Another sad effort on Mr. Brooks part to create false equivalencies between the two nominees.
David, why don't you interview the millions of HRC supporters who obviously connect with her emotionally, who find her aspirational and uplifting? You are projecting an obvious and understandable sadness at the loss of your party. Go drop into a Clinton campaign office, but only if you are willing to review your recent writings in a brighter light.
David, why don't you interview the millions of HRC supporters who obviously connect with her emotionally, who find her aspirational and uplifting? You are projecting an obvious and understandable sadness at the loss of your party. Go drop into a Clinton campaign office, but only if you are willing to review your recent writings in a brighter light.
89
"During the Reagan years, capitalism was celebrated as a moral [and idealistic] system" (forgive the paraphrase; I can't copy and paste from my phone.)
On the contrary: I believe that with time, Reagan's conservatism has been exposed as fundamentally mean and selfish, or as NY Times's James Reston was calling it even then, "lightheartedly hardhearted".
There are still plenty of idealists, especially young ones. Unfortunately, the latter seem to be as neglectful as ever of history's lessons, and are preparing to shoot us all in the foot by voting for third-party Presidential candidates.
On the contrary: I believe that with time, Reagan's conservatism has been exposed as fundamentally mean and selfish, or as NY Times's James Reston was calling it even then, "lightheartedly hardhearted".
There are still plenty of idealists, especially young ones. Unfortunately, the latter seem to be as neglectful as ever of history's lessons, and are preparing to shoot us all in the foot by voting for third-party Presidential candidates.
50
I agree with every comment here that questions the consistent declaration of so many columnists, like yourself Mr. Brooks, that Sec. Clinton isn't "likeable" enough, or warm and fuzzy enough. Why are you engaging in such a shallow discussion?
Additionally, as proof of the very short memory syndrome that so many deficient politicians rely on (see GOP, Donald Trump), I'd like to remind you that over the past several months, Sec. Clinton was the very first national figure to pronounce the lead water disaster in Detroit as a "human" disaster, especially damaging to children, and got herself out there immediately to draw attention to the issue. Likewise, she sat with those mothers who lost children to gun violence, and lent her formidable presence to their cause. Who else championed these vulnerable and powerless citizens. Is that "human" enough for you? Or do they not count because these were primarily African-American constituents?
I fully expect that someone will accuse her of "using" these opportunities to advance her Presidential ambitions, despite the fact that these are the kinds of issues she has been addressing for decades.
Additionally, as proof of the very short memory syndrome that so many deficient politicians rely on (see GOP, Donald Trump), I'd like to remind you that over the past several months, Sec. Clinton was the very first national figure to pronounce the lead water disaster in Detroit as a "human" disaster, especially damaging to children, and got herself out there immediately to draw attention to the issue. Likewise, she sat with those mothers who lost children to gun violence, and lent her formidable presence to their cause. Who else championed these vulnerable and powerless citizens. Is that "human" enough for you? Or do they not count because these were primarily African-American constituents?
I fully expect that someone will accuse her of "using" these opportunities to advance her Presidential ambitions, despite the fact that these are the kinds of issues she has been addressing for decades.
110
It's fascinating to watch Brooks get closer to a liberal philosophy. He's like a child playing with blocks and discovering that, yes, the bump on this block fits into the dent on this other block and together, they create something new.
Today, he's discovering that there is something he calls "corrosive capitalism" but he hasn't discovered yet that ALL capitalism is corrosive. It's like acid. The only questions are, "How corrosive?" and "Is it contained?" There's a big difference between, say, vinegar that you can feed to your kids on a salad and battery acid that must be contained or it will cause real damage ... but it's still useful if it is contained.
We often say, "Trump supporters aren't taking the catastrophe of a Trump victory seriously." And that's true. But the next question is, "Why?"
Brooks has danced around the answer: Corrosive (that is to say, "all") capitalism.
A 'Yuge' part of America has swallowed an exploding diet of marketing (without the healthy food of reality) for their entire lives. We have bred people who feel that they deserve more and the only reason they don't have everything they want is that somebody is keeping it from them. If you can get someone living on the edge to spend $40,000 on a car with a picture of that car with sexy models driving free and easy on a mountain road, then you can get them to vote for Trump.
They have been told that they should be driving that car. It's not their fault. You can't blame them for lashing out.
Today, he's discovering that there is something he calls "corrosive capitalism" but he hasn't discovered yet that ALL capitalism is corrosive. It's like acid. The only questions are, "How corrosive?" and "Is it contained?" There's a big difference between, say, vinegar that you can feed to your kids on a salad and battery acid that must be contained or it will cause real damage ... but it's still useful if it is contained.
We often say, "Trump supporters aren't taking the catastrophe of a Trump victory seriously." And that's true. But the next question is, "Why?"
Brooks has danced around the answer: Corrosive (that is to say, "all") capitalism.
A 'Yuge' part of America has swallowed an exploding diet of marketing (without the healthy food of reality) for their entire lives. We have bred people who feel that they deserve more and the only reason they don't have everything they want is that somebody is keeping it from them. If you can get someone living on the edge to spend $40,000 on a car with a picture of that car with sexy models driving free and easy on a mountain road, then you can get them to vote for Trump.
They have been told that they should be driving that car. It's not their fault. You can't blame them for lashing out.
7
Yep, never promise anything:
" a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage", Herbert Hoover, 1928
" a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage", Herbert Hoover, 1928
1
The Clintons have been lowering the ethical standards of this country for over 25 years.
Feminists have had to defend and support the actions of a man who committed adultery while president and who has been accused of multiple cases of sexual abuse. Surely, they will one day realize that in doing so, they are lowering the bar by which they judge others.
Democrats are now defending and supporting a woman who has been caught in numerous lies and deceptions, and obvious attempts at obstruction in regards to the email controversy. And they have had to defend a former Secretary of State who not only let political operatives receive paychecks from her family’s personal foundation while she was in office, but allowed that foundation to receive huge contributions from individuals, companies and countries with business before the State Department. This is behavior that Democrats would never condone in Republicans, but now must accept as ethically acceptable.
When will Americans realize that in supporting and electing the Clinton’s, we are all complicit in supporting the distorted principle that - character doesn't matter, only the outcome does.
And the fact that she is the better choice for president is simply a terrible indictment of us all, which is the point I believe Mr. Brooks is making.
Feminists have had to defend and support the actions of a man who committed adultery while president and who has been accused of multiple cases of sexual abuse. Surely, they will one day realize that in doing so, they are lowering the bar by which they judge others.
Democrats are now defending and supporting a woman who has been caught in numerous lies and deceptions, and obvious attempts at obstruction in regards to the email controversy. And they have had to defend a former Secretary of State who not only let political operatives receive paychecks from her family’s personal foundation while she was in office, but allowed that foundation to receive huge contributions from individuals, companies and countries with business before the State Department. This is behavior that Democrats would never condone in Republicans, but now must accept as ethically acceptable.
When will Americans realize that in supporting and electing the Clinton’s, we are all complicit in supporting the distorted principle that - character doesn't matter, only the outcome does.
And the fact that she is the better choice for president is simply a terrible indictment of us all, which is the point I believe Mr. Brooks is making.
2
You cannot write a column about idealism these days that will not have a Bernie hold out replying that the true idealism and honesty was only to be seen in their candidate. But rhetoric without a means to follow through is just that.
So when you have a couple of combinations, a pragmatic person with accomplishments in her life trying to tell the truth can pale in comparison.
Bernie started out by promising free tuition and health care although he didn't have one vote in the Senate except his own. Every time he heard of a new societal need he would add that to his goals. He had nothing to lose by promising. And he believed his own rhetoric. He would simply take the money from the wealthy. And the R's would magically cave.
New voters ate it up. True believers.
Trump just makes stuff up. He lies, and has given his surrogates the permission to lie. And for the dregs of their souls to come out in full display.
Hillary is not good at lies. She can dissemble. She is a lawyer. Bernie fans are fond of saying he pulled her further left. He pulled what she was willing to SAY further left, not the left that has always been in her heart, but what she knew she was not going to be able to accomplish without the nation coming to its senses and overturning Congress. That is authentic.
But the holdout Bernie idealists will vote "in principle" for one of two ridiculously unqualified candidates.
And Brooks bemoans the loss of idealism.
So when you have a couple of combinations, a pragmatic person with accomplishments in her life trying to tell the truth can pale in comparison.
Bernie started out by promising free tuition and health care although he didn't have one vote in the Senate except his own. Every time he heard of a new societal need he would add that to his goals. He had nothing to lose by promising. And he believed his own rhetoric. He would simply take the money from the wealthy. And the R's would magically cave.
New voters ate it up. True believers.
Trump just makes stuff up. He lies, and has given his surrogates the permission to lie. And for the dregs of their souls to come out in full display.
Hillary is not good at lies. She can dissemble. She is a lawyer. Bernie fans are fond of saying he pulled her further left. He pulled what she was willing to SAY further left, not the left that has always been in her heart, but what she knew she was not going to be able to accomplish without the nation coming to its senses and overturning Congress. That is authentic.
But the holdout Bernie idealists will vote "in principle" for one of two ridiculously unqualified candidates.
And Brooks bemoans the loss of idealism.
12
".. she lacks the human touch when talking about the nation’s problems". Well, David, sorry, but so do you, your social scientific gobbledygook commentary notwithstanding. Ironically, your observations about Hillary Clinton seem to apply rather nicely to you: you attend parties hosted by the "scuzzy version of the capitalist type", and then use the experience to trash the other guests. No, David, the careful reader is not fooled by the feel-good, I'm one of you Springsteen quotes in your fluff fpieces "Get what I can for myself, and everyone else can take care of themselves" is what you and your political party are all about.
20
And the inspiration you so long for surely won't come from a Republicon party of selfish , me first isolationist types who want to take down all government functions that support people and protect the environment from corporatists who practice a new international brand of hegemony.
13
There is "no uplift"? I don't understand how you can be paying attention to this year's campaign and say that there is "an assumption, in both campaigns, that we are self-seeking creatures." Clinton may "pile in an arid hodgepodge" of programs and proposals, but Brooks assumes that these only appeal to those who directly benefit. The assumptions about the "lowest motivations" are his, not the campaign's. For example, I am not poor, but I strongly support programs to help the poor. I am not black, but I support racial equality. Brooks may prefer that Clinton dumbs it down for him, and instead of presenting detailed policy proposals she offers trite slogans and sound bites. Personally, I prefer the details. Grandiose statements and banal platitudes are the mark of the candidate who's trying to hide that he has nothing solid to offer.
32
Whatever Ms. Clinton's perceived lack in style might convey to you, it's hard to rationalize your implication that she fails to project idealism, however you define it. By contrast, Mr. Trump's conveyance is all style and no substance. Unfortunately, at this stage of the Presidential campaign, we are appear to be well beyond the esoteric abstract deliberations on idealism.
At this emotional stage, we are forced to face the real and concrete challenge of electing the leader of the free world. If the hard choice extends beyond emotional "gut feel" and incites some real internal soul searching, that's certainly an unexpected and welcomed consequence. No thanks to the media.
At this emotional stage, we are forced to face the real and concrete challenge of electing the leader of the free world. If the hard choice extends beyond emotional "gut feel" and incites some real internal soul searching, that's certainly an unexpected and welcomed consequence. No thanks to the media.
15
An interesting thing about the idealism of decades of the 60's and 80's:
The 60's was a period when idealists, particularly liberal ones were putting themselves on the line. There were protests, arrest was a possibility and the risk of loss of personal liberty or career potential was very real.
With the 80's idealism was put on the back burner in favor of money. We saw, despite the fundamentalist rhetoric, the degradation of the moral compass. Ethical considerations gave way to fast profits. It didn't matter what impact the closing and relocation of factories had on communities so long as the bottom line improved on the corporate ledger. It is no coincidence that a "Prosperity Gospel" arose to rationalizE the moral lapses of the following years.
The problem with Capitalism is that it has no morality. Wealth accrues to those with the fewer moral restraints faster than those whose prime directive is to do no harm and follow the Golden Rule". Simply put, evil pays better and faster than good. All that is needed is to satisfy the financial needs of those whose job it is to legislate and regulate a fair and just economy faster by convincing them to look the other way.
The idealists of the 60's, some of them, did not forget this. In this campaign we have a clear choice between the Light and Dark sides.
The 60's was a period when idealists, particularly liberal ones were putting themselves on the line. There were protests, arrest was a possibility and the risk of loss of personal liberty or career potential was very real.
With the 80's idealism was put on the back burner in favor of money. We saw, despite the fundamentalist rhetoric, the degradation of the moral compass. Ethical considerations gave way to fast profits. It didn't matter what impact the closing and relocation of factories had on communities so long as the bottom line improved on the corporate ledger. It is no coincidence that a "Prosperity Gospel" arose to rationalizE the moral lapses of the following years.
The problem with Capitalism is that it has no morality. Wealth accrues to those with the fewer moral restraints faster than those whose prime directive is to do no harm and follow the Golden Rule". Simply put, evil pays better and faster than good. All that is needed is to satisfy the financial needs of those whose job it is to legislate and regulate a fair and just economy faster by convincing them to look the other way.
The idealists of the 60's, some of them, did not forget this. In this campaign we have a clear choice between the Light and Dark sides.
35
I see a H. Clinton Administration as an affirmation to idealism, a similar but more realistic version of President Obama's tenure.
With Barack, expectations were far too high for any president to attain let alone surpass. Not since JFK (my first vote) had I seen such promise of hope and change. JFK's fate was sealed after a thousand days, and because of it we will always be left wondering, what if? With BHO we see that in the real world, events intervenes, cutting down any leader's expectations down to size.
The idealism and optimism I see in a President H. Clinton presidency is not only a lack of great expectations, but any expectations whatsoever. With the bar for Hillary set so low, the only way is up. Because of this I think will prove to be simply superb. Hillary is not of the golf course grab and greet crowd, she is one of the wonk club, the talker of policy over cocktails till dawn's early light type.
As many of her colleagues in the Senate came to know Hillary, when pigeonholed into one of two categories, show horse or work horse, Hillary was described unanimously as the later. Hillary loves burning the midnight lamp, getting the doing done. She's no Bill, that's for sure, but in a good way. Bubba can do the glad handing, something he loves. Hillary will be home, as Trump derisively noted, "preparing", to do the job of president. She knows she will have to outperform her male counterparts just to break even. For her, that's never been a problem.
DD
Manhattan
With Barack, expectations were far too high for any president to attain let alone surpass. Not since JFK (my first vote) had I seen such promise of hope and change. JFK's fate was sealed after a thousand days, and because of it we will always be left wondering, what if? With BHO we see that in the real world, events intervenes, cutting down any leader's expectations down to size.
The idealism and optimism I see in a President H. Clinton presidency is not only a lack of great expectations, but any expectations whatsoever. With the bar for Hillary set so low, the only way is up. Because of this I think will prove to be simply superb. Hillary is not of the golf course grab and greet crowd, she is one of the wonk club, the talker of policy over cocktails till dawn's early light type.
As many of her colleagues in the Senate came to know Hillary, when pigeonholed into one of two categories, show horse or work horse, Hillary was described unanimously as the later. Hillary loves burning the midnight lamp, getting the doing done. She's no Bill, that's for sure, but in a good way. Bubba can do the glad handing, something he loves. Hillary will be home, as Trump derisively noted, "preparing", to do the job of president. She knows she will have to outperform her male counterparts just to break even. For her, that's never been a problem.
DD
Manhattan
36
With the possibility of a Trump presidency handing the power of the US government over to a man who has proudly shown himself to be a mean spirited serial liar, narcissist, ignorant, misogynistic, completely uninformed buffoon we are beyond the point of needing a philosopher prince or princess to rescue ourselves from the moral, social, environmental and physical decay surrounding us. Trump's behavior on the campaign trail continues to amaze and confound, but with time and repetition grows grudgingly acceptable. This article is a tacit endorsement of Trump, drawing a false equivalency between the two campaigns. The whole in the dyke just got a little bigger and national and worldwide instability and chaos a few inches closer.
Please watch John Oliver's closing raisin bit on the Trump/Clinton campaigns from the most recent Last Week Tonight show, he says it all.
Please watch John Oliver's closing raisin bit on the Trump/Clinton campaigns from the most recent Last Week Tonight show, he says it all.
20
As much as I admire President Obama, and as much as I feel he was able to inspire so many of us to think of an ideal American, I am ready now for a technician, an individual, who can craft and enact legislation that addresses issues Americans care about ---health care, education, gun regulation, climate change, wealth inequality. Sec. Clinton is such a person.
42
Just when you thought it was safe to begin reading Brooks again....I'm completely awed that David could make this false equivalence argument without suffering a hernia. Trump is certifiably the worst presidential candidate in any of our lifetimes and - if elected - he would be the worst president in history. How this column can depict them as equal in any sense of the word is as mysterious as Donald's Monday night snorts.
47
we are sorry you have trump malaise and that your ideology is deconstructing before your eyes but don't take out on HRC and those of us that much preferred the 60s to the 80s..... by the way, the republican mantra has been "you are on your own" for quite some time. funny that only now are you noticing.
48
"Trump reminds us — even those of us who champion capitalism — how corrosive capitalism can be when unaccompanied by a counterbalancing ethos of moral restraint."
Moral restraint need to be augmented by legal restraint, but when you have a Supreme Court overruling a century of precident on campaign reform, what you get is, well, the Trump Foundation.
As for your critique of Hillary's lack of idealism, I suggest you reread "It Takes A Village," assuming you didn't miss it the first time around.
Moral restraint need to be augmented by legal restraint, but when you have a Supreme Court overruling a century of precident on campaign reform, what you get is, well, the Trump Foundation.
As for your critique of Hillary's lack of idealism, I suggest you reread "It Takes A Village," assuming you didn't miss it the first time around.
42
I will take fallow 60s idealism over crass 80s aggrandizement any day, and so should everybody. Cathargo delenda est. Next election, vote against every Republican, for every office, at every level. Be patriotic, save the country.
73
David, your cognitive dissonance is showing again. Are you really saying that there is a comparable difference between Clinton and Trump. That she doesn't show any emotion and therefore maybe not as good??? Do you care if your car mechanic smiles at you if he/she fixes your car or your surgeon tells joke while he is taking out your gall bladder?
Get real. Trump is a moral and economic disaster. Do you have any idea who he might appoint as cabinet ministers given the gang he runs around with ---Guiliani, Gingrich, Kelly the lying spinning campaign manager, the Russian connected friends he has in big finance???
There is no comparison. Trump is a narcissistic giant megalomaniac who speaks in half sentences, lies in every pronouncement, spins what he said about fat contestants in his beauty contests and is angry that his allies won't or can't say that he won the first debate and doesn't have the attention span of a 3 yr old. Clinton is not the best campaigner, has misused some of her advantages. But she is a sane woman who knows how government works and has more experience in her little finger than Trump has in is golden haired mop.
Get real. Trump is a moral and economic disaster. Do you have any idea who he might appoint as cabinet ministers given the gang he runs around with ---Guiliani, Gingrich, Kelly the lying spinning campaign manager, the Russian connected friends he has in big finance???
There is no comparison. Trump is a narcissistic giant megalomaniac who speaks in half sentences, lies in every pronouncement, spins what he said about fat contestants in his beauty contests and is angry that his allies won't or can't say that he won the first debate and doesn't have the attention span of a 3 yr old. Clinton is not the best campaigner, has misused some of her advantages. But she is a sane woman who knows how government works and has more experience in her little finger than Trump has in is golden haired mop.
61
Mr Brooks,
I watched your analysis after the debate Monday, and now I've read this. Twice I've been struck by your main criticism of Clinton. In the debate, you said something along the lines of, "when she needed to make three or four points she made 16." Here you say, "it is never enough just to list three programs in an answer; she has to pile in an arid hodgepodge of eight or nine."
Why is being prepared to the point of knowing lots of programs bad? Why is it bad to list workable programs as aspirations? It doesn't take much thought to see that Clinton's "arid hodgepodge" of programs are all aimed at uplifting the lives of multitudes of Americans.
I watched your analysis after the debate Monday, and now I've read this. Twice I've been struck by your main criticism of Clinton. In the debate, you said something along the lines of, "when she needed to make three or four points she made 16." Here you say, "it is never enough just to list three programs in an answer; she has to pile in an arid hodgepodge of eight or nine."
Why is being prepared to the point of knowing lots of programs bad? Why is it bad to list workable programs as aspirations? It doesn't take much thought to see that Clinton's "arid hodgepodge" of programs are all aimed at uplifting the lives of multitudes of Americans.
49
A few reactions, Mr. Brooks:
1. Nixon broke his promises, and the law, and deflated the idealism of his era.
2. Reagan was the champion of selfishness.
3. Hillary Clinton may be awkward and stilted but it is unfair to say she has no ideals and is only the shill of interest groups. She needs their votes, to counteract the right wing machine.
4. I am still waiting for you to say that you won't vote for Trump, and even that you are endorsing Clinton.
1. Nixon broke his promises, and the law, and deflated the idealism of his era.
2. Reagan was the champion of selfishness.
3. Hillary Clinton may be awkward and stilted but it is unfair to say she has no ideals and is only the shill of interest groups. She needs their votes, to counteract the right wing machine.
4. I am still waiting for you to say that you won't vote for Trump, and even that you are endorsing Clinton.
24
The 1980s was never a "bright" decade. It was never about freeing people economically. It was always about greed. Capitalism already existed in the USA for a long time, so that was nothing new. It was the level of greed and the "screw everyone else so I can get rich" selfish attitude that became accepted and even admired by many in the 1980s. It is still going on today. That is why there are still so many people obsessed with "lowering taxes." Too many people don't understand that without enough taxes we can no longer have a meaningful society together.
6
David, you wrote that Hillary Clinton's 1960's style of idealism -"lofty, inspiring and self-important idealism"- devolved into a list of programs. I don't think that is a fair judgement. If you have castles in the sky, then you have to build a way to get there. Idealism without pragmatic plans does nothing for governance. When I think of 1960's idealism I recall the Peace movement- "War is dangerous for children and other living things"- and the Civil Rights Movement- "We Shall Overcome" and "Keep Your Eyes On The Prize". Her statement, "The challenge now is to practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible possible", reflects accurately the events of that time. Civil Rights activities ideals become Civil Rights Laws and the Peace Movement ideals forced a public discussion about America's Viet Nam War policy and later opened the way for nuclear weapons disarmament talks. That is not devolution, but evolution and revolution. "Stronger Together" tells her story. She worked at the Children's Defense Fund and wrote a book, "It Takes A Village" and these experiences inform this shibboleth. "Stronger Together" is both an ideal and a positive plan for affecting active and constructive citizenship. The ideals of the Civil Rights Movement and the Peace Movement live in Secretary Hillary Clinton's campaign for POTUS.
5
Yes, but I hope that Clinton will start to remind the American people of HISTORY to revitalize her campaign. For example:
1) Obama campaigned with "Forward, not backward."
2) In 1776, we had our Declaration of Independence ffrom a King George. Why do we need to go backwards to a King Donald?
3) In 1865, we have the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery. Why do we need to go back to racism and enslavement with Trump?
4) In 1933, FDR said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself..." Why do we have to now be afraid of Donald Trump and what he might do to bring on another crippling recession?
Santaya said:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (1905) I have that Clinton will remind us of our past mistakes, so we do not have to repeat them with a Pres. Donald Trump!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Obama campaigned with "Forward, not backward."
2) In 1776, we had our Declaration of Independence ffrom a King George. Why do we need to go backwards to a King Donald?
3) In 1865, we have the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery. Why do we need to go back to racism and enslavement with Trump?
4) In 1933, FDR said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself..." Why do we have to now be afraid of Donald Trump and what he might do to bring on another crippling recession?
Santaya said:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (1905) I have that Clinton will remind us of our past mistakes, so we do not have to repeat them with a Pres. Donald Trump!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
And what has been the cause of the death of idealism?...... Answer: the politicians of both major parties, especially at the national and state levels; the dysfunction in Washington, caused primarily by the Republicans and their party, who have shown no interest in comprising for the good of our nation, by the modern "news" shows, which have a self-interest in fomenting discord and controversies for the sake of ratings, the rantings of conservative/right-wing radio, Fox"news's" penchant for making up things that they call "facts," war weariness resulting from the policies of George W. Bush, the 2008 economic collapse caused by the ignorance, laziness and misguided policies of George W. Bush, the two major parties nominating the two worst candidates for President, etc., etc., etc..........
2
This seems like the stubborn spin of a right-leaning colomnist who's party is in complete free fall. Hillary has her faults, but in no way does she even compare to the Trump cartoon. The Trump story of dishonesty and greed is monsterous, while Hillary's story is more human. Trump struts his greed and dishonesty; Hillary apologizes, and tries to change. There is no sane way one can hold them both up as equally tragic boomers who have failed in leadership.
12
I want to feel inspired. I know it's an antiquated concept, but on the issue of racial healing, could we not hear some compassion for those who suffer and at least some talk about changing the minds and hearts of our people, instead of just policy issues. Passion, feeling, compassion and inspiration are missing.
2
Disgraceful false equivalences. Virtually nothing this column says about Hillary Clinton rings true. Sit this one out on the sidelines if you like, David Brooks. The choice couldn't be clearer. For the real truth of where we are, why the polls remain as close as they are, the nation dangerously at risk, see the counter-column today by Paul Krugman.
11
David states that "Trump reminds us — even those of us who champion capitalism — how corrosive capitalism can be when unaccompanied by a counterbalancing ethos of moral restraint."
Sorry, but capitalism has always been based on three primary factors; cheap labor, cheap resources and cheap energy. The pursuit of profit along this triple axis has never been restrained by morality. Anyone who looks closely at the history of labor knows that moral arguments have always fallen on very deaf capitalist ears.
I don't write to change David's views. He is a true believer. But as a journalist he can't simply make these 'ethos of morality' arguments in the face of a history of broken bodies, broken families and now a broken environment. This is what capitalist morality looks like.
The capitalist engine had run amok long before Trump carried its banner. He is simply a more public, ostentatious version of what many of his fellow billionaires try to hide.
Sorry, but capitalism has always been based on three primary factors; cheap labor, cheap resources and cheap energy. The pursuit of profit along this triple axis has never been restrained by morality. Anyone who looks closely at the history of labor knows that moral arguments have always fallen on very deaf capitalist ears.
I don't write to change David's views. He is a true believer. But as a journalist he can't simply make these 'ethos of morality' arguments in the face of a history of broken bodies, broken families and now a broken environment. This is what capitalist morality looks like.
The capitalist engine had run amok long before Trump carried its banner. He is simply a more public, ostentatious version of what many of his fellow billionaires try to hide.
6
David, the reason Hillary's response to "why she wants to be president or for any positive vision...devolves into a list" of eight or nine programs instead of your preferred three (or fewer?), is called the Republican Party. Yes, your chosen political home has spent half a century ignoring or actively worsening things like race relations, infrastructure, equitable taxation, health care for all, global warming/climate change and international relations, just to name a few. Which of these are "pure [liberal] interest-group" agenda items. Or not, for that matter, in the interest of the "common good?"
7
Idealism is alive and well in this election.
Look beyond ClinTrump and you will find Govs. Gary Johnson, as honest as they come, and Wm Weld, as smart as they come.
These two Libertarians are on every state ballot.
Together with many millions of other Americans we shall make 2016 the end of the RepDem duopoly.
johnsonweld.com
Look beyond ClinTrump and you will find Govs. Gary Johnson, as honest as they come, and Wm Weld, as smart as they come.
These two Libertarians are on every state ballot.
Together with many millions of other Americans we shall make 2016 the end of the RepDem duopoly.
johnsonweld.com
Trumps campaign slogan should be "Juega VIvo."
This Central American expression ("play it smart") describes an attitude of proud disrespect for higher values, a flagrant sense of entitlement, and believing you are always smarter than others. It describes a culture that celebrates taking advantage of other people, and promotes that getting away with as much as possible to advance yourself at the expense of others is "smart." Therefore, sacrificing anything for a common good is "stupid." Believing it requires that you trust no one since they all have the same "Jeuga Vivo" prime directive.
One result: When I visit Panama, no one obeys traffic rules which results in accidents every few blocks and complete gridlock. Indeed, Trump, his minions and campaign embodies "Juega Vivo."
I disagree that Hillary, her supporters or campaign represent anything close to Trump's nihilistic philosophy or practice. At best, "Juega Vivito," the more realistic understanding that idealism alone does not work in the current American political system.
This Central American expression ("play it smart") describes an attitude of proud disrespect for higher values, a flagrant sense of entitlement, and believing you are always smarter than others. It describes a culture that celebrates taking advantage of other people, and promotes that getting away with as much as possible to advance yourself at the expense of others is "smart." Therefore, sacrificing anything for a common good is "stupid." Believing it requires that you trust no one since they all have the same "Jeuga Vivo" prime directive.
One result: When I visit Panama, no one obeys traffic rules which results in accidents every few blocks and complete gridlock. Indeed, Trump, his minions and campaign embodies "Juega Vivo."
I disagree that Hillary, her supporters or campaign represent anything close to Trump's nihilistic philosophy or practice. At best, "Juega Vivito," the more realistic understanding that idealism alone does not work in the current American political system.
3
It is not the breakdown of idealism on display here as a campaign in which an idealistic Democratic Socialist nearly won a major party nomination. It is the Republican Party since at least Newt Gingrich and friends took control of Congress for most years since 1996. Twenty years of right wing obstruction sure smothers a lot of idealism. The current congressional leadership loves Trump because they think they can run things while a moron revels in the perks of the presidency while totally ignorant of its responsibilities. That is not idealism. It will be low tax greed. This column reflects the continued psychological breakdown of "responsible" conservative columnists, not an absence of idealism in this country.
8
"...how corrosive capitalism can be when unaccompanied by a counterbalancing ethos of moral restraint."
Capitalism inherently has no concept of moral restraint. Capitalist systems have absolutely no way to generate or enforce moral restraint. The counterbalance in capitalist systems is government regulation and intervention. Libertarians and Republicans have deceived themselves so deeply that left to its own devices, capitalism will generate positive outcomes for the entire populace when that has been observed to be patently false.
Many of the individuals who rail against "big government" and "government overreach" are the exact individuals who are protected by government regulation. Protected from unsafe foods and medicine, fraudulent predatory loans and financial instruments, unsafe water, discriminatory business practices, etc. America would be LITERALLY intolerable for the vast majority of citizens if many of the functions Libertarians and Republicans want to remove, were in fact removed.
Capitalism inherently has no concept of moral restraint. Capitalist systems have absolutely no way to generate or enforce moral restraint. The counterbalance in capitalist systems is government regulation and intervention. Libertarians and Republicans have deceived themselves so deeply that left to its own devices, capitalism will generate positive outcomes for the entire populace when that has been observed to be patently false.
Many of the individuals who rail against "big government" and "government overreach" are the exact individuals who are protected by government regulation. Protected from unsafe foods and medicine, fraudulent predatory loans and financial instruments, unsafe water, discriminatory business practices, etc. America would be LITERALLY intolerable for the vast majority of citizens if many of the functions Libertarians and Republicans want to remove, were in fact removed.
9
Yes David as I reflect back on 40 years of participating in the electoral process my first thought is the way in which the Republican party has spoken to those higher set of values that you are so fond of espousing. The integrity of your arguments, which I admire and respect, would be strengthened by an acknowledgement that the Republican camp has led the effort to undermine the values that you champion. Starting with Mr. Reagan, the Republican ethos can be boiled down to the the simple creed: "I got mine you get yours". And now we have Donald Trump the ultimate self serving individual. I'm sorry but the effort to bath both parties in the same dim light is bankrupt.
7
Well David, you seem to be half way there.
