How to fix politics? The dismantling or destruction of the Republican Party would be a good start...
53
Stop electing Congressmen every 2 years. They spend all their time raising money and are more influenced by money than voters.
24
A psychologically insightful article, to be sure, and certainly the society, at large - and more specifically - the radicals on the Right, needs to embrace a downsizing of the "do your own thing" mentality. But the article ignores the cynicism that has come along with the culture of corruption in American politics where it is impossible for the public to win. It seems to me, this causes a lot of scapegoating of the other party, and scapegoating is caused by people's sense of powerlessness and frustration in the face of the impossible hurdle of getting the money out of politics.
18
David Brooks continues to give us dozens of binary choices, always suggesting the middle as best for people and society. There is a third way--not the middle between his long list of offered choices--but a third path outside the opposing choices. A third path shaped and influenced by both, but outside and beyond the old forms. A place of innovation and personal growth. Its embrace is also a release: it sets a new path for harmony and real change. It looks out from within.
14
I repeat, term limits for congress and supreme court. I suggest our founding fathers would be shocked and disappointed with the power wielded from professional politicians.
16
Improve politics: Prepare holding cells in Guantanamo for the following individuals: Cruz, Trump, McConnell and Joe Wilson. I guarantee some improvement.
31
Thank you Mr.Brooks for a most insightful article.
True, we've been consumed with politics for too long a time. Worse for the exposure has been our lack of reason and/or solution to the economic injustices derived from greed, or the human tragedies derived from incessant religious wars temporarily confined to the Middle East.
Which brings to mind one problem not cited in the article. Namely, that separation of Church and State no longer seems relevant. We too are leaning heavily toward a lethal mix of Religion and Politics. Politicians bless us whether we want them to or not. And, we see it in our own Supreme Court where more arguments and subsequent decisions concern religious feuds over what is right and what is wrong in extremely private matters of life and living.
A cultural shift from that precarious direction is due. The separation of Church and State was well thought out by the wise preservers of our liberty.
True, we've been consumed with politics for too long a time. Worse for the exposure has been our lack of reason and/or solution to the economic injustices derived from greed, or the human tragedies derived from incessant religious wars temporarily confined to the Middle East.
Which brings to mind one problem not cited in the article. Namely, that separation of Church and State no longer seems relevant. We too are leaning heavily toward a lethal mix of Religion and Politics. Politicians bless us whether we want them to or not. And, we see it in our own Supreme Court where more arguments and subsequent decisions concern religious feuds over what is right and what is wrong in extremely private matters of life and living.
A cultural shift from that precarious direction is due. The separation of Church and State was well thought out by the wise preservers of our liberty.
22
Reminds me of a joke:
A man on a business trip to San Francisco stops into an antique shop and falls in love with a bronze rat. "There's an interesting story behind that piece," says the owner.
"I don't care about the story. How much is it?"
"$125"
"I'll take it," says the businessman.
He walks out of the store with his purchase and begins to notice rats following him. He walks faster and more and more rats begin to follow him. Now he is running toward SF Bay with millions of rats following him.
He runs to the end of a pier and heaves the bronze rat into the bay. Millions of live rats follow it to a watery grave.
He returns to the antique store, where the owner says, "I guess you came back to hear the story."
The man replies, "I still don't care about the story...but tell me, do you have a bronze Republican?"
A man on a business trip to San Francisco stops into an antique shop and falls in love with a bronze rat. "There's an interesting story behind that piece," says the owner.
"I don't care about the story. How much is it?"
"$125"
"I'll take it," says the businessman.
He walks out of the store with his purchase and begins to notice rats following him. He walks faster and more and more rats begin to follow him. Now he is running toward SF Bay with millions of rats following him.
He runs to the end of a pier and heaves the bronze rat into the bay. Millions of live rats follow it to a watery grave.
He returns to the antique store, where the owner says, "I guess you came back to hear the story."
The man replies, "I still don't care about the story...but tell me, do you have a bronze Republican?"
44
Clearly none of the columnists read the comments here. It's pretty simple for most readers: get the money out and return to government-funded elections, period. Thus far, $70 million has been spend just attacking Trump. This is absurd, but if you keep pouring money on something, it will grow.
The GOP needs to drop kick the conservative movement. We sit and wait for the government to solve problems, but the GOP is tied to an organization that doesn't want a government, certainly not the EPA, IRS, Medicare or Social Security. It's absurd to let members of our government take money from a group that has pushed them into a corner. The Norquist pledge, the wholesale use of dirty tricks, pushing red states into poverty, and the absolute obstruction we've had to deal with for almost seven years is destroying the country.
The GOP now does nothing but politics. Mr. Brooks, you need to get a clue. Look at your own party.
The GOP needs to drop kick the conservative movement. We sit and wait for the government to solve problems, but the GOP is tied to an organization that doesn't want a government, certainly not the EPA, IRS, Medicare or Social Security. It's absurd to let members of our government take money from a group that has pushed them into a corner. The Norquist pledge, the wholesale use of dirty tricks, pushing red states into poverty, and the absolute obstruction we've had to deal with for almost seven years is destroying the country.
The GOP now does nothing but politics. Mr. Brooks, you need to get a clue. Look at your own party.
52
This presidential campaign is pure torture at this point.
To change politics, I'd start with improvements to voting. Make voting easier, including automatic voter registration, voting by mail, weekend voting, and so on. And make voting fairer, including getting rid of the gerrymander. These two improvements would ensure greater representation of all voters and a better understanding by elected representatives that they must act on behalf of the general good, not just a party/gerrymandered district. That in turn would likely lead to greater cooperation within legislatures, which would solve a host of other problems.
As part of fairer voting, presidential elections should be decided by the votes cast, not by electors from each state. That way all votes would count, no matter whether a voter lived in a red or blue state. Obviously primaries should be decided via voting, rather than caucuses as well, as caucuses require being present and foster pressure on voters as well as denying them the privacy of a secret ballot.
Campaigns should also be shortened and publicly funded. That would likely draw better candidates and be fairer to all involved.
Short of improving the voting process, everything else is pie in the sky.
To change politics, I'd start with improvements to voting. Make voting easier, including automatic voter registration, voting by mail, weekend voting, and so on. And make voting fairer, including getting rid of the gerrymander. These two improvements would ensure greater representation of all voters and a better understanding by elected representatives that they must act on behalf of the general good, not just a party/gerrymandered district. That in turn would likely lead to greater cooperation within legislatures, which would solve a host of other problems.
As part of fairer voting, presidential elections should be decided by the votes cast, not by electors from each state. That way all votes would count, no matter whether a voter lived in a red or blue state. Obviously primaries should be decided via voting, rather than caucuses as well, as caucuses require being present and foster pressure on voters as well as denying them the privacy of a secret ballot.
Campaigns should also be shortened and publicly funded. That would likely draw better candidates and be fairer to all involved.
Short of improving the voting process, everything else is pie in the sky.
27
Of all the people I know, inner-, middle- and outer-ring, I’m not aware of a single person for whom their political party has become “their ethnicity” or “at the center of their psychological, emotional [or] spiritual life.” If anything, the reverse is true. This analysis just sounds wrong.
13
One thing I've noticed in my metroplex over the past 20+ years is that many self-identified devoutly religious adults who are also members of the top 1-10% economically are now sending their children to private schools instead of the public schools, and often to relatively newly created religious schools. These schools also recruit many of the best athletes from around the public school metro and give them scholarships, and have thus seemingly come out of nowhere to win many if not most of the conference championships in almost every sport. When talking to the parents at games one gets the distinct impression that they are very conservative Republicans and view themselves as better and closer to God than those of us from the public schools. Of course the wealthy have always sent their kids to private schools, but it now seems that they believe they are superior to the great unwashed not only economically, but also in the eyes of God. And in the win column with their ringers, it does indeed seem that Jesus is on their side, and after games, they are always publicly thanking him for this support and favoritism.
31
Why did our last three elected US presidents and US congressmen create all of these "free trade legislation" laws that economically required US businesses to relocate as many US jobs as possible to foreign nations when/if US workers will not work for the same wages that are available in third world nations as allowed and economically required by these Free Trade Agreements, Permanent Normal Trade Relations, and Most Favored Nation trade statuses?
Were our elected presidents and congressmen ignorant, stupid, dishonest, evil, or some combination of these factors?
Then why did our elected US government representatives and presidents create all of those Free Trade Agreements that economically required US businesses to relocate their Manufacturing Jobs to foreign nations?
Were our elected presidents and congressmen ignorant, stupid, dishonest, evil, or some combination of these factors?
Then why did our elected US government representatives and presidents create all of those Free Trade Agreements that economically required US businesses to relocate their Manufacturing Jobs to foreign nations?
6
Do you think that maybe the foreign product manufacturers that export consumer products to the USA might have paid professional US lobbyists to spend hundreds of thousands of US dollars on wine, food, women, song, pre-paid vacations in Spain, cash, pre-paid sexual services, corporate jobs for the (otherwise unemployable) children/wives/girlfriends of enough of the US senators and US congressmen (and their congressional aides who actually control the members of congress) plus campaign contributions to influence/entice (bribe) enough of our Republican and Democratic US presidents, congressmen, and senators for the past 20 years to create all of that "Free Trade Agreement" legislation that allowed, caused, and economically required our businesses to take advantage of the lower labor costs, lower electrical energy costs, lower business taxes, lower payroll taxes to pay for health care costs, lower unemployment insurance costs, lower environmental manufacturing costs and other anti-business costs that are not required in various foreign countries with fewer anti-business laws than are/were applicable to businesses in the USA?
Why else do you think that US government, US presidents, US congressmen, US senators, and their bureaucratic administrators created any these FREE TRADE laws that benefit only a few people (mostly foreign manufacturers & their “Donor Class” CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS) represented by their campaign contributors and lobbyists?
Why else do you think that US government, US presidents, US congressmen, US senators, and their bureaucratic administrators created any these FREE TRADE laws that benefit only a few people (mostly foreign manufacturers & their “Donor Class” CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS) represented by their campaign contributors and lobbyists?
12
As long as David Brooks continues to believe that Republicans are reasonable and responsible people who have America’s best interests at heart he’ll continue to write inane columns such as this one.
54
In "How to Fix Politics" David Brooks' vague generalities were more incoherent than usual. I searched for the single phrase that would best clarify Mr. Brooks most important point and summarize his advice on fixing politics. I finally found this: "If we’re going to salvage our politics, we probably have to shrink politics, and nurture the thick local membership web..." I rest my case.
11
Working class US citizens are very angry at the “Established Mainstream Politicians” who are controlled by their elite “DONOR CLASS” campaign contributors who paid these politicians to create all of the FREE TRADE laws that economically required that our US jobs relocate to foreign nations!
President Clinton could have said, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I created NAFTA and that caused your manufacturing job to relocate to Mexico because you would not agree to work for the same wages that Mexican citizens would work for."
Then President Clinton could have said, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I created PNTR for communist China and this caused your manufacturing jobs to relocate to China because you would not agree to work for the same wages that Chinese citizens would work for."
President Clinton could have said, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I created NAFTA and that caused your manufacturing job to relocate to Mexico because you would not agree to work for the same wages that Mexican citizens would work for."
Then President Clinton could have said, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I created PNTR for communist China and this caused your manufacturing jobs to relocate to China because you would not agree to work for the same wages that Chinese citizens would work for."
8
Hopefully, the coming election will show that "politics" is actually fine, and we are only in the middle of a silly season when too many ill-informed people with not enough to do spend their time venting.
1
David Brooks is right. Ronald Reagan was dead wrong. "Government" is not the problem, Politics (i.e. political partes) is the problem. Yes, let's shrink politics! By taking all the money out of it! Political parties are what should be small enough to drown in the proverbial bathtub. Then we might have a decent chance of a well-run, representative, and STRONG government.
13
As another addicted political election junkie, I believe that the US voters view Hillary Clinton, Paul Ryan, Kasich, Bush, Rubio, Cruz, and Christie are apparently “Established Mainstream Politicians” controlled by their elite “DONOR CLASS” campaign contributors that also vote only as their “DONOR CLASS” campaign contributors direct them!
Maybe US citizens are getting tired of re-electing the same crooked politicians that are controlled financially by the “DONOR CLASS” club members in the USA who pay our elected politicians to hand out US taxpayer money to these elite “DONOR CLASS” club members.
This might explain the success of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump with the US voters!
Maybe US citizens are getting tired of re-electing the same crooked politicians that are controlled financially by the “DONOR CLASS” club members in the USA who pay our elected politicians to hand out US taxpayer money to these elite “DONOR CLASS” club members.
This might explain the success of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump with the US voters!
9
Maslow's theory is not most academic psychologists idea of anything representing psychological science, but two among several recent appraisals are found in: simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
science20.com: search for " Maslow's Hiearachy....."
science20.com: search for " Maslow's Hiearachy....."
2
This is another of Mr. Brooks' increasingly inane columns. Last week, he spun a fantasy about some vast population of moderate Republicans who would band together at the convention to save their party. Today he offers the very helpful solution that the way to "fix politics" is simply to change our culture. That's all we have to do - just change our culture and things will be better.
20
Another 'oh the good old days' are gone and they should come back and we'd all be happy from an ageing man. Things were great for you guys in the 50's, I know. But for women, not so much. I don't want to go back, my daughter surely doesn't want to go back, only old men want to go back there. But guess what, we're never going back there. And that's a good thing.
16
It is odd. I am the product of the individualism which allowed like-minded people to gather; at the time, very few of us belonged in our local communities because we were gay. The identity politics has changed as gay people have gained more acceptance in some parts of society, mostly urban Armerica. Now there is less reason for gay men to gather and huddle together, so they don't as much. Because of technology, we don't have to deal much with differences. We have the ability to interact only with those who believe as we do. That local involvement may be forced upon us as the changing climate forces us to change our ways. Our survival may again depend on our relationships, uneasy as they are, with our neighbors.
2
Mr. David Brooks,
I propose legislation that would make all political campaign contributions illegal, as long as there are absolutely no exceptions.
I propose multiple tax supported TV stations with a free TV channel owned and paid for by the US government for each elective office where each candidate can queue up (or schedule) and then get equal (maybe 15 minutes or more) free TV air time, and then get back into line at the end of the line to do it over again, and again?
Maybe a separate time (or channel) scheduled for each candidate each elective office.
Maybe a separate radio/TV channel for all the presidential office contenders, another for all the US congressional candidates in each state, another for all the US senatorial candidates in each state, another for the state candidates in each region, another for the county candidates in each county, another for the municipal candidates in each city, another for the school board candidates, and etc.
I do not believe that the founders of this great nation could have visualized professional paid lobbyists, or people paid to professionally "petition the government" as we have now.
With enough money, anyone or any citizen, foreigner, corporation, or business could influence (bribe) the US President, enough members of the US congress and the US Senate to create any legislation to do anything that entity wants, such as the “Free Trade Agreements,” CFI Federal “Pay to Play” government contracts, etc.!
I propose legislation that would make all political campaign contributions illegal, as long as there are absolutely no exceptions.
I propose multiple tax supported TV stations with a free TV channel owned and paid for by the US government for each elective office where each candidate can queue up (or schedule) and then get equal (maybe 15 minutes or more) free TV air time, and then get back into line at the end of the line to do it over again, and again?
Maybe a separate time (or channel) scheduled for each candidate each elective office.
Maybe a separate radio/TV channel for all the presidential office contenders, another for all the US congressional candidates in each state, another for all the US senatorial candidates in each state, another for the state candidates in each region, another for the county candidates in each county, another for the municipal candidates in each city, another for the school board candidates, and etc.
I do not believe that the founders of this great nation could have visualized professional paid lobbyists, or people paid to professionally "petition the government" as we have now.
With enough money, anyone or any citizen, foreigner, corporation, or business could influence (bribe) the US President, enough members of the US congress and the US Senate to create any legislation to do anything that entity wants, such as the “Free Trade Agreements,” CFI Federal “Pay to Play” government contracts, etc.!
5
How convenient to blame the decline of our common life and civil society on unintended social changes that began after World War II at the individual level, rather than on deliberate choices for partisan gain. In this nation of immigrants, nearly all of us spring from families that sought individual fulfillment by breaking away from families and communities of origin, and the country was settled, again, by people who left many ties behind. Daniel Boone didn't want to live where he could see the smoke of another man's chimney and made his choices accordingly. It's nothing new.
Cultivating community ties, mutual tolerance, and respect is good in itself, not a means to an end. If better politics grows out of that, it's a bonus, not a justification.
Cultivating community ties, mutual tolerance, and respect is good in itself, not a means to an end. If better politics grows out of that, it's a bonus, not a justification.
6
I work in local government in a small community, and am super involved in those "middle-ring" circles. Personally, I think the relationships at the community level are increasingly poisoned by the nasty tone of politics at the national level. Very few people want to step up to hold local elective office because they will be shouted at and raked over coals at some point. The tea party influence discourages genuine dialogue and problem solving. Disengaging becomes a way to retain some sanity and sense of peace. I agree it's sad. Whether it's at the local level or state or federal, I lay the lion's share of responsibility at the feet of your chosen party.
13
So said Ayn Rand -
America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages, and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way.
America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages, and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way.
1
So much for the era of BIG GOVERNMENT. Well written and said. Everyone needs a 'third place' to go and connect with others. Social media is no substitute. And government was never designed or intended to fill this space in our lives.
Let's talk more about what shrunken politics might be and how to make the needed cultural shift.
Let's talk more about what shrunken politics might be and how to make the needed cultural shift.
Our elected officials are being influenced by "DONOR CLASS" US citizens, foreign governments, foreign citizens and foreign businesses that make cash campaign contributions to politicians only in return for congressional legislative influence and government favors such as Free Trade Agreements, Most Favored Nation trade statuses, Permanent Normal Trade Relations, Environmental Damage Claim Limitations from offshore drilling operations, presidential pardons for convicted felons, military secret Hughes Aircraft Rocket Guidance Technology export license to Communist China (Google "Chinagate"), pork barrel NO-BID contract(s) for infrastructure improvements, gigantic “PAY TO PLAY” Military-Industrial Complex NO-BID military contracts, Solyndra type pay to play US government guaranteed business loans, CGI Federal PAY TO PLAY political power influenced no-bid contract awards, and etc. that are paid out of the public treasury and are not in the best interest of the US citizens at the federal government level!
Some people might define the recent “PAY to Play” contract award and legislative actions of our elected officials of today as criminal bribery and/or high treason.
Some people might define the recent “PAY to Play” contract award and legislative actions of our elected officials of today as criminal bribery and/or high treason.
3
Get the money out is part of it. We also need some way to stop the revolving door of private-sector employment enticements afterward as well, and I have no idea how to accomplish that. Non competes? But we need politicians to want to keep their jobs. Reintroduce accountability to the people, and not the party first and foremost (or, in the case of current Republicans, only).
Your points are valid, but we can only change so much from this side of the fence because we've lost our ability to affect the conduct of our representatives on the other side.
Your points are valid, but we can only change so much from this side of the fence because we've lost our ability to affect the conduct of our representatives on the other side.
3
I wonder what Mr Brooks would have written in this epis. err epic, if the Republican party wasn't in disarray and rather obviously going to lose the upcoming presidential election.
4
The American Revolutionaries who signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776 and then created this great nation were political activists committing criminal acts of high treason.
Those men committed their fortunes and their lives to the creation of the USA. They would have all been hanged by the English Government for Treason if the American Revolution military forces had failed.
Today, only those politicians that accept sufficient campaign contributions in return for political favors and “PAY TO PLAY” no-bid contract awards paid out from the public treasury to their campaign donors can collect enough campaign money in order to buy enough TV advertising can get themselves elected to public office.
Today, politicians are only in the game for their own personal financial gain with bribes and cash in paper sacks in return for their congressional votes and no-bid PAY TO PLAY contracts paid from the taxpayer’s Public Treasury awarded to their political campaign contributors!
The US Government is as corrupt as any third world nation!
Those men committed their fortunes and their lives to the creation of the USA. They would have all been hanged by the English Government for Treason if the American Revolution military forces had failed.
Today, only those politicians that accept sufficient campaign contributions in return for political favors and “PAY TO PLAY” no-bid contract awards paid out from the public treasury to their campaign donors can collect enough campaign money in order to buy enough TV advertising can get themselves elected to public office.
Today, politicians are only in the game for their own personal financial gain with bribes and cash in paper sacks in return for their congressional votes and no-bid PAY TO PLAY contracts paid from the taxpayer’s Public Treasury awarded to their political campaign contributors!
The US Government is as corrupt as any third world nation!
4
Mr. Brooks:
First, didn't Obama already try the elite solution, namely, deliberate and negotiate with Speaker Boehner and subseqeuntly Speaker Ryan? The leadership for both speakers is and was feckless because both of them are are beholden to special interests so what is needed is to reform our political system and end pay for play in both poltical parties.
Second, the me first or what you call the individualistic/autonomy mind-set, didn't occur just after WW II. No, it started when governmenental and business institutions began to blatantly lie to us about the Vietnam War and that their products were safe, (Corvair, Pinto, smoking cigarettes, lead in gasoline, etc.) respectivley. And what was the people's response? To vote in more liars, namely Nixon and Reagan, which only further divided the people from its government and businesses to further lie to its customers and employees by implementing the Powell memo that promulated less regulation.
As to the dimunition of the middle ring could this be that it was always so? We are tribal. Our neighborhoods in the 20s, 30s, 40s were homogenous. Irish lived in Irish neighborhoods and attented Irish Catholic Church for example. In the 60s and 70s neighborhoods had changed in that they were more mixed ethnically but not racially.
I do agree that we need to shrink our presidential cycle and politics but that would require ending $2 billion campaign cycles, which the media and special interests will not tolerate.
First, didn't Obama already try the elite solution, namely, deliberate and negotiate with Speaker Boehner and subseqeuntly Speaker Ryan? The leadership for both speakers is and was feckless because both of them are are beholden to special interests so what is needed is to reform our political system and end pay for play in both poltical parties.
Second, the me first or what you call the individualistic/autonomy mind-set, didn't occur just after WW II. No, it started when governmenental and business institutions began to blatantly lie to us about the Vietnam War and that their products were safe, (Corvair, Pinto, smoking cigarettes, lead in gasoline, etc.) respectivley. And what was the people's response? To vote in more liars, namely Nixon and Reagan, which only further divided the people from its government and businesses to further lie to its customers and employees by implementing the Powell memo that promulated less regulation.
As to the dimunition of the middle ring could this be that it was always so? We are tribal. Our neighborhoods in the 20s, 30s, 40s were homogenous. Irish lived in Irish neighborhoods and attented Irish Catholic Church for example. In the 60s and 70s neighborhoods had changed in that they were more mixed ethnically but not racially.
I do agree that we need to shrink our presidential cycle and politics but that would require ending $2 billion campaign cycles, which the media and special interests will not tolerate.
11
Why do the elite “DONOR CLASS” campaign contributors contribute to people seeking elective offices that control government taxpayer money and make laws that affect their business profits?
Answer: The “DONOR CLASS” club members in the USA pay to elect only those politicians that promise to hand out US taxpayer money to these elite “DONOR CLASS” club members in the form of "PAY TO PLAY" Solyndra and CGI Federal “NO BID” contracts with US taxpayer money given from the US Treasury to these elite “DONOR CLASS” campaign contributors at much greater price that if these contracts were competitively bid, farm subsidies, NO-BID military equipment contracts, etc!
Also they get laws to make their businesses exempt from existing US laws against monopolies, off shore banking, repeal of Glass-Steagall, license for the export of “TOP SECRET” Hughes Aircraft Missile Guidance Military Technology to Communist China (Chinagate), Free Trade Agreements, etc.
Answer: The “DONOR CLASS” club members in the USA pay to elect only those politicians that promise to hand out US taxpayer money to these elite “DONOR CLASS” club members in the form of "PAY TO PLAY" Solyndra and CGI Federal “NO BID” contracts with US taxpayer money given from the US Treasury to these elite “DONOR CLASS” campaign contributors at much greater price that if these contracts were competitively bid, farm subsidies, NO-BID military equipment contracts, etc!
Also they get laws to make their businesses exempt from existing US laws against monopolies, off shore banking, repeal of Glass-Steagall, license for the export of “TOP SECRET” Hughes Aircraft Missile Guidance Military Technology to Communist China (Chinagate), Free Trade Agreements, etc.
3
"People experience their highest joy in helping their neighbors make it through the day." what a nice thing to say David. Did it make you feel all warm and fuzzy?
How can you make these kind of remarks while you champion the system that causes more pain and suffering on the planet than any previously known. the system is competitive capitalism. A system that thrives on making others poor, weak and depressed. A system that as a matter of business engages in criminal activity (the Goldman issue in today's news) that generates more sickness and pain than most wars.
How can you make these kind of remarks while you champion the system that causes more pain and suffering on the planet than any previously known. the system is competitive capitalism. A system that thrives on making others poor, weak and depressed. A system that as a matter of business engages in criminal activity (the Goldman issue in today's news) that generates more sickness and pain than most wars.
6
Barry Goldwater gave conservatives the foundational family values that extremism is no vice and moderation no virtue. Marrying those fine principles to social policies identifying who gets to be real Americans and who gets to be subversives threatening the existence of the Republic provides the blood sport politics of our current political spectrum. Conservative intellectuals like our Mr. Brooks and Ross Douthat can protest all they want over the crudity of political discourse, but refusing to identify the source of the evil will not excuse it or render it harmless.
Democrats invited outcasts from polite society to the table. Conservatives told you who those outcasts were and why they did not deserve to be at the table. A perfectly acceptable jurist is being denied a seat on the Supreme Court because he views Roe V wade as settled law. The conservative position is to give the people a voice in the matter negating the last two elections. The only societal dysfunction I'm seeing is attached to conservatism demanding its way or nothing gets done.
Is identifying the current president as the root of all evil destroying the Republic a convenience of viewpoint and fact or is lauding the efforts of his predecessor a pernicious lens. How will your cultural shift stop democrats from ruining the nation short of owning up to those lies? Who will tell the faithful extremism is a vice, moderation a virtue and their myriad enemies largely imaginary? Democrats?
Democrats invited outcasts from polite society to the table. Conservatives told you who those outcasts were and why they did not deserve to be at the table. A perfectly acceptable jurist is being denied a seat on the Supreme Court because he views Roe V wade as settled law. The conservative position is to give the people a voice in the matter negating the last two elections. The only societal dysfunction I'm seeing is attached to conservatism demanding its way or nothing gets done.
Is identifying the current president as the root of all evil destroying the Republic a convenience of viewpoint and fact or is lauding the efforts of his predecessor a pernicious lens. How will your cultural shift stop democrats from ruining the nation short of owning up to those lies? Who will tell the faithful extremism is a vice, moderation a virtue and their myriad enemies largely imaginary? Democrats?
3
"But it’s increasingly clear that the roots of political dysfunction lie deep in society."
The political dysfunction does NOT lie in society, it lies in special interests having hijacked power.
David, this column is incompetence or dishonesty on your part.
The political dysfunction does NOT lie in society, it lies in special interests having hijacked power.
David, this column is incompetence or dishonesty on your part.
13
Get over it Democrats:
- SC Justice isn't going to happen for good reason, the best one being clear conflict of interest on Obama's part aka "#doyourjob-savemine"
- Gun control isn't happening for good reason, the real problem being mental health
- Abortion lines are drawn at 20 weeks for good reason, most with basic intelligence will never get close
- Bathroom laws are easily lived with by using stalls
- Demanding free contraceptives for women from anyone and everyone is absurd
- A President without Senate majority is a lame duck. Elect lame-ducks at your own peril. Or better still, pass an amendment delegating the selection to the Senate
Now, if you can put all that behind, you put both parties in a fix, because you force them to debate issues that really matter: job-creation, economy, health care, race-relations, infrastructure spending, defense, foreign policy. And by raising the bar, better quality of candidates all around.
But if not, it's equivalent to handing future elections to Republicans on a platter. So stop fuming on useless stuff listed above and get a real fight going for a change.
By the way, Donald Trump, being the smart cookie he is, has already realized the futile nature of most of these "issues", which explains why he'll say whatever it is that people want to hear, _because_they_don't_matter_, the status-quo is here to stay.
"The fault is in them that they are underlings" - Trump campaign manager to Trump, assuring him of victory in November.
- SC Justice isn't going to happen for good reason, the best one being clear conflict of interest on Obama's part aka "#doyourjob-savemine"
- Gun control isn't happening for good reason, the real problem being mental health
- Abortion lines are drawn at 20 weeks for good reason, most with basic intelligence will never get close
- Bathroom laws are easily lived with by using stalls
- Demanding free contraceptives for women from anyone and everyone is absurd
- A President without Senate majority is a lame duck. Elect lame-ducks at your own peril. Or better still, pass an amendment delegating the selection to the Senate
Now, if you can put all that behind, you put both parties in a fix, because you force them to debate issues that really matter: job-creation, economy, health care, race-relations, infrastructure spending, defense, foreign policy. And by raising the bar, better quality of candidates all around.
But if not, it's equivalent to handing future elections to Republicans on a platter. So stop fuming on useless stuff listed above and get a real fight going for a change.
By the way, Donald Trump, being the smart cookie he is, has already realized the futile nature of most of these "issues", which explains why he'll say whatever it is that people want to hear, _because_they_don't_matter_, the status-quo is here to stay.
"The fault is in them that they are underlings" - Trump campaign manager to Trump, assuring him of victory in November.
2
I'm sorry David considers this year's presidential election campaign "depressing." For me, it is the most exhilarating campaign of my not-so-young life (I'm 59). Bernie Sanders is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate. I am enjoying tremendously seeing millions of my fellow citizens supporting his fight to transform this country.
4
I still believe that people are happier when they are able to "live as they chose, so long as they didn't interfere with the rights of others." I think this used to be called 'liberty'. Large institutions, particularly large corporations and 'large-money' individuals, do have excessive power, and use it to enhance their own interests at the expense of the overall social good. Once, "politics" enabled countervailing interests to preserve the illusion of equality in access to government, in equality of opportunity for influence, if not results. That illusion has largely faded. Large institutions, be they wealthy corporations or wealthy individuals do have excessive leverage over the government that controls our society. These large institutions have used their access and leverage to systematically increase their control and wealth, while further restricting individual liberty and access to our governing institutions. Witness the restrictions on individual's access to the courts, requiring arbitration instead. Witness systematic efforts to increase barriers to unionization. Witness weakening existing unions through "right-to-work" laws and the attempt to destroy union 'agency shop' fees. Witness the spread of "voter fraud prevention" laws that really restrict voter access to those most beholden to the party that supports the big-money interests. "Politics" needs to be the solution to this, the equalizer, not a watered-down acceptance of the purchase by wealth of our governance.
1
Want to fix politics?
Shrink and then wrap it in plastic, seal with wide, transparent tape, put it the china cupboard and forget about it until the kids ask what is that grandma?
You note a change was brought about after WW2 where we as individuals wanted to break free, but you know from the very beginning those who were driven from their homes in turn settled our nation and likely had no qualms about driving others from their homes.
Things work or they don't and we have been at this game long enough to know what goes and what doesn't. I accept that most every person in our world society wants the best life has to offer, but reason also tells me this is not likely to occur until we rethink or possibly begin to think of ourselves as equals who confront and solve very similar problems. There is enough of everything to go around.
The constant back and forth between our politicians indicates just how far we as a people have to go in order to address even simple social problems. the hope is once the solutions are recognized they, like life saving vaccines, will be immediately incorporated.
With exception of the Judicial branch, government is essentially cut and dried. The need for cooperative legislative and executive branches is in my mind without question. We know what works and even more what doesn't with no need to repeat mistakes.
World population and climate change are the most major concerns we have and they both need to be addressed.
Want to fix politics?
Vote!
Shrink and then wrap it in plastic, seal with wide, transparent tape, put it the china cupboard and forget about it until the kids ask what is that grandma?
You note a change was brought about after WW2 where we as individuals wanted to break free, but you know from the very beginning those who were driven from their homes in turn settled our nation and likely had no qualms about driving others from their homes.
Things work or they don't and we have been at this game long enough to know what goes and what doesn't. I accept that most every person in our world society wants the best life has to offer, but reason also tells me this is not likely to occur until we rethink or possibly begin to think of ourselves as equals who confront and solve very similar problems. There is enough of everything to go around.
The constant back and forth between our politicians indicates just how far we as a people have to go in order to address even simple social problems. the hope is once the solutions are recognized they, like life saving vaccines, will be immediately incorporated.
With exception of the Judicial branch, government is essentially cut and dried. The need for cooperative legislative and executive branches is in my mind without question. We know what works and even more what doesn't with no need to repeat mistakes.
World population and climate change are the most major concerns we have and they both need to be addressed.
Want to fix politics?
Vote!
I have news for Mr. Brooks. Getting along with that "middle-ring" of people at the community level is just as hard these days as Republicans getting along with Democrats in Washington. Mostly, if not all, because of the "culture wars" and racism. As long as nobody says anything remotely revealing about their views on abortion, gays, blacks, immigrants, Obama, Muslims, fundamentalist Christians, and guns, we can work together on a worthy civic project. But if somebody keeps spouting off, that "come together, work together" spirit goes right out the door. What we need, in the "middle-ring" and in politics is a return to that much-maligned "political correctness," which is just another word for mutual respect for those who are different and for people's feelings. It's also called "civility." It's actually a virtue!
8
My first recognition of the "us against them", "government is evil taking away from me to give to them" attitude was during the Reagan years. This is not to say that he created it for such attitudes are always below the surface in the human psyche. It took a national leader to legitimize such feelings and make it acceptable to discard the communal impulse and be crass and selfish toward one's fellow man. Putting this plague back into Pandora's box will be difficult indeed.
1
I agree that politics have become a central part of peoples' identities and that this has had many negative consequences. Is it already too late to make a cultural shift and de-emphasize politics? Technology makes it easy to find and communicate with those who share the same views. Why bother spending time interacting with let alone engaging in civil discourse with those who have different views? The media shares some responsibility as well -- it's easier to attract viewers/readers when playing up differences rather than finding similarities. And lastly, who has time? People are stretched to stay afloat, and even inner-ring relationships have fundamentally changed. The family dinners I remember from my childhood are unfortunately a twice-a-week phenomenon with my own family.
1
I've found that when elites tell us to contribute more to the community, they're usually trying to get us to do something without paying for it.
Fair points made, however, about the triumph of individualism over community interest. And while there are many causes, I think that the breakdown of extended families motivated by a corporate culture that demands our time and presence away from our families, the hard-edged limits we have put on assistance to the needy, and the Wall Street 'me first' mentality are primary causes.
Fair points made, however, about the triumph of individualism over community interest. And while there are many causes, I think that the breakdown of extended families motivated by a corporate culture that demands our time and presence away from our families, the hard-edged limits we have put on assistance to the needy, and the Wall Street 'me first' mentality are primary causes.
2
"Being a Democrat or a Republican becomes their ethnicity. People put politics at the center of their psychological, emotional and even spiritual life."
There was a once a thing called the "Fairness Doctrine" Put in place because the government, who owns the public airways, and the pioneers of broadcasting, understood the power of the medium. And saw the potential danger of one side constantly pushing a message without a response from an opposing view.. They called it propaganda. And foresaw the damage this could cause American society.
Today the media has evolved into an echo chamber. Dissenting opinions are excluded providing citizens with news and opinion that only serves to confirm their preconceived notions. Maybe it's time to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" to the public airways.
There was a once a thing called the "Fairness Doctrine" Put in place because the government, who owns the public airways, and the pioneers of broadcasting, understood the power of the medium. And saw the potential danger of one side constantly pushing a message without a response from an opposing view.. They called it propaganda. And foresaw the damage this could cause American society.
Today the media has evolved into an echo chamber. Dissenting opinions are excluded providing citizens with news and opinion that only serves to confirm their preconceived notions. Maybe it's time to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" to the public airways.
4
Anyone who want to get on TV, can.
There's no need for a so-called Fairness Doctrine.
There's no need for a so-called Fairness Doctrine.
1
True. But are the opposing views aired together. One side makes it's case. The other side points out that plans flaws. days later. In a different vehicle. No debate. Just talk.
It takes two to tango. And two opposing views to have a debate.
Both sides should be heard in tandem so people can make up their minds after hearing both cases. Like in a court of law. Then politicians must persuade the public why they are correct and the opposition wrong. Face to face. Point/Counterpoint.
It takes two to tango. And two opposing views to have a debate.
Both sides should be heard in tandem so people can make up their minds after hearing both cases. Like in a court of law. Then politicians must persuade the public why they are correct and the opposition wrong. Face to face. Point/Counterpoint.
1
As usual Mr. Brooks, you're over-analyzing, and missing the "forest for the trees". The solution is get the money out of politics. Reduce influence buying and selling. Implement publicly financed campaigns. If necessary, amend the Constitution to eliminate the preposterous interpretation that money equals free speech, (and its ridiculous corollary, corporations are people).
Until the power brokers are relieved of their undemocratic power, our politics will remain broken.
Until the power brokers are relieved of their undemocratic power, our politics will remain broken.
9
How to fix politics is to become (conservative) Democrats.
2
Totally ridiculous...what's wrong with our politics is the same thing that's wrong with our consumer driven economy. It's all about the money. Put real term limits in place (12 yrs for Sen/House/Pres, 20 yrs Supreme Court) get the corporate $ out of elections with real campaign finance reform, have independent commissions determine congressional districts in every state. make sure mass media (including print) is somehow not a ratings game to get more advertising $-- that would be a start... My neighbors are T-Party and I'm Energy Gal-- we don't discuss anything that matters.
5
I think the observations are correct, but the diagnosis isn't. We are becoming more atomized, less likely to move outside our preferred comfort zones and to seek out smaller circles of "warmth."
But is this because, as the article cites, "Americans now believe that the old giving/getting compact needlessly restricts the individual while advancing the power of large institutions.."?
I do not believe that is the cause. I have a much simpler explanation.
There are too many of us. Polarization and anger is increasing apace of overpopulation; hyper-partisanship appears in the same time-window as "road rage" as a public scourge.
If one wants to understand why people are so alienated and estranged from each other, all you have to do is spend 4 hours a day commuting in one of our coastal megalopolises. It's enough to drive anyone into a suburban Fortress of Solitude.
Fortunately here in Cleveland, we do not suffer from such late modern maladies, and we are here all happily forlorn together, as the city rusts away.
But is this because, as the article cites, "Americans now believe that the old giving/getting compact needlessly restricts the individual while advancing the power of large institutions.."?
I do not believe that is the cause. I have a much simpler explanation.
There are too many of us. Polarization and anger is increasing apace of overpopulation; hyper-partisanship appears in the same time-window as "road rage" as a public scourge.
If one wants to understand why people are so alienated and estranged from each other, all you have to do is spend 4 hours a day commuting in one of our coastal megalopolises. It's enough to drive anyone into a suburban Fortress of Solitude.
Fortunately here in Cleveland, we do not suffer from such late modern maladies, and we are here all happily forlorn together, as the city rusts away.
2
There are no exceptions to the Economic Law of Diminution at the Margin: the more of anything there is, the less each unit of it is worth.
3
One only has to look to Afghanistan where a US-imposed top-down government, universally disliked by the general population, has supplanted the village shura as the local governing structure. Corruption is rampant and the Taliban have gotten stronger and taken more territory. The most successful time in Afghan history was 1933-1973 where the main function of the central government was to raider and maintain a standing army, collect taxes and provide for education. There is a lesson to be learned here where local governments made of up of people of the community talked, discussed, argues, and ultimately solved their own problems. No need of political parties. Get rid of the Electoral College and decide by popular vote.
1
How stunning that David Brooks blames the dysfunction in politics primarily on society, rather than on the political class or the so-called donor class, a term favored by Brooks' colleagues in the media, and a clear indication of how much voters actually own the political process in this country. It's so apparent to many of us outside the political environment that the emergence of anti-establishment candidates is a reflection of the capture of our political system which allows the Republican Party, for example, to refuse to do their job and consider an Obama Supreme Court candidate. And perhaps the reason some citizens take politics so seriously is that the political decisions over the last three decades that have resulted in the destruction of the middle class and a chasm between the rich and everybody else are a burden on their lives and threaten whatever ambition their children may have. Glad you woke up and noticed the impact of all this on the civic life of our communities. Today, our middle ring is our workplace.
10
Dear David,
The best way to fix our politics would be to undo Citizens United. But, on the other hand you are right that "middle ring" relationships would help. These relationships were traditionally encouraged by the great public school systems that allowed the rich and poor, religious and nonreligious, black and white to exchange ideas and form friendships. But after Reagan began the attack on our government our school system became a source of division as Republican governors used it as a political bludgeon to destroy unions. Similarly, our military was a place where citizen soldiers got to know each other but no longer. We now have a warrior class separate from society. The Reagan revolution, the government as enemy and the conflating of individualism with wealth, is now eating the body politic. Your party has been a success and your jeremiad rings hollow.
The best way to fix our politics would be to undo Citizens United. But, on the other hand you are right that "middle ring" relationships would help. These relationships were traditionally encouraged by the great public school systems that allowed the rich and poor, religious and nonreligious, black and white to exchange ideas and form friendships. But after Reagan began the attack on our government our school system became a source of division as Republican governors used it as a political bludgeon to destroy unions. Similarly, our military was a place where citizen soldiers got to know each other but no longer. We now have a warrior class separate from society. The Reagan revolution, the government as enemy and the conflating of individualism with wealth, is now eating the body politic. Your party has been a success and your jeremiad rings hollow.
9
Mr. Brooks is either naive or he thinks that his readers are.
Currently, our politics is fueled by enormous amounts of case, and thus our government institutions are bought by the highest bidder. Politicians owe their allegiance to those who fund them, not the people.
Elections are little more then a combination of a Kabuki Dance-Con Job where the politicians with one hand try and convince voters that they are voting for the voters best interest, while with the other hand they are taking their orders and cash from lobbyists.
Until the problem of money fueling our political system is solved, Mr. Brooks solutions are akin to trying to stop a hemorrhage with a band-aid.
Currently, our politics is fueled by enormous amounts of case, and thus our government institutions are bought by the highest bidder. Politicians owe their allegiance to those who fund them, not the people.
Elections are little more then a combination of a Kabuki Dance-Con Job where the politicians with one hand try and convince voters that they are voting for the voters best interest, while with the other hand they are taking their orders and cash from lobbyists.
Until the problem of money fueling our political system is solved, Mr. Brooks solutions are akin to trying to stop a hemorrhage with a band-aid.
7
David Brooks spends 15 paragraphs describing the problem as he sees it, then just one paragraph spelling out his solution:
"If we’re going to salvage our politics, we probably have to shrink politics, and nurture the thick local membership web that politics rests within. We probably have to scale back the culture of autonomy that was appropriate for the 1960s but that has since gone too far."
Even assuming we agree on Brooks's solution, how exactly do we "scale back the culture of autonomy"? How do we "shrink politics"?
