchanged cohesion for freedom; we've exchanged both for something else. As societies become markets, citizens beome consumers, and freedom becomes a set of choices, offered to us by someone else for their advantage. This is not something that can be countered by re-thinking attitudes, but by political reform--by restoring democratic power as a counterweight to economic power. We can't bring back a world that's lost, but we can restore the conditions that once allowed us to create the choices and shape the world we want.
16
Wow you verbalized in one short space so many things that I think are true.
Very well put. Since I arrived in the US in 1975 I've constantly been struck by home impervious the political landscape here is to meaningful reform. I agree with you that it is sorely needed, to give us a second chance at promise.
....covenant protects relationships...it involves a vow to serve the relationship that is sealed by love:where you go i will go....
who has time for this love with so many demons to slay : the dictator
and yet he has a point on the importance of faith
Hebrews 11
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
4 By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.
5 By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.”[a] For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
who has time for this love with so many demons to slay : the dictator
and yet he has a point on the importance of faith
Hebrews 11
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
4 By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.
5 By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.”[a] For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Pretty words, at odds with the real word, magical thinking on steroids.
I sometimes think that David Brooks wants to return to the world of "Leave it to Beaver" or "Father Knows Best" - where segregation was the law of much of the land, women were second class citizens, migration consisted of well-educated protestants with white faces, the place of the upper class was guaranteed. Environmental protection was not needed because every factory simply dumped its waste into the nearest river. There was no need for a sexual revolution - boys could be boys, girls were all virgins until they got married, except if they got knocked up and had to disappear for a while. There were no drugs, except for the moonshine made at home or the stuff that went on behind closed doors. Ah, for those good old days when the world was in order!
Yes, society has not just changed for the better in the past 50 years, but there was an awful lot wrong in the "good old days".
Yes, society has not just changed for the better in the past 50 years, but there was an awful lot wrong in the "good old days".
4
Nah--he wants to go further back than that. Try the 1890s and the "Kings' Row" days, when the middle class mostly didn't exist.
"We want to go off and create and explore and experiment with new ways of thinking and living. But we also want to be situated — embedded in loving families and enveloping communities, thriving within a healthy cultural infrastructure that provides us with values and goals."
Hasn't this been part of the human condition since time began? It's hardly a novel idea despite a new book on the subject. As I see it, the problem with our lack of "situatedness" is politics, pure and simple. The nastier they get, the less folks communicate, and the angrier they stay in their enclaves.
If you fix national politics, and raise the value of cooperation and compromise instead of partisan warfare, these problems of human alienation will take care of themselves. In prior decades, we all felt "American" and part of the grand experiment that gave birth to the United States. Until we regain the idea of collectivism--that we are all in this together--we will remain isolated in our partisan cells.
You can't be "situated" unless you are part of something greater than your home, your family, your community, your networks. The more we lose the idea of collective cooperation in our government-gone missing now for decades--the less likely "covenants" can make up that slack.
Hasn't this been part of the human condition since time began? It's hardly a novel idea despite a new book on the subject. As I see it, the problem with our lack of "situatedness" is politics, pure and simple. The nastier they get, the less folks communicate, and the angrier they stay in their enclaves.
If you fix national politics, and raise the value of cooperation and compromise instead of partisan warfare, these problems of human alienation will take care of themselves. In prior decades, we all felt "American" and part of the grand experiment that gave birth to the United States. Until we regain the idea of collectivism--that we are all in this together--we will remain isolated in our partisan cells.
You can't be "situated" unless you are part of something greater than your home, your family, your community, your networks. The more we lose the idea of collective cooperation in our government-gone missing now for decades--the less likely "covenants" can make up that slack.
6
"We’re not going to roll back the four big forces coursing through modern societies..."
"All of these forces...have been bad for national cohesion and the social fabric."
What you've got here are mutually opposing ideas.
The "angry voters" everyone hears about are saying, who says you can't roll back, or at least revise, the four big forces?
And the answer is, no one. But those at the top of the heap benefit from the forces and don't really care about the impact.
People ask, quite reasonably, why the forces cannot be addressed and revised.
The answer is, they can. But when those at the top of the heap pretend they can't, that's when you get a Trump.
Forget the idea that these forces can't be addressed. Ask instead what we can do to control and address them in a responsible, ethical manner.
"All of these forces...have been bad for national cohesion and the social fabric."
What you've got here are mutually opposing ideas.
The "angry voters" everyone hears about are saying, who says you can't roll back, or at least revise, the four big forces?
And the answer is, no one. But those at the top of the heap benefit from the forces and don't really care about the impact.
People ask, quite reasonably, why the forces cannot be addressed and revised.
The answer is, they can. But when those at the top of the heap pretend they can't, that's when you get a Trump.
Forget the idea that these forces can't be addressed. Ask instead what we can do to control and address them in a responsible, ethical manner.
19
Exactly. Change may be good but fast and radical change can be deadly. The golden mean has been lost to unbridled greed.