About Trump:
His ’80s-era parties were "filled with the sort of B-grade celebrities and corrupt city officials" and, from one attendee, "Not indicted, not invited."
Trump "lacks even the barest conception of civic life and his responsibilities to it."
"Trump would have America break its promises to its NATO allies, Japan, its creditors, its trading partners and its own constitution."
"Trump is the low, dishonest detritus of a once bright decade."
Bravo!
But about Clinton:
"That poetic, aspirational quality is entirely absent from what has become the Clinton campaign."
"When asked why she wants to be president or for any positive vision, she devolves into a list of programs. And it is never enough just to list three programs in an answer; she has to pile in an arid hodgepodge of eight or nine."
Is that the best you can do? What is wrong with listing actual policies? What is wrong with actually wanting to help people?
Are you looking for a pious list of platitudes?
Frankly, I'll take a list of doable policy positions over pie in the sky aspirations any day.
About Trump:
His ’80s-era parties were "filled with the sort of B-grade celebrities and corrupt city officials" and, from one attendee, "Not indicted, not invited."
Trump "lacks even the barest conception of civic life and his responsibilities to it."
"Trump would have America break its promises to its NATO allies, Japan, its creditors, its trading partners and its own constitution."
"Trump is the low, dishonest detritus of a once bright decade."
Bravo!
But about Clinton:
"That poetic, aspirational quality is entirely absent from what has become the Clinton campaign."
"When asked why she wants to be president or for any positive vision, she devolves into a list of programs. And it is never enough just to list three programs in an answer; she has to pile in an arid hodgepodge of eight or nine."
Is that the best you can do? What is wrong with listing actual policies? What is wrong with actually wanting to help people?
Are you looking for a pious list of platitudes?
Frankly, I'll take a list of doable policy positions over pie in the sky aspirations any day.
13
Brooks is reduced to salvaging what remains of respectable conservatism by impugning transactional liberalism. But politics is necessarily about what we accomplish, change, and prevent. There are real-world problems, after all. Ultimately, this is our moral test: not rhetoric or uplift but the capacity to respect reality enough that we engage it. For a country gorging itself on cheap cynicism and flashy scapegoating, this offers, at the very least, a grounding sanity to measure modest but palpable progress.
8
So Hillary lacks the "human touch"? Saint Reagan had it, but was a vacuous twit who served only the interests of his 1% handlers. Hillary's policies and programs would benefit all the people that weren't even on Reagan's radar.
13
Try this, David:
count the number of times each POTUS candidate used the words "we" and "I" in Monday's debate. If you're capable, compute the ratio for each.
Then get back to us about the candidates' equivalence.
count the number of times each POTUS candidate used the words "we" and "I" in Monday's debate. If you're capable, compute the ratio for each.
Then get back to us about the candidates' equivalence.
9
This is one of the very finest examples of the "false equivalency" that I have ever had the honor to read.
Likening Trump's crassness, dishonesty and greed to the pragmatism that has tinged Hillary's '60s-style youthful idealism is a very clever contrivance, a triumph of subtly contorted rationalization.
Kudos (of a backhanded sort) to Mr. Brooks, because if this is the satire it ought to be, it is simply brilliant.
Likening Trump's crassness, dishonesty and greed to the pragmatism that has tinged Hillary's '60s-style youthful idealism is a very clever contrivance, a triumph of subtly contorted rationalization.
Kudos (of a backhanded sort) to Mr. Brooks, because if this is the satire it ought to be, it is simply brilliant.
8
How can there be any idealism or emotional connections when the results of Citizens United has enabled individuals to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in secret PACS linked one to another?
7
It is a myth to believe that politicians, on the left or the right, are idealists. They exploit ordinary people's belief in a better future and spin a language of idealism, tapping into that "opium of the people." Their goal is to amass wealth, wield power to benefit themselves and their cronies, and enjoy the trappings of the office. Let idealism get washed away, as it should, and let the power-hungry bear their teeth as Clinton does, or throw their weight around as Trump does. Those who have any sense will stay home on election day in November and not stoop so low as to cast their votes for these two people who are equally corrupt. This is what a capitalist democracy ultimately produces.
4
The last presidential candidate to openly embrace idealism was Barack Obama. “Yes We Can.” And you know what happened. The anti-idealists were all in confederacy against him.
Perhaps the Clinton campaign has downplayed the vision thing but it’s still there. Some months ago when Hillary was asked about her faith, she spoke of the Christian idealism embodied by the Sermon on the Mount. Maybe she should do more of that.
I still have a romanticized notion of what America and her president are supposed to represent. Hillary Clinton fits right in with that notion. Trump doesn’t even come close.
Perhaps the Clinton campaign has downplayed the vision thing but it’s still there. Some months ago when Hillary was asked about her faith, she spoke of the Christian idealism embodied by the Sermon on the Mount. Maybe she should do more of that.
I still have a romanticized notion of what America and her president are supposed to represent. Hillary Clinton fits right in with that notion. Trump doesn’t even come close.
17
"The great challenge of our moment is the crisis of isolation and fragmentation, the need to rebind the fabric of a society that has been torn by selfishness, cynicism, distrust and autonomy."
Has David Brooks not heard that we're "Stronger Together"?
Has David Brooks not heard that we're "Stronger Together"?
5
Another example of false equivalency. Yawn.
7
"Clinton can be a devastatingly good counterpuncher, but she lacks the human touch when talking about the nation’s problems, and fails to make an emotional connection."
The world is full of opinions, among other things.
The world is full of opinions, among other things.
3
I seem to always get the feeling from reading David Brookes that when the federal government run by democrats have programs that benefit the middle and lower class in this country that is them buying votes with federal money. But when republicans cut taxes that manly help the rich that is never equated the same way. That the republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy so they wealthy have enough money to give to republicans so they have the money to stay in office. Funny how he hopes we did not notice
Oh and yes it is Brooks and the republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell fault that we have Donald J Trump within a 50% chance of being the President of the United States. Because it will be either Trump or Hillary.
Oh and yes it is Brooks and the republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell fault that we have Donald J Trump within a 50% chance of being the President of the United States. Because it will be either Trump or Hillary.
6
As the NY Times is reporting, George Will said the following regarding Trump: “I don’t use the word ‘frightening’ often, but it’s frightening to know this person” Trump “would have the nuclear-launch codes. The world is getting really dangerous. His friend Mr. Putin is dismantling a nation in the center of Europe. Some trigger-happy captain of a Chinese boat with ship-to-ship missiles might make a mistake in the next three years near the Spratly Islands. All kinds of things can go wrong. And the idea that this guy will be asked to respond in a sober, firm way? My goodness.”
I hate bullies; absolutely despise them. And Trump is, pure and simple, a bully...and Trump has been a bully his entire life. Trump represents the worst of human traits. It is stunning that many Americas support or are on the fence about Trump.
The only standard Trump lives by is: say whatever you want to get what you want. Trump has zero fixed principles. There is nothing - no fundamental truths, no foundation of beliefs - on which he stands firmly, resolutely, and without question. Trump has no moral compass and no character, and is incapable of rational thought and analysis.
One thing will be true after November: Republican leaders who support Trump will find that support to be a death knell to their political futures. After November, voters will call on such elected officials to explain their support for someone with such vile character and values. Voters will remember the endorsement they made.
I hate bullies; absolutely despise them. And Trump is, pure and simple, a bully...and Trump has been a bully his entire life. Trump represents the worst of human traits. It is stunning that many Americas support or are on the fence about Trump.
The only standard Trump lives by is: say whatever you want to get what you want. Trump has zero fixed principles. There is nothing - no fundamental truths, no foundation of beliefs - on which he stands firmly, resolutely, and without question. Trump has no moral compass and no character, and is incapable of rational thought and analysis.
One thing will be true after November: Republican leaders who support Trump will find that support to be a death knell to their political futures. After November, voters will call on such elected officials to explain their support for someone with such vile character and values. Voters will remember the endorsement they made.
8
In your book, "the Road to Character" nearly all the narratives were about flawed people who thought and rethought and rekindled their passion. Which of these two has arrived today with the character needed to effectively lead a nation and world in distress? Clue, she is female!
5
Interesting we can see the transcript of her commencement address but not her Goldman Sachs talks.
I believe this illustrates why she doesn't connect with so very many voters. There is a feeling that at one point she must have cared deeply about some things, but now the constant flow of big money over many decades and the trading of influence for money has eroded anything good and soulful in this career politician, and the secrecy and quid pro quo is what is important now.
I believe this illustrates why she doesn't connect with so very many voters. There is a feeling that at one point she must have cared deeply about some things, but now the constant flow of big money over many decades and the trading of influence for money has eroded anything good and soulful in this career politician, and the secrecy and quid pro quo is what is important now.
So Trump lies with abandon, insults and uses other people, and lacks the barest conception of civic life. Hillary Clinton offers a long list of useful programs but fails to make an emotional connection or promote a higher vision of the common good. Tough choice.
2
What would we do without philosophical thought. Idealism is a virtue we all, as youngsters in college, could unequivocally embrace, given we had no further obligations for self-sustenance nor family or work-related obligations to temper our aspirations. But once in the labor force, we became realists, and felt the urgency to compromise, to get along, for our (and our family's) survival. I concur we live now in a noxious climate of cynicism and distrust, given the political and financial disparities this capitalistic system allows and, at times, promotes, where capital always trumps labor, and inequality is lodged in it, and just a bit of 'scratching' unveils so many inequities, more than enough to make us disgusted of what's going on. Capitalism is obviously not a moral system per se, it is rather amoral, requiring the creation of sound institutions, governmental included, to even out the outlandish differences, so we develop an arc towards justice, or at least some fairness for most, if not all people involved. If trust can be restored, our humanity may have room for idealism to harness a crude reality of greed and disregard for the individual. Our democracy is failing because we, the people, are not taking our responsibility seriously by participating beyond the vote. Idealism requires adopting the 'Golden Rule', and also Louis Blanc's (and appropriated by Marx) wise words: 'from each according to his/her talents, to everyone according to his/her needs'. Utopic? Not?
1
As a "boomer" I feel embarrassed by the state of politics in the US, but more disappointed in the cultural divide. Agreed that a sense of idealism would be truly a shot in the arm; however, a phony idealism without real grounding in the day to day experience is not helpful. People still hope and dream, laugh and love, and do the best they can everyday, regardless of political party. This is reality - start from that - recognize it, cherish it.
1
The debate made some things about Trump very clear: He is proud of not paying taxes, calling that "good business." He justifies his abuse of women by saying "they deserve it." He contemplates nuclear war saying "I can't put anything off the table." Have I forgotten anything? Probably. But no future debate will erase the statements he has made in this first one because most people aren't as stupid or forgetful as Trump thinks they are.
4
I disagree with you Mr Brooks, uplift and inspiration do come from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Just listen to her, you do not hear the automatic privilege of white and male. When exactly were we as a nation inspirational? During the revolution when we declared all men free but keep our slaves, during the Civil War when we declared slaves emancipated but could not accept them as equals in our society, during World War II when we defeated the Axis Powers with a segregated military and evidenced a great deal of bias against refugees fleeing death and destruction? If you want uplift, listen to the candidate who wants to squarely face our problems and shortcomings and do something about them.
5
"Capitalism is corrosive, says Mr. Brooks, when unaccompanied by a counterbalancing of moral restraint". The question is: what is the counterbalance that could "inject" moral restraints in the equation? Grandiose speeches full of lofty ideals? Holding hands and singing Kumbaya? Or the guiding hands of a moral government imposing the restraints necessary to counterbalance the pure greed that is a) human nature, and b) a basic tenet of pure capitalism?
I vote for the latter and, I believe, so would Mrs. Clinton.
I vote for the latter and, I believe, so would Mrs. Clinton.
5
In an effort to support his thesis that both the social idealism of the 60s and the capitalistic idealism of the 80s have been laid waste by the two current candidates for President, Mr. Brooks seems to determined to make Clinton and Trump appear to be equally uninspiring. This is yet another example of false equivalency. To see why this is dangerous
Try this thought experiment: Imagine the future of US elections and politics if each is elected.
Based on Brooks' assessment a Clinton Presidency would be cold, emotionless, wonkish, and to "I'm gonna win this debate with facts" grasping. But, it would also prove to those who hope this country can finally put its divisive, racist, white nationalist, white man whining, past to bed and move forward that there is hope. A Clinton win could inspire more young women and members of minority groups -- conservative and liberal -- to seek to make a positive difference in the world. Clinton's fight for children is inspirational, the work of the Clinton Foundation, is inspirational, her ability to face down the men who seek to keep her down and to best them in face to face confrontations is inspirational.
In contrast, is there anything less inspiring than a wealthy, privileged, angry, foul mouthed, foul tempered, man attempting to convince the American people that the country is falling apart and he is our only hope (God help us). There is nothing inspirational in the story of how a rich man got richer at the expense of others.
Try this thought experiment: Imagine the future of US elections and politics if each is elected.
Based on Brooks' assessment a Clinton Presidency would be cold, emotionless, wonkish, and to "I'm gonna win this debate with facts" grasping. But, it would also prove to those who hope this country can finally put its divisive, racist, white nationalist, white man whining, past to bed and move forward that there is hope. A Clinton win could inspire more young women and members of minority groups -- conservative and liberal -- to seek to make a positive difference in the world. Clinton's fight for children is inspirational, the work of the Clinton Foundation, is inspirational, her ability to face down the men who seek to keep her down and to best them in face to face confrontations is inspirational.
In contrast, is there anything less inspiring than a wealthy, privileged, angry, foul mouthed, foul tempered, man attempting to convince the American people that the country is falling apart and he is our only hope (God help us). There is nothing inspirational in the story of how a rich man got richer at the expense of others.
5
Some just can't bring themselves to stop finding fault with Hillary no matter what she does. She's criticized here for not being idealistic enough or connecting emotionally when articulating the specific policies she'd pursue as president to address the country's problems. But she'd be equally criticized for not articulating specific policies if Hillary's campaign was all about vision and emotional connection. I'd rather err on the side of policy wonkishness than warm and fuzzy in any candidate for public office.
6
Hillary and the Donald are the symptom - not the disease. They are a reflection of what it takes to garner votes these days.
A candidate expressing the qualities and vision suggested in this essay would not survive the first round of primaries.
And that, my friends, should trouble us all!
A candidate expressing the qualities and vision suggested in this essay would not survive the first round of primaries.
And that, my friends, should trouble us all!
3
It's hard to ignore all the scar tissue that has encrusted Mrs. Clinton. She's slugged it out all these years and has taken her licks. But I'm going to vote for her because goals should be measurable. She is telling us what will be done and how she will measure. Her goal? David. Her ideal goal is hope and healing. I'm good with that.
2
Whilst I do agree that Mrs. Clinton should better articulate her reasons for running -- even though in my view they are fairly obvious. I think you exaggerate e the role of idealism in American society at any given time. What we today regard as our ideals did not necessarily command such affection when originally articulated, and in any cae took a long time to come into practice if they ever have. I refer, for example, to the Gettysburg Address, now our major State Paper. The Federalist-anti-Federalist debate which began in 1789 is still unsettled and indeed today"s "Republican" party, the descendent of the pro-slavery, anti-Federalist Demcratic-Repubican Party of Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren has intensified it. States are now trying for Nullification through Federal lawsuits based on finding a compliant District Judge somewhere in Texas. Brilliant speakers such as JFK and President Obama accomplished less than operators such as LBJ and Harry Truman. I would not argue for pure realpolitik, but I like leaders who give the promise of actual accomplishment.
The greatest generation isn't great
Idealism sets you up for manipulation by placing blind faith inappropriately
American exceptionalism and faith in our military strength fixing anything
Blind faith in trade and economic security
Faith in church and political officials
After the 80s and the post rest recession Americans have learned to be skeptical
The nyt is struggling with this. Millenials in particular feel like we have been manipulated/lied to. Remember both parties, esp the GOP, telling Americans that we should privatize all of our retirement accounts and trust Wall Street? The same Wall Street that has been plotting against the average American for profit?
Idealism is in retreat for a reason. When both parties firmly ally themselves with the interests of the average America then faith will start to be restored. But until the skepticism and challenging questions abound
Idealism sets you up for manipulation by placing blind faith inappropriately
American exceptionalism and faith in our military strength fixing anything
Blind faith in trade and economic security
Faith in church and political officials
After the 80s and the post rest recession Americans have learned to be skeptical
The nyt is struggling with this. Millenials in particular feel like we have been manipulated/lied to. Remember both parties, esp the GOP, telling Americans that we should privatize all of our retirement accounts and trust Wall Street? The same Wall Street that has been plotting against the average American for profit?
Idealism is in retreat for a reason. When both parties firmly ally themselves with the interests of the average America then faith will start to be restored. But until the skepticism and challenging questions abound
Suicide along with drug addiction and alcoholism including related adverse health effects like shortened life expectancy and multiple physical, mental and emotional maladies are increasingly prevalent in white European America. Coupled with more poorly educated single white parents relying on welfare there are more whites getting arrested for their criminal activing but escaping incarceration because they are white. Despite 57% and 59% of white voters in 2008 and 2012 voting white McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan the imaginary Kenyan Luo Arab Muslim socialist usurper ended up occupying "their" White House. There is nor was there ever any idealism nor idealist among this crowd
Capitalism is the amoral by nature antithesis of idealism. Hillary made her political ascent the old fashioned way by marrying a career politician. Hillary made her $121 million fortune the new fashioned way by converting her elected and selected public "service" into a golden palace of privilege. Donald made his fortune the old fashioned way by his wise selection of multimillionaire real estate baron father.
Although there are more blacks in prison and on welfare and unemployed than ever before compared to where they were there is still hope for positive change in the African American community. "We ain't where we should be. We ain't where we gonna be. But thank God we ain't where we was." attributed to a black country preacher by Dr. King. "Lift Every Voice And Sing" is the black national anthem.
Capitalism is the amoral by nature antithesis of idealism. Hillary made her political ascent the old fashioned way by marrying a career politician. Hillary made her $121 million fortune the new fashioned way by converting her elected and selected public "service" into a golden palace of privilege. Donald made his fortune the old fashioned way by his wise selection of multimillionaire real estate baron father.
Although there are more blacks in prison and on welfare and unemployed than ever before compared to where they were there is still hope for positive change in the African American community. "We ain't where we should be. We ain't where we gonna be. But thank God we ain't where we was." attributed to a black country preacher by Dr. King. "Lift Every Voice And Sing" is the black national anthem.
1
The Times, most evident on the opinion page, is as addicted to false equivalence as Trump is to hearing adulation.
Somehow Lord Brooks conflates some "self-important" idealism expressed by a young Hillary Clinton at her college graduation with the kind of "scuzzy" go go capitalism practiced by a fully grown Trump some decade and a half later?
"Not indicted, not invited?" How DID our Lord Brooks wangle his way in?
And then there is the ever present kernel of dishonesty, here represented by this:
"Capitalism had washed away the stagnation of the 1970s. It was defeating the Soviet Union. During the Reagan years, writers celebrated capitalism not only as a wealth-generating engine but also as a moral system, a way to arouse hard work, creativity and trust."
How DID capitalism defeat the Soviet Union, anyway? The Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of a corrupt, untenable system aggravated by repeated famine conditions. What passes for capitalism had nothing to do with it, actually.
Somehow Lord Brooks conflates some "self-important" idealism expressed by a young Hillary Clinton at her college graduation with the kind of "scuzzy" go go capitalism practiced by a fully grown Trump some decade and a half later?
"Not indicted, not invited?" How DID our Lord Brooks wangle his way in?
And then there is the ever present kernel of dishonesty, here represented by this:
"Capitalism had washed away the stagnation of the 1970s. It was defeating the Soviet Union. During the Reagan years, writers celebrated capitalism not only as a wealth-generating engine but also as a moral system, a way to arouse hard work, creativity and trust."
How DID capitalism defeat the Soviet Union, anyway? The Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of a corrupt, untenable system aggravated by repeated famine conditions. What passes for capitalism had nothing to do with it, actually.
1
"Trump reminds us — even those of us who champion capitalism — how corrosive capitalism can be when unaccompanied by a counterbalancing ethos of moral restraint."
It may have escaped your notice, Mr. Brooks, but capitalism has been without moral restraint for quite some time. Saint Ronald Reagan, for example, while posing as the kindly grandfather of capitalism, will be judged harshly by historians for his role in freeing capitalism from "moral restraint."
Prior to the capitulation of the Soviet Union, "Capitalism with a Human Face" (otherwise known as "Welfare Capitalism") was the order of the day. The appeal of Comunism to workers devastated by the Depression did not go unnoticed, and served as a cautionary restraint on capitalist greed.
But once Comunism "lost," all such self-interested restraint disappeared...and we returned to "Capitalism with Knobs On"--Capitalism in Your Face! All of which has resulted in the grotesque economic disparities that face us today--in which, if you can't afford your own Congressman (or, in Trump's case your own phalanx of lawyers), you have no voice.
In this climate of unbridled capitalism, BOTH parties have been complicit, and "The People" (how quaint that sounds) have been victimized and left to rot...and they're not happy about it--and are willing to jam a monkey wrench into the gears of the One Percent's wealth machine, just to see what happens.
People with nothing left to lose are dangerous.
It may have escaped your notice, Mr. Brooks, but capitalism has been without moral restraint for quite some time. Saint Ronald Reagan, for example, while posing as the kindly grandfather of capitalism, will be judged harshly by historians for his role in freeing capitalism from "moral restraint."
Prior to the capitulation of the Soviet Union, "Capitalism with a Human Face" (otherwise known as "Welfare Capitalism") was the order of the day. The appeal of Comunism to workers devastated by the Depression did not go unnoticed, and served as a cautionary restraint on capitalist greed.
But once Comunism "lost," all such self-interested restraint disappeared...and we returned to "Capitalism with Knobs On"--Capitalism in Your Face! All of which has resulted in the grotesque economic disparities that face us today--in which, if you can't afford your own Congressman (or, in Trump's case your own phalanx of lawyers), you have no voice.
In this climate of unbridled capitalism, BOTH parties have been complicit, and "The People" (how quaint that sounds) have been victimized and left to rot...and they're not happy about it--and are willing to jam a monkey wrench into the gears of the One Percent's wealth machine, just to see what happens.
People with nothing left to lose are dangerous.
2
There was a time in a more ethical age when if a presidential candidate admitted and boasted to not paying taxes that would have finished off all political aspirations. What makes Trump dangerous is that it seems there is nothing that he can say or reveal about his unethical and unscrupulous nature that will deter his supporters. This unwavering support is dangerous, presidential candidates should be held to a high standard , that was always a golden rule in Presidebtial races, Trump is the antithesis of all candidates who have come before , he is tactless, crude, selfish and devoid of even a speck of idealism , his love of himself overrides any other love - even love of country. Yet his supporters will forgive all his faults because he represents a antidote to the poison of political cronyism and the malaise of widespread corruption. I think it's time for Trump supporters to actually listen to the man and see him for what he is- an unscrupulous businessman who sees ethics as a weakness and will lie and say anything to gain power..
1
David, you can't take on a selfish, syndicalism, distrustful bully with love and friendship. He first needs to get a good whooping.
"At some point there will have to be a new vocabulary and a restored anthropology, emphasizing love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity and neighborliness that pushes people toward connection rather than distrust."
Totally! As a millennial, I just wish one of the candidates would have some kind of message that we are a better nation when we're united in a quest for common ground on policies that benefit most Americans. Almost like...oh I don't know..."stronger together" or something like that...
Maybe I'll take a second to see if Hillary's website has anything like that or if she mentions that on the campaign trail at all. Eh ya know what on second thought not gonna bother. David Brooks clearly didn't so why should I?
Totally! As a millennial, I just wish one of the candidates would have some kind of message that we are a better nation when we're united in a quest for common ground on policies that benefit most Americans. Almost like...oh I don't know..."stronger together" or something like that...
Maybe I'll take a second to see if Hillary's website has anything like that or if she mentions that on the campaign trail at all. Eh ya know what on second thought not gonna bother. David Brooks clearly didn't so why should I?
2
So one of the prophets of markets and capitalism, a sworn enemy of government and an obsequious lapdog for rich men in suits, realizes that his entire career -- his advice to an entire generation -- has led to disaster.
So Brooks blames others for this. Very Trumpian move.
So Brooks blames others for this. Very Trumpian move.
David- I'm pleased to see that you are finally coming around to supporting Bernie Sanders.. ( a little late though don't you think.)
1
"Self important" certainly comes to mind after reading this piece.
Now, isn't that strange to find the best critique of both candidates on Brook's column?
"Trump would have America break its promises to its NATO allies, Japan, its creditors, its trading partners and its own constitution"
Indeed his policies will bring more distruction than disruption, was it so strange that millennials, more versed in disruption, were the firsts to catch his intentions? But mr. Brooks forget to mention the second part needed to mr. Trump to make himself likable: populism, and some (social) tax break on his agenda, which is the republican economy by long time. Of course, you had to ask where the money come from, and there it goes mr. Brooks' sentence all over again.
"[Clinton] she lacks the human touch when talking about the nation’s problems, and fails to make an emotional connection."
Mr. Brooks is a Republican voter, you can see that in this sentence. in fact he depicted mr. Trump with more fidelity. Yes, mrs. Rodham Clinton has a robotic attitude in explaining her policies, which are all good sounding, The problem, though is that she rarely convey what she promised, but she will definitely deliver it. And that's the rub. You can see it in Arkansas desegregation school, into the 1364 pages of her healthcare reform, her comment on TPP, the Lybian regime change affair. She took her policies as sort of religious mission she digs in vested in secrecy and unable to process criticism or integration, ready to blame someone else for the troubles that arise.
"Trump would have America break its promises to its NATO allies, Japan, its creditors, its trading partners and its own constitution"
Indeed his policies will bring more distruction than disruption, was it so strange that millennials, more versed in disruption, were the firsts to catch his intentions? But mr. Brooks forget to mention the second part needed to mr. Trump to make himself likable: populism, and some (social) tax break on his agenda, which is the republican economy by long time. Of course, you had to ask where the money come from, and there it goes mr. Brooks' sentence all over again.
"[Clinton] she lacks the human touch when talking about the nation’s problems, and fails to make an emotional connection."
Mr. Brooks is a Republican voter, you can see that in this sentence. in fact he depicted mr. Trump with more fidelity. Yes, mrs. Rodham Clinton has a robotic attitude in explaining her policies, which are all good sounding, The problem, though is that she rarely convey what she promised, but she will definitely deliver it. And that's the rub. You can see it in Arkansas desegregation school, into the 1364 pages of her healthcare reform, her comment on TPP, the Lybian regime change affair. She took her policies as sort of religious mission she digs in vested in secrecy and unable to process criticism or integration, ready to blame someone else for the troubles that arise.
2
The only idealist in this race was Bernie Sanders, the oldest of the lot. And of course, Clinton calculatedly and selectively pilfered his proposals to bolster her standing on the Left. Clinton is the luckiest person on Earth: First, she married one of the most natural politicians of the 1990s, used his and her connections to tilt the primary process in her favor to get the nomination, and now she is running against the biggest buffoon to ever be nominated for the presidency. If she manages to lose this race? Well, I don't want to think about it.
3
"There is no uplift in this race [...]There is a presumption in both candidates that the lowest motivations are the most real." Really, Mr. Brooks? I understand your and the media's gratuitous need to follow an equal opportunity to degradation. Since Donald Trump is self-evidently a degraded, a truly filthy, in both moral and systemic sense of the term, candidate for Presidency, you feel obligated to drag Hilary Clinton down to the same level, so you can give your thought process a veneer of objectivity.
Yet, by tracing the histories of both candidates back to their formative moments, you clearly state that all that Donald Trump has to show for is corruption, harshness, a vulturous sensibility, and a penchant for subterranean psychic violence that would acquire destabilizing proportions if, and god forbid, he occupies the White House in January 2017. There's nothing good in him at least not in his history as a businessman and a leader. Why, even Steve Jobs, with his own brand of narcissism, would have been a normal Presidential candidate.
On the other hand, having said the good start that Hilary Clinton had in her political grounding, you do not grant her a respite from the terrible drubbing you give her as an alleged panderer to the basest aspects in our natures. When I watched the first Presidential debate on Monday, 9/26, I saw an angel soaring above the cleft-footed, forked-tongued, fascistic man. The angelic respite was embodied by Hilary Clinton.
Yet, by tracing the histories of both candidates back to their formative moments, you clearly state that all that Donald Trump has to show for is corruption, harshness, a vulturous sensibility, and a penchant for subterranean psychic violence that would acquire destabilizing proportions if, and god forbid, he occupies the White House in January 2017. There's nothing good in him at least not in his history as a businessman and a leader. Why, even Steve Jobs, with his own brand of narcissism, would have been a normal Presidential candidate.
On the other hand, having said the good start that Hilary Clinton had in her political grounding, you do not grant her a respite from the terrible drubbing you give her as an alleged panderer to the basest aspects in our natures. When I watched the first Presidential debate on Monday, 9/26, I saw an angel soaring above the cleft-footed, forked-tongued, fascistic man. The angelic respite was embodied by Hilary Clinton.
3
Here are my problems with this essay:
1. Trump has always represented capitalism degraded to pure selfishness, not just now. I was never invited to his parties but they sound more disgusting than sociologically entertaining.
2. The ad nauseam allegation that Clinton expresses no positive vision is without merit. How is it that planning solutions for social problems is so distasteful to the author?
3. Millennials don't just want to be, they are active in rebinding connections. They are, in fact, leading in the work. I have grown children on the west coast and the midwest who, along with their peers, are doing incredible work in education and the arts and sociology. They are not looking for inspiration. They are doing the work and inspiring others.
This column is about as gloomy as the candidate who represents the author's political party.
1. Trump has always represented capitalism degraded to pure selfishness, not just now. I was never invited to his parties but they sound more disgusting than sociologically entertaining.
2. The ad nauseam allegation that Clinton expresses no positive vision is without merit. How is it that planning solutions for social problems is so distasteful to the author?
3. Millennials don't just want to be, they are active in rebinding connections. They are, in fact, leading in the work. I have grown children on the west coast and the midwest who, along with their peers, are doing incredible work in education and the arts and sociology. They are not looking for inspiration. They are doing the work and inspiring others.
This column is about as gloomy as the candidate who represents the author's political party.
4
Mr. Brooks, in comparing Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump, dates their public careers from two very different starting points: the late 1960s and the early 1980s respectively, and this despite the fact that Donald is actually older than Secretary Clinton. After her poetic Wellesley commencement speech, Secretary went to law school. Her first job after graduation from Yale was with the Children’s Defense Fund. In 1977, she co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.
During that same period, Donald was busy fighting a housing discrimination suit — United States of America v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump and Trump Management, Inc. He settled that lawsuit in 1975 before the case could go to trial. Mr. Brooks prefers to recall the glitter of Trump Tower, and even though he partied in the lobby, he assures us that he was only there for ”sociological entertainment” (just like reading Playboy for the articles, no doubt). The fact of the matter is that underneath the glitter and glitz, the Trump name was already tarnished and degraded. Thanks to the vacuity and venality of Trump himself, we now understand that “Trump” was an empty signifier all along.
During that same period, Donald was busy fighting a housing discrimination suit — United States of America v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump and Trump Management, Inc. He settled that lawsuit in 1975 before the case could go to trial. Mr. Brooks prefers to recall the glitter of Trump Tower, and even though he partied in the lobby, he assures us that he was only there for ”sociological entertainment” (just like reading Playboy for the articles, no doubt). The fact of the matter is that underneath the glitter and glitz, the Trump name was already tarnished and degraded. Thanks to the vacuity and venality of Trump himself, we now understand that “Trump” was an empty signifier all along.