In the end, Brooks's solution isn't a solution at all - it's just a continuation of his complaint.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
"If we’re going to salvage our politics, we probably have to shrink politics, and nurture the thick local membership web that politics rests within. We probably have to scale back the culture of autonomy that was appropriate for the 1960s but that has since gone too far."
Even assuming we agree on Brooks's solution, how exactly do we "scale back the culture of autonomy"? How do we "shrink politics"?
In the end, Brooks's solution isn't a solution at all - it's just a continuation of his complaint.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
8
If you really want to know how to fix (repair) politics, you will listen to people who are in contact with God (The God who made the heaven and the earth).
We keep trying to tell everyone that God's way is best. People act as if we are foolish and unlearned. If a person will not receive the word of Almighty God it is unlikely that he or she can be permanently helped.
Human beings are amazing little creatures: They enter a world that they probably did not know existed, are totally helpless (at birth), are nurtured by the very grace of God, grow up and declare that God does not exist, and expire in less that eleven decades (in most cases); and, Planet Earth, which has existed for many millennia, taking little note of their demise, keeps on turning.
It is vain to seek the truly good without first seeking the true and living God.
What the Apostle Paul said about 1st Century Israel can probably be truthfully said about much of 21st Century America:
20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people. (Romans 10:20-21 - - - the Holy Bible)
God truly exists!!! (Wishing God did not exist does not negate the existence of God.)
We keep trying to tell everyone that God's way is best. People act as if we are foolish and unlearned. If a person will not receive the word of Almighty God it is unlikely that he or she can be permanently helped.
Human beings are amazing little creatures: They enter a world that they probably did not know existed, are totally helpless (at birth), are nurtured by the very grace of God, grow up and declare that God does not exist, and expire in less that eleven decades (in most cases); and, Planet Earth, which has existed for many millennia, taking little note of their demise, keeps on turning.
It is vain to seek the truly good without first seeking the true and living God.
What the Apostle Paul said about 1st Century Israel can probably be truthfully said about much of 21st Century America:
20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people. (Romans 10:20-21 - - - the Holy Bible)
God truly exists!!! (Wishing God did not exist does not negate the existence of God.)
But there really is no scientific evidence that God thinks at all. Therefore your resort to God to bolster your own opinion is in vain, and you really look silly when you claim that "The Almighty" needs your help.
5
I wish comments like this were more focused on the need for people to nurture EACH OTHER, rather than be nurtured by scripture or faith.
I have no comment on the existence of God. But what I would say is that none of can survive and flourish without human relationships--including this middle level Mr. Brooks speaks of outside of family and friends. Even if restoring the middle level won't fix politics, that doesn't mean we don't need to work on restoring/building it.
I have no comment on the existence of God. But what I would say is that none of can survive and flourish without human relationships--including this middle level Mr. Brooks speaks of outside of family and friends. Even if restoring the middle level won't fix politics, that doesn't mean we don't need to work on restoring/building it.
3
Mr Page ,
Those of who have dabbled in Gnosticism and Metaphysics and have abandoned it because of people like yourself salute you.
You know nothing about the gods of the bible, you know nothing about the Messiah and yet you are the loudest voice in the pulpit. Have you no shame?
Those of who have dabbled in Gnosticism and Metaphysics and have abandoned it because of people like yourself salute you.
You know nothing about the gods of the bible, you know nothing about the Messiah and yet you are the loudest voice in the pulpit. Have you no shame?
4
Ok...but...individual politicians are still 100% accountable for what they say.
Many of us are, by necessity, paying closer attention to how the process works this election cycle. Caucasus, primaries, caucasus with no voter participation, super delegates. It's convoluted for sure - but more intangible is just how that first group of candidates appear on the scene. They get weeded out by debate performances and financial backing - but how did they get assembled in the first place? Yes, some are perpetually running but others are last minute entries.
Many of us are, by necessity, paying closer attention to how the process works this election cycle. Caucasus, primaries, caucasus with no voter participation, super delegates. It's convoluted for sure - but more intangible is just how that first group of candidates appear on the scene. They get weeded out by debate performances and financial backing - but how did they get assembled in the first place? Yes, some are perpetually running but others are last minute entries.
1
Valid points, Mr. Brooks. The two institutions that have demonstrated how disparate folks can work together effectively when they have to are the draft (in the day) and jury duty. I wasn't drafted, but I've served on several juries. Too bad most Americans try to figure out how to get out of service.
4
David,
Take a week off and read as much Wendell Berry as you can get your hands on. You correctly describe the disease and what the cured patient would look and act like, but you haven't addressed the cause and the cure. Berry went far in describing the disease, the symptoms, the cause and the cure, and his solutions fit your "traditional" conservationism instincts. He is one of the few I have read that grasps the extent of the problem.
Take a week off and read as much Wendell Berry as you can get your hands on. You correctly describe the disease and what the cured patient would look and act like, but you haven't addressed the cause and the cure. Berry went far in describing the disease, the symptoms, the cause and the cure, and his solutions fit your "traditional" conservationism instincts. He is one of the few I have read that grasps the extent of the problem.
1
You don't need to imagine either a trickle down or a bottom up solution to the problem of partisan politics. President Obama began his first term in office with just such an effort to negotiate in good faith, and the result has been to demonstrate which party is responsible for the dysfunction. He didn't manage to cure what was wrong with politics, but he certainly took the first step in that direction. From the looks of things, the strategy of breaking the government in order to take power is about to backfire on the Republicans in a spectacular way. Time to leave them behind, Mr. Brooks. Most of us already have.
16
High irony when a right wing columnist decries individualism as a cause of evil. The right persistently denies community action of any source and insists that individual initiative is the only moral choice.
9
This is interesting if a bit simplistic. There are, of course, many other factors that create these feelings of alienation and disaffection. But I cannot believe this particular analysis - that politics has become religion, a world with no shades of gray - omits the role that media (particularly right wing media) have played in advancing this phenomenon. While the appearance of one-sided media outlets may have been a symptom at first, their burgeoning presence has become toxic. One rarely dies of cancer. One dies of complications of cancer.
1
Politics is greatly complicated by the efforts of some people to employ government to bless their religion and enforce its tenets.
2
I'm sure Brooks has repeated this on numerous occasions but someone asked after a recent talk what it was like to be a conservative columnist at the NYT. He paused for effect and then said, "sort of like being a rabbi in Mecca".
The appeal of outsiders like Sanders and Trump is simple. They aren't part of the circle of corruption that embraces many politicians and ignores the average, hard working, tax paying citizen. The overwhelming majority of letter writers to the NYT are symbolic of those who divide the body politic and help to shred the social fabric of America further. You can't have a dialogue with someone who calls you a war criminal and eco terrorist.
The appeal of outsiders like Sanders and Trump is simple. They aren't part of the circle of corruption that embraces many politicians and ignores the average, hard working, tax paying citizen. The overwhelming majority of letter writers to the NYT are symbolic of those who divide the body politic and help to shred the social fabric of America further. You can't have a dialogue with someone who calls you a war criminal and eco terrorist.
5
In their refusal to even consider approving another Supreme Court nominee until President Obama leaves office, the Republican Senate caucus reminds me of the Iranian revolutionaries who refused to release the US embassy hostages until President Carter left office.
How do you deal with deliberately malevolent bad faith?
How do you deal with deliberately malevolent bad faith?
12
The Republicans refuse to meet with the (half-black) President's nominee for the Supreme Court. And he has no way to force them to do it.
Brennan, head of the CIA says his agency will not waterboard no matter what a President says.
How have these people stripped the President of his power?
Should a President sue the Senate? Sue the CIA director? The SCOTUS is a Republican organization, just like the Senate and the CIA.
Brennan, head of the CIA says his agency will not waterboard no matter what a President says.
How have these people stripped the President of his power?
Should a President sue the Senate? Sue the CIA director? The SCOTUS is a Republican organization, just like the Senate and the CIA.
1
The problem is with the wretched American Constitution. This country is doomed to have an election every four years, so of course we spend half the time preparing for one and the other half recovering from it.
I suggest we scrap the Constituion, and do as the British do. Have an unwritten and flexible Constitution based on the rule of law, and adopt a parliamentary system. Over there when the Government falls (failing a vote of confidence, or the 5 year term is up), the General Election is over after six weeks. Yes SIX weeks! And just in case this figure still has not sunk in, I repeat: SIX WEEKS.
I understand that the US Constitution is like the bible to many, so perhaps just an Amendment changing the current system to a Parliamentary one might suffice.
Obviously none of the above will fly. So we probably really are doomed to keep on repeating this nonsense.
Think about it, fellow citizens.
I suggest we scrap the Constituion, and do as the British do. Have an unwritten and flexible Constitution based on the rule of law, and adopt a parliamentary system. Over there when the Government falls (failing a vote of confidence, or the 5 year term is up), the General Election is over after six weeks. Yes SIX weeks! And just in case this figure still has not sunk in, I repeat: SIX WEEKS.
I understand that the US Constitution is like the bible to many, so perhaps just an Amendment changing the current system to a Parliamentary one might suffice.
Obviously none of the above will fly. So we probably really are doomed to keep on repeating this nonsense.
Think about it, fellow citizens.
5
I agree somewhat, but we don't really need to ditch the constitution to do many of the things you want. We can amend to elect every 6 years or eight. But what we really need to do is develop a multi party system, instead of a two party system. Imagine a system of green party types, conservative party, liberal party, libertarian party, social justice party, etc. To effectively govern you would HAVE to work to build coalitions to make up a majority party. This forces you to work together, with people you don't quite agree with. It forces compromise and promotes a willingness to see the other side. If you don't, then you don't have power, simple as that.
And we wouldn't have to overturn our whole constitutional system to achieve this.
And we wouldn't have to overturn our whole constitutional system to achieve this.
1
I can solve America's problems with three words -- publicly funded campaigns.
8
Just remember Obama was the first president to turn down public financing and its associated spending restrictions.
1
"It’s possible to imagine an elite solution. The next president could get together with the leaders of both parties in Congress and say: 'We’re going to change the way we do business in Washington. We’re going to deliberate and negotiate. We’ll disagree and wrangle, but we will not treat this as good-versus-evil blood sport.' That kind of leadership might trickle down."
This is exactly what President Obama campaigned on in 2008. If it didn't happen then, I'm not sure it is "possible to imagine" now.
This is exactly what President Obama campaigned on in 2008. If it didn't happen then, I'm not sure it is "possible to imagine" now.
5
Editorial board chose my comment for publication, but I have not seen it, only a blank space. Please rectify so that my comment is available for readers. Thanks.
I think you have been a bit careless with the word "autonomy" in this piece. Kant placed it at the heart of his ethics. It entails both respect and self-respect, as displayed in my favorite form of Kant's categorical imperative: "Always treat humanity, whether in yourself or another, as an end and never merely as a means." The problem with society today is not autonomy so much as it is with truncated, overly simplified interpretations of concepts central to living a good life, among them autonomy, freedom, respect, etc.
You have also been a bit fast and loose with Maslow, but Kant's categorical imperative would approve your sentiment anyway. Do I need a smiley face here?
You have also been a bit fast and loose with Maslow, but Kant's categorical imperative would approve your sentiment anyway. Do I need a smiley face here?
I don't disagree with anything in Brooks' article. Just wondering why the well educated 1%er's in Congress don't follow his advice. Maybe we could try his prescription there and see how it goes.
1
Another, self loathing right winger looking for salvation after 35 years of attempted domination. You, David are talking to Conservatives, not Americans. You won't be forgiven, that belongs to history now. But if you and your kind were to actually admit to each other you were very wrong, and the behavior changed you may feel better.
But don't ever lump all of us as Americans in your partisan awakening, we never left our values. Politics are not the problem, Republicans are the problem. Democracy will put the right wing out in the desert what is truly irritating is you continue discount our contribution and maintain your snide superior attitude.
We look to you guys for problems, we have always been a country of solutions and your gang doesn't have any.
Once again you yearn for the past because you lost your relevance in the present and no one trusts you with the future.
Behavior, just behavior.
But don't ever lump all of us as Americans in your partisan awakening, we never left our values. Politics are not the problem, Republicans are the problem. Democracy will put the right wing out in the desert what is truly irritating is you continue discount our contribution and maintain your snide superior attitude.
We look to you guys for problems, we have always been a country of solutions and your gang doesn't have any.
Once again you yearn for the past because you lost your relevance in the present and no one trusts you with the future.
Behavior, just behavior.
7
The trouble with political (social, religious, economic, etc.) commentary is that it finds and analyzes problems but provides no solutions. So, David, if I agree with you -- and some of what you say is compelling -- how do we get from where we are currently stuck to some better place? I've been feeling (like many) disappointed (depressed) by our political situation for quite a while. Your commentary doesn't make me feel any better.
How much of this problem comes from the Vietnam war? Our government lied to us and sent thousands to die in a lost cause. Citizen / government trust was destroyed for a large part of the our country.
2
Hello David,
Thanks for giving it a try. Please keep at it.
No, the elite are not going to fix our politics. No the base is not going to fix this. Each will say they can't because of the other.
The only one that can fix this is "I". Don't you think that any "we" starts with "I".
I am going to reach out.
I am going to show up.
I am going to listen fist.
I am going to seek understanding.
I am going to forgive.
I am not going to be a victim.
I have power, and I know you do too.
I....
Thanks for giving it a try. Please keep at it.
No, the elite are not going to fix our politics. No the base is not going to fix this. Each will say they can't because of the other.
The only one that can fix this is "I". Don't you think that any "we" starts with "I".
I am going to reach out.
I am going to show up.
I am going to listen fist.
I am going to seek understanding.
I am going to forgive.
I am not going to be a victim.
I have power, and I know you do too.
I....
1
David Brooks is living proof that the Republican Party is beyond fixing. Brooks is the most prominent Republican "moderate" intellectual who has realized only weeks ago how badly broken the Republican Party truly was (or came close to it).
Yet today there is nothing but deflection and excuse-making without a single remedy for any of the former GOPs actual ailments.
Like the drunk using the lamp post for support rather than illumination, the still inebriated Brooks continues to use social science as a crutch to defend the vicious and vacuous right wing.
Yet today there is nothing but deflection and excuse-making without a single remedy for any of the former GOPs actual ailments.
Like the drunk using the lamp post for support rather than illumination, the still inebriated Brooks continues to use social science as a crutch to defend the vicious and vacuous right wing.
4
So the answer is "helping your neighbors" Mr. Brooks?
That reminds me of the book "It Takes a Village," by Hillary Rodham Clinton.
It is the exact opposite of the conservative dogma of the last several decades, "I help only myself, you're not my problem." That there is only private good, no public ones, and thus collecting taxes for public programs is always a sham and constitutes theft.
In a way I agree with you on the best way to fix politics: get rid of the conservatives and their contempt for the common good.
That reminds me of the book "It Takes a Village," by Hillary Rodham Clinton.
It is the exact opposite of the conservative dogma of the last several decades, "I help only myself, you're not my problem." That there is only private good, no public ones, and thus collecting taxes for public programs is always a sham and constitutes theft.
In a way I agree with you on the best way to fix politics: get rid of the conservatives and their contempt for the common good.
5
I think reactionaries have hijacked the word "conservative" and now claim it as their exclusive trademark.
3
Mr. Brook's essay reads like the outline of a speech that he has given or intends to give on the lucrative college lecture circuit.His 25 cent polysyllabicisms, and terms like "self actualization" and "individual autonomous mind sets"reminded me of some of the obscure language used by the late Talcott Parsons.Why not start writing in plain old Anglo Saxon English for a change? That would be nice.Hemingway's gift was to express profound emotions and ideas in naïve prose, and BROOKS might model his own writing on that of EH.Average American has never heard of "middle ring relationships," and couldn't care less.Acquiring a knowledge of such vocabulary would not solve his economic woes, stop the increasing marginalization of which he is a victim.put an end to the offshoring of American jobs and an open borders policy, both of which are pernicious to his economic well being. Since both parties r in the same tank regarding these issues,his predicament seems hopeless. That is the real dilemma. Brooks's article belongs in an academic journal, not on the op ed page of a major newspaper.Mr. Brooks should write about the bosses, the c.e.o.'s sticking it to the workers through foreign trade deals, measures supported by both parties.That is what millions of Americans care about. Good writers have a s--t detector that enables them to distinguish good prose from bad.Mr. Brooks has apparently lost that gift, and it shows.
You mis-understand conservatives. I am a conservative. I understand capitalism is evil. In fact it is the worst economic system - except all the others. It is adopted because it works best, not because it is "good" or "fair" - it works best; it is practicable. As Thatcher said something to the effect - socialism is great until you run out of other's people's money. In the 1950's the sense of village was many organization - that is NON-governmental organizations were part of the community and worked together - and republicans and democrats both worked together in these non governmental organizations, - many of these community organizations that brought people together no longer exist, or are much smaller. There is more reliance on the government to do what these other community organizations used to do. Too many today (and many are democrats) - just expect the government to be the sole solution to everything in the community. Of course tax funded government run programs are the only worthwhile things in the community.
1
I've often heard it said that Brooks is the Times' token conservative/Republican. Yet this piece suggests your life belongs to the collective.
I'll correct a piece of this article: individuals should be liberated to live as they choose, so long as they don’t interfere with the rights of others. This isn't even worth debating and suggesting otherwise is why politics is broken.
Individuals should be free to become rich CEO's, marry, ingest natural plants, and buy imported products or enter the United States to take a job.
It's the golden rule, David Brooks. Live and let live. The departure from this is why you wrote this piece.
I'll correct a piece of this article: individuals should be liberated to live as they choose, so long as they don’t interfere with the rights of others. This isn't even worth debating and suggesting otherwise is why politics is broken.
Individuals should be free to become rich CEO's, marry, ingest natural plants, and buy imported products or enter the United States to take a job.
It's the golden rule, David Brooks. Live and let live. The departure from this is why you wrote this piece.
I don't understand your point here. We no longer "live and let live"?
Isn't he saying we need to something more than simply whatever pleases us? Isn't that part of the reason the "middle-ring" is deteriorating?
Isn't he saying we need to something more than simply whatever pleases us? Isn't that part of the reason the "middle-ring" is deteriorating?
What is really greasing the skids for the American way of life and our broken political system which has left all Americans without representation, is campaign financing. Politicians in congress view their jobs as sinecures, platforms from which to get rich. The day after their election, they are out raising funds for the next election. They don't have the time or interest to do the people's business. And why would they? They make hefty salaries, get the best insurance, get insider deals to make each of them into millionaires. They are bought and paid for by a few thousand billionaires and corporations.
The answer is simple but implementation is perhaps impossible: Elections must be limited to a period of six to ten weeks. An oversight committee would disqualify any candidate who begins campaigning one day before this period. The same committee would dispense $5 million for each candidate for the House of Representatives and $10 million for each candidate for the senate. Any candidate determined by the oversight committee to have spent $1 more than the allowance would be immediately disqualified. Term limits might enter the discussion here as well. Right now our election system is an obscene joke.
While it is an oversimplification to avoid the many other ills that plague our system, politicians who are not bought by big money entities, might prove to be more idealistic individuals who could help Americans.
The answer is simple but implementation is perhaps impossible: Elections must be limited to a period of six to ten weeks. An oversight committee would disqualify any candidate who begins campaigning one day before this period. The same committee would dispense $5 million for each candidate for the House of Representatives and $10 million for each candidate for the senate. Any candidate determined by the oversight committee to have spent $1 more than the allowance would be immediately disqualified. Term limits might enter the discussion here as well. Right now our election system is an obscene joke.
While it is an oversimplification to avoid the many other ills that plague our system, politicians who are not bought by big money entities, might prove to be more idealistic individuals who could help Americans.
5
The last paragraph could be summed up: The rich need to be very concerned about the well being of the poor. The question: which presidential candidate stands for this type of change? Answer: Bernie Sanders. Democratic socialism aims to tax the rich so the underclass may prosper. It won't happen magically. You have to force this type of change.
4
That's a very biased way to view it. The rich have gamed the system so we permit people to live in abject poverty, subsidizing the rich's lifestyle. We need a living wage, a tax system that halts the development of aristocracy through inherited wealth, and work for the able.
Traffic fines and other fees should be indexed to income.
We can do it the French or Russian way, or take a gentler path. Me I'm on the fence about how it happens, but happen it will.
We are bees, not mountain lions. Nobody needs a billion dollars.
Traffic fines and other fees should be indexed to income.
We can do it the French or Russian way, or take a gentler path. Me I'm on the fence about how it happens, but happen it will.
We are bees, not mountain lions. Nobody needs a billion dollars.
2
With your comment about the need for a billion dollars I'll assume your net worth is substantially below that. There should be no limit to income or wealth in a capitalist country. None.
Rather ironic that "Citizens United" has poisoned politics to such a degree that we are all ailing. Yes, a united citizens would be welcome, but as many have commented, our social and economic realities have changed dramatically in the last 2 generations. We need to educate the next generations differently, and dismantle the obstacles and political rituals that seem too entrenched and toxic. Maybe this election cycle will ultimately have some silver lining--a catalyst to do things differently for a sensible future, rather than for nostalgic reasons.
2
Oh, dear Brooks, always forgetting his Party's contributions -- lies, deceit, obstructionism, gerrymandering, obliviousness to facts, big money beholden, and let's not forget -- greed of the "wealth maker" class, creating the dysfunction of political discourse today.
I have come to notice, for GOP, "people", means "rich, white people;" "morality," means being hateful towards those who have values different from their specific version of Christianity, somewhat like the Islamic terrorist interpret their Quran; or "jobs" for the working people means "profit" for the rich, and "gun rights" means "gun profit."
I used to think the Right and Left are just different philosophical and ideological approach to self governing that nevertheless share a common goal of common good for people and nation. Lately, I come to realize people who are racist, sexist, xenophobic and pro-big money are often described as conservative Right. People who care about people and environment, the liberal Left.
Although it is true our society has fragmented, one should note such fragmentation does not occur in vacuum. There are various economic, political and cultural factors involved. However, instead of helping, GOP as a party has been very good in "profiting" from the "disarray" of society. Famously, they took advantage of the racist sentiment of the white south, turning it red, especially those who have experienced economic ruins due to, in big part, the rich-white elites outsourcing our jobs.
I have come to notice, for GOP, "people", means "rich, white people;" "morality," means being hateful towards those who have values different from their specific version of Christianity, somewhat like the Islamic terrorist interpret their Quran; or "jobs" for the working people means "profit" for the rich, and "gun rights" means "gun profit."
I used to think the Right and Left are just different philosophical and ideological approach to self governing that nevertheless share a common goal of common good for people and nation. Lately, I come to realize people who are racist, sexist, xenophobic and pro-big money are often described as conservative Right. People who care about people and environment, the liberal Left.
Although it is true our society has fragmented, one should note such fragmentation does not occur in vacuum. There are various economic, political and cultural factors involved. However, instead of helping, GOP as a party has been very good in "profiting" from the "disarray" of society. Famously, they took advantage of the racist sentiment of the white south, turning it red, especially those who have experienced economic ruins due to, in big part, the rich-white elites outsourcing our jobs.
2
What we need to do is to adopt rank-based voting methods. Any method that will not select the Condorcet winner is going to fail us. In our current system, used by all of the parties, and in all US congressional and presidential elections that I know of, if we have 10 candidates on the ballot, someone might win with 20% of the vote. But what if the other 80% of voters *hate* that candidate? Ranking choices makes it possible to vote strongly against bad candidates -- no candidate ranked last by 80% of voters is going to win! Learn about this and think about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
The ranked-pairs method has great properties and it is easy to understand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_pairs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method#Comparison_table
All of these methods are easy for the voter: Just rank the candidates you like. If you prefer the old plurality system, just rank one candidate as #1 and ignore the rest. It's easy and it gives a really good answer to the question of who the people truly prefer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
The ranked-pairs method has great properties and it is easy to understand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_pairs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method#Comparison_table
All of these methods are easy for the voter: Just rank the candidates you like. If you prefer the old plurality system, just rank one candidate as #1 and ignore the rest. It's easy and it gives a really good answer to the question of who the people truly prefer.
1
yeah, it's the money. with public financing of campaigns, elected leaders would be responsible to the public and not to the donor class. imagine that.
4
As usual the comments to David Brooks' column are far better reading than the column itself.
12
Decades ago, J. Paul Getty gathered a group of philosophers, theologians, psychologists, psychiatrist and paid them to talk to each other for months, and report on what makes people happy.
The report came out, and can be summarized in TWO WORDS: LOWERED EXPECTATIONS.
That's the opposite of a campaign-winning slogan. But it is in tune with Taoist thinking about acceptance of virtue and vice.
When I hear about something terrible or wonderful occurring, the accepting response is "So it goes."
The report came out, and can be summarized in TWO WORDS: LOWERED EXPECTATIONS.
That's the opposite of a campaign-winning slogan. But it is in tune with Taoist thinking about acceptance of virtue and vice.
When I hear about something terrible or wonderful occurring, the accepting response is "So it goes."
2
Evidently going on an all expenses paid retreat to gab about philosophy didn't make them happy.
3
There is no way to fix our politics until the Republicans run for political office to govern rather than to destroy our Federal government through hate-filled legislation, cutting taxes, or starving the budget for social programs and infrastructure. That Conservative ideology has failed miserably for 35 years but you and Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump speak in one voice proclaiming it. We need the federal government and we do not get either job-creation on innovation from the conglomerates that buy Republican and Democrat politicians. You have said money in politics doesn't matter much since Citizens United. Facts show otherwise in the fault lines of states and local legislatures bought up by conservative billionaires. Just to say that sometimes your pious "objective" sociological/moral lectures create a foul smell in this household.
4
I can't help but think that Mr. Brooks increasingly lives in a world that hasn't existed for quite some time.
3
More empty words from Mr. Brooks, whose veneer of The Sensible Republican is wearing seriously thin.
His party's hatred of the black President because he's black and (gasp!) smart, it's declaration that Obama was going to be a one term President, its endless obstructionism to the very end of his second term, it's inability to think past zero sum solutions which in the end has resulted in Congress doing absolutely nothing for years is what has brought us to this place.
Mr. Brooks needs to own in no uncertain terms the utter disfunctionality of the party to which he has been so loyal before I consider anything he has to say.
His party's hatred of the black President because he's black and (gasp!) smart, it's declaration that Obama was going to be a one term President, its endless obstructionism to the very end of his second term, it's inability to think past zero sum solutions which in the end has resulted in Congress doing absolutely nothing for years is what has brought us to this place.
Mr. Brooks needs to own in no uncertain terms the utter disfunctionality of the party to which he has been so loyal before I consider anything he has to say.
5
The other party isn't blameless either, but you are essentially correct. This column is like one of the arsonists complaining that he got smoke in his eyes.
1
Remember how giddy he was after Sarah Palin's debut speech? Why does Brooks always wait for disaster to strike before thinking beyond the constraints of the Republican Party?
2
While there are certainly those who hate this President for his color such accusations purposely ignore the fact that he is fully left of most of the country. Combined with his high tax, free everything pandering to the 47% and his obviously anti business rhetoric ("You didn't build that.", "Anyone working full time should ever live in poverty.", etc.) and there's much to detest.
1
I'm afraid you're talking about a Republican problem as though it were a problem we all have. But, in my experience, Democrats have never forgotten that civic virtues are important. I think that the formative experience that most Democrats have made at one time or another is the shock and pleasure of help and cooperation coming from a quarter that you would not expect in reaching some shared goal.
1
My sociology professor at Columbia, Robert Merton, used the concept of status-set to include the dozens of statuses an involved person can have and considered how they can be balanced including the most basis one of being an Earthling. Thus, the innermost and outermost rings are included—all of which are necessary to improve politics.
Besides the individualistic characteristic of US Society in causing a poor polity, it is also the related social and ecological value systems that has been unraveling in this liminal times of unraveling and the beginnings of a new story.
Part of such new story are the discussions in the US, UK, Holland and other countries about the need for an alternative financial system that is not based upon debt but on money created by the public authority as credit where banks become 100% reserve banks. Personally, I believe the discussion has to be expanded to include a carbon-based international monetary system the conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of which are described in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timun.net.
Besides the individualistic characteristic of US Society in causing a poor polity, it is also the related social and ecological value systems that has been unraveling in this liminal times of unraveling and the beginnings of a new story.
Part of such new story are the discussions in the US, UK, Holland and other countries about the need for an alternative financial system that is not based upon debt but on money created by the public authority as credit where banks become 100% reserve banks. Personally, I believe the discussion has to be expanded to include a carbon-based international monetary system the conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of which are described in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timun.net.
1
I feel bad for David. Try as he might, he can't figure out a way to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. It's hopeless. How did,this happen? My theory. Both sides have gotten more more extreme. True. But, what is the proximate cause? I point to,the Federal Courts, including Supremes. Unelected. Issuing decrees. Over riding political will and votes in many states. Started with Roe v Wade. Should have been left to each state and its voters to decide. This usurpation of power resulted in obnoxious exultation on the left and virulent bitterness on the right. That genie is out of the box, David. Face it!
1
A thoughtful appeal to common sense and a sense of our shared interests that transcend politics. Now see how many commentators slam David merely because he leans moderate Republican and thus doesn't play for "their team." Truly sad. But it only confirms his point.
David Brooks asks: "How could we make our politics better?"
Get politicians out of it. As Charles de Gaulle once said: "I have come to the conclusion that politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians"
Amen to that!
Get politicians out of it. As Charles de Gaulle once said: "I have come to the conclusion that politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians"
Amen to that!
1
I've often thought that the coming of the Television was the point where community and contentment started to deteriorate. The families (i.e. Leave it to Beaver et al. ) and the products on the small screen made me want to live in a different house with different parents and have other (more expensive) things. Greed and envy became more present in my emotional life, and slick TV advertising gave it a focus. Soon, mothers would go to work so the family could have a newer car, a trip to Disneyland. Church and family gatherings became less important because the whole family was busier. Before too many decades had passed, our patriotism became measured in how dedicated we were to consumerism and pumping up the economy. Democrats, who noticed that some people were not sharing the abundance, became more radical and Republicans moved way to the right of center and took their expensive toys with them. Shouts of "You have no heart!" and "You have no ambition!" are being heard, across the chasm, even today. (Obama is down in the valley, shouting up to all of us "Now let's all just calm down, folks."
41
America began to splinter in the 60s when people of color and women refused to be marginalized. Young people understood that the leaders of this society made idiotic decisions (Vietnam) Eventually Gay people demanded their rights. Yes we are more splintered. Tump says make America great again, but we are never going back there. Thank God
1
I think the issue isn’t whether we’re splintered, but whether there’s civil discourse. What does civil discourse presuppose? That my partner in discourse shares at least a desire to enlighten me, and a willingness to hear out my attempts to enlighten him/her.
1
In the days when middle ring relationships were more common, the economics were entirely different. One adult could, for example, support a whole family, leaving a spouse with the time, energy and desire to coordinate middle ring activities for the whole family.
Many jobs today don’t pay enough to support a family. When every adult needs to work non-stop in order to get by, all non-essential activities get reduced to social media involvement.
Many jobs today don’t pay enough to support a family. When every adult needs to work non-stop in order to get by, all non-essential activities get reduced to social media involvement.
10
Actually, the jobs today do pay enough to support a family.....if you'd settle for a 50s house, a 50s car, a 50s TV, and 50s medical care.
I remember 1400 square feet, one bathroom, and a dial phone on the wall. Life was great then!
I remember 1400 square feet, one bathroom, and a dial phone on the wall. Life was great then!
1
Until Brooks truly opens his eyes and acknowledges the damage the Republican party has done to the governing of this country, his feeble attempts at blaming society ring false and hollow.
6
All expressed about America by Alexis de Tocqueville 175 years ago!
2
American politics suffers from a collective action problem. Self-interested politicians, and even voters, eschew consensus-building politics under the guise of political conviction. When political convictions are prioritized over consensus-building politics, no one wins.
As Mr. Brooks suggests, social connections have the power to change the way we think. We should embrace the principles of behavioral economics, and begin identifying ourselves as American voters, citizens, and neighbors, rather than segmenting ourselves into insular politically-divisive groups.
As Mr. Brooks suggests, social connections have the power to change the way we think. We should embrace the principles of behavioral economics, and begin identifying ourselves as American voters, citizens, and neighbors, rather than segmenting ourselves into insular politically-divisive groups.
2
To borrow from the Bard:
"The fault with politics is not in itself
But in ourselves, that we are ill-read and ill-tutored."
"The fault with politics is not in itself
But in ourselves, that we are ill-read and ill-tutored."
4
So, it's "middle ring" relationships?
I'd argue that it's a modernization of the Civil War.
The Romney map looked uncannily like the 1848 slave state map. Accident? Or,is one of the motivating factors behind the right wing the notion that they don't want "those people" to get "my money"?
And, if you add in the impact of right wing infotainment and the change in the way Americans get news (it's now easier to avoid material that conflicts with your preconceptions) you can explain modern politics pretty well.
I'd argue that it's a modernization of the Civil War.
The Romney map looked uncannily like the 1848 slave state map. Accident? Or,is one of the motivating factors behind the right wing the notion that they don't want "those people" to get "my money"?
And, if you add in the impact of right wing infotainment and the change in the way Americans get news (it's now easier to avoid material that conflicts with your preconceptions) you can explain modern politics pretty well.
4
This is the by product of big money poured into the system by ppl like the koch brothers who using their wealth to subvert our political system. Citizen's United is the problem. Until you shine a light on where the money is coming into the system (and to politicians), and make all political spending publicly financed, it won't make a bit of difference. This column was a waste of time and space, unless your purpose was to offer a way to distract the little ppl from seeing our democratic republic turning into an oligarchy.
1
Well meaning but naive column by Brooks. National politics and in many cases statehouse politics in 2016 is corrupted by big money from special interests, notably corporate interests who hold sway over Congress and some legislatures. For a more realpolitik insight, read Jane Mayer's deeply reported book, "Dark Money"
5
One contribution Brooks can make is to keep dancing at Bruce Springsteen concerts. Bring Chris Christie along. And for the most part in a political sense leave the rest of us alone.
2
I think Brooks is a smart guy but even I opened this article with a heap of skepticism based on the title. I was pleasantly surprised. Both the explanation of our problem and the prescription (pithy though it may be) have the ring of truth. I think about how involved I was with my neighbors when I grew up, and that the neighbors were indeed politically diverse. I think about how involved we are with our neighbors today and how often I find myself talking to people from the other side of the political spectrum - not so much. It has become increasingly easy, and increasingly "normal" to associate mostly (even exclusively) with one's good friends - members of the tribe, so to speak, and ignore the rest. Tough to build common understanding around sticky problems when that's the norm.
1
I'm a dreamer too, and I'm not the only one.
Listen, as long as corporations and billionaires can basically flood the airwaves with their messages, the rest of us are going to be drowned out. Citizens United was a horrendous overreach by the Supreme Court, and now we see the results.
Ironically, Republicans thought that the Citizens United judgment would be their ticket to winning forevermore. Instead, the dark money is tearing their party apart.
Even though I'm not a Republican, I take no pleasure from it, though. This system is creating a dangerous dysfunction in which narcissists (Trump) and sociopaths (Cruz) are the only ones who can find their way to the top. Meanwhile, people who would be better at governing are bullied, undermined, outmaneuvered, and finally kicked to the curb.
Get the dark money out of politics. That won't fix everything, but we will see some return to a functional democracy.
Listen, as long as corporations and billionaires can basically flood the airwaves with their messages, the rest of us are going to be drowned out. Citizens United was a horrendous overreach by the Supreme Court, and now we see the results.
Ironically, Republicans thought that the Citizens United judgment would be their ticket to winning forevermore. Instead, the dark money is tearing their party apart.
Even though I'm not a Republican, I take no pleasure from it, though. This system is creating a dangerous dysfunction in which narcissists (Trump) and sociopaths (Cruz) are the only ones who can find their way to the top. Meanwhile, people who would be better at governing are bullied, undermined, outmaneuvered, and finally kicked to the curb.
Get the dark money out of politics. That won't fix everything, but we will see some return to a functional democracy.
102
You are very right. Why doesn't anyone see it?
4
"...depressing election season"?
I see nothing but energized, excited people when I view Sanders and Trump rallies.
I see nothing but energized, excited people when I view Sanders and Trump rallies.
1
And that doesn't depress you?
2
I don't miss the days of the strong middle circle. The middle circle of villagers could be for you but they could also be against you. They could be bearing a 'Welcome to the neighborhood' cake or they could be carrying torches and pitch forks. One never quite knew.
The middle circle burned crosses on our lawn when I was growing up because we allowed needy Blacks to stay with us in our all white suburb. The middle circle judges, whispers and gossips mercilessly. The middle circle has not been the wonderful experience that satisfies. It's been the voice of intolerance and condemnation. When my garage door goes down at night, I shut the middle circle out for all the right reasons.
The middle circle burned crosses on our lawn when I was growing up because we allowed needy Blacks to stay with us in our all white suburb. The middle circle judges, whispers and gossips mercilessly. The middle circle has not been the wonderful experience that satisfies. It's been the voice of intolerance and condemnation. When my garage door goes down at night, I shut the middle circle out for all the right reasons.
2
How about a cultural shift whereby every worker is paid a living wage so that no family has to have two or more incomes just to get by? Where's the time to barbeque with the neighbors when housing costs so much that many of us can't afford to live within an hour of our jobs?
Please don't forget about the institutional failures next time you write a column like this. It's not that we've become unfriendly and self-centered.
Please don't forget about the institutional failures next time you write a column like this. It's not that we've become unfriendly and self-centered.
5
Your vision of Nirvana ignores the fact that many people's labor isn't worth enough in the free market to allow them to live the life you envision.
And this situation will most likely will not get better. A good argument for a guaranteed minumal income, as opposed to condemning a percentage of the population to misery based on the value of their labor.
These are good points, but Brooks fails to point out that this is mostly about Republicans, the party where members consider “principle” (ie insistence on getting your way all the time) more important than compromise by 2 to 1. For Democrats it is the reverse. Republicans vote more in off year elections not because they love America more but because their identity is more wrapped up with their political team. Republicans have been encouraging their members to think of “American” and “Republican as interchangeable and hating the other team for 40 years. This collapse of local identity and replacement with a political one is not something that just happened but has been a conscious Republican project. Not that they consciously produced Fox News, talk radio, or the Tea Party, but whenever a new vehicle for turning “Republican” from a party to an identity arose the GOP was out front to provide slavish encouragement and pandering.
Rather than depressing” the GOP campaign has been refreshingly honest for the first time in 40 years. It is telling that the crack-up is not driving members away, but rather to try and blow the party up. This is more how one responds to a favorite but failing sports franchise than a political party. On the Democratic side Sanders supporters are motivated by a desire to create something specific rather than to destroy something in a screaming narcissistic rage.
Rather than depressing” the GOP campaign has been refreshingly honest for the first time in 40 years. It is telling that the crack-up is not driving members away, but rather to try and blow the party up. This is more how one responds to a favorite but failing sports franchise than a political party. On the Democratic side Sanders supporters are motivated by a desire to create something specific rather than to destroy something in a screaming narcissistic rage.
1
I think we should consider a less new-agey approach:
1. Get rid of the electoral college and make national politicians compete vote-by-vote across the whole country. I'd like to see more Democrats chasing votes in Texas and Republicans doing the same in California. No more base-mobilizing contests in swing states. No more pandering to loyalists in safe states. No more writing off hostile states.
2. Overturn Citizens United!
1. Get rid of the electoral college and make national politicians compete vote-by-vote across the whole country. I'd like to see more Democrats chasing votes in Texas and Republicans doing the same in California. No more base-mobilizing contests in swing states. No more pandering to loyalists in safe states. No more writing off hostile states.
2. Overturn Citizens United!
I plan to write to my present congressman and his opponent to request that if elected that he/she obtain a permanent residence asap in DC-not commute home each weekend; that he/she commit to social interchange with their fellow congresspersons, particularly those across the isle in a search for what is best/right for the country not who is right. We have lost our sense of community - no community schools, no commercial centers and no sense of community in our Congress.We have a sprawl of disconnectness Mr. Brooks is right on.
"Once politics becomes your ethnic and moral identity, it becomes impossible to compromise, because compromise becomes dishonor."
What a great point. Makes me re-think some things...
What a great point. Makes me re-think some things...
1
I partly agree with this column, especially that we need to increase deliberative civic engagement & that best starts locally, with people's connections with their neighbors & communities. For example, I was just a volunteer facilitator in a Participatory Budgeting (PB) process that combined individual volunteer effort with community member deliberation to produce a slate of community improvement projects for residents of our NYC council district to vote on. Then, I went door-to-door for 2 things at once: (1) Ask people to come out & vote for PB projects; (2) Sign an unrelated petition to get a candidate on a Congressional primary ballot. My neighbors ranged from polite to dismissive about the politician, but were enthusiastic about PB & excited to be able to vote on projects developed by others from the community to improve schools, parks, playgrounds, etc. We need more processes that involve some local deliberation to get people listening to each other & understanding each others' needs & interests, as happens at the committee level of PB. But that's not enough to fix the current politics across our country.
Not only are our national politics awash in money, but big money promoting individualistic, essentially anti-community values has invaded state & local politics (e.g., see Jane Mayer's "Dark Money") where its most effective at swinging elections & discourages community involvement. We need to get money out of politics at all levels as well as encourage deliberation.
Not only are our national politics awash in money, but big money promoting individualistic, essentially anti-community values has invaded state & local politics (e.g., see Jane Mayer's "Dark Money") where its most effective at swinging elections & discourages community involvement. We need to get money out of politics at all levels as well as encourage deliberation.
2
If you (really) believe in God, you have little to (really) fear. If you believe in human beings, well, you’d better start praying. With that knowledge, you can get along well enough with most people, because we all of us have our limitations, and to dislike people makes as much sense as disliking yourself, a kind of dissociation personal that becomes social. So, any of the candidates as President must be acceptable to you.
How to fix politics? Politics is already 'fixed'.
4
Especially in Kansas, Toto.
one of the fundamental difficulties with forming and operating political entities in the 21st Century in America is directly the result of the evolved two party dominant - - - and money based - - - system presently in place.
in societies with multiple-competing political parties, compromise is the defining framework in order for governments to operate and actually govern...single party control is rarely achievable and does not thrive in such groups.
as fewer and fewer eligible voters chose to participate in our electoral processes,
the greater these disparities will grow.
Citizens United virtually guarantees at least a near-term result of government by the corporation, of the corporation, and for the corporation...
sadly, consolidated greed and power have once again robbed us of a functioning democratic-republic...and both national parties are to blame.
1
Absurd title to an editorial opinion that offers a solution (a cultural shift) that is about as helpful as Trump's ideas about improving health insurance.
One thing that rings true is citizens no longer getting involved in their local government, little league, soccer clubs. Families will attend the games on Sat/Sun but not "get involved" with running the organization, coaching a team, running for local office, joining the PTA. How can a Dad speak to the other Dad's if they're not engaged but are self absorbed? How can Mom's discuss issues whether domestic or other if they don't know who the other Mom's and Dad's are?