Patriotism is a difficult thing to define and maintain. If it's "love of country," it's an emotion, because that's what "love" is. It's an oddly formed word—"-ism" is usually a suffix for intellectual constructs and systems of thought.
But even my laptop's dictionary defines "patriot" as "a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors." As much as I like Cory Booker's definition, which evokes for me my mother's patriotism, the word has been taken over by a defensive posture. Or worse: patriotism has been hijacked by the white supremacists who want take "their" country back.
I'm probably the only person I know who would define herself as a liberal (or progressive or leftist or socialist) and also want to claim the label "patriotic"—again I'd evoke my mother, born in the early years of the Great Depression and a lifelong Democrat who often volunteered in the campaigns of local politicians. She believed that voting was the fundamental act of patriotism. Therefore, to me voter suppression is unpatriotic.
My mother died in early 2001. As much as I miss her, I'm often glad she didn't have to witness 9/11, the Bush regime, the rise of the hateful Tea Party, or the spectacle of this year's GOP debates and campaign. All heartbreaking for true patriots. The moon landing, the inspirational speeches of FDR and JFK—that kind of shared national life is sadly a thing of the past.
But even my laptop's dictionary defines "patriot" as "a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors." As much as I like Cory Booker's definition, which evokes for me my mother's patriotism, the word has been taken over by a defensive posture. Or worse: patriotism has been hijacked by the white supremacists who want take "their" country back.
I'm probably the only person I know who would define herself as a liberal (or progressive or leftist or socialist) and also want to claim the label "patriotic"—again I'd evoke my mother, born in the early years of the Great Depression and a lifelong Democrat who often volunteered in the campaigns of local politicians. She believed that voting was the fundamental act of patriotism. Therefore, to me voter suppression is unpatriotic.
My mother died in early 2001. As much as I miss her, I'm often glad she didn't have to witness 9/11, the Bush regime, the rise of the hateful Tea Party, or the spectacle of this year's GOP debates and campaign. All heartbreaking for true patriots. The moon landing, the inspirational speeches of FDR and JFK—that kind of shared national life is sadly a thing of the past.
37
Ever since the emergence of settled community life and the dawn of civilisation not only the individual'sidentity markers have kept changing but under the impact of complex social dynamics the meaning and nature of social universe, political community and cultural mores too have undergone profound transformation. The closed community life, rigid moral code of conduct, and observance of loyalty to the hierarchically defined authority structures and symbols that had characterised the nature and functioning of the premodern primitive society can't be the relevant parameters to define and understand the modern globalised society. Under such transformation of the geographically limited little primitive village into the widely connected and informed global village where the individual is empowered to have free choice and enjoy multiple overlapping and fluid identities, the traditional notions of social cohesion, cultural affiliations, and national or similar other parochial community ties no longer appear relevant and valid. As to the paradox of the technology driven individual empowerment and its equal sense of inefficacy and helplessness, far from being a sign of despair, it's rather symptomatic of the transition pointing to the struggle of an individual to come to terms with this epoch defining reality of complex change.
15
A lovely flag-waving essay on the last refuge of scoundrels, Lord Brooks.
As George Bernard Shaw said "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it."
Or as Mark Twain said, a "patriot is the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about."
Thomas Jefferson said that 'a well-informed electorate is a prerequisite to democracy'...and yet the Grand Old Patriots have made a criminal living as the Party of Stupid, systematically dumbing down and scaring White America and making a holy covenant with disinformation and fear-mongering under a waving American flag.
It's actually a very scientific strategy.
"Researchers at University College London reviewing MRI scans found that self-described conservative students had a larger amygdala than liberals.
The amygdala is an almond-shaped structure in the brain that is active during states of fear and anxiety.
Liberals had more gray matter in the anterior cingulate cortex, a part of the brain that helps people cope with complexity.
Liberal brains are generally more intellectual and conservative brains are more anti-intellectual.
'Conservativism' is big on national defense and magnifies our perception of threat, whether of foreign aggressors, immigrants, terrorists, or invading ideologies."
https://goo.gl/7zPC2z
The Republican covenant with activating the nation's amygdala for personal profit has made America a fearful 'free-dumb'-loving idiot.
As George Bernard Shaw said "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it."
Or as Mark Twain said, a "patriot is the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about."
Thomas Jefferson said that 'a well-informed electorate is a prerequisite to democracy'...and yet the Grand Old Patriots have made a criminal living as the Party of Stupid, systematically dumbing down and scaring White America and making a holy covenant with disinformation and fear-mongering under a waving American flag.
It's actually a very scientific strategy.
"Researchers at University College London reviewing MRI scans found that self-described conservative students had a larger amygdala than liberals.
The amygdala is an almond-shaped structure in the brain that is active during states of fear and anxiety.
Liberals had more gray matter in the anterior cingulate cortex, a part of the brain that helps people cope with complexity.
Liberal brains are generally more intellectual and conservative brains are more anti-intellectual.
'Conservativism' is big on national defense and magnifies our perception of threat, whether of foreign aggressors, immigrants, terrorists, or invading ideologies."
https://goo.gl/7zPC2z
The Republican covenant with activating the nation's amygdala for personal profit has made America a fearful 'free-dumb'-loving idiot.