7
Do not blame Hillary Clinton's campaign for lacking aspiration. The Clinton Foundation is aspirational and they have been trashed by the GOP for establishing it. Aspiration has been ground out of contemporary party politics because enablers like Brooks for over a decade have watched the GOP foot come down repeatedly on decency's back and done nothing to reproach it. One has to survive to have aspirations. So survival first, then we can again began to aspire.
6
Mr. Brooks, you are wrong that Hillary fails to make an emotional connection. Her speeches work me into tearful ecstasy, and I'm a hard nosed old ex-elected official who's lived through all the typical hard knocks of local politics. Hillary's lists of programs to which you object are the inspirational challenges that motivate at least all the college educated women to keep plugging away at civic public service. Please stop knocking our wonderful role model and heroine.
20
While I agree with much of the column, Brooks, in his attempt to be "even handed" once again reinforces the false narrative that somehow Trump and Hillary Clinton are "equal".
Yes, Hillary does not connect in an emotional way with voters. But her Wellesley speech, and subsequent deeds show the kind of idealism that Brooks seems to be looking for. And, contrary to what Brooks suggests, I think Hillary's life shows that she has been on "the side of angels".
Yes, Hillary does not connect in an emotional way with voters. But her Wellesley speech, and subsequent deeds show the kind of idealism that Brooks seems to be looking for. And, contrary to what Brooks suggests, I think Hillary's life shows that she has been on "the side of angels".
3
Give me a break David Brooks! This op-ed was offensive - to Hillary Clinton - and to all the people who support her. Why are you trying to perpetuate the outrageous idea that that there is equivalence between these two candidates? It is mind boggling? Clearly bells aren't ringing with your kind of "idealism" but she - for sure - inspires millions of us and the "higher angels of our natures" - to fight against overt racism, misogyny, poverty, and fight for the rights of all people. (And we won't even get into being idealistic about expecting that a Presidential candidate should actually be qualified for the job.) Standing up for these 'ideals' with real proposals that may require people to listen for more that 30 seconds...is this too boring and not flash enough even for you? Sad. No wonder we are where we are.
2
Lord Brooks clearly wasn't so idealistic himself as to be above the prospects of glad-handing it with the indicted!
If you keep pumping out the false equivalencies, David, then you have to wear the (potential) Trump presidency like a badge of honor.
If you keep pumping out the false equivalencies, David, then you have to wear the (potential) Trump presidency like a badge of honor.
2
Lord Brooks, the main reason I stopped watching News Hour on Fridays, does not disappoint, does he? I was never a big fan of Hillary but I will be voting for her. Granted, since I live in Georgia that vote is symbolic rather than substantive. But knowing that Brooks is treating her as equally despicable as Trump assures me that she can't be so bad after all. In other words, after reading David today, my enthusiasm in this vote is now much greater. Thank you. Pete McGuire, Atlanta
2
I am tired of the gross generalizations about the baby boomers, of which I am one. HRC and Trump are individuals who do not represent a generation. The vast majority of my generation are neither real estate developers with questionable business ethics nor politicians with questionable fund raising ethics so please stop using them to represent the values of millions of decent, hard working people.
2
I think if Mr Trump was a candidate in the sixities he would have not gone far in politics. The sixities issues were dealt with forming a response to what was happening. People risked their lives to fight against a terrible war and civil rights. Mrs. Clinton was supportive and she fought the battles in sixities. We know where Mr Trump was. He was building housing only for white people. She still does. Mrs. Clinton has walked the walk.
2
Being an aging boomer myself,I m somewhat disenheartened by what many of my aged peers have become. While it was obvious 40-odd years ago that the idealism of the '60's morphed into to "get a job, buy a house or two" 1970's, even most of us capitalist-tinged wretches still wanted, it seemed, what was good for ALL of society. Idealism.
For all but the top whatever 1/10 of 1% number you want to give, we all somewhat are ticked off at a lot of things, not just what our politicians have done (or haven't done), what our top-heavy govt has become, but also what we ourselves are lacking. Only those who lack the empathy and the introspective capabilities of reflection really are following this campaign as if it's the best or worst thing ever.
While my fantasy-infused self would love to blow up the system and start again, I think sane, rational people would agree that the underpinnings of our system - Constitution, Rights of Man, etc. - are solid and just and, with the right mix of leadership and work, we can turn this ship of state around. Idealism.
For all but the top whatever 1/10 of 1% number you want to give, we all somewhat are ticked off at a lot of things, not just what our politicians have done (or haven't done), what our top-heavy govt has become, but also what we ourselves are lacking. Only those who lack the empathy and the introspective capabilities of reflection really are following this campaign as if it's the best or worst thing ever.
While my fantasy-infused self would love to blow up the system and start again, I think sane, rational people would agree that the underpinnings of our system - Constitution, Rights of Man, etc. - are solid and just and, with the right mix of leadership and work, we can turn this ship of state around. Idealism.
2
No. Trump is the RESULT of Republican greed that has degraded capitalism to pure selfishness by its tax cuts and government service cuts, attacks on unions and workers, racism, sexism, and regulation cuts everywhere. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and all the Republicans who used fear and greed and racism to motivate their "base" and enrich themselves. Take responsibility for the results of the Republican establishment. You are beyond disgusting. Trump is just the frosting on your cake. It's no accident that Ailes fingerprints are all over you. Clinton's only problem is the decades-long right-wing smear.
2
Mr. Brooks makes many good points, but I have to ask if he's walked down any street in Manhattan as of late? When every other person walking by is staring at their phone, with headphones on, it seems that we have a society of zombies and robots, clearly unaware of anything outside of their own little bubble. Yes, American society is all about 'me', not anyone else. Yes, it is self-absorbed and selfish. Social media encourages isolation and fragmentation, not idealism. How can a society that's more focused on violent video games, fantasy football or their neighbor's cat video, instead of the real issues facing the society and our country, be anything else?
Expound all you wish, Mr. Brooks. It comes down to this: Mr. Trump is not qualified to be President. Mrs. Clinton is our only choice.
1
I find this column pointless. You don't ruminate over cold symptoms when your other choice is the plague. The more I am exposed to Trump, the more I realize he is all-around awful human being. What has he ever done that is admirable? That so many will vote for him, that so many republican politicians support him is sad and depressing. Do they really care so little about this country? Please don't tell me they believe their own twaddle about Hillary.
5
David says: "she lacks the human touch when talking about the nation’s problems, and fails to make an emotional connection." He must be talking about some other person or living in an alternate reality. If there is one thing you can see in every personal encounter you watch, where Hillary Clinton talks one-on-one with a person she makes a real connection. It is large groups that she is not as good at. And as far as appealing to the "higher angels of our nature", it is the Democrats who focus on community efforts and the common good. It seems that the problem for Brooks is that neither of the candidates fits the image of the ideal Republican he believes will save the world. Perhaps he should get out in the real world where aging boomers, Republican and Democrat, are trying to promote community, support for the elderly, helping families, working for justice -- I see idealism in action every day.
1
Some columnists don't have the human touch, either.
1
If one replaces your opinion of what constitutes the "great challenge of our moment" with issues of racism, inequality and joblessness, then Clinton does indeed have a "human touch" and an "emotional connection."
1
David Brooks supports the conservative movement. From Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, the Bush family to Donald Trump, it has played the race card in American politics. These administrations have supported corporate America and the top earners through their tax policies at the expense of working class Americans. Brooks in his pseudo sociology attempts to equate Hillary Clinton on par with Donald Trump. The right wing media with the aid of "Congressional" hearings have damaged her reputation. The conservative movement is responsible for the death of idealism and Donal Trump is their offspring.
1
All these lofty comments can be summed up as:
Lead with actions, not words.
If Clinton supports programs that help people, she doesn't need to outwardly say compassionate things.
Lead with actions, not words.
If Clinton supports programs that help people, she doesn't need to outwardly say compassionate things.
3
What this country needs isn't idealism, but realism. That's why I will vote for Hillary Clinton. Her idealism comes across in the programs she supports. David Brooks has lost his idealism in his desperate attempt to justify Republican failed ideas. He does it half-heartedly because he knows in his heart what Republicans have done to this country. I don't even believe in party politics. I believe in politicians who want this country to succeed by doing well for its citizens, not the political parties. Republicans have lost sight of that.
4
I'm willing to bet that within the next couple of weeks Brooks will provide us his official endorsement of Clinton. To not do so makes me lose trust and faith in what is real: his intellectual honesty and journalistic bonafides
1
Mr Brooks has Trump pinned and labeled like a beetle on a card.
However, I'm a Boomer, and lived through the Sixties. I have a deep distrust of idealists and true believers, and revolutionary movements. They deal in abstract concepts, and noble ends are too easily used to justify ignoble means (or disguise ignoble ends, come to that), and often wind up hurting the very people they claim to want to help. Anyone can mouth inspirational platitudes; as Jean Giradoux (and many after him) said, 'the secret of success is sincerity. If you can fake that, you've got it made'. And, ironically, I'm far less afraid of the pragmatist hiding behind ideals than of the True Believer. As Eric Hoffer pointed out at length, the latter is invested in a glorious future, and is willing to raze the present to the ground and build utopia on its ashes.
I support Mrs Clinton because I believe she's *not* an idealist, but a practical, incrementalist politician who wants to improve the world I live in rather than throw me under the bus on the way to the glorious Future. No one lives in the Future. There is only a succession of Nows, and I believe she could make Now a bit better, or at least stop it from getting measurably worse.
However, I'm a Boomer, and lived through the Sixties. I have a deep distrust of idealists and true believers, and revolutionary movements. They deal in abstract concepts, and noble ends are too easily used to justify ignoble means (or disguise ignoble ends, come to that), and often wind up hurting the very people they claim to want to help. Anyone can mouth inspirational platitudes; as Jean Giradoux (and many after him) said, 'the secret of success is sincerity. If you can fake that, you've got it made'. And, ironically, I'm far less afraid of the pragmatist hiding behind ideals than of the True Believer. As Eric Hoffer pointed out at length, the latter is invested in a glorious future, and is willing to raze the present to the ground and build utopia on its ashes.
I support Mrs Clinton because I believe she's *not* an idealist, but a practical, incrementalist politician who wants to improve the world I live in rather than throw me under the bus on the way to the glorious Future. No one lives in the Future. There is only a succession of Nows, and I believe she could make Now a bit better, or at least stop it from getting measurably worse.
94
According to Mr. Brooks' sweeping, general analysis of a generation born between the Ink Spots and The Beatles, into the middle of which I was born as a middle child of a family of eight, my durable idealism marks me as a Millennial, not a Boomer. Whew. That's a relief. It was getting uncomfortable in there with all those Boomer cynics. Hi, kids. I'm with you. Those of us clinging to the increasingly lonely middle of the political spectrum are still motivated more by the obligations of America's unique call to be a beacon to the world of self-government's messy superiority over any other form of government. I must agree, it is dismaying to see the shopworn figures who would be our "leaders." Frankly, it is more dismaying to see the media scramble to cover their low and shallow shenanigans so mindlessly. You risk infecting us all with their cynicism. But I don't lose heart. I know lots of young people through my work, and the core of them are bright, concerned, and eager to lead. I would willingly fall in line behind many of them as our new class of political leaders. David, lighten up and report more about the amazing work these young people are doing. Shine a light on living Idealism and watch it grow.
1
Castigating the Clinton campaign for a lack of idealism ignores entirely the Democratic National Convention and its many uplifting themes. If their is any real basis for David's cynicism it is not the Clinton campaign. It is the Ryan-McConnell blockade of congress and their sanctimonious posturing.
2
"His ethos is: Get what I can for myself, and everyone else can take care of themselves"
Yes, that's what the "Reagan Revolution" was all about David. But keep at it with your revisionist history.
Yes, that's what the "Reagan Revolution" was all about David. But keep at it with your revisionist history.
2
I appreciate Mr Brooks' respect for idealism. I'm always disappointed when I hear my fellow liberals lament that they can't get blue collar voters to stop voting against their own self-interest. But, I believe that is not the approach. I believe many voters care about ideals and are in fact disgusted by the pure selfishness radiated by recent campaigns. Bill Clinton was the last preseident to really inspire some idealism in our nation. Since then, it's been all ideology, all the time. And Ideology seems to be the opposite of idealism.
1
David, surely you are not equating the pragmatism of Clinton with the self-centered psychotic rantings of Trump? Here is a man whose mea culpa for engaging in housing discrimination is that many others were doing it at the time, and, here's the psychotic part, in the settlement with the Justice Department he never had to admit guilt, so in his mind it never happened.
Clinton may not be what Bernie Sanders was to the millennials, but that in no way puts her even on the same planet as Trump.
Clinton may not be what Bernie Sanders was to the millennials, but that in no way puts her even on the same planet as Trump.
2
David, nowhere is there any mention of Barack Obama. He embodied the kind of idealism and promise that you are talking about in my opinion, and came from a younger generation than the present candidates.
I guess we have to ask ourselves why he met such bitter opposition for having the vision, intelligence and courage to inspire and further that idealism.
I guess we have to ask ourselves why he met such bitter opposition for having the vision, intelligence and courage to inspire and further that idealism.
3
Like Donald Trump I was born at the beginning of the boomer generation. There is a belief that with age comes wisdom, but often times that wisdom is tainted by the reality of what we have lived through. I was a 60's gal and thought the 80's were a despicable era. Glitz and greed. Ronald Reagan was inspirational but I did not share his vision of "voodoo economics", the term coined by a man from 'the greatest generation' George H. W. Bush, or Reagan accolades and their vision of social justice--getting rid of welfare queens driving around in Cadillacs; a view held today by many Trump supporters. I feel Hillary's idealistic vision has been felled by reality. She is all about what needs to get done and how do we do it. Boring, no bright and cheery slogans. No "change we can believe in". She and I both witnessed how this vision was squashed by the Republicans in charge of congress. What would FDR have accomplished if he was saddled with this recalcitrant congress? I have to admire the vision of the too old to be a boomer Bernie Sanders offered to the country and the millennials took to heart. But we wise old realists knew his vision would never come to pass. I admire President Obama because despite all he has gone through I believe he still has some of that old idealism that is part of his innate character. Whenever I see President Obama a sense of peace falls over me; he is a man of intelligence and integrity with a vision Hillary wants to expand upon.
4
I am looking for a President who thinks its an honor to serve their country, not themselves. I want a leader who will lift people up, not push them down. Someone who believes in the rule of law, not the rule of 'me first.' I want someone who inspires because of their actions, not just by saying words. I want a President who realizes that everyone will need help at some point in their life. Once they receive it most people will say "Thank you, I've got it from here on." I want a leader who believes in Servant Leadership and who practices it every day.
Sadly, none of these traits are practiced by our existing candidates. Both are self-entitled and obnoxious. The only difference that I can see is that Trump is actively dangerous, Hillary is merely slimy. So now it has come to this: Michelle Obama campaigning the other day imploring young people - Hillary may not be perfect, but she is what we've got, so vote for her.
Have we really sunk this low, that our choice for President is between two people that no sane person would buy a car from?
Sadly, none of these traits are practiced by our existing candidates. Both are self-entitled and obnoxious. The only difference that I can see is that Trump is actively dangerous, Hillary is merely slimy. So now it has come to this: Michelle Obama campaigning the other day imploring young people - Hillary may not be perfect, but she is what we've got, so vote for her.
Have we really sunk this low, that our choice for President is between two people that no sane person would buy a car from?
1
Bernie Sanders poetic, inspirational ideas were not practical enough to suit most people, and I suspect David Brooks would be very critical of Clinton were she even to acknowledge something as idealistic as the American people's desire to extend Medicare to all citizens. I can hear the howling already: "How is she going to pay for it? How is she going to get it through congress??"
Ideal Republican America, however... Deport all non-super-model immigrants, Make America a gated community, give more money to the rich, send more police after the Hoodlums, carpet bomb the Middle East... Ideas that couldn't be pronounced dead soon enough, in my opinion.
Idealism is the tool politicians of both parties use to pull the wool over people's eyes. That Clinton is sticking to a more reality based campaign is hardly something to complain about.
Ideal Republican America, however... Deport all non-super-model immigrants, Make America a gated community, give more money to the rich, send more police after the Hoodlums, carpet bomb the Middle East... Ideas that couldn't be pronounced dead soon enough, in my opinion.
Idealism is the tool politicians of both parties use to pull the wool over people's eyes. That Clinton is sticking to a more reality based campaign is hardly something to complain about.
2
Trump will win. No one cares about this intellectual claptrap . Trump will be the President. The Donald J. Trump Presidential Library will reside in Trump Towers after his eight year Presidency. Trump will make America great again somehow.
1
There is an OP Ed columnist meme that Hillary has no vision and cannot inspire. False equivalency is its shorthand in a weekly chore and death comes by a thousand innuendoes. Hillary inspires me and millions of others. She has been the conservative choice of hate for 30 years and many ears are too stuffed with lies to hear her vision. Stop blaming her because they have gone deaf.
3
For a column that talks so much about the value of love, today’s David Brooks essay comes off as a pretty sour affair. But above and beyond his rancid take on the current political campaign, I believe he’s simply mistaken in one major point: In the long history of the world, politics, even at its most ideal, has never been about love. When functioning at its best, it’s been about social and economic justice. And for all of Mrs. Clinton’s inadequacies, there is a good deal more striving for social and economic justice in her campaign than there is in the farcical mess that has become the Trump message. I’d suggest that Mister Brooks glance across to the opposite side of today’s Op Ed page and read Paul Krugman’s column for a more balanced assessment of what last Monday’s debate, and for that matter, what this long and media-distorted presidential campaign has been about.
4
Clinton continues through thick and thin, for better or for worse, to fight for the ideals she articulated in the 60's. Her passion then is her passion now. If we elect her we will find a president dedicated to service to to her country, and by extension, to the world. She has had the courage to stick with a political process that is often ugly because she knows that it is her best chance of doing the most good. To see her running for President makes my heart swell with pride for what our country might become. That's an emotional connection. Thank goodness for good people who are willing to brave politics.
And by the way, Trump inspires an emotional connection too: Abject fear.
And by the way, Trump inspires an emotional connection too: Abject fear.
3
'Buying votes with federal programs', the conservative screed of the decades suggesting that using federal taxpayer money (none of which comes from the Republican Presidential nominee, by the way) to provide child care for working women or health care for low income families is some craven vote getting tactic. Immigration reform, granting legal status or, gosh forbid, citizenship, to immigrants who have worked for years in this country but still live in the shadow of the INS, is some hack political move. One comment below asked if you had a likeability factor for your airline pilot or your surgeon. The paucity of Brooks argument is that all he has got is some sense that Secretary Clinton is not likeable.
2
The death of idealism? Excuse me, Bernie Sanders? Remember him, the candidate that was too idealistic. We had a chance, we blew it let's move on.
28
"Mrs. Clinton’s 1993 interview with The New York Times Magazine, in which she expounded on the 'politics of meaning' and her Methodism and New Age beliefs, was met with widespread ridicule. It has often been cited as a reason for Mrs. Clinton’s reluctance to discuss her spiritual side. She even resisted wearing white for years after the magazine’s cover portrayed her as a saintly figure" (New York Times, July 28, 2016, https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-moment... Enough said.
1
Mr Brooks, you are NOT a "champion of capitalism".
A champion of capitalism would:
- Point out that Clinton believes that if you earn a living, you must pay for those who don't.
- Point out that Clinton believes "You Didn't Earn That."
- Point out that Clinton supports her crony capitalist friends in the 1%.
- Point out that Clinton will take more from the middle class.
- Point out that Obamacare is making health care cost more, and that Clinton will "fix" it so that it costs even more.
- Point out that Clinton will turn Obamacare into fully-socialized medicine.
- Point out that Clinton will favor "connected" businesses and make taxpayers support them.
You're the NYT pet conservative, not a Capitalist.
A champion of capitalism would:
- Point out that Clinton believes that if you earn a living, you must pay for those who don't.
- Point out that Clinton believes "You Didn't Earn That."
- Point out that Clinton supports her crony capitalist friends in the 1%.
- Point out that Clinton will take more from the middle class.
- Point out that Obamacare is making health care cost more, and that Clinton will "fix" it so that it costs even more.
- Point out that Clinton will turn Obamacare into fully-socialized medicine.
- Point out that Clinton will favor "connected" businesses and make taxpayers support them.
You're the NYT pet conservative, not a Capitalist.
1
Remember the episode of "Seinfeld" where George pushes children aside to escape a room filled with smoke? This is Trump. George Constanza run amok.
As for your points about Clinton, check out this video highlighted by Paul Waldman of the Washington Post today: https://youtu.be/g9kMTOj8B9g.
I would say the "higher angels of our nature" are appealed to in Secretary Clinton's thoughtful answer to this rabbi's question.
As for your points about Clinton, check out this video highlighted by Paul Waldman of the Washington Post today: https://youtu.be/g9kMTOj8B9g.
I would say the "higher angels of our nature" are appealed to in Secretary Clinton's thoughtful answer to this rabbi's question.
3
"The Death of Idealism"
It was time.
It was time.
"Somehow I got on the guest list of a few of the ’80s-era parties he hosted in the lobby of his skyscraper and would go for sociological entertainment."
Oh, please!
Oh, please!
1
I suspect that Hillary is embarrassed by her famous speech, if she even remembers it, and that Trump does not know what an ideal is. In any case, idealism is overrated. What we want from politicians is some sense that they understand that the public good exists and that it is not the same thing as their own aggrandizement. A basic knowledge of the real world is also requisite. If they have ideals, let us know what they are and how they propose to realize them through durable institutions.
2
"At some point there will have to be a new vocabulary and a restored anthropology, emphasizing love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity and neighborliness that pushes people toward connection rather than distrust."
Thanks for the list David. But I would add the simple word 'community' where
there is lots of pulling and dragging one way or another but in the end a better
reality emerges for everyone from top to bottom. Alasdair MacIntyre has mentioned St. Benedict--and he is right.
Thanks for the list David. But I would add the simple word 'community' where
there is lots of pulling and dragging one way or another but in the end a better
reality emerges for everyone from top to bottom. Alasdair MacIntyre has mentioned St. Benedict--and he is right.
1
Sure she's got funny looking ears but I'll vote for Ms. Spock and her unemotional reason over the alien from planet Furball.
1
"Clinton can be a devastatingly good counterpuncher,"
Should Clinton not counterpunch?
"but she lacks the human touch when talking about the nation’s problems, and fails to make an emotional connection."
That's it? That's all you have? There is more you say? Please tell.
"And it is never enough just to list three programs in an answer; she has to pile in an arid hodgepodge of eight or nine."
Others might take this as as sign that Clinton has prepared for the job she is applying for . . .
. . . meanwhile, The Donald is **still** carrying on about and dragging a former Miss Universe through mud.
And yet, somehow, here we are . . .
Should Clinton not counterpunch?
"but she lacks the human touch when talking about the nation’s problems, and fails to make an emotional connection."
That's it? That's all you have? There is more you say? Please tell.
"And it is never enough just to list three programs in an answer; she has to pile in an arid hodgepodge of eight or nine."
Others might take this as as sign that Clinton has prepared for the job she is applying for . . .
. . . meanwhile, The Donald is **still** carrying on about and dragging a former Miss Universe through mud.
And yet, somehow, here we are . . .
4
"writers celebrated capitalism not only as a wealth-generating engine but also as a moral system, a way to arouse hard work, creativity and trust." There are always writers who will celebrate anything.
1
"Proud to be paying no taxes while others foot the bill"
Assuming this statement to be true, and given that Trump's tax returns are audited on a regular basis, Trump has met his legal tax obligation.
I wonder if Mr. Brooks deducts his home mortgage and state/local taxes from his tax obligation -- like tens of millions of Americans.
The real question, of course, is who created the tax laws that favor the rich?
What legislation did Hillary Clinton propose while a US Senator to end tax breaks for the rich (aka her donor class)?
All talk, no action -- typical politician.
Assuming this statement to be true, and given that Trump's tax returns are audited on a regular basis, Trump has met his legal tax obligation.
I wonder if Mr. Brooks deducts his home mortgage and state/local taxes from his tax obligation -- like tens of millions of Americans.
The real question, of course, is who created the tax laws that favor the rich?
What legislation did Hillary Clinton propose while a US Senator to end tax breaks for the rich (aka her donor class)?
All talk, no action -- typical politician.
Mr. Brooks, those parties you attended at the Trump tower didn't represent the fringe of the capitalist Republican Party, it was the core of the party. You were just too naive to understand this fact. These were the people moving money offshore and exploiting labor where ever it could be exploited at home and abroad and feeding at the public trough while self-righteously railing against big government.
Respectfully, you were deluded by your own idealism based on the nonsense that Reagan was pedaling and especially that capitalism was somehow a moral system. Indeed the Republican Party, in order to win elections, erected the Religious Right as a political force which immediately incorporated capitalism and the "free market" into their pantheon of God heads and "Christian" pastors decided after all that it was not a good idea to render to Caesar that which is Caesar's.
Hillary Clinton's idealism shines brightly beneath the tough shell she has had to build over the years in the face of relentless attempts at character assassination waged by the right. It will emerge on inauguration day and the Republican power brokers and oligarchs know it and fear it as idealism is as foreign to them as it was to Richard Nixon.
Indeed it has been her idealism that has sustained Hillary Rodham Clinton through the run through the impossible gauntlet she has run and we will watch history unfold as the first woman will be elected to the Presidency.
Respectfully, you were deluded by your own idealism based on the nonsense that Reagan was pedaling and especially that capitalism was somehow a moral system. Indeed the Republican Party, in order to win elections, erected the Religious Right as a political force which immediately incorporated capitalism and the "free market" into their pantheon of God heads and "Christian" pastors decided after all that it was not a good idea to render to Caesar that which is Caesar's.
Hillary Clinton's idealism shines brightly beneath the tough shell she has had to build over the years in the face of relentless attempts at character assassination waged by the right. It will emerge on inauguration day and the Republican power brokers and oligarchs know it and fear it as idealism is as foreign to them as it was to Richard Nixon.
Indeed it has been her idealism that has sustained Hillary Rodham Clinton through the run through the impossible gauntlet she has run and we will watch history unfold as the first woman will be elected to the Presidency.
2
Brooks is dead wrong on Hillary Clinton and James Lee is on target. What Brooks calls an "arid hodgepodge" of social programs designed, he thinks, to buy votes with federal money, are the platform on which we can build a truly civilized society. Republicans, like Brooks and those far worse, love loft platitudes but they wont put money where their mouths are. What a party! If empowered, we would lose a sound social security program, a sound medicare program, a sound medicaid program, clean air, clean water, a decent public education system, and the reasonable federal regulations required to rein in the greed of capitalism (which is necessary but must be regulated).
2
Hillary may represent the '60's. Trump may represent the 80's. Brooks, however, represents the 2010's journalism and political analysis: false equivalence and a never-ending repetition of a narrative ("There is no uplift in this race") that has been proven over and over to be a false one.
2
Fear not, David. It is only the credibility of claiming that we're all playing to some God figure viewing the show from the far side of the sky that is dying.
I see Brooks brought the name of the Sainted Reagan to his column to disparage the Baby Boomer generation. I remember the Reagan years as Ron and Nancy and all their uber rich friends trying to show us " have nots" how to live while their greedy friends grew richer on the spoils of government. I remember this time as very idealistic where we thought we could change the world for the good of mankind and womanklind. We also looked for peace on earth as a higher calling. Now we no longer bother with that. Trump would be a charlatan in any era.
2
"During the Reagan years, writers celebrated capitalism not only as a wealth-generating engine but also as a moral system, a way to arouse hard work, creativity and trust." Wrong: Conservative writers of the Reagan era (and beyond) vilified anyone who didn't agree with them. The mantra of Conservatism: Don't trust the government. Rush Limbaugh was first; we are now reaping the seeds that he sowed. Trickle down economics = those at the bottom have to make do on whatever trickles down.
"Trump reminds us — even those of us who champion capitalism — how corrosive capitalism can be when unaccompanied by a counterbalancing ethos of moral restraint." Mr. Brooks, you were one of the writers of that era. According to Wikipedia:
"In 1984,... Brooks applied and was accepted as an intern on Buckley's National Review. According to Christopher Beam, the internship included an all-access pass to the affluent life style that Brooks had previously mocked, including yachting expeditions; Bach concerts; dinners at Buckley’s Park Avenue apartment and villa in Stamford, Connecticut; and a constant stream of writers, politicians, and celebrities." In other words, you're a hypocrite who sold your soul.
"When asked why she wants to be president or for any positive vision, she devolves into a list of programs... not an inspiring image of the common good." Sec. Clinton once wrote a book titled "It Takes a Village."
You and your Conservative writers refused to listen, and refused to care.
"Trump reminds us — even those of us who champion capitalism — how corrosive capitalism can be when unaccompanied by a counterbalancing ethos of moral restraint." Mr. Brooks, you were one of the writers of that era. According to Wikipedia:
"In 1984,... Brooks applied and was accepted as an intern on Buckley's National Review. According to Christopher Beam, the internship included an all-access pass to the affluent life style that Brooks had previously mocked, including yachting expeditions; Bach concerts; dinners at Buckley’s Park Avenue apartment and villa in Stamford, Connecticut; and a constant stream of writers, politicians, and celebrities." In other words, you're a hypocrite who sold your soul.
"When asked why she wants to be president or for any positive vision, she devolves into a list of programs... not an inspiring image of the common good." Sec. Clinton once wrote a book titled "It Takes a Village."
You and your Conservative writers refused to listen, and refused to care.
1
Hillary Clinton was hardly a hippie, nor a child of the sixties and certainly not a sixties radical. She was a late comer to the realities of the generation, a Goldwater girl in 1964. When many were protesting Vietnam she was evolving--Already an apparatchik who believed in working with and in the system, even as members of her generation were being drafted and slaughtered in Vietnam. When many were marching and shouting "Hey hey LBJ How many kids have you killed today". Where was she? Not there. As she is not there today. This is probably why she can be a friend to Henry Kissinger.
1
Reads like you have never listened to Clinton talk about community, children, giving every child a chance to be all they can be, and, even about love. As you know, Trump diminishes everyone. I see plenty of heart and idealism still in her.
3
Trump is being exactly who he is. They have tried to get him to tone it down and it hasn't worked. The media tells Clinton to smile more, connect more, let people know that she feels our pain kind of thing. For better or worse that is not who she is. When I compare the two the choice is easy and I'm okay with the fact that neither of them are inspiring. As far as restoring idealism goes, I'm not sure that we will get that back. As a child of the 80's I never connected with whatever people were seeing in Reagan. Clinton and GW Bush were less than inspirational for me. I did have a sense of idealism when Obama was elected. Eight years of watching him be treated like an alien by a hostile public and congress kind of disenchanted me with the whole process. Sorry to say I'm just voting to keep Trump from becoming President. Other than that I really don't care that much anymore. I live in Florida and Rubio will end up beating Murphy and I just scratch my head in disbelief.
2
While the spiritual (not) hand-ringing of Republican-lite David Brooks is absurd, offensive in context and hypocritical, meanwhile -- 'the GOP owns 31 state governors, 248 House seats (of 435), 68 out of 98 state legislatures, the Senate, and all associated non-urban county seats, judges, sheriffs, supreme courts and on and on. And they only need to be patient and refuse to allow a US Supreme Court appointment until one of the liberals dies - then they'll have their 4-3 majority at the top again. Every Nazi and skinhead in the country is going door to door for the Republican nominee today. '
This country is in serious trouble - morally, spiritually, economically, and otherwise.
Brooks' continuing underlying equivalency here of Trump and Hillary Clinton is, however, part of the problem.
Bernie Sanders was our chance for mobilizing the deepest change. That will continue lower down on the ticket and post-election.