My family, growing up in NY made a conscious effort to get invovled. We became members of the PTA, we coached soccer (while never playing as a youth), we ran for School Board and contributed our time. We got to know many many individuals in the community.
I believe that in the end, we are a richer family because of our time and effort contributions!!
My family, growing up in NY made a conscious effort to get invovled. We became members of the PTA, we coached soccer (while never playing as a youth), we ran for School Board and contributed our time. We got to know many many individuals in the community.
I believe that in the end, we are a richer family because of our time and effort contributions!!
If fixing politics equates to restoring an element of compromise, as David argues, perhaps it isn't just the moral and ethnic aspects that need to tone down, but the religious as well. The Bible Belt, the Evangelicals, the Catholic Church, all have claimed a piece of our American march to the white house. Each has it's special agendas and the candidates ignore these demands at their peril. More attention -- and emotion -- is directed at so-called 'social' issues: abortion, gender equality, family values, -- many of which are church based, than on those issues which unite us, such as the repair of our infrastructure, our military, our safety as a nation. And because these issues derive from someone's religious life, they are impossible to negotiate. Thus we have evolved from a society dedicated to religious freedom, to one that is hellbent on politicizing that freedom and imposing its values, whatever they happen to be, on everyone else. We have lost the distinction between what is religious and what is spiritual. A spiritualized individual will not impose their values, however moral and saintly, on another. Spirituality -- the professed goal of all religions -- if authentic, is more likely to promote a wider sense of tolerance and unity rather than the divisiveness that comes from mixing up the secular and religious and deciding our values should become those of everyone else.
2
Yes, but what about moral issues? What about the very real “good-versus-evil” issues that face this country? How do you "compromise" what Lincoln understood to be issues of right and wrong, not “politics?”
Feel free to review the last 8-9 paragraphs of Lincoln’s Cooper Union address, but it is clear that almost one year before he became president, Lincoln understood that the “political issue” of his day (slavery) was really an issue of right and wrong. And this understanding only deepened once the war started. By the time Lincoln gave his second inaugural address he KNEW the war came, in part, as God’s condemnation that America had tolerated slavery for way…too…long, “Yet, if God wills that [the war] continue…so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"…with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right…"
Sociality IS a great idea. However, Lincoln knew that the only true way to “fix politics” was not social science, it was God. Do what is right and, with God, fight what is wrong. When we—as families, communities, and societies—all choose the right because that is what we have in our hearts, then there will be political peace because His peace, “the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep [our] hearts and minds through Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:7). Sorry, Mr. Brooks, and I know this is not “politically correct,” but following Jesus Christ is the one and only true, deep, lasting way to “fix politics.”
Feel free to review the last 8-9 paragraphs of Lincoln’s Cooper Union address, but it is clear that almost one year before he became president, Lincoln understood that the “political issue” of his day (slavery) was really an issue of right and wrong. And this understanding only deepened once the war started. By the time Lincoln gave his second inaugural address he KNEW the war came, in part, as God’s condemnation that America had tolerated slavery for way…too…long, “Yet, if God wills that [the war] continue…so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"…with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right…"
Sociality IS a great idea. However, Lincoln knew that the only true way to “fix politics” was not social science, it was God. Do what is right and, with God, fight what is wrong. When we—as families, communities, and societies—all choose the right because that is what we have in our hearts, then there will be political peace because His peace, “the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep [our] hearts and minds through Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:7). Sorry, Mr. Brooks, and I know this is not “politically correct,” but following Jesus Christ is the one and only true, deep, lasting way to “fix politics.”
1
This makes me laugh every time. Liberal commentors once again swoop to denounce Mr. Brooks and end up confirming his thesis. I wonder if any will ever realize it then stop? But no, that would require self reflection, a trait sadly lacking all across our political spectrum
3
Wait, What liberals are you talking about, and what part of his thesis did they confirm?
Seriously, this needs clarification.
Seriously, this needs clarification.
"We will not treat this as a good-versus-evil blood sport."
But, Mr. Brooks, our current president tried that. He started negotiations in the middle instead of far to the left and that was thrown in this face. He modeled his healthcare reform on a Republican plan (Heritage and Massachusetts under Romney, both). Only when it became clear that the opposition would not negotiate did he attempt to implement parts of his agenda by executive order - whereupon he was derisively called "King Obama" even though he used executive power rather less than his predecessors on the right, despite Cheney's open espousal of a "Unary Executive."
It's hypocrisy to assert that "trickle down" leadership will work when your own party has demonstrated so clearly that it won't.
OK, that said, since I agree that the current election system is foolish, I'll take some time to think about your other ideas. But I just couldn't let you get away with that one.
But, Mr. Brooks, our current president tried that. He started negotiations in the middle instead of far to the left and that was thrown in this face. He modeled his healthcare reform on a Republican plan (Heritage and Massachusetts under Romney, both). Only when it became clear that the opposition would not negotiate did he attempt to implement parts of his agenda by executive order - whereupon he was derisively called "King Obama" even though he used executive power rather less than his predecessors on the right, despite Cheney's open espousal of a "Unary Executive."
It's hypocrisy to assert that "trickle down" leadership will work when your own party has demonstrated so clearly that it won't.
OK, that said, since I agree that the current election system is foolish, I'll take some time to think about your other ideas. But I just couldn't let you get away with that one.
5
I have been working in my community to advocate on a local issue. After a year spent on this, the Republican leadership sided with an out-of-state company instead of the county residents. People like me were vilified as selfish people because we don't want toxic industrial development in our backyard.
Politics matters. We have one party that has advocated loudly for the deification of business. It's crippling the country.
Politics matters. We have one party that has advocated loudly for the deification of business. It's crippling the country.
3
In 1976 Karl Weintraub visited my dorm's ratty lounge on 59th street in Chicago and talked with a few of us about western civilization. He told us that our ability to develop our identities was dependent on the richness of the culture in which we found ourselves. I suggested that such a cultural milieu might in fact limit one's ability to develop one's own identity. He responded, quietly as always, that we lived in a strange time when people see opportunities for growth as, instead, barriers.
I can imagine no better source of support for your viewpoint, David, than his.
I can imagine no better source of support for your viewpoint, David, than his.
As much as I would like to think the elimination of Citizen United would elevate politics, I remain mostly cynical. Don't get me wrong; Citizens United should be swimming with the fishies because it gives those with the deepest pockets an unfair advantage, so it would be a great place to start but probably not the cure. Unfortunately, the no-holds barred commentary on the web which has evolved into a wild west environment of self righteous anonymous rage fostering this unrelenting ugliness now overwhelming politics. It is now all about what a politician can do specifically for "me" or my narrow group and less about anyone else or certainly the world. Frankly, I wouldn't have a clue how to change this pervasive selfishness poisoning so much of the electorate.
2
A leading Conservative scholar, Norman Ornstein, considers the current Republican Party a "a radical insurgency–ideologically extreme, scornful of facts and compromise, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."
Brooks should pull his head out of the sand and write about the terrifying reality of how far his beloved Republican party has devolved into dysfunction and chaos. Ornstein and his colleagues offer some possible remedies but they don't include blaming Americans for the lack of community or sacrifice.
Brooks should pull his head out of the sand and write about the terrifying reality of how far his beloved Republican party has devolved into dysfunction and chaos. Ornstein and his colleagues offer some possible remedies but they don't include blaming Americans for the lack of community or sacrifice.
1
I wonder how then, George HW Bush missed this lack of middle connectedness, already well along as you point out, when he prescribed "a thousand points of light" as the antidote to the social ills of his day? I knew it was Republican fantasy then, and you've just admitted it.
1
I think you're right, that we are to blame for the political system, but it is because we let it happen, not made it happen. Politicians focus on issues that only polarize the electorate, instead of real issues, as a way of avoiding accountability . And this election cycle we've learned that no matter who the voters want to elect, the political elite will choose the candidates. When I think of the catastrophic George W. Bush presidency (and he an 'acceptable' candidate) I have to ask could an 'unacceptable' candidate like Donald Trump be any worse?
1
The Sanders primary candidacy is the most exciting in my 53 years. History will view his Presidency and this revolution as a major turning point in our history, -the one where we averted collapse by stepping away from plutocracy.
David Brooks only sees "depressing campaigns".
This paper and its writers and readers are the new Mattlock crowd, perhaps well intentioned but never the less clueless...
David Brooks only sees "depressing campaigns".
This paper and its writers and readers are the new Mattlock crowd, perhaps well intentioned but never the less clueless...
There are two aspects of our society that are toxic to our democracy, conservative religion and conservative politics. Both are tribal. Look at what religion has done to the Middle East.
2
I disagree with Mr Brooks the initiation of the individualistic society was just after WW2. It was the turbulent 60's and subsequent events that rocked our social foundation and beliefs: Roe vs Wade, Viet Nam, and the Watergate scandal to name a few; polarized Americans so significantly, we have yet to recover. Single issue politics was unheard of before Roe vs Wade. Viet Nam divided this nation. The watergate scandal was the first significant reason to not trust our government.
Being a child of the 50's, I lived through a very confusing turbulent time for American society.
Get the corruption out of politics by allowing only public financing, equal free tv and radio ads (we OWN the airwaves) for politicians, and congressional districts drawn with 4 corners and as equal sides as possible. Our representatives are spending up to 80% of their time getting re-elected; not the business of governing they were elected to perform. Currently, the act of drawing congressional districts is corrupt. Have grade school kids do it.
The advent of the internet and cellphones have more polarized us. One can avoid most face to face interactions in ones life. I believe this is very unhealthy; the social isolation giving rise to mass killers, the socially inept, and others not knowing how to have a healthy discussion where we can disagree and still be OK.
Being a child of the 50's, I lived through a very confusing turbulent time for American society.
Get the corruption out of politics by allowing only public financing, equal free tv and radio ads (we OWN the airwaves) for politicians, and congressional districts drawn with 4 corners and as equal sides as possible. Our representatives are spending up to 80% of their time getting re-elected; not the business of governing they were elected to perform. Currently, the act of drawing congressional districts is corrupt. Have grade school kids do it.
The advent of the internet and cellphones have more polarized us. One can avoid most face to face interactions in ones life. I believe this is very unhealthy; the social isolation giving rise to mass killers, the socially inept, and others not knowing how to have a healthy discussion where we can disagree and still be OK.
After 40+ years of concerted right wing efforts to attack and destroy all the successes of the New Deal and the Great Society, Mr. Brooks' beloved GOP is finally self-immolating. And Brooks--abandoned, excommunicated, shocked if not embarrassed--sits safely on a hillside overlooking the fire, and pens: "How did it come this? Can't we all just get along?"
1
Yes, its a depressing year for Republicans, but Bernie Sanders has me downright enthused. Even if he loses, the movement continues to grow.
I live in an urban neighborhood that's incredibly diverse by age, income, race, gender, education, religion, sexual orientation...you name it. We have hosted festivals and art fairs for years.
The common thread is that we're liberal.
I live in an urban neighborhood that's incredibly diverse by age, income, race, gender, education, religion, sexual orientation...you name it. We have hosted festivals and art fairs for years.
The common thread is that we're liberal.
Interesting David, how you are blaming the voters and not the politicians for our ineffective government. Yes the 1950's are gone but so is the uber rich's commitment to make this country a better place for all.
1
Do not blame the common man, the social setup etc. etc. Blame it all on the Politicians who have betrayed the man on the street in every sphere of their lives. These Politicians are there to enrich themselves and their masters, the Corporations. The rich, get richer, the poor poorer. The 1% has it all, yet their greed wants even more at the expense of the poor. A bipartisan dialogue? Do you seriously think that will happen? Seriously!!Moreover, it is the Republicans who have to work and build their Party from scratch before they can even approach bipartisan dialogue. They have all to be on the same page first. Trump and Cruz did not happen in isolation. There is a yawning gap between the haves and the have-nots. This is a people's uprising against the American Royalty.
1
How to fix politics?
David makes some thoughtful points.
But here’s another, more succinct suggestion:
Get the inordinate, dominating influence of money out of it. Bring back the idea of a democratic republic, instead of what is now effectively a plutocratic oligarchy, against which populist revolutions on the Right (Trump) & Left (Sanders) are rebelling.
David makes some thoughtful points.
But here’s another, more succinct suggestion:
Get the inordinate, dominating influence of money out of it. Bring back the idea of a democratic republic, instead of what is now effectively a plutocratic oligarchy, against which populist revolutions on the Right (Trump) & Left (Sanders) are rebelling.
2
Brooks concludes by briefly mentioning: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, but does not mention what these needs are at all in his column. It is far to easy to blame the state of our country on individual behavior or responsibility, on communities for not doing what they 'ought' to do, or on the breakdown of family or community. What Brooks points out is the result of a broken system and not the cause. Maslow's hierarchy presents levels of needs (e.g. food, shelter, living wage, safety/trust in institutions) that need to be fulfilled before any person or community can move on to the next level. How can the millions of people in our country who have no healthcare, who work 40 hrs a week on minimum wage, whose food stamps have been cut, and whose children goes to poor public schools engage thoughtfully in the political process?
The highest level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: self actualization is achieved when the lower levels are achieved. For all I know, the hierarchy does not begin with "Neighbors help neighbors." This is the worst kind of myths spewed by politicians and that is that people dig their own holes.
The highest level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: self actualization is achieved when the lower levels are achieved. For all I know, the hierarchy does not begin with "Neighbors help neighbors." This is the worst kind of myths spewed by politicians and that is that people dig their own holes.
1
Without quite knowing it, Brooks is espousing the political philosophy called communitarianism.
Most people in the US don't quite "get" communitarianism, because it doesn't fit the current way of dividing political views into left and right. Communitarianism contrasts with liberal individualism, which gives primacy to individual freedoms and rights, and downplays duties to family, group, neighborhood, or larger social groups. Under radical individualism, a person has no duties to others except those duties they have chosen to take on, without coercion or compulsion. Communitarians hold, in contrast, that everyone has duties to others, to contribute to the welfare of others, of the group as a whole, not just to one's own, and to follow rules that the group depends on, so that all may thrive. And these duties often eclipse the right of individuals to do as they please, because they provide the grounds, the infrastructure, by which individuals are enabled to do what they desire.
Both democratic socialism and traditional conservatism contain strong communitarian elements. If only Brooks would think a bit harder and expand his research, he would recognize that his conservatism fits that of a conservative European - a democratic socialist who believes in both personal responsibility, and the kinds of duties to others that entail a strong welfare state, not the right of individuals or capital to keep and pursue their own benefits at the expense of the rest.
Most people in the US don't quite "get" communitarianism, because it doesn't fit the current way of dividing political views into left and right. Communitarianism contrasts with liberal individualism, which gives primacy to individual freedoms and rights, and downplays duties to family, group, neighborhood, or larger social groups. Under radical individualism, a person has no duties to others except those duties they have chosen to take on, without coercion or compulsion. Communitarians hold, in contrast, that everyone has duties to others, to contribute to the welfare of others, of the group as a whole, not just to one's own, and to follow rules that the group depends on, so that all may thrive. And these duties often eclipse the right of individuals to do as they please, because they provide the grounds, the infrastructure, by which individuals are enabled to do what they desire.
Both democratic socialism and traditional conservatism contain strong communitarian elements. If only Brooks would think a bit harder and expand his research, he would recognize that his conservatism fits that of a conservative European - a democratic socialist who believes in both personal responsibility, and the kinds of duties to others that entail a strong welfare state, not the right of individuals or capital to keep and pursue their own benefits at the expense of the rest.
Chicken and egg, Mr. Brooks.
The "middle ring" of engagement disappeared when American workers had to spend more time at their jobs, knowing that not taking on the duties of your co-worker, whom the company just laid off, would mean that you'd be the next let go. The "middle ring" of PTA and bake sales and All Things Leave It to Beaver disappeared when globalization and technology gutted the semi-skilled and skilled jobs, and wives were forced to work just to make ends meet.
Your party loves to rail on about the "takers" but most of those "takers" are treading water just as hard as they can to keep from drowning. There are many women working two and three jobs just to pay the rent and feed the family. And no, I'm not talking about unwed mothers but those where their husband left for a younger version.
People aren't engaged in community service because their corporate masters don't allow it. I worked for a local newspaper that once employed 150 people to produce seven weekly town papers. When I was let go 17 years later (via a company-wide unsigned email announcing that my section would no longer be published), there were 50 people publishing 7 weeklies and 2 dailies. Anything that could be automated, outsourced to India or added to an existing workload was done. Not because of the decline of the publishing industry but to line the pockets of the very wealthy owners.
The "middle ring" of engagement disappeared when American workers had to spend more time at their jobs, knowing that not taking on the duties of your co-worker, whom the company just laid off, would mean that you'd be the next let go. The "middle ring" of PTA and bake sales and All Things Leave It to Beaver disappeared when globalization and technology gutted the semi-skilled and skilled jobs, and wives were forced to work just to make ends meet.
Your party loves to rail on about the "takers" but most of those "takers" are treading water just as hard as they can to keep from drowning. There are many women working two and three jobs just to pay the rent and feed the family. And no, I'm not talking about unwed mothers but those where their husband left for a younger version.
People aren't engaged in community service because their corporate masters don't allow it. I worked for a local newspaper that once employed 150 people to produce seven weekly town papers. When I was let go 17 years later (via a company-wide unsigned email announcing that my section would no longer be published), there were 50 people publishing 7 weeklies and 2 dailies. Anything that could be automated, outsourced to India or added to an existing workload was done. Not because of the decline of the publishing industry but to line the pockets of the very wealthy owners.
3
The problem is air conditioning! In the summer it was too hot to stay inside so people went out where there was at least some air movement. Voila - human interactions!
I disagree. Americans have always been individualistic and America was founded on the concept of Liberty. Brooks is right, though, that the problem started after WWII. By that time FDR had had his way with his social programs, so people no longer felt that they needed to help others because there was this far away entity called "government" that was there to do it. The more removed from the individual and anonymous aid becomes the more social bonds are broken. Prior to FDR, social assistance programs used to be private and voluntary in America as David Beito's book "From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890 - 1967" shows. In my opinion, the government taking over "social programs" rather than people coming together to care for each other is why our social bonds have disappeared. Brooks states that " . . . starting just after World War II, America's community/membership mindset gave way to an individualistic/autonomy mind-set." It's no coincidence that fraternal societies and other social welfare organizations slowly disappeared during that time as people began relying on government for social services.
If you want to change our culture, shrink government and bring social aid back to the people. They took care of each other then, and would again if government would get out of the way.
If you want to change our culture, shrink government and bring social aid back to the people. They took care of each other then, and would again if government would get out of the way.
1
David, you're right about politics replacing ethnicity or religion as the primary value-set. But this didn't happen because we know fewer of our neighbors, but because a political party cobbled together a 50+1% coalition comprising gun owners, Evangelicals, bigots, libertarians, nostalgians and big business. The latter financed this, and enshrined into law businesses' ability to keep financing its agenda while protecting the anonymity of the donors.
I hold views similar to yours, most of the time, on most issues. But I'm not going to dance around what's going on here. What's wrong with our politics is our politicians, mostly the Republicans, and their backers, not the decline of mid-ring relationships.
I hold views similar to yours, most of the time, on most issues. But I'm not going to dance around what's going on here. What's wrong with our politics is our politicians, mostly the Republicans, and their backers, not the decline of mid-ring relationships.
3
Well put! I live in Mexico in an old urban neighborhood. I know my neighbors and the local shop keepers. It's a real community. And that is why I live where I do. I could never go back to the isolation of existence that is the way of life for elder single people in the US. Americans have completely forgotten how to live in a community. It scares them. They don't know that if you have a conflict with a neighbor, everyone gets over it. They don't know how it feels to greet neighbors in the street and how it feels to be greeted by 5 or 6 different people(of every economic level) by name on the way to the market, less than a block away. Americans needing community find it with their tablet. This can be terrific. But unfortunately the racists and the crazies congregate also and have a scary voice we are all stuck listening to. In a physical neighborhood community such shortcomings, all kinds of opinions and tastes are tolerated, known, but not encouraged, not turned into rage. Mexico is rated high on the happiness scale and yet most have so little in terms of the material, but so much in the way of middle ring relationships.
1
How many Americans live their entire lives, or even entire adult lives, in the same home? Or the same neighborhood? Or the same city? We live in a time where jobs aren't permanent and people re-locate for education, career opportunities, and some times for survival. And, in doing so, we negotiate more "outer-ring" relationships than ever before. But in a different way - and that's the problem for David Brooks. He's nostalgic for pre-war, pre-technology, "healthy societies" which weren't nearly as healthy as he believes. Get rid of Fox, Rush, MSNBC, CNN, lobbyists and Trump
1
"Who you gonna call?" as the Ghostbusters said. Government and elections have taken on more importance to more people because they have no one else to call when they lose a job, or can't pay their hospital bill, or their house burns down or they get arrested. And the reason they have no one to call is that self-centered, competitive, self-made-man individualism you speak of. I have friends and church "family" for social and emotional support. I participate in school and local civic affairs. Some among these will help me get a job or loan me their lawnmower (once), but none of them will fork over the money for a car when my old one dies or pay my mortgage or my medical bills. They think I should be able to pay my own way, no matter what happens. If I don't have enough for every rainy day scenario, it's my own darn fault. Only my immediate family offers bailout cash. This Ghostbusters predicament will only spread to more individuals as the middle class shrinks, and the family "wealth" passed from generation to generation or available for family bailout loans disappears. Even more people's expectations and frustrations will be transferred to government, and political wars will get nastier when family is no longer the "family bank" in times of need. Taking action now to shore up the middle class is vital to our political stability.
2
Two things jumped out at me: 1) Once again, Mr. Brooks is abdicating HIS part in the rise of the tribalist, facts-don't-matter New Republicanism that is the core of what's wrong in our politics. 2) Mr. Brooks uses some fancy references and big words to paper over what is basically a paper thin argument. Shades of Wm. F. Buckley!
His primary assertion of "following the rules" being lost after WWII doesn't stand up to historical analysis. In the last 1/3 of the 19th century, rule-breaking went on everywhere. The robber-barons broke rules, and their workers rebelling and establishing unions broke rules in their turn. The Populists of the time broke rules and re-invented the political parties and their positions.
The only place were there seemed to be Brooks's "rules" was in the South, which was moribund and choking itself on Jim Crow and accepted domestic terrorism. Perhaps Mr. Brooks has some sort of cinematic "ideal America" straight out of "State Fair" and "Meet Me in St. Louis", with a dollop of "Leave it To Beaver" but America was never really like that.
Only now, in certain parts of developed suburbs, do people not really know their neighbors, but even in older neighborhoods they still do.
Want to fix politics? You have to get rid of Fox's 24/7 stream of constant propaganda that's gone on for over 15 years. You have to get rid of Citizens' United, voter suppression (pretending to be Voter ID), gerrymandering and the lies that all Democrats are Satanists.
His primary assertion of "following the rules" being lost after WWII doesn't stand up to historical analysis. In the last 1/3 of the 19th century, rule-breaking went on everywhere. The robber-barons broke rules, and their workers rebelling and establishing unions broke rules in their turn. The Populists of the time broke rules and re-invented the political parties and their positions.
The only place were there seemed to be Brooks's "rules" was in the South, which was moribund and choking itself on Jim Crow and accepted domestic terrorism. Perhaps Mr. Brooks has some sort of cinematic "ideal America" straight out of "State Fair" and "Meet Me in St. Louis", with a dollop of "Leave it To Beaver" but America was never really like that.
Only now, in certain parts of developed suburbs, do people not really know their neighbors, but even in older neighborhoods they still do.
Want to fix politics? You have to get rid of Fox's 24/7 stream of constant propaganda that's gone on for over 15 years. You have to get rid of Citizens' United, voter suppression (pretending to be Voter ID), gerrymandering and the lies that all Democrats are Satanists.
1
There is also the actual brain changes that are present between so called progressives and conservatives.Many studies show that the two groups perceive and process things differently with different parts of the brain. This shows early in life and a behavior of a 5 yo can predict a political choice as an adult. Families have 3-4 children some are very liberal, some are very conservative, same family same exposure different gene arrangements.
Ths is a fact. Now, how can we have a system that allows the way people see things blend to accept a "middle of the road idea"? All our misinformation in the media and the internet divides rather then unites these different brains.
Ths is a fact. Now, how can we have a system that allows the way people see things blend to accept a "middle of the road idea"? All our misinformation in the media and the internet divides rather then unites these different brains.
Mr. Brooks, you compare the past, when we were socially engaged, favorably to the present, when we are each engaged in advancing our individual selves. This is the difference between the "we're all in this together" attitude of the Democrats and the "every man for himself" attitude of the Republicans.
If you listened to your own words, you would support Bernie Sanders in the primary and the Democratic nominee in the general election.
If you listened to your own words, you would support Bernie Sanders in the primary and the Democratic nominee in the general election.
David: I so admire you even if I disagree with you. You have not blocked me when I have. Note to the youngster Amy Chozick: She bashes Mrs. Clinton harder than Joe and Mika. Almost daily and usually unfairly. When called out, she blocks out readers. I have several friends who have questioned her on her caustic reporting only to be blocked. To my knowledge, none of us has been rude or foul toward her. Hint to our beloved paper/ clue in this child. She is an embarrassment. Maureen D she is not!
While I agree with you, this is the same 'Bowling Alone' problem like what, 20 years later? And if anything it's probably gotten worse. The problem is, how do we put the genie back in the bottle?
If you (or anyone) has a roadmap back to more civic involvement I'd love to see it. We belong to a neighborhood association that runs a local park and pool and it's dying from lack of volunteers. And from what I gather this sort of thing is a problem everywhere. If you've got a plan, by all means roll it out. Otherwise join us lamenters on the sidelines.
If you (or anyone) has a roadmap back to more civic involvement I'd love to see it. We belong to a neighborhood association that runs a local park and pool and it's dying from lack of volunteers. And from what I gather this sort of thing is a problem everywhere. If you've got a plan, by all means roll it out. Otherwise join us lamenters on the sidelines.
We have one party that assumes the good comes from shared assumptions about our common good. This good comes from liberty but responsibility too. From family taking care of family. From a strong role of religious and civic, especially local civic, institutions in public life. The other party is founded on grievance, especially grievance expressed around issues of ethnicity, gender, race, and now sexual orientation. Without "victims," this party has no role to play in public life. It prospers by justifying taking money from those who are productive and then, rather than helping truly unfortunate people to get back on their feet, subsidizes sloth and irresponsibility (see free birth control).
"If each of us fulfill all of our discrete individual desires, we end up with a society that is not what we want at all." -- How very not conservative of Mr.Brooks.
The bedrock of conservative ideology is that if all selfs look out for #1 then all the selfs will be in as good a living situation as humanly possible because no one looks after you as well as you do yourself. Conservatives criticize liberals for focusing on helping others, even suggesting that liberals are willing to help others at the expense of helping themselves, ergo the decline of society.
The bedrock of conservative ideology is that if all selfs look out for #1 then all the selfs will be in as good a living situation as humanly possible because no one looks after you as well as you do yourself. Conservatives criticize liberals for focusing on helping others, even suggesting that liberals are willing to help others at the expense of helping themselves, ergo the decline of society.
Important thoughts David...however with the advent of social media, the "middle Level" of people we support are strangers. They are our 1000 'best friends'. They are people who we've never met from across the media spectrum.They now count for us because they agree with us. There is no need to negotiate a middle ground.
"They" are our extended family. "We" are now connected to them.
The only real way to fix "Politics" is to root out the entrenched. = term limits and big money influence.
Those are unrealistic I know, given this 'about me' society.
"They" are our extended family. "We" are now connected to them.
The only real way to fix "Politics" is to root out the entrenched. = term limits and big money influence.
Those are unrealistic I know, given this 'about me' society.
Brooks repeatedly glosses over the malignant influence of the Southern strategy & Atwater/Rove smearmeisters.
Stoking up polarized emotional identities, the GOP machine has played a major role in degrading the democratic discourse, patriotic identity as it upholds a shared national vision. Reagan's notion that 'government is the problem' became the mantra for reactionary crony capitalists, evangelical fundamentalists and reactionary racists.
Of course, changing demographics, the strangling tentacles of Finance & the derivative market post Glass-Steagal, the alarmist meme of Takers vs Makers,
the anxieties of working class losers that distrust humanitarian rationales for a safety net (until they collect unemployment, disability or Medicare benefits) -
but the incentive to divide has been on the Right as they lose the popular vote and zeitgeist of modern cultural values.
Stoking up polarized emotional identities, the GOP machine has played a major role in degrading the democratic discourse, patriotic identity as it upholds a shared national vision. Reagan's notion that 'government is the problem' became the mantra for reactionary crony capitalists, evangelical fundamentalists and reactionary racists.
Of course, changing demographics, the strangling tentacles of Finance & the derivative market post Glass-Steagal, the alarmist meme of Takers vs Makers,
the anxieties of working class losers that distrust humanitarian rationales for a safety net (until they collect unemployment, disability or Medicare benefits) -
but the incentive to divide has been on the Right as they lose the popular vote and zeitgeist of modern cultural values.
open primaries, computer randomly generated congressional districts without gerry-mandering, publically financed elections. Would go a long way. Now it is the very extreme members of the parties that vote in primaries and pick out wackos.
Of course, a public media that was not solely concerned with media share and advertising revenues and an informed electorate would help, but that would require a change in human motivation, something much less likely.
Of course, a public media that was not solely concerned with media share and advertising revenues and an informed electorate would help, but that would require a change in human motivation, something much less likely.
Of all people, Marco Rubio described the collapse and decay of American politics in his concession speech. Disgraced, humiliated and abandoned by the political elite, Rubio blamed the current climate in American politics on the media and political establishment who denigrate and mock ordinary people, while cashing in on their misery.
Barack Obama, David Brooks and any of the stuffed shirts you see on television or read in this newspaper are living it up...six maybe seven figure salaries, VIP passes and lifestyles of the rich and famous. I'm a Black lawyer in Washington DC, and I volunteer through legal clinics in DC as an advocate for the homeless.
I've never seen Barack Obama helping us on the coldest nights of the year when we drive all over town picking up homeless people and taking them to local shelters. I've never seen David Brooks at a coat drive, a food bank. I've never seen anyone we watch on television news shows or read in newspapers lifting a finger to help the less fortunate. But I have heard them joking about poor people. I have heard them mocking homeless people.
Obama and his liberal elite simply have no respect for ordinary people. They think most Americans are stupid and we just go along with whatever crumbs they flick off the table. But they're wrong. It's our table. Do not be surprised by a Trump victory in November.
Barack Obama, David Brooks and any of the stuffed shirts you see on television or read in this newspaper are living it up...six maybe seven figure salaries, VIP passes and lifestyles of the rich and famous. I'm a Black lawyer in Washington DC, and I volunteer through legal clinics in DC as an advocate for the homeless.
I've never seen Barack Obama helping us on the coldest nights of the year when we drive all over town picking up homeless people and taking them to local shelters. I've never seen David Brooks at a coat drive, a food bank. I've never seen anyone we watch on television news shows or read in newspapers lifting a finger to help the less fortunate. But I have heard them joking about poor people. I have heard them mocking homeless people.
Obama and his liberal elite simply have no respect for ordinary people. They think most Americans are stupid and we just go along with whatever crumbs they flick off the table. But they're wrong. It's our table. Do not be surprised by a Trump victory in November.
3
Brooks' sociological explanation for our dysfunctional system is wildly off base. The places with the highest cohesion and least individualism (i.e. Kansas) where everyone knows their neighbor, have the worst politics... see governor Brownback. What's wrong with our political system is quite simply the fact that a generation of Republicans were raised to believe things that happen not to be true and there is no institutional ability to change course. Their toxic positions on everything from taxes, race relations, the environment, social issues, etc... just no longer represent a winning coalition on a national scale. A thriving party can afford to be flexible, it can negotiate and compromise... a moribund party can't. And as Republicans continue to lose they have become like a wild animal caught in a snare.... doubling down on viciousness and struggle in a last minute effort to go for broke. it won't work it just makes the situation worse.
Our politics will be fixed once Republicans writ large rid themselves of the delusion that we are a fundamentally conservative country that agree with their positions. Maybe it will be this election (after Hillary stomps the daylights out of Trump or Cruz), or maybe it will be 8 years from now. But at a certain point, sobriety will return.... or Republicans will become electorally irrelevant in all branches of Gov't except at the state and local level. In which case, some other party will rise, because a one party systems can't last.
Our politics will be fixed once Republicans writ large rid themselves of the delusion that we are a fundamentally conservative country that agree with their positions. Maybe it will be this election (after Hillary stomps the daylights out of Trump or Cruz), or maybe it will be 8 years from now. But at a certain point, sobriety will return.... or Republicans will become electorally irrelevant in all branches of Gov't except at the state and local level. In which case, some other party will rise, because a one party systems can't last.
1
"In the middle of this depressing presidential campaign..."
So begins Our Mister Brooks' latest homily about what we all need to do differently.
Who's making the campaign depressing, sir? And don't those depressing bigots, grifters, and demagogues all belong to the party you've been glorifying in your dreadful prose lo these many years?
So begins Our Mister Brooks' latest homily about what we all need to do differently.
Who's making the campaign depressing, sir? And don't those depressing bigots, grifters, and demagogues all belong to the party you've been glorifying in your dreadful prose lo these many years?
Your “middle-ring relationships” got me thinking.
We need to bring back communitarianism. It turns out that this was a real movement with 19th century origins. It is a direct counterpoint to Ayn Rand’s 20th century “egotism”, but got lost somewhere.
In essence, when you choose to live in any community, you are committing to a social contract, defined by values, principles, guidelines and rules. Many of these are unstated but are manifested in the actions and behaviors of the community. Conversely, when such behaviors are confining to the “individualist” then that person should move away from others—perhaps to join the Koch Bros in KS.
There may be a “community government” example that actually works – the Caucus system as used in various Chicago North Shore communities.
This non-partisan political system has a lot going for it as it focuses on the greater good of the community. Just one party, not two; no dueling agendas, no campaign financing, no pandering, no fragmenting. All voices can be heard. And there is plenty to argue about! However, this may be a fading form. I, for one, hope that it does not die out. More important, can it be scaled up?
So, if Tip O’Neil was right and “all politics is local,” then the big question is how do we get our local politics to work at a county, state and Federal level? This is a real grass roots opportunity.
We need to bring back communitarianism. It turns out that this was a real movement with 19th century origins. It is a direct counterpoint to Ayn Rand’s 20th century “egotism”, but got lost somewhere.
In essence, when you choose to live in any community, you are committing to a social contract, defined by values, principles, guidelines and rules. Many of these are unstated but are manifested in the actions and behaviors of the community. Conversely, when such behaviors are confining to the “individualist” then that person should move away from others—perhaps to join the Koch Bros in KS.
There may be a “community government” example that actually works – the Caucus system as used in various Chicago North Shore communities.
This non-partisan political system has a lot going for it as it focuses on the greater good of the community. Just one party, not two; no dueling agendas, no campaign financing, no pandering, no fragmenting. All voices can be heard. And there is plenty to argue about! However, this may be a fading form. I, for one, hope that it does not die out. More important, can it be scaled up?
So, if Tip O’Neil was right and “all politics is local,” then the big question is how do we get our local politics to work at a county, state and Federal level? This is a real grass roots opportunity.
Do you think Mr. Brooks realizes that all of his op-eds lately have essentially called for a leader like 2008 Barack Obama? You know, before the quacks in his party turned President Obama into a Muslim/American-hating/Marxist/totalitarian puppet of the New World Order? In his call for civility, do you think David regrets standing by and winking while Rush and Glenn and Sean crushed the last remaining shreds of it?
3
Interesting that Brooks picks Montrose in Houston of all neighbourhoods as an example. Rapidly gentrifying, and one of the gayest neighbourhoods in all of the South. Montrose is being remade in a less civic space partially by changes in architecture. The demolition of houses with yards and front porches is rampant and replacement with townhouses with 2-car garages facing the street, insulates newer, wealthier residents from interaction with neighbours. Longer hours at work for many Montrose residents also prohibit involvement with 'middle-ring' activities.
1
There are two kinds of Republicans. Rich ones and suckers. The suckers just looked in their wallets and discovered they've been had, but they can't vote Democrat because of those social dysfunctions Mr. Brooks refers to, in other words, the liberal civil rights movement.
But to fix everything: All the next president needs to do is say “We’re going to change the way we do business in Washington. We’re going to deliberate and negotiate. We’ll disagree and wrangle, but we will not treat this as good-versus-evil blood sport.” Then suddenly trickle down magic will occur. As if our president hasn't been doing just that. Society didn't cause this debacle and neither did Democrats or the President. The GOP created a monster to protect the wealth of the wealthiest from Big Government and Big Taxation. But we don't want to talk about that. Let's blame our neighbors. We're not helping each other enough. I have wonderful neighbors, but I don't think they are ready to care for me in my old age or put my grand daughters through college. Reality check for Mr Brooks: social democracy is the most effective vehicle for people to help each other and assure our group survival. That's why they're so happy in Denmark.
Mr Brooks function seems to be to deflect responsibility from the Republican Party. He is intelligent and articulate, but I believe, like William F Buckley, he is ethically challenged. Either that or the separate planet he lives on is orbiting farther and farther from Earth.
But to fix everything: All the next president needs to do is say “We’re going to change the way we do business in Washington. We’re going to deliberate and negotiate. We’ll disagree and wrangle, but we will not treat this as good-versus-evil blood sport.” Then suddenly trickle down magic will occur. As if our president hasn't been doing just that. Society didn't cause this debacle and neither did Democrats or the President. The GOP created a monster to protect the wealth of the wealthiest from Big Government and Big Taxation. But we don't want to talk about that. Let's blame our neighbors. We're not helping each other enough. I have wonderful neighbors, but I don't think they are ready to care for me in my old age or put my grand daughters through college. Reality check for Mr Brooks: social democracy is the most effective vehicle for people to help each other and assure our group survival. That's why they're so happy in Denmark.
Mr Brooks function seems to be to deflect responsibility from the Republican Party. He is intelligent and articulate, but I believe, like William F Buckley, he is ethically challenged. Either that or the separate planet he lives on is orbiting farther and farther from Earth.
2
Yes, but …
Mr. Brooks omits a critical broken connection: the one between political involvement and actual results. People vote for change, but not much changes; so they stop voting. E.g.:
—The filibuster allows Senators representing 30% of Americans to block changes favored by Senators representing 70% of Americans.
—Gerrymandering keeps the House in GOP hands despite a majority of Americans voting for Democrats in the 2014 and 2012 elections.
—Gerrymandering also means most House seats (even safe D seats) are decided in the primaries, when the VAST majority of people are paying no attention. This may be foolish, but experience has shown it's ingrained. We need to change the election calendar to make the primaries closer to the general election; or maybe even instant-runoff voting on a single election date.
—The Federal Reserve Board has great influence on the economy, yet is appointed, not elected.
If we want people to get involved, then we need to ensure their involvement would actually matter.
Mr. Brooks omits a critical broken connection: the one between political involvement and actual results. People vote for change, but not much changes; so they stop voting. E.g.:
—The filibuster allows Senators representing 30% of Americans to block changes favored by Senators representing 70% of Americans.
—Gerrymandering keeps the House in GOP hands despite a majority of Americans voting for Democrats in the 2014 and 2012 elections.
—Gerrymandering also means most House seats (even safe D seats) are decided in the primaries, when the VAST majority of people are paying no attention. This may be foolish, but experience has shown it's ingrained. We need to change the election calendar to make the primaries closer to the general election; or maybe even instant-runoff voting on a single election date.
—The Federal Reserve Board has great influence on the economy, yet is appointed, not elected.
If we want people to get involved, then we need to ensure their involvement would actually matter.
2
A dominant emphasis on individualism began in the U.S. following World War II??!! And before that we all lived in warm, supportive communities??!! What a strange and inaccurate understanding of history Mr. Brooks is presenting in his now seemingly post-GOP apologist days. This half baked view of history undergirds his overall argument and recommendations here, which includes a sort of "thousand points of light" plus smaller government kind of view. He's seriously losing relevance and credibility...
I disagree. Americans have always been individualistic and America was founded on the concept of Liberty. He is right, though, that the problem started after WWII. By that time FDR had had his way with his social programs, so people no longer felt that they needed to help others because there was this far away entity called "government" that was there to do it. The more removed from the individual and anonymous aid becomes the more social bonds are broken. Prior to FDR, social assistance programs used to be private and voluntary in America, as this book "From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State shows: http://www.amazon.com/Mutual.../dp/B0049MNW4Q/ref=sr_1_1...
In my opinion, the government taking over "social programs" rather than people coming together to care for each other is why our social bonds have disappeared.
In my opinion, the government taking over "social programs" rather than people coming together to care for each other is why our social bonds have disappeared.
1
While I think Brooks has some good points, I would argue that the place Americans bond most with people who are different is at work. We spend far more time working than other societies (which is why we are less connected in the ways Brooks notes), but we form our own "societies" within that context. I suggest the problem is really the permeation of far right religious dogma that conditions people to take an absolute view of things (especially on the GOP side) and American arrogance to foreign solutions. There is no wiggle room for being partly right as you are either on board or not.
Solving the problem is fortunately much easier, it just requires political will through constitutional amendments that would have to originate at the state level where politicians have a reason to seek change (and opportunity for themselves) through:
1.) Require non-partisan third parties to draw all legislative districts.
2.) Eliminate money from races by going to reasonable public funding and required TV/Radio spots.
3.) Term limits of 6 terms for Reps, 2 terms for Senators, and one 18-year term for Supreme Court justices coming due on a 2-year staggered basis.
4.) Make it a felony for a member of Congress to use a 3rd party draft for legislation except for model legislation from the ABA, etc. Add a drafting 0ffice to Congress.
5.) Make it a felony to be a paid lobbyist. It is fine to send information, but not okay to wine and dine Congressmen.
Solving the problem is fortunately much easier, it just requires political will through constitutional amendments that would have to originate at the state level where politicians have a reason to seek change (and opportunity for themselves) through:
1.) Require non-partisan third parties to draw all legislative districts.
2.) Eliminate money from races by going to reasonable public funding and required TV/Radio spots.
3.) Term limits of 6 terms for Reps, 2 terms for Senators, and one 18-year term for Supreme Court justices coming due on a 2-year staggered basis.
4.) Make it a felony for a member of Congress to use a 3rd party draft for legislation except for model legislation from the ABA, etc. Add a drafting 0ffice to Congress.
5.) Make it a felony to be a paid lobbyist. It is fine to send information, but not okay to wine and dine Congressmen.
1
“We’re good at bonding with people like ourselves but worse at bridging with people unlike ourselves.” Another profound insight from the scholarly David Brooks. Today’s column is just more of Professor Brooks’ stock-in-trade: his factually and logically wanting sociological critiques—which wouldn’t pass muster in a 200-level college course—to deflect from the indefensible politics and ideology of the Republican Party that he is so desperately bound to.