346
Ah yes, Socrates, neurophysiology is indeed a cruel mistress.
2
I doff my hat to downtown Verona NJ.
Well said.
Well said.
2
Socrates: To your list of those with an over-active amygdala you may add sociopaths (aka psychopaths).
It will surprise no one to learn that the Republican Party has much in common with sociopathology, a psychological malady characterized by a profound lack of conscience or empathy--a cornerstone of Republican orthodoxy if I ever saw one.
Further, you may add Bob Dylan's lyrics to the lyrical section of your lovely and incisive comment:
"They say that patriotism is the last refuge
To which a scoundrel clings
Steal a little and they throw you in jail
Steal a lot and they make you king"
It will surprise no one to learn that the Republican Party has much in common with sociopathology, a psychological malady characterized by a profound lack of conscience or empathy--a cornerstone of Republican orthodoxy if I ever saw one.
Further, you may add Bob Dylan's lyrics to the lyrical section of your lovely and incisive comment:
"They say that patriotism is the last refuge
To which a scoundrel clings
Steal a little and they throw you in jail
Steal a lot and they make you king"
2
David, the tension we experience today is as old as this nation itself - a tension between liberty and Union.
The Republican Party has enthusiastically embraced the ideal of liberty - an adolescent, narcissistic liberty, if you ask me - but appears to have utterly abandoned a common-sense conception of Union.
But can a nation long endure once it abandons an ideal of Union?
David, you speak of covenants. There can be no more sacred covenant than the explicit agreement to leverage the immense power of the nation state to secure and protect the collective good. Ever since the end of WWII, this is the great covenant that nation states across the planet have eagerly embraced - through establishment of national health care systems, robust safety nets, and the kind of common sense rules that are deemed necessary to prevent the liberty of the few from becoming a tyranny experienced by many.
Yet, here in America, we have traveled a radically different course. We embraced a gospel of creative destruction and narcissistic liberty, and sought to discredit the ideal of government itself.
We demolished the once great manufacturing base that allowed America to liberate Europe, defeat communism, and provide jobs for every citizen who sincerely wanted to work - while simultaneously decimating the meager safety net that existed through seeding of a politics of envy, resentment, and derision.
David, these chickens are now coming home to roost via the Trump and Cruz campaigns.
The Republican Party has enthusiastically embraced the ideal of liberty - an adolescent, narcissistic liberty, if you ask me - but appears to have utterly abandoned a common-sense conception of Union.
But can a nation long endure once it abandons an ideal of Union?
David, you speak of covenants. There can be no more sacred covenant than the explicit agreement to leverage the immense power of the nation state to secure and protect the collective good. Ever since the end of WWII, this is the great covenant that nation states across the planet have eagerly embraced - through establishment of national health care systems, robust safety nets, and the kind of common sense rules that are deemed necessary to prevent the liberty of the few from becoming a tyranny experienced by many.
Yet, here in America, we have traveled a radically different course. We embraced a gospel of creative destruction and narcissistic liberty, and sought to discredit the ideal of government itself.
We demolished the once great manufacturing base that allowed America to liberate Europe, defeat communism, and provide jobs for every citizen who sincerely wanted to work - while simultaneously decimating the meager safety net that existed through seeding of a politics of envy, resentment, and derision.
David, these chickens are now coming home to roost via the Trump and Cruz campaigns.
182
Well put. When I was unemployed for 9 months in 2014-- after a lifetime of working, paying taxes, volunteering-- it quite literally took my breath away that Congress reduced unemployment benefits to 6 months from the still necessary 12 months, given the shape of the economy. the same congress BTW who allowed the banksters to pay out tax-payer funded bonus to the upper crust, after they destroyed the economy which led to persistent high unemployment that justified long-term benefits. A pox on them all..
3
Republicans have been very good at confusing the ideals of "freedom" and "liberty".
Freedom to them seems to mean the ability to do anything they want to any one else or any other segment of society as long there is profit or self-aggrandizement at the end of it.
Liberty is what our ancestors fought against the king to achieve. Our Nation, it seems to me, was founded on Liberty, which by its nature constricts freedom to some extent.
Freedom to them seems to mean the ability to do anything they want to any one else or any other segment of society as long there is profit or self-aggrandizement at the end of it.
Liberty is what our ancestors fought against the king to achieve. Our Nation, it seems to me, was founded on Liberty, which by its nature constricts freedom to some extent.
Love of country does not necessarily mean love for thy neighbor. Unbridled patriotism has oftentimes morphed into rabid nationalism, as we are witnessing with the rise of a certain someone who claims that he will make us "great' again.
Most people on this planet descend from a small group of humans who migrated out of what we now call Africa many thousands of years ago.
Scientists have located a common ancestor: a mitochondrial Eve, the mother of the vast majority of us.
Scientists have also recently published research claiming the effects of man made global climate change are speeding-up, with the rise in sea levels increasing at a faster rate than previously predicted.