Now Hillary Clinton is trying to knock out a lying & ignorant, racist, sexist, xenophobe, as his dangerous ignorance, lack of impulse-control, and absurd, pay-no-taxes-makes-me-smart billionaire bleating fills the airways. Thanks to a corrupted and corrupting Press, Brooks included.
While no fan of neo-liberalism, Hillary Clinton's '8 or 9 domestic programs’ under a ‘Better Together' banner gets my vote, spiritually and materially, over the nutcase, neo-fascist Trump and his uninformed and/or rabid followers.
This country is in serious trouble - morally, spiritually, economically, and otherwise.
Brooks' continuing underlying equivalency here of Trump and Hillary Clinton is, however, part of the problem.
Bernie Sanders was our chance for mobilizing the deepest change. That will continue lower down on the ticket and post-election.
Now Hillary Clinton is trying to knock out a lying & ignorant, racist, sexist, xenophobe, as his dangerous ignorance, lack of impulse-control, and absurd, pay-no-taxes-makes-me-smart billionaire bleating fills the airways. Thanks to a corrupted and corrupting Press, Brooks included.
While no fan of neo-liberalism, Hillary Clinton's '8 or 9 domestic programs’ under a ‘Better Together' banner gets my vote, spiritually and materially, over the nutcase, neo-fascist Trump and his uninformed and/or rabid followers.
When you describe Hillary Clinton, David, your language becomes vague. What does it mean, for example, to say that "she lacks the human touch"? Surely you are not calling her a robot. And what does it mean to say that she "fails to make an emotional connection" or that she lacks a vision of the common good.
The American people are not a bunch of backwoodsmen. They know that good programs--improving infrastructure, health care, education--add up to the common good. They can generalize and make inferences. It becomes more powerful and believable when they actively participate in the dialogue between candidate and voter. When they think.
Political rhetoric and a new vocabulary have their place. But they also must be put in place. Otherwise they can become the tools of demagogues.
The American people are not a bunch of backwoodsmen. They know that good programs--improving infrastructure, health care, education--add up to the common good. They can generalize and make inferences. It becomes more powerful and believable when they actively participate in the dialogue between candidate and voter. When they think.
Political rhetoric and a new vocabulary have their place. But they also must be put in place. Otherwise they can become the tools of demagogues.
Twice a week Brooks identifies one good human trait after another and then claims Republicans have it. Wow! Trump's supporters, including of course Brooks himself, are the most wonderful people in the world.
This is the pinnacle of false equivalency and the last thing I expected from Mr Brooks. These two candidates came from two very different primaries. One of them had 17 clowns the other a lot of idealism from a 75 year old no less, that Mr Brooks either ignored or disparaged. Now he misses it.
2
"I got on the guest list of a few of the ’80s-era parties he hosted in the lobby of his skyscraper and would go for sociological entertainment."
Sociological entertainment - think about that. There in a nutshell is why so many people rail against "the establishment", its arrogance, self-importance and sense of superiority. Its as if Brooks and his friends put people under a microscope and pick them apart for fun, like little boys pulling wings off a bug to see them jerk and squirm. Wasn't that fun? Well, that's too low brow a simile. More like a scientist with a magnifying glass, "hmmm, that's interesting"
Trump is everything Brooks says but Hillary is the bigger disappointment to me.
I was fully behind her through 2008 and up until Benghazi and then the server debacle. The lies, half-truths, the legalese, the Clintonese of "technically legal" but wholly improper finally wore me down and proves too much about her.
I don't like Trump but I'm sad about Hillary and I'm angry that I'm compelled to vote for her.
Sociological entertainment - think about that. There in a nutshell is why so many people rail against "the establishment", its arrogance, self-importance and sense of superiority. Its as if Brooks and his friends put people under a microscope and pick them apart for fun, like little boys pulling wings off a bug to see them jerk and squirm. Wasn't that fun? Well, that's too low brow a simile. More like a scientist with a magnifying glass, "hmmm, that's interesting"
Trump is everything Brooks says but Hillary is the bigger disappointment to me.
I was fully behind her through 2008 and up until Benghazi and then the server debacle. The lies, half-truths, the legalese, the Clintonese of "technically legal" but wholly improper finally wore me down and proves too much about her.
I don't like Trump but I'm sad about Hillary and I'm angry that I'm compelled to vote for her.
So, Hillary's 1969 speech "was filled with inspiring and self-important idealism." She was only 21 years old! Likely she was clueless at 21 that a career dedicated to public service, that started with a focus on extending our Constitutional rights and equal opportunity under law to children, women and minorities, would include her having to endure disappointing setbacks and an unending sequence of "vigorous" political attacks. No one needs that kind of [mis]treatment and financially she could have retired to enjoy Grandmotherhood. Yet, she is still putting herself out there; you can't see what that means? I object to faulting her lack of "speech-ifying" skill. Ponder this: http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html and note that "It is not the critic who counts"
1
You're a little behind, Mr. Brooks, as the closing paragraph of Fukuyama's essay demonstrates:
"The end of history will be a very sad time. The struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one's life for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage, imagination, and idealism, will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands. In the post-historical period there will be neither art nor philosophy, just the perpetual caretaking of the museum of human history. I can feel in myself, and see in others around me, a powerful nostalgia for the time when history existed. Such nostalgia, in fact, will continue to fuel competition and conflict even in the post-historical world for some time to come..."
Welcome to Post-History, Mr. Brooks!
Fukuyama, Francis. "The End of History?" The National Interest (1989): 1-19.
"The end of history will be a very sad time. The struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one's life for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage, imagination, and idealism, will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands. In the post-historical period there will be neither art nor philosophy, just the perpetual caretaking of the museum of human history. I can feel in myself, and see in others around me, a powerful nostalgia for the time when history existed. Such nostalgia, in fact, will continue to fuel competition and conflict even in the post-historical world for some time to come..."
Welcome to Post-History, Mr. Brooks!
Fukuyama, Francis. "The End of History?" The National Interest (1989): 1-19.
"Get what I can for myself, and everyone else can take care of themselves. "
This is main plank in the GOP platform and has been for a couple of decades. Why is it a surprise when your Republicans elect the total embodiment of it?
This is main plank in the GOP platform and has been for a couple of decades. Why is it a surprise when your Republicans elect the total embodiment of it?
Mr. Brooks, look no further than the American need to screw over a customer or citizen. It's the economy stupid. Corporate Crime, greed and more greed all justified by this very Columnist. Trump is the embodiment of the modern American Gordon Geco. You worship and elevate ignorance because 'money' or cause 'freedom'. Mr. Brooks, shill for false morality that corrupts absolutely.
Although a nice man.
Although a nice man.
1
It will be a very long time before idealism is regarded with any value in this society. Mr Brooks critique of Mrs. Clinton having lost Her spiritual mojo and having replaced it with vote getting policy related talking points seems predictably
partisan to me. And, as someone who went thru the 60's my view of what's possible has changed quite a bit too. The tone is typical of most republicans I know, they don't care about anything except money.
partisan to me. And, as someone who went thru the 60's my view of what's possible has changed quite a bit too. The tone is typical of most republicans I know, they don't care about anything except money.
HRC can "buy" my vote by not privatizing Social Security, and by enforcing and creating regulations that put thieves like the President of Wells Fargo in jail.
Debt relief for student loans and free tuition for people who can't afford college in exchange for my vote? Sold.
Addressing climate change as a problem needing fixing instead of a propagandistic Chinese scam?
Sold.
As one ticks off the list of "special interests groups", "identity" constituencies, it so happens that the total represents the vast majority of the population.
As for the poor, neglected and resentful white men, who feel left out--the bet that she is making is that they'll have as little to complain about as they did when Bill presided over 8 years of unprecedented prosperity. I'll take that bet.
The idea that this highly ambitious, vainglorious know-it-all will allow our country to fail by not balancing our fractious and diverse "special interest" constituencies is highly unlikely.
Yeah--the Wells Fargo execs will forfeit their $200 million pay-outs, hedge-fund billionaires will have to pay their fair share of taxes, and the 5400 families with estates over $10 million will have less to leave their heirs.
I'll "sell "my vote in exchange for all of the above.
Debt relief for student loans and free tuition for people who can't afford college in exchange for my vote? Sold.
Addressing climate change as a problem needing fixing instead of a propagandistic Chinese scam?
Sold.
As one ticks off the list of "special interests groups", "identity" constituencies, it so happens that the total represents the vast majority of the population.
As for the poor, neglected and resentful white men, who feel left out--the bet that she is making is that they'll have as little to complain about as they did when Bill presided over 8 years of unprecedented prosperity. I'll take that bet.
The idea that this highly ambitious, vainglorious know-it-all will allow our country to fail by not balancing our fractious and diverse "special interest" constituencies is highly unlikely.
Yeah--the Wells Fargo execs will forfeit their $200 million pay-outs, hedge-fund billionaires will have to pay their fair share of taxes, and the 5400 families with estates over $10 million will have less to leave their heirs.
I'll "sell "my vote in exchange for all of the above.
Us boomers started as idealists. We idealized our parents who lived through the great depression and WWII, who saved the world from Hitler and overcame worker exploitation with unions. We became educated, successful and confident. Yes Reagan began another revolution in which we hated paying taxes, appreciated country clubs more, expected money from clever financing and increasing housing values. Not so much one for all and all for one but grab what you can. We live now in a world where it is not idealism that is gone it is honor.
You are right, the system can't work without trust. If I promise to pay you for work, it should be payed. I am a doctor and I have patients that want to pay me when they can't afford it, they have honor and are trying not to cheat me.
I tell them to pay me only what they can afford even if $1. Trump says he has billions of dollars and didn't pay his contractors but he was "smart" he used the legal system to welsh on his debts and never looked back. He is proud that he pays not taxes. But what kind of world do we want? Or are those of us who appreciate honor and honesty just suckers?
Years ago I went to dinner with friends and the bill was $100 under what we ordered. I pointed it out to the college student waiter (who would have taken the hit). Some in the group thought I was stupid for not taking the windfall. Is it all about money and getting it from others? Trump is smart; I am stupid.
You are right, the system can't work without trust. If I promise to pay you for work, it should be payed. I am a doctor and I have patients that want to pay me when they can't afford it, they have honor and are trying not to cheat me.
I tell them to pay me only what they can afford even if $1. Trump says he has billions of dollars and didn't pay his contractors but he was "smart" he used the legal system to welsh on his debts and never looked back. He is proud that he pays not taxes. But what kind of world do we want? Or are those of us who appreciate honor and honesty just suckers?
Years ago I went to dinner with friends and the bill was $100 under what we ordered. I pointed it out to the college student waiter (who would have taken the hit). Some in the group thought I was stupid for not taking the windfall. Is it all about money and getting it from others? Trump is smart; I am stupid.
1
This election, and the world condition, really harkins back to the late 1930's early 1940's. The US and Britain were nearly the only two democracies. Horrific violence and disregard for international law and humanitarian norms was the order of the day. Nationalist dictators ruled nations with enthusiastic support and were committing horrible crimes against humanity. The democratic states were powerless to stop the horror and the international institutions were impotent. I believe that a WWII like Armageddon is a very likely outcome to this disaster.
David, who is this unlikeable, in-idealistic woman of whom you speak. I liked her just fine at the debate. She reminds me of my sister, my mother, my classmates, my son's beloved pediatrician, the mother's who volunteer at school, all the smart and articulate women I meet every day.
She reminds me of myself. As a counseler working with an underserved population my idealism takes a back seat to what needs to get done. Does the family need food? Shelter? Access to school or job training? Every family brings with it a laundry list of needs. Meet those, and your idealistic counseling goals might be supported and might succeed.
Don't most people approach a tough job that way? One step, idea, program at a time? Or is it a gender thing? Still, the pediatrician, or the mom, has got to get the high fever down and the child well before they can think about how to optimize the school day.
Clearly Hillary thinks in details; how will I get this done, what steps must I take, what road must I travel to get from here to here. That's not a loss of idealism. She wants to bring us to the shining city on the hill, but all together and safely, without leaving anyone behind. And she needs a detailed itinerary to get there. Aren't those specifics exactly what people said they wanted, not just big hollow promises? Every mother knows, fix the problems as they come, support the individual, and the big picture will fall into place. Idealism indeed.
She reminds me of myself. As a counseler working with an underserved population my idealism takes a back seat to what needs to get done. Does the family need food? Shelter? Access to school or job training? Every family brings with it a laundry list of needs. Meet those, and your idealistic counseling goals might be supported and might succeed.
Don't most people approach a tough job that way? One step, idea, program at a time? Or is it a gender thing? Still, the pediatrician, or the mom, has got to get the high fever down and the child well before they can think about how to optimize the school day.
Clearly Hillary thinks in details; how will I get this done, what steps must I take, what road must I travel to get from here to here. That's not a loss of idealism. She wants to bring us to the shining city on the hill, but all together and safely, without leaving anyone behind. And she needs a detailed itinerary to get there. Aren't those specifics exactly what people said they wanted, not just big hollow promises? Every mother knows, fix the problems as they come, support the individual, and the big picture will fall into place. Idealism indeed.
1
>There is an assumption, in both campaigns, that we are self-seeking creatures, rather than also loving, serving, hoping, dreaming, cooperating creatures.
***Reminds me of part of the Beatles' Revolution No. 9 song in which a narrator drones, "The Watusi...The Twist..."
***Reminds me of part of the Beatles' Revolution No. 9 song in which a narrator drones, "The Watusi...The Twist..."
"Trump reminds us — even those of us who champion capitalism — how corrosive capitalism can be when unaccompanied by a counterbalancing ethos of moral restraint."
Moral restraint and the free market have always been at odds. It is why we need regulation, meat inspectors and laws against children working on assembly lines. Humans are greedy, especially Trump.
But humans also have our "idealistic" side. Hillary and those of us that protested Nam, fought for organic food, the ERA and a healthy environment-- are still here and still fighting. This idealism includes both Bernie and Hillary. We fought for solar and wind. Reagan and the greedy took them down.
Moral restraint and the free market have always been at odds. It is why we need regulation, meat inspectors and laws against children working on assembly lines. Humans are greedy, especially Trump.
But humans also have our "idealistic" side. Hillary and those of us that protested Nam, fought for organic food, the ERA and a healthy environment-- are still here and still fighting. This idealism includes both Bernie and Hillary. We fought for solar and wind. Reagan and the greedy took them down.
This column is another glaring example of false equivalency from a commentator who is desperate to portray himself as above the fray. Granted, Hillary Clinton does not have the same talent for inspirational rhetoric as President Obama, but the policies she espouses will do more to improve people's lives than any soaring rhetoric would. To suggest that her brand of politics is similar in any way to Trump's is to be blinded by matters of personal style. As for the inspiration that millennials are seeking, Mr. Brooks should ask himself why so many are willing to vote for Gary Johnson, whose Libertarian positions on issues is far more selfish and cynical than loving and neighborly. Mr. Brooks laments "The Death of Idealism," but his column reflects "An Absence of Realism."
2
"she has to pile in an arid hodgepodge of eight or nine. This is pure interest-group liberalism — buying votes with federal money — not an inspiring image of the common good"--why is this corruption and not, say, a recognition that we have a lot of challenges that are going to require a lot of solutions? Is there a need to present a false equivalency between the candidates so that the GOP doesn't have to accept responsibility for the rise of Trump?
We had an inspirational image of the common good eight years ago in President Obama, and Republicans set out to destroy it. The Republicans thought it could use the Tea Party to unleash the forces of racism, hatred and dark pathos yet still control it, and they were overrun. Clinton wasn't my first choice (still have the Bernie sticker on my bumper), but to suggest she's just the other side of the same coin is at best self-serving. It's a way of pretending Trump isn't the Republicans' fault.
We had an inspirational image of the common good eight years ago in President Obama, and Republicans set out to destroy it. The Republicans thought it could use the Tea Party to unleash the forces of racism, hatred and dark pathos yet still control it, and they were overrun. Clinton wasn't my first choice (still have the Bernie sticker on my bumper), but to suggest she's just the other side of the same coin is at best self-serving. It's a way of pretending Trump isn't the Republicans' fault.
I dislike fine distinctions, but Clinton's "stronger together" frame of reference is at least a beginning, not entirely devoid of content, toward "uplift." But I do fault the campaign for never giving a reason for pursuing the office, apart from good behavior. That said, this could well be the explosive distinction before us.
Idealism is what the republicans have torn apart, well for a very long time. David cannot even see this.
"the need to rebind the fabric of a society that has been torn by selfishness, cynicism, distrust an autonomy" David your party gave that up for their brand of individualism whatever that means as we are all individual human being with our own DNA but none of us exist w/o American brand of society that we had after WWII.
Your party ripped apart the fabric of society and gave it away to the 1% with help from some selfish dems.
I am an environmentalist and starting with Rachel Carson a lot of good was done in 50-70's to restore rivers and polluted water and your party ripped the victories from us and pulled off the solar panel on the White House and degraded the planet to the tipping point of today.
You are part of the degrading of the human spirit and the planet.
"the need to rebind the fabric of a society that has been torn by selfishness, cynicism, distrust an autonomy" David your party gave that up for their brand of individualism whatever that means as we are all individual human being with our own DNA but none of us exist w/o American brand of society that we had after WWII.
Your party ripped apart the fabric of society and gave it away to the 1% with help from some selfish dems.
I am an environmentalist and starting with Rachel Carson a lot of good was done in 50-70's to restore rivers and polluted water and your party ripped the victories from us and pulled off the solar panel on the White House and degraded the planet to the tipping point of today.
You are part of the degrading of the human spirit and the planet.
A very insightful column in many on societal issues both big and small. I'm always surprised how commenters cannot separate their reactions to Brooks' columns from their own political beliefs.
2
More false equivalence from the keyboard of Mr. Brooks.
I constantly see this theme in his writings and broadcast commentary about Clinton lacking the human touch and reverting to a list of five reasons when she's asked any question. He consistently wants her answer neatly summarized in a single-sentence sound bite, while in the next breath excoriating Trump for lack of substance.
She is who she is. A smart, thoughtful technocrat, a student of history and of government's role in it, probably a lukewarm political operator and an administrator with definite lapses in oversight as evidenced by the e-mail non-scandal.
She is bad only to the extent that it has become fashionable to accept that she's bad; a meme reenforced by the megaphone of talk radio and cable news and columns like this one. The reality is that compared to Trump, there is no comparison in intellect, in moral weight or in suitability for public office.
It's a pity she can't rise above the noise. Maybe that is her true weakness.
I constantly see this theme in his writings and broadcast commentary about Clinton lacking the human touch and reverting to a list of five reasons when she's asked any question. He consistently wants her answer neatly summarized in a single-sentence sound bite, while in the next breath excoriating Trump for lack of substance.
She is who she is. A smart, thoughtful technocrat, a student of history and of government's role in it, probably a lukewarm political operator and an administrator with definite lapses in oversight as evidenced by the e-mail non-scandal.
She is bad only to the extent that it has become fashionable to accept that she's bad; a meme reenforced by the megaphone of talk radio and cable news and columns like this one. The reality is that compared to Trump, there is no comparison in intellect, in moral weight or in suitability for public office.
It's a pity she can't rise above the noise. Maybe that is her true weakness.
105
What happened to Hillary Clinton's idealism? Check out this 1993 hit piece on "Saint Hillary" from the New York Times magazine by Michael Kelly to see the price that a young woman new to the national scene paid for being idealistic.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/23/magazine/saint-hillary.html?pagewanted...
The New York Times also spent years investigating Whitewater--as if it were Watergate. There was nothing there, but the coverage did enormous damage to Hillary's reputation, and I suspect to her willingness to be open with the press. She learned that there was never an end to the investigations--innuendo became fact in people's minds. This is not to mention Maureen Dowd's snarky gossip column-style writing about Hillary through the impeachment process.
And, her unfortunate and misguided vote on the Iraq war was informed by the New York Time's Middle East expert (Tom Friedman) who argued that the Iraq War would transform the Middle East and by the seriously flawed reporting by Judith Miller. If Tom Friedman had been against the war in Iraq and the NY Times had gotten its reporting right, I suspect Hillary Clinton and many other Democrats would have voted differently.
If you want to understand the death of idealism, perhaps you should start by looking at your New York Times colleagues and their reporting. I suspect that if Hillary is elected, we will find that her idealism remains intact.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/23/magazine/saint-hillary.html?pagewanted...
The New York Times also spent years investigating Whitewater--as if it were Watergate. There was nothing there, but the coverage did enormous damage to Hillary's reputation, and I suspect to her willingness to be open with the press. She learned that there was never an end to the investigations--innuendo became fact in people's minds. This is not to mention Maureen Dowd's snarky gossip column-style writing about Hillary through the impeachment process.
And, her unfortunate and misguided vote on the Iraq war was informed by the New York Time's Middle East expert (Tom Friedman) who argued that the Iraq War would transform the Middle East and by the seriously flawed reporting by Judith Miller. If Tom Friedman had been against the war in Iraq and the NY Times had gotten its reporting right, I suspect Hillary Clinton and many other Democrats would have voted differently.
If you want to understand the death of idealism, perhaps you should start by looking at your New York Times colleagues and their reporting. I suspect that if Hillary is elected, we will find that her idealism remains intact.
1
Mr. Brooks, we elected the more "likable" candidate once before. 4000 dead soldiers in Iraq was the result.
1
Beyond politics, each are our own leader, reading Mr. Brooks column and books I appreciate his message reminding us of – Freedom, Integrity, Values, Virtues as we live in the era of TRUMPISM.
Perhaps Mr. Trumps narcissism is powerful MIRROR for ‘We the People’ to acknowledge the shadow side and light forces are present in these times and it by our choice they come alive. Perhaps is through our own trials and those of our dear ones that we close or open our hearts. Where we can discern good from evil. It is by choice we mimic and love the behavior of narcissism. Or choose to honor lost Virtue that is the bedrock of all healthy communities. Through grace and choice, the Freedom and soul of America is at risk without reinventing our personal values.
Perhaps Mr. Trumps narcissism is powerful MIRROR for ‘We the People’ to acknowledge the shadow side and light forces are present in these times and it by our choice they come alive. Perhaps is through our own trials and those of our dear ones that we close or open our hearts. Where we can discern good from evil. It is by choice we mimic and love the behavior of narcissism. Or choose to honor lost Virtue that is the bedrock of all healthy communities. Through grace and choice, the Freedom and soul of America is at risk without reinventing our personal values.
“Donald Trump became famous as a classic 1980s type, while Hillary Clinton first attained public notice as a classic 1960s type.”
That sentence says it all, Mr. Brooks? Even though the two candidates are approximately of the same age, it took Trump a couple more decades more to find his calling… aptly, in the decade of greed!
What you dismiss as “that ’60s style of lofty, inspiring and self-important idealism” is a passion for public service that has driven Hillary Clinton all of her adult life (not fighting ISIS – a 2003 creation – as Trump claims)?
Meanwhile the 1980s type Trump has pursued wealth and celebrity all of his adult life with questionable success?
Idealism is dying because the American people do not believe in it anymore – well, at least, a significant plurality of them prefer the nihilism being spread by Trump? The media gave Trump a platform and he used it brilliantly to perpetrate a big lie – he’s made that bed and if he wins, we all will have to sleep in it!
That sentence says it all, Mr. Brooks? Even though the two candidates are approximately of the same age, it took Trump a couple more decades more to find his calling… aptly, in the decade of greed!
What you dismiss as “that ’60s style of lofty, inspiring and self-important idealism” is a passion for public service that has driven Hillary Clinton all of her adult life (not fighting ISIS – a 2003 creation – as Trump claims)?
Meanwhile the 1980s type Trump has pursued wealth and celebrity all of his adult life with questionable success?
Idealism is dying because the American people do not believe in it anymore – well, at least, a significant plurality of them prefer the nihilism being spread by Trump? The media gave Trump a platform and he used it brilliantly to perpetrate a big lie – he’s made that bed and if he wins, we all will have to sleep in it!
1
I remember the '60's quite well - and stand aghast at the replay of those issues we see today: Vietnam to Iraq, renewed attention to inequality of gender & race, the same old dichotomy of the old fogies with short hair & notions of discipline, law & order vs. the youngsters with tattoos & beards (& piercings) and the same expansive notions of high ideals Mrs. Clinton espoused in her famous speech. And today we also have rising income inequality added to the mix.
So how is it we have come full circle? We have a black man in the White House and a woman as his likely successor - how then can we still be discussing these issues of race & gender inequality? Did we gain anything at all in all those struggles in the '60's? Were all those sacrifices and marches and assassinations for naught? What did we miss?
I think we can point to the 80's as a reversal of most of the gains we had made in the first half of the 20th century; Reagan was the anti-FDR, and the '80s return to the god of greed wiped out the post-WW2 ebullience and idealism you refer to. Since then it has only gotten worse, to the extent that Congress if full of millionaires, answers only to the wealthy elite, and for the first time in US history, the next generation faces fewer opportunities than we did.
And to top it off, I get a couple dozen e-mails a day telling me that if I want this greed-based system to get better, I should send my money to a politician.
So how is it we have come full circle? We have a black man in the White House and a woman as his likely successor - how then can we still be discussing these issues of race & gender inequality? Did we gain anything at all in all those struggles in the '60's? Were all those sacrifices and marches and assassinations for naught? What did we miss?
I think we can point to the 80's as a reversal of most of the gains we had made in the first half of the 20th century; Reagan was the anti-FDR, and the '80s return to the god of greed wiped out the post-WW2 ebullience and idealism you refer to. Since then it has only gotten worse, to the extent that Congress if full of millionaires, answers only to the wealthy elite, and for the first time in US history, the next generation faces fewer opportunities than we did.
And to top it off, I get a couple dozen e-mails a day telling me that if I want this greed-based system to get better, I should send my money to a politician.
Mr. Brooks should offer to become a speechwriter for Clinton. Meanwhile, the "higher angels" of my nature are attracted to Clinton and repelled by Trump.
Brooks writes, glumly, "there is an assumption, in both campaigns, that we are self-seeking creatures." That is exactly how I felt about the Reagan campaign in 1980, when Governor Reagan captured the Presidency by asking, famously: "are you better off now than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the store than it was four years ago?" How I wish that conservatives seeking deeper values had condemned those remarks, 36 years ago. Instead, the remarks served to efface the "ask what you can do for your country" idealism of the 1960s, and served to a greater or lesser extent as a template for the elections that followed. Why now is Brooks so shocked?
1
Remind me not to waste my time reading any editorial piece which includes the line "a restored anthropology". And by the way, if you want to look for the main culprit in the fragmentation of society, it is the poorly named "social media" - anti-social, me thinks.
1
David,
You ascribe Hillary's technocrat-talk to a lack of empathy or vision. Yet the programs she propounds in detail, particularly ill-suited to sound-bites, are often intended to promote the disadvantaged. You may disagree with their likelihood of success, you can label them "interest group liberalism," but you can't intelligently contend that her inability (unlike Bill) to be touchy-feely in large public settings reflects substance rather than style.
You ascribe Hillary's technocrat-talk to a lack of empathy or vision. Yet the programs she propounds in detail, particularly ill-suited to sound-bites, are often intended to promote the disadvantaged. You may disagree with their likelihood of success, you can label them "interest group liberalism," but you can't intelligently contend that her inability (unlike Bill) to be touchy-feely in large public settings reflects substance rather than style.
David, I think you are wrong, if you define idealism as: the attitude of a person who believes that it is possible to live according to very high standards of behavior and honesty. Hasn't Mr Trump been pretty clear that these people are out there and in his world they're called: Losers. Hasn't he been clear that the highest standard is winning, and that words are tools of manipulation not to be measured by their "truthfulness", but by there effectiveness to manipulate and dominate.
Let the truth seeking idealists dither on about truth and lies...he knows what will dominate the next news cycle. He knows that most of us can't look away from a spectacle.
I know that nobody want's to be the sucker/loser. My grief is that I'll lose more of my idealistic friends to the forces that dominate Mr. Trumps philosophy of life.
Let the truth seeking idealists dither on about truth and lies...he knows what will dominate the next news cycle. He knows that most of us can't look away from a spectacle.
I know that nobody want's to be the sucker/loser. My grief is that I'll lose more of my idealistic friends to the forces that dominate Mr. Trumps philosophy of life.
Point well taken, Mr. Brooks.
However, I'll take eight or nine of Hilary's programs over anything Donald Trump.
It's an easy choice. Let's get Hilary elected and the you can write your columns about how we need more peace and love.
However, I'll take eight or nine of Hilary's programs over anything Donald Trump.
It's an easy choice. Let's get Hilary elected and the you can write your columns about how we need more peace and love.
Mr. Brooks, you do what too many other pundits do: You put Hillary and Trump on the same level. You say that there is no difference.
There IS a difference, and you do your readers and your nation a disservice not to point it out.
Only one person has the resolve, self-control and clear-headed thinking to occupy the White House, and that is Hillary Clinton.
You already know this but years of voting Republican make it hard for you to say.
There IS a difference, and you do your readers and your nation a disservice not to point it out.
Only one person has the resolve, self-control and clear-headed thinking to occupy the White House, and that is Hillary Clinton.
You already know this but years of voting Republican make it hard for you to say.
In as few words as possible, so tired of false equivalencies, especially from you.
This is disappointing. While Mr. Brooks has listed (to devastating effect) all that s wrong with Mr. Trump, he has promoted the old trope of being "balanced" by offering a parallel critique of Mrs. Clinton. It was not convincing as a purported demonstration of her equal failure.
Indeed, Mr. Brooks has seemingly fallen into the trap of looking for "false equivalencies" and indulging in "moral relativism".
Mr. Trump is hideous in every ethical sense. Mrs. Clinton has allowed herself to indulge in laundry list politics.
The two are hardly equivalent.
Indeed, Mr. Brooks has seemingly fallen into the trap of looking for "false equivalencies" and indulging in "moral relativism".
Mr. Trump is hideous in every ethical sense. Mrs. Clinton has allowed herself to indulge in laundry list politics.
The two are hardly equivalent.
"Trump reminds us — even those of us who champion capitalism — how corrosive capitalism can be when unaccompanied by a counterbalancing ethos of moral restraint."
It is amazing that it took Donald Trump to "remind" David Brooks how corrosive capitalism can be. Examples of the corrosiveness of capitalism abound. At the moment, we are witnessing Wells Fargo's criminal behavior dragged before hearings in Washington to cite just one example. It took the hearings to force Wells Fargo's CEO to agree to forfeit some of the millions he was paid in spite of the crimes committed by thousands of his employees at the behest of management. But almost each day stories emerge about how corporations indulge in criminal behavior, not content with merely reaping the advantages of a legal system that they themselves have created to work to their advantage.
It is amazing that it took Donald Trump to "remind" David Brooks how corrosive capitalism can be. Examples of the corrosiveness of capitalism abound. At the moment, we are witnessing Wells Fargo's criminal behavior dragged before hearings in Washington to cite just one example. It took the hearings to force Wells Fargo's CEO to agree to forfeit some of the millions he was paid in spite of the crimes committed by thousands of his employees at the behest of management. But almost each day stories emerge about how corporations indulge in criminal behavior, not content with merely reaping the advantages of a legal system that they themselves have created to work to their advantage.
1
Someone who makes rules with the assumption that no one will try to break them is a bad rulemaker. Idealist beliefs that everyone could rise above self-serving greed and work for a common good are exactly the beliefs that led to things like the Epipen pricing scandal and the financial meltdown. Clinton has learned time and time again that idealism in law just means leaving the weak open to abuse by the strong, and Trump has been in the abuser's shoes more times than anyone cares to count.
Yes, yes. We've read "Bonfire of the Vanities" and "Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test". Personally, I generally prefer Thompson to Wolfe but that's me. Either way, you're still just building a convenient narrative around the past. In this case, you're booking-ending a generation in order to sell a message. I sense a strange, incomplete, and lopsided character assessment of our presidential candidates. As always, there's the interwoven morality as well.