And then there’s the rank hypocrisy of the argument that we all just need to listen to each other more, as Brooks has famously admitted that he doesn’t read the comments to his own columns because he finds them “too psychologically damaging” (Google it). Talk about being in a bubble!
C’mon, Brooks, give up the delusion that our current state of scorched earth, no-compromise politics is due to our society’s having gravitated from warm spaces of togetherness, and other such nonsense. You know where the fault lies.
And then there’s the rank hypocrisy of the argument that we all just need to listen to each other more, as Brooks has famously admitted that he doesn’t read the comments to his own columns because he finds them “too psychologically damaging” (Google it). Talk about being in a bubble!
C’mon, Brooks, give up the delusion that our current state of scorched earth, no-compromise politics is due to our society’s having gravitated from warm spaces of togetherness, and other such nonsense. You know where the fault lies.
1
How can you not pick sides when one party has become the "there's no such thing as a fact" party?
You're either with that or against it. There's no middle ground.
You're either with that or against it. There's no middle ground.
1
Brooks makes the point that we are isolated from those with other points of view. I've read that Brooks does not read comments to his columns. I don't know whether this is true, but I'd like to hear it clarified, preferably by Brooks himself.
1
' The next president could get together with the leaders of both parties in Congress and say: “We’re going to change the way we do business in Washington. We’re going to deliberate and negotiate. We’ll disagree and wrangle, but we will not treat this as good-versus-evil blood sport.” '
Um, I guess you weren't paying attention in 2008 when the current president was swept into office with a promise and a mandate to do just that - and was instantly given the cold shoulder by the R party.
Um, I guess you weren't paying attention in 2008 when the current president was swept into office with a promise and a mandate to do just that - and was instantly given the cold shoulder by the R party.
1
To break out of the increasingly insular,narcissistic mold of current American culture, we need to start with the children. The digital age has locked them into a world whose horizon encompasses only the two dimensional screen of the computer,smart phone and pad. Communication is mostly visual with electronic sound for speech. The human connection,and social structure that evolved to permit human survival through the millennia is transformed into an intellectually,and physically barren world.
How will generations unskilled in human interaction in the real physical world ever be able to " come together" as suggested. This failure reflects on all of society. Malhureusement, it will only get worse. Sad.
How will generations unskilled in human interaction in the real physical world ever be able to " come together" as suggested. This failure reflects on all of society. Malhureusement, it will only get worse. Sad.
1
Sounds more like a way to fix society rather than just politics -which would be a good thing. But unfortunately and as always Mr. Brooks has his head in the clouds. One problem with his analysis is that he assumes a "one cause - one effect", and in his mind it all has to do with "America's community/membership mind-set gave way to an individualistic/autonomy mind-set". I think it's a bit more complicated than that one sentence. There are a multitude of reasons of how we got to where we are today.
"With fewer sources of ethnic and local identity, people ask politics to fill the void. Being a Democrat or a Republican becomes their ethnicity …
This is asking too much of politics. Once politics becomes your ethnic and moral identity, it becomes impossible to compromise, because compromise becomes dishonor."
This is a great point, and we see this both on Facebook among our friends, and in Congress with the Garland nomination.
I also agree with Mr. Brooks about the "middle ring". I found out how important that is to me when I got a dog. Walking the dog, I finally met my neighbors. We have long conversations on the street. One of my neighbors is a staunch conservative; we disagree about almost everything politically. But that doesn't stop us from talking about the Red Sox, books, or the weather.
This is asking too much of politics. Once politics becomes your ethnic and moral identity, it becomes impossible to compromise, because compromise becomes dishonor."
This is a great point, and we see this both on Facebook among our friends, and in Congress with the Garland nomination.
I also agree with Mr. Brooks about the "middle ring". I found out how important that is to me when I got a dog. Walking the dog, I finally met my neighbors. We have long conversations on the street. One of my neighbors is a staunch conservative; we disagree about almost everything politically. But that doesn't stop us from talking about the Red Sox, books, or the weather.
1
No, it is not at all "clear" that our political dysfunction is deep in the roots of our society. It is only deep in the roots of a few obstructionist extremist republicans who profit massively from their recalcitrance. Brooks, your party farted in the elevator and and you're trying to blame it on everyone.
Fix politics? Simple, fix the Citizens' United issue.
Fix politics? Simple, fix the Citizens' United issue.
1
I had a Spanish teacher in high school who once in a while would go 'off topic'. One day she asked us if we had ever heard the saying that 'money is the root of all evil'. Of course we all had. Then she explained that this old adage is actually incorrect. Money itself can do great things: build schools, hospitals, buy food to feed ourselves, etc. She explained that it's the *love* of money that is the root of all evil.
We are living in a society that has been largely brainwashed to believe the pursuit of money in and of itself is a virtue. Just listen to many of the so-called televangelists today! Pursuit of wealth and adoration of those who possess it is practically a religion now.
The common belief of huge swaths of of our citizenry is that simply going to your job and putting in a good honest days work, day in day out, is a sign of weakness. We all have to be entrepreneurs, we have to be willing sacrifice everything to get ahead, and those who aren't willing to that? Well, they pretty much deserve whatever misfortune might befall them. Oh, except if it's someone we know, or who is one of 'us' (hear that whistle?)
The strategy of divide and conquer is so simple, yet so effective (especially is a diverse society such as ours), and 90% of us have no idea we're the victim of it.
We are living in a society that has been largely brainwashed to believe the pursuit of money in and of itself is a virtue. Just listen to many of the so-called televangelists today! Pursuit of wealth and adoration of those who possess it is practically a religion now.
The common belief of huge swaths of of our citizenry is that simply going to your job and putting in a good honest days work, day in day out, is a sign of weakness. We all have to be entrepreneurs, we have to be willing sacrifice everything to get ahead, and those who aren't willing to that? Well, they pretty much deserve whatever misfortune might befall them. Oh, except if it's someone we know, or who is one of 'us' (hear that whistle?)
The strategy of divide and conquer is so simple, yet so effective (especially is a diverse society such as ours), and 90% of us have no idea we're the victim of it.
2
Wow, its hard to even know where to begin with this one!
For one thing, large institutions DO seem to be about nothing but advancing their own power and treating individuals with very little loyalty, so is it a surprise that no one wants to sacrifice for them? Think about how many employers today will not give their workers full-time employment or benefits, but the workers have no real option but to remain there.
Which leads me to another point: the lack of stable and predictable careers for so many leave a lot of us in positions where we're so busy scurrying from place to place stringing jobs together that we can't put down roots or afford the time to be neighborly, and even if we could, the people living around us are never around that long either. It seems today that even those who CAN root themselves in some kind of traditional and semi-permanent neighborhood can't do so until they're in their 40s, and then a lot of them become older (and helicopter) parents, which leaves little time for the neighbors.
And then, of course, you have to worry about whether your neighbor is armed and angry in a way that fewer people seemed to be 30 or 40 years ago. Its one thing to be surrounded by people you disagree with, but its another to be unsure about your basic safety.
For one thing, large institutions DO seem to be about nothing but advancing their own power and treating individuals with very little loyalty, so is it a surprise that no one wants to sacrifice for them? Think about how many employers today will not give their workers full-time employment or benefits, but the workers have no real option but to remain there.
Which leads me to another point: the lack of stable and predictable careers for so many leave a lot of us in positions where we're so busy scurrying from place to place stringing jobs together that we can't put down roots or afford the time to be neighborly, and even if we could, the people living around us are never around that long either. It seems today that even those who CAN root themselves in some kind of traditional and semi-permanent neighborhood can't do so until they're in their 40s, and then a lot of them become older (and helicopter) parents, which leaves little time for the neighbors.
And then, of course, you have to worry about whether your neighbor is armed and angry in a way that fewer people seemed to be 30 or 40 years ago. Its one thing to be surrounded by people you disagree with, but its another to be unsure about your basic safety.
1
I think that Mr. Brooks is pointing out something worth hearing, but that the particularly savage politics we have right now doesn't come from a lack of local politics, it comes from the enormous tension between those who really do not want to live in the modern world we have, with its realities ... vs. those who do.
Realities of various kinds are forcing change on too many people who really don't want it.
Realities of various kinds are forcing change on too many people who really don't want it.
2
poltics should be for the good of the people...without. provide the basics health education and welfare take care of the poor the sick and the disenfranchised. clear the way for the mobile. utilze the resources that have been built and are available. knock down the false idols and palaces of consumption. if you got the money pay the extra but don't do it on the backs of the needy and the broken hearted. politics is a business and not a theory especially one that doesn't work in practice.
2
David, much of the problem is that all of these middle-ring groups have been politicized. When I join the PTA, the local food bank drive or any other similar community group, I discover that it's headed by a group who impose their rules on the entire group. Not only does this group run the meetings in the present but they also have a cadre of designated successors. Unless I can ingratiate myself with these leaders, my voice in the group is silenced.
At least in unstructured activities like expressing my views on Facebook or my own blog, voting for my choices on shows like American Idol, or writing my opinion to the Times, I have a chance to be a part of some sort of middle ring.
At least in unstructured activities like expressing my views on Facebook or my own blog, voting for my choices on shows like American Idol, or writing my opinion to the Times, I have a chance to be a part of some sort of middle ring.
Perhaps it is past time to revisit the idea of national conscription. Service would be a requirement of citizenship, for all Americans .One year for military service and two for civil (Peace Corps, Teach for America, etc) should do the trick. The common bond the Greatest Generation had was one of shared sacrifice, something that has been more or less absent since the Second World War. Putting people of different backgrounds and worldviews to hard work in the same foxhole (or working the same refugee camp, or in the same inner city school) has time and again proven to be the best way to instill the understanding that citizenship is both a duty and a right. After all, it has worked for the Swiss - another federal democracy forged of disparate cultures - for centuries.
1
What about all the money spent by wealthy individuals and corporations to influence people's thinking? What about the political parties who strive to shut out the candidates of choice in favor of those who "belong" in the system? What about the feelings of powerlessness that are the result of having a set of so-called "representatives" who do not carry out the will of the people? Can this all be traced back to a lack of middle-ring relationships?
1
David, I suggest that instead of searching to a lofty ideal, you apply your written skills in reshaping your angry bedfellows attitudes to recognize that compromise is noble, respectful, and hard work. As long as your party keeps setting bad example of human behavior, you are allowing the Trumps, Cruz's, and Koch's to continue destroying the fabrics of society. Are you up to the task?
Of course, Obama tried paragraph two. Was met with the referred to evil.
“As [fill in the blank] writes in his compelling book “[fill in the blank]”, a firm grasp of the obvious gains gravitas when you can slap a footnote on it.”
It’s a disservice to Times readers when so much space is surrendered to linguistic meringue like this. There’s nothing here—no serious diagnoses or prescriptions, nothing concrete and actionable; nothing that makes Brooks or anyone else accountable for the “fix” he says needs to happen.
What’s most vexing about Brooks is how certain he can make a thin case sound, but how little he really understands about the very things he discusses. Does he even read The Times? Is he so firmly parochial that he doesn’t understand the changes happening so rapidly in how people relate, collaborate, cooperate and compete? He doesn’t see the idea of “we” changing around him. He doesn’t even look to understand anything about how citizenship itself is evolving. And “If we’re going to salvage our politics, we probably have to shrink politics, and nurture the thick local membership web that politics rests within.”—what in blazes is that supposed to clarify? “Shrink politics”? “Nurture the thick local…”? Who in the first place is “we,” David? Do you know? Does The Times know?
It’s a disservice to Times readers when so much space is surrendered to linguistic meringue like this. There’s nothing here—no serious diagnoses or prescriptions, nothing concrete and actionable; nothing that makes Brooks or anyone else accountable for the “fix” he says needs to happen.
What’s most vexing about Brooks is how certain he can make a thin case sound, but how little he really understands about the very things he discusses. Does he even read The Times? Is he so firmly parochial that he doesn’t understand the changes happening so rapidly in how people relate, collaborate, cooperate and compete? He doesn’t see the idea of “we” changing around him. He doesn’t even look to understand anything about how citizenship itself is evolving. And “If we’re going to salvage our politics, we probably have to shrink politics, and nurture the thick local membership web that politics rests within.”—what in blazes is that supposed to clarify? “Shrink politics”? “Nurture the thick local…”? Who in the first place is “we,” David? Do you know? Does The Times know?
Once again, Mr. Brooks is using the broad sweep that "everyone does it" to hide that fact that much of the political polarization has been driven by the Republican party starting in 1996 when they gained a majority in the House and under Newt Gingrich decided there is no such thing as "the loyal opposition". This set in motion the mentality that compromise is a dirty word.
And isn't it the Republican leadership (think Paul Ryan for example) that is infatuated with Ayn Rand and the belief that the individual has no real responsibility to his neighbors (think "makers vs. takers" and the 47%)?
By the way, I'm not sure what world Mr. Brooks inhabits, but I see people around me volunteering to be coaches for t-ball, soccer, basketball, softball and other sports, to be members of the PTA, to set up tennis programs and swim programs, to be part of church committees, and for other roles without questioning whether the people they are working with are Democrat or Republican. Perhaps it's a good time for Mr. Brooks to get out of Washington and stop trying to understand American life by reading scholarly reports, but instead see how people actually live.
And isn't it the Republican leadership (think Paul Ryan for example) that is infatuated with Ayn Rand and the belief that the individual has no real responsibility to his neighbors (think "makers vs. takers" and the 47%)?
By the way, I'm not sure what world Mr. Brooks inhabits, but I see people around me volunteering to be coaches for t-ball, soccer, basketball, softball and other sports, to be members of the PTA, to set up tennis programs and swim programs, to be part of church committees, and for other roles without questioning whether the people they are working with are Democrat or Republican. Perhaps it's a good time for Mr. Brooks to get out of Washington and stop trying to understand American life by reading scholarly reports, but instead see how people actually live.
2
"Scale back the culture of autonomy", you say? Shall we begin with the one percent of the one percent, the wealth agglomerators? Imagine if those few who control half of our economy made your proposed cultural shift, and engaged the other 99.99% of us, across class lines, racial lines, ethnic lines. What a wonderful world this could be.
Keep preaching, David. I hope you bend at least a few ears.
Keep preaching, David. I hope you bend at least a few ears.
Capital moves. People if they want employment that this capital supports need to move with it. That's where your civic society is breaking down. That's where your family is becoming estranged. People look around and say don't be attached to this place because its likely only temporary. In the gig economy, how much time and energy do you want to expel on temporary relationships? How much free time do you have in a job not designed by work rules negotiated by a union you are supported in but by a lingering threat that they'll find somebody else cheaper and younger? You're so far out of touch that you should write a column How to Fix Brooks?
3
Only countries that have lost major wars change their political systems. We here in the last super-power are doomed to continue our two-party either-or hate-filled reality until China or Russia invent a weapon we know nothing about. This could take a while.
It's true! As a culture, we have "become unrealistic". And our politicians reflect that disconnect to the extreme. I used to dislike politicians because I accused them of gathering in smoke-filled rooms and making deals. I didn't realize how important that deal-making process was until the GOP sent a group of people to Washington who refused to make deals. They are simply not politicians.
Replacing them with people who know how to deliberate and negotiate--the classic definition of "politician"--would go a long way to fix the problem.
I'm perfectly willing to have my favorite "politicians" negotiate with your favorite "politicians" anytime. What a concept.
Replacing them with people who know how to deliberate and negotiate--the classic definition of "politician"--would go a long way to fix the problem.
I'm perfectly willing to have my favorite "politicians" negotiate with your favorite "politicians" anytime. What a concept.
If we can stop toxic hate spewing radio talk shows, half the problem is solved. We have to bring back fairness doctrines in media. We have to stop unlimited money in politics (who can stop Koch brothers?) , Tea party, gerrymandering, NRA influence, religious (?) evangelical manipulation and finally we have to educate voters. The biggest problem is that we are politically ignorant .Most of us vote against our own interest because we politically naïve.
"We’re going to change the way we do business in Washington. We’re going to deliberate and negotiate. We’ll disagree and wrangle, but we will not treat this as good-versus-evil blood sport.”
That's pretty much what Obama said. It's why he wasted his first term in pointless wrangling and Obamacare is a useless compromise.
That's pretty much what Obama said. It's why he wasted his first term in pointless wrangling and Obamacare is a useless compromise.
1
A sense of humor, some self deprecation, a little humility makes it much easier to disagree without dishonor. Our history is broad and varied, there is room and there are historical precedents to support most points of view. We can certainly love those with whom we disagree.
2
Although the Republican party is to blame, David Brooks' point is more insightful: can we change society so that Republicans or other self-interested parties are not rewarded for crashing the government?
I don't believe Republicans are uniquely evil. The founding fathers understood there were natural temptations to self-interest that opposed the interests of society, and set up a system the best they could to limit the power of these drives. Over time, ingenuity found loopholes in the constitutional boundaries ("it doesn't actually say the majority leader can't prevent the Senate from considering a Supreme Court nominee...") through which power and money can be accrued (one of the biggest contributors to McConnell is Goldman Sachs). New constitutional checks and balances may be needed to remove the exposed weaknesses.
I don't believe Republicans are uniquely evil. The founding fathers understood there were natural temptations to self-interest that opposed the interests of society, and set up a system the best they could to limit the power of these drives. Over time, ingenuity found loopholes in the constitutional boundaries ("it doesn't actually say the majority leader can't prevent the Senate from considering a Supreme Court nominee...") through which power and money can be accrued (one of the biggest contributors to McConnell is Goldman Sachs). New constitutional checks and balances may be needed to remove the exposed weaknesses.
1
Part of the problem may rest with the fact that, as a nation with 320,000,000 citizens...more than 1,500 religious organizations...and over 100 television networks, the entire U.S. population is served by only TWO recognized political parties.
We apparently take great pride in our diversity in every facet of life except for political representation.
We apparently take great pride in our diversity in every facet of life except for political representation.
4
"The next president could get together with the leaders of both parties in Congress and say: “We’re going to change the way we do business in Washington. We’re going to deliberate and negotiate. We’ll disagree and wrangle..."
While I do not know what President Obama said or did when he first met with the Republican leaders of the Federal Government, my reading of the man after 8 years in office leads me to the inescapable opinion that President Obama did that exact thing when first elected. He tried over and over to work on "deals" with the Republicans, even though he knew how they felt about him. He worked on these deals even as the Senate leader of the Republicans stated publically that they would not support anything the President wanted to accomplish and that their goal was to make him a one term president. Still President Obama tried to cooperate and negotiate.
So Mr. Brooks, your theory did not work in real life. Perhaps the real antidote for our political problems is for the people of this country to repudiate the Republicans and conservatives methods by not voting for them. Handing them an epoch loss in the next election. Perhaps that is what is needed. Perhaps, if they figure out how to make those who refuse to govern, compromise or negotiate, splinter off into a small ultra conservative party, the rest of us can make that party so small and ineffective, we can "drown" it in a bathtub!
While I do not know what President Obama said or did when he first met with the Republican leaders of the Federal Government, my reading of the man after 8 years in office leads me to the inescapable opinion that President Obama did that exact thing when first elected. He tried over and over to work on "deals" with the Republicans, even though he knew how they felt about him. He worked on these deals even as the Senate leader of the Republicans stated publically that they would not support anything the President wanted to accomplish and that their goal was to make him a one term president. Still President Obama tried to cooperate and negotiate.
So Mr. Brooks, your theory did not work in real life. Perhaps the real antidote for our political problems is for the people of this country to repudiate the Republicans and conservatives methods by not voting for them. Handing them an epoch loss in the next election. Perhaps that is what is needed. Perhaps, if they figure out how to make those who refuse to govern, compromise or negotiate, splinter off into a small ultra conservative party, the rest of us can make that party so small and ineffective, we can "drown" it in a bathtub!
3
"People experience their highest joy in helping their neighbors make it through the day"
Right wing media has reversed this lovely proposition. Now many Americans experience their highest joy by feeling and expressing intolerance towards other Americans.
Americans are now addicted to hate, and hate just eventually burns up everything in its path.
We need an intervention. Those of us who believe that America can coalesce at the center need to stand up and make that happen.
It's on us now to start the healing. One statement, one action at a time. It's the only path to recovery.
Right wing media has reversed this lovely proposition. Now many Americans experience their highest joy by feeling and expressing intolerance towards other Americans.
Americans are now addicted to hate, and hate just eventually burns up everything in its path.
We need an intervention. Those of us who believe that America can coalesce at the center need to stand up and make that happen.
It's on us now to start the healing. One statement, one action at a time. It's the only path to recovery.
1
A Republican credo: "Do others, or they will do us."
1
I don't think there is a way to fix the current politics.
In the past, tradition, civility, and custom set self-imposed limits upon political behavior. Today, such limits have ceased to exist. Those who hold power by illegitimate means (gerrymandering, fear, bigotry, disproportionate wealth, etc.) have no incentive to voluntarily give up their grip on power. When threatened, they only dig in their heels.
For instance, for what other reason is the GOP refusing to consider the nominee to the Supreme Court? Citizens United could be a thing of the past. Voting rights could be restored to minorities. Awful!
The rich and powerful are detached from society. They interpret what is good for them as what is good for the whole. We see this now: Taxes on the "job creators" are too high! Though totally discredited, "trickle down" (e.g. voodoo) economics is still the core policy driver of the Republican Party.
Historically, elites have only been dislodged through revolution. The only other way would be to change the incentives, but the same people who now control politics also control the incentives. What reason would they have to change? Bleak prospects.
It is possible in a nominally democratic system to have an elitist oligarchy emerge. A system of checks and balances defined more than 200 years ago can be suborned by the disproportionate power of a determined few. History bears this out. Liberty is not a guarantee or a birthright. Times can change.
In the past, tradition, civility, and custom set self-imposed limits upon political behavior. Today, such limits have ceased to exist. Those who hold power by illegitimate means (gerrymandering, fear, bigotry, disproportionate wealth, etc.) have no incentive to voluntarily give up their grip on power. When threatened, they only dig in their heels.
For instance, for what other reason is the GOP refusing to consider the nominee to the Supreme Court? Citizens United could be a thing of the past. Voting rights could be restored to minorities. Awful!
The rich and powerful are detached from society. They interpret what is good for them as what is good for the whole. We see this now: Taxes on the "job creators" are too high! Though totally discredited, "trickle down" (e.g. voodoo) economics is still the core policy driver of the Republican Party.
Historically, elites have only been dislodged through revolution. The only other way would be to change the incentives, but the same people who now control politics also control the incentives. What reason would they have to change? Bleak prospects.
It is possible in a nominally democratic system to have an elitist oligarchy emerge. A system of checks and balances defined more than 200 years ago can be suborned by the disproportionate power of a determined few. History bears this out. Liberty is not a guarantee or a birthright. Times can change.
3
While I agree with the spirit of the thesis, I believe that the roots are deeper and not as simply resolved. One could conceptualize the "exceptionalism of Amarica" as the "... ethnic and moral identity" that many have embraced. This creates a theology with which one views all issues. If you disagree with issues framed by this "theology" then you are _______ (place your best Anti-American epithet or "code" word here). I feel like Obama really tried to address this issue, but failed. No one else in the current field really seems interested. But overall, I think Mr. Brooks' analysis is more helpful and heuristic than his recent columns that reflect the emotional rollercoaster of a conservative devastated by the implosion of his political party.
People are so angry and Mr. Brooks is trying to figure out why? Let's start with the fact that one media company has made a lot of money by polarizing almost half of the American public. Is has convinced many Republicans that the cause of their economic problems is all of the money spent by big government on "those people". In addition the right wing theory postulates that we have way to many regulations of business and of course the wealthy, you know the job creators, pay way to much in taxes and that's why there are not enough jobs. And to reinforce all of the above, Republicans are told they are the only true Christian and conservative party, versus those "liberals" who are godless, and lacking in moral principles. Liberals also want to take away their guns, support voting rights for "those people" and god forbid, gay rights. Yep, us liberals have been painted as a collection of un-Americans since anyone questioned Nixon, Reagan, Bush I or Bush II. Reality of outcomes from rightwing policies don't matter though because Republicans are the paid political operatives of a small number of very wealthy Americans who profit from the current status quo. Proof - when "working people" pay a higher tax rate than the Mitt's of our country, half of us know the game is rigged and not in our favor. Even when you do succeed your reward is the AMT, and then you really know it. David, some of the other people are starting to figure this out and they are even Republicans. Can you say Trump?
I don't disagree with Mr. Brooks' conclusion that dysfunction runs deeper than the superficial divides in Washington; but in writing off the possibility of a presidential/congressional detente (in the second paragraph!), it's clear that his memory for the not-so-distant past is either clouded or selective. Say what you will about Barack Obama, you cannot say with a straight face that he did not make serious gestures of goodwill to congressional Republicans in his first term; they were rebuffed, without qualification, for the sole purpose of scoring a big win in the midterm elections. So let's not disingenuously wonder why the two parties can't just get along -- one of them, the one Mr. Brooks has dedicated his entire career to cheerleading, has elevated non-cooperation on every issue of substance to be its unifying electoral strategy.
2
Want to fix the system? Term limits for all elected servants, not just presidents (even for Supremes, such as retirement at 75); get the money out (but how?); improve the hypocrisy-culture (yeah right, that'll be easy...) so potential candidates who made the typical non-fatal mistakes of youth (meaning almost every future candidate) aren't fatally tarred; don't ostracize those who don't have the same taste in clothes as you have; invest disproportionately in early education; demand that public schools adopt best-practices from charter schools that work, or close them; hold CEO's and boards responsible for the felonies of their employees; shall I continue?
1
This social bond thing David Brooks has been on is getting old. You want to improve social bonds David? In the early 1960's my father had a small meat delivery route where he drove a truck all day delivering lunch meat, etc. to local butcher shops. My mother worked as a beautician in a beauty shop. Not exactly high level jobs BUT we had a nice modest middle class (at that time) life. My parents owned a small bungalow in the Jefferson Park neighborhood in Chicago. Those same jobs today?? You would not have the same standard of living we did. My family was able to develop social bonds because they had JOBS that were stable and allowed them to have a modest life. Back then sports stars did not make millions. It did not cost a $400 to take a family of four to a baseball game. You want to have social bonds? Fix income inequality. Restructure the prices and wages so that people can have stable jobs and do not have kill themselves to afford basic needs like food, education, healthcare, etc. How can we have social bonds if all our income is being as Robert Reich says "Pre-distributed upwards" so the elites can live in their Mcmansions. David has no clue. Sell all your assets David and come down from your ivory tower and then talk to me about social bonds.
4
Not bad, David! Not bad at all!
You're going to be criticized by economists as being a sociologist!
Welcome it!
But we also have to understand the difference between thinking about economic persecution vs. living it. To live it is entirely different. Even in the US today, it doesn't feel much different than slavery.
Wages are far too low! Raise the wage floor to $15/hour, and we'll all get along a lot better. There's an extreme crowd on your side that believes this will lead to massive unemployment. You need to listen to other people. $15/hour is totally manageable in the US, but it requires a good president, one that is willing to stand by it!
David, you have potential. You're not bad! But you don't weigh ideas very well. This is the one in 100 Brooks articles that deserves serious consideration.
Now, don't start creating a bunch of lies based upon this approval! That's how it works, I believe. Create a bunch of lies based upon popular approval.
Why not tell the truth? That is exactly what Bernie Sanders does. He tells the truth. If he cannot win in this election, it is an indication that democracy is almost without hope.
Is it, David?
You're going to be criticized by economists as being a sociologist!
Welcome it!
But we also have to understand the difference between thinking about economic persecution vs. living it. To live it is entirely different. Even in the US today, it doesn't feel much different than slavery.
Wages are far too low! Raise the wage floor to $15/hour, and we'll all get along a lot better. There's an extreme crowd on your side that believes this will lead to massive unemployment. You need to listen to other people. $15/hour is totally manageable in the US, but it requires a good president, one that is willing to stand by it!
David, you have potential. You're not bad! But you don't weigh ideas very well. This is the one in 100 Brooks articles that deserves serious consideration.
Now, don't start creating a bunch of lies based upon this approval! That's how it works, I believe. Create a bunch of lies based upon popular approval.
Why not tell the truth? That is exactly what Bernie Sanders does. He tells the truth. If he cannot win in this election, it is an indication that democracy is almost without hope.
Is it, David?
Beyond reversing Citizens United and all paid political advertisements on FCC regulated media, how about limiting campaigning to one calendar year. No petitions to be placed on the ballot for any federal or state role can be submitted until that November date preceding the next election. No funds can be solicited or tendered until after that deadline. Hopefully a do=nothing Congress will at least have one January-November cycle where they can aim to do the people's business before they turn their attention back to campaigning and fund-raising.
I agree with Mr. Brooks, basically. It is not simply a matter of politicians behaving badly; although they are. There is something "cultural" going wrong. I think that, if you had to sum up American culture in a few words, one of those words would definitely be individualism. It can be a strength; and it probably was, during the 19th and the early 20th centuries. But it is a source of much trouble in our current situation. Individualism as a cultural trait has, since the Regan administration, led to increasing social isolation and disregard for the common good. In fact, our foolish national pride in the "value" of individualism give rise to the denial that there is any commonality at all!
It's sad to see Brooks searching around, blindly, for reasons for this mess.
Just like with Watergate, it's 'follow the money'. Our government is bought and sold by the corporations and wealthy and that's all Washington and all the states listen to. Period.
Feingold-McCain had it right. But it was ignored and now we're an oligarchy of the rich. A tiny minority telling us what they want done.
Wake up David.
Just like with Watergate, it's 'follow the money'. Our government is bought and sold by the corporations and wealthy and that's all Washington and all the states listen to. Period.
Feingold-McCain had it right. But it was ignored and now we're an oligarchy of the rich. A tiny minority telling us what they want done.
Wake up David.
More nonsense from Brooks. I do wish he would stick to a subject he actually knows, what's going on within the GOP, and avoid these long disquisitions about social science topics, topics on which he has neither the education nor the experience to pose as an expert.
Of all columnists I have seen in this paper he is the least self-aware. He writes columns insisting that marriage is the solution to the problems of the poor, while his own marriage has recently broken up. He writes columns bemoaning the nasty, divisive rhetoric of Trump, while he supported candidates, like Bush and McCain, who used similar rhetoric to get GOP voters to the polls in 2004 and 2008. More recently he supported Rubio, a candidate who told voters during one of the debates that Obama is deliberately and intentionally trying to weaken and humiliate America. Someone should explain to Brooks that when you support hatemongers, as he has repeatedly done, you lose the right to complain about the results of their hatemongering.
Of all columnists I have seen in this paper he is the least self-aware. He writes columns insisting that marriage is the solution to the problems of the poor, while his own marriage has recently broken up. He writes columns bemoaning the nasty, divisive rhetoric of Trump, while he supported candidates, like Bush and McCain, who used similar rhetoric to get GOP voters to the polls in 2004 and 2008. More recently he supported Rubio, a candidate who told voters during one of the debates that Obama is deliberately and intentionally trying to weaken and humiliate America. Someone should explain to Brooks that when you support hatemongers, as he has repeatedly done, you lose the right to complain about the results of their hatemongering.
2
This is a very astute column, Mr Brooks. We all have weaknesses. One might say that you have a tendency to sentimentalize morality, but in this piece you very quickly ground your thinking in mechanism and models. I think you are right on this one.
Now consider how invested the present power players are in their outer rings. I suspect they will not like the implications of your position. Regardless, cultivation of mixed perspective relationships IS critical to our future. Now if only I could get my relatives to realize that political chain emails and Facebook rants damage our relationships.
Now consider how invested the present power players are in their outer rings. I suspect they will not like the implications of your position. Regardless, cultivation of mixed perspective relationships IS critical to our future. Now if only I could get my relatives to realize that political chain emails and Facebook rants damage our relationships.
So I will put a name on what many here seem to be dancing around. We are talking about a Spiritual Revolution here, rather than a Political Revolution. Until we change the spirit of our country, things will continue to get worse. I am not talking about religion, I am talking about the 'group spirit' or the core assumptions that guide our country.
Right now its 'everyone for themselves' and 'I'm going to get mine first.' This has led directly to our current mess. We have two completely self centered people as the leading candidates for our Presidency.
We could try something called 'the common good,' 'we are all one,' and 'I am my brother's/sister's keeper.' Many here will denigrate this as 1950's nativity, but it does work as demonstrated by other societies around the world.
Our current system is clearly NOT working. My question is how bad are we going to allow it to get before we decide to try something different?
Right now its 'everyone for themselves' and 'I'm going to get mine first.' This has led directly to our current mess. We have two completely self centered people as the leading candidates for our Presidency.
We could try something called 'the common good,' 'we are all one,' and 'I am my brother's/sister's keeper.' Many here will denigrate this as 1950's nativity, but it does work as demonstrated by other societies around the world.
Our current system is clearly NOT working. My question is how bad are we going to allow it to get before we decide to try something different?
1
difficult but not complicated...first, make and enforce laws that ensure the fundamental integrity of representative government (campaign finance, lobbying, etc., the wholesale marketing of our electeds has nullified the concept and the machinery of representative government).
start there and continue with civics education toward a more informed electorate which will take some time, no more than one generation, given the way information and instruction can be facilitated electronically, but still not as quick a fix as reform which can be accomplished forthwith.
start there and continue with civics education toward a more informed electorate which will take some time, no more than one generation, given the way information and instruction can be facilitated electronically, but still not as quick a fix as reform which can be accomplished forthwith.
1
The place to begin fixing our political system is with our redistricting methods. Instead of the gerrymandered mess we have now, redistricting should be automated with the algorithms created in a non-partisan manner to apportion districts according to population evenly.
1
Mr. Brooks is delusional - or lying. What has transformed our politics for the worse is the unregulated influence of money, particularly huge money from corporate interests. That money has fueled calculated pandering to the fears and prejudices of significant sectors of the electorate. It hasn't been an exclusively Republican phenomenon (see Wall Street support for Sec. Clinton), but in large part it has been. The Koch brothers' dark money network, the Sheldon Adelsons, etc. We need either a new Supreme Court with the courage to overturn the Scalia driven judicial endorsement of our current legal bribery system, or a constitutional amendment.
5
Sounds like communism to me.
1
This article was intriguing until, "They report being optimistic or pessimistic depending on whether their team is in power. They become unrealistic. Trump voters don’t seem to realize how unelectable their man is because they hang out with people like themselves". You lost your credibility with that cheap shot. There were many ways you could have painted that picture without throwing a legitimate candidate under the bus.
2
While Mr. Brooks' storyline bears some truth, it's the truth the he leaves out that is the most important. Clearly, it has been the rampant Republican Party ego that has fueled the rampant Republican mindset of "me" over all. The Republican Party has stoked the fires of self-righteous through its media outlets and victimizing language. They have distorted the ideals of "freedom" to mean "me, my, mine." They have little appreciation for those who have come before and even less for those who hold different views.
My vote for this next generations. I am hopeful that they have seen enough of their parents' and grandparents' narcissistic ways. And I'll support them anyway I can to help turn the mess around.
My vote for this next generations. I am hopeful that they have seen enough of their parents' and grandparents' narcissistic ways. And I'll support them anyway I can to help turn the mess around.
2
David,
You do have a point. I am your age. One the people I spend the most time with, other than my wife, is a man in his mid-seventies. He is conservative to my more left of center thinking.
How is it we came to hang out together? We both have several hobbies that we share in common.
We go to lunch a couple of times a week. We read the paper and argue for hours about things. But, because we share our hobbies, we have respect for each other and this we can agree to disagree on some things.
More people need to hang out with people that do not share your complete world view. It is a healthy thing.
You do have a point. I am your age. One the people I spend the most time with, other than my wife, is a man in his mid-seventies. He is conservative to my more left of center thinking.
How is it we came to hang out together? We both have several hobbies that we share in common.
We go to lunch a couple of times a week. We read the paper and argue for hours about things. But, because we share our hobbies, we have respect for each other and this we can agree to disagree on some things.
More people need to hang out with people that do not share your complete world view. It is a healthy thing.
3
Right on the mark, David. Expand every one of your remarks, and we've got a full-blown diagnosis of the country's current malaise as manifest in the presidential campaign. But, are any counter-tendencies under way? like the slow out-migration from cities (e.g. Chicago) to small-town America, where people can work from home (thanks to the digital revolution) and non-partisan community life survives? Gotta hope so. . . .
In many communities, you won't get a public service job unless you have been a long-term member of the political party in power. Agreed?
2
Whoever dreamed up dividing us into red and blue states did this country a big disservice. We can quickly look at a map and with distain see who the 'others' are. To those of you who beat up on Mr. Brooks for being a shill for the Republican party do not understand what he has been writing about these many years. He is pushing for honest conservatism, not trickle down economics or social injustice. But David sometimes you look at the past through rose colored glasses. I grew up in the 50's. It was a simpler time that I miss, but the middle ring was not as prevalent as you seem to think. However I do remember when my girl friend's family had an I like Ike sign on the lawn and others one for Stevenson. No one pulled up signs or pulled out a gun. We do live in violent, uncivil times, the old might makes right.
1
Sure, if everything about society changed completely, our political system would be completely different. I knew that too!
Given the actual set of people we have, though, how could this possibly be done?
Given the actual set of people we have, though, how could this possibly be done?
2
Conform to what your betters dictate to you, and you'll be happy. Sorry, David, but you once again write what Daniel C. Dennett calls a "deepity," or something that on one level is trivially true (we should come together as a community) but upon further analysis is absurd (who defines community?).
2
"Once politics becomes your ethnic and moral identity, it becomes impossible to compromise, because compromise becomes dishonor".
The solution must begin with our political leaders. With a black democrat holding the presidency, one national party in particular felt compelled to adopt and enforce the position that "compromise is dishonor". If the current disgraceful and embarrassing state of the Republican presidential campaign does not lead to introspection and significant change, I'm unsure what will do so other than the complete disintegration, and reformation of, the Republican party.
The solution must begin with our political leaders. With a black democrat holding the presidency, one national party in particular felt compelled to adopt and enforce the position that "compromise is dishonor". If the current disgraceful and embarrassing state of the Republican presidential campaign does not lead to introspection and significant change, I'm unsure what will do so other than the complete disintegration, and reformation of, the Republican party.
2
David's astute column nevertheless has a "blaming the victim" element when he decries as more-or-less selfish the response of citizens to post-war policies and national culture. Obsessed with consumerism and wealth making, the so-called "greatest generation" systemized cynicism in the electorate that only metastasized with the Vietnam lies, Watergate, and the glorification of greed that led to an economic collapse. What right-thinking person -- like the hundreds of millions who haven't seen their real wages go up in nearly a half century -- WOULDN'T want to withdraw into their own, seemingly safer self embrace. Going to more PTA meetings seems a pitiable response to such overwhelming national top down-ism and the rise of a mostly uncaring one-percent.
You can't just hope for a better effect, David, without a deeper look at the original cause.
You can't just hope for a better effect, David, without a deeper look at the original cause.
2
Eerily similar argument to the one Robert Putnam made 20 years ago with his work on "Social Capital" and it's just as wrong then as it is now Brooks. The state of American politics is not a grass-roots phenomenon, but rather the trickling down of Republican leaders childish tactics to undermine the Obama administration boiling over into the next election cycle. Increasingly the far right elects leaders with platforms of "my way or the highway" and then are appalled when they cannot accomplish anything, proving their childish tendencies of putting their faith in unproven leaders only to be continually disappointed
3
I don't disagree with Mr. Brooks completely, but maybe we could start by being more inclusive in our political process. When you destroy unions, trash teachers and enact voter ID laws that are clearly designed to keep people out of the process you just feed the problem Mr. Brooks speaks of. Some of the solution has to start with leadership, profiles in courage and then maybe people will begin to come along. Thanks for this editorial. It is good to discuss ideas this political season.
2
"We’re going to deliberate and negotiate. We’ll disagree and wrangle, but we will not treat this as good-versus-evil blood sport.” That kind of leadership might trickle down."
Wouldn't the first step be to show good faith by participating in the Constitutional process of confirming a member of the Supreme Court?
Wouldn't the first step be to show good faith by participating in the Constitutional process of confirming a member of the Supreme Court?
4
Brooks, I like the idea of shrinking politics; the hemorrhoids of the body politic. Similar cause, similar effect, but anyway....
You seem to still imagine that Trump's going away because all those folk that you can't understand are neither mobilized for radical action or capable of pulling off a coup, because they don't understand politics, and most sadly, do have a community where they, in your words, "hang out with people like themselves". Your irritating Tea Party extremists, contrary to any logic, have managed to subvert the remainder of your party; possibly because they are a community. Congress itself is currently in the running for most un-American, disgusting, failed embodiment of a community. Forget the Montrose neighborhood: the Hill is the most significant neighborhood we have, and diversity of opinion isn't helping things there at all.
Tell you what, lets ban suburban life in favor of networks of little villages; ban employment beyond your town's precincts; keep professionals and blue collar people from migrating to where the work is; make all those anonymous urban dwellers forcibly attend socialization meetings in the basement once a week.
How's that for a cure for a nasty case of the politics?
You seem to still imagine that Trump's going away because all those folk that you can't understand are neither mobilized for radical action or capable of pulling off a coup, because they don't understand politics, and most sadly, do have a community where they, in your words, "hang out with people like themselves". Your irritating Tea Party extremists, contrary to any logic, have managed to subvert the remainder of your party; possibly because they are a community. Congress itself is currently in the running for most un-American, disgusting, failed embodiment of a community. Forget the Montrose neighborhood: the Hill is the most significant neighborhood we have, and diversity of opinion isn't helping things there at all.
Tell you what, lets ban suburban life in favor of networks of little villages; ban employment beyond your town's precincts; keep professionals and blue collar people from migrating to where the work is; make all those anonymous urban dwellers forcibly attend socialization meetings in the basement once a week.
How's that for a cure for a nasty case of the politics?
1
One essential fix is to get rid of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. That made possible the Koch brothers' poisonous attacks on the Democratic party. Brooks doesn't mention that because he is a Republican. If the next president is a Democrat and can nominate a new justice to replace Scalia who was another partisan Republican, that is likely to happen. Don't forget that the five conservatives on the court elected Bush in 2000.
4
This election is only depressing to Republicans. To everyone else in the world, it looks like light at the end of a long dark tunnel we entered back when Reagan took office, tore up the social contract, and demonized the government we elected.
4
You need only look as far as the Republican obstruction of moderate Supreme Court Justice nominee Merrick Garland to see why our politics is broken. In my home state of Colorado, now Senator Cory Gardener ran on a promise that if elected "I'm going to be shouting from every desktop possible" in favor of an inclusive, bipartisan approach. Once in Washington, however, Gardener crawled under his desk, closed his mouth, and held hands with the most obstructionist members of his party.
3
Fixing politics is much simpler, David. We just need to get the money out of politics. I'm talking about a constitutional amendment to publicly fund campaigns completely. Only then can legislators get back to working for their constituents rather than funding their next campaign. Only then will both Democrats and Republicans be able to cast aside the win at all costs attitudes and enjoy having legislative victories together again, knowing that they have both done the best for their constituents, their nation, and the world.