We need to get serious about our common future posthaste, and stop electing politicians who deny science, as everything else is mere commentary on the human condition, and will change nothing.
Most people on this planet descend from a small group of humans who migrated out of what we now call Africa many thousands of years ago.
Scientists have located a common ancestor: a mitochondrial Eve, the mother of the vast majority of us.
Scientists have also recently published research claiming the effects of man made global climate change are speeding-up, with the rise in sea levels increasing at a faster rate than previously predicted.
We need to get serious about our common future posthaste, and stop electing politicians who deny science, as everything else is mere commentary on the human condition, and will change nothing.
116
David illuminates the conservative conundrum: we argue that as Americans we inherit a regard for the individual, standing alone and empowered with rights in the face of collectives ready to surrender those rights to what they perceive to be the greater good for the greater number. When this ideological mindset holds sway excessively, we have people who want open-carry of guns in bars and schools, and Pope Francis’s plaint that the world is consumed in excessive pursuit of money. If we fight excessively for the individual, we lose America because America is a collective, not one man or woman.
But he also illuminates the liberal conundrum: when excessive attention is given to the perceptions of elites regarding what is best for the collective, regardless of the cost to the individual, we lose an essential spark. In America it’s rarely society that invents the better mousetrap or the Apple graphical user interface, it’s individuals, empowered by all those rights and incentivized by traditions that reward accomplishment in ways that aren’t attenuated through taxation to meaningless tokens.
He writes of the importance of covenants in building societies, which is a balance-seeking exercise: we grow as a people with every interdependency we build among ourselves, knowing that each interdependency places demands on individuality. But the real message needs to be balance generally: neither conservatives nor liberals will inherit the Earth, but moderates willing to compromise.
But he also illuminates the liberal conundrum: when excessive attention is given to the perceptions of elites regarding what is best for the collective, regardless of the cost to the individual, we lose an essential spark. In America it’s rarely society that invents the better mousetrap or the Apple graphical user interface, it’s individuals, empowered by all those rights and incentivized by traditions that reward accomplishment in ways that aren’t attenuated through taxation to meaningless tokens.
He writes of the importance of covenants in building societies, which is a balance-seeking exercise: we grow as a people with every interdependency we build among ourselves, knowing that each interdependency places demands on individuality. But the real message needs to be balance generally: neither conservatives nor liberals will inherit the Earth, but moderates willing to compromise.
15
Yes, indeed. Except Republicans, and conservatives in general, have rarely evidenced a desire to compromise.
A case in point being a recent documentary on CNN highlighting a number of presidential campaigns in American history.
In 1948, Truman beat Dewey in part by running against a "do-nothing" Republican controlled Congress, dominated by reactionary politicians ready to roll-back the New Deal.
Plus ca change, plus la meme chose.
A case in point being a recent documentary on CNN highlighting a number of presidential campaigns in American history.
In 1948, Truman beat Dewey in part by running against a "do-nothing" Republican controlled Congress, dominated by reactionary politicians ready to roll-back the New Deal.
Plus ca change, plus la meme chose.
83
Kevin:
You don't know what you're talking about. BOTH Republicans and Democrats were able to talk to one another, drink with one another, work with one another productively, until relatively recently. Then we began electing leaders on BOTH sides who not only disagree on very basic matters but can't stand being in one another's company.
For every Mitch McConnell there's a Harry Reid, for every Mike Lee there's a Nancy Pelosi.
The definition of "compromise" isn't caving to what YOU regard as reasonable.
You don't know what you're talking about. BOTH Republicans and Democrats were able to talk to one another, drink with one another, work with one another productively, until relatively recently. Then we began electing leaders on BOTH sides who not only disagree on very basic matters but can't stand being in one another's company.
For every Mitch McConnell there's a Harry Reid, for every Mike Lee there's a Nancy Pelosi.
The definition of "compromise" isn't caving to what YOU regard as reasonable.
5
Yes, Richard. I don't know what I am talking about. The past 7 plus years have all been a dream.
Seriously? The day you make a comment that does not contain disinformation will truly be the day of judgment for us all.
Seriously? The day you make a comment that does not contain disinformation will truly be the day of judgment for us all.
77
This is a very limited view of a social covenant. In Camus' Renegade the covenant is based on a very different concept of survival of the fittest. In our society the covenant is based on narcissism and self gratification. You have described a different hypothetical social covenant based on love of country. This applies to the United States of World War II alone as far as I know.
14
When you think about "it," Mr. Brooks, income and wealth inequality don't seem to fire your neurons. But government policy, in the U.S. and in many other parts of the world, exacerbate this.
Speaking of covenants, democracy seems to be one you supposedly are fond of, at least occasionally. You certainly like the idea of selling it, if not compelling it, forcefully, beyond our shores.
Well, how about speaking about that essential covenant, the social contract embodied in voting? How about speaking up about voter suppression? Wisconsin Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner seems to be able to do it, even in the pages of the NYT. I think you could manage to say something about this covenant as well, without losing too many cocktail party invitations, or guest speaker honorariums.