As for active rebinding, it's easy to emphasize love and solidarity when everyone is equally broke. If you've ever lived in a two-bedroom with six people, you'll understand. You get to know each neighbor's unique brand of crazy very well. Yes. I feel warm, fuzzy inspiration just thinking about it. Thanks. The guy renting the tent in the backyard got sore feelings about the bathroom sometimes though.
As for active rebinding, it's easy to emphasize love and solidarity when everyone is equally broke. If you've ever lived in a two-bedroom with six people, you'll understand. You get to know each neighbor's unique brand of crazy very well. Yes. I feel warm, fuzzy inspiration just thinking about it. Thanks. The guy renting the tent in the backyard got sore feelings about the bathroom sometimes though.
David,
If somehow Hillary was to manage to achieve a personal connection, exude a satisfactory level of human warmth, is that the sole characteristic you need to witness in her make up to offer her your endorsement?
How would that sit with your conservative leaning readership? Is your "non-endorsement" just your way of keeping your job?
I have now read countless columns by you on the election, watched you on PBS for years, and you go right up to the door, but fail to open it. Time to do the right thing for the country, and personally endorse HRC. I know you can do it!
If somehow Hillary was to manage to achieve a personal connection, exude a satisfactory level of human warmth, is that the sole characteristic you need to witness in her make up to offer her your endorsement?
How would that sit with your conservative leaning readership? Is your "non-endorsement" just your way of keeping your job?
I have now read countless columns by you on the election, watched you on PBS for years, and you go right up to the door, but fail to open it. Time to do the right thing for the country, and personally endorse HRC. I know you can do it!
Idealism took a big hit (was hit bigly?) by W and the Iraq war. But it disappeared into the abyss when Sen. McConnell said "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." To me, and many others, this was a clear statement that "public good" is a meaningless concept, and that political power is all that matters. Republicans have followed this destructive path throughout Obama's presidency, and Trump is the resulting zombie.
Idealism isn't actually dead, it's just waiting to be released from the prison of obstructionism.
Idealism isn't actually dead, it's just waiting to be released from the prison of obstructionism.
149
If you are willing to let yourself be inspired by other than the usual suspects, the Clinton campaign can offer a lot of inspiration.
I suppose that I am being naïve to wonder how David Brooks can be so deadly accurate in his appraisal of Donald Trump and, yet, so jaded and dead wrong in his evaluation of Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton says precisely what she intends to do as president, and her precision is intentional to highlight the difference between her candor and the vague, trust-me rhetoric of Donald Trump.
Programs which help people who need help and cannot afford it cost money. The money will come from tax dollars, raised by increasing taxes on the wealthy and lowering the tax burden on the middle class.
This is pretty simple and very straight-forward, and yet David Brooks writes, “This is pure interest-group liberalism — buying votes with federal money — not an inspiring image of the common good.”
A nasty spin can be put on anything good. Mr. Brooks is better than that.
Hillary Clinton says precisely what she intends to do as president, and her precision is intentional to highlight the difference between her candor and the vague, trust-me rhetoric of Donald Trump.
Programs which help people who need help and cannot afford it cost money. The money will come from tax dollars, raised by increasing taxes on the wealthy and lowering the tax burden on the middle class.
This is pretty simple and very straight-forward, and yet David Brooks writes, “This is pure interest-group liberalism — buying votes with federal money — not an inspiring image of the common good.”
A nasty spin can be put on anything good. Mr. Brooks is better than that.
1
David,
You are partially right: there is not a lot of inspiration in this campaign. I must, however, disagree with your statement that Hillary needs to have nine programs to boast, not three. Why are you putting so much demand on her? She has to prove herself more than other leaders? Some great leaders have made terrible mistakes; Britain did not forever abandon Churchill when he made the disastrous decision that resulted in so many deaths at Gallipoli, and we did not abandon General Grant when he made decisions that resulted in so many deaths. Leaders are not perfect but must be judged on balance. Journalists and op-ed writers never get it right every time.
You are partially right: there is not a lot of inspiration in this campaign. I must, however, disagree with your statement that Hillary needs to have nine programs to boast, not three. Why are you putting so much demand on her? She has to prove herself more than other leaders? Some great leaders have made terrible mistakes; Britain did not forever abandon Churchill when he made the disastrous decision that resulted in so many deaths at Gallipoli, and we did not abandon General Grant when he made decisions that resulted in so many deaths. Leaders are not perfect but must be judged on balance. Journalists and op-ed writers never get it right every time.
1
David has given us many indications over many months in this column that eloquence, high-mindedness, and eloquence are sorely missing in this campaign. But I wonder if he has considered that Hillary is doing what she needs to do, not necessarily what she might be able to do with a different opponent. Hillary’s so-called uninspired pragmatism may be the only way to counter a hyper persona-driven wild man.
Even if gifts of inspirational rhetoric were Hillary’s strong points – which they are not – to exercise them in what has turned into a mud-wrestling contest would be a waste of time. Perhaps David should attempt to re ‘see’ Hillary – as many did on Monday night. Not only does she embody reason, steadiness, and resolve, but has the moxy to stand up in an arena in which her opponent barely acknowledges her, the referee, or the rules of the engagement.
Decrying this woman’s lack of uplifting discourse seems a cheap shot when, due to extraordinary circumstances, she is now just about all that stands between us and the loss of democracy as we have come to know it.
Sometimes it's what someone does, not what they say, that is inspiring.
Even if gifts of inspirational rhetoric were Hillary’s strong points – which they are not – to exercise them in what has turned into a mud-wrestling contest would be a waste of time. Perhaps David should attempt to re ‘see’ Hillary – as many did on Monday night. Not only does she embody reason, steadiness, and resolve, but has the moxy to stand up in an arena in which her opponent barely acknowledges her, the referee, or the rules of the engagement.
Decrying this woman’s lack of uplifting discourse seems a cheap shot when, due to extraordinary circumstances, she is now just about all that stands between us and the loss of democracy as we have come to know it.
Sometimes it's what someone does, not what they say, that is inspiring.
To Mr. Brooks' list of words--"love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity and neighborliness"--I suggest adding respect for self and others, kindness, fairness for each and every person, and self-reliance (to the extent one has the capacity and opportunity to exercise it).
1
Clinton lists programs because she knows that is how you improve people's lives. Who exactly was liberated in the 1980s? Rich people.
1
Politicians "talk" the big picture but none take actions that cause change. A perfect example is the Zika virus. The danger was announced and all politicians promptly went home for the holidays - and the Zika funding is still in limbo - for good political reasons of course. What would happen if a real "change agent" politician said "I see this virus as a threat to all regardless of party and I am going to campout here on the steps of the Capital until this is solved - I invite people of all parties to join me. We will ask for a clean "up or down" vote on Zika funding alone!" I really wonder how many of the United States real problems could be solved this way - and maybe how a change agent could become a future presidential candidate?
Idealism?
It was 1917 and Buckley Oil was Mexico's oil company. William F. Buckley Sr urged us to go to war with Mexico because Mexico's oil belonged to William F. Buckley Sr. That David is the idealism of 20th century American "conservatism."
When Spain decided to experiment with democracy there was William F. Buckley Sr pledging his financial, political and moral support which kept the Generalissimo in power until the 1970s. That is conservative idealism.
When Stalin decided that in the USSR he was the boss and his friend the head of Koch Industries Fred C. Koch needed to understand who was the boss. Fred C. Koch suddenly became a staunch anti Communist devout Anti Capitalist and set up the John Birch Society. That is conservative idealism.
When Disney animators went on strike they suddenly became communist sympathizers and anti American. That is conservative idealism.
When the liberal head of SAG was told to name names or never work again he named names, betrayed friends and became governor of California and the President of the USA. That is conservative idealism.
David I fear you confuse idealism with looking after number one. I fear you confuse morality with Phariseeism. David I fear you confuse bottom line selfishness with loyalty to the foundation of American Democracy. I cannot blame you 100 years of propaganda does leave a mark.
It was 1917 and Buckley Oil was Mexico's oil company. William F. Buckley Sr urged us to go to war with Mexico because Mexico's oil belonged to William F. Buckley Sr. That David is the idealism of 20th century American "conservatism."
When Spain decided to experiment with democracy there was William F. Buckley Sr pledging his financial, political and moral support which kept the Generalissimo in power until the 1970s. That is conservative idealism.
When Stalin decided that in the USSR he was the boss and his friend the head of Koch Industries Fred C. Koch needed to understand who was the boss. Fred C. Koch suddenly became a staunch anti Communist devout Anti Capitalist and set up the John Birch Society. That is conservative idealism.
When Disney animators went on strike they suddenly became communist sympathizers and anti American. That is conservative idealism.
When the liberal head of SAG was told to name names or never work again he named names, betrayed friends and became governor of California and the President of the USA. That is conservative idealism.
David I fear you confuse idealism with looking after number one. I fear you confuse morality with Phariseeism. David I fear you confuse bottom line selfishness with loyalty to the foundation of American Democracy. I cannot blame you 100 years of propaganda does leave a mark.
2
While I share your gloomy outlook, David, I'm not quite sure what to do about it, at least through traditional political channels. Too many of us, and I go back to the 60's, see much to be hopeful about in the way things work today. It's all about money and who can buy elections. It's too much about survival, mostly the survival of political parties and those smart enough to game the system. And too many uncooperative and uncompromising individuals and interest groups who do better by not getting things done. Too much division rather than multiplication. And too much hatred and those who depend on it for career advancement. And do our votes really matter? In a way, it's one big donor group versus another. In a very real way, it really comes down to neighbors and communities, trying hard to get along and get things done. Trump games the system, true enough. And Hillary has sold out to the system. Take your grandchildren fishing.
"Trump...represents capitalism degraded to pure selfishness. He treats... people like objects. ... Proud to be paying no taxes while others foot the bill, proud to have profited off the housing bust that caused so much suffering, ..."
Welcome to capitalism in America, Mr. Brooks. The EPI Pen queen and Shkreli with their fabulous 'compensation' see nothing wrong with extreme gouging of customers on pain of death. What you describe in your party's candidate is the just plain old GOP, as non-republicans have correctly assessed if for decades. The GOP generally doesn't work for the good of the people of America, doesn't even see them, as objects or otherwise. Gerrymandering themselves into office in perpetuity, the GOP works only for big business, big ag, big pharma, big oil, any big corruptor of the moment.
Proud to load taxes on the middle class while giving tax cuts to the richest, the GOP has no shame or regret. It allowed, even nurtured the banking crisis and now would destroy Dodd-Frank and any regulation they think stifles profit at the expense of the health of people and the environment. The GOP will screw Flint, short change zika funding, destroy Planned Parenthood, worsen the condition of our infrastructure, allow destructive oil pipelines, all just to keep their damned jobs.
The GOP acts as if the democrats and the millions who vote for them simply don't exist. Trump, in his delusions, is a great representative for the GOP at its truest.
Welcome to capitalism in America, Mr. Brooks. The EPI Pen queen and Shkreli with their fabulous 'compensation' see nothing wrong with extreme gouging of customers on pain of death. What you describe in your party's candidate is the just plain old GOP, as non-republicans have correctly assessed if for decades. The GOP generally doesn't work for the good of the people of America, doesn't even see them, as objects or otherwise. Gerrymandering themselves into office in perpetuity, the GOP works only for big business, big ag, big pharma, big oil, any big corruptor of the moment.
Proud to load taxes on the middle class while giving tax cuts to the richest, the GOP has no shame or regret. It allowed, even nurtured the banking crisis and now would destroy Dodd-Frank and any regulation they think stifles profit at the expense of the health of people and the environment. The GOP will screw Flint, short change zika funding, destroy Planned Parenthood, worsen the condition of our infrastructure, allow destructive oil pipelines, all just to keep their damned jobs.
The GOP acts as if the democrats and the millions who vote for them simply don't exist. Trump, in his delusions, is a great representative for the GOP at its truest.
2
David, take the nails out of the coffin. Perhaps that will wean Americans off cheap Chinese goods and Twitter.
Mr Brooks, you lost me when you described parties hosted by Mr Trump as "sociological entertainment".
Yes, Trump seems now to represent everything the go-go '80s capitalism gives us (again, another obligatory conservative deification of Reagan? Oh, please - selling arms to Iran to finance the illegal war in Central America ... was that part of the wonders of '80s go-go capitalism too???).
You disparage Mrs Clinton for -gasp - not living up to the hyperbolic rhetoric she offered as a college student. My view - at least, even now, she is trying to live up to it. Trump? Mr Whats-In-It-For Me? Make America Great Again - perhaps Trump should start with paying his taxes.
Yes, Trump seems now to represent everything the go-go '80s capitalism gives us (again, another obligatory conservative deification of Reagan? Oh, please - selling arms to Iran to finance the illegal war in Central America ... was that part of the wonders of '80s go-go capitalism too???).
You disparage Mrs Clinton for -gasp - not living up to the hyperbolic rhetoric she offered as a college student. My view - at least, even now, she is trying to live up to it. Trump? Mr Whats-In-It-For Me? Make America Great Again - perhaps Trump should start with paying his taxes.
Mr. Brooks, whit whom I seldom agree, has hit the nail on the head here. This is exactly why I am voting Libertarian this year; neither of the duopoly candidates deserve my vote.
If Mr. Trump was actually a businessman of the highest caliber, as he claims, his campaign (and his life) would be based on hard fact, not raw emotionalism and vengeance on any who displeased him. It is obviously not.
If Ms. Clinton's history and campaign rhetoric were based around her Wellesley speech, I would be in her camp, Unfortunately, it seems to me that most of her policies are based on "social engineering for people". I don't know what else you could call the progressive agenda.
When these two are an example of what the duopoly thinks are the best people to run the country, I must depart their ranks. I regret Mr. Johnson's gaffes on foreign policy, but I comfort myself with the idea that ignorance can be cured, evil cannot.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
If Mr. Trump was actually a businessman of the highest caliber, as he claims, his campaign (and his life) would be based on hard fact, not raw emotionalism and vengeance on any who displeased him. It is obviously not.
If Ms. Clinton's history and campaign rhetoric were based around her Wellesley speech, I would be in her camp, Unfortunately, it seems to me that most of her policies are based on "social engineering for people". I don't know what else you could call the progressive agenda.
When these two are an example of what the duopoly thinks are the best people to run the country, I must depart their ranks. I regret Mr. Johnson's gaffes on foreign policy, but I comfort myself with the idea that ignorance can be cured, evil cannot.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
1
First, what’s wrong with Hillary pitching 8 or 9 Programs that will help our Society? I think she’s pragmatic. As you say, Clinton “fails to make an emotional connection,” well that’s an awfully subjective statement, isn’t it? What else, as a Woman, does she have to do perfectly? Everything apparently. It is somehow wrong that she reflected the ideals of the ’60’s smack dab in the middle of the ’60’s and somehow wrong that she communicates clearly her Vision for the Presidency and what she has to offer. You see it as “buying votes with Federal money,” I hear it as offering solutions. Like Regulations, so this Greed free for all Capitalism doesn’t crumble our country from within like the Fall of Rome. When The Obama campaign did, “appeal to the higher angels of our nature,” he was told he was naive & idealistic. But now you want the exact same quality out of Hillary. Her Maturity, Wisdom and depth of Experience don't quite meet this tap-dancing, perhaps unconscious, sexism her candidacy confronts.
It’s tough to write an article every day. I have sympathy for you. But, those of you in the Business of writing political opinion need to do some serious self-evaluation on just how perfect a woman has to be, to be President of the United States of America. Look deep within yourself.
It’s tough to write an article every day. I have sympathy for you. But, those of you in the Business of writing political opinion need to do some serious self-evaluation on just how perfect a woman has to be, to be President of the United States of America. Look deep within yourself.
2
Beware of the emotional people and their passionate causes. The more greatly felt the zeal, the more the damage that they do.
Well, we've had a (near) post-baby boomer president who aspired to lofty idealism and look what happened. He has been denigrated and thwarted at every turn by members of Congress of all ages, but one political party. It is, in fact, long past time for baby boomers to get off the stage, and I speak as one myself. But to espouse the belief that Millennials will somehow save the day is naive.
1
David - usually I like your columns, but this one seems off the wall regarding Hilary's campaign. Her theme is "stronger together", suggesting that we all need to be more unified as a Nation and work together towards creating a better world. The programs that she cites are designed to help people who are hurting in this troubled time - relief for student loans, better day care and supports for people with children, keeping and revamping health insurance laws to improve them, better retraining programs, and so on. What could be more idealistic and optimistic? The chances of her reaching her goals are slim, given the negative feelings and pessimisms across the country (which make it harder for her optimism to be heard) and a Republican Congress that opposes everything. So please, David, write about the Clinton campaign with some understanding and knowledge of what she is trying to do and what she stands for.
Brooks came of intellectual & professional age when Ronald Reagan's Faux Dreams were hatched. He liked them. Simple sentences. High ideals. Complete deceit. But inspirational to DB. Poor man has not been as erotically stimulated since Reagan and still cannot admit 1) that Reagan was a myth; 2) the GOP principles are phony when one compares statements to action; and 3) he has worked in the service of shining the GOP Deceit Machine for nearly 30 years.
Despite the Republican propaganda and its use of our money to accuse and investigate Hillary endlessly, Hillary still proudly and bravely stands: not indicted, not arrested, not convicted, not shamed, not humiliated. If that is not idealism, what is? She is determined to serve her country despite any dangers. That is an American Hero.
131
Well, Mr. B., your sad commentary may relate to "a toxic" atmosphere in our congress, a somewhat right leaning USSC, and an administration known for its distrust of your fellow journalists.
One may even doubt that a serious change could happen in the next four years, right? Perhaps another Clinton reign will echo the previous Clinton era. However, a Trump dictatorship would usher in a disaster...Maybe it would be called The Power of the Rednecks.
The term, distrust, describes what we cope with in a nutshell.
One may even doubt that a serious change could happen in the next four years, right? Perhaps another Clinton reign will echo the previous Clinton era. However, a Trump dictatorship would usher in a disaster...Maybe it would be called The Power of the Rednecks.
The term, distrust, describes what we cope with in a nutshell.
David, idealism is not dead. The vast majority of young Americans moved from the 1968 Democratic Convention police riot, killing Constitutionally legal recourse for political dissent, into the action phase of spirituality that has persisted through this very moment. The "back-to-the-Earth" and the academic human potentials movements were landmarks of that spirit in action, influencing generations. Spirit works internally on individuals, then socially as "integrity, trust and integrity" become manifest; as Hillary spoke at Wellesley in 1969.
So many of us know today who Hillary has always been, and who she's become. Where you saw "Bobos in Paradise," we see the future.
So many of us know today who Hillary has always been, and who she's become. Where you saw "Bobos in Paradise," we see the future.
2
You distinguish between Trump's empty flash and Hillary's policy seriousness. You fail to make a distinction between what is in the hearts of Clinton and Trump. Her list of programs may not be inspiring, but their aim is to lift up and give support to the millions who are struggling to survive in this land of get alll you can capitalism ushered in by Reagan. Her life's work has been devoted to helping children, the poor,, the disabled and the less able among us. Trump's life's work has been devoted to aggrandizing his ego and his riches at the expense of others, the law and people who have less power than he. His heart is dark. Hillary's is not. She is just less able to wear it on her sleeve while Trump is proud to flaunt his. Sad for us that so many people see him as their savior and don;t realize he will be their doom.
One of the great ironies of the presidential campaign is Donald J Trump, He is more a child of the 50's, a Fonzie grown up with his pompadour, his tough street guy attitude and his power over woman. He is 50's capitalism with 80's money. Capitalism has been very good to him while he appeals to people who have been failed by capitalism. Most of his supporters have lost their "America' to capitalism, low wages, outsourcing, in-sourcing, debt and stagnation. They live in states controlled by Republican Governors and legislators who have cut taxes, education, social services and left them with a quality of life which Trump call a total disaster. Just like the Fonz the Trump has been able to snap his fingers and get these people to idolize him and he loves himself even more for it.
Trump and Hillary have nothing in common and regardless of how you describe Hillary's motivation you can not deny she is motivated by trying to help people and all Trump is doing is trying to help himself. Capitalism is failing America and we need more socialism to utilize the vast resource of human capitol being wasted and Hillary understands that.
Trump and Hillary have nothing in common and regardless of how you describe Hillary's motivation you can not deny she is motivated by trying to help people and all Trump is doing is trying to help himself. Capitalism is failing America and we need more socialism to utilize the vast resource of human capitol being wasted and Hillary understands that.
Government programs/policies and party platforms don't change the status of individuals, but they can help clear insurmountable hurdles, mostly inherited, that keep individuals from changing their status for the better. Surely that is a lesson that coulda-shoulda have been learned by idealistic Baby Boomers who have by now seen both the successes and failures of Great Society programs over the past 50 years. Equal rights for all has made it possible for Barack Obama to be elected and widely admired; programs limited to providing benefits directly have been far less successful -- government-owned slums, if you will.
David Brooks is right in saying that neither candidate has inspired dreams and hope, neither has acted as a leader or example of how people can earn improvements in their lives without the deadweight of discrimination holding them back.
Conclusion: we are in for at least four more years of malaise, still waiting for another source of faerie dust to light the future, to inspire us to fulfill our potential. Neither of this year's candidates inspire -- if either could, we wouldn't be mired in a depressing demonstration of Egos on Parade, albeit with different styles, one barely (but nevertheless measurably) more off-putting than the other.
David Brooks is right in saying that neither candidate has inspired dreams and hope, neither has acted as a leader or example of how people can earn improvements in their lives without the deadweight of discrimination holding them back.
Conclusion: we are in for at least four more years of malaise, still waiting for another source of faerie dust to light the future, to inspire us to fulfill our potential. Neither of this year's candidates inspire -- if either could, we wouldn't be mired in a depressing demonstration of Egos on Parade, albeit with different styles, one barely (but nevertheless measurably) more off-putting than the other.
2
One of the things I admire about Clinton's campaign is the breadth of policy concerns it addresses--not just the standards, like jobs and foreign policy, but other more personal aspects of people's lives like disability rights and opioid addiction. Brooks dismisses this policy breadth as "interest-group liberalism" pandering. What I see is a person who understands the impact of policy on every facet of people's lives. When Clinton answers that she wants to be President by listing eight or nine programs, she is explaining what she believes she can do to help people, to make Americans' lives better.
"When asked why she wants to be president or for any positive vision, she devolves into a list of programs. And it is never enough just to list three programs in an answer; she has to pile in an arid hodgepodge of eight or nine. This is pure interest-group liberalism — buying votes with federal money — not an inspiring image of the common good."
"When asked why she wants to be president or for any positive vision, she devolves into a list of programs. And it is never enough just to list three programs in an answer; she has to pile in an arid hodgepodge of eight or nine. This is pure interest-group liberalism — buying votes with federal money — not an inspiring image of the common good."
David, I fear you are taking a surface view. Think about a proposal for nationwide preschool. Why is that not a moral as well as an educational, economic, social vision? When I see photographs of Christian schools, these suggest that all Christians are blonds. How might that change? The younger the children, the fewer the objections to their playing together. The younger the children, the fewer their inculcated ideas of race. The younger the children, the better the odds of learning the basics for success in school and in adult life. The younger the children, the more likely a Yes answer to the question "Can't we all get along?"
Teaching American History to Donald Trump - I
One of ten children
whose father was blind,
whose mother rose before the sun
to chop the wood,
to build the fire
in the big black, iron stove,
to fry the eggs
collected from the chicken coop
at dawn,
he often said that Christmas
brought a special treat,
an orange in his stocking.
II
She sold the farm and moved to town
to educate the lot, and so she did
for each of nine,
before the youngest, Chester,
failed and died before his time.
A teacher of chemistry, one became,
then Principal, who set about
the task of blending race
with race beneath one roof
where learning was earned,
and proms were held,
and teams were formed.
III
And suddenly, it was 1942;
students brought quarters on Mondays
to purchase savings bonds,
sang From the Halls of Montezuma
without knowing exactly
where that was, along with Bataan
and Iwo Gima. On Saturdays,
they watched Movietone News,
two feature films, a cartoon
and a weekly serial, all for
the price of admission:
a coupon for a treat: coffee or meat.
IV
And they were proud
to be Americans, saluted the flag
and recited the Pledge of Allegiance
every single day – it was enough.
No need for gold to adorn success;
no need for credit or applause.
No doubt about the goal: to be free,
to free the world from the Swastika,
the symbol of hatred -
to help the victims find liberty,
to put an orange
in each stocking.
One of ten children
whose father was blind,
whose mother rose before the sun
to chop the wood,
to build the fire
in the big black, iron stove,
to fry the eggs
collected from the chicken coop
at dawn,
he often said that Christmas
brought a special treat,
an orange in his stocking.
II
She sold the farm and moved to town
to educate the lot, and so she did
for each of nine,
before the youngest, Chester,
failed and died before his time.
A teacher of chemistry, one became,
then Principal, who set about
the task of blending race
with race beneath one roof
where learning was earned,
and proms were held,
and teams were formed.
III
And suddenly, it was 1942;
students brought quarters on Mondays
to purchase savings bonds,
sang From the Halls of Montezuma
without knowing exactly
where that was, along with Bataan
and Iwo Gima. On Saturdays,
they watched Movietone News,
two feature films, a cartoon
and a weekly serial, all for
the price of admission:
a coupon for a treat: coffee or meat.
IV
And they were proud
to be Americans, saluted the flag
and recited the Pledge of Allegiance
every single day – it was enough.
No need for gold to adorn success;
no need for credit or applause.
No doubt about the goal: to be free,
to free the world from the Swastika,
the symbol of hatred -
to help the victims find liberty,
to put an orange
in each stocking.
1
I'm old enough to remember that when Adlai Stevenson ran for President in 1952 and 1956 he was always speechifying in broad, idealistic language. He was mocked for it. Too idealistic, to ephemeral his conservative critics claimed. Is Hillary Clinton being judged against the rhetorical skills of Barack Obama? If she is, it isn't fair. We may not see his kind of skills again for decades.
1
Make the leap of faith, Mr. Brooks, admit your heart is blue, not red/orange. The meaning of Madam Secretary's "stronger together", backed up by policies to help make it happen, will inspire you, give you hope...if you want it to.
1
Capitalism is not balanced by an "ethos of moral restraint." It is restrained by government oversight & regulation that protects the public. The market has no intrinsic moral ethos - expecting it is preposterous. Trump tells the truth- he is proud to stiff workers, scam investors, manipulate bankruptcies, use poor tax codes to depreciate real estate to eliminate income taxes.
The solution is a sound tax code, stronger enforcement of money laundering through phony charitable foundations (Trump's), university/institute frauds and possible prosecution for violation of the economic embargo on Cuba (a useless travesty, but the law!).
Trying to call out Clinton for insufficient aspirational language is also a gross misunderstanding. She is a pragmatist whose aspiration is getting stuff done. Obama's rhetoric did not leverage the Congress, or the healthcare industry.
Clinton aspires to get elected and override GOP intransigence.
This is not American Idol.
The solution is a sound tax code, stronger enforcement of money laundering through phony charitable foundations (Trump's), university/institute frauds and possible prosecution for violation of the economic embargo on Cuba (a useless travesty, but the law!).
Trying to call out Clinton for insufficient aspirational language is also a gross misunderstanding. She is a pragmatist whose aspiration is getting stuff done. Obama's rhetoric did not leverage the Congress, or the healthcare industry.
Clinton aspires to get elected and override GOP intransigence.
This is not American Idol.
2
This column is total fantasy.
Mr. Brooks pretends that he has walked into a room where two people are fighting. He pretends he doesn't know why there is fighting. One of the people is hurling insults and threatening to bring the fight to millions outside. The other is defending against the cruelty and ignorance by fighting back. But Brooks sees only that the two fighters are imperfect. He describes their imperfections as equivalent to each other. Then, in an act of utter superiority, Brooks complains that he hears no positive message.
Wake up, David Brooks. There is plenty of idealism on all sides. The fight is about which set of ideals is better, which ideals are more "American", which ideals will make the country better. The fight is happening because of ideals. Yes, the fighters are both imperfect. So what? If you want to find idealism, get realistic.
Mr. Brooks pretends that he has walked into a room where two people are fighting. He pretends he doesn't know why there is fighting. One of the people is hurling insults and threatening to bring the fight to millions outside. The other is defending against the cruelty and ignorance by fighting back. But Brooks sees only that the two fighters are imperfect. He describes their imperfections as equivalent to each other. Then, in an act of utter superiority, Brooks complains that he hears no positive message.
Wake up, David Brooks. There is plenty of idealism on all sides. The fight is about which set of ideals is better, which ideals are more "American", which ideals will make the country better. The fight is happening because of ideals. Yes, the fighters are both imperfect. So what? If you want to find idealism, get realistic.
@SallyGSCHWEND:There r cliches that deserve to be put to rest, and "appealing to the higher angels of our nature"is on the urgent list.No disrespect intended, but Brooks was not shilling for one candidate over the other, but commenting on the absence of moral purposefulness that informs our politics today.He was not speaking of Clinton's ethical vacuity, nor of DT's unscrupulous business tactics, reminiscent of those of the robber barons who made this country great post Civil War.Try to appreciate the nuance, the distinction.In so far as TRUMP is concerned, were he not a wasp and elderly, I do not believe that he would be the target of contumely by the vast majority of commenters and liberal media.Irony is that in its "fors interieur,"despite protests to the contrary,this media actually wants DT to win, because his very presence drives up rating. With HRC in the Oval Office, it's would be difficult to feel the vibe. She draws 400 per rally,many bused in, and puts you to sleep. Trump draws thousands at every rally.Some have "it," and others do not.And I write without "parti pris!"
David. What you are looking for cannot be found by seeking it. The principle you and I seek can only be recognized after the fact. After we have arrived, looked back and see the passageway that was not there before. All metaphors yearn for implementation. However, only principles can be. Someday the whole will be greater than the sum of the parts. Until then keep breathing.
Individuals, David. One good, one bad. No subtleties here. No need to reference any mood of the times. People are individuals, the times have memes: Vietnam, Cold War, Greed, Civil Rights. There are good and bad people in all generations.
Clinton good. Trump bad. Simple as that.
Clinton good. Trump bad. Simple as that.
4
Dear Mr. Brooks,
I consider you one of the most erudite and level-headed people in the journalism world. When are you going to try to save our country's future by endorsing Mrs. Clinton? Early voting will be here before you know it. Thank you in advance for your serious consideration.
I consider you one of the most erudite and level-headed people in the journalism world. When are you going to try to save our country's future by endorsing Mrs. Clinton? Early voting will be here before you know it. Thank you in advance for your serious consideration.
1
You speak of individualism as if it is a bad word but the fact is, the supremacy of the individual is precisely what our country was founded on. In America, the individual would finally be free from the tyranny of the majority and be protected by a Constitution containing a Bill of Rights aimed at doing just that. Fast forward to today and instead of being a nation of individuals content to pursue their own happiness, we have become a nation of whiners looking for new ways to be offended and expecting the government to coddle & protect them from any and all offenses. Unfortunately the idealism of the 60's and the 80's has turned into a privileged, snarky, narcissism of 2016. The expectation now is that government is to be the provider of happiness and whatever we need to make that happen instead of being a protector of the right to pursue for yourself. Now we have the right to "free" education, food, healthcare & housing. Soon we will all be entitled to a "free" Mercedes.
Thank you, David Brooks, for putting my disillusionment into words. Many people so desperate for a Clinton win don't see the emptiness of what she is offering, or the magnitude of the problems she and her party are studiously ignoring. After Hillary's win, the political chaos and ground-level discontent will continue and intensify until someone with integrity comes forward touting a radically new ideology that's right for these times.