3
Seems to me, the "individualistic" mindset was encouraged by Republican hero, Ronald Reagan. He made it popular to belittle the less well-off and to grabb what you could get after decades of his predecessors encouraging citizens to resist selfishness. I don't think this started "just after World War II."
6
"People put politics at the center of their psychological, emotional and even spiritual life."
That, to me, is a statement far more indicative of one side of the aisle.
The real culprits are Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Breitbart, and all the rest, that have made politics "apocalyptic". When everything ever done by the other side is the end of days, then it IS morally correct to never back down and always amp up. This is how we got to where we are today. One side saw advantage in playing this up, up up. The other side just had Jon Stewart!
That, to me, is a statement far more indicative of one side of the aisle.
The real culprits are Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Breitbart, and all the rest, that have made politics "apocalyptic". When everything ever done by the other side is the end of days, then it IS morally correct to never back down and always amp up. This is how we got to where we are today. One side saw advantage in playing this up, up up. The other side just had Jon Stewart!
3
"The next president could get together with the leaders of both parties in Congress and say: “We’re going to change the way we do business in Washington. We’re going to deliberate and negotiate. We’ll disagree and wrangle, but we will not treat this as good-versus-evil blood sport.” Surely that is exactly what President Obama tried! The Republicans (you, David) torpedoed him.
6
Mr. Brooks makes his living writing these articles all the while knowing the right-wing think tanks, the Republican Party, right-wing talk radio, Fox News have been sowing misinformation and divide for 35 years or more.
Anybody remember "Death Panels" and the whole summer of Tea Party activists disrupting town hall meetings?
I have neighbors who still think the Clintons had Vince Foster murdered. Seriously.
It is difficult for me to work with someone to solve problems who has a different reality than mine.
So while Mr. Brooks writes theoretically about the problem, he purposely ignores the cause.
Anybody remember "Death Panels" and the whole summer of Tea Party activists disrupting town hall meetings?
I have neighbors who still think the Clintons had Vince Foster murdered. Seriously.
It is difficult for me to work with someone to solve problems who has a different reality than mine.
So while Mr. Brooks writes theoretically about the problem, he purposely ignores the cause.
3
Your description is a spot on description of Republicans, Democrats not so much.
3
Oh, David, you recently promised to get out there where real people live and stop relying on bogus extractions from suspect surveys. Out here very few people are involved in two-year obsessions with presidential elections. That's what pundits and 24-hour newspeople do.
I guess if you only cavorted with hairdressers, you'd think everyone was obsessed with scissors.
I guess if you only cavorted with hairdressers, you'd think everyone was obsessed with scissors.
David, as you know most people do not vote. They stand apart from the political group, feeling the whole process dirties them. Yes, that is selfish, but then again we have become a selfish nation, and as you suggest, to individualistic. You can find the roots of political dysfunction in that one fact. Think about it, we had two wars recently that we would not pay for. There was no call to sacrifice. With the type of attitude, nothing will change.
1
Darn it, Brooks, I know we vowed to double-date to Prom when we were Freshmen, but I thought you understood that was predicated on you finding a date too. I agonized enough over asking Ginger or Mary Ann, then Betty or Veronica, but I managed to field a perfectly acceptable candidate despite my modest appearance and accomplishments. Whereas, you winnowed down your choices to (sorry, ladies) a rogue's gallery of miscreants. And then had them demean each other in an embarrassing spectacle which I still can't tell was supposed to be a parody of debate club or a high school production of "the Bachelor".
So I'm stuck here with you and Veronica in the limo we had the foresight to make a deposit on as sophomores. And instead of rolling with the punches, you natter on about how girls were much more date-able in WWII, and that "We probably have to scale back the culture of autonomy that was appropriate for the 1960s but that has since gone too far". WTH, dude? Maybe silent waters should run deeper, if just for tonight, get my drift?
Veronica already said she would dance with you (just not a slow one) so lighten up! And try to accept some personal responsibility for your frustration instead of blaming our entire graduating class. You know, college could be a fresh start for you.
Have a great summer and keep in touch!
So I'm stuck here with you and Veronica in the limo we had the foresight to make a deposit on as sophomores. And instead of rolling with the punches, you natter on about how girls were much more date-able in WWII, and that "We probably have to scale back the culture of autonomy that was appropriate for the 1960s but that has since gone too far". WTH, dude? Maybe silent waters should run deeper, if just for tonight, get my drift?
Veronica already said she would dance with you (just not a slow one) so lighten up! And try to accept some personal responsibility for your frustration instead of blaming our entire graduating class. You know, college could be a fresh start for you.
Have a great summer and keep in touch!
2
Great column! Being surrounded by MSNBC and Fox diehards, I can totally related to David Brooks' words.
The Fox news crowd (especially the ones that are into talk radio) thinks I have been brainwashed by the mainstream media because I don't believe Obama is a Muslim.
The Progressive friends are just as extreme and isolated. Mentioning that I own a business draws scorn. According to their groupthink, people who own businesses are cheats who believe in exploiting people.
We have created our own echo chambers and find comfort in being partisan.
The Fox news crowd (especially the ones that are into talk radio) thinks I have been brainwashed by the mainstream media because I don't believe Obama is a Muslim.
The Progressive friends are just as extreme and isolated. Mentioning that I own a business draws scorn. According to their groupthink, people who own businesses are cheats who believe in exploiting people.
We have created our own echo chambers and find comfort in being partisan.
3
Yes, let's go back to a simpler time when taxes on the wealthy was over 90%. I love the argument they say, that our wealthy would just "move away." As if, in the fifties there were no airliners or ways to leave the country. No, people like being an American citizen, and few people would leave, and if some did, who cares?
Everything would be better, everything, if strong progressive taxation were returned.
Everything would be better, everything, if strong progressive taxation were returned.
3
IRS records show that the actual taxes paid by the very wealthy in the 50s were about 30-35%, roughly the same as today.
The big difference is that in today's tax system, the top 10% in income pay 65% of all Federal tax, while back in the 50s most of the tax revenue came from people in the middle income brackets.
The big difference is that in today's tax system, the top 10% in income pay 65% of all Federal tax, while back in the 50s most of the tax revenue came from people in the middle income brackets.
1
I tire of Mr. Brooks lofty lectures willfully ignoring the GOP ugliness."It’s increasingly clear that the roots of political dysfunction lie deep in society," he writes.
Society? Could he be more condescending?
Society? Could he be more condescending?
2
David Brooks is right in addressing issues of neighborliness and civility in a time when individualism and choice have gone wild. The factor that I have not seen him or others address is the role of smaller families. After WW II, the mechanization of agriculture, and movement to the suburbs, families have grown smaller, becoming, today, a mix of ones and nones. Fewer siblings, fewer cousins. And siblings and cousins is where people did learn to get along with others, learned boy-girl things, learned to dance and talk in a safe place which you don’t choose, and don’t need money or a four point to join. Siblings and cousins just are, and they are yours. I don’t advocate six kids, or even three or four, but do think we have not learned how to live in smaller families. And now don’t know what to do with helicopter parenting, greed gone crazy, and the narcissistic pool we live in.
Good column.
No easy solutions here....social media (which allows folks to find only people who agree with them), anonymous commenting (which allows people to say horrific things which then begin to make them mainstream), reporters dependent on clicks (even the good reporters are being judged by pure traffic...and dumber things/mock outrage articles do best), exaggeration of little things (a politician makes a small misstep and its magnified over and over until it becomes a big deal)...all of these things make it very difficult for anything to break through.
I believe the political system is the victim. Not the cause.
No easy solutions here....social media (which allows folks to find only people who agree with them), anonymous commenting (which allows people to say horrific things which then begin to make them mainstream), reporters dependent on clicks (even the good reporters are being judged by pure traffic...and dumber things/mock outrage articles do best), exaggeration of little things (a politician makes a small misstep and its magnified over and over until it becomes a big deal)...all of these things make it very difficult for anything to break through.
I believe the political system is the victim. Not the cause.
David Brooks missives read more like an essay from a starry-eyed Freshman than an adult who has been out in the world for 54 years. The first two paragraphs of this one are especially naive, bordering on silly.
When Obama first was elected his initial stated desire and intention was to unify the parties. We all know now what that assertion got him from the right —the verbal equivalent of a firing squad armed with machine guns. They not only wanted to destroy the man, they are still—after 7 years—working strenuously to take out the entire system that got him elected.
Yet David wants desperately to to convince us that responsibility for the deep political enmity in this country now is equally deserved by all and uniformly amenable to compromise and reconciliation.
Politics is at the center for good reason. It is the overarching manifestation of psychological, emotional, and spiritual life and as such is an infinitely more valid identity than ethnicity. One's political views summarize just how they feel about their fellow humans, all the life forms that occupy the planet we ALL live on (some forget) and even the earth itself. It's the whole big picture struggling to find the right actions to support the ideals that rule behaviors.
I think he is trying, vainly, to find a center. There is no longer a "center" politically. The right did not just draw a line in the sand, they dug a trench around themselves and declared that they were an island—the only one that mattered.
When Obama first was elected his initial stated desire and intention was to unify the parties. We all know now what that assertion got him from the right —the verbal equivalent of a firing squad armed with machine guns. They not only wanted to destroy the man, they are still—after 7 years—working strenuously to take out the entire system that got him elected.
Yet David wants desperately to to convince us that responsibility for the deep political enmity in this country now is equally deserved by all and uniformly amenable to compromise and reconciliation.
Politics is at the center for good reason. It is the overarching manifestation of psychological, emotional, and spiritual life and as such is an infinitely more valid identity than ethnicity. One's political views summarize just how they feel about their fellow humans, all the life forms that occupy the planet we ALL live on (some forget) and even the earth itself. It's the whole big picture struggling to find the right actions to support the ideals that rule behaviors.
I think he is trying, vainly, to find a center. There is no longer a "center" politically. The right did not just draw a line in the sand, they dug a trench around themselves and declared that they were an island—the only one that mattered.
1
I feel like your post just proves his point.
1
The premise for this article is ridiculous. Brooks pretends that Obama hasn't consistently tried to compromise with the Republicans in Congress. News flash Mr. Brooks -- Obama has been trying for 8 years to do what you suggest a "future president" should do. They've absolutely refused, even shutting down the government on multiple occasions.
The cause of the dysfunction is all on one side, the Republicans, and the solution is to eliminate all Republicans from public office. Maybe Bernie Sanders is as partisan as they are, but Sanders has not been running the Democratic Party the last 8 years. The Republicans had their chance to act like adults, and they took a pass. Throw them out!
The cause of the dysfunction is all on one side, the Republicans, and the solution is to eliminate all Republicans from public office. Maybe Bernie Sanders is as partisan as they are, but Sanders has not been running the Democratic Party the last 8 years. The Republicans had their chance to act like adults, and they took a pass. Throw them out!
3
Most Republicans I know are worried that someone who "doesn't deserve it" is going to get "free stuff " at their expense.
Getting free stuff, however, is not the aim of liberals or all those young people who are coming out in droves to support Bernie Sanders. They know something most Republicans don't. What they want is to reignite the sense of community that is so obviously missing from American politics, and guess what? That requires spending money on the public good rather than leaving every person to his or her own devices to sink or swim.
If Mr Brooks is serious in his desire for better politics, universal single payer healthcare and true educational opportunity without whopping bills at the end should be no-brainers.
Getting free stuff, however, is not the aim of liberals or all those young people who are coming out in droves to support Bernie Sanders. They know something most Republicans don't. What they want is to reignite the sense of community that is so obviously missing from American politics, and guess what? That requires spending money on the public good rather than leaving every person to his or her own devices to sink or swim.
If Mr Brooks is serious in his desire for better politics, universal single payer healthcare and true educational opportunity without whopping bills at the end should be no-brainers.
3
"“We’re going to change the way we do business in Washington. We’re going to deliberate and negotiate. We’ll disagree and wrangle, but we will not treat this as good-versus-evil blood sport.”
David--you know, it's funny you should bring up something like this. I (vaguely) remember a newly-elected president saying exactly what you propose. It was in 2008 I believe. The losing side responded by saying that THEIR goal was not deliberation and negotiation but rather to insure the defeat of the Muslim/Communist/terrorist person of color in 2012, by thwarting any and every initiative of said interloper.
Now I'm not a Very Important Pundit so I don't expect my views to carry much weight. Therefore, I've selected a quote or two:
"Senator Mitch McConnell, had a strategy for his party: use his extensive knowledge of Senate procedure to slow things down, take advantage of the difficulties Democrats would have in governing and deny Democrats any Republican support on big legislation."
"“Throwing grenades is easier than catching them,” acknowledged Senator John Thune of South Dakota, a fellow member of the Republican leadership."
NYT 3/16/2010
"“If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.”
Time 8/23/12
Now the kicker: the FOX meme tells of the "aloof", "imperial" Obama who refused to cooperate with Republicans, an Orwellian lie accepted by many as the truth.
David--you know, it's funny you should bring up something like this. I (vaguely) remember a newly-elected president saying exactly what you propose. It was in 2008 I believe. The losing side responded by saying that THEIR goal was not deliberation and negotiation but rather to insure the defeat of the Muslim/Communist/terrorist person of color in 2012, by thwarting any and every initiative of said interloper.
Now I'm not a Very Important Pundit so I don't expect my views to carry much weight. Therefore, I've selected a quote or two:
"Senator Mitch McConnell, had a strategy for his party: use his extensive knowledge of Senate procedure to slow things down, take advantage of the difficulties Democrats would have in governing and deny Democrats any Republican support on big legislation."
"“Throwing grenades is easier than catching them,” acknowledged Senator John Thune of South Dakota, a fellow member of the Republican leadership."
NYT 3/16/2010
"“If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.”
Time 8/23/12
Now the kicker: the FOX meme tells of the "aloof", "imperial" Obama who refused to cooperate with Republicans, an Orwellian lie accepted by many as the truth.
8
Toqueville, the guy who wrote Bowling Alone, and you, Mr. Brooks, in at least two separate columns within the last year or so have diagnosed America's lack of cohesion.
Next.
Next.
There is a candidate for President from your party who seems to be trying to get political mileage out of any anti-New York feeling there is out there in his “base.” It's a curious, but not uncommon line, and certainly, as scores of your readers have reminded you, an attribute of the Republican party that has had terrible consequences for this country.
After 9/11, many hundreds of emergency responders from around the country came to New York City to help. I’ve been interested ever since to hear what they learned while they were in NYC and what they took back with them to their own communities around the country. Surely, they must have felt that inner gratification and connectedness that I believe you are talking about. Has anyone ever found out and written about it? Here's something you could do. In a nation that has fissured and cracked so much so that not only are we are calling out “New York values,” but we're canceling concerts because of restricted access to bathrooms and besieging hapless Republican governors while they are getting their latte or with personal reports on menstrual cycles, maybe you could go out, as you used to do, and talk with people. Talk with those responders who volunteered after 9/11 and ask them what they did and what the experience did for them. Did they "experience their highest joy in helping their neighbors make it through the day" while they bonded with people unlike themselves? Why don't you find these bridges?
After 9/11, many hundreds of emergency responders from around the country came to New York City to help. I’ve been interested ever since to hear what they learned while they were in NYC and what they took back with them to their own communities around the country. Surely, they must have felt that inner gratification and connectedness that I believe you are talking about. Has anyone ever found out and written about it? Here's something you could do. In a nation that has fissured and cracked so much so that not only are we are calling out “New York values,” but we're canceling concerts because of restricted access to bathrooms and besieging hapless Republican governors while they are getting their latte or with personal reports on menstrual cycles, maybe you could go out, as you used to do, and talk with people. Talk with those responders who volunteered after 9/11 and ask them what they did and what the experience did for them. Did they "experience their highest joy in helping their neighbors make it through the day" while they bonded with people unlike themselves? Why don't you find these bridges?
Two things:
One, as Brooks says, "If each of us fulfill all of our discrete individual desires, we end up with a society that is not what we want at all." Well this is what you get when you have a consumer capitalism, the idea that the market will solve everything, when in fact it only solves individual material needs. There is no mechanism for people to decide collectively what kind of town, state, or country they want to live in. This effect is apparent in how people want more care for the environment, but our politics are unable to deliver it.
Two, if you live in a city, you are endanger of only interacting with people like you. Yes the population is varied, but people tend to hang with their own kind. In rural areas, there are too few people to be that selective.
One, as Brooks says, "If each of us fulfill all of our discrete individual desires, we end up with a society that is not what we want at all." Well this is what you get when you have a consumer capitalism, the idea that the market will solve everything, when in fact it only solves individual material needs. There is no mechanism for people to decide collectively what kind of town, state, or country they want to live in. This effect is apparent in how people want more care for the environment, but our politics are unable to deliver it.
Two, if you live in a city, you are endanger of only interacting with people like you. Yes the population is varied, but people tend to hang with their own kind. In rural areas, there are too few people to be that selective.
Interesting call for greater community connections from our Mr. Brooks. But, wasn't it the Conservative icon Margaret Thatcher who famously said "there is no such thing as society" only "individual men and women," and families?
This has been the bedrock that neoCons have built their policy agenda on, and that right wing extremists proclaim loudly at every turn.
Government is bad and/or incompetent. Individuals shouldn't have to pay taxes even for the services they receive (but somehow that doesn't make them freeloading "takers"). Families shouldn't depend on government to provide childcare or education, healthcare or even secure neighborhoods (everybody get a gun and shoot your neighbor if he knocks on your door after dark).
This is the world that Thatcherism and three decades of anti-social policy have wrought. If you believe in taking personal responsibility (as conservatives claim they do) then, Mr. Brooks, you ought to own up to your responsibility for the dystopian mess the Conservative ideology you've been touting all these years has made.
This has been the bedrock that neoCons have built their policy agenda on, and that right wing extremists proclaim loudly at every turn.
Government is bad and/or incompetent. Individuals shouldn't have to pay taxes even for the services they receive (but somehow that doesn't make them freeloading "takers"). Families shouldn't depend on government to provide childcare or education, healthcare or even secure neighborhoods (everybody get a gun and shoot your neighbor if he knocks on your door after dark).
This is the world that Thatcherism and three decades of anti-social policy have wrought. If you believe in taking personal responsibility (as conservatives claim they do) then, Mr. Brooks, you ought to own up to your responsibility for the dystopian mess the Conservative ideology you've been touting all these years has made.
5
Eureka! "But it’s increasingly clear that the roots of political dysfunction lie deep in society. If there’s truly going to be improvement, there has to be improvement in the social context politics is embedded in.” In other words, to cite the oft-quoted bit of quintessential wisdom of that long-ago columnist Pogo, “We have met the enemy and they are us.” In BrooksWorld, of course we are! Using Brooks new, “middle ring relationships” toy, "We probably have to scale back the culture of autonomy that was appropriate for the 1960s but that has since gone too far.” In other words, all I have to do is stop bowling alone (as a decades back precursor of this ’new" toy noted) and rejoin Rotary and, eureka!, the resultant, renewed deliberation/collaboration skills will percolate up to my pig-headed, do nothing (I, at least want) legislators. No need to say anything about the fact that unlike the ’60s Brooks idealizes for the moment, in the example at hand, on a domestic level, only a fraction of moms were out of the home and at work - that being a virtual economic imperative today. Or on the governmental level, no need to tamper with such things as campaign finance reform, gerrymandering of congressional districts, the primary system of candidate selection, voter rights suppression, etc, etc, etc. All we need to do is find a bowling league, volunteer fire department or PTA whose meeting schedule can be accomodated in mom and dad’s combined 100 hour work week.
1
A wonderful blossoming of neighborhoods is about to take place here in New York City. The de Blasio Administration has carved out from the .nyc TLD the neighborhood domain names - Astoria.nyc, BrooklynHeights.nyc, Flushing.nyc, GreenwichVillage, Harlem.nyc, etc. - for use as public interest resources and is in the process of issuing licenses to qualified nonprofits to operate them. This will be a massive test project for Mr. Brooks' prediction. (See our report on the city's licensing program at http://connecting.nyc.)
I am tired of reading about how it's all about my little community. Congress does not work because it has been hijacked by corruption. Due to gerrymandering, voter suppression, and campaign finance laws, it no longer is representative of the people. I could bake cookies for my neighbors or my school all day, but I assure you nothing will change.
9
Human societies have historically picked Egalitarian as the political system of choice. Making such a system work in the modern world has (so far) been an unmet challenge. This also underlines another sad fact that kings, priests, and other "strong men" are the natural enemies of our best concept of society. Given this, it's probably worth our trouble to at least try and pick a leader who will do more "representing" than "leading".
2
Brooks leaves out of his accounting the incredible amount of volunteer effort Americans donate; in 2014, over 68 million Americans donated a total of 7.9 billion hours calculated at a total value of $184 billion.
I read this fatuous paragraph—
The next president could get together with the leaders of both parties in Congress and say: “We’re going to change the way we do business in Washington. We’re going to deliberate and negotiate. We’ll disagree and wrangle, but we will not treat this as good-versus-evil blood sport.”
—and wonder how it is possible to have written such a thing without being either delusional or transcendently disingenuous. If the latter, than Brooks has taken cynicism to new heights (or unplumbed depths, if you prefer). If the former, then for his own safety he ought not be allowed outside without adult supervision. As probably scores others have already pointed out, "that kind of leadership" has been attempted already. It was explicitly repudiated by by the Republican sachems in a "trickle down" leadership of a different sort.
The next president could get together with the leaders of both parties in Congress and say: “We’re going to change the way we do business in Washington. We’re going to deliberate and negotiate. We’ll disagree and wrangle, but we will not treat this as good-versus-evil blood sport.”
—and wonder how it is possible to have written such a thing without being either delusional or transcendently disingenuous. If the latter, than Brooks has taken cynicism to new heights (or unplumbed depths, if you prefer). If the former, then for his own safety he ought not be allowed outside without adult supervision. As probably scores others have already pointed out, "that kind of leadership" has been attempted already. It was explicitly repudiated by by the Republican sachems in a "trickle down" leadership of a different sort.
4
This is a very thought provoking article. I think what Brooks is saying has been missed by many. Essentially, he says every one wants to be part of society and we should not treat politics as if it represented one ethnic or interest group. The notion or rugged individualism, which is our centrifugal cultural orientation, has been over blown. Yes, everyone wants to self-actualize but can never fully self-actualize, and that's good. However, the best way of insuring this dream is to pay reasonable wages, have job security and create a positive culture in all enterprises. That is at least what Hertzberg said in his Hygienic Theory in 1964. David Brooks should be applauded for at least thinking about making cultural shifts. He is just asking us to think about how we can make America a better place. At least this is a starting point. Then again, just think of all the wonderful comments made by his readers? Brooks has done his job.
When wages stagnate, jobs disappear overseas as companies you depended on jump ship and you can no longer survive without three jobs it is hard to maintain optimism.
Hillary Clinton wrote the book, It Takes a Village' and republicans claim that we need only local family values, not big government while surviving on Food Stamps and disability. It is hard not to think that our way of life is not sinking under massive inequality and a lack of civil fairness.
Mr. Brooks it is your Party that has been trying to destroy the fabric of our country through obstructionism and disrespecting our President. And at the root of this is racism and bigotry towards the poor and those who look different from your view of what people should be. Yourr screed sounds nice, but it is far from the lack of morality displayed by your GOP.
Hillary Clinton wrote the book, It Takes a Village' and republicans claim that we need only local family values, not big government while surviving on Food Stamps and disability. It is hard not to think that our way of life is not sinking under massive inequality and a lack of civil fairness.
Mr. Brooks it is your Party that has been trying to destroy the fabric of our country through obstructionism and disrespecting our President. And at the root of this is racism and bigotry towards the poor and those who look different from your view of what people should be. Yourr screed sounds nice, but it is far from the lack of morality displayed by your GOP.
3
David, regarding your last paragraph on Maslow, it is important to know that for Maslow's self-actualized persons, "group" refers to all humanity, not just a smaller community or nation. Neighbors include desperate Syrian refugees and undernourished children in Mozambique.
Maslow wrote that self-actualized persons possess sense of “human kinship.” They possess, Maslow wrote, “a deep feeling of identification, sympathy, and affection for human beings in general . . . [a] feeling of identification with mankind” (Maslow, 1954, p. 138). They are psychologically “members at large of the human species” (p. 145), rather than just members of a particular ingroup or nation. The references are to Maslow's book, Motivation and Personality.
I have studied extensively Maslow's sense of "identification with all humanity". For a quick overview, one may see http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/22/3/194.full.pdf+html
Maslow wrote that self-actualized persons possess sense of “human kinship.” They possess, Maslow wrote, “a deep feeling of identification, sympathy, and affection for human beings in general . . . [a] feeling of identification with mankind” (Maslow, 1954, p. 138). They are psychologically “members at large of the human species” (p. 145), rather than just members of a particular ingroup or nation. The references are to Maslow's book, Motivation and Personality.
I have studied extensively Maslow's sense of "identification with all humanity". For a quick overview, one may see http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/22/3/194.full.pdf+html
3
Shrink it? The expansion of the political media prevents that from ever happening. We used to have a few Sunday talk shows, now it's 24/7 coverage of podiums on empty stages.
1
Without a reference to gerrymandering Congressional districts to favor the GOP over the past 30 years, this interesting piece is sorely missing something.
2
I appreciate some of what you have written. and agree that we are all in danger if we don't move toward each other and continue to segregate ourselves. But how much of the loss of PTA membership, etc., is due to many. many people having to work two or three jobs, or extremely long hours at one job, just to keep up financially because of policies and outright corruption of our politics by the wealthiest? All those tax cuts since Reagan ring a bell. Think Faustian bargain . . .
2
We don't need an introductory lecture to Psych 101 to figure out what is wrong with our politics.
The GOP has basically hijacked the whole process and have been holding it hostage for at least 20 years, if not more. They don't want it to work or "make it better", and have admitted as much over and over in a variety of ways.
By their definition, it isn't broken, so what motivation do they have to "fix it"?
As long as they can protect the top 5 or 10 percent, that's a win as far as they're concerned.
Until the people who elect those hijackers wake up and finally throw enough of them out of office to take away their congressional majority, it's not going to be "fixed".
The GOP has basically hijacked the whole process and have been holding it hostage for at least 20 years, if not more. They don't want it to work or "make it better", and have admitted as much over and over in a variety of ways.
By their definition, it isn't broken, so what motivation do they have to "fix it"?
As long as they can protect the top 5 or 10 percent, that's a win as far as they're concerned.
Until the people who elect those hijackers wake up and finally throw enough of them out of office to take away their congressional majority, it's not going to be "fixed".
Today's selfie-obsessed generation is an outgrowth of the 80s "greed is good" model, which sprung from the counterculture of the 60s, a rebellion against the conformity of communal norms. Mr. Brooks is correct, our mid-level societal connections have broken down. We wallow in bubbles of our own making.
Humans are social creatures ... whether you believe that was a result of millions of years of evolution or because you believe that God saw that Adam was lonely and needed a "help meet". The focus on our individuality has cut us off from the collective and amputated part of what makes the human experience rewarding.
Humans are social creatures ... whether you believe that was a result of millions of years of evolution or because you believe that God saw that Adam was lonely and needed a "help meet". The focus on our individuality has cut us off from the collective and amputated part of what makes the human experience rewarding.
1
What aspects of autonomy should be scaled back? The right for a black person to marry a white person because "community" does not like it?
Whatever excesses of autonomy there might be, the world is now a better place than in the 60's. There never was a golden era we could or should return to. Each age has its problems and the youth of each age will address them; they always have and they always will.
Whatever excesses of autonomy there might be, the world is now a better place than in the 60's. There never was a golden era we could or should return to. Each age has its problems and the youth of each age will address them; they always have and they always will.
1
How to fix Politics? Well, I have two words for the "fix". Term limits. When a politician is freed from having to pander for money daily and not fearful of having to be reelected they can actually compromise for the good of society and the nation. There are many bright, talented and caring people in our country who would be willing to lend their skills to better our great nation. Take the shackles of reelection off our fearful leaders and let them get to work .
2
It's large public opinion, gathered by the wide spread of trusted information, which holds centuries of history of forcing governments and society to act better. This has been lost to large media ownership by titans of large industries. Changing media ownership, rather than changing politicians, will reignite the torch which once drew the world to admire America for it's fairer government and more equal opportunities!
David Brooks would be unemployed if the election cycle was not a circus.
Sometimes I wonder, is it really a circus at all? or does the press perverts it into a circus to get ratings?
The New York Times lost all credibility this election cycle, you guys have been cheering for a candidate even before the race started. Fair and balanced, you have not been.
Sometimes I wonder, is it really a circus at all? or does the press perverts it into a circus to get ratings?
The New York Times lost all credibility this election cycle, you guys have been cheering for a candidate even before the race started. Fair and balanced, you have not been.
1
David Brooks is suffering a moral crises. He can not find anything he values in the Republican party. He's not talking/preaching to real people, he's hoping without hope to find a conservative who won't deny science, believes in the separation of church and state and recognizes that government's job is to promote the common good.
The answer is simple- do not vote for a single Republican
The answer is simple- do not vote for a single Republican
4
Many of these comments prove exactly the point David is making. They shift the dialogue to politics and reduce all of our problems to that. They are making politics the center of their identity, exactly the problem that David is - identifying. Can't we just be people first, and not Democrats or Republicans? Yes, Reagan did this, Carter did that, Nixon did...whatever, and so on down the line. What if we just focus on the here and now? Just starting from where we are now as the zero point, the origin, how can we improve our society, our culture, economically, but also socially, attitudinally, and not through some political movement or ideology, but first, within ourselves individually. How can I be a better person? Who can I reach out to? Who is in need? What can I do, what am I willing to do to help?
3
How do you make politics better? Get all private/corporate money out of politics.
Put warning labels at the beginning of shows from all sensationalist faux news agencies, once a "news agency" drops below 95% fact based reporting the label will be shown for 15 seconds at the beginning of each segment stating that they are an opinion shaping agency that does report real news.
Republican Theodore Roosevelt was adamant that special interests keep their hands off our democracy, he was ignored and look at us now.
Put warning labels at the beginning of shows from all sensationalist faux news agencies, once a "news agency" drops below 95% fact based reporting the label will be shown for 15 seconds at the beginning of each segment stating that they are an opinion shaping agency that does report real news.
Republican Theodore Roosevelt was adamant that special interests keep their hands off our democracy, he was ignored and look at us now.
2
We need to act our way into right thinking.
1.Limit the time for a US Presidential campaign to about 6 weeks.
2.Stop gerrymandering.
3.Reverse the Citizens United decision and limit the amount of money allowed in campaigns.
1.Limit the time for a US Presidential campaign to about 6 weeks.
2.Stop gerrymandering.
3.Reverse the Citizens United decision and limit the amount of money allowed in campaigns.
4
Best to build stone walls with gates to assure neighborliness .
1
The existence of blatant partisanship has indeed brought our country to its knees. Witness a Donald Trump or the destructive politics of Ted Cruz and you see the cream of destructive negativism rising to the top. The political ritual is a terrible negative force and I'm not even going to mention what damage has been done to Congress, a vital government tool.
Our country pulled together during WW II to overcome Japan and Germany and then, having succeeded so well, we began to deteriorate. I've even heard that air conditioning was a cause: kept us inside instead of in the back or front yard where we could mix with our neighbors.
Our slide backwards is going on 70 years and wouldn't it be wonderful if we were finally at a turning point? Well, we're far from it.
This is message I would like to see delivered to our politicians: care for all of us, all 320 million of us. In other words, govern!
Our country pulled together during WW II to overcome Japan and Germany and then, having succeeded so well, we began to deteriorate. I've even heard that air conditioning was a cause: kept us inside instead of in the back or front yard where we could mix with our neighbors.
Our slide backwards is going on 70 years and wouldn't it be wonderful if we were finally at a turning point? Well, we're far from it.
This is message I would like to see delivered to our politicians: care for all of us, all 320 million of us. In other words, govern!
2
Hard to believe but in 1963, a $1/hr minimum wage earner (who no doubt had to hustle to multiple gigs) was in the TOP HALF of personal incomes (median was $1,760). The economy was $642 billion and there was only 180 million of us.
Today, the economy is 28 times that size and we seem to have created more want, more unmet needs, more poverty. It's hard to escape the conclusion that poverty is a political creation and that our society and the politicians that it elects have only worked to make things worse.
Today, the economy is 28 times that size and we seem to have created more want, more unmet needs, more poverty. It's hard to escape the conclusion that poverty is a political creation and that our society and the politicians that it elects have only worked to make things worse.
5
Bowling alone again. It's simplistic, but I strongly believe that TV is the biggest single cause of this malaise. And for what it's worth, I've often held that the top of Maslow's hierarchy -self actualiztion, was really just the bottom, or first rung on the ladder of real maturity, which begins with what you might call other actualization.
2
I love any article that references Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I appreciate David's reminder that we find great joy in the little things. We should be more proud of that.
2
How to fix politics? How about starting with Congressional districting, that abomination that has no place in the most democratic nation and gives us election and re-election results not seen since those "elections" behind the long gone Berlin Wall? And how about getting a real conservative party? No Mr Brooks the dysfunction does not lie deep in society. It's on the surface, stop digging.
2
david - agreed, we all did know all our neighbors not so long ago, and now we don't. this societal trend is a problem indeed, but not the biggest problem in politics. the biggest societal problem we face that has affected of political system is our disconnect from the truth.
back when we all knew our neighbors, even 5 year olds were expected to tell the truth. we in amercan society no longer have expectations of honesty. particularly in the realm of politics, the opposite is expectation is more likely.
if we want to change the political system in this nation, the first change we need to make is simple - REMOVE LYING.
back when we all knew our neighbors, even 5 year olds were expected to tell the truth. we in amercan society no longer have expectations of honesty. particularly in the realm of politics, the opposite is expectation is more likely.
if we want to change the political system in this nation, the first change we need to make is simple - REMOVE LYING.
2
You send your children to racially segregated schools, you moved so far away into the suburbs or high into your top floor condo, and your corporations only hire Ivy league graduates or foreigners with no student debt. These trends will never end. Americans will inevitably close rank on each other, and we will all be turned back into slaves and serfs.
1
Amen, David Brooks. I think you have hit a home run insight. As an Asian American, whose values are more focussed on the family and the society at large rather the individual, your observations about American societal change, very much strike a hrmonious chord. Thank you.
2
Driftglass is going to have some fun with this piece of dreck.
You've omitted the role that Republican leadership has played in steering this ship we're on. Remember "Government is not the solution to our problem; government IS the problem"? That was uttered by Ronald Reagan in his inaugural address, 1981. The heritage foundation has posted that entire speech on its website, and Republican politicians have been paraphrasing it ever since.
It's a paradox, because they put themselves forth as worthy actors in government, while undermining the legitimacy of the institution they serve. But THAT mindset has led them (in the guise of the Tea Party) to these all-or-nothing positions, including shutting down the government and compromising out credit rating.
Mr. Brooks, I know you're a conservative and a worthy conservative, but you must quit dancing around the truth. The Republicans brought this on themselves.
It's a paradox, because they put themselves forth as worthy actors in government, while undermining the legitimacy of the institution they serve. But THAT mindset has led them (in the guise of the Tea Party) to these all-or-nothing positions, including shutting down the government and compromising out credit rating.
Mr. Brooks, I know you're a conservative and a worthy conservative, but you must quit dancing around the truth. The Republicans brought this on themselves.
3
When a large segment of Americans, represented basically by Republicans, have basically given up on society and like William Buckley want to stand athwart history and shout STOP, there you have the crux of political problems today.
Trapped by ideology and prejudice, they are unwilling to extend themselves and their children into a future where those ideologies and mores are increasingly irrelevant. And so they lash out.
The Democratic Party is a big tent, and as we have seen in the Democratic primaries, differences are being discussed, not shouted and whined about. By now it is best if the Republicans simply grenade apart. They have become the new Know-Nothings. A new alternative major party can calve off the Democrats.
Next election, vote against every Republican, for every office, at every level. Be patriotic. Save the country.
Trapped by ideology and prejudice, they are unwilling to extend themselves and their children into a future where those ideologies and mores are increasingly irrelevant. And so they lash out.
The Democratic Party is a big tent, and as we have seen in the Democratic primaries, differences are being discussed, not shouted and whined about. By now it is best if the Republicans simply grenade apart. They have become the new Know-Nothings. A new alternative major party can calve off the Democrats.
Next election, vote against every Republican, for every office, at every level. Be patriotic. Save the country.
2
This can all be tied to an increase in a "segmented" society that has created everything from music to news in formats designed to attract and feed the desires of like minded individuals. Cable TV, satellite radio, newspapers, magazines--all now geared to delivering highly focused content to a selective audience immune to having to listen to or interact with anything outside of their respective "segments."
1
Mr. Brooks turns to esoteric views to explain America's political malaise. Instead it is the modern GOP with its Southern agenda that has has obstructed our political process. The GOP has represented the financial elite and corporate interests. It has used religious and cultural issues to rile up its base.
3
INDIVIDUALISM In the US is based on the pioneering dream: You can do anything you want. You can make it on your own. Time is money. It is the notion that you can go off into the wilderness with the belief that all who try will prosper. That bubble was burst in the Gold Rush when eggs were on offer for their weight in gold. There is still a powerful belief that if you need help from anyone else you're somehow inadequate. The Existentialism that came to the fore after WW II established a world view of hopelessness, a logical reaction to the profound trauma and destruction. But the EU has done a far better job of establishing societies where there are more attachments than in the US. One root cause in the US of alienation is the substitution of the beliefs of the Founders on religious practices that were based upon the Enlightenment, logic and rationality. Currently, the religious belief is far more along the lines of Psalm 143:3 Do not trust in the princes of men. This material world is believed to be preparation for the world of the spirit. The US cannot survive like ancient Egypt, where the main focus was the afterlife. GOP extremists began at the grass roots level taking over school boards and municipal councils, forcing their brand of fundamentalism down the throats of their neighbors as part of their evangelism. There is wisdom in the farmers' notion that you get along with your neighbors because they were the only people around. Our Tweeted world is a no go.
The left-leaning American people are in a long, abusive relationship with the republican party, stretching back to Newt Gingrich and his unprecedented insults toward democrats, the partisan impeachment, the stolen election of 2000, the GWB administration and its accompanying horrors, stonewalling Obama, refusal to consider Scalia's replacement. Who knows what's next should the right win the election in November. I won't forgive. I won't forget.
1
The tension that Mr. Brooks writes about did not start just after WW2. It has been around as long as the U.S. has been a country. How else can one explain slavery and the Civil War?
2
You send your children to racially segregated schools, you moved so far away into the suburbs or high into your top floor condo, and your corporations only hire Ivy league graduates or foreigners with no student debt. These trends will never end. Americans will inevitably close rank on each other, we will accept corporations as our masters, and we will all be turned back into slaves and serfs.
1
What's missing is shared sacrifice and a mandatory commitment to serve the country and their community. Oh, and how about civics education being held with the same regard as robot technology, math and sports.
Wars in faraway places fought by a few citizens who are "led" by men and women who themselves did not serve their country in uniform (or in many cases have family members who served) is a major part of the disconnection that exists in our country.
Wars in faraway places fought by a few citizens who are "led" by men and women who themselves did not serve their country in uniform (or in many cases have family members who served) is a major part of the disconnection that exists in our country.
Mr. Brooks suggests the divide in this country is caused by a break down of community. As many other people have already pointed out in their comments, the divide in this country did not develop as a result of individualism. As usual, our problems are apparently due to both the Democrats and Republicans refusing to cooperate. Equivalency is always a conservatives' way out of accepting blame for the decline of every institution in this country. No Mr. Brooks, the Democrats are not responsible for the breakdown of our society. Your beloved party has spent the last 35 years telling people they shouldn't have to pay taxes, that government is essentially evil, and that anyone who disagrees with them hates America. You talk about the need for compromise? Well, President Obama tried that over and over again. Your party's leaders were honest for once and stated plainly, they would never compromise. Reagan, talk radio, Fox News, the Tea Party. Just a few of the "folks" responsible for a breakdown of this country's values. Listen to talk radio sometime Mr. Brooks. 99% of it is right wing hate talk. Your party has used the politics of division for 35 years to get elected and in the process they've diminished this country. I only hope we can somehow fix the mess the GOP has created.
1
Thank you Mr. Brooks. I always appreciate hearing your thoughtful viewpoints. I just wish that the knee-jerk reaction from almost every other commentor wasn't so vociferously antagonistic towards you. Sure, you're on the "wrong" side, but that doesn't mean your ideas don't have some merit. We on the left claim to want civilized discourse and constructive engagement with the right, but it seems that when someone like yourself offers it up- most people here just want to swat it down with contempt.
2
When they were growing up, and would come home complaining about some kid in school, I used to admonish my sons " you don't have to like everyone, but you have to get along with everyone".
It made sense then; I need to remember it now.
It made sense then; I need to remember it now.
2
David:
I would truly love to help my neighbor, truly. But after slogging away 10 hours a day at work, barely making enough money to pay my bills, my exorbitant taxes at every level (local, state, and Federal), keeping my head above water, so MAYBE I can retire at 70 since I have no pension but I am funding all of my local workers who retire at 55. I am exhausted. I have no paid time off either. But I watch all of the politicians who somehow suddenly become very rich after being in office, have a gold plated retirement and free healthcare for life. What is wrong with this picture?
We need TERM LIMITS (4-8 years tops for anyone who serves). We need to get the money out of politics somehow someway, maybe getting rid of all the lobbyists would be a good start.
I would truly love to help my neighbor, truly. But after slogging away 10 hours a day at work, barely making enough money to pay my bills, my exorbitant taxes at every level (local, state, and Federal), keeping my head above water, so MAYBE I can retire at 70 since I have no pension but I am funding all of my local workers who retire at 55. I am exhausted. I have no paid time off either. But I watch all of the politicians who somehow suddenly become very rich after being in office, have a gold plated retirement and free healthcare for life. What is wrong with this picture?
We need TERM LIMITS (4-8 years tops for anyone who serves). We need to get the money out of politics somehow someway, maybe getting rid of all the lobbyists would be a good start.
3
Get the money out, yet. But term limits is not the way to do that. We need responsible people in government, and we need to be able to keep them there.
1
Mr. Brooks may well be right. Let's elect Trump. For the masses following him, that would be a communal self-actualization, wouldn't it? Then, if he moderates the ranting and raving after entering the White House, we'll see the joy of helping neighbors make it through the day. Donald wants to see states have more power so they can do the right thing and there are, even today, models at that level which he could elevate to the national level. There's Kansas, which is in solid Republican control, and others, like North Carolina. They've got that autonomy thing licked. I can't wait.
Maybe our political community would not be so dysfunctional if the Republicans had not deliberately decided to break it.
2
A good point. It is hard to see how anyone in the Congress can make connections that lead to healthy compromise when half of every day is spent alone in a call center rattling up cash for the party leadership. Money is breaking the system not only in corruption, but in taking people away from the work that needs to be done.
1
I do not even remotely understand Mr. Brooks anymore. How can he STILL be an apologist for the Right, while stating ever more frequent positions that by all rights should condemn most if not all Right Wing policies and practices.