If you want to attack the culture of autonomy, I can't think of a better way than to relight people's sense of common purpose and agency: restoring the covenant of the vote. Let's at least start here in the U.S. by example. Maybe other peoples around the world will see that this is a good idea, and want it for themselves, rather than us trying to shove it down their throats.
Speaking of covenants, democracy seems to be one you supposedly are fond of, at least occasionally. You certainly like the idea of selling it, if not compelling it, forcefully, beyond our shores.
Well, how about speaking about that essential covenant, the social contract embodied in voting? How about speaking up about voter suppression? Wisconsin Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner seems to be able to do it, even in the pages of the NYT. I think you could manage to say something about this covenant as well, without losing too many cocktail party invitations, or guest speaker honorariums.
If you want to attack the culture of autonomy, I can't think of a better way than to relight people's sense of common purpose and agency: restoring the covenant of the vote. Let's at least start here in the U.S. by example. Maybe other peoples around the world will see that this is a good idea, and want it for themselves, rather than us trying to shove it down their throats.
93
I don't think you can get there from here. Southern power remembers its loss in the Civil War and is going to continue to set up roadblocks until unforeseen developments end that. Theoretical morality or ideology are games without skin. Only narrower covenants will continue, often at odds with each other. Mr. Brooks is a good covenant man, here one voice among many. I feel better when I don't take him at face value.
And the Kochs et al will stop polluting,
And Wall Streeters cease dissoluting,
Blacks will get and expect
The proper respect,
Landlords will no longer be looting!
David Brooks will apologize
For fomenting GOP lies,
His columns will range
Over how Climate Change
Is no hoax, can cause our demise.
And Wall Streeters cease dissoluting,
Blacks will get and expect
The proper respect,
Landlords will no longer be looting!
David Brooks will apologize
For fomenting GOP lies,
His columns will range
Over how Climate Change
Is no hoax, can cause our demise.
190
@Eisenberg
Here is a challenge for you, regarding the Kochs.
How about instead of screaming about "polluting", you whip out a calculator and perform the following math problem.
First, take ALL American electrical grids off of coal production. I smile in Cambridge when I see the Chevrolet Volts charging their batteries on electricity produced with coal.
Second, punch up the cost of converting all northern cities oil burners to solar. I am not sure the cost, but let's split the difference and call it a modest $10,000 per home.
Third, do the same exercise for the rest of the country using natural gas converter kits.
Fourth, take motorcycles away from each developing country family (three to a bike) who relies on fossil fuels for their means of transportation.
Fifth, do it all without nuclear power. Nuclear power is dangerous.
Finally, total up all of the columns, tell me the year it is completed, and let me know if Antarctica is still melting.
If it is, which is a distinct possibility, calculate the cost of this thought experiment on the world.
And let me know the chance we get that far when each country, but particularly the United States, needs to sustain decades of lower growth leading to higher unemployment and social cost.
You write science fiction, but your solution has never really tallied the conversion costs.
Try to make "climate" more than a neat punch-line thrown out from Greenwich Village or TriBeCa.
How many elections have the Kochs interrupted?
Here is a challenge for you, regarding the Kochs.
How about instead of screaming about "polluting", you whip out a calculator and perform the following math problem.
First, take ALL American electrical grids off of coal production. I smile in Cambridge when I see the Chevrolet Volts charging their batteries on electricity produced with coal.
Second, punch up the cost of converting all northern cities oil burners to solar. I am not sure the cost, but let's split the difference and call it a modest $10,000 per home.
Third, do the same exercise for the rest of the country using natural gas converter kits.
Fourth, take motorcycles away from each developing country family (three to a bike) who relies on fossil fuels for their means of transportation.
Fifth, do it all without nuclear power. Nuclear power is dangerous.
Finally, total up all of the columns, tell me the year it is completed, and let me know if Antarctica is still melting.
If it is, which is a distinct possibility, calculate the cost of this thought experiment on the world.
And let me know the chance we get that far when each country, but particularly the United States, needs to sustain decades of lower growth leading to higher unemployment and social cost.
You write science fiction, but your solution has never really tallied the conversion costs.
Try to make "climate" more than a neat punch-line thrown out from Greenwich Village or TriBeCa.
How many elections have the Kochs interrupted?
3
Likely story, right, not in our lifetime.
@Stuart: I hope you enjoy moving inland as Boston will be under water at the rate we are going and economic growth will be the least of your worries.
Your "solution" appears to be to do nothing.
Your "solution" appears to be to do nothing.
4
"Global migration is leading to demographic diversity."
Global migration is not new. It is not even at a peak. The US was populated by huge migrations, just as one example, and recently too as such things are measured.
"Economic globalization is creating wider opportunity but also inequality."
Inequality on a global basis is not up. It is up in the US. It is down in Europe. It is as abusive as always in most other places. That is not an excuse or even an explanation for inequality in the US. That is explained purely and simply by the political choices driven by wealthy donor politics in the US, as tax laws, safety net issues, and infrastructure stasis.