15
Oh, David. Again, trying to equate both nominees. Impossible.
What more can Hillary do to please you? Nothing, I suppose.
She is competent, experienced and capable of governing our country.
I admire her and yes, I like her ideas, her delivery and her intelligence.
Please try to see past your ideas of yourself as a superior human being to the rest of us.
What more can Hillary do to please you? Nothing, I suppose.
She is competent, experienced and capable of governing our country.
I admire her and yes, I like her ideas, her delivery and her intelligence.
Please try to see past your ideas of yourself as a superior human being to the rest of us.
2
The day of the Benghazi Hearings last year, my husband was having a skin cancer biopsy. I spent hours in the waiting room watching the hearings, tuned to Fox....(sigh) I was absolutely astonished by Hillary's demeanor, fortitude, ability to listen and stay on topic and her recall of events and facts with what appeared to be a very sharp mind from beginning to end. Being several years older than Hillary, I knew what a feat of stamina she was producing. I absolutely connected with her viscerally and ended that day filled with admiration for her. Before that day, I was her supporter because she was the Democrat. After that day, I support her because of the extraordinary woman she is. Too bad David that you can't get past your preconceived notions and really see Hillary.
4
In many ways I consider myself an idealist. It's nice. But it doesn't get things done. I am also a get down to work and get it done person and believe in competence over dreams so I understand and value that aspect of Hillary. Do we really need idealism without pragmatism? If I have to sacrifice one -- in this day and age, with this particular opponent -- I would not second guess for an instant the choice to vote for Clinton. In the primary I was completely in balance between the idealist and the worker-bee, knowledge-based, competent and experienced one. I voted for idealism to lend support but in my hear of hearts knew she was the better choice this year.
1
Selecting the commencement speech of someone just transitioning into adulthood is probably not the way to identify who someone really is, late in the seventh decade of her life and with abundant experience in politics and public life & scrutiny. Likewise, contrasting the youthful idealism of young Hillary Rodham with the self-absorption of Donald Trump that never suffered from a maturation process is not particularly relevant to this 21st century campaign between baby boomers whose only commonality is that they were both born in the 1940s.
Idealism was present in this campaign in the person of Bernie Sanders, but the Democrats opted for something more practical. I have a soft spot for idealism, whether it emanates from the very young, from elders, or from anyone in between but these times call for hard core realism. So I'm with her.
Idealism was present in this campaign in the person of Bernie Sanders, but the Democrats opted for something more practical. I have a soft spot for idealism, whether it emanates from the very young, from elders, or from anyone in between but these times call for hard core realism. So I'm with her.
2
"Trump reminds us — even those of us who champion capitalism — how corrosive capitalism can be when unaccompanied by a counterbalancing ethos of moral restraint."
LIberals, aka progressives, are thought of as naive idealists by conservatives, however nothing is more naive than this statement. Conservatives would have us remove regulations trusting in moral restraint? There's little evidence this works and much to contrary.
LIberals, aka progressives, are thought of as naive idealists by conservatives, however nothing is more naive than this statement. Conservatives would have us remove regulations trusting in moral restraint? There's little evidence this works and much to contrary.
It is strange that David Brooks mourns the death of idealism. Instead he might mourn the death of democracy.
In an actual democracy, the news media would try to ensure that the people are well-informed about the actual issues.
But in the US, political correctness has kept issues from being discussed at all.
One of those issues is population growth. World population has doubled since 1970. Such population growth is one of the reasons for global warming. But population growth has had many other unpleasant consequences, including intermittent starvation throughout India, the Sudan, sub-Saharan Africa, and political unrest in much of the Middle East.
Donald Trump promised to challenge political correctness by calling into question whether unlimited illegal immigration was a good thing in the long run.
Unfortunately, this issue which deserves a full discussion, got sidetracked by extraneous issues, like whether he criticized the 1996 Miss Universe for being overweight.
Make no mistake. Hillary and Bill are also no paragons of virtue.
And we do indeed deserve an election that focuses on issues.
Without a discussion of the issues, decisions get made by default.
Meanwhile the US, which was once a model of democracy falls into third-world status. Standards of living are falling. Many of the "white patriarchs" die because they have no cancer screenings.
And our current president ignores the real problems and gives us homilies on how we are all racist.
In an actual democracy, the news media would try to ensure that the people are well-informed about the actual issues.
But in the US, political correctness has kept issues from being discussed at all.
One of those issues is population growth. World population has doubled since 1970. Such population growth is one of the reasons for global warming. But population growth has had many other unpleasant consequences, including intermittent starvation throughout India, the Sudan, sub-Saharan Africa, and political unrest in much of the Middle East.
Donald Trump promised to challenge political correctness by calling into question whether unlimited illegal immigration was a good thing in the long run.
Unfortunately, this issue which deserves a full discussion, got sidetracked by extraneous issues, like whether he criticized the 1996 Miss Universe for being overweight.
Make no mistake. Hillary and Bill are also no paragons of virtue.
And we do indeed deserve an election that focuses on issues.
Without a discussion of the issues, decisions get made by default.
Meanwhile the US, which was once a model of democracy falls into third-world status. Standards of living are falling. Many of the "white patriarchs" die because they have no cancer screenings.
And our current president ignores the real problems and gives us homilies on how we are all racist.
1
Maybe it is time to work by intelligence, i.e. intellect,
and not by idealism. Time to reject "gut feelings."
Marquez wrote that "nostalgia is a fallacy" and Brooks
seems to be nostalgic for some idealism of a mythical
past. He should come down hard of Citizens United if
he really wants to be ideal.
and not by idealism. Time to reject "gut feelings."
Marquez wrote that "nostalgia is a fallacy" and Brooks
seems to be nostalgic for some idealism of a mythical
past. He should come down hard of Citizens United if
he really wants to be ideal.
I know well that as a conservative Republican at heart you simply can rarely, if ever, bring yourself to say anything good about most any Democrat, most especially Hillary, but to claim she brings no human touch to the issue is ridiculously absurd. Watch her with children--over and over again it is obvious how much human touch and warmth she brings to the interaction. And even in policy perspectives and realities she has done so much that demonstrates the essence of human touch--from the CHIP program to the way she worked to help first responders, and the woman who was severely burned in the 9-11-01 attacks, and on and on. You obviously paid no attention whatsoever to the many persons who spoke so deeply at the convention of their appreciation of the human touch she brought to their lives. You should be ashamed of continuing the lying scenario about her that simply is not true, and has never been true. Her idealism is as alive as ever, and her social values are essentially based on the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church.
Rodney Noel Saunders
United Methodist Pastor, Retired
Rodney Noel Saunders
United Methodist Pastor, Retired
Mr. Brooks, I can't find anywhere on the many internets and among the countless universes a claim by you to endorse Secretary Clinton for President. You can't be taken seriously until such proclamation is widely proliferated and obvious to all. That it's not obvious or forthcoming tells me you are like the other republicans who don't have the courage of their convictions -- a common conservative malaise.
Brooks again painting Hilary and Trump with the same brush. He wants to prove that BOTH Trump and Clinton are motivated by self-interest, when in fact Trump again takes self-interest to the nth degree. Hilary, in the Brooks narrative, buys votes with programs. But Republican tax cuts were the most crass example ever of buying votes with programs, whereas Brooks falls back on the Liberal stereotype to make things look equal. Perhaps it's Brooks who is cynical here, insofar as basic healthcare and a plethora of other humanitarian programs are exactly what's needed to temper capitalistic fervor. Did it ever occur to him that some of us actually believe in some social programs?
1
You do not rely on an "ethos of moral restraint" to prevent capitalism from becoming corrosive. You rely on federal and state REGULATIONS.
"His ethos is: Get what I can for myself, and everyone else can take care of themselves. "
Translation: Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!
How does that differ from the last 36 years of the GOP platform?
As a member of the successor to the Boomer generation, I explain thusly: our ideals are tempered by the context within which we live. We are realists, pragmatists. We want a specific goal and executable plan to undo the damage that your party has done to this country. I will vote for Hillary to maintain the democratic gains this nation has made via SCOTUS.
I am not voting for airy-fairy warm and fuzzies. Competence and intellect give me the warm and fuzzies. What you consider idealism, is really flawed ideology. Your ideology has broken Americans financially and mentally to the point that facts no longer matter. I want no more of this. My idealism will be resurrected upon the death rattle of the GOP.
Translation: Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!
How does that differ from the last 36 years of the GOP platform?
As a member of the successor to the Boomer generation, I explain thusly: our ideals are tempered by the context within which we live. We are realists, pragmatists. We want a specific goal and executable plan to undo the damage that your party has done to this country. I will vote for Hillary to maintain the democratic gains this nation has made via SCOTUS.
I am not voting for airy-fairy warm and fuzzies. Competence and intellect give me the warm and fuzzies. What you consider idealism, is really flawed ideology. Your ideology has broken Americans financially and mentally to the point that facts no longer matter. I want no more of this. My idealism will be resurrected upon the death rattle of the GOP.
Mrs. Clinton's campagin slogan is "We're Stronger Together." She emphasizes the need for greater equality for all people. I can't think of anything more idealistic--and also badly needed--in America today.
Mr. Brooks, as others have said, you can't compare Mr. Trump's self-serving dishonesty with Mrs. Clinton's sincere desire to help people.
Mr. Brooks, as others have said, you can't compare Mr. Trump's self-serving dishonesty with Mrs. Clinton's sincere desire to help people.
I don't know if most university students remember the details of the commencement speaker at their graduation ceremony, but I recall that of Dr. John Knowles, who told Boston University's graduating class in 1972 that we were the most amazing combination of idealism and hedonism the world had witnessed. Over the years, I noted the hedonism side won out as we baby boomers failed to live up to our promise to change the world. This year's presidential election is the culmination of our progression from "don't trust anyone over thirty" to the motor home bumper sticker, "we're spending our children's inheritance". Narcissism and self-importance about a social movement that proved an inch deep caused us to arrive here. Brooks is right.
25
" As we saw on Monday night, Trump now represents capitalism degraded to pure selfishness."
Welcome not only to Trumpworld but the tent of the Republican Party. Don't you think that Paul Ryan has a similar view of capitalism straight out of an Ayn Rand novel?
You were supporting Marco Rubio until Trump easily defeated him. When it comes to capitalism, is Rubio much different?
Trump represents much of the ugliness of the modern GOP and your observations when invited to that Trump party many years ago in which you went for 'sociological' reasons makes me wonder why you didn't wake up at that time instead of viewing the GOP as some kind of virtuous Main Street civic organization.
Welcome not only to Trumpworld but the tent of the Republican Party. Don't you think that Paul Ryan has a similar view of capitalism straight out of an Ayn Rand novel?
You were supporting Marco Rubio until Trump easily defeated him. When it comes to capitalism, is Rubio much different?
Trump represents much of the ugliness of the modern GOP and your observations when invited to that Trump party many years ago in which you went for 'sociological' reasons makes me wonder why you didn't wake up at that time instead of viewing the GOP as some kind of virtuous Main Street civic organization.
1
Mr. Brooks, your latest effort, trying to bracket together Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is amusing, but alarming. Yes, you have discovered that they are from the same demographic cohort, but the differences between them are vast and extends well beyond gender. One, by any measure, is prepared to be President, or at least seems to understand what the job entails, the other is a walking punch line to a very sick joke.
Yes, Mrs. Clinton no longer possesses the spirit and fire of her commencement address at Wellesley, but what pray tell was Mr. Trump thinking and doing at that time, other than preparing to ride his father's coat tails into a business career and maybe learning the fine point of how to get around this country's fair housing laws? Oh no, you say, he was fired by the entrepreneurial spirit let loose by the Reagan presidency to create bigger, more ostentatious office towers and gambling casinos that were, from inception, destined to fail.
Please, stop trying to find a tweedledum to go with every tweedledee whenever you comment on the merits of these two candidates. You are not able, as I understand it, because of Times' policy, to endorse a candidate, but you can do better than to suggest an "equivalence" between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump.
Ralph Memolo
Yes, Mrs. Clinton no longer possesses the spirit and fire of her commencement address at Wellesley, but what pray tell was Mr. Trump thinking and doing at that time, other than preparing to ride his father's coat tails into a business career and maybe learning the fine point of how to get around this country's fair housing laws? Oh no, you say, he was fired by the entrepreneurial spirit let loose by the Reagan presidency to create bigger, more ostentatious office towers and gambling casinos that were, from inception, destined to fail.
Please, stop trying to find a tweedledum to go with every tweedledee whenever you comment on the merits of these two candidates. You are not able, as I understand it, because of Times' policy, to endorse a candidate, but you can do better than to suggest an "equivalence" between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump.
Ralph Memolo
3
HRC - Stronger Together, In this together , we need each other- yet Brooks says ".There is an entire absence, in both campaigns, of any effort to appeal to the higher angels of our nature."
I chose to be a democrat because I agree with that basic premise and believe that is the fundamental bases of a democracy!
Why oh why, how oh how, does Brooks and so many others tout this as equivilant with the alt right racist hate ...
I chose to be a democrat because I agree with that basic premise and believe that is the fundamental bases of a democracy!
Why oh why, how oh how, does Brooks and so many others tout this as equivilant with the alt right racist hate ...
1
You are looking for idealism in all the wrong places, Mr. Brooks. The constant drumbeat that government is the problem found a home on the far right. The one-percent is the sole owner of those Republican ideals. They sold their supporters a false version of what America is and should be.
When the right's supporters lose their jobs or can't afford health insurance they've been told that those "others", people of shaded colors caused those problems. That's the only thing that gets trickled down on them.
If your idealism wasn't stirred by an intelligent, thoughtful, decent black man who became President there's something wrong with you and that flaw is the Republican you voted for.
When the right's supporters lose their jobs or can't afford health insurance they've been told that those "others", people of shaded colors caused those problems. That's the only thing that gets trickled down on them.
If your idealism wasn't stirred by an intelligent, thoughtful, decent black man who became President there's something wrong with you and that flaw is the Republican you voted for.
3
So just to clear -- Hillary's main fault as a presidential candidate is that she has a large number of policy proposals.
7
Scuzzy. That's what really bothers Brooks about Trump. It's not the amorality of capitalism, it's the refusal to pretend and to put on the airs of noblesse oblige. Capitalism always puts profits before people and the price is always carnage. But Brooks understands that it's important to cover up the stench with charity galas with A-list (not B!) celebrities and chatter about the importance of community.
The problem with Clinton is similar. She fails at effectively pretending to care about her lessers.
The problem, of course, is not generational. The problem is one of class and of the legitimacy of the rule of the rich. Bernie Sanders is a Boomer too. He's the most popular politician in the country precisely because he says what everybody knows: that capitalism and democracy are incompatible and that if we don't stop them the rich are going to ruin the planet.
We don't need politicians giving us pious lectures about the mutual obligations of the exploiter and the exploited of the sort that Brooks is so fond of dispensing. We need leaders unafraid to admit that we are in a class war, that the rich have been winning, and if we don't figure out how to dump them off our backs we will be condemning our children to an increasingly bleak existence.
The problem with Clinton is similar. She fails at effectively pretending to care about her lessers.
The problem, of course, is not generational. The problem is one of class and of the legitimacy of the rule of the rich. Bernie Sanders is a Boomer too. He's the most popular politician in the country precisely because he says what everybody knows: that capitalism and democracy are incompatible and that if we don't stop them the rich are going to ruin the planet.
We don't need politicians giving us pious lectures about the mutual obligations of the exploiter and the exploited of the sort that Brooks is so fond of dispensing. We need leaders unafraid to admit that we are in a class war, that the rich have been winning, and if we don't figure out how to dump them off our backs we will be condemning our children to an increasingly bleak existence.
2
"His ethos is: Get what I can for myself, and everyone else can take care of themselves. "
I don't know what kind of bubble you are living in David Brooks. How can you say that with disdain when this is exactly the philosphy that sums up the entire GOP.
I don't know what kind of bubble you are living in David Brooks. How can you say that with disdain when this is exactly the philosphy that sums up the entire GOP.
2
Dear Baby Boomers,
Kindly get out of the way. And please try to save us 30 somethings some of that social security we've been paying into.
Respectfully,
Gen X and The Millennials
Kindly get out of the way. And please try to save us 30 somethings some of that social security we've been paying into.
Respectfully,
Gen X and The Millennials
2
". . . She lacks the human touch when talking about the nation’s problems, and fails to make an emotional connection." This is often written about Clinton but I don't think it's true. She's just boring and protective of herself. That isn't a flaw; it's her "body type." As much as America may need a hug, her job isn't to be our mother.
"At some point there will have to be a new vocabulary and a restored anthropology, emphasizing love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity and neighborliness that pushes people toward connection rather than distrust." These words describe an America that never existed. Trump is the result of our actual practice of democracy, not the cause of its current dysfunction. As a result of the Civil Rights movement, EVERYONE now demands that their rights and identity be respected. American democracy has been groaning under the weight of its promises ever since. The only "anthropology" that non-whites have ever known is discrimination, segregation, and denial of every idea and aspiration found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. In 2016, people STILL are fighting for the right to vote! Except in the movies, there has never been a time of "love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity and neighborliness." There have only been periods of relative quiescence when blacks, Hispanics, gays, Asians, women, and Others didn't make their voices heard: periods of white ascendency, which Brooks sees in sepia. But, adapt or die.
"At some point there will have to be a new vocabulary and a restored anthropology, emphasizing love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity and neighborliness that pushes people toward connection rather than distrust." These words describe an America that never existed. Trump is the result of our actual practice of democracy, not the cause of its current dysfunction. As a result of the Civil Rights movement, EVERYONE now demands that their rights and identity be respected. American democracy has been groaning under the weight of its promises ever since. The only "anthropology" that non-whites have ever known is discrimination, segregation, and denial of every idea and aspiration found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. In 2016, people STILL are fighting for the right to vote! Except in the movies, there has never been a time of "love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity and neighborliness." There have only been periods of relative quiescence when blacks, Hispanics, gays, Asians, women, and Others didn't make their voices heard: periods of white ascendency, which Brooks sees in sepia. But, adapt or die.
3
This is false equivalence writ large. Trump's an ambulance chaser and Hillary is a thoroughly committed public servant. I once heard Barbara Jordan say people do things for a variety of motives and I think that's right. Just because Hillary does not gush about her idealism on the doesn't mean she's a self-serving bottom feeder like Trump. Undecided voters keep saying they want to hear how the candidates will improve their lives but when they stop talking, they stop listening too. Hillary has presented a raft of good proposals for a stronger economy that works for all - that's what voters say they want, that's what she has given them, and it's quite idealistic to me.
5
All I can think of when I read this is Sarah Palin saying about the recently elected Obama "how's that hopey-changey thing doing now?"
2
Mr Brooks
Please stop promulgating the notion that being 'likeable' is a fatal flaw for Hillary Clinton. Is Donald Trump more 'likeable'? I certainly think quite the opposite yet I don't see you commenting on his 'likeability'. To me this is a blatant example of sexism - women should be likeable and men should be tough. I expect more from someone of your education and intellect.
Please stop promulgating the notion that being 'likeable' is a fatal flaw for Hillary Clinton. Is Donald Trump more 'likeable'? I certainly think quite the opposite yet I don't see you commenting on his 'likeability'. To me this is a blatant example of sexism - women should be likeable and men should be tough. I expect more from someone of your education and intellect.
183
We have a political system designed by politicians to serve politicians and you wonder where the idealism went? Remove the rose colored glasses. These two candidates are the logical result of that system.
Yes, and designed by men for men as all systems in the world have been in modern history. The only way to get to a more civil, peaceful, safe world is for women to step up and take one half the power in the world to balance the conversation and actions. Thanks to all women who have the courage.
2
Idealism has not died as in the rise of a Bernie Sanders had shown.Monies have once again chosen an outcome(with the DNC help).Those of you who chose one of these candidates have put your values somewhere else, and not in any ideal of public policy for the country today.
Fret not as in four, eight maybe twelve years, a candidate with ideals will come to lead the country again. Let's hope so, as hope as an ideal, left us eight years ago in a move to Wall St. We are still living there.
Fret not as in four, eight maybe twelve years, a candidate with ideals will come to lead the country again. Let's hope so, as hope as an ideal, left us eight years ago in a move to Wall St. We are still living there.
"Somehow I got on the guest list of a few of the 80's-era parties he hosted in the lobby of his skyscraper and would go for sociological entertainment"
Are you trying to kid us, or are you kidding yourself, David?
I am amazed that you could write that line straight faced. You couldn't just say - I went to few of his parties in the 80's. Sounds too much like you were one of "them" back then - which you were - and continued to be for decades - until you decided to wax philosophic and condemn the debacle of the right wing you praised for so long.
Ever occur to you there might have been others at those multiple parties (one wasn't enough?) who went for "sociological entertainment" - how condescending - and saw you there among the "not indicted, not invited B--grade celebrities and corrupt city officials desperate for mention in pages of the NYT"?
Nothing you saw there in your "research" turned you off to unrestrained capitalism, less government regulation, less right wing nonsense, less vitriol against liberal points of view or candidates, less Limbaugh, less Fox News, less Iraq war, less Bush, more help for the poor, more action by Congress, more income equality, more voting rights, more LGBTQ rights etc etc etc.
Nope - you were part of the problem - not the solution - right up until the inevitable happened and Trump appeared - as Harry Reid said - out of thin air to hear Republicans say.
Capitalism as pure selfishness? You didn't see that coming?
Are you trying to kid us, or are you kidding yourself, David?
I am amazed that you could write that line straight faced. You couldn't just say - I went to few of his parties in the 80's. Sounds too much like you were one of "them" back then - which you were - and continued to be for decades - until you decided to wax philosophic and condemn the debacle of the right wing you praised for so long.
Ever occur to you there might have been others at those multiple parties (one wasn't enough?) who went for "sociological entertainment" - how condescending - and saw you there among the "not indicted, not invited B--grade celebrities and corrupt city officials desperate for mention in pages of the NYT"?
Nothing you saw there in your "research" turned you off to unrestrained capitalism, less government regulation, less right wing nonsense, less vitriol against liberal points of view or candidates, less Limbaugh, less Fox News, less Iraq war, less Bush, more help for the poor, more action by Congress, more income equality, more voting rights, more LGBTQ rights etc etc etc.
Nope - you were part of the problem - not the solution - right up until the inevitable happened and Trump appeared - as Harry Reid said - out of thin air to hear Republicans say.
Capitalism as pure selfishness? You didn't see that coming?
6
Every societal problem we have is the fault of the conservatives and their childish thinking and greed- Reagan and the conservatives just set society back 30 years for the benefit of the rich and corrupt ONLY!
4
As usual, your false equivalency should make you ashamed.
I can't imagine any parent looking at how Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have spent every waking moment of their lives and telling their children, no difference so if you want to model yourself like Trump, go right ahead!
One man has never done one action that has not directly benefited himself. He treats other people like dirt and sees them not as people but as objects to either swindle or fool for his own personal gain.
The other woman has spent a good portion of her life trying too make this world better. She is human and flawed, as David Brooks and every person he knows is. That has no kept her from living her life in a way to help others and not just herself.
And no person who calls himself a Christian would say there is no difference at all. Or no difference worth mentioning.
Every human being has flaws, most certainly David Brooks himself, and Hillary Clinton has her share.
Very few human beings are sociopaths who have spent their entire lives being enabled to do ONLY what was good for themselves, while other people were always sacrificed to the higher goal of your own self-interest.
Shame on David Brooks for thinking that Americans children -- and his own --should be taught that there is no difference.
I can't imagine any parent looking at how Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have spent every waking moment of their lives and telling their children, no difference so if you want to model yourself like Trump, go right ahead!
One man has never done one action that has not directly benefited himself. He treats other people like dirt and sees them not as people but as objects to either swindle or fool for his own personal gain.
The other woman has spent a good portion of her life trying too make this world better. She is human and flawed, as David Brooks and every person he knows is. That has no kept her from living her life in a way to help others and not just herself.
And no person who calls himself a Christian would say there is no difference at all. Or no difference worth mentioning.
Every human being has flaws, most certainly David Brooks himself, and Hillary Clinton has her share.
Very few human beings are sociopaths who have spent their entire lives being enabled to do ONLY what was good for themselves, while other people were always sacrificed to the higher goal of your own self-interest.
Shame on David Brooks for thinking that Americans children -- and his own --should be taught that there is no difference.
4
Stop trying to find faults in Hillary. The tolerance to insult that she has had to endure has no comparison with any candidate. That alone elevates her way above most candidates to anything.
5
Good Job by America's women who are part of the "oldest baby boomer" revolution! This is the first time in our 240 year HIStory that a woman has had the courage to step up to the challenge of being President of the United States.
Women have had to hold their tongues, dig in, assimilate to a point in order to make it in a "man's" world since the backlash against women's rights in the 1980s. Now those women are aging and realize their daughters and granddaughters are having to fight the same battles. It's simply not acceptable and women of all ages will voice their outrage during this election.
Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton and other socially conscious democrats and independents have my votes on November 8 and every election before and after until we right this ship called America.
Women have had to hold their tongues, dig in, assimilate to a point in order to make it in a "man's" world since the backlash against women's rights in the 1980s. Now those women are aging and realize their daughters and granddaughters are having to fight the same battles. It's simply not acceptable and women of all ages will voice their outrage during this election.
Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton and other socially conscious democrats and independents have my votes on November 8 and every election before and after until we right this ship called America.
2
Finally. A Boomer without a tin ear. Thank you David. The attack on Idealism has been the silent killer of this country for two decades. Both sides are guilty - starting with the Clintons (Lewinsky through the server debacle) - they are cynical people. Period. As for Trump.... he doesn't even know what Idealism is. The boomer generation is all about their short term needs. Hopefully, we will live through whoever wins the next election and then find ourselves with a fresh start. Hopefully. We need a leader more than ever.
26
First, "higher angels of our nature" sound like you are pining for four more years of Obama. Welcome to the Democratic Party David. Second, and I can't emphasize this enough, Baby Boomers as a generation have been the worst thing to happen to this country. It boggles my mind that Baby Boomers are the children of the Greatest Generation! How did they raise such selfish, hollow, gluttonous children? The world will be a better place when this generation finds peace on the other side and maybe those of us who remain will find it on this side once their gone.
Civil Rights Movement? Farmworkers Movement? Women's Movement?
David- My formative years were in the 80s. Please do not equate the value set of that generation with the likes of Donald Trump. For whatever reason Donald Trump lacks any moral compass, ethics, or values. Don't blame a generation for this imbecilic charlatan.
When a life-long hard-core Republican writes: "At some point there will have to be a new vocabulary and a restored anthropology, emphasizing love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity and neighborliness that pushes people toward connection rather than distrust, " you can be sure of one thing: The party of "government is the enemy" is running scared.
Stronger together! How about that as an ideal to live and govern by?
Versus "Make America Great Again", with the untruth at its core (when did America become 'ungreat') and all the dog whistles that we need to reverse the progress against racism, sexism, homophobia, injustice, militarism and unbridled corporatism. Give me a break. But Brooks has his simplistic talking point for tonight's PBS Newshour.
Versus "Make America Great Again", with the untruth at its core (when did America become 'ungreat') and all the dog whistles that we need to reverse the progress against racism, sexism, homophobia, injustice, militarism and unbridled corporatism. Give me a break. But Brooks has his simplistic talking point for tonight's PBS Newshour.
1
I wholeheartedly agree. Although I support many of Clinton's policies and admire her grit and wit, I am disappointed that more of her rhetoric doesn't inspire us to be our better selves--as individuals and as a nation.
Idealism isn't dead--it's been beaten down by the realities of government. Practicality and idealism are not mutually exclusive.
But I wonder if this column is even about idealism. Consider the adjective you throw in to discredit Hillary Rodham's early idealism--"self-serving". Really? That is a hard sell when the entirety of her career is considered.
In Clinton's campaign I see hope in a better America. In Trump's, I see selfishness, fear, and division.
But I wonder if this column is even about idealism. Consider the adjective you throw in to discredit Hillary Rodham's early idealism--"self-serving". Really? That is a hard sell when the entirety of her career is considered.
In Clinton's campaign I see hope in a better America. In Trump's, I see selfishness, fear, and division.
1
Mourning the death of idealism while creating tortuous false equivalencies between Clinton & Trump makes for a twisted view of reality. Criticizing HER for not being emotional enough is almost laughable if it wasn't such a slap in the face to contemporary women whose idealism includes the equal treatment of women. Believe me, the so-called personality flaw of Hillary showing a lack of emotion (or the "right"kind of emotion anyway) is only in the eyes of some men. It has as much credibility as Trump whining about how mean she is to him. It's not 1960 or 1980 anymore; women are not going back in time to conform to an identity that suits men, idealism lives on.
8
There comes a time when before making good things happen, you have to first stop bad things from happening. I share in David's lament, but the fierce urgency of now is to stop the Donald. Otherwise all else will be lost or broken beyond repair.
2
It reassured me to read the comments of others which agree with my feelings, that David is off-base with this column. We must give support to Clinton at this time of crisis / this horrible presidential race. She is a strong, fine woman, and I am with her 1000%. Thanks, fellow readers, for raising me up from my sinking feeling after I read David's column today.
8
Trump epitomizes the gop public policies: work for self interest and the heck with everyone else. The yoyo policy of you are on your own.
Brooks dislike for Clinton is well known and obsering his comments in other venues, he comes across as sexist. Like most conservatives he cannot bring himself to say anything nice about democrats.
Brooks should consider the writings of Jean Marie GueHenno who states after the fall of communeisim the west embraces an ideology that the triumph of the market could replace the state as an organizing principle. Who championed the market based state, St. Ronnie. Hence the beginning of national selfishness. I need not look any further than my bank, communication provider, credit card providers to see evidence of the self serving institutions. Trump is the extreme version but certainly not the rule.
Brooks dislike for Clinton is well known and obsering his comments in other venues, he comes across as sexist. Like most conservatives he cannot bring himself to say anything nice about democrats.
Brooks should consider the writings of Jean Marie GueHenno who states after the fall of communeisim the west embraces an ideology that the triumph of the market could replace the state as an organizing principle. Who championed the market based state, St. Ronnie. Hence the beginning of national selfishness. I need not look any further than my bank, communication provider, credit card providers to see evidence of the self serving institutions. Trump is the extreme version but certainly not the rule.
1
Mr. Brooks:
Isn't "moral restraint" what Alan Greenspan relied on in his dealings with Wall St.? How did that work out? Isn't that belief behind every financial fiasco, starting with the savings and loan debacle?
Isn't religion supposed to be the bedrock of the moral universe? Don't conservatives go to church anymore? Don't they believe in Christian values anymore?
It's obvious that idealism isn't dead. It is alive and well in every fantasy column you write. The eighties were a time of unbridled greed and fraud.
Only a fabulist could ignore the coke fueled land rush mentality of that era.
The sixties seem to be a time that conservatives like to blame for everything,from moral decay to tooth decay. It was also the era that opened
our eyes to a status quo that was leading us to where we are now.
After civil rights marches, Vietnam and Watergate what kind of idealism were you expecting? What "moral restraint" guided the Bush administration into Iraq?
Save the eulogy for idealism, get off fantasy island, maybe someone will save you a seat on the peace train.
Isn't "moral restraint" what Alan Greenspan relied on in his dealings with Wall St.? How did that work out? Isn't that belief behind every financial fiasco, starting with the savings and loan debacle?
Isn't religion supposed to be the bedrock of the moral universe? Don't conservatives go to church anymore? Don't they believe in Christian values anymore?
It's obvious that idealism isn't dead. It is alive and well in every fantasy column you write. The eighties were a time of unbridled greed and fraud.