He solves living in this self-created impossibility by smearing all sides equally in politics with the broad brush strokes of his criticisms. By smearing all with some of the wildest, fantastic false equivalencies currently parading through the pages of the New York Times, he avoids recognizing that almost the entirety of every political complaint or social distress he dislikes can be laid squarely at the feet of only one Side of the political spectrum.
Mr. Brooks great intellect would be far better spent simply and honestly "coming clean" at last. He could then do a great and powerful, even unique service to America, defining a Path of thought, compassion, and reason that explains how good people like himself got so pulled into the GOTP's alternate universe... and how decent people can intellectually and morally find their way backs to a Conservative position that is far closer to the true beliefs of traditional, rational conservatism. Mr. Brooks is qualified to show that path to so many others - but he needs to get real and start with himself.
Time to come home to reason and reality with balance and consequences. We'll be here waiting to welcome you when and if you decide to take the journey.
He solves living in this self-created impossibility by smearing all sides equally in politics with the broad brush strokes of his criticisms. By smearing all with some of the wildest, fantastic false equivalencies currently parading through the pages of the New York Times, he avoids recognizing that almost the entirety of every political complaint or social distress he dislikes can be laid squarely at the feet of only one Side of the political spectrum.
Mr. Brooks great intellect would be far better spent simply and honestly "coming clean" at last. He could then do a great and powerful, even unique service to America, defining a Path of thought, compassion, and reason that explains how good people like himself got so pulled into the GOTP's alternate universe... and how decent people can intellectually and morally find their way backs to a Conservative position that is far closer to the true beliefs of traditional, rational conservatism. Mr. Brooks is qualified to show that path to so many others - but he needs to get real and start with himself.
Time to come home to reason and reality with balance and consequences. We'll be here waiting to welcome you when and if you decide to take the journey.
1
In the World According to Mr. Brooks our civic decadence begun after WWII and accelerated in the 1960s. How convenient and incoherent. He could have simplified by stating: I hate Hippies, literally since their conception.
Now the same aging baby boomers "responsible" for collectively trashing our social, political, economic and faith-based institutional binds are called to renew them? Mr. Brooks suggests we need a sort of American revival of mystical Middle Earth. This is what the utterly strident nativist forces within the #GOP mean by "getting America back."
Well, America is in many respects the accumulated history of many a revival. And the rest is the history of our ongoing struggle for racial and gender equity.
Now the same aging baby boomers "responsible" for collectively trashing our social, political, economic and faith-based institutional binds are called to renew them? Mr. Brooks suggests we need a sort of American revival of mystical Middle Earth. This is what the utterly strident nativist forces within the #GOP mean by "getting America back."
Well, America is in many respects the accumulated history of many a revival. And the rest is the history of our ongoing struggle for racial and gender equity.
What Mr. Brooks and his friends in the elite media/political circles that he travels in miss is that American have lost faith in their leaders and the process. Politicians and their media enablers only care about one thing and that is maintaining an increasing their power, control and influence. As opposed to serving the people people they now feed off us. It really is that simple and the establishment (media and political) is in total denial. Regardless of outcome this cycle is revolutionary and this revolution is just starting.
2
The easy fix: eliminate the electoral college, and primaries and caucuses.
Make it possible to register online. One day.
Make it possible to vote online. One day.
(Let Amazon run the election. They have no problem handling gazillions of orders, collecting the money, making suggestions to us to buy stuff, etc., etc. With the insane system we've got, the "leaders" can't even deliver ballots to polling places or run the polls so that people don't have to stand in line for five hours. It's worse than third-world.)
Make it possible to register online. One day.
Make it possible to vote online. One day.
(Let Amazon run the election. They have no problem handling gazillions of orders, collecting the money, making suggestions to us to buy stuff, etc., etc. With the insane system we've got, the "leaders" can't even deliver ballots to polling places or run the polls so that people don't have to stand in line for five hours. It's worse than third-world.)
2
Sounds like a good plan David. Can you get rid of the republican congress so it can be done? They have done nothing and I really mean nothing but obstruct since Obama was elected.
5
'The next president could get together with the leaders of both parties in Congress and say: “We’re going to change the way we do business in Washington. We’re going to deliberate and negotiate. We’ll disagree and wrangle, but we will not treat this as good-versus-evil blood sport.” That kind of leadership might trickle down."'
Seems to me that the current president tried this and Republicans in congress wanted no parts of it.
Seems to me that the current president tried this and Republicans in congress wanted no parts of it.
4
It is a wonderful country and always in need of improvement. We are blessed with an abundance of very smart people advising us about how to fix all kinds of ills. But, there just ain't no point in trying to teach pigs to dance. You fail and the pigs get aggravated.
1
I do get tired of people blaming "money" in politics as if there is some magic connection between money and votes. Researchers have had difficulty finding that connection and the crash and burn of JEB! should be a cautionary tale.
What Brooks is reminding us is that "politics" is a surface reflection of what is happening deep in our society (the voters who actually HAVE the power and make their own decisions when the cast their vote). He is struggling to find an America where politics wasn't about "my team winning, dividing the spoils and eating at the trough like a pig". Too many Americans have concluded gathering the spoils is the endgame of the political exercise and it is sickening to watch opponents of the ACA, for instance, demanding the government keep it's hands off their medicare. I've got mine, no need to share, too much goes to THEM (but don't touch mine).
I don't know if that kind of politics or society ever existed in the US where the goal of government was to do it's best to be a fair judge and balance the scales of justice and economic opportunity for all Americans, but, like Brooks, I'd like to see one.
What Brooks is reminding us is that "politics" is a surface reflection of what is happening deep in our society (the voters who actually HAVE the power and make their own decisions when the cast their vote). He is struggling to find an America where politics wasn't about "my team winning, dividing the spoils and eating at the trough like a pig". Too many Americans have concluded gathering the spoils is the endgame of the political exercise and it is sickening to watch opponents of the ACA, for instance, demanding the government keep it's hands off their medicare. I've got mine, no need to share, too much goes to THEM (but don't touch mine).
I don't know if that kind of politics or society ever existed in the US where the goal of government was to do it's best to be a fair judge and balance the scales of justice and economic opportunity for all Americans, but, like Brooks, I'd like to see one.
Gee, David, then why did your people ridicule Clinton's "It takes a village" and any other book suggesting civic cooperation, as communism? Oh, and by the way, despite some competition, Democratic politics seems to be working just fine, with real issues, including how delegates should be chosen, getting real debate.
2
You send your children to racially segregated schools, you moved so far away into the suburbs or high into your top floor condo, and your corporations only hire Ivy league graduates or foreigners with no student debt. These trends will never end. Americans will inevitably close rank on each other, and we will all be turned back into slaves and serfs.
Right on, wrong tense.
1
Four simple fixes to help the depressing and over reported upon campaign process: 1) require all states to canvas and register every eligible voter in time for elections and require every eligible voter to respond to the canvas; 2) limit the length of the campaign - two or three months instead of two years;3) require public financing of campaigns that includes free air time for all candidates; and 4) extended voting hours and/or a national holiday for voting.
3
Well, this might be one element, but read George Packer's most recent book for a really comprehensive assessment of American society. He believes and illustrates with powerful stories how every sector in American society (politics, business, education, religion, etc. etc.) is now only self-interested, deeply distrusting the other sectors...no one is willing to accept anyone else's data and no one trusts the others' motives....that goes way beyond neighborliness.
In practice, at least in Pennsylvania, good-hearted volunteers are greeted at the schoolhouse, church, coaching and scouting doors with demand for criminal background checks. In our zeal to make up for child abuse in churches we've criminalized the very neighborly "cohesion" that Brooks endorses.
Has Brooks finally bought in to socialism and collectivism? I find nothing less attractive than having to associate with those with whom I choose not to. In fact, one of the great earned privileges of wealth is that I don't have to. I find individualism synonomous with freedom. Freedom of association, freedom to gain for oneself and ones family, are the essence of being American and to me basic human rights. Brooks finally went off the deep end.
2
Thank you, David.
I am not surprised (but saddened) that many of those commenting on your points could not restrain themselves from scolding you for not blaming those whom they demonize or their pet-points you did not include.
After having grown up in a neighborhood outside NYC where we were taught to obey all parents and then going to a relatively mid-sized city for college where the locals seemed to know everyone else, I was saddened when I moved to L.A. and experienced neighbors not caring to know one another.
The trend away from "we-ism" to "me-ism" starting in the 60s has brought us to this point as a we have moved from being self-centered to self-adoring. Why else would we think that Facebook Friends (relative strangers) would care what we are doing or thinking at any time of the day?
David, please keep on with your reflective commentary like today's subject. They will off a brief respite from the spewing that will inevitably be part of politics going forward.
I am not surprised (but saddened) that many of those commenting on your points could not restrain themselves from scolding you for not blaming those whom they demonize or their pet-points you did not include.
After having grown up in a neighborhood outside NYC where we were taught to obey all parents and then going to a relatively mid-sized city for college where the locals seemed to know everyone else, I was saddened when I moved to L.A. and experienced neighbors not caring to know one another.
The trend away from "we-ism" to "me-ism" starting in the 60s has brought us to this point as a we have moved from being self-centered to self-adoring. Why else would we think that Facebook Friends (relative strangers) would care what we are doing or thinking at any time of the day?
David, please keep on with your reflective commentary like today's subject. They will off a brief respite from the spewing that will inevitably be part of politics going forward.
2
More derivative, diluted, cut and paste drivel from the master of the genre. Gauzy nostalgia is neither sound policy nor a plausible alternative to policy. It's just warm and fuzzy wishful thinking with a razor thin icing of intellectual rationale.
1
How about fessin' up to the fact that the Koch Brothers covert financing of a web of phony nonprofits, phony think tanks, and phony astroturf groups has led to a virtual takeover of the Republican party by their extreme right wing of anarchists whose goal is 'killing the beast', not arriving at the compromises that make government work?
All your intellectualizing about relationships, identity and ethnicity fails to deal with this, the real root problem behind what has happened to politics - how can you 'shrink politics' when the Kochs and the billionaire allies they have recruited to their cause will continue to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into controlling what politics is left after we 'shrink' it?
If you don't believe me, read Jane Mayer's book 'Dark Money', now on the Times bestseller list, and see if you don't change your tune.
All your intellectualizing about relationships, identity and ethnicity fails to deal with this, the real root problem behind what has happened to politics - how can you 'shrink politics' when the Kochs and the billionaire allies they have recruited to their cause will continue to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into controlling what politics is left after we 'shrink' it?
If you don't believe me, read Jane Mayer's book 'Dark Money', now on the Times bestseller list, and see if you don't change your tune.
3
These are interesting thoughts, but I don't think they will "fix politics". We need a legitimate third party, even a fourth party that can actually have a shot at winning. We need to get rid of super pacs and the big money manipulators, more transparency. We need an honest media to start telling the real story instead of obscuring the main point and promoting nonsense news. There's the other editorial today about the delegates and super delegates. They should be scrapped. And the whole thing lasts way to long.
2
A thought provoking article written by Mr. Brooks meet with the typical derision and Republican bashing on the commenter board. It seems clear that the vast majority of comment board posters are so closed minded and fixed in their world view that they can not even read a pretty non-political analysis on bonds between fellow citizens without falling back into their tired old attack lines about what they perceive to be the "others." Sad,
1
Read less and get out more, David. Despite 24/7 media stars and politicians breathlessly telling us what to think about one another most of us are very much involved with our communities through a variety of volunteer efforts. Those Americans who hold on tightly to their personal beliefs and favored political parties are usually out to tear us apart through laws meant to discriminate or. on the other side, using law to sue the discriminators. Most of us watch in dismay and go on with our day to day business of getting along with one another.
2
David, this is very reminiscent of Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone, which explores the increasing disconnect between us, as reflected in the disintegrating social networks like churches, PTA, bowling leagues, etc. what Dunkleman calls the middle-ring. What these groups often provide is a natural heterogeneity where the individuals—though clustered around a common purpose—are not necessarily ideologically homogenous. This encourages a discipline of tolerance and reasoning-out solutions on the mid-level scale and, per your argument, lays a foundation for advancing the dialectic at the meta level such as politics.
1
1) Make government more representational. A candidate (such as GWB) who loses the popular vote (by >500,000) shouldn't become the elected.
2) Stop naked partisan gerrymandering.
3) Get corporate money out of politics. Until a corporation can die in battle or in a coal mine or industrial accident, it shouldn't be able to influence foreign affairs or political oversight of commerce and industry by buying elected officials.
2) Stop naked partisan gerrymandering.
3) Get corporate money out of politics. Until a corporation can die in battle or in a coal mine or industrial accident, it shouldn't be able to influence foreign affairs or political oversight of commerce and industry by buying elected officials.
2
One way to do that would be to restore the original representation ratio in Congress: 1 rep per 100,000 people. With 3200 representatives, the country would be more democratic, there would be more turnover in Congress, and far less corruption.
Check out spiral dynamics - it's natural for societies to swing from we to me to we to me. We're either going to have a major revolution in consciousness and create more holistic we society, or we're going to fall off the cliff. It's true that identity has gotten way too mixed up in our politics - a revolution in spiritual consciousness is the only solution, and that starts within.
Brooks is always challenging: You never know where to begin when showing how shallow and self-serving his writing is. But how about the second graf, where he suggests, "The next president could get together with the leaders of both parties in Congress and say: 'We’re going to change the way we do business in Washington. We’re going to deliberate and negotiate. We’ll disagree and wrangle, but we will not treat this as good-versus-evil blood sport.' That kind of leadership might trickle down." Tell it to Mitch McConnell, Joe Wilson and the Tea Party.
As for Americans suddenly becoming individualistic after World War II, re-read Tocqueville: "“Aristocracy links everybody, from peasant to king, in one long chain. Democracy breaks the chain and frees each link."
And what in the world is "preconscious"? What, "subconscious" or even "unconscious" isn't good enough? He has to pretend to make up new terms?
As for Americans suddenly becoming individualistic after World War II, re-read Tocqueville: "“Aristocracy links everybody, from peasant to king, in one long chain. Democracy breaks the chain and frees each link."
And what in the world is "preconscious"? What, "subconscious" or even "unconscious" isn't good enough? He has to pretend to make up new terms?
1
Ah the good ole days when people ignored politics and acted out of love. Just like occurred in the Revolutionary War in North and South Carolina where neighbor killed neighbor and that bloodiest of all American conflicts, the Civil War.
Anyone who thinks "Hamilton" rewrites history should read Brooks. Compared to him, the play is a completely accurate portrayal of American history down to all our founding fathers and mothers being black or Latino.
Anyone who thinks "Hamilton" rewrites history should read Brooks. Compared to him, the play is a completely accurate portrayal of American history down to all our founding fathers and mothers being black or Latino.
Ever the poet you are, David Brooks! History and culture in a nutshell.
But David Brooks, your Norman Rockwell nutshell is cracked. What to do? The PTA utopia gave way largely because of the determined promotion of the Ayn Rand, libertarian faux-conservative agenda by visionary right-wing activists.
The rise of the Republican right is exhaustively chronicled by Prof. Allan Lichtman in his book "White Protestant Nation: The Rise of the American Conservative Movement." After WW2, a group including luminaries from the John Birch Society and various corporate boardrooms began an organized effort to swing American opinion away from the New Deal socialist enslavement of the nation. They founded groups like the Foundation for Economic Education, the Mont Pelerin Society, and the von Mises Institute. They hijacked think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Foundation to legitimize their views. They had a false start with Barry Goldwater in 1964, but in 1980 their hand-picked and meticulously cultivated spokesman, Ronald Reagan made it to the White House. He accomplished their 40 year goal of converting political discussion from fact-based to dogmatic.
This is not stuff to unpack with sociological rumination and pop-cultural gobbledygook -- self actualization hierarchy joy and spiritual life. To understand the path forward, we do not need to "shrink politics" -- we have to understand it and the events that underlie the current moment.
But David Brooks, your Norman Rockwell nutshell is cracked. What to do? The PTA utopia gave way largely because of the determined promotion of the Ayn Rand, libertarian faux-conservative agenda by visionary right-wing activists.
The rise of the Republican right is exhaustively chronicled by Prof. Allan Lichtman in his book "White Protestant Nation: The Rise of the American Conservative Movement." After WW2, a group including luminaries from the John Birch Society and various corporate boardrooms began an organized effort to swing American opinion away from the New Deal socialist enslavement of the nation. They founded groups like the Foundation for Economic Education, the Mont Pelerin Society, and the von Mises Institute. They hijacked think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Foundation to legitimize their views. They had a false start with Barry Goldwater in 1964, but in 1980 their hand-picked and meticulously cultivated spokesman, Ronald Reagan made it to the White House. He accomplished their 40 year goal of converting political discussion from fact-based to dogmatic.
This is not stuff to unpack with sociological rumination and pop-cultural gobbledygook -- self actualization hierarchy joy and spiritual life. To understand the path forward, we do not need to "shrink politics" -- we have to understand it and the events that underlie the current moment.
2
In our current political landscape one political party contends that government is the problem and that the individual's 'rights' are more important than the collective we. On the other side we have a political party that believes that we are all in this together. I wonder which of the two parties is responsible for the divisiveness?
A glaring example of the types of political games that lead to much of the divisiveness was the unanimous vote among the Republican party in January 2015. You may well remember, after winning control of the US Senate the Republicans voted unanimously to elevate the most despised man in Washington DC(which puts him in the running for most despised worldwide) to their Majority Leader.
All of the so-called 'Purple State' Republicans seeking reelection this year carry with them the baggage of having voted in lockstep to elevate the dirtiest trickster among them to be their leader.
Not Kelly Ayotte, not Rob Portman, not Pat Toomey, not Mark Kirk, not even one Republican voted against elevating career dirty trickster McConnell to their leadership position knowing full well his extremist views on every subject.
Now the Republican incumbents want to appear to their constituents that they are reasonable and nice people but their lack of guts and fortitude to stand up and vote 'no' even though 70% of their constituents despise the man they elevated to majority leader. Putting party ahead of Nation is the GOP way.
A glaring example of the types of political games that lead to much of the divisiveness was the unanimous vote among the Republican party in January 2015. You may well remember, after winning control of the US Senate the Republicans voted unanimously to elevate the most despised man in Washington DC(which puts him in the running for most despised worldwide) to their Majority Leader.
All of the so-called 'Purple State' Republicans seeking reelection this year carry with them the baggage of having voted in lockstep to elevate the dirtiest trickster among them to be their leader.
Not Kelly Ayotte, not Rob Portman, not Pat Toomey, not Mark Kirk, not even one Republican voted against elevating career dirty trickster McConnell to their leadership position knowing full well his extremist views on every subject.
Now the Republican incumbents want to appear to their constituents that they are reasonable and nice people but their lack of guts and fortitude to stand up and vote 'no' even though 70% of their constituents despise the man they elevated to majority leader. Putting party ahead of Nation is the GOP way.
2
Get real buddy. I'm busting my butt to keep up and I'm supposed to join the volunteer fire department? I suggest you get out more often or read the news. Check out today's NYTimes article about the 1% Chinese taking over Vancouver. The same is happening in the US with our own one per centers. #outoftouch
Sure, it's the fault of ordinary people and communities not utterly corrupt, professional politicians. It's our fault for not watching them every minute of the day to stop them from stealing and screwing up.
The whole problem is the existence of a professional, careerist, inbred political class served by corporate media characters like Brooks. Nothing will change, except for the worse, until that issue is addressed.
The whole problem is the existence of a professional, careerist, inbred political class served by corporate media characters like Brooks. Nothing will change, except for the worse, until that issue is addressed.
1
When President Obama was very first elected, Mitch McConnell was quoted as saying: "We Republicans don't like to lose, but electing our first African-American president is an historic event. We plan to work with the president as much as possible for the good of the country. We'll have our differences, but we will always try to respect one another." Just kidding.
2
I believe David Brooks has touched on a piece of a very vexing problem. I thank him.
Another facet of this problem - the centrality and ferociousness of our politics - is our desire for "free stuff" - stuff the government can "give" us is we just have enough political power. But over time, all this "free stuff", doled out to every constituency imaginable, creates its own house of cards.
I wish we could all just look inside and take a step toward greater self responsiblity.
Another facet of this problem - the centrality and ferociousness of our politics - is our desire for "free stuff" - stuff the government can "give" us is we just have enough political power. But over time, all this "free stuff", doled out to every constituency imaginable, creates its own house of cards.
I wish we could all just look inside and take a step toward greater self responsiblity.
Mr. Brooks accurately describes America's loss of communitarian spirit over the last half-century. In an "all for me" culture run amok, the constraints on individual behavior (otherwise known as "morality") shred beyond repair, yielding only a handful of citizens who care as much about citizenship as about personal aggrandizement. The center then fails to hold.
It is reasonable to say that American culture has become ever ruder, cruder, meaner and less tolerant. The wellsprings of such interpersonal deterioration is no mystery. Simply look at the public behaviors of well-branded political figures who purport to lead. I'm not talking only about Donald Trump, here. His bigoted, blighted bombast surged from a petri dish of disaffection, bubbling noxiously from our political cesspool for decades; Trump is far from alone.
Remember what our grand-parents taught us about common decency. Such behavior the direct opposite of what plays out on television and the Internet each and every day. Some of this bile is spewed in the name of Christianity. Sorry Grandma; sorry Jesus, we've let you down but, worse, we've let ourselves down.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
It is reasonable to say that American culture has become ever ruder, cruder, meaner and less tolerant. The wellsprings of such interpersonal deterioration is no mystery. Simply look at the public behaviors of well-branded political figures who purport to lead. I'm not talking only about Donald Trump, here. His bigoted, blighted bombast surged from a petri dish of disaffection, bubbling noxiously from our political cesspool for decades; Trump is far from alone.
Remember what our grand-parents taught us about common decency. Such behavior the direct opposite of what plays out on television and the Internet each and every day. Some of this bile is spewed in the name of Christianity. Sorry Grandma; sorry Jesus, we've let you down but, worse, we've let ourselves down.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
1
"But starting just after World War II, America’s community/membership mind-set gave way to an individualistic/autonomy mind-set. The idea was that individuals should be liberated to live as they chose, so long as they didn’t interfere with the rights of others."
Utter nonsense.
Three letters; H O A.
What, they don't have those in NoVA?
Utter nonsense.
Three letters; H O A.
What, they don't have those in NoVA?
You blew it in paragraph 2 Mr. Brooks. Politicians used to understand the job of governing. They didn't need to sing Kumbaya together before they went to work to expanding the economy and protecting the citizens. That was the job they ran for. You seem to infer that Obama should have had a meeting like this. Should that meeting have taken place before or after the Republican meeting to obstruct everything Obama did and make him fail? There are not two sides to the disfunction in Washington. It's all on the right side of the isle. Perhaps you've forgotten John Boehners' famous "Hell no we won't compromise." Sorry I couldn't bother to read past "That kind of leadership might trickle down." Nothing trickles down in this country. There is a dam built of greed which stops anything good from "trickling" down.
4
Brooks is now hoping that maybe some day if only water would flow up hill. Dr. Goldschmidt is exactly right except he left out voter registration at birth and online.
"But starting just after World War II, America’s community/membership mind-set gave way to an individualistic/autonomy mind-set"
No way. That's just conservative nostogia. What happened was TV and records meant that people could stay home and be entertained. And then car society meant that you no longer had to work in the same neighborhood you lived so you lost that connection with your neighbors. And then people started moving way more. Nothing has changed since then and has only intensified. It's only going to get worse with the internet and the digital revolution.
No way. That's just conservative nostogia. What happened was TV and records meant that people could stay home and be entertained. And then car society meant that you no longer had to work in the same neighborhood you lived so you lost that connection with your neighbors. And then people started moving way more. Nothing has changed since then and has only intensified. It's only going to get worse with the internet and the digital revolution.
"starting just after World War II, America’s community/membership mind-set gave way to an individualistic/autonomy mind-set."
This really started with Reagan and his "government is the problem" embrace of Milton Freidman style unregulated free market economics where "greed is good" and an "invisible hand" magically takes care of the rest.
This really started with Reagan and his "government is the problem" embrace of Milton Freidman style unregulated free market economics where "greed is good" and an "invisible hand" magically takes care of the rest.
1
By supplying man's needs, food, rent, security and even income, the government interferes with the need for societal dependence and interaction.
Politics-fix quiz. Compare and contrast:
(1) "Ask not what your country can do for you,
ask what you can do for your country" -JFK (Democrat)
(2) "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" -Reagan (Republican)
Which statement is likelier to lead to
(a) greater civility and a sense of community?
(b) a 'me me me' and 'money money money' attitude, leading to incivility and a Darwinian dog-eat-dog mentality leading to financial collapses, etc.
Correct answers: 1 - a; 2 - b
(1) "Ask not what your country can do for you,
ask what you can do for your country" -JFK (Democrat)
(2) "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" -Reagan (Republican)
Which statement is likelier to lead to
(a) greater civility and a sense of community?
(b) a 'me me me' and 'money money money' attitude, leading to incivility and a Darwinian dog-eat-dog mentality leading to financial collapses, etc.
Correct answers: 1 - a; 2 - b
4
Conservative talk radio helped to fuel this rage and antipathy for people who don't believe like "us.' In fact, it is possible to trace it to the emergence of Rush Limbaugh, who spoke to people who felt dissed and left behind in a rapidly changing society. It was a calculated approach. Those "elites," he told his listeners, those college professors, novelists and op-ed writers, those feminists and "minorities" all think you're stupid. Well, we can show them, can't we. He, and others like him, tapped into a vast discontent that had no name until he gave it one.
It has to start with an understanding that government is not bad. Right now the right has this perception that government is universally bad (with exception of military) and that it can't do anything right. This mindset has to change if you want to shrink it or want to make it work in any way.
1
A problem with your thesis, is that at the local level politics works just fine. City Councils spend much of their time dealing with completely non-ideological issues. They know each others philosophy, but the majority rules pretty well and compromise abounds.
I think I agree that the big problem is our campaign finance system, which breeds politicization where issues are discussed only through the lens of ideology.
I think I agree that the big problem is our campaign finance system, which breeds politicization where issues are discussed only through the lens of ideology.
2
"The individualist turn had great effects but also accumulating downsides. By 2005, 47 percent of Americans reported that they knew none or just a few of their neighbors by name."
Where's the evidence that the so-called "individualist turn" in American society is responsible for neighbors not knowing one another?
In my neighborhood I hardly ever see my neighbors. I know the houses are occupied because I see their BMWs and Mercedes in the driveways.
If we don't know each other, it isn't because we're on individualist tangents that never intersect. It's extremely likely my neighbors have salaried jobs that keep them at the office late on weekdays and demand that they be available on evenings and weekends. Add the challenges of raising children in a two-income household, and it's no wonder our street doesn't feel like Brook's vision of a Norman Rockwell America where "people live their lives within a galaxy of warm places."
Enormous structural barriers erected by post-industrial, free-trade capitalism are keeping me and my neighbors apart. When good jobs are scarce and when the recent increase in employment has been in contract and temporary positions, my neighbors do not have the leverage to tell their employers they'll cut back to a 40-hour week in order to work on developing the middle-ring relationships Brooks values so highly. No, my neighbors would be out of a job in a heartbeat, their positions filled by people driven by the pressure to make ends meet.
Where's the evidence that the so-called "individualist turn" in American society is responsible for neighbors not knowing one another?
In my neighborhood I hardly ever see my neighbors. I know the houses are occupied because I see their BMWs and Mercedes in the driveways.
If we don't know each other, it isn't because we're on individualist tangents that never intersect. It's extremely likely my neighbors have salaried jobs that keep them at the office late on weekdays and demand that they be available on evenings and weekends. Add the challenges of raising children in a two-income household, and it's no wonder our street doesn't feel like Brook's vision of a Norman Rockwell America where "people live their lives within a galaxy of warm places."
Enormous structural barriers erected by post-industrial, free-trade capitalism are keeping me and my neighbors apart. When good jobs are scarce and when the recent increase in employment has been in contract and temporary positions, my neighbors do not have the leverage to tell their employers they'll cut back to a 40-hour week in order to work on developing the middle-ring relationships Brooks values so highly. No, my neighbors would be out of a job in a heartbeat, their positions filled by people driven by the pressure to make ends meet.
3
Greed will corrupt most all and then steps in the ignorance factor. Maybe stop starting wars for profit, spreading lies, fear, hate and bigotry. Then there are the lies about and the misuse of the most useless of all tools, religion it is after all humanities greatest work of fiction and seemingly a most powerful drug when it comes to common sense and empathy.
1
Mr. Brooks claims, "it’s increasingly clear that the roots of political dysfunction lie deep in society." Wrong. The cause is much clearer and right there on the surface. We have a two party system, and one of those parties has become radicalized.
How do we make our politics better? Give the Democrats, the only functioning party left, super majorities in Congress and control of the White House.
The end.
How do we make our politics better? Give the Democrats, the only functioning party left, super majorities in Congress and control of the White House.
The end.
3
Sure, this would help. I didn't notice any words regarding the fact that white people (at least in our conservative area) appear to have no connections (as friends or otherwise) with African Americans. I also fail to see any acknowledgment that it is the GOP that has for years been turning democracy on its head. to me, the GOP is the anti-democracy party. Not just with regard to issues such as a woman's right to choose, but more fundamental issues such as access to voting. How blind can Americans be to the fact that limiting access to voting (like in Ohio where some people (African Americans) had to wait 8 hours in line to vote. The GOP has turned its back on democratic principles and instead opted for a banana republic.
2
It is sad how your first impulse is to imagine "an elite solution" that might "trickle down" (can we please stop thinking that anything trickles down?), and then you quickly blame "the people" for their individualistic mindset. Has it ever occurred to you that the elites are the ones who have promoted the individualistic mindset by completely dismantling the societal institutions that you want us to build? Exhibit A: unions. Exhibit B: the attempts to "liberal" universities into profit-driven businesses. Exhibit C: the credit card companies, advertisements and so on that teach us to spend, spend, spend, and that achieving wealth for yourself is success.
If you're looking for how to fix politics it starts (A) with the media (CNN and Fox News) who sensationalized everything and drove us against each other, (B) the individualistic mindset that the elites favored through their "business uber alles" approach to everything, and (C) the creation of laws (like Citizens' United, or superdelegates) which take power away from common people. Mr. Brooks, you've got the whole thing backwards!
If you're looking for how to fix politics it starts (A) with the media (CNN and Fox News) who sensationalized everything and drove us against each other, (B) the individualistic mindset that the elites favored through their "business uber alles" approach to everything, and (C) the creation of laws (like Citizens' United, or superdelegates) which take power away from common people. Mr. Brooks, you've got the whole thing backwards!
2
Nice try. Our problem is to some extent tribalism but mostly overwhelming greed. A few people get very rich, they control the narrative and convince others they can too, and everybody wants a big piece of it. Corporations move the jobs to China and most of us suffer. It's gonna be hard to unwind.
But the bigger problem is automation, it's gonna take adults to fix that problem, and I see none in the a Republican Party, and the Democrats are controlled by corporations.
But the bigger problem is automation, it's gonna take adults to fix that problem, and I see none in the a Republican Party, and the Democrats are controlled by corporations.
This is more about culture than politics. Our world is going down the tubes with global warming and global wars. To fix all this means people need to talk to each other and make compromise. Our political system in this country does not know what compromise is. The Republican Party has been obstructing whatever the president and Democrats want to do since they have had a majority. Because of this climate change has been ignored and we are seeing the results world wide. We need a new kind of government, one that takes care of its people not just the corporations or the 1%. They have it in socialist countries and people are happy. Those countries do not think of themselves as having to police the world as we do thus they have plenty of money to provide health care, parental leaves and a sense of security that we do not have in this country.
The questions to ask are who has destroyed the social contract and who has benefited from 40 years of class warfare. Why is money speech and who has decided that voting must be made harder and harder and that political advantage overrules the Constitution? When you figure this out, David, maybe you will have the answer to what became of our politics and how to fix it. .
3
As always with Brooks, any "social" analysis will do, as long as it distracts people from focusing on economic inequality and the collapse of life prospects for the working class and poor people, as prospects for the super rich grow ever brighter.
1
Your description of how to make our politics more civil is like going back to a WASPish time when dad was the breadwinner and mom stayed at home to tak care of the kids. They would go to church, belong to a few clubs, vote republican.
But reality set in David, about forty years ago in republican circles with Reagan's cruel policies, the shift to the right with savage cuts even during bad economic times, jobs shifting elsewhere and never coming back, Tea Party values taking hold of mainstream politics, racism directed at a real political accomplishment of elect America's first black president.
I have antidote to what you're talking about in your column today: deliver a beating to the republicans that will knock them out of power for at least a decade until they reform. It's somewhat like Bernie Sanders call for a political revolution. It will take time but people seem to be ready.
But reality set in David, about forty years ago in republican circles with Reagan's cruel policies, the shift to the right with savage cuts even during bad economic times, jobs shifting elsewhere and never coming back, Tea Party values taking hold of mainstream politics, racism directed at a real political accomplishment of elect America's first black president.
I have antidote to what you're talking about in your column today: deliver a beating to the republicans that will knock them out of power for at least a decade until they reform. It's somewhat like Bernie Sanders call for a political revolution. It will take time but people seem to be ready.
1
""Americans believed that self-denial made sense""
I'm not sure if saving for retirement is one aspect of self denial in your mindset, but after denying oneself a lot of "things", many senior citizens were rewarded with ZERO percent interest rates. The party animals on Wall St. and their "Bankster" buddies were bailed out.
Of course these are the same people that complain about an unemployed single mom getting a few welfare dollars.
4
David, I see many organizations that connect us. Child, elder and disabled caretakers couldn't survive without networks like food pantries, child/elder care, school PTA (including preschool), sports booster clubs,.... We are the invisible middle ring community that you speak of.
Many people are too busy (barely) making a living to have time or money that middle-ring organizations require.
Many people are too busy (barely) making a living to have time or money that middle-ring organizations require.
2
Dear Mr. Brooks,
You have moved from a very right-leaning pundit to a social scientist. I approve!
Corky Miller
Portland, OR
You have moved from a very right-leaning pundit to a social scientist. I approve!
Corky Miller
Portland, OR
Nice sentiments, but really, the simplest step to fix politics is to end gerrymandering. Make politicians actually compete for votes with sensible policy positions. After that, set up media solutions that do not depend on capitalism in order to function. Our media does not serve the people, it serves the corporate bottom line.
1
In the same tone of avuncular narration, let "me" tell you how to repair our government : talk more of responsibility and far less about rights: "ask not what the country " must protect for you, but rather how you can advance the freedoms and pursuit of happiness for others.
It is a myth that individual effort is the source of success - and therefore that the individual deserves our greatest reverence. Rather it is through collective action that we fulfill the greater potential, and so our actions, our politicians, our leaders and teachers, should all refocus on societal benefit rather than individual enablement. Measure achievement in the good it does for others rather than the goods it acquires for one.
It is a myth that individual effort is the source of success - and therefore that the individual deserves our greatest reverence. Rather it is through collective action that we fulfill the greater potential, and so our actions, our politicians, our leaders and teachers, should all refocus on societal benefit rather than individual enablement. Measure achievement in the good it does for others rather than the goods it acquires for one.
David
This is hogwash. Polls show the majority of Democrats want compromise and the majority of Republicans don't. If your rationalization were true, wouldn't both parties not want to compromise? The Republicans are the followers of Ayn Rand and individualism. Republicans, starting with Reagan made the government the enemy. It is that simple.
This is hogwash. Polls show the majority of Democrats want compromise and the majority of Republicans don't. If your rationalization were true, wouldn't both parties not want to compromise? The Republicans are the followers of Ayn Rand and individualism. Republicans, starting with Reagan made the government the enemy. It is that simple.
4
"An elite solution" to "fix politics", David? "Trickle down leadership?" Face it, the roots of political dysfunction lie deep in the Republican conservative, uncompassionate Tea Party - a large powerful institution that enhances its own interests to the awful detriment of American society. Zealous partisanship is what fuels the Republicans against all comers. They are unrealistic! Politics can fill no void in America's social upheaval today. You are floating key lime pie in the sky with your sunny optimistic view that if we make a cultural shift to loving and helping our neighbors, we will experience our highest joy. Politics in America are circling the drain, not fixable, and will be ruinous to all during this dread-full Presidential Election Year.
Here's the deal, Mr. Brooks, we humans have always been like this. I know, there were short periods of civility in certain bubbles of society. And among the elites a sense of "alls right with the world" may linger. But we have Fox News and it's babelment of animosity, and we have social media with it's nasty, little world occupants. Long ago Ceaser was stabbed and before him others, too. It's a wonder anything gets done. I suppose it's a yin and yang thing, the duality of existence. The only hope is that the asteroids will find us and put us out of our misery...
Whenever Stephen Hawking, the great English cosmologist encountered any discussion that failed to meet his requirements in solving cosmological problems his one word response was; "Rubbish".
As to your suggestion Mr. Brooks that one solution may be for a president to bring together both parties of congress "to change the way we do business in Washington". Rubbish sir, rubbish. Maybe you should have made that suggestion when Obama first took office. Then again, can you imagine a black president forwarding a suggestion such as this, after receiving a threat that his first fours years would be his last. Rubbish.
Stop delving into the "Happy Days" of middle America when life seemed 'simple? and start giving serious thought to the political destruction wrought by our political leadership, especially, especially, the Republican party. That alone should give you enough writing material for a long time to come.
As to your suggestion Mr. Brooks that one solution may be for a president to bring together both parties of congress "to change the way we do business in Washington". Rubbish sir, rubbish. Maybe you should have made that suggestion when Obama first took office. Then again, can you imagine a black president forwarding a suggestion such as this, after receiving a threat that his first fours years would be his last. Rubbish.
Stop delving into the "Happy Days" of middle America when life seemed 'simple? and start giving serious thought to the political destruction wrought by our political leadership, especially, especially, the Republican party. That alone should give you enough writing material for a long time to come.
The Republicans would like to destroy the social programs that the Democrats have managed to cobble together over the decades. Millions of voters who will eventually come to vitally rely on these programs nonetheless support the Republicans. You can't fix stupid.
David, we do have a President who's been willing to sit down with both parties and set aside ideological differences. And this is the person strongly elected twice by citizens who liked his take that there is no red or blue America, but one nation. And look at the undermining and obstructionism he has been met with, which continues today, and by people who continuously speak of "shrinking the government"! Sorry, but this is not anything other than the Congressional Republican maneuvering it appears to be.
The best thing that could happen to Presidential politics is to eliminate it. It is time for a parliamentary system without this absurdity.
I have printed this column and will share with the board of directors of my Home Owners Association. It is a perfect less for them to learn.
Ah so the 960s culture is to blame, but no mention of Reagan's support for the economic side of the "me" generation?
1
One need only glance at the comments on this exceptionally thoughtful article to confirm Mr. Brooks's argument that politics has become too central to our identity.
Good column, Mr. Brooks. One thing I agree with right down to my bones is that our presidential contests are much too long and feed the divisiveness that permeates our society. Permit me to submit an absurd idea which, if enacted, would go a long way towards healing our divisions.
The American people who care about such things should organize into a temporary interest group to persuade Congress and the President to enact a statute that would restrict campaigning for public office at all levels to a start date of say 90 days before an election. I'm flexible on the number. It could be 60 or 120 but the start date would be rigidly enforced.
By"rigidly enforced", I am suggesting that any candidate caught speaking, mailing, or otherwise using any form of media, especially social media, to persuade voters would be arrested, tried, and if convicted, imprisoned in solitary confinement for life; with no parole. Any campaign funds obtained by the candidate would be seized and donated to non profit associations dedicated to the teaching of social comity.
It's harsh, I know; but, tough love is often the best solution to solving what appear to be intractable problems of personal behavior. Just imagine an America where campaigning for public office did not consume our daily lives with the drivel that we see and hear now. To paraphrase one of our current candidates " ...... America is the only industrialized nation where ....... "
The American people who care about such things should organize into a temporary interest group to persuade Congress and the President to enact a statute that would restrict campaigning for public office at all levels to a start date of say 90 days before an election. I'm flexible on the number. It could be 60 or 120 but the start date would be rigidly enforced.
By"rigidly enforced", I am suggesting that any candidate caught speaking, mailing, or otherwise using any form of media, especially social media, to persuade voters would be arrested, tried, and if convicted, imprisoned in solitary confinement for life; with no parole. Any campaign funds obtained by the candidate would be seized and donated to non profit associations dedicated to the teaching of social comity.
It's harsh, I know; but, tough love is often the best solution to solving what appear to be intractable problems of personal behavior. Just imagine an America where campaigning for public office did not consume our daily lives with the drivel that we see and hear now. To paraphrase one of our current candidates " ...... America is the only industrialized nation where ....... "
Mr. Brooks is cherry picking the sociological literature. This sounds like the marvelously sensible conservative pronouncements of a Robert Nisbet from the 1950s. The problem is that there has been an enormous amount of research on communal dynamics as they have occurred since then. But, better, he might go back to 1929 and read John Dewey's Individualism Old and New. The Great Transformation, as it came to be called in some circles, is capable of bringing with it different forms of community, which, again, brings us back to a whole bunch of research conducted since the 1950s. Mr. Brooks ain't wrong (in my judgment), he's just out of date.
Some other ideas:
1) Reinstitute the fairness doctrine.
2) Make ownership of media by foreigners illegal.
3) Overturn Citizens United.
4) Redraw every congressional district in the country based on computer models designed by an impartial committee.
5) Automatic voter registration
6) Reinstitute the voting rights act
See, that wasn't so hard. Now, excuse my while I sip on a bottle of gin and wait for any of these things to happen.....
1) Reinstitute the fairness doctrine.
2) Make ownership of media by foreigners illegal.
3) Overturn Citizens United.
4) Redraw every congressional district in the country based on computer models designed by an impartial committee.
5) Automatic voter registration
6) Reinstitute the voting rights act
See, that wasn't so hard. Now, excuse my while I sip on a bottle of gin and wait for any of these things to happen.....
4
The Interstate highway of the 60's, cheap air travel of the 80's, and the destruction of unions allowed corporations to disseminate the American family, sending them to whatever state their minions were needed for the highest profit. (Not to forget the children of the military, during our chronic state of war.)
I have been thinking about this quandary since your previous article. Those raised in the fifties had parents who matured through the Depression and WWII. They wanted a peaceful and fulfilled life for their offspring. They had few choices because of their times. They wanted their children to be able to choose and to excel in ways they couldn't themselves.
Is it even necessary to read a Brooks or Kristof column any more? I haven't read this column, but imagine it goes something like this:
1. Lofty moral position.
2. Citation from an obscure text or book.
3. Deflection and avoidance in regards to Republican's role in said problem.
4. Nebulous conclusion hinting at need for spiritual awakening.
1. Lofty moral position.
2. Citation from an obscure text or book.
3. Deflection and avoidance in regards to Republican's role in said problem.
4. Nebulous conclusion hinting at need for spiritual awakening.
1
You plow the fertile soil of bigotry, and divisiveness for thirty years sowing dragon's teeth, and then bemoan the fact that dragons grow -- and bite you with even sharper teeth.