"they have been bad for national cohesion and the social fabric"
The social fabric is much the same as always in most of the world, and actually better in many places. It is fraying in the US. That is because the social obligations of government are denied and rolled back by right wing political forces in both parties. The US has drifted into a right wing dystopia. It isn't inevitable from the same forces that do not do the same thing anywhere else. It is our broken, purchased politics and those who make excuses for it, like the excuses in this article.
Brooks' idea of a "rich social fabric" is more boot straps excuse for cutting lose those the selfish rich call "takers" even as they take from them everything they can figure how to take.
Global migration is not new. It is not even at a peak. The US was populated by huge migrations, just as one example, and recently too as such things are measured.
"Economic globalization is creating wider opportunity but also inequality."
Inequality on a global basis is not up. It is up in the US. It is down in Europe. It is as abusive as always in most other places. That is not an excuse or even an explanation for inequality in the US. That is explained purely and simply by the political choices driven by wealthy donor politics in the US, as tax laws, safety net issues, and infrastructure stasis.
"they have been bad for national cohesion and the social fabric"
The social fabric is much the same as always in most of the world, and actually better in many places. It is fraying in the US. That is because the social obligations of government are denied and rolled back by right wing political forces in both parties. The US has drifted into a right wing dystopia. It isn't inevitable from the same forces that do not do the same thing anywhere else. It is our broken, purchased politics and those who make excuses for it, like the excuses in this article.
Brooks' idea of a "rich social fabric" is more boot straps excuse for cutting lose those the selfish rich call "takers" even as they take from them everything they can figure how to take.
323
@Thomason
Everyone is a "taker". Some just choose to work for, or support, a government doing the taking because they believe it gives their wish-list more control over decisions.
But everyone wants to take from others. Your piety is unconvincing that you are any different.
Everyone is a "taker". Some just choose to work for, or support, a government doing the taking because they believe it gives their wish-list more control over decisions.
But everyone wants to take from others. Your piety is unconvincing that you are any different.
2
Only thing you left out was the justification for destroying the middle class by saying that the tax policies must reward the "job creators", which I take to mean workers deserve nothing and should be happy that they get anything.
3
"Global migration is not new. It is not even at a peak."
This is only partially true. Yes, global migration has been going on for a long time, it kicked into high gear with the Europeans in the 17th century, and has stayed in high gear since that time.
But numerically today's global migrations humble what went on in the past. Yes, we had waves of Germans, Irish, and Italians crash onto the shores of North and South America, but today, because of extreme population pressures, we have countless millions of Asians, Africans and Latin Americans fleeing to regions where population pressure isn't as intense.
This is on a scale that is dramatically higher than in the past, and most recognize it is still only the beginning, things are going to get much, much worse over time.
This is only partially true. Yes, global migration has been going on for a long time, it kicked into high gear with the Europeans in the 17th century, and has stayed in high gear since that time.
But numerically today's global migrations humble what went on in the past. Yes, we had waves of Germans, Irish, and Italians crash onto the shores of North and South America, but today, because of extreme population pressures, we have countless millions of Asians, Africans and Latin Americans fleeing to regions where population pressure isn't as intense.
This is on a scale that is dramatically higher than in the past, and most recognize it is still only the beginning, things are going to get much, much worse over time.
Capitalism's creative destruction must challenge community cohesion and settled social bonds. If people need a rich social fabric for a strong identity, a central part of this social fabric and this identity must be a source of income, a job. A shortage of jobs means that people must compete with each other for the place in society that a job gives, and those who lose this competition are unneeded, unwanted, and a burden to the rest of us. A shortage of good jobs, the sorts that satisfy the soul, also means that people must compete for this part of the social fabric, and those who lose are not going to get that sort of satisfaction, and their social fabric is liable to be weak and shabby.
When the social fabric does not include threads of taking care of everyone and finding something for them to do, as ours does not, it is already weakened and tattered. These threads are basic and nothing can replace them, and they exist at work.
In this country we want a social fabric that is strong without being suffocating. This means that our social fabric must include transparency and fairness. Capitalism relies on selling and marketing and advertising, which is rarely transparent, and takes as fair whatever can be gotten away with, including downsizing and such.
Our economic system shreds our social fabric, and the fabric will not be restored or restorable until the incentives and behavior of our economic system are forced to change -- mainly by governments.
When the social fabric does not include threads of taking care of everyone and finding something for them to do, as ours does not, it is already weakened and tattered. These threads are basic and nothing can replace them, and they exist at work.
In this country we want a social fabric that is strong without being suffocating. This means that our social fabric must include transparency and fairness. Capitalism relies on selling and marketing and advertising, which is rarely transparent, and takes as fair whatever can be gotten away with, including downsizing and such.
Our economic system shreds our social fabric, and the fabric will not be restored or restorable until the incentives and behavior of our economic system are forced to change -- mainly by governments.
124
@sdavidc9
If you could convincingly show me how making compassion the responsibility of government, and not people themselves, I would become a Democrat and Progressive.
Making government the source and arbiter of compassion does nothing to stand up human responsibility for that critical function. Nothing.