Only a fabulist could ignore the coke fueled land rush mentality of that era.
The sixties seem to be a time that conservatives like to blame for everything,from moral decay to tooth decay. It was also the era that opened
our eyes to a status quo that was leading us to where we are now.
After civil rights marches, Vietnam and Watergate what kind of idealism were you expecting? What "moral restraint" guided the Bush administration into Iraq?
Save the eulogy for idealism, get off fantasy island, maybe someone will save you a seat on the peace train.
Trump is the siren song of the Right.
Brooks talks of Hillary's asperations in a way to make them feel , well, dirty some how.
From what I know about Brooks, he too has some aspirations. I would say he want to be the public's reminder in chief that even now, with Trump at the head R party that they have not lost their way. Really??
David write for the NYT, appears on the News Hour on a weekly basis, is a speaker at the vaulted Aspen ideas , he gets air time on NPR, was one of the major commentators for NPR at the conventions of the Dems and R's.
I actually heard him say on his gig at the News hour the if Trump or Cruz won the nomination he didn't know what he would do. Then throwing up his hands said something like "Maybe move to Canada" So I knew then that rather than even consider voting for a more qualified Democrat his first thought was to run. Coward.
He was not drafted into the R party and made to take an absolute oath of loyalty. He is a free agent yet he continues the GOP line without endorsing Trump. Does he not realize it was the GOP line that made Trump and the rest of the field of GOP hopefuls.
Brooks is , from what I see, not helping the situation.
From what I know about Brooks, he too has some aspirations. I would say he want to be the public's reminder in chief that even now, with Trump at the head R party that they have not lost their way. Really??
David write for the NYT, appears on the News Hour on a weekly basis, is a speaker at the vaulted Aspen ideas , he gets air time on NPR, was one of the major commentators for NPR at the conventions of the Dems and R's.
I actually heard him say on his gig at the News hour the if Trump or Cruz won the nomination he didn't know what he would do. Then throwing up his hands said something like "Maybe move to Canada" So I knew then that rather than even consider voting for a more qualified Democrat his first thought was to run. Coward.
He was not drafted into the R party and made to take an absolute oath of loyalty. He is a free agent yet he continues the GOP line without endorsing Trump. Does he not realize it was the GOP line that made Trump and the rest of the field of GOP hopefuls.
Brooks is , from what I see, not helping the situation.
1
Bernie Sanders was idealism personified, yet when he was a candidate David Brooks scorned him and belittled him. Make up your mind, David.
1
Ideals are great; they are a guiding light for which to strive. We all had them when we were young and graduating. Inevitably, they run into reality. Circumstances, opposition, changes in ourselves or society, foolish mistakes we make, many things can conspire to thwart them. That doesn't mean they were wrong or bad or should be forgotten. and while we may not realize them all, we should continue striving.
And maybe that list of things Hillary resorts to would not be so long had the Republicans not made the last 6 years ones of cutting every program in sight to benefit the rich. As this country continues to decay repairing it will become more difficult and costly. It's always easier to replace the shingles on the roof than wait until it collapses from neglect.
And maybe that list of things Hillary resorts to would not be so long had the Republicans not made the last 6 years ones of cutting every program in sight to benefit the rich. As this country continues to decay repairing it will become more difficult and costly. It's always easier to replace the shingles on the roof than wait until it collapses from neglect.
2
What is a Millennial? An artificial group around a strictly artificial date? Except for their transient idealistic passion for Sanders' Socialism, its not possible to compare that group to the truly passionate anti-war movement of the sixties or the labor movement of the thirties. Where are the M's now? Back on the job where being part of the group is prized, hoping to become the leader of the group and then the company. They want to live in nice houses in Palo Alto, send their kids to great schools and lead a healthy active life. They are not revolutionaries or even fighters. They don't want to make waves, until they learn how to surf them. As for Clinton, how can you write this stuff with a straight face.?As a boomer, she's just what I want, with her boring list of well thought out policies to improve our way of life. You call that a hodgepodge of 8 or 9 which you, with your superior wit, decided should be crystallized into three. I'll take Clinton's brand of idealism any day over her sorry competition. Be honest, so do you.
6
I was apoplectic by the time I finished reading this article hoping to find something to redeem the assertion that Clinton is somehow not able to make an "emotional connection" with people. What is it you want from her? She has done more good for women and children in this world than almost any politician I can thing of except perhaps, Jimmy Carter (yes another one of those idealistic liberals). She has a strong moral compass, whereas Trump has none at all. Your dig about "buying votes with federal money" was really low, and uncalled for. I think lifting people out of poverty by providing education, food and shelter is inspiring. What exactly do you find wrong with that?
It wasn't government spending on social programs that caused the economic calamity of 2008, it was unbridled, unregulated capitalism run amok. It was capitalism that was self-centered and out of control. It continues today. Wells Fargo comes to mind.
So here we are teetering on the edge of a dark abyss, and you are writing drivel about the only hope this country has in avoiding the disaster a Trump Presidency would be. You acknowledge his lack of morals, and knowledge, yet fail to acknowledge the obvious: Clinton has the human sense of decency, intelligence, and knowledge to be a damn good President. Trump has none of these qualities. So what's it to be David, some of your fellow Republicans have taken the high moral road and have declared they will vote for Clinton. Are you sitting this election out?
It wasn't government spending on social programs that caused the economic calamity of 2008, it was unbridled, unregulated capitalism run amok. It was capitalism that was self-centered and out of control. It continues today. Wells Fargo comes to mind.
So here we are teetering on the edge of a dark abyss, and you are writing drivel about the only hope this country has in avoiding the disaster a Trump Presidency would be. You acknowledge his lack of morals, and knowledge, yet fail to acknowledge the obvious: Clinton has the human sense of decency, intelligence, and knowledge to be a damn good President. Trump has none of these qualities. So what's it to be David, some of your fellow Republicans have taken the high moral road and have declared they will vote for Clinton. Are you sitting this election out?
10
David Brooks refuses to write anything positive about Clinton, still clinging to the Republican ethos that has divided our country. When I read Brooks's columns, l begin to lose my idealism that Republicans and Democrats will someday get along with each other in my lifetime.
1
"That poetic, aspirational quality [of her college commencement speech] is entirely absent from what has become the Clinton campaign." Perhaps, but it certainly wasn't absent from HIllary's rhetoric when she first came to national prominence in the 1990s. Do you remember her attempt to address the spiritual void in public life with her call to develop a "politics of meaning"? Or her claim, "The market knows the price of everything and the value of nothing"? Quite aspirational: Hillary genuinely sought to talk about deeper issues.
But do you remember the response of the press? It was to viciously and relentlessly mock her. "Saint HIllary," and "rehashed 60s idealism," Michael Kelley of the New York Times sneered. The Washington Post called the speech where she articulated some of these ideas "psychobabble." The New Republic feigned inability to understand, "What on earth are these people talking about?" She dropped this kind of talk soon after.
If you want to understand why Hillary Clinton campaigns in prosaic language, Mr. Brooks, as a member of the media you might start by looking the mirror.
But do you remember the response of the press? It was to viciously and relentlessly mock her. "Saint HIllary," and "rehashed 60s idealism," Michael Kelley of the New York Times sneered. The Washington Post called the speech where she articulated some of these ideas "psychobabble." The New Republic feigned inability to understand, "What on earth are these people talking about?" She dropped this kind of talk soon after.
If you want to understand why Hillary Clinton campaigns in prosaic language, Mr. Brooks, as a member of the media you might start by looking the mirror.
231
Clinton is not running to be the poet laureate of the United States! She's running to be the president. That's all, and that's enough.
3
This election is hopefully the last gasp of baby boomers as a political force, and it typifies what they have brought to politics and culture in the past several decades- division, selfishness, and cynicism. This is a generation that was given more than any generation in the history of the world and has never cared enough about what they leave behind or what they consume, waste, or destroy in the process. They were once labeled the "me" generation, aptly so. I don't know what generation I belong to, being born a little late for gen-x, a little early for millennial, I just hope all of us can survive long enough to put this country back together when they're finally done with it.
Do any Conservatives read The Times any more?
I agree on the basic premise here. A powerful overriding and inspiring vision and goodness, coupled with a facility in conveying that vision, is an important quality in attracting lots of folks to your side. Barack Obama had this big time and governed with it to the best he could. Though I disagreed with many of his policies, so did Ronald Reagan. The others in between not so much. So, because this year we are without an authentic and/or charismatic, feel-good candidate does that mean that the two candidates we do have are without idealism? No, it does not and this is Mr. Brooks' puzzling timidity on full display. When the personalities and the presentation of the candidate may not appear to be idealistic, look at the policy proposal. What's there? Do they represent a broad, thoughtful, realistic vision for the nation and its citizens today? Are they rooted in honest ideals that the candidate has demonstrated commitments to? Or are they simply payback to a powerful few wrapped up in a cynical package intended to trick and confuse? While we all would like to be inspired by our leaders' charisma, I prefer to look for the idealism in the proposals. Cults of personality don't usually end so well............
Please stop trying to artificially balance all the characters in your morality tales. Sometimes things are nuanced and muddy. Sometimes they are not.
Please stop trying to artificially balance all the characters in your morality tales. Sometimes things are nuanced and muddy. Sometimes they are not.
We have bankruptcy laws so people and companies which have fallen on hard times are able to get themselves back on their feet. Using these laws as a way to game the system, to add to obscene profits, may not be illegal, but it should be. It is most certainly immoral.
Yes, it is true. "Trump was always a scuzzy version of the capitalist type."
Does anyone think Trump has high morals? How is it that so many conservatives in the past claimed they held the high ground, judging others as less moral? I've always wondered made them think they were guided by higher morals than liberals?
Yes, it is true. "Trump was always a scuzzy version of the capitalist type."
Does anyone think Trump has high morals? How is it that so many conservatives in the past claimed they held the high ground, judging others as less moral? I've always wondered made them think they were guided by higher morals than liberals?
It speaks for the immaturity of the American democracy that a self loving demagogue has the support of 40% of voters. The NSDAP won the 1933 election on the promise to make Germany great again, at that time an immature democracy, a nation that felt humiliated after losing the Great War. The German economy just started to recover from the Great Depression, poverty, hunger and despair were real. Yes, we need to compare Trump to Hitler. It is an illusion to think American constitutional safeguards and government institutions will put up much resistance to an autocrat if he can declare a mandate. Trump's agenda is fascist to the core: build a wall to protect the motherland from subhuman immigrants, cancel international treaties because they strangle the American nation and declare a whole religion an enemy of the American people. My grandparents voted for Hitler in 1933 and later always defended themselves that they had no idea, he would actually follow through with his "promises". How likely is it that Trump will demolish the American democracy and replace it by an autocratic state: maybe 10% or less, compared to 0% chance that Clinton will. I will not take a chance.
1
"During the Reagan years, writers celebrated capitalism not only as a wealth-generating engine but also as a moral system, a way to arouse hard work, creativity and trust." I guess you never read _Bonfire of the Vanities_, eh?
Too hard on Clinton. She may not be inspiring in her style, no ad-like, substance-free "Morning in America" pronouncements, but her focus on actually doing constructive things is reassuring, especially in this era of Republican-perpetrated Congressional gridlock (like using Zika funding to score political points). As a senator, she reportedly worked well with members of both parties, and that's reassuring too. Could it be that a woman in charge might prefer doing the job to making grandiose promises?
1
"Ironically, one of the tasks for those who succeed the baby boomers is to restore idealism. The great challenge of our moment is the crisis of isolation and fragmentation, the need to rebind the fabric of a society that has been torn by selfishness, cynicism, distrust and autonomy."
Obama tried to restore idealism. He famously said, "Now, as a nation, we don't promise equal outcomes, but we were founded on the idea everybody should have an equal opportunity to succeed. No matter who you are, what you look like, where you come from, you can make it. That's an essential promise of America. Where you start should not determine where you end up."
Have those words restored the nation, Mr.Brooks? Has the obstructionist GOP heard him, Mr.Brooks?
So do us a favor, and attribute the fault to where it belongs, namely the Republican Party whose main goal, as officially declared by its leaders, was to make sure that Obama, the president who attempted to heal this nation and make us better, does get re-elected.
Obama tried to restore idealism. He famously said, "Now, as a nation, we don't promise equal outcomes, but we were founded on the idea everybody should have an equal opportunity to succeed. No matter who you are, what you look like, where you come from, you can make it. That's an essential promise of America. Where you start should not determine where you end up."
Have those words restored the nation, Mr.Brooks? Has the obstructionist GOP heard him, Mr.Brooks?
So do us a favor, and attribute the fault to where it belongs, namely the Republican Party whose main goal, as officially declared by its leaders, was to make sure that Obama, the president who attempted to heal this nation and make us better, does get re-elected.
1
David Brooks’ Op-Ed is an example of the “Goring” of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats that Paul Krugman describes in his Op-Eds 9/5&30/16.
From Truman through the Baby Boom generation, the post-war liberal agenda offered success. Research shows that safety net programs work. Investment in a minimal floor of opportunity and structure works. It helps build families, education, and employment, the opposite of permanent welfare.
Most people do not start businesses. But each person becomes an entrepreneur simply by living rationally, pursuing success, and building a life. Today’s floor on global poverty enabled that entrepreneurship. Families are demonstrating rational planning, striving, and building as shown by the decline in birth rate in many regions.
But chronic poverty and the current decline in the U.S. middle class (e.g., the rise in suicide and slow suicide by low income whites) are the consequence of Reaganomics.
Nixon and Reagan began the politics of fear, division, and revived racism. A founding document for this evil agenda, and for the rise of neoliberal economics, was the infamous Powell Memo. Nixon appointed him to SCOTUS. Reagan replaced the correct and respected Paul Volcker with an extremist, destructive libertarian. (Reagan continued to appoint hostile Fed governors so that Volcker did not attempt to stay.)
The shortcomings that Mr. Brooks describes in American today are not due to the failure of the liberal agenda but are due to its brutal defeat.
From Truman through the Baby Boom generation, the post-war liberal agenda offered success. Research shows that safety net programs work. Investment in a minimal floor of opportunity and structure works. It helps build families, education, and employment, the opposite of permanent welfare.
Most people do not start businesses. But each person becomes an entrepreneur simply by living rationally, pursuing success, and building a life. Today’s floor on global poverty enabled that entrepreneurship. Families are demonstrating rational planning, striving, and building as shown by the decline in birth rate in many regions.
But chronic poverty and the current decline in the U.S. middle class (e.g., the rise in suicide and slow suicide by low income whites) are the consequence of Reaganomics.
Nixon and Reagan began the politics of fear, division, and revived racism. A founding document for this evil agenda, and for the rise of neoliberal economics, was the infamous Powell Memo. Nixon appointed him to SCOTUS. Reagan replaced the correct and respected Paul Volcker with an extremist, destructive libertarian. (Reagan continued to appoint hostile Fed governors so that Volcker did not attempt to stay.)
The shortcomings that Mr. Brooks describes in American today are not due to the failure of the liberal agenda but are due to its brutal defeat.
"she lacks the human touch when talking about the nation’s problems, and fails to make an emotional connection." Oh please Mr. Brooks. Stop echoing the old tired "wisdom" and do some journalism. She is empathetic, she is personable, she does make emotional connections. If she seems a bit reserved at times, it's because she has been attacked for the last thirty years by the media. Plus the stereotyping. Would you have asked these questions of Romney, McCain, Bushes, or Dole (forget Trump - no empathy there)? But ask it of the woman, repeatedly.
1
"When asked why she wants to be president or for any positive vision, she devolves into a list of programs."
How about this David? Human enough for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWS21zYx6J8
How about this David? Human enough for you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWS21zYx6J8
This is a great article, scathing but not unfair.But how does either candidate differ from those of the past?They may differ in their approaches to government, but r similar in their political ambitions.Was JFK an idealist when he allowed his father to literally buy votes in the West Virginia primary in 1960, robbing Hubert Humphrey of an almost certain victory?Was Barack Obama not preaching a false idealism when he promised to unite us in 2008 but was willing to put down an entire segment of little whites with mockery and ridicule?Can think of only 2 politicians who could be counted on not to lie to the electorate for the sake of expediency and reasons of state: Carter, McGovern. Deceitfulness was not part of their nature. But in so far as idealism is concerned, we should not look to our political leaders to serve as role models. It is found within one's self. One example is the number of animal rights activists who travel regularly to ISLA DE LOS SOTOS in Puerto Rico to save abandoned pets. They do it without fanfare, and they could use outside help and donations.Conclusion:Don't look to politicians to inspire you.Motivation comes from within.
Idealism died when your hero, St. Ronnie of Raygun, killed it by creating the "Me generation", a strain of Americans who cared only about amassing stuff - money, cars, houses, etc. and decided that the poor and the middle class were unworthy of help and respect.
Republicans never oppose tax cuts for the rich, never oppose increased spending on useless weapons systems, never oppose spending on international adventurism, but always oppose spending on the poor, the middle class, the infrastructure or anything that their benefactors cannot directly profit from.
Nothing kills idealism like making it all about profit....
Republicans never oppose tax cuts for the rich, never oppose increased spending on useless weapons systems, never oppose spending on international adventurism, but always oppose spending on the poor, the middle class, the infrastructure or anything that their benefactors cannot directly profit from.
Nothing kills idealism like making it all about profit....
2
"There is no uplift in this race. There is an entire absence, in both campaigns, of any effort to appeal to the higher angels of our nature." - More silly false equivalency from Mr Brooks in lock step with the rest of the media. There is absolutely no comparison between these two candidates. I don't see an absence of idealism or someone "not appealing to our higher angels" on the contrary i see idealism tempered with good sense and conviction from Clinton. The woman that gave that speech in 1969 is still there - like the rest of us she matured and grew up. It's not the Democratic Party's fault that the GOP has put forth a solipsistic fool as their candidate. I will gladly and without hesitation cast my vote for HRC who i believe will be a strong and capable leader.
Jerry
Jerry
This entire column can be summed up with two words: false equivalence.
2
Paul Ryan in his vp candidacy touted that his favorite writer of Ayn Rand. She had actually written a book titled "The Virtues of Selfishness" a book Trump himself might have read ebulliently. Gordon Gecko made similar arguments in "Wall Street" about the enormous virtues of greed. Donald Trump is the heroic figure Paul Ryan pined for. He now has his Howard Roark (the architect) and his John Galt in Donald Trump. Might Paul Ryan realize that he might have ignored the dark and malicious implications of Rand's philosophy?
By now we know Brooks very well. He can list the many horrible failings of Trump, who is obviously the worst kind of politician that American-style capitalism can produce. He says nothing about how conservatism, since Reagan, set the stage for a Trump to appear and capture the GOP. He says nothing about his own role in the moral collapse of a party, since Bush II's disastrous presidency, which Brooks supported throughout its most egregious moments. He has a lot to say negatively about Clinton, who ranks off the chart in comparison with any GOP leader in modern history. But no matter. Clinton doesn't need the Brookses of this nation to succeed.
2
Idealism knows no age or era, and the most pragmatically convincing idealist typically wins the close presidential races, tracing back through Obama, W, Reagan, Carter (v. Ford), Kennedy, Truman, all the way back to Jefferson over Adams. Although neither candidate seems strongly idealistic this time, the one who comes out better in terms of "the vision thing" (what Bush senior admitted he lacked) will win. Right now that looks like Clinton, but Trump could still turn the tables because his opponent seems innately flat herself. She's got the pragmatism part down, just not the idealistic loft.
9
Now the communities devastated mostly by GOP policies Brooks supported have to be put together by a warm and fuzzy Hillary Clinton. People got tired of lots of talk about “uplift” while their factories were closing and the government became something closer to a crime syndicate — that’s one reason we ended up with Trump. Can we just dump all the squishy talk and get to brass tacks? Which candidate has actual policies? Which one has middle-class friendly details, such as tuition-free college? You can keep your idealism. I want the best country for the safety, health, and education of my kids, not a four-year SNL skit with nuclear undertones. There is no equivalence.
7
Yes, Mr. Brooks, the important thing to remember is both sides do it.
I see lots of inspiring policies in Clinton's policy ideas. And, I see it when she speaks. She wrote the book on "solidarity and neighborliness" -- It Takes a Village. All you're doing is pushing a media narrative in the face of reality. There's no uplift because you don't want to see it.
But, remember, both sides must always be equally bad. If it were Hitler vs. Gandhi, you'd find a way to make them equally bad.
I see lots of inspiring policies in Clinton's policy ideas. And, I see it when she speaks. She wrote the book on "solidarity and neighborliness" -- It Takes a Village. All you're doing is pushing a media narrative in the face of reality. There's no uplift because you don't want to see it.
But, remember, both sides must always be equally bad. If it were Hitler vs. Gandhi, you'd find a way to make them equally bad.
9
PG--Brooks has been saying this stuff for so long that he actually believes it's true, like all Republicans. Ideals is an interesting word to describe what he believes. I watch PBS news every night, EXCEPT Friday when Brooks gets to promote his crapolla. PBS devotion to Brooks' point of view is their equal balance offering, almost like presenting creationism as another, equal theory about human development. They should give him the boot, preferably a mud covered boot.
"It’s interesting, and sad, to see how the promise of those two decades has aged."
That did not just happen. People did it.
In particular, people like David Brooks did it, with constant excuses for money interests, and constant excuses for status quo or outright going backward.
The promise did not just fall apart. It was sold out. Leading "thinkers" and pundits paved the way for politicians to exploit. That is what think tanks and political pundits were for.
David Brooks is right about what happened. He just does not confess his role in helping to do it.
That did not just happen. People did it.
In particular, people like David Brooks did it, with constant excuses for money interests, and constant excuses for status quo or outright going backward.
The promise did not just fall apart. It was sold out. Leading "thinkers" and pundits paved the way for politicians to exploit. That is what think tanks and political pundits were for.
David Brooks is right about what happened. He just does not confess his role in helping to do it.
76
David you have a noble goal but begin with a fundamental mistake –equating idealism with ideology. America has had its greatest success, both morally and economically when it pursued a balanced agenda of vigorous free enterprise and strong public institutions. Both ends of the political spectrum are vulnerable to excesses and obsessions but in the last few decades the right has been the most guilty. Dynamic balance in public policy is ridiculed as weakness when in fact it is America’s greatest strength – its unique contribution to the progression of democracy.
I remember the word “love” mentioned numerous times at the Democratic convention (including by the candidate) but this was lost in the cacophony of cynical commentary – unfortunately some of your own.
Our nation must find some way to withdraw from the “age of ideology” and understand the dynamic power of a balanced society – which is both idealistic and practical.
I remember the word “love” mentioned numerous times at the Democratic convention (including by the candidate) but this was lost in the cacophony of cynical commentary – unfortunately some of your own.
Our nation must find some way to withdraw from the “age of ideology” and understand the dynamic power of a balanced society – which is both idealistic and practical.
3
Hillary Clinton is every woman: the patriotic Rosie the riveter from the 40's, the wise June Cleaver from the 50's, the idealist from the 60's, the feminist from the 70's, the glass ceiling breaker from the 80's, the environmentalist from the 90's, and the embracer of new ideas and technology from the 00's.
How can anyone not be inspired by her? She singlehandedly proves that a woman can do it all. I'm awed by her.
How can anyone not be inspired by her? She singlehandedly proves that a woman can do it all. I'm awed by her.
19
Ditto.
And she did it all while a major political party (well formerly major political party) has been slandering her the entire way.
The Koch GOP is terrified of HRC and that makes her aces in my book
And she did it all while a major political party (well formerly major political party) has been slandering her the entire way.
The Koch GOP is terrified of HRC and that makes her aces in my book
1
Please David, for once leave your self imposed bubble and witness what's actually going on. The capitalist model you idealized, and perpetuated by the likes of Peter Peterson and the Koch boys, has failed and failed miserably to resolve our national problems. Instead of creating a capitalist nirvana, it engenders pain and untold suffering that is generating the political angst that we are witnessing in the political process today. Only if you, and your fellow conservative pundits, took the time to challenge Donald Trump, when he espoused his lies, distortions, and falsehoods, perhaps the electorate would've been better served. But by failing to challenge Trump, while marginalizing Hillary Clinton, you gave added weight to Trump and his band of self-described deplorables that have corrupted and polluted our political environment.
4
There you go again David with your false equivalencies. It was over two decades ago that Hillary Clinton wrote the book "It Takes A Village". It was exactly about neighborliness faithfulness and those other virtues that you believe have vanished. HRC still incorporates all of those values in her programs and her policies. You may criticize her for being uncomfortable around crowds but her heart is in the right place. That that cannot be said for Donald Trump.
14
I don't think this is fair to either candidate. Trump wants to inspire us with how great things will be -- new airports & infrastructure, utterly self-confident foreign policy, respect for law, etc. Clinton wants to inspire us with a restoration of bipartisan compromise, an efficient activist government that improves American lives, knocking down barriers to equality, continued drive to a peaceful world order, etc. When Trump isn't meandering he does almost nothing but express his vision, and Clinton expresses her vision in the same tone she uses to document the details of her policies. Trump's vision is clear enough to terrify millions of voters. Clinton's vision is in line with Obama's and can coopt his eloquence. Trump dismissed national purpose ("I alone") but Clinton certainly doesn't ("Better together").
1
The way "idealism" is used here, it is almost completely meaningless. I know, Obama did his best to convince us his "idealism" would work. But of course in part because of the obstruction of the Party of Greed and Stupidity, his hope and change didn't get anywhere. Instead he used pragmatism to achieve quite a bit. And this is what Hillary will do. I don't get the Let's Hate Hillary movement. She is better qualified than almost any candidate has been. If she is not as hip as Obama or as dishonest as Reagan, I don't really care.
5
Like so many women in this country Hillary tries hard to please everybody. She doesn't pick one dominate vision she pick twenty or more. One for everybodys agenda. This drives men, Mr. Brooks, crazy. They/he need moon shot type visions. They like good old fashion one size fits all masculine vision. They can't multi vision.
Hillary is a classic multi vision women leader. She likes lots of smaller visions to ensure her big mission gets done. The big mission in this case is keep America moving forward.
Hillary is a classic multi vision women leader. She likes lots of smaller visions to ensure her big mission gets done. The big mission in this case is keep America moving forward.
8
You're correct, Tom. She scares men precisely because she can think of so many things at the same time, brilliantly. That's how women are wired. Men are just incapable of that breadth of thinking-not wired for that. Women are born multi-taskers; men are, to quote my husband, "single cell amoebas." Great analysis, thanks.
1
SHE doesn't appeal to the higher angels?! SHE lacks the human touch?! SHE fails to make emotional connection?! SHE provides no "uplift" to this race?! HER myriad program ideas are not a "positive vision"?! You do know she's a politician, not a Zen retreat leader, don't you? You really want to diminish your own intelligence by equating Hillary with your party's disgraceful choice to lead this country, David? Shame, shame on you.
10
"millennials, I think, want to be active in this rebinding". Really? What town do you live in? Assuming you're over 40, walk into any East Village or Brooklyn coffee shop or club and experience the love, friendship and neighborliness of these millennials. Work in a big office and enjoy the faithfulness and solidarity the extend to you. I too want a a new vocabulary but not one based on Facebook.
Brooks clearly hasn't listened to HRC's speeches this year, which regularly invoke things like "love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity and neighborliness." Or maybe he just can't hear it.
3
Sadly David Brooks is compelled it seems to feel even-handed, a pox-on-both their houses. If he were self-aware enough to understand his own inherent bias, he might be able to suspend them just for a moment and imagine the potential magic a President Hillary Clinton will have on the spirit of America, especially the women and girls of America.
2
You mock HRC's youthful idealism, then decry her adult realism, yet isn't that the whole point of growing up? To figure out how to actually accomplish things?
6
Brooks at his worst trying to be an even-handed journalist. This year's contrasts are so stark that it showing just how insipid our press is. If Brooks didn't see Clinton's human touch and emotional connection then he certainly should have learned about the reactions in university TV rooms across the country Mon. night. College kids sat up and took notice about Trump being an insufferable jerk and Hillary floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee. I'll use an old saying from the mid past century Brooks based this piece on: Even Stevie Wonder could see that.
5
My Father was a Republican his whole life. He was a fiscally conservative guy, but socially progressive. He liked George HW Bush.
He lost his idealism when W Bush took office under the "uplift" of compassionate conservatism. He thought W was a fraud with the invasion of Iraq, the 2 tax cuts for the really rich, the torture. He called him a "towel snapper."
So then, you had an ideal response to the presidency of W Bush, Barack Obama. Here's a man who posited that we are not a red America, a blue America, we are the United States of America.
How did the Republicans respond to this idealism? With hate, lies about Obama's birth, religion, ideology.
Your party has single-handedly brought us to this place, yet you continue to insist that it's all of us who have done this.
And when you write this, "Trump reminds us — even those of us who champion capitalism — how corrosive capitalism can be when unaccompanied by a counterbalancing ethos of moral restraint," I spat out my coffee.
This is absurd. When will you finally admit that people are greedy, and that therefore we need regulation?
Look in the mirror, Mr. Brooks. You and your party have sown the seeds to this ugliness. Global warming, tax cuts for the rich, taking away women's rights, not paying taxes, inversions, it's laughable that you are appalled by Trump.
Trump is merely a continuation, a natural progression, of the lies put forth daily by your party.
He lost his idealism when W Bush took office under the "uplift" of compassionate conservatism. He thought W was a fraud with the invasion of Iraq, the 2 tax cuts for the really rich, the torture. He called him a "towel snapper."
So then, you had an ideal response to the presidency of W Bush, Barack Obama. Here's a man who posited that we are not a red America, a blue America, we are the United States of America.
How did the Republicans respond to this idealism? With hate, lies about Obama's birth, religion, ideology.
Your party has single-handedly brought us to this place, yet you continue to insist that it's all of us who have done this.
And when you write this, "Trump reminds us — even those of us who champion capitalism — how corrosive capitalism can be when unaccompanied by a counterbalancing ethos of moral restraint," I spat out my coffee.
This is absurd. When will you finally admit that people are greedy, and that therefore we need regulation?
Look in the mirror, Mr. Brooks. You and your party have sown the seeds to this ugliness. Global warming, tax cuts for the rich, taking away women's rights, not paying taxes, inversions, it's laughable that you are appalled by Trump.
Trump is merely a continuation, a natural progression, of the lies put forth daily by your party.
18
I'm three years older than Hillary Clinton and my memories, based on actual experiences, is quite different from the impression David, who was born in 1961, got from looking backward through the eyes of others. As I remember it, it was a time of reaction against the conformity of the 50s and a fervent belief that the nation could actually realize its vision of equality and justice for all.
I remember the debate between JFK and Nixon and how excited the adults in my world got about the promise Kennedy extended. I remember the Cuban Blockade, my boyfriend at the time was on a ship cruising toward the island, and how relieved people were when it ended as well as could have been expected. I remember the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the excitement it generated. I remember the "Feminine Mystique" and the way it made women think about the roles they were expected to assume. And then I remember the Vietnam War, my brother was a Marine who was sent to fight, and how it aroused so many passions. Don't talk to me with such condescension about the classic 1960s type.
Hillary Clinton came to public notice giving a speech at Wellesley College. She threw away the speech she planned to give and responded to the points made by Senator Edward Brooks in his speech that preceded her. I only recently realized how remarkable that was. It made her quite famous and there was a feature in Life Magazine. If nothing else, it demonstrated her intelligence and rationality.
I remember the debate between JFK and Nixon and how excited the adults in my world got about the promise Kennedy extended. I remember the Cuban Blockade, my boyfriend at the time was on a ship cruising toward the island, and how relieved people were when it ended as well as could have been expected. I remember the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the excitement it generated. I remember the "Feminine Mystique" and the way it made women think about the roles they were expected to assume. And then I remember the Vietnam War, my brother was a Marine who was sent to fight, and how it aroused so many passions. Don't talk to me with such condescension about the classic 1960s type.