1
Fellow commenters: Go easy on Mr. Brooks. His conservative gods have failed him and he is struggling to understand the world without yet acknowledging The Truth. He is a smart man, if not as wise as projected. There is a chance he will end his struggle in a healthy way by condemning the cult from which he is slowly leaving. Perhaps he will realize the modern public sphere requires problem solving elevated above ideology of right or left.
2
Delusional. The working class didn’t start your problem. The middle class didn’t start your problem. The left didn’t start your problem.
A guy named Nixon figured that if he turned the fears of disaffected white southerners his wa he would win an election. Once that success was realized, the Republicans decided that they could dismantle America.
We are now seeing the net result.
Have fun with that.
A guy named Nixon figured that if he turned the fears of disaffected white southerners his wa he would win an election. Once that success was realized, the Republicans decided that they could dismantle America.
We are now seeing the net result.
Have fun with that.
1
While Mr. Brooks may not want to admit it, the turn toward radical individualism began under Ronald Reagan. My generation thst came Ofvage just before hisvpresidency was focused on ending poverty. The "me" generation was a Ragan era phenomenon. Itvwasunder Reagan that selfishness became a virtue.
Until we address the root cause of vast sums of money corrupting our political process and representatives, I'm skeptical the dysfunction will cease. You can point to all the societal factors you want, but unregulated greed should stand at the apex.
Start by repealing Citizens United.
Worst SCOTUS decision ever.
Start by repealing Citizens United.
Worst SCOTUS decision ever.
3
Since Ronald Reagan the Republicans have controlled the direction of our country through hatred and division by blaming all problems on the "other". Democrats were guilty of this until they dropped the Southern strategy.
For the uber rich the "other" are the poor.
For conservative white men the "other" are those of color and women.
For the USA the "other" are the "evil doers" in the countries we invade.
Maybe this is just human nature but this type of thinking and division for the purpose of getting elected or controlling our government is at an all time unhealthy extreme. Leaders are supposed to guide us to our better angels. Instead, the leaders of the Republican Party have guided us into hopeless division.
David, if you want to see our people helping each other again, change your party affiliation please.
For the uber rich the "other" are the poor.
For conservative white men the "other" are those of color and women.
For the USA the "other" are the "evil doers" in the countries we invade.
Maybe this is just human nature but this type of thinking and division for the purpose of getting elected or controlling our government is at an all time unhealthy extreme. Leaders are supposed to guide us to our better angels. Instead, the leaders of the Republican Party have guided us into hopeless division.
David, if you want to see our people helping each other again, change your party affiliation please.
1
You sometimes wonder do you. Well surprise so do most people? If you want to fix politics in America you might start by not nominating Hillary Clinton, a creature who embodies all the negatives of the game. Constant phrasing, parsing, analysis and hedging, condescending shifts of view, a belief that the electorate is a malleable dumb lump that can be persuaded by the proper phrase, the right add, the timed denial while capturing the moment.
I believe it was us, the baby boomers that rejected what our parents honored, group/civic commitment, self-sacrifice, delayed gratification, compromise and "realistic" goals. We became "the Pepsi generation," seeking individual pleasure, aspiring to immaturity and selfishness. It was not immediately post-WWII, but 10 or 15 years later, after the Korean War that we idealized pleasure all day long and minimal commitment to the group.
Brooks' intellectual dishonesty should be a concern to The Times.
He has jumped the shark and no longer provides honest, interesting commentary. For 7 years he has stood by while Obama has provided precisely the kind of principled, good-natured leadership that Brooks purports to value. But in this column, like in so many of his others, he presents a "solution" that Obama has already tried - many times! When will Brooks admit that his longed-for Leader is here - a moderate, sensible, temperate President, who in historic terms would be considered a moderate Republican.
Brooks' unwillingness to confront his toxic Republican Party, and his unwillingness to acknowledge Obama's adherence to Brooks' own principles constitute "columnist malpractice". The Times should look for a columnist who can be intellectually honest. Brooks no longer merits the pages of The Times since he violates the most basic requirements of the craft: presenting an honest viewpoint, logically argued.
It's not that I disagree with Brooks, it's that Brooks' arguments make no sense and contradict themselves. Where is his editor - either internal or external - to confront his intellectual weakness?
He has jumped the shark and no longer provides honest, interesting commentary. For 7 years he has stood by while Obama has provided precisely the kind of principled, good-natured leadership that Brooks purports to value. But in this column, like in so many of his others, he presents a "solution" that Obama has already tried - many times! When will Brooks admit that his longed-for Leader is here - a moderate, sensible, temperate President, who in historic terms would be considered a moderate Republican.
Brooks' unwillingness to confront his toxic Republican Party, and his unwillingness to acknowledge Obama's adherence to Brooks' own principles constitute "columnist malpractice". The Times should look for a columnist who can be intellectually honest. Brooks no longer merits the pages of The Times since he violates the most basic requirements of the craft: presenting an honest viewpoint, logically argued.
It's not that I disagree with Brooks, it's that Brooks' arguments make no sense and contradict themselves. Where is his editor - either internal or external - to confront his intellectual weakness?
2
Mr. Brooks thanks, as always, for your thoughtful column. My way to fix politics is one of the following in order of priority: (1)public funding of elections;(2)a "reasonable" limit (to me, Ross Perot's $100 adjusted for inflation) to total contributions by a registered voter to a nominee (no contributions allowed by corporations or unions or any other non-registered voter); (3)overturn Citizens-United.
2
You can't win a Republican primary without appealing to the basest of the GOP base. If you do not vote the "right" way in Congress, the basest of the GOP base will back a primary opponent who will defeat you.
There is no incentive to operate with the larger picture in mind, especially in the House, where you would have only two years before being ousted.
It is hard to fill out two columns a week by recognizing that simple reality, but it trumps all other aspects and effects of political polarization. Democrats face similar, though slightly lower, pressures. (I am not sure why the boiling anger of the Right is more easily organized than the Left's - maybe there's one complete column in that.)
There is no incentive to operate with the larger picture in mind, especially in the House, where you would have only two years before being ousted.
It is hard to fill out two columns a week by recognizing that simple reality, but it trumps all other aspects and effects of political polarization. Democrats face similar, though slightly lower, pressures. (I am not sure why the boiling anger of the Right is more easily organized than the Left's - maybe there's one complete column in that.)
1
OK David, congratulations! I no longer see you as a 'conservative' writer! Whatever occurred, this metamorphosis is genuine. Along with the philosophical bent, you still hold your conservative principles (definitely OK). But your search for a purposeful life has led you to a very good place. You're not in 'lock-step (I don't really think you ever were) with the committed. And you have a new (and again genuine) respect for others. Is it new? Probably not, but it IS different. If I actually get it, you are talking about individual vs common good. We Americans have indeed tossed aside common good to our own detriment. It's all about 'ME". Um, no it isn't. It has to be about US, or else what you get is exactly what we have now in American politics. And it's NOT pretty at all. And you are quite right. Both sides (yup, that includes me too!) have to be sat down like recalcitrant children and given 'the talk'. NO, not THAT one! The one where the authority figure (the President?) tells both sides they really need to behave and start listening and working with each other. Perhaps then, we might even get some important matters dealt with. Just as President Obama said, Yes WE can!
"After WWII" for me means Vietnam. Our country was split in two by Vietnam and that wound has never healed. In one camp it was My Country Right or Wrong, and in the other it was My Country Is Wrong About This and Must Be Challenged. Each side has grown and mutated, but that split remains. We have become the Hatfields and McCoys, and identifying with one or the other defines a person. And everything about that person, even his most personal beliefs, are fair game and reason is left behind. Compromise is not possible because extending an olive branch is seen as weakness. We are in a civil war, a house divided. I agree that the solution could lie in getting to know one's community, but the divide is alive and well there as well.
Am I reading this correctly??
David writes, "... The next president could get together with the leaders of both parties in Congress and say: “We’re going to change the way we do business in Washington. We’re going to deliberate and negotiate. We’ll disagree and wrangle, but we will not treat this as good-versus-evil blood sport.” That kind of leadership might trickle down..."
How about if each member of Congress sits down with the NRA and those who bought and paid for them and has that very conversation?
Big Money in politics defeats the democratic process right at the starting gate.
David writes, "... The next president could get together with the leaders of both parties in Congress and say: “We’re going to change the way we do business in Washington. We’re going to deliberate and negotiate. We’ll disagree and wrangle, but we will not treat this as good-versus-evil blood sport.” That kind of leadership might trickle down..."
How about if each member of Congress sits down with the NRA and those who bought and paid for them and has that very conversation?
Big Money in politics defeats the democratic process right at the starting gate.
3
David Brooks.....you are missing your chance to write about....the only
worthwhile Republican candidate...
and why aren't you writing about: John Kasich....
What is wrong with Kasich....just tell me...why the New York Times right
wing journalist ...that is YOU David Brooks...refuses to write about John
Kasich...He has the experience to run a State...and has served in Congress.
Just tell me why you are so reluctant to write about the present Governor
of Ohio.......I think you might give this a try....and I am really disgusted
with the New York Times...for not covering the worthwhile candidates.
like Kasich or Sanders
and Hillary...well who knows what the FBI will find out ...etcetera.
Go on journalists...give the honest and qualified candidates a shout..
worthwhile Republican candidate...
and why aren't you writing about: John Kasich....
What is wrong with Kasich....just tell me...why the New York Times right
wing journalist ...that is YOU David Brooks...refuses to write about John
Kasich...He has the experience to run a State...and has served in Congress.
Just tell me why you are so reluctant to write about the present Governor
of Ohio.......I think you might give this a try....and I am really disgusted
with the New York Times...for not covering the worthwhile candidates.
like Kasich or Sanders
and Hillary...well who knows what the FBI will find out ...etcetera.
Go on journalists...give the honest and qualified candidates a shout..
What's wrong with Kasich?
He's only won ONE primary, and it was in the state where HE runs the elections.
He's only won ONE primary, and it was in the state where HE runs the elections.
Mr. Brooks writes: "We’re good at bonding with people like ourselves but worse at bridging with people unlike ourselves."
To see the truth of that statement all one need do is read the most popular comments to virtually any of Mr. Brooks' columns. Though I frequently disagree with him, I see not only a knee-jerk quality to many of those comments (as if ANYTHING Brooks supports MUST be suspect), it's those comments which are the most lacerating that are the most favored. And this from NY Times readers who are, allegedly at least, supposed to be more open-minded and open-hearted than those well, all those "others" not a part of my progressive tribe.
To see the truth of that statement all one need do is read the most popular comments to virtually any of Mr. Brooks' columns. Though I frequently disagree with him, I see not only a knee-jerk quality to many of those comments (as if ANYTHING Brooks supports MUST be suspect), it's those comments which are the most lacerating that are the most favored. And this from NY Times readers who are, allegedly at least, supposed to be more open-minded and open-hearted than those well, all those "others" not a part of my progressive tribe.
Some time ago from this same space, Brooks advised Obama to "have lunch" with the Rep leadership and be nice to them. Krugman made mince meat of Brooks' Very Serious proposal in one of his columns with his inimitable irony.
Brooks is at it again. His denial of reality, the fact that the Reps have been engaged for 30 years in class warfare against the poor first and now the middle class, is part of the same disinformation machine that enlists the Foxes and the Rushes that infest our airwaves and coaxial cables.
Of course Brooks uses fork and knife at the table instead of grabbing the steak with his hands, but his free meal is paid for by the same people.
As to hoi polloi? Let them eat cake.
Brooks is at it again. His denial of reality, the fact that the Reps have been engaged for 30 years in class warfare against the poor first and now the middle class, is part of the same disinformation machine that enlists the Foxes and the Rushes that infest our airwaves and coaxial cables.
Of course Brooks uses fork and knife at the table instead of grabbing the steak with his hands, but his free meal is paid for by the same people.
As to hoi polloi? Let them eat cake.
2
Shorter David Brooks: Pay no attention to the 1% behind that curtain who bought your government!
1
Sign me up.
I am all for this, but don't know how to get it through the GOP's head that "politics is the art of compromise."
"Compromise" has become as ugly a word to them as "pedophilia."
Somehow they need to understand that it's not surrender to meet in the middle.
Any ideas.
I am all for this, but don't know how to get it through the GOP's head that "politics is the art of compromise."
"Compromise" has become as ugly a word to them as "pedophilia."
Somehow they need to understand that it's not surrender to meet in the middle.
Any ideas.
Well community IS essentially government and if you are going to drown government in a bathtub, then by definition you've you've flooded the lungs of the community ...
This is not a "they all do it problem" ... your side, Mr. Brooks, is M.I.A.
I can't for the life of me figure how you go week after week concocting these rationalizations in the face of the clear reality of what has been done to this country (community) by your party.
This is not a "they all do it problem" ... your side, Mr. Brooks, is M.I.A.
I can't for the life of me figure how you go week after week concocting these rationalizations in the face of the clear reality of what has been done to this country (community) by your party.
1
Here's come David with his 'it's everyone's fault. He forgets Reagan really started this way of doing things. He never actually said 'greed is good' but he ruled that way. He made the rich feel good about looting everyone else just to attain more.
He forgets it was his right wing that made compromise evil. It was David's party that created this divide and I don't see any signs of them changing.
He forgets it was his right wing that made compromise evil. It was David's party that created this divide and I don't see any signs of them changing.
1
Unfortunately it seems that individualism also means that people are free to believe whatever they want independent of the actual facts. That certainly increases polarization.
>"We’re going to deliberate and negotiate. We’ll disagree and wrangle, but we will not treat this as good-versus-evil blood sport. That kind of leadership might trickle down."<
President Obama tried that. It didn't trickle down.
President Obama tried that. It didn't trickle down.
3
As with many of your more general articles, e mMr. Brooks, I basically agree with what you're saying. But I cannot for the life of me see how the values you espouse are exemplified better by the Republican party. Rather, as so many other commenters note, all the negative trends you decry--the refusal to compromise, the demonizing of the opposition, the inflating of the importance of politics, etc.--are obvious characteristics of the modern GOP.
I think you owe your readers an explanation of why you remain a Republican. Many of us would be very interested to know the answer to that question.
I think you owe your readers an explanation of why you remain a Republican. Many of us would be very interested to know the answer to that question.
3
"The next president could get together with the leaders of both parties in Congress and say: “We’re going to change the way we do business in Washington. We’re going to deliberate and negotiate. We’ll disagree and wrangle, but we will not treat this as good-versus-evil blood sport.”
If memory serves, that's what Obama tried to accomplish at the beginning of his first term in office...and the Republicans responded with the worst era of obstructionism in living memory. I guess that leadership didn't "trickle down." What did "trickle down" was contempt for the electorate that resulted in a near total distrust and disapproval of government and the rise of Trump.
If memory serves, that's what Obama tried to accomplish at the beginning of his first term in office...and the Republicans responded with the worst era of obstructionism in living memory. I guess that leadership didn't "trickle down." What did "trickle down" was contempt for the electorate that resulted in a near total distrust and disapproval of government and the rise of Trump.
1
David dances in the world of Greek philosophers.
O.K., give it to him.
May I remind him regardless of which system chosen both your democratic and republican super pacs will be buying votes (by the long way).
Not all those delegates can afford the price of transportation. Let alone food and shelter.
Guess who shows up with a ticket (and in some cases a tent).
O.K., give it to him.
May I remind him regardless of which system chosen both your democratic and republican super pacs will be buying votes (by the long way).
Not all those delegates can afford the price of transportation. Let alone food and shelter.
Guess who shows up with a ticket (and in some cases a tent).
"How could we make our politics better?" Let me suggest the idea of the parliament system, where the prime minister and the opposing parties face each other, directly.
Of course that is not going to happen in America, but maybe we can capture the spirit of direct confrontation in government, and in our personal relations, as well. John Kennedy, in his inaugural address said, " Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."
Candidates like Trump and Sanders have that sense of directness and maybe, they can help us to fix politics by their examples of Chutzpah.
Isaiah 1.17 says,"Come now and let us reason together. Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow."
Of course that is not going to happen in America, but maybe we can capture the spirit of direct confrontation in government, and in our personal relations, as well. John Kennedy, in his inaugural address said, " Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."
Candidates like Trump and Sanders have that sense of directness and maybe, they can help us to fix politics by their examples of Chutzpah.
Isaiah 1.17 says,"Come now and let us reason together. Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow."
2
If the solution, like Mr. Brooks claims, is in the culture then we need to recognize that the culture of one party is that of a social coalition, and seems to be functioning better than the other, an ideologically homogenous body.
How we fix politics will be by getting both parties to evolve into social coalitions. It’s a shame, but in today's political context the vast majority of the blame can be put squarely at the feet of the Republican party. Coalitions are forced to constantly compromise from within, whereas for the homogenous body - those who are not ideologically pure and uncompromising are ousted, think Boehner, Jeb, and the Tea party wave. We need a political space where people are allowed to disagree with the party line and not become political lepers.
How we fix politics will be by getting both parties to evolve into social coalitions. It’s a shame, but in today's political context the vast majority of the blame can be put squarely at the feet of the Republican party. Coalitions are forced to constantly compromise from within, whereas for the homogenous body - those who are not ideologically pure and uncompromising are ousted, think Boehner, Jeb, and the Tea party wave. We need a political space where people are allowed to disagree with the party line and not become political lepers.
We are in an era of the politics of Karl Rove, using emotional issues and connecting politics to religion as the substance of policy. Fox news, entertaining hatred and bigotry disguised as factual information and of course unfathomable amounts of money spent to manipulate the electorate to hate and fear the "other side". We as a people just don't have the internal fortitude to overcome this perverse on slot to our need for connection. We are in a very sick time in the history of America and the media is a huge part of the disease.
There is a good and there is an evil in U.S. politics. Whether you know the neighbor does not change it. One party is responsible and enlightened and mature, the other is full of crazy people. Don't blame the reasonable people for that.
"depressing presidential campaign"
Oh, and who exactly is making it depressing? Allow me to point out that even the most extreme rhetoric between Clinton and Sanders doesn't come close to the utter nastiness and stupidity of the Republicans. And let me also say that very little of the political dysfunction in the U.S. can be pinned on the Dems. Almost all of the bad politics originates and is cultivated by a culture of resentment, privilege and bigotry all nurtured by the Republicans through its mass empire of right-wing Media propaganda and Koch-brother-type financing.
David, give it a rest. If you were truly honest with yourself, you'd change parties and join us regular folk out here who want everyone in the country to succeed, not just your elitist class.
Oh, and who exactly is making it depressing? Allow me to point out that even the most extreme rhetoric between Clinton and Sanders doesn't come close to the utter nastiness and stupidity of the Republicans. And let me also say that very little of the political dysfunction in the U.S. can be pinned on the Dems. Almost all of the bad politics originates and is cultivated by a culture of resentment, privilege and bigotry all nurtured by the Republicans through its mass empire of right-wing Media propaganda and Koch-brother-type financing.
David, give it a rest. If you were truly honest with yourself, you'd change parties and join us regular folk out here who want everyone in the country to succeed, not just your elitist class.
Let's simplify: how about we end or radically reform the Democrats and Republicans? How about supporting measures against their duopoly? You spent 1000 words dancing around this maypole without actually naming it.
David, sometimes your Op-Eds are almost context free. You say a new leader will sit down and say we are going to negotiate. That is what Obama tried to do for 8 years. The differences between the parties are not symmetric. The democrats are not angels or blameless however, the GOP lost its grip on reality some time ago. They are no longer a serious party. They are however, doing serious damage. If you want to clean things up let's start with a party that has no policy prescriptions for any of the new challenges faced by the US.
Mr. Brooks,
1981 was not "just after WWII;" it was actually "just after" the election of President Reagan. The period lying "just after WWII" to your citation of support in 1981 was actually a 30+ year period that is considered my most, including your cadre of retrogrades, as the halcyon years of this country. The things you lament losing, purpose, family, community, etc thrived due, largely, to what is now known as democratic socialism; the horror!
1981 was not "just after WWII;" it was actually "just after" the election of President Reagan. The period lying "just after WWII" to your citation of support in 1981 was actually a 30+ year period that is considered my most, including your cadre of retrogrades, as the halcyon years of this country. The things you lament losing, purpose, family, community, etc thrived due, largely, to what is now known as democratic socialism; the horror!
2
David, Where do you find this nonsense.
After Eisenhower, the Republican Party became the party of "just say no", the party of obstruct, the party of win at all costs, the party of cheat voters of their voice, the party of steal an election if you must....but win, the party of Ayn Rand - what a ridiculous - even silly philosophy - the philosophy of greed.
The Republican Party has become home to a miserable mass of people that are basically immoral.
Now you say you want to fix that (rather late in the day)
Now you say that civic life has suffered. You say you want to salvage our politics.
The Republicans played the game much like the Soviets. Now they are in the same place where they have brought destruction upon themselves.
Salvage our political system? We are trying to salvage our nation, David, despite the Republican Senate and House. You can can obstruct or help as you choose.
Here's what the Republicans need:
What you need, David, what you need (and I wish you were the man but you're not), what is needed is a Gorbachev that can say to the Republicans: "enough is enough. We are through with garbage politics. We are going to return to a society that is just and fair."
Who might that leader be, David? Nut cases are your front runners and your back rooms are a miasma of disease and vipers.
After Eisenhower, the Republican Party became the party of "just say no", the party of obstruct, the party of win at all costs, the party of cheat voters of their voice, the party of steal an election if you must....but win, the party of Ayn Rand - what a ridiculous - even silly philosophy - the philosophy of greed.
The Republican Party has become home to a miserable mass of people that are basically immoral.
Now you say you want to fix that (rather late in the day)
Now you say that civic life has suffered. You say you want to salvage our politics.
The Republicans played the game much like the Soviets. Now they are in the same place where they have brought destruction upon themselves.
Salvage our political system? We are trying to salvage our nation, David, despite the Republican Senate and House. You can can obstruct or help as you choose.
Here's what the Republicans need:
What you need, David, what you need (and I wish you were the man but you're not), what is needed is a Gorbachev that can say to the Republicans: "enough is enough. We are through with garbage politics. We are going to return to a society that is just and fair."
Who might that leader be, David? Nut cases are your front runners and your back rooms are a miasma of disease and vipers.
David, David, David. It's not about people don't join bowling leagues or go to PTA meetings with their neighbors. It's about your party of the Grand Old Plutocrats being taken over by Ayn Rand Libertarian tycoons like the Koch Brothers and the Walton family and engaging in a slow motion coup to take over state and federal governments and spew an anti-labor (most of us) agenda that hoovers (redistributes) most of the wealth of the nation to the 0.01%, impoverishing the other 330 million.
1
Oh, and don't elect, as leader of the world's greatest deliberative body, a man whose entire goal is to make sure the President fails as totally and quickly as possible. Even if that means shutting down the entire government, or leaving hundreds of management and judicial positions unfilled.
There is one crucial word missing from David Brooks' column on the best way to fix modern politics--Compromise. During the last half of the 20th century the only way to get anything done in Washington was for politicians of both parties was to meet face to face, iron out their differences minus the partisan rancor, and come up with workable solutions that everyone could live with. Democrats and Republicans alike realistically knew that they weren't everything they wanted. But thanks to a system where give and take actually worked, both sides brokered deals that at least everyone could live with.
Now that we're in the 21st century, that old political world is long gone. Compromise is considered a sign of weakness. Republicans and Democrats adopt bunker mentalities and refuse to budge because no one respects a weakling. Bush 43 declared "I'm the decider!!" It'll take a miracle to restore the way things used to be.
Now that we're in the 21st century, that old political world is long gone. Compromise is considered a sign of weakness. Republicans and Democrats adopt bunker mentalities and refuse to budge because no one respects a weakling. Bush 43 declared "I'm the decider!!" It'll take a miracle to restore the way things used to be.
Brooks proposed a prescription that Obama offered from the beginning-- to change the way business is done in Washington. Obama's willingness to do this was met with unyielding opposition from day one.
The only thing Brooks really cares about is the tally of wins for the GOP. He is simply McConnell with some intellectual posturing thrown in. McDonnell just wants to win. Brooks wants to win and feel morally superior.
The only thing Brooks really cares about is the tally of wins for the GOP. He is simply McConnell with some intellectual posturing thrown in. McDonnell just wants to win. Brooks wants to win and feel morally superior.
The elite solution at the top of the column is possible.
1). The replacement of the Confederation after the Revolutionary War with a strong federal government was pushed by a small cadre of men and was totally opposite the views of the grassroots and state politicians. They succeeded.
2) John McCain came close in 2008 when his inner being sought to have Joe Lieberman as his running mate. But alas, he was pressured and ended up going in the complete opposite direction with Sara Palin. (Ouch!).
In this vein, today's politicians are not brave. And their parties are fearful.
1). The replacement of the Confederation after the Revolutionary War with a strong federal government was pushed by a small cadre of men and was totally opposite the views of the grassroots and state politicians. They succeeded.
2) John McCain came close in 2008 when his inner being sought to have Joe Lieberman as his running mate. But alas, he was pressured and ended up going in the complete opposite direction with Sara Palin. (Ouch!).
In this vein, today's politicians are not brave. And their parties are fearful.
How about blaming Reagan? he emphasized the idea that "Welfare Queens" were wrecking the USA. later cam "Willie Horton". These accelerated the flight to the suburbs, and the idea that taxes support worthless people. The GOP gained from this for 40 years, now maybe not so much. But they still have abortion, teachers' unions, Hillary and global climate change to attack.
1
So we have to reform ourselves before we reform politics? Gee, that reminds me of the 1960's, when we were told that people's hearts had to change before we could expect to achieve voting rights, school equality, and equal treatment under the law. People's hearts will change when the perceived norm changes. Maybe not for everyone, and certainly not enough, but change does happen. We need to remake our political rules - who can give money and how, who can speak in which public spaces, who can vote and how easily - before most of us will come to see that as the norm. As for civility in politics, I agree with David that we all need to model what we want others to do. If I can't deal with a difficult political discussion in a polite and respectful way, how can I expect our politicians to do so?
Nixon ended the draft. The Law of Unintended Consequences means that the most effective means we ever had of insuring that citizens of all races, beliefs, and levels of income and education were exposed to their fellow Americans ended with it.
I would suggest a year of national service for all citizens, to be performed between the ages of 18 - 25 (old enough to vote, young enough to learn).
Dan Kravitz
I would suggest a year of national service for all citizens, to be performed between the ages of 18 - 25 (old enough to vote, young enough to learn).
Dan Kravitz
More fantasyland from Mr. Brooks. His columns always romanticize a time that never was, a Norman Rockwell painting in memory. If only we talked to our neighbors and went to church and volunteered for Meals on Wheels, all our problems would disappear.
Mr. Brooks writes this column in different ways every week. And, amazingly nothing changes. Perhaps after his demise, there will be a new book of the Bible (or perhaps a rabbinic commentary) devoted to the sayings of the prophet David.
But that is unlikely since the world is moving on, finally working its way out of the Middle Ages toward an unknown futuer tha Mr. Brooks will not have had a hand in.
Mr. Brooks writes this column in different ways every week. And, amazingly nothing changes. Perhaps after his demise, there will be a new book of the Bible (or perhaps a rabbinic commentary) devoted to the sayings of the prophet David.
But that is unlikely since the world is moving on, finally working its way out of the Middle Ages toward an unknown futuer tha Mr. Brooks will not have had a hand in.
Look at City Councils. Very often these are people who are community oriented with diverse backgrounds. They come together frequently to solve problems. Maybe they like each other, but often don't. And yet they get things done (mostly). Why can't this happen in Congress? It's just not that hard.
E pluribus unum was drummed into my head in public school in the fifties.
The rercognition of common intereste bedevils homo sapiens.
It seems that closeness to another human being is the most satisfying and most terrifying feeling.
Meanwhile, life is good in Montrose. Diverse, cultured, tolerant.
The rercognition of common intereste bedevils homo sapiens.
It seems that closeness to another human being is the most satisfying and most terrifying feeling.
Meanwhile, life is good in Montrose. Diverse, cultured, tolerant.
Asher Edelson, one of the models for Gordan Gekko in the movie Wall Street, advises voting for Bernie Sanders to clean up the financial system - that is a necessary first step "to fix politics" since the corruption is financed from there.
1
I am most surprised to learn from Mr. Brooks that World War II must have ended before President Hoover praised "rugged individualism" in 1928 and even before Frederick Jackson Turner first described America's "rugged individualism" in his famous 1893 paper, "The Significance of the Frontier in American History."
Brooks ignores documented history, logic, and basic journalistic integrity when he insinuates that the cultural changes of the 1960s are culpable for the disintegration of America's communities.
Brooks also ignores the roles of (1) anomie due to industrialization and corporatization, (2) the scattering of families due to the automobile, suburbanization, and increasing relocation of businesses and jobs, (3) the deterioration of public education since Governor Reagan started defunding it in the 1970s, (4) the disruption of faith communities by television con artists, megachurch cults, and ubiquitious sexual misconduct, (5) the increasing reliance of the GOP on race baiting and hate-mongering, (6) the concentrations of wealth, income and political power in the hands of cynically manipulative elitists such as the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson, and, (7) as so clearly evidence by this shamefully shallow piece - the collapse of professional journalism in America.
Mr. Brooks, you need to get your act back together or stop pretending you are a public intellectual.
Brooks ignores documented history, logic, and basic journalistic integrity when he insinuates that the cultural changes of the 1960s are culpable for the disintegration of America's communities.
Brooks also ignores the roles of (1) anomie due to industrialization and corporatization, (2) the scattering of families due to the automobile, suburbanization, and increasing relocation of businesses and jobs, (3) the deterioration of public education since Governor Reagan started defunding it in the 1970s, (4) the disruption of faith communities by television con artists, megachurch cults, and ubiquitious sexual misconduct, (5) the increasing reliance of the GOP on race baiting and hate-mongering, (6) the concentrations of wealth, income and political power in the hands of cynically manipulative elitists such as the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson, and, (7) as so clearly evidence by this shamefully shallow piece - the collapse of professional journalism in America.
Mr. Brooks, you need to get your act back together or stop pretending you are a public intellectual.
3
In the 1950's , insurance companies would let agents new to an area know which churches were best for networking. In the 1950's, indeed, black Americans could not "live as they chose" ( or where they chose). When is Brooks going to write a column on climate change? How will returning to a world of 1950s suburbia fix politics?
In the Presidential Election of 1860, voter turnout was 81.2%.
Let me repeat that.
In the Presidential Election of 1860, voter turnout was 81.2%.
There was no Instagram, no Facebook, no online tabloids, no infotainment. In the 1800s, what happened here in Washington DC was written down on parchment paper, duplicated and posted in the town square for people to read and figure out. Yet they had a more informed and politically involved populace in 1860 than we have in 2016.
Politics in America are broken because the news media broke it.
As U2's lead singer Bono famously remarked:
"The less you know, the more you believe.”
We have a news media that has for over a decade, attempted to tell the American people what to think, who to vote for, who we hate, who we like, and what we need.
Until THAT stops, we've got a broken political system.
Let me repeat that.
In the Presidential Election of 1860, voter turnout was 81.2%.
There was no Instagram, no Facebook, no online tabloids, no infotainment. In the 1800s, what happened here in Washington DC was written down on parchment paper, duplicated and posted in the town square for people to read and figure out. Yet they had a more informed and politically involved populace in 1860 than we have in 2016.
Politics in America are broken because the news media broke it.
As U2's lead singer Bono famously remarked:
"The less you know, the more you believe.”
We have a news media that has for over a decade, attempted to tell the American people what to think, who to vote for, who we hate, who we like, and what we need.
Until THAT stops, we've got a broken political system.
1
81% turnout sounds impressive until one remembers that black people were almost universally disenfranchised as were women of all colors. 81% of less than half of all adults isn't so impressive.
Nobody forces FOX or Facebook on us or even the lame NYT. Money, I'd say, is more a culprit than media. See, Barrister, Buckley v Valeo and its onerous progeny including Citizens United v FEC. See also US v Sheldon Silver and US v Dean Skelos...
Nobody forces FOX or Facebook on us or even the lame NYT. Money, I'd say, is more a culprit than media. See, Barrister, Buckley v Valeo and its onerous progeny including Citizens United v FEC. See also US v Sheldon Silver and US v Dean Skelos...
Wait a sec. Where's the obligatory claim of being a Black-with-a-capital-B attorney?
2
Funny, no mention of money and corruption. Fix politics by eliminating politicians and the sycophants who cover them.
So, you've finally noriced a central contradiction (amoing others) in American so-called "conservatisim." For all of pinning of disconnected radical individualism on often imaginary "do your own thing: or "Me Generation" counterculture types, you're discovering the radical "there is no society/money is all" aspect of the right, which is in constant conflict with the sort of social fabric conservatism you say is broken. Fix the right, then talk to the rest of us. That horrid liberal/left has been aware of other people, social responsibility and the usefuless of institutions all along--except in the right's fevered idea of what that's been about.
Indeed, as we tend to bond well with people like ourselves, our politicians take it to the extreme. We have a bi-modal distribution of ideologies and an "us vs. them" mentality on both sides.
Maybe we ought to rethink our democracy. Let's make government that is truly reflective of its people. Don't elect people to office. Draft them. Institute a nationwide lottery. As long as you can read and write and of legal age, you are subject to the draft and expected to serve. You could still have elections for, say, the President since that office is voted upon by the whole country. (Might want to rethink that Electoral College thing, but that's another topic of discussion.)
It would be interesting to really have a government of, by, and for the people--for a change.
Maybe we ought to rethink our democracy. Let's make government that is truly reflective of its people. Don't elect people to office. Draft them. Institute a nationwide lottery. As long as you can read and write and of legal age, you are subject to the draft and expected to serve. You could still have elections for, say, the President since that office is voted upon by the whole country. (Might want to rethink that Electoral College thing, but that's another topic of discussion.)
It would be interesting to really have a government of, by, and for the people--for a change.
We are used to speaking as though democracy were the cure for all social ills. Rather, it is the WORST political system - except for all the others. That is to say: it has innumerable problems, but it has the best chance of self-correcting. The Founding Fathers feared democracy - they wanted a republic, in which the best-educated and economically secure had the upper hand. Ultimately, our democracy makes every one of us responsible for the functioning or failure of our country, because we have the power of the vote. Our current presidential primary is a case in point. It is vastly entertaining, which is one thing that presidential elections have always been: contests that take over the public consciousness for a year or more. The current one has elements of high comedy - the Republican debates - and at the same time creates fear of a tragic outcome, should Trump or Cruz be elected. Like it or not, we are invested - we hold our own fate in our hands.
History has a pendulum swing. When the New Deal did not bring perfect happiness to everyone, those who felt they could do better than their fellow citizens if the government left them alone voted for the Republicans, and the result was the swing toward rugged individualism and me-firstism. Now we see that this ideology enriched the few while impoverishing the many, and the swing is back the other way. So long as a Democrat is elected, the whole drama will turn out to be a comedy. If Trump or Cruz is elected:TRAGEDY!
History has a pendulum swing. When the New Deal did not bring perfect happiness to everyone, those who felt they could do better than their fellow citizens if the government left them alone voted for the Republicans, and the result was the swing toward rugged individualism and me-firstism. Now we see that this ideology enriched the few while impoverishing the many, and the swing is back the other way. So long as a Democrat is elected, the whole drama will turn out to be a comedy. If Trump or Cruz is elected:TRAGEDY!
I find it interesting that the Mr. Brooks' solutions to the current political and economic challenges always have a moralistic flavour (the roots of political dysfunction lie deep in society), impose a false equivalency on the two parties (Americans have become worse at public deliberation), and always involve some vague, complex, and far off solutions (we probably have to shrink politics and nurture the thick local membership that politics resides in). If I wanted to maintain the status quo but look as if I was serious about solving problems that is exactly how I would go about it.
3
If Americans were taught their own history they would continue to appreciate what David is preaching, contrary to his own past writings that helped divide Americans against each other as part of the GOP policy for control of the US. One only has to read de Tocqueville's Democracy in America to understand the good in Americans. We still see it when a natural disaster occurs. But now it is difficult to be parked in front of their TVs, being inculcated with the anger and hate ranted by the Fox and radio propagandists, and be instilled with the good that made Americans the idealists of the world and the US the ideal place in the world.
1
After 9-11, America has lived under a Rein of Terror, in which suspicion and mistrust color our every thought about the world outside our front door. We have drawn in, pulled back, and given up hope for a secure, open future.
Until we find leadership who can remind us, again, that the only thing we must fear is fear itself, our society will be in thrall of those who tell us with fervent authority that danger and death lurk just around the corner, and we had better be prepared to fight to the end of times.
Until we find leadership who can remind us, again, that the only thing we must fear is fear itself, our society will be in thrall of those who tell us with fervent authority that danger and death lurk just around the corner, and we had better be prepared to fight to the end of times.
3
When I was a kid in the late 60's/early 70's, one of our neighbors (we knew them all) installed an automatic garage door opener. Our closest neighbor said to my mother, "Well that's going to be the downfall of the neighborhood. We won't have to come outside and talk to each other anymore." I think of her comment every time I read something like this, correctly pointing out the loss of community & connections.
2
Brooks is right to consider the negatives of politics in world greatly changed since 1776. But he prefaces his remarks with levels of denial and of distortion that are mind-boggling. The next POTUS might get together with Congressional leaders and tell them how they’re going to do politics? That will work only if they are all Republicans. They’ve rejected and insulted Obama beginning before he was even the nominee. Hardly settled into the White House, Obama invited Republicans to meet him, to the annoyance of Democrats. He held out the hand of cooperation to Iranian leaders. Republicans and Ayatollahs alike slapped away the hand of cooperation. The Ayatollahs are talking now. So are Cuban dictators. But not Republicans.
Then we learn that it’s the fault of the people. As if Brooks hasn’t been collecting fees from PBS and the NYT all this time. As if Murdoch and Ailes hadn’t launched a tsunami of lies and distortions. As if Limbaugh wasn’t made an honorary member of Congress by Gingrich, and as if he, Limbaugh, doesn’t earn over $100 million a year just to be nasty and wrong. As if 1,000+ right wing “hosts” aren’t making a living from polarizing distortions and lies on radio and TV.
Drop the party mantle, David, and begin a real analysis of the problems of politics in a body politic of over 300 million people and a world of over 7 billion. The GOP didn’t get where it is, fragmented in the bottom of a sewer, because the Koch Brothers and others hadn’t spent enough money.
Then we learn that it’s the fault of the people. As if Brooks hasn’t been collecting fees from PBS and the NYT all this time. As if Murdoch and Ailes hadn’t launched a tsunami of lies and distortions. As if Limbaugh wasn’t made an honorary member of Congress by Gingrich, and as if he, Limbaugh, doesn’t earn over $100 million a year just to be nasty and wrong. As if 1,000+ right wing “hosts” aren’t making a living from polarizing distortions and lies on radio and TV.
Drop the party mantle, David, and begin a real analysis of the problems of politics in a body politic of over 300 million people and a world of over 7 billion. The GOP didn’t get where it is, fragmented in the bottom of a sewer, because the Koch Brothers and others hadn’t spent enough money.
4
Dear New York Times;
Calling out David Brooks on his lack of critical reasoning is not as much fun as it may seem to you that readers are having with Mr. Brooks' columns.
Is it really impossible for the NYT to find a supposedly conservative columnist who can reason critically, who can find evidence to support his reasons and reasons to support his conclusions. Responding to the same tedious and repetitive propositions, so thinly supported, feels increasingly like civic duty and less like intellectual engagement.
There must be at least one so-called conservative thinker/writer out there who understands that the breakdown of social structures and mechanisms are symptoms, not causes, and that a solution that proposes to fix the symptoms is no solution at all.
There must be someone willing to make the effort to find and present conservative solutions that actually work, and to explain why those solutions work. Our governing system itself, our Constitution, was not conceived of and written by "wild socialist radicals," but by careful, conservative thinkers who understood the value of a working government. I can't imagine the founders supporting a simplistic proposal such as "shrinking politics." Self-government requires civic engagement, not dis-engagement. How does turning away from governance get us to a more cohesive society? Where is the example, the evidence, that such a direction has ever proved successful?
Please, New York Times, you can do better.
Calling out David Brooks on his lack of critical reasoning is not as much fun as it may seem to you that readers are having with Mr. Brooks' columns.
Is it really impossible for the NYT to find a supposedly conservative columnist who can reason critically, who can find evidence to support his reasons and reasons to support his conclusions. Responding to the same tedious and repetitive propositions, so thinly supported, feels increasingly like civic duty and less like intellectual engagement.
There must be at least one so-called conservative thinker/writer out there who understands that the breakdown of social structures and mechanisms are symptoms, not causes, and that a solution that proposes to fix the symptoms is no solution at all.
There must be someone willing to make the effort to find and present conservative solutions that actually work, and to explain why those solutions work. Our governing system itself, our Constitution, was not conceived of and written by "wild socialist radicals," but by careful, conservative thinkers who understood the value of a working government. I can't imagine the founders supporting a simplistic proposal such as "shrinking politics." Self-government requires civic engagement, not dis-engagement. How does turning away from governance get us to a more cohesive society? Where is the example, the evidence, that such a direction has ever proved successful?
Please, New York Times, you can do better.
6
Let's be honest here. The turn away from communitarian social values didn't begin just after WW II. Interestingly, David comes far closer to pegging the date in his next paragraph. That would be 1981, the year we inaugurated our Rugged Individualist in Chief, Ronald Reagan. Three decades of folly ensued, cheered along at every turn by our own Mr. Brooks. Turns out the "creative destruction" unleashed in 1981 was short on creation, but ruthlessly effective in destruction.
4
Instead of blaming society, which is a non-starter as a fix, why doesn't Mr Brooks look at what his party has done with gerrymandering (now you couldn't get reelected if your workws across the aisle and compromised), look what they have done to unlease torrents on money for wild political attack ads, and not to mention their refusal to engage in evidence base reaearch (tax cuts for the wealthy will balance the budget, there is no human component to global warming, etc,)
Once the Republicns bought into that strategy, the present outcome became inevitable. I would not blame sociiety.
Once the Republicns bought into that strategy, the present outcome became inevitable. I would not blame sociiety.
5
Sorry, Mr. Brooks, but societal needs no longer trump individual desires, if they ever did. Read the Times. There aren't nearly as many stories about how a neighborhood or church helped its community than about how an individual achieved financial super-stardom. We counter the desperate cries of kids trying to gain admission to the dozen "top" colleges in the country by pointing to -- Bill Gates, who didn't finish college; Steve Jobs, who dropped out of a non-top college after one year. But Bill grew up in a wealthy household with all the tech tools he wanted to scheme his dream. And Steve apparently took a lot of drugs and survived on apples for a good part of his life. So what are the takeaways for kids striving to succeed? Join the Boy/Girl Scouts? Maybe Habitat for Humanity -- but that's manual work most kids want to avoid.