If you could convincingly show me how making compassion the responsibility of government, and not people themselves, I would become a Democrat and Progressive.
Making government the source and arbiter of compassion does nothing to stand up human responsibility for that critical function. Nothing.
1
@Stuart, have you ever travelled to any European countries?
There is a whole world full of societies, with different visions of how government relates to the individual, and you can see firsthand, what the result of those visions are.
The American progressives I know, aren't even looking for all that much. Guarantee of healthcare regardless of life circumstances, a voice in government, accountability and efficiency in government, keeping the excesses of capitalism in check.
There is a whole world full of societies, with different visions of how government relates to the individual, and you can see firsthand, what the result of those visions are.
The American progressives I know, aren't even looking for all that much. Guarantee of healthcare regardless of life circumstances, a voice in government, accountability and efficiency in government, keeping the excesses of capitalism in check.
5
Compassionate people visit their friends and relatives who are hospitalized. A compassionate government pays the medical bills without putting the patient through the dread of wondering how the bills will be paid (second mortgage, bankruptcy, etc.). Our responsibility is to get and keep such a government capable of being a main and adequate vehicle for our compassion. It is the responsibility of people to create a compassionate government, compassionate charities, and individual compassionate behavior.
Other prosperous countries make government the primary location of their compassion, at least with respect to money.
Other prosperous countries make government the primary location of their compassion, at least with respect to money.
2
David, one can make a strong case that the fragmenting and fractionalizing of America --"the leader of the free world"--is experiencing is a rending of our social fabric that has occurred as the relatively modern result of our national political life. Writ large in the winner-take -all economic and social darwinism espoused in the name of individual freedom by the Republican party, the notion of communitarian goals achieved by our national government working for the well-being of all is entirely lost in our national political life. We set a horrible example as the leader of the free world. Used to be that in post-WW2 America, the loyal opposition worked in concert within the federal government for the public welfare and in the name of social progress. When our leaders lack that sense of patriotism you reference, when they verbally attack the very government they were elected to serve, national cynicism becomes the ugly virus that erodes the very civitas that you reference. --
227
James,
As much as I agree as a committed Darwinist I take umbrage at the use of Social Darwinism.
Social intelligent design might be the phrase you are looking for. Intelligent design is a crock as the future is an unknown. Darwinism says the future will determine what characteristics will be of advantage.
Intelligent design over the last 40 years is what brought us to this sorry state while the rest of the Western Democracies do their best to educate and provide healthcare for all we take care of our select few.
Th future will not be kind because Darwin was correct.
As much as I agree as a committed Darwinist I take umbrage at the use of Social Darwinism.
Social intelligent design might be the phrase you are looking for. Intelligent design is a crock as the future is an unknown. Darwinism says the future will determine what characteristics will be of advantage.
Intelligent design over the last 40 years is what brought us to this sorry state while the rest of the Western Democracies do their best to educate and provide healthcare for all we take care of our select few.
Th future will not be kind because Darwin was correct.
3
I collect quotations, I'm getting very close to having 125,000 of them at qotd.org. I am of the opinion that those snippets of thought which various people have identified as worthy of being clipped out and saved represent a distillation of the wisdom of the ages.
When I look at quotes on individuality, it seems that most voices are in favor of it. When I look at quotes on patriotism, the reverse is clearly the case. My own definition of patriotism is a value system in which the trump value is nationality, with too many people choosing Chevies and Fords because they are "American" instead of because they are good cars. That isn't efficacy, it's a mental problem.
I think you're on the wrong track here.
When I look at quotes on individuality, it seems that most voices are in favor of it. When I look at quotes on patriotism, the reverse is clearly the case. My own definition of patriotism is a value system in which the trump value is nationality, with too many people choosing Chevies and Fords because they are "American" instead of because they are good cars. That isn't efficacy, it's a mental problem.
I think you're on the wrong track here.
28
"the social fabric will be repaired by...leaders...telling a story that includes old themes. That we're a universal nation."
Ah, Mr. Brooks, who on the Right (and that includes you) has listened to our president for the past seven-plus years? Do you recall Senator Barack Obama's magnificent address on race at (of all places) Philadelphia, on March 18, 2008? Did he not say, in essence, that "we're a universal nation"? Did he not speak of America's past and present "national fragmentation?" Did he not "play upon...mystic chords of memory and use the Declaration of Independence as a unifying scripture and guide"? Did his wisdom and vision translate, ten months later, into a determined Congressional outreach to work with the nation's newly-elected president? You tell me.
Today you write of the "liberated individual" and "strong identities" and "a rich social fabric." These paeans to idyllic life, Mr. Brooks, exist in people's imaginations only. Your party, today,i features two individuals who are as removed from Lincoln's sense of national unity as night is from day.
American citizens struggle to vote because of the "your papers, please" movement in states North and South. Young people despair of becoming "well-educated individuals" because GOP lawmakers at every level lust to privatize education. Where is the "healthy cultural infrastructure that provides us with values and goals"?