2
For years I have been tell people that taking care of our families, neighborhood, and community was the answers to a great and meaningful life. Raised in the 50's experienced this bond. My mother was a universal lover and so am I.
2
How to fix politics? Start by education. Make Civics a mandatory high school subject. TV watching cut to a maximum of 2 hours a day and an hour of that time, something educational. Stand behind the teachers. Teach your children respect and manners and their importance. Don't tolerate rudeness. Specific to politics: term limits for Congress. Campaign funding set at a low dollar limit and same amount for everyone. Aren't we sick and tired of the blather already? Limit campaigning to 3 months.
2
Brooks is right! I see it now! Autonomy is so un-refined and ill-bred....Those good old days of thick local membership and scaled back culture of autonomy-- that describes perfectly the 1940's and onward with seeking out and destroying anyone who might be a communist or anyone who might just be thinking or reading or wondering out loud why skin color was a factor in who could vote, who could get care in a hospital. The days of neighbors reporting on each other and employers cleansing their work forces. Those were the days!
And if you think loyalty oaths and political investigations are a thing of the past you have only to look at the rules for becoming a state employee of California this very day, including working for the state universities-- and the loyalty oath is still in existence.
http://www.oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb1k400855&brand=oac4&doc.vi...
"If we’re going to salvage our politics, we probably have to shrink politics, and nurture the thick local membership web that politics rests within. We probably have to scale back the culture of autonomy that was appropriate for the 1960s but that has since gone too far." Brooks is right!!
And if you think loyalty oaths and political investigations are a thing of the past you have only to look at the rules for becoming a state employee of California this very day, including working for the state universities-- and the loyalty oath is still in existence.
http://www.oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb1k400855&brand=oac4&doc.vi...
"If we’re going to salvage our politics, we probably have to shrink politics, and nurture the thick local membership web that politics rests within. We probably have to scale back the culture of autonomy that was appropriate for the 1960s but that has since gone too far." Brooks is right!!
2
Sure everything was all compromise and getting along back in the day. The white community was happy on one side and the black and other minority communities happy on the other. We had these laws that kept it that way and well both parties pretty well kept that divide strong with voting restrictions, housing act, highway act, segregation in schools etc. Women were happily at home making dinner and raising children and greeting old hubby at the door with a martini. Those were the days.
The 60s brought enlightenment for some and not so much for others. I think that is what is making politics so fractious. One part of the population is still resisting change and the other is saying we are going forward not back.
Heck, it was easy to get along with your neighbors when they looked just like you and the moms watched the kids play along the streets. Once the old generation like the Mitch McConnells are no longer around, perhaps politics will settle down and old divides will begin to blur.
The 60s brought enlightenment for some and not so much for others. I think that is what is making politics so fractious. One part of the population is still resisting change and the other is saying we are going forward not back.
Heck, it was easy to get along with your neighbors when they looked just like you and the moms watched the kids play along the streets. Once the old generation like the Mitch McConnells are no longer around, perhaps politics will settle down and old divides will begin to blur.
3
Brooks is a true conservative, imagines what never was, or was only for the wealthy, and wants to keep it. Anyone as educated as Brooks that thinks life was blissful before WWII has to purposefully take a whole lot of people out of what he considers "society"--African Americans and every other minorities, farm and rural workers, the people of Apalachia, women, gays ... The same people that continue to struggle today for fair access to the pie.
3
Thanks for an insightful article, David. A "galaxy of warm places"--what felicitous phrasing to describe a culture like the Danish-American community into which I was fortunate to be born.
1
In this year, this election, we have two parties wrestling with huge intra-party insurgencies, a huge body of the American people who are saying "this is not my beautiful house." Both sides are frustrated by both the non-responsiveness of our government to the needs of the majority of Americans.
There is also a large bloc, mostly in the middle, that is frustrated that government is hobbled by the inability to get anything done. More than anything, this is the doing of the Republican establishment, who is committed to throwing Molotov cocktails at anything that smacks of compromise - the lifeblood that Brooks is advocating.
Note - this is the same Brooks who wears his ignorance of these very comment columns as a badge of honor. But it's hard to effect cooperation without paying attention to "the Others."
Over the last several months, Brooks has published several columns bemoaning his Republican choices. Yet he himself has refused to see the obvious - that Hillary is the most middle-of-the-road Republican in this election, closest to him politically. The conservative scorched-earth stance on virtually everything, personal and political, throws enough smoke in his eyes to prevent him from personally embracing the very shift he is advocating.
There is also a large bloc, mostly in the middle, that is frustrated that government is hobbled by the inability to get anything done. More than anything, this is the doing of the Republican establishment, who is committed to throwing Molotov cocktails at anything that smacks of compromise - the lifeblood that Brooks is advocating.
Note - this is the same Brooks who wears his ignorance of these very comment columns as a badge of honor. But it's hard to effect cooperation without paying attention to "the Others."
Over the last several months, Brooks has published several columns bemoaning his Republican choices. Yet he himself has refused to see the obvious - that Hillary is the most middle-of-the-road Republican in this election, closest to him politically. The conservative scorched-earth stance on virtually everything, personal and political, throws enough smoke in his eyes to prevent him from personally embracing the very shift he is advocating.
2
David Brooks is caught up in a Disneyesque idealization of some early 20th century utopian America that never existed. What utter hogwash. For every corny example of PTA clubs and volunteer firefighters, I can point out the utter bigotry and isolation felt by millions of "others" (black, brown, yellow, Jewish, closeted gay, even women), in Brooks' America of yore.
And by the way, read about the election of 1912, or the "know nothing" campaigns of antebellum America, or about George Wallace, or Joe McCarthy, and tell me how much worse it really is now.
Truth is, we live in a period of unparalleled prosperity, democracy, and longevity on a growing global scale. Violent crime is also at historic lows. Yes, some anti modern forces are fighting hard to reverse these trends, often using terror to frighten and horrify us. But they are going to lose. And yes, social and mass media in our technologically booming age are causing us to live in echo chambers a bit too much. But we will adjust and progress.
Mr. Brooks needs to read less simplistic social science, and more narrative history before writing his nostalgic columns.
And by the way, read about the election of 1912, or the "know nothing" campaigns of antebellum America, or about George Wallace, or Joe McCarthy, and tell me how much worse it really is now.
Truth is, we live in a period of unparalleled prosperity, democracy, and longevity on a growing global scale. Violent crime is also at historic lows. Yes, some anti modern forces are fighting hard to reverse these trends, often using terror to frighten and horrify us. But they are going to lose. And yes, social and mass media in our technologically booming age are causing us to live in echo chambers a bit too much. But we will adjust and progress.
Mr. Brooks needs to read less simplistic social science, and more narrative history before writing his nostalgic columns.
3
Not everything is so complicated. You want to fix politics? Fine, do three things:
a) Get money out of the election process.
b) Fix gerry-mandering congressional districts.
c) Create term limits.
There -- was that so hard?
a) Get money out of the election process.
b) Fix gerry-mandering congressional districts.
c) Create term limits.
There -- was that so hard?
A huge portion of our culture began to make the shift in the sixties, and live happily with the influence of those values. I'm not talking about autonomy but community. Mainstream America loves to hate the dirty hippies and the uppity blacks, the loony environmentalists, hairy feminists and nature- worshiping pagans. We've been derided and marginalized by white conservative America. But we're right, we're strong, we live in tight , mutually supportive communities and teach our children well. Don't you see the rich irony in deciding to lecture when you represent the problem instead of the solution? And now we see you in your throes. You planted ice, my friends, and now you are reaping the wind.
1
I completely agree that, especially on the GOP side, "compromise becomes dishonor" due to ethnic and moral identity. We must stop judging our neighbor and help our neighbor. The political process can be inclusive, if we are willing to listen to our neighbor and if politicians are willing to cross the aisle and listen to each other.
1
Politics isn't broken. Politics is pretty much what it's always been, a fairly corrupt enterprise in which the powerful and the wealthy jostle for public office. The nineteenth century saw campaigns just as wild as the current one, and the Gilded Age matches our own for corruption. It's just business as usual. What IS broken, however, is the Republican party, which has quite simply ceased to function within the system or to serve the needs of the people. Even the most corrupt and cynical politician of the past knew that he had to maintain some semblance of public service. He had to DO something from time to time. Clean up your own house, Mr. Brooks, and stop preaching to the rest of us.
1
This tone-deaf column makes it stunningly clear that David Brooks simply doesn't know anything about America, let alone how to reverse its dysfunction.
4
It's not a depressing election season to me: I have two excellent Dem candidates to choose from. And individualism as Brooks describes it results in losing the ability to be a "brother's keeper" because the "other" has been demonized.
64
"helping their neighbors make it through the day"
This is the line Republican politicians use when voting against welfare, food stamps and other programs designed to aid the poor.
As for making our politics easier, why just take the corporate money out of politics so we no longer have the best Congress money can buy.
This is the line Republican politicians use when voting against welfare, food stamps and other programs designed to aid the poor.
As for making our politics easier, why just take the corporate money out of politics so we no longer have the best Congress money can buy.
1
Yes, now that the seeds Lee Atwater planted 30+ years ago have borne fruit - and now that the GOP is on the verge of becoming a regional party - lets go back to the way it used to be. The good ol' days.
Forget it.
Your party, whether you are comfortable admitting it, or not, is primarily to blame for this toxic environment. Granted, not totally to blame.
I think there are more people than you realize who are cheering the reduction/destruction of the GOP - and this country will be better for it.
Forget it.
Your party, whether you are comfortable admitting it, or not, is primarily to blame for this toxic environment. Granted, not totally to blame.
I think there are more people than you realize who are cheering the reduction/destruction of the GOP - and this country will be better for it.
3
Oh Mr. Brooks,
You preach about "self-sacrifice," yet you are the living embodiment of Sinclair's dictum that it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on him not understanding it. The Republican party insists it stands for "morality" as the only antidote to hedonism, but if you cannot see that morality, of the sort Jesus preached, lies solely within the Democratic party in this day and age, you are truly beyond salvation. It is Democrats, not Republicans, who are willing to sacrifice a few dollars of their paychecks to ensure that those without means can eat, learn, and be cared for when sick. It is Democrats, not Republicans, who desire an inclusive community where all families and individuals can sit down and have inclusive, rational discussion of issues of public concern. It is Democrats, not Republicans, who understand accurately the worldviews of those with whom they disagree, and are willing to read things that challenge their ideologies. It is Democrats, not Republicans, for whom "family values" mean more than cover to hate those who have enjoyable, consenting sex that they might find a bit icky. It is Democrats, not Republicans, who understand the once oft-stated principle "there but for the Grace of God go I."
I understand that your job is to be the voice of the mythical Republican moderate, but you cannot keep this up and still practice what you preach.
You preach about "self-sacrifice," yet you are the living embodiment of Sinclair's dictum that it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on him not understanding it. The Republican party insists it stands for "morality" as the only antidote to hedonism, but if you cannot see that morality, of the sort Jesus preached, lies solely within the Democratic party in this day and age, you are truly beyond salvation. It is Democrats, not Republicans, who are willing to sacrifice a few dollars of their paychecks to ensure that those without means can eat, learn, and be cared for when sick. It is Democrats, not Republicans, who desire an inclusive community where all families and individuals can sit down and have inclusive, rational discussion of issues of public concern. It is Democrats, not Republicans, who understand accurately the worldviews of those with whom they disagree, and are willing to read things that challenge their ideologies. It is Democrats, not Republicans, for whom "family values" mean more than cover to hate those who have enjoyable, consenting sex that they might find a bit icky. It is Democrats, not Republicans, who understand the once oft-stated principle "there but for the Grace of God go I."
I understand that your job is to be the voice of the mythical Republican moderate, but you cannot keep this up and still practice what you preach.
3
Mr. Brooks, you don't need to imagine that elite solution. President Obama tried that solution in 2009 and 2011 and again in 2013. He extended that olive branch. What President Obama needed was a credible negotiating partner.
Where were the credible negotiating partners in the Republican Party when we needed them?
Where were the credible negotiating partners in the Republican Party when we needed them?
3
How did you mention Barack Obama and credible in the same sentence?
I've been living and working in Washington DC since Obama got here. The only people parroting the myth that Obama tried to work with Republicans are people who don't live here and watch too much cable news.
Obama has never worked honestly or in good faith with anyone. Ever. Obama extended an olive branch? Was that one of the two times Obama accused Republicans of being domestic terrorists? Or was Obama looking for peace and coexistence with the GOP when he accused Republicans of celebrating the Sandy Hook shootings and rooting for gun deaths?
I've been living and working in Washington DC since Obama got here. The only people parroting the myth that Obama tried to work with Republicans are people who don't live here and watch too much cable news.
Obama has never worked honestly or in good faith with anyone. Ever. Obama extended an olive branch? Was that one of the two times Obama accused Republicans of being domestic terrorists? Or was Obama looking for peace and coexistence with the GOP when he accused Republicans of celebrating the Sandy Hook shootings and rooting for gun deaths?
We need to end this false equivalency—that both parties are to blame for the collapse of our political system—if we are to solve the problem that is pulling down down our nation. Admittedly, Democrats are no angels. But Republicans have refused to fund the government if they can not get their way, the result of which is nothing gets done. And then they point their collective finger at government and, quoting their patron saint, call government the problem.
And what do Republicans want to do? Their core belief—Trickle Down Economics, which George H.W. Bush accurately called "VooDoo economics back when Reagan introduced in in his first presidential campaign—is doing exactly what it is designed to do: shift wealth from the bottom and middle to the very top, giving us the greatest wealth and income disparity in our nation's history.
As a recognized leader in Republican circles, Mr. Brooks, if you want to fix our political system, please start with fixing your own party. Nothing gets done until that first step is taken.
And what do Republicans want to do? Their core belief—Trickle Down Economics, which George H.W. Bush accurately called "VooDoo economics back when Reagan introduced in in his first presidential campaign—is doing exactly what it is designed to do: shift wealth from the bottom and middle to the very top, giving us the greatest wealth and income disparity in our nation's history.
As a recognized leader in Republican circles, Mr. Brooks, if you want to fix our political system, please start with fixing your own party. Nothing gets done until that first step is taken.
3
Probably the most bizarre, Pollyanna-ish, revisionist history I have seen in a long, long time. What got us as a country to "pull together" was WWII--uniting against an enemy from without. Before that, there was huge income inequality; violence against unions; the racism that has infected our national life that not even the common suffering of the Depression could ameliorate. Even in the Depression--ever read The Grapes of Wrath? Or anything by Upton Sinclair? Know anything about Hoovertown? Recently, have you read Ornstein and Mann on our nation's politics? Maslow--really? when people's income is stagnant and they're struggling? I'm amazed that somebody in this thread believed this column to be "thoughtful."
3
I love scrolling through these comments and seeing the typical knee-jerk reaction to blame one political party (and when I say one political party I really mean the Republican Party) for our current state of discontent. Thank you my fellow NY Times readers for helping prove the point.
All you have to do is listen to an hour of talk radio to understand why there is so much animosity toward and lack of cooperation with Democrats. Conservative talk hosts like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck spread their venomous message like poison over the airwaves. Unfortunately, their listeners believe them. The Liberal equivalent never prospered on the radio much to the credit of the Democrats. Until Republican politicians have the courage to disavow these money-grubbing charlatans, this form of blood sport will continue unabated encouraging a lack of cooperation and civility.
2
"This is asking too much of politics." I doubt it, David. It is not demanding enough.
1
Interesting thoughts Mr. Brooks, but some of the problem lies in our obsession with money gives you power and rights. I saw this demonstrated repeatedly last week when I had to make multiple flights. Even a few years ago, when it came to boarding, the attendants would start by asking old people, families with children, or "folks that need a little extra time down the ramp" to board first. Now it's all "Our Platinum Class" followed by Diamond, gold, silver... all of whom can pay more, walking across a little blue mat at the "priority" lane that is right next to the -matless- "normal" lane. What is saddest is that we all take this as the new "normal".
Dunning-Kruger is a not merely an effect but a syndrome.
Fix politics. Start with the word elite. Get out of the academic tower and hierarchy of needs theories to talk to real people who are gathering in throngs to see someone you consider beneath you. Elegant solutions are lurking down there. Maybe you are right about people wanting to help their neighbor. Elect someone who speaks to and understands them.
No matter how hyperbolic, it is usually comedians who are best able to express the zeitgeist. For this particular topic (and for so many others) it was the late, great George Carlin when he said:
"Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens....
It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders....
So, maybe it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public."
"Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens....
It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders....
So, maybe it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public."
4
Tip O'Neil famously observed that "All politics is local." I attended a meeting of a fledgling neighborhood association on Sunday. It felt like the start of something important even before I read Brooks' column.
Mr. Brooks seems to be going through a mid-life crisis. Why is he still supporting the Repulican party and why didn't he speak out against it prior years. He sounds more and more like a Progressive in Republican clothing.
As I read these comments I appreciate the effort that Mr Brooks is making. Clearly, most of the commentors here are deeply engaged in the political struggle of them vs. us. I think that what Mr Brooks is saying that there is only us. Better that we learn to make connections to "them" so that we begin to realize that we share more than we don't.
And give the man a break. It's a tough job being the token conservative in a liberal paper.
And give the man a break. It's a tough job being the token conservative in a liberal paper.
David Brooks wrote "Trump voters don’t seem to realize how unelectable their man is because they hang out with people like themselves."
That observation applies to Bernie Sanders supporters, too.
That observation applies to Bernie Sanders supporters, too.
1
We already have a President who tried to change the way we do business in Washington, who tried to find common ground with the other party. He's still trying: he just gave them a moderate Supreme Court nominee, well to the right of other candidates most Democrats might have preferred. They won't even acknowledge that nominee.
For eight years, they have treated President Obama like a skunk at a picnic. Or maybe I should say: they've treated him like an unwanted Black guy who moved into their all-white neighborhood.
For eight years, they have treated President Obama like a skunk at a picnic. Or maybe I should say: they've treated him like an unwanted Black guy who moved into their all-white neighborhood.
8
Saying Barack Obama tried to change the way we do business here in Washington DC, is like saying the kid who wrote his name on a pop quiz and didn't answer any questions "tried" to pass the test.
How to fix politics:
Start with a smackdown on the Republican right-wing conspiracy--the Kochs, Melons, Scapes, Trumps, the CEO's of the top corps (you know the guys who paid for Heratige Foundation), the Business Roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce.
Then take on the right wing clergy in the South. There at the center of American racism--oh sorry racial negativism, dog whistle politics and racial conservatism and coded racism, hit back at the wedge politicking South that put the Southern white white working class in the Republican column.
Then up north, where the anti-abortion people hemhoraged, even though they wouldn't know what a woman's rights were if you banged them over the head with a cross, take on the anti-abortion machine that threatens to turn this country in to a theocracy. All so that the Republican economic elite can build an electoral majority in presidential elections.
And so on and so on. The solution is to break down the Republican Party.
Start with a smackdown on the Republican right-wing conspiracy--the Kochs, Melons, Scapes, Trumps, the CEO's of the top corps (you know the guys who paid for Heratige Foundation), the Business Roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce.
Then take on the right wing clergy in the South. There at the center of American racism--oh sorry racial negativism, dog whistle politics and racial conservatism and coded racism, hit back at the wedge politicking South that put the Southern white white working class in the Republican column.
Then up north, where the anti-abortion people hemhoraged, even though they wouldn't know what a woman's rights were if you banged them over the head with a cross, take on the anti-abortion machine that threatens to turn this country in to a theocracy. All so that the Republican economic elite can build an electoral majority in presidential elections.
And so on and so on. The solution is to break down the Republican Party.
2
Wow. You missed the entire point of the article didn't you?
We have spent the last six months talking about the presidential election. Well, if you want to fix politics this is not the place to start, congress is. Most of the things that all the candidates promise, and their base loves are dependent of congress, which is frozen in endless gridlock. This is caused by each member focusing on their district and their need to be reelected above all, even if their position is bad for America as a whole. They have also spent a lifetime taking money from lobbyist or another. The solution is term limits for all!!!
3
Is this satire? "That kind of leadership might trickle down." No, because President Obama has tried, but the GOP was immune.
I remember when President Obama wanted to extend unemployment benefits for the desperate, but the GOP said no, unless the wealthy got tax cuts. To rub salt in the wounds, the desperate had to pay a 10% tax on their measly funds.
Brooks writes "the roots of political dysfunction lie deep in society."
Up is down, black is white again........good satire though.
I remember when President Obama wanted to extend unemployment benefits for the desperate, but the GOP said no, unless the wealthy got tax cuts. To rub salt in the wounds, the desperate had to pay a 10% tax on their measly funds.
Brooks writes "the roots of political dysfunction lie deep in society."
Up is down, black is white again........good satire though.
6
In today';s politics it is as simple as you are either for us or you are against us. It is interesting that the two reformer candidates from both Parties have the most obnoxious followers who allow for no compromises. At first this appeared on the Trump side where the man castigated to great cheers anyone who was against him. Now this destructive farce has leached its way into the Democratic race with Sander's campaign manager indicating Clinton has sold her soul to the devil. The Times being a liberal newspaper with a basically progressive readership has also witnessed this fanaticism on their comment section. Defend Clinton in anyway and feel the Bern of scorn from the Bernie bros who directly state you are a fool or a sell out. In 2000, Robert D. Putnam wrote the groundbreaking book that revealed the trend Brooks speaks about. "The United States has lost much of the social glue that once allowed our country to cohere. We are in danger of becoming a nation of strangers to one another without adequate social bonds."
73
Babel,
Your characterization of Sanders supporters as "Bernie bros," who engage in "fanaticism," is blatant stereotyping. I'm a Sanders supporter, and I have many friends and acquaintances--of all genders and ages--who are, too. None of them are "Bernie bros"--whatever dig you meant by that--or fanatics. And I'm pretty sure none of them have ever accused you of being "a fool or a sell out." In fact--and you should know this--the vast majority of Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination.
So if you're worried about "social glue," don't be a "stranger": get out and actually meet and talk to Sanders supporters. Refrain from stereotyping and spreading misinformation. And I'll try to do the same.
Your characterization of Sanders supporters as "Bernie bros," who engage in "fanaticism," is blatant stereotyping. I'm a Sanders supporter, and I have many friends and acquaintances--of all genders and ages--who are, too. None of them are "Bernie bros"--whatever dig you meant by that--or fanatics. And I'm pretty sure none of them have ever accused you of being "a fool or a sell out." In fact--and you should know this--the vast majority of Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination.
So if you're worried about "social glue," don't be a "stranger": get out and actually meet and talk to Sanders supporters. Refrain from stereotyping and spreading misinformation. And I'll try to do the same.
1
To fix our politics, Brooks believes, the people must be fixed. Their darn "mind-sets" broke down after WWII. The politicians, their backers, and the media stand ready to serve. Their "mind-sets" are working fine. What we need is a trickle-up politics. The country must heal itself. Let it begin with those who have no power. As for the political and pundit class--they stand ready to serve, once they have a people worthy of being represented.
4
I agree with V. When there were RINO's in congress what you propose was possible. With the exception of Collins and Kirk, the GOP have moved so far right that it makes discussion nearly impossible and ideas that should be brought up for a vote become unacceptable. Garland is a perfect example.
When someone states to me that they are planning to vote for trump, or Cruz I'll admit it, I'm speechless.
Our leaders have set a bad example for nation to follow through and have polite disagreements. Until the GOP allow moderates to return I can't see David's point of view. Not that I don't want get along, but the extremes, of an extreme party, are just dangerous.
When someone states to me that they are planning to vote for trump, or Cruz I'll admit it, I'm speechless.
Our leaders have set a bad example for nation to follow through and have polite disagreements. Until the GOP allow moderates to return I can't see David's point of view. Not that I don't want get along, but the extremes, of an extreme party, are just dangerous.
5
And yet you still refer to them as a Grand Old Party. Because without scare quotes, that's what those letters mean.
Enjoy your GOP - Priebus does!
Enjoy your GOP - Priebus does!
So once again Mr Brooks trots out his psycho-social deus ex machina to account for the catastrophic politics of our times.We suffer from anomie,we no longer flock together to worship and we go bowling alone.In place of our communitarian values.our politcal stance is our principal signifier.A simpler but more satisfying explanation is that politics has become the latest toxic reality and we are all clamoring for leading roles
2
Thank you for writing this article. As a stay-at-home mom, I have been actively meeting parents in my community; many of my neighbors have political and moral views that I would normally brush off as ignorant. For the sake of my community and child, I need to bridge the gap and communicate with my neighbors, rather than shun them for seeing the world in a different way. If I truly value diversity, than I must embrace difference and engage in conversation.
3
We can fix our politics by electing a President who has a clear vision of our future. It starts from the top. No one else defines it as well as, and has the backing of the majority of the youth in our country, than Bernie Sanders http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-spielberg/judge-presidential-candidate...
"What a presidential candidate wants to do, and that candidate’s credibility in advocating for it, is a lot more important than whether that candidate has memorized the minutiae of policy proposals. Technocratic knowledge can’t fix weak goals. There are, however, a plethora of policy experts around to help candidates who want to implement a bold, power-balancing policy vision."
"What a presidential candidate wants to do, and that candidate’s credibility in advocating for it, is a lot more important than whether that candidate has memorized the minutiae of policy proposals. Technocratic knowledge can’t fix weak goals. There are, however, a plethora of policy experts around to help candidates who want to implement a bold, power-balancing policy vision."
1
There have been many incidents over the past half century that have contributed to our political dysfunction, but the most bold, proactive contribution has to be Newt Gingrich as Speaker telling his troops that they should not even make eye contact with Democrats. And they followed orders.
3
So often I have to ask a simple question:
Do you even know any working stiffs?
The problems depicted here are privileged problems. I'm not saying we shouldn't make an effort to get along together on a larger scale, and I'm all for making campaign season no longer than six months. But working two or three jobs and not having enough money to get by doesn't leave room for anything else. These people can see the obvious hoarding at the top and the stealing of pennies to make another billion, the looting of the common purse, and on. But they are prone to advertising, to sloganeering, to groupthink. Can you blame them?
Meanwhile, don't I remember that Obama reached across the aisle, persistently and over time? That was a real success, wasn't it (not).
Do you even know any working stiffs?
The problems depicted here are privileged problems. I'm not saying we shouldn't make an effort to get along together on a larger scale, and I'm all for making campaign season no longer than six months. But working two or three jobs and not having enough money to get by doesn't leave room for anything else. These people can see the obvious hoarding at the top and the stealing of pennies to make another billion, the looting of the common purse, and on. But they are prone to advertising, to sloganeering, to groupthink. Can you blame them?
Meanwhile, don't I remember that Obama reached across the aisle, persistently and over time? That was a real success, wasn't it (not).
4
In 7.5 years, Barack Obama has met with GOP leaders 4 times.
That's four. As in less than five.
Fun fact: Nothing Barack Obama has enacted during his presidency has contained a word written by a member of Congress or the US Senate from the GOP.
Let me repeat that.
Nothing Barack Obama has signed into law contains a word written by anyone in Washington DC serving in the US Senate or Congress as a Republican. Everything Obama has enacted was given to the Republicans to agree to. From the sequester to EVERY budget. Obama tells the GOP leaders what he's willing to accept and they were forced or tricked into agreeing to it.
Serial tanning bed occupant and professional crybaby John Boehner was tricked by the Obama WH every single time there was a budget showdown in Congress.
There are over 212 Republican members of Congress that have never met or spoken to Barack Obama one on one. 22 Republican Senators.
Stop pretending like Obama is some sort of victim. Here in Washington DC the worst kept secret in this town is how little Obama respects Congress.
That's four. As in less than five.
Fun fact: Nothing Barack Obama has enacted during his presidency has contained a word written by a member of Congress or the US Senate from the GOP.
Let me repeat that.
Nothing Barack Obama has signed into law contains a word written by anyone in Washington DC serving in the US Senate or Congress as a Republican. Everything Obama has enacted was given to the Republicans to agree to. From the sequester to EVERY budget. Obama tells the GOP leaders what he's willing to accept and they were forced or tricked into agreeing to it.
Serial tanning bed occupant and professional crybaby John Boehner was tricked by the Obama WH every single time there was a budget showdown in Congress.
There are over 212 Republican members of Congress that have never met or spoken to Barack Obama one on one. 22 Republican Senators.
Stop pretending like Obama is some sort of victim. Here in Washington DC the worst kept secret in this town is how little Obama respects Congress.
1
DCBarrister, that is simply not true. Not sure where you got it, but it is obviously incorrect.
Meanwhile, the victims are all of us, including you. Climate change is real, and we are in trouble. Tax cuts for the rich won't fix anything.
Obama finally got wise to the simple fact that he would not get anything from the Republicans, and is doing what he can to help us all.
Meanwhile, the victims are all of us, including you. Climate change is real, and we are in trouble. Tax cuts for the rich won't fix anything.
Obama finally got wise to the simple fact that he would not get anything from the Republicans, and is doing what he can to help us all.
1
Brooks says "The next president could get together with the leaders of both parties in Congress and say: “We’re going to change the way we do business in Washington. We’re going to deliberate and negotiate. We’ll disagree and wrangle, but we will not treat this as good-versus-evil blood sport.”"
In fact, that's the approach taken by the current president. Remember the Affordable Care Act? although given the name "Obamacare", the details were hammered out by a bipartisan group of six senators -- three democrats and three republicans. The democrats had a majority in house and senate and of course controlled the white house, but Obama wanted republicans to have equal say in forging the ACA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Six
In response to that civility, republicans called him a foreign-born non-christian.
In fact, that's the approach taken by the current president. Remember the Affordable Care Act? although given the name "Obamacare", the details were hammered out by a bipartisan group of six senators -- three democrats and three republicans. The democrats had a majority in house and senate and of course controlled the white house, but Obama wanted republicans to have equal say in forging the ACA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Six
In response to that civility, republicans called him a foreign-born non-christian.
6
How to fix politics?
Make it a crime to lie with large penalties for misleading people.
There - fixed
Make it a crime to lie with large penalties for misleading people.
There - fixed
2
As the Pope indicated, we best build "bridges" and not "walls". Because society has "broken down" and wisdom is not held high, citizens now vote without thought for the fragility of life in today's world, or thought for human dignity.
1
You ask for middle-finger politics? I should be careful for what you wish for, for it seems that that's exactly what the country is showing the Conservative Republicans right now during this presidential campaign.
Is this the closest our Mr. Brooks has come to sounding like Donald Trump on the couch? As if the solution was always to daydream about how much better things were when Archie Bunker was young?
The question he should be asking is how did we allow the Republicans in the House make American politics into such a mess? By granting special rights to Koch Brothers and other oligarchs as well as by standing by and letting the few shut down the government or refuse to pay debts the nation had rung up.
Is this the closest our Mr. Brooks has come to sounding like Donald Trump on the couch? As if the solution was always to daydream about how much better things were when Archie Bunker was young?
The question he should be asking is how did we allow the Republicans in the House make American politics into such a mess? By granting special rights to Koch Brothers and other oligarchs as well as by standing by and letting the few shut down the government or refuse to pay debts the nation had rung up.
1
We are taught to respect our neighbors and elders, but what if they are not worthy of our respect?
Fear and frustration easily lead to anger and sometimes downright hatred.
What is we were taught to treat others with Dignity? We would learn to value and listen to other people.
Respect would be earned, and helping others would lead to helping ourselves.
Together we could create a culture of Dignity and not of disrespect.
Fear and frustration easily lead to anger and sometimes downright hatred.
What is we were taught to treat others with Dignity? We would learn to value and listen to other people.
Respect would be earned, and helping others would lead to helping ourselves.
Together we could create a culture of Dignity and not of disrespect.
Mr. Brooks is correct in what he writes, however, he misses the point that part of the problem is the "two-year national Rituals" that have become presidential elections. No other democratic society endures such campaigns which inevitably become hateful and negative. Fixing the problem requires shortening the political season as well.
1
Our relationship to money is the problem.
I've noticed, in all the civilian neighborhoods I've lived in as a military wife, the "electric garage door effect." When people get home, they don't have to get out of their cars to open their garage doors, and, in doing so, don't wave to their neighbors who might be doing the same thing or call out to the kid riding his bike down the street. They just push a button, drive into their garages, shut the door again and walk inside. (In military housing there usually aren't even any garages, let alone electric door openers.) While I've appreciated not getting soaked while walking into my house on a rainy day, I think we've lost something with all this convenience. We're so insulated from each other.
On that same kind of note, my son, who's about to graduate with his MBA from UNC's business school (yay!) is moving to another city to work for a global-sized company. He only plans to stay with them a couple years, however. I guess that's what you do these days, work for a large company with a good reputation and absorb the experience, then move on. I'm glad he plans to come back to NC eventually, but it's sad that there's no expectation of a future with the company on either side. I don't want to go back to the bigoted 1950s, but it would be nice if some kind of social loyalty and contract could be restored to us all.
On that same kind of note, my son, who's about to graduate with his MBA from UNC's business school (yay!) is moving to another city to work for a global-sized company. He only plans to stay with them a couple years, however. I guess that's what you do these days, work for a large company with a good reputation and absorb the experience, then move on. I'm glad he plans to come back to NC eventually, but it's sad that there's no expectation of a future with the company on either side. I don't want to go back to the bigoted 1950s, but it would be nice if some kind of social loyalty and contract could be restored to us all.
103
Then Texas should be idyllic because none has basements, so the garage takes the place of the basement and the cars stay outdoors. I blame "Newtspeak," Gingrich's thesaurus of vilification against Democrats, and his institution of partisan congressional orientations, lest any bipartisan friendships form across the aisle.
"But it’s increasingly clear that the roots of political dysfunction lie deep in society." Not even close, Mr. Brooks. Try 50 years of pitting Americans against each other for political gain, try 35 years of impoverishing one's own base to amp up fear and resentment, and try 7 years of mindless refusal to participate in national governance.
5
Would you stop longing for something that never existed! Why don't you compare today's women with June Cleaver while you are indulging in nostalgia? As it has been said "Nostalgia is paper mache history". People in the past were at each other just as much as they are today; today they can just reach a larger audience. And they were more violent. The worst riots this country had were in the 1940s (Zoot suit riots/Detroit race riots), unless you want to consider the riots of 1919 (Red Summer). Or maybe we should go back to the Draft riots of the Civil War?
I could be wrong, but I suspect that if the Democratic Party were disintegrating (instead of the G.O.P.), and if demographic trends favored the Republican Party (instead of the D.P.) then Mr. Brooks would be singing the praises about the dominance of political parties in the social milieu.
What really changed over the past few decades is the Republican Party. It went from being reasonable to a bastion of right-wing ideologies. There are no more liberals or moderates in the G.O.P. Those who remain in that party are mostly people who hate people.
4/12 @ 6:30 am
What really changed over the past few decades is the Republican Party. It went from being reasonable to a bastion of right-wing ideologies. There are no more liberals or moderates in the G.O.P. Those who remain in that party are mostly people who hate people.
4/12 @ 6:30 am
5
Here's a thought experiment for you: If "D.P." stood for "Dignity Party," do you think the Republicans would take it up - the way you just did for their branding statement, "G.O.P."?
I don't know if there is a way to salvage our politics, were going to have to go back to an earlier time. Does "Ask not what your country can to for you but what you can do for your country," ring a bell? I haven't heard that in a long time and haven't seen it asked for even longer. I read a story last week in the San Francisco Chronicle by a women whose mother was being priced out of the city believed that the city should pay for her housing. She was one of nine children. Nine children and they can't find a way to help their mother? I guess it came down to "Ask what your city can do for you (for free)".
1
How to fix politics? Brooks fails to note that politics has grown into a blood sport in relation to the spread of right-wing hate radio that began in the 1980's. Brooks points to the breakdown of societal relationships leading to our uncivil politics; why doesn't he see the obvious? Society is not benefited by the broadcasting of poison into our homes. There may be many contributing factors, but the Limbaughs and Hannity's spewing hatred should be at the top of the list.
5
As has been pointed out many times, perhaps the single most destructive statement by any politician in recent years was Mitch McConnell's vow to make Obama a one-term president. The Kentucky senator's contempt for the new president was undisguised, as was his determination to put partisanship above the crying need for both sides to work together to re-start the economy. Did McConnell learn anything from his intemperate outcry? Not at all - as shown by his arrogant, possibly unconstitutional obstructionism toward the president's Supreme Court nomination. This column's failure to address the shockingly uncivil examples set by some of our most powerful politicians (before McConnell there was Gingrich) makes it nothing but another exercise in Brooksian bromides.
5
Let's see: today we're going to "fix" politics. Wow, I thought American politics was already fixed. Brooks wants to make it all better.
Liberals are all at fault. For everything, of course, but especially for changing the world from a nice, old-fashioned Mayberry place where everybody knew each other, were in inner rings and middle rings, and everybody was really good at public deliberation.
Along comes the 60's social movements and our politics just cracked and fell apart. How civil rights, feminism, anti-war, greening of America square with 'autonomy' and 'individualism' is too hard for Mr. B to say, I guess.
Politics didn't change through big money, shakedown lobbyists, Kocherism, the Bush Brain, Grover Norquist or Cutey Newt shutting down government, or the gang who impeached our president, the other gang who gave us W.
Nah, it's a deliberate attempt by them lefty liberals to destroy our politics. The GOP never deliberately tried to suppress voting. They certainly never rigged ... um, gerrymandered their way into permanent power in the House. The GOP is so utterly blameless, spotless, clueless that it couldn't organize a drink-up in a brewery let alone try to destroy opposition.
Politics is the only lifeline for minorities, the poor, women, and any other distasteful social groups to escape intolerable social conditions. But, instead Mr. B will help his next door neighbor survive the day. By giving him a ride to Starbucks?
Liberals are all at fault. For everything, of course, but especially for changing the world from a nice, old-fashioned Mayberry place where everybody knew each other, were in inner rings and middle rings, and everybody was really good at public deliberation.
Along comes the 60's social movements and our politics just cracked and fell apart. How civil rights, feminism, anti-war, greening of America square with 'autonomy' and 'individualism' is too hard for Mr. B to say, I guess.
Politics didn't change through big money, shakedown lobbyists, Kocherism, the Bush Brain, Grover Norquist or Cutey Newt shutting down government, or the gang who impeached our president, the other gang who gave us W.
Nah, it's a deliberate attempt by them lefty liberals to destroy our politics. The GOP never deliberately tried to suppress voting. They certainly never rigged ... um, gerrymandered their way into permanent power in the House. The GOP is so utterly blameless, spotless, clueless that it couldn't organize a drink-up in a brewery let alone try to destroy opposition.
Politics is the only lifeline for minorities, the poor, women, and any other distasteful social groups to escape intolerable social conditions. But, instead Mr. B will help his next door neighbor survive the day. By giving him a ride to Starbucks?
4
Even as, or maybe especially because, I'm a lefty-liberal: Thank you, Mr. Brooks. Unfortunately, most of your commentators...from both sides...seem to just not get it and, instead, exemplify, and are the poster-children for, your hypothesis.
1
No. The problem is that the Republican party's narrative (delivered by FOX et al) has created a bubble of ignorance among a large block of voters. As long as we have such a huge percentage of utterly mis-informed on the voting rolls, we are going to be stuck in this unnecessary, counter-productive mess.
1
Our system is broken. We need a Constitutional Convention. The Senate is a body that needs to go the way of the buggy whip. The Electoral College is in that same category. The Supremes need term limits. Money needs to be severely restricted in our elections. Elections should only be 60 days long. The horserace is disgusting.
And if none of that happens (and I predict it won't), you and your brethren need to call out the Republicans. McConnell needs to be badgered by the press until he starts doing his job. He is the single most destructive person in the GOP. He will go down in history in a bad way. "Old White Southern Guy Controls the Entire Country" might be a description in the history books.
Why, Mr. Brooks, do you tolerate that kind of behavior? You of the lofty premise. Why is he allowed to ride rough shod over the entire country with barely a peep from you? Are you, too, on Koch's payroll? I honestly wonder.
All this twisting yourself into a pretzel to make sense of the obvious is not even instructive anymore. They, the GOP, is making a fool of you and all of the serious journalists out there.
Do you forget that thick local membership fostered the KKK? DAR? The all white male service organizations like Kiwanas, Lions etc? Your lily white observations are overlooking a great deal of reality.
And if none of that happens (and I predict it won't), you and your brethren need to call out the Republicans. McConnell needs to be badgered by the press until he starts doing his job. He is the single most destructive person in the GOP. He will go down in history in a bad way. "Old White Southern Guy Controls the Entire Country" might be a description in the history books.
Why, Mr. Brooks, do you tolerate that kind of behavior? You of the lofty premise. Why is he allowed to ride rough shod over the entire country with barely a peep from you? Are you, too, on Koch's payroll? I honestly wonder.
All this twisting yourself into a pretzel to make sense of the obvious is not even instructive anymore. They, the GOP, is making a fool of you and all of the serious journalists out there.
Do you forget that thick local membership fostered the KKK? DAR? The all white male service organizations like Kiwanas, Lions etc? Your lily white observations are overlooking a great deal of reality.
4
We need to acknowledge the growing American disparities -- in education, income, health, politics. The growing separation of neighborhoods – by income, race and more.
A recent Stanford/Cornell study found that “Middle-class, mixed-income neighborhoods have become less common as more neighborhoods of concentrated poverty and concentrated affluence have developed. These are not new trends, but this latest increase in segregation exacerbates the increase of economically polarized communities that has occurred over the last four decades.”
https://ed.stanford.edu/news/stanfordcornell-study-shows-increasing-segr...
When our neighbors in Flint expressed concern about water that was running yellow and brown and smelled like sewage, nothing. happened. Only the blame was swift.
I say this from the comfort of a wealthy suburb and I am uncomfortable.
A recent Stanford/Cornell study found that “Middle-class, mixed-income neighborhoods have become less common as more neighborhoods of concentrated poverty and concentrated affluence have developed. These are not new trends, but this latest increase in segregation exacerbates the increase of economically polarized communities that has occurred over the last four decades.”
https://ed.stanford.edu/news/stanfordcornell-study-shows-increasing-segr...
When our neighbors in Flint expressed concern about water that was running yellow and brown and smelled like sewage, nothing. happened. Only the blame was swift.
I say this from the comfort of a wealthy suburb and I am uncomfortable.
2
There is a disconnect between people and their communities because the means of production has changed. De-industrialization is the ordeal of change that neither Clinton nor Trump can assuage. We no longer gather on farms or in factories. In addition to that, religion no longer holds sway with large numbers. Hence, we meet others in church as infrequently as the factory.
The problem of de-industrialization has been exacerbated by MBA-educated business people who consider employees to be fungible commodities. People in turn take behavioral clues from the means of production in a service economy. Not only do they consider neighbors to be fungible, but they measure everything in terms of money. The non-pecuniary is lost on them.
In addition, this toxic environment is buttressed by conservatives like David Brooks who look to the marketplace to cure most every problem. That's like telling Charles Dickens that the market for child labor is salutary.