Your nonsense was easy to take apart, much like the GOP has taken apart this country.
Ah, Mr. Brooks, who on the Right (and that includes you) has listened to our president for the past seven-plus years? Do you recall Senator Barack Obama's magnificent address on race at (of all places) Philadelphia, on March 18, 2008? Did he not say, in essence, that "we're a universal nation"? Did he not speak of America's past and present "national fragmentation?" Did he not "play upon...mystic chords of memory and use the Declaration of Independence as a unifying scripture and guide"? Did his wisdom and vision translate, ten months later, into a determined Congressional outreach to work with the nation's newly-elected president? You tell me.
Today you write of the "liberated individual" and "strong identities" and "a rich social fabric." These paeans to idyllic life, Mr. Brooks, exist in people's imaginations only. Your party, today,i features two individuals who are as removed from Lincoln's sense of national unity as night is from day.
American citizens struggle to vote because of the "your papers, please" movement in states North and South. Young people despair of becoming "well-educated individuals" because GOP lawmakers at every level lust to privatize education. Where is the "healthy cultural infrastructure that provides us with values and goals"?
Your nonsense was easy to take apart, much like the GOP has taken apart this country.
547
Well, the lust to private extends to a wealth of Democrats, too. Example: Andy Cuomo.
Yes, soxared040713, Here is what a real leader sounds like. John F. Kennedy and President Obama have similar ideas on what democracy should be. This is what progressives, liberals and those who want true democracy believe democracy means. Please take sixteen minutes to watch President Kennedy's inaugural speech and see what democracy looked like before it was hijacked by the corporate elite.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/BqXIEM9F4024ntFl7SVAjA.aspx
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/BqXIEM9F4024ntFl7SVAjA.aspx
3
Auto correct strikes again. Should read: "The lust to privatize public schools extends to democrats, too, such as Andy Cuomo.
What a load of malarkey. Three hundred million individuals didn’t suddenly decide to rip apart the social fabric.
The wheels came off our experiment with democracy when a small number of conservatives (one percent?) decided that they wanted all the money. Money bought power, and power meant being able to rig the system to their advantage.
Conservative greed sent jobs overseas, stagnated the minimum wage, closed schools and attacked the social safety net. It starved neighborhoods, suppressed voters and gerrymandered partisan hacks into permanent positions of power. It found ways of avoiding taxes that were needed to build and maintain the nation’s infrastructure.
We’re expected to shut up and be polite to our conservative overlords as they starve us of options and economically abandon our cities. They demand social conformity, and use religion as a weapon to demonize gay people, marginalize women and cast suspicion on immigrants. They work tirelessly not to empower the people, but to eliminate rights that we thought we’d won.
Conservatives cultivated a crop of clueless voters, and now they’re reaping the result as voters rally behind a moron who will make conservative Republicans a laughing stock for years to come.
Only when they see their influence wane do conservatives worry about the weakening of the social fabric, and wonder how things could have gone so horribly wrong.
Conservative pundits need only look in the mirror to find the answer.
The wheels came off our experiment with democracy when a small number of conservatives (one percent?) decided that they wanted all the money. Money bought power, and power meant being able to rig the system to their advantage.
Conservative greed sent jobs overseas, stagnated the minimum wage, closed schools and attacked the social safety net. It starved neighborhoods, suppressed voters and gerrymandered partisan hacks into permanent positions of power. It found ways of avoiding taxes that were needed to build and maintain the nation’s infrastructure.
We’re expected to shut up and be polite to our conservative overlords as they starve us of options and economically abandon our cities. They demand social conformity, and use religion as a weapon to demonize gay people, marginalize women and cast suspicion on immigrants. They work tirelessly not to empower the people, but to eliminate rights that we thought we’d won.
Conservatives cultivated a crop of clueless voters, and now they’re reaping the result as voters rally behind a moron who will make conservative Republicans a laughing stock for years to come.
Only when they see their influence wane do conservatives worry about the weakening of the social fabric, and wonder how things could have gone so horribly wrong.
Conservative pundits need only look in the mirror to find the answer.
775
So beautifully said that I copied it all down into a document for myself to read again in the future.
59
There are rich liberals and conservatives, and both want to keep their money.
3
Gemli great comment, I completely agree with most of what you say, but I don't believe greed is just a conservative issue. There is lots of blame to go around as well among the limousine liberals in the garment and movie business. They may be all for gay rights, women's rights etc. but the enormously wealthy clothing manufacturers and designers(Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein, Gap[Donald Fischer], Anne Klein, Donna Karan) were among the first to send manufacturing to Asia that resulted in the loss of millions of good paying factory jobs when the mills in the textile and garment industries closed, the same could be said for the movie moguls who have been extracting tax breaks from States before shooting films there, largely being done in "right to work" locales that have no union representation . Just because this group may espouse liberal social values makes them no less responsible for the inequality destroying our nation, quite the contrary I believe it smacks of hypocrisy to pretend such concern for liberal values while simultaneously taking food out of the mouths of your fellow citizens. Some of these "liberals" should start looking in the mirror as well.
13