Hillary Clinton came to public notice giving a speech at Wellesley College. She threw away the speech she planned to give and responded to the points made by Senator Edward Brooks in his speech that preceded her. I only recently realized how remarkable that was. It made her quite famous and there was a feature in Life Magazine. If nothing else, it demonstrated her intelligence and rationality.
5
David Brooks is really grasping at straws when the last, best thing he can find to criticize about Hillary Clinton is that she doesn't act like Ronald Reagan.
3
Brilliant and provocative!
"Stronger together" and the cohesion, tolerance, and acceptance implicit in the Democratic party's "big tent" concept aren't idealistic enough for you, David? Just how high do you want those angels to be?
4
If the Times had a "like" button, I'd give this a thumbs up.
Idealism? I have two words for that: Ronald Reagan, a foolish man with a frivolous second wife, both wearing rose colored glasses straight from Hollywood's prop department.
Beware of idealism, Hitler, Stalin and Mao had them too. I'm not saying it's bad, just warning you, David, because you have a tendency to look at things through Reagan's rose-colored glasses. Idealism is like fire, it can warm you, cook your food, and provide a source of light, but it can also kill you.
Beware of idealism, Hitler, Stalin and Mao had them too. I'm not saying it's bad, just warning you, David, because you have a tendency to look at things through Reagan's rose-colored glasses. Idealism is like fire, it can warm you, cook your food, and provide a source of light, but it can also kill you.
2
Amazingly, Ms. Gschwend from Switzerland has a better handle on this election than the locally grown Mr. Brooks.
6
David, you kill my idealism every time you write something like this. You embraced Obama for a while because you liked his soaring rhetoric, then proceeded to support the party that obstructed him at every turn. And where were you when Trump started his birtherism rampage?
4
Mr. Brooks, did you watch the debate?
3
Idealism dies as you grow up. You learn to listen to all sides, to wade through choices and live with ambivalence.
It is so clear to me that David wants to live with ideals....you can see it on his face in the anguish he experiences when grappling with the reality of Republican behavior versus his Republican Ideals.
In his heart David is a good man, but his ideals force the foolish statement that both Trump and Clinton fall short of his ideals....and are therefore equal.
Idealism is flat and simple, and ultimately misleading.
It is so clear to me that David wants to live with ideals....you can see it on his face in the anguish he experiences when grappling with the reality of Republican behavior versus his Republican Ideals.
In his heart David is a good man, but his ideals force the foolish statement that both Trump and Clinton fall short of his ideals....and are therefore equal.
Idealism is flat and simple, and ultimately misleading.
100
"When asked why she wants to be president or for any positive vision, she devolves into a list of programs."
So does that mean "Make America Great Again' really touches something deep within your soul?
It's clear Hillary Clinton wants to make a positive difference, and that has been obvious for decades.
If you are unable to discern that she wants to become president to help others, and that Donald Trump wants to become president only for his own self-aggrandizement, then something inside you is fatally compromised.
Your efforts to take yourself off the hook by blaming Mrs. Clinton for not providing a "positive vision" are pure nonsense.
You fool nobody but yourself and the rest of the GOP who have aided and abetted the inevitable emergence of this modern day Mussolini.
So does that mean "Make America Great Again' really touches something deep within your soul?
It's clear Hillary Clinton wants to make a positive difference, and that has been obvious for decades.
If you are unable to discern that she wants to become president to help others, and that Donald Trump wants to become president only for his own self-aggrandizement, then something inside you is fatally compromised.
Your efforts to take yourself off the hook by blaming Mrs. Clinton for not providing a "positive vision" are pure nonsense.
You fool nobody but yourself and the rest of the GOP who have aided and abetted the inevitable emergence of this modern day Mussolini.
When you know a person's view of human nature (Rousseau v. Hobbs) you can probably predict their political views.
Mr. Brooks,
Speaking of idealism it seems to me these days you always demonstrate the vacuous quest for balance . In this case both sides need to be more idealistic, more inspiring, more charismatic. Hillary is what she is - a pragmatic liberal who believes in getting things done. It was not expected by many of us the Bernie Sanders would be able to get things done. Many Republicans off the record would acknowledge that in the Senate she worked with them to get done what could be done. Now it becomes a negative. You want to be a critic of Trump without losing your Republican credentials. That is not very idealistic. I guess you do'nt want to be like David Gergen and have to fight your way back and never really attain past glories at that.
Speaking of idealism it seems to me these days you always demonstrate the vacuous quest for balance . In this case both sides need to be more idealistic, more inspiring, more charismatic. Hillary is what she is - a pragmatic liberal who believes in getting things done. It was not expected by many of us the Bernie Sanders would be able to get things done. Many Republicans off the record would acknowledge that in the Senate she worked with them to get done what could be done. Now it becomes a negative. You want to be a critic of Trump without losing your Republican credentials. That is not very idealistic. I guess you do'nt want to be like David Gergen and have to fight your way back and never really attain past glories at that.
4
Ebeau,
She didn't originate it, but she promulgated it: IT TAKES A VILLAGE. Rarely has a more powerful, succinct phrase proclaimed as strong a moral stance as this, her book title. But it was trivialized and too quickly its vision faded. But, she's still preaching it. It's the social underpinning of her complete program. In most of the classic religious traditions, the individual (in the end) comes second to the "VILLAGE" (the folks, "We the people..." -- WE before ME) comes first. In this sense she's true to her classic Methodist roots. It's my hope that this theme -- one that's really marked her entire, political career --will be be the loudest cry (even as Trump plums his cloudy memory for some reason to be on the same stage with her). David, you're missing the forrest for a few trees.
She didn't originate it, but she promulgated it: IT TAKES A VILLAGE. Rarely has a more powerful, succinct phrase proclaimed as strong a moral stance as this, her book title. But it was trivialized and too quickly its vision faded. But, she's still preaching it. It's the social underpinning of her complete program. In most of the classic religious traditions, the individual (in the end) comes second to the "VILLAGE" (the folks, "We the people..." -- WE before ME) comes first. In this sense she's true to her classic Methodist roots. It's my hope that this theme -- one that's really marked her entire, political career --will be be the loudest cry (even as Trump plums his cloudy memory for some reason to be on the same stage with her). David, you're missing the forrest for a few trees.
5
Mr.Brooks' call for idealism is a curious exercise. He criticizes Clinton for not being inspirational and for failing to have a human touch. Let me say, to begin with, that I am tired of the sentimentalization of politics: the mention of grandparents' hard work, the parading of one's children, the pathetic recollection of working to pay for education. In short, the assumption of other people's merit to advance one's career. Inspirational messages are needed in times of crisis, wars, natural disasters, other calamities. Their purpose is to unite a country when there is already a common, unifying goal. But in circumstances where there is no such need, where the work to be done is progressive betterment of present conditions, what is needed is actions that bring about amelioration, some thing that Brooks spurns in Clinton's program. What this country needs more than inspiration is realization of objectives: education, repairing racial fault lines, improving economic conditions for those at the bottom, do something about climate change and the dozens of other problems that are endemic to any society. Brooks wants the race to
extract from us "the better angels", but what are the better angels to do? Just pray or improve the lot of our fellow human beings? And if so, what can a leader do other than put in effect measures that bring that about. And this is inspirational!
extract from us "the better angels", but what are the better angels to do? Just pray or improve the lot of our fellow human beings? And if so, what can a leader do other than put in effect measures that bring that about. And this is inspirational!
7
Mr. Brooks,
Again the point well made. I grew up here in the US during 60's and 70's, although I was not born in this country so technically I am not one of those baby-boomers.
I remember distinctly during those younger-America dreaming of a better future. Today's generations have a very little idea at a very visceral level how tumultuous those days were. I also remember the profoundly prophetic title of the TV show during those years,
"What if your dreams COME TRUE?"
Look all around you. Everybody has TV, car, Playstation. Inter-racial marriage is everywhere. People of all ethnic backgrounds are common place (come to Queens, NYC). You can stand up and protest all sorts of injustices without getting killed in mass (literally, in this case).
I many ways, the dreams of 60's and 70's DID COME TRUE. Of course, America is not perfect and never will be. Two thousands years of human history will attest to that. What would you do if those BIG IDEAS CAME TRUE? I think, the baby-boomers just did worn out and tired.
Again the point well made. I grew up here in the US during 60's and 70's, although I was not born in this country so technically I am not one of those baby-boomers.
I remember distinctly during those younger-America dreaming of a better future. Today's generations have a very little idea at a very visceral level how tumultuous those days were. I also remember the profoundly prophetic title of the TV show during those years,
"What if your dreams COME TRUE?"
Look all around you. Everybody has TV, car, Playstation. Inter-racial marriage is everywhere. People of all ethnic backgrounds are common place (come to Queens, NYC). You can stand up and protest all sorts of injustices without getting killed in mass (literally, in this case).
I many ways, the dreams of 60's and 70's DID COME TRUE. Of course, America is not perfect and never will be. Two thousands years of human history will attest to that. What would you do if those BIG IDEAS CAME TRUE? I think, the baby-boomers just did worn out and tired.
Once again Mr. Brooks seems to be totally out of touch with reality. He say, "There is no uplift in this race. There is an entire absence, in both campaigns, of any effort to appeal to the higher angels of our nature. There is an assumption, in both campaigns, that we are self-seeking creatures, rather than also loving, serving, hoping, dreaming, cooperating creatures.” Seriously? The campaign slogan that captures the essence of Clinton’s campaign is STRONGER TOGETHER. She has written a book called IT TAKES A VILLAGE. She has been endorsed by countless human rights and human services organizations. Why does he have no much difficulty seeing and understanding this? Is it because she doesn’t have the same oratorical gifts as Obama, his preferred candidate in 2008? Is it because she’s a woman? Or has he simply become so cynical that his perceptions and ability to discern have become unreliable?
9
yes, i love how he criticizes the youthful hillary's lofty words at commencement and then complains about no uplift in the campaign.
Hello? What part of STRONGER TOGETHER do you not get? The Clinton campaign wants American citizens ALL OF THEM to come together in "faithfulness, solidarity and neighborliness that pushes people toward connection" as you wrote to fight racism, bigotry, poverty, hunger, injustice, equality. Clinton is NOT the one who is separating out and blaming entire segments of our population for our nation's ills. Yes there are ills and only together in mutual respect can we right them. Idealism?
7
I have a very hard time understanding people who hate Mrs. Clinton or greatly dislike her.
My very good mother rescued my father from the Nazis, worked alongside of him in a little candy store, prayed three times every day and more on holidays, was the last person to go to bed in our house every night and the first one to get up in the morning, kept the floors in our house so spotless that you almost felt sorry for them, attended PTA meetings on cold, snowy winter nights, scrimped and saved on every expenditure to help lay money aside for my college tuition and along the way rescued me from mistakes and peccadilloes too numerous to mention.
A believer in taking personal responsibility for making good things in your life happen, she would be getting up early on November 8 and heading out for the bus stop umbrella-in-hand to go vote for Mrs. Clinton.
My very good mother rescued my father from the Nazis, worked alongside of him in a little candy store, prayed three times every day and more on holidays, was the last person to go to bed in our house every night and the first one to get up in the morning, kept the floors in our house so spotless that you almost felt sorry for them, attended PTA meetings on cold, snowy winter nights, scrimped and saved on every expenditure to help lay money aside for my college tuition and along the way rescued me from mistakes and peccadilloes too numerous to mention.
A believer in taking personal responsibility for making good things in your life happen, she would be getting up early on November 8 and heading out for the bus stop umbrella-in-hand to go vote for Mrs. Clinton.
390
To A. Stanton: Congratulations n the description of your mother keeping the floors "so clean that you almost felt sorry for them". It paints a beautiful picture of someone who seems to have been a great lady. You were a very lucky child.
2
She was. And I was. Thank you.
1
Hardworking, honest and decent people love Hillary.
Don't be snookered by blasts from the Republican hate-rhetoric machine.
Don't be snookered by blasts from the Republican hate-rhetoric machine.
1
By leveling the Clinton/Trump playing field you have fallen into the even-handed journalism trap. How can you fault Clinton for moving her ideals into actionable items? Abstract, noble concepts do not build the bridges or highways. Idealism without pragmatism is hot air.
Idealism and Trump do not belong in the same sentence. He is the man behind the curtain, the wizard of id.
Idealism and Trump do not belong in the same sentence. He is the man behind the curtain, the wizard of id.
21
Only one of the two leading candidates for president poses an existential threat to our democracy. Yet David Brooks, rather than using his voice to counter this danger, chooses rather to indulge the false-equivalency lie of "fair and balanced" journalism.
22
I suspect the death of idealism that DB refers to is mostly his own and is a reaction to his long term affinity for and affiliation with the republican party and where it has come to.
14
As one of the the baby boomer generation I feel tremendous shame that we who scorned the "greatest generation", couldn't trust anyone over thirty, sang songs of love and peace have degenerated into the most selfish of all. That both Trump and Clinton lack inspiration is a reflection of my generation's descent into mindlessness. We were the ones who labelled TV the "boob tube" and now we are the boobs we claimed we would never become.
4
While we have seen terrible things and cynicism seems to trump reality, this is one baby boomer who still believes, who still sees good in the world, and still feels idealism lives and breaths where you find it.
2
Mr. Brooks seems to forget that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Convention offered the uplifting and aspirational vision of a more diverse America that Is Stronger Together.
Donald Trump and his Republican National Convention offered the dystopian view of America as a sinking hellhole that only he can save.
Donald Trump and his Republican National Convention offered the dystopian view of America as a sinking hellhole that only he can save.
18
I dunno, I'm no Hillary-bot, but I find Stronger Together and the policies and programs Clinton laid out to be pretty aspirational in a time when David's party is almost 100% obstructionist. And to say she doesn't connect with voters emotionally is just lazy writing at this point. Is she the most inspirational orator ever? Absolutely not. But show me another presidential candidate who spends as much time learning from voters what really matters, connecting with them on a personal level, and then proposing legitimate solutions that will address their pain.
Maybe we live in an era where pure idealism isn't possible because one party is trying to pre-delegitimize election results after they've spent years convincing an astonishing percentage of the voting public that the media can't be trusted and the President isn't an American. Maybe that is the real issue here Mr. Brooks. Your party has systemically and systematically made it more difficult for ANY politician to appeal to our greater nature. Shameful to say the least.
Maybe we live in an era where pure idealism isn't possible because one party is trying to pre-delegitimize election results after they've spent years convincing an astonishing percentage of the voting public that the media can't be trusted and the President isn't an American. Maybe that is the real issue here Mr. Brooks. Your party has systemically and systematically made it more difficult for ANY politician to appeal to our greater nature. Shameful to say the least.
9
"There is no uplift in this race. There is an entire absence, in both campaigns, of any effort to appeal to the higher angels of our nature. There is an assumption, in both campaigns, that we are self-seeking creatures, rather than also loving, serving, hoping, dreaming, cooperating creatures. There is a presumption in both candidates that the lowest motivations are the most real."
Woah!!!
Can you spell "false equivalence"?! Idealism, Mr. Brooks, is the essence of America; it's what defines it, and, as such, idealism is alive and well. The only place where idealism is dead is in the dystopian America that Trump has been peddling. In other words what's dead is your and the GOP's notion of "idealism", also known as "modern movement conservatism", which got so far off the track it directly led to the ascendancy and nomination of one Donald J. Trump as the party's standard bearer. There is nothing equivalent to that debacle in this election cycle or ever.
Woah!!!
Can you spell "false equivalence"?! Idealism, Mr. Brooks, is the essence of America; it's what defines it, and, as such, idealism is alive and well. The only place where idealism is dead is in the dystopian America that Trump has been peddling. In other words what's dead is your and the GOP's notion of "idealism", also known as "modern movement conservatism", which got so far off the track it directly led to the ascendancy and nomination of one Donald J. Trump as the party's standard bearer. There is nothing equivalent to that debacle in this election cycle or ever.
6
Mr. Brooks, YOU had and ignored an opportunity to address the 'higher angels' of our shared experience, where economic policy was not just the purvey of the 1%. Bernie Sanders funded his campaign from common folk, with simple dreams and middle class problems. He listened when our voices were drowned in unlimited campaign contributions. He envisioned a just, equitable government in the midst of xenophobia, militarism and racism. He EXPANDED on the notion of human rights - to healthcare, to education, to a debt-free, unexploited life. Bernie and his followers dream of a world without fossil fuels, nuclear weapons and childhood poverty. Where the rich pay their fair share, where predatory capitalism is reigned in and demand side economics ensure job growth. You, sir, tested the political waters, gauged your comfort level for meaningful change, then devolved into another capitalist tool advocating the corrupt status quo. Bernie's movement is an American "Velvet Revolution", driven by bottom up, where poor and middle class workers struggling for dignity, for security and HOPE find their voice. Mr. Brooks, you and the Times cannot poo-poo such idealist musings as socialist twaddle and then complain about the lack of 'better angels' among us when wealth disparity, mass surveillance, globalization, corporatism and racism surround us. Too little, too late.
4
Hillary Clinton may be a dispassionate political hack, but she show a moral unpinning that puts her head and shoulders above Mr. Trump. He is sired in self-aggrandizement, and greed that he can't get the muck wiped of his own face to throw more.
Mr. Trump should not be our President. He cannot be. He is an immoral, unkind, capitalist; greedy to the bitter end. His rather and petty angers know no bounds. s. Clinton may stand on shaky ground, but she stands for somethings good and right. She should be elected.
Mr. Trump should not be our President. He cannot be. He is an immoral, unkind, capitalist; greedy to the bitter end. His rather and petty angers know no bounds. s. Clinton may stand on shaky ground, but she stands for somethings good and right. She should be elected.
4
In other words Mr. Brook, we have discarded lofty speechifying for the prose required to govern and function in a very complicated world where there does not exist consensus and no easy solutions for our problems exist. If that's the biggest thing you can pin on Mrs. Clinton, then your argument is pointless.
It also exposes the false equivalence in the column; you damn Mr. Trump on so many levels that the fact you accuse Mrs. Clinton of being...what, wishy-washy? Of not necessarily having some grand, overarching vision for humanity? It's absurd. Like the worst you are saying is that Mrs. Clinton is a person who is of the age to have enough experience to no longer go for the naive and proclamations of her youth for more practical things that can be accomplished (never mind that when you're in college, everyone who has the opportunity speaks in vague grandiloquent terms that they're likely later embarrassed decades later!) That only lays bare the fundamental absurdity of both the premise of this column and its execution.
"Mr. Trump is a failure of a moral human, and represents all the worst and basest characteristics of untrammeled greed. Mrs. Clinton doesn't sound like her Wesleyan student days. Thus we need a third way that has nothing to do with anything at all, and I'm not sure where I was going with this."
It also exposes the false equivalence in the column; you damn Mr. Trump on so many levels that the fact you accuse Mrs. Clinton of being...what, wishy-washy? Of not necessarily having some grand, overarching vision for humanity? It's absurd. Like the worst you are saying is that Mrs. Clinton is a person who is of the age to have enough experience to no longer go for the naive and proclamations of her youth for more practical things that can be accomplished (never mind that when you're in college, everyone who has the opportunity speaks in vague grandiloquent terms that they're likely later embarrassed decades later!) That only lays bare the fundamental absurdity of both the premise of this column and its execution.
"Mr. Trump is a failure of a moral human, and represents all the worst and basest characteristics of untrammeled greed. Mrs. Clinton doesn't sound like her Wesleyan student days. Thus we need a third way that has nothing to do with anything at all, and I'm not sure where I was going with this."
6
Its rather ironic that Brooks chides both Trump and Clinton for using metaphors that may be harmful or inappropriate for the times we live inThen he presents his own litany of "aspirational" metaphors which is simply yet another stream of campaign rhetoric and spin fodder
2
After reading Paul Krugman's column about Hillary Clinton getting "Gored" by the mainstream media, On the opposite side of the page, I read David Brooks' column in which he repeats the media story line that she is a technocrat lacking aspiration. This characterization is an example of what Krugman refers to as the "denormalization" of Clinton by the media. Mr. Brooks, meet Mr. Krugman.
6
While I agree with much of what Mr Brooks has written, I don't think that this "boomer vs boomer campaign" has decimated idealism.
The republican party has decimated idealism in this country.
More specifically, the far right of the republican politicians, their financial backers and their propaganda organs have decimated idealism in this country, its institutions and its people.
With Reagan, the right wing of this country introduced "bait and switch" as its political core. Centered on the false promise of the voodoo economics of trickle down fiscal policy, republican politicians have dedicated their time in office ripping apart the role of the federal system of government that saved the country during the Great Depression, won the second WW, built the prosperity of the 1950s and lifted millions through the Great Society.
Trickle down prosperity and social oppression became the foundation of today's republican party and their electorate. It gave us Iraq, the Roberts court, the Great REcession and today's hyper partisan election.
It's not boomer vs boomer.
It's right wing ideologues against the United States of America.
The republican party has decimated idealism in this country.
More specifically, the far right of the republican politicians, their financial backers and their propaganda organs have decimated idealism in this country, its institutions and its people.
With Reagan, the right wing of this country introduced "bait and switch" as its political core. Centered on the false promise of the voodoo economics of trickle down fiscal policy, republican politicians have dedicated their time in office ripping apart the role of the federal system of government that saved the country during the Great Depression, won the second WW, built the prosperity of the 1950s and lifted millions through the Great Society.
Trickle down prosperity and social oppression became the foundation of today's republican party and their electorate. It gave us Iraq, the Roberts court, the Great REcession and today's hyper partisan election.
It's not boomer vs boomer.
It's right wing ideologues against the United States of America.
9
YES!
The goals of capitalism and the goals of democracy are not and never have been overlapping. Yet the media has elevated unfettered capitalism over democracy at every opportunity, and treated them as if they are one and the same thing. Is it really so baffling that a nation that has been fed the "greed is good" pablum for the last 40+ years is on the verge of choosing a "reality" show "star" to lead it? We gave up being Citizens and became Consumers a long time ago, Mr. Brooks.
4
ow the communities devastated mostly by GOP policies Brooks supported have to be put together by a warm and fuzzy Hillary Clinton. People got tired of lots of talk about “uplift” while their factories were closing and the government became something closer to a crime syndicate — that’s one reason we ended up with Trump. Can we just dump all the squishy talk and get to brass tacks? Which candidate has actual policies? Which one has middle-class friendly details, such as tuition-free college? You can keep your idealism. I want the best country for the safety, health, and education of my kids, not a four-year SNL skit with nuclear undertones. There is no equivalence.
5
I'm not a "yuge" Hillary Clinton fan. But one has to admire the fact that she didn't run to make a ton of money as she could have upon graduation from Yale law school. Instead, she chose to work on children's and migrant workers' issues.
It seems to me that Hillary Clinton at least tried to live up to "’60s style of lofty, inspiring and self-important idealism."
At about the same time, Trump was discriminating against minorities and not renting apartments to them.
There is "yuge" difference between them and it is not in Trump's favor.
It seems to me that Hillary Clinton at least tried to live up to "’60s style of lofty, inspiring and self-important idealism."
At about the same time, Trump was discriminating against minorities and not renting apartments to them.
There is "yuge" difference between them and it is not in Trump's favor.
9
Stronger Together = "cooperating creatures." Pretty idealistic. It also happens to be true.
6
No David, devolving into a list of programs when asked why she wants to be President is a positive thing. She sees problems, hears people's concerns and thinks of solutions. To me that is fabulous. I have no interest in vacuous patriotism, flag waving idealism, lofty words while smirking at people in private and cutting deals with big donors. I'm not voting for a religious figure to inspire me. Love me a policy wonk. I'm thrilled to consider having a leader who not only can name the leader of every other country, probably also knows their children's names and could find their hometowns on a map. A person who has not only studied history but understands it. A politician who listens to someone with other ideas and her constituency and when she realizes that they believe in or are against some policy, evaluates her own point of view and is willing to change (free tuition for example) or NAFTA (seemed like a good idea, now doesn't seem to be working, let's discuss how to change it). I absolutely love Bernie Sanders and now that he is campaigning for Hillary, I applaud his class and commitment to the people of this country. But, I voted for Hillary because she represents the person to roll up their sleeves and figure out the boring little details of how to get it done, negotiate the compromises needed and move us forward in real ways. If elected, she will of course be blocked at every turn by the idealogical flag waving, rhetoric spouting do nothing members of your party.
19
Brooks breaks down with the old media line of Mrs Clinton and her "programs".
There is no uplift in this race because you choose to follow the narrative of the Trump. That's the guy who gives you the inches you think you need to sell your publication.
Pathetic.
There is no uplift in this race because you choose to follow the narrative of the Trump. That's the guy who gives you the inches you think you need to sell your publication.
Pathetic.
3
Idealism is nurtured by looking at those at the top and wanting to live by their example. We Americans really aren't so stupid as to hear words of idealism and yet see that behind the words is selfish greed and still vote for the hypocrisy.
Trump is greed personified. But then, looking at David Brooks and the people he has supported in the past, maybe he isn't the person to be writing about returning to idealism. He took a lot of energy hammering away at the idealism of the left.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene
Trump is greed personified. But then, looking at David Brooks and the people he has supported in the past, maybe he isn't the person to be writing about returning to idealism. He took a lot of energy hammering away at the idealism of the left.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene
7
I always feel there is something off base about Brooks, like he inhabits some bubble-reality. It is evident that Trump is a cynical demagogue that has no idea what he can do beyond winning. But I disagree with his characterization of Hillary - it seems based on Brooks' perception that she cannot connect emotionally and therefore she has no ideals. I mean, what??
IMHO, Hillary believes 1) that in certain conditions the government can do great good; 2) that government action must be balanced with a robust private sector; and 3) that we can choose how society should evolve but we need to do it together, not as adversaries. That's pretty idealistic AND realistic, if you ask me.
Her "distance" comes from both her personal reticence and because she is a policy person who wants to govern, to get things done. And she knows how.
IMHO, Hillary believes 1) that in certain conditions the government can do great good; 2) that government action must be balanced with a robust private sector; and 3) that we can choose how society should evolve but we need to do it together, not as adversaries. That's pretty idealistic AND realistic, if you ask me.
Her "distance" comes from both her personal reticence and because she is a policy person who wants to govern, to get things done. And she knows how.
20
I came of age in the 60's also, but I don't think that the "that ’60s style of lofty, inspiring and self-important idealism" was the prime motivator on how I've lived my life, what I've become, and what my political views are.
My dad worked in the shipyard, I grew up with an earful from my parents and grandparents about the Great Depression, I went to good public schools and worked jobs, I learned how to stretch a dollar and manage my money, I went to Nam and felt used, but I worked hard in college, and most people in those days would have been up in arms about many of the dealings on Wall Street, the fraud of the financial system, and the fecklessness of Congress. Heck, even Nixon would have sent white-collar fraudsters to prison! Think about that! Even Nixon. It was a different time.
We don't need simplistic characterizations of the 1960's to give us back idealism. We just need to get to work, in good faith, with the best ideas we have, try them out, and then do something different if they don't work the way we expect. You know, intelligent, responsible, adult behavior.
Where is it today?
My dad worked in the shipyard, I grew up with an earful from my parents and grandparents about the Great Depression, I went to good public schools and worked jobs, I learned how to stretch a dollar and manage my money, I went to Nam and felt used, but I worked hard in college, and most people in those days would have been up in arms about many of the dealings on Wall Street, the fraud of the financial system, and the fecklessness of Congress. Heck, even Nixon would have sent white-collar fraudsters to prison! Think about that! Even Nixon. It was a different time.
We don't need simplistic characterizations of the 1960's to give us back idealism. We just need to get to work, in good faith, with the best ideas we have, try them out, and then do something different if they don't work the way we expect. You know, intelligent, responsible, adult behavior.
Where is it today?
10
Very perceptive sociological history of the decline of community and civic morality in U.S. politics. Online I note this am that BBC 3 is 70 years old -
and I miss Bill Moyers. We Americans need some humility, and a greater willingness to absorb meaningful lessons and knowledge of our "union", if
we are to grow wiser both as a country and individually.
and I miss Bill Moyers. We Americans need some humility, and a greater willingness to absorb meaningful lessons and knowledge of our "union", if
we are to grow wiser both as a country and individually.
Those who ignored the 60s "ask what you can do for your country" idealism and went for Republican Reagan's 1980s greed is good cannot see public spiritedness if it tries to take their hand and lead the way.
Clinton has taken the time to network with a broad range of people experienced in working to solve the many challenges that confront us and Brooks dismisses this serious homework as pandering to interest groups.
Lacks human connection? Have you even paid attention to the many small group conversations and interactions on rope lines that she has followed up? People she has helped and stayed in contact with for years and connected to others?
David, perhaps are you looking for the "human connection" of a handsome charismatic male speaker rather than the day to day human connection of a thoughtful woman who takes time to listen to people who are struggling, one on one and in small groups, and learn from them.
Clinton has taken the time to network with a broad range of people experienced in working to solve the many challenges that confront us and Brooks dismisses this serious homework as pandering to interest groups.
Lacks human connection? Have you even paid attention to the many small group conversations and interactions on rope lines that she has followed up? People she has helped and stayed in contact with for years and connected to others?
David, perhaps are you looking for the "human connection" of a handsome charismatic male speaker rather than the day to day human connection of a thoughtful woman who takes time to listen to people who are struggling, one on one and in small groups, and learn from them.
4
One needs to have an emotional connection with a candidate? Isn't that idea what brought us George W Bush? He was such a great guy to have a beer with, after all -- but also just about the worst president ever.
I prefer my president to be competent.
I prefer my president to be competent.
377
"There is an assumption, in both campaigns, that we are self-seeking creatures, .....". That's probably true. On the one hand, if I vote for Hillary I maximize my self-esteem by voting for a woman who has fought for others most of her life (kids, health care, the oppressed). On the other, if I vote for The Donald, I maximize the net worth of plutocrats in the fervent hope some of their table-scraps will fall my way. Gosh. I don't know. Maybe I should flip a coin.
6
David Brooks has written countless truly weird things in these pages, but finding any kind of idealism in the "go-go capitalism" of the 1980's borders on the hallucinatory. Tarzan of the 80's said, "Greed good, idealism bad. Tarzan like greed!" That's about all there is to tell.
5
Restore idealism? Really?
It was Bush 43's neoliberal idealism that led the world into the 2003 Iraq War. He and his crowd called it the "freedom agenda."
It was a stripe of idealism that took the US into mass incarceration. It was called, by people of every political stripe, the "war on drugs."
It was idealism that led to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Unleashing the power of financial capitalism to be creative was obviously opening up a path to the city on the hill, where the eyes of the world would look on the USA with envy and admiration. Bush 43's proposal to privatize social security was idealism thwarted.
Idealism, combined with the peculiar attitudes which Reinhold Niebuhr called The Irony of American History, is a very dangerous game.
Instead, we hard-nosed systems thinking. We need the kind of thinking that led to the banning of tetraethyl lead in motor fuel, which in turn led to a reduction in urban crime.
We need a realpolitik approach to the middle east, not the idealistic approach that insists on exporting Jeffersonian democracy at any cost.
When drugs are the only product some people can sell to make a living, we need to understand that those people will sell them.
We need wonky regulations, wonklly enforced, in the financial sector.
To slam Secretary Clinton for being interested in hardnosed systems thinking is to beg for more Cheney/Bush idealism. Heckuva job, Brooksie!
It was Bush 43's neoliberal idealism that led the world into the 2003 Iraq War. He and his crowd called it the "freedom agenda."
It was a stripe of idealism that took the US into mass incarceration. It was called, by people of every political stripe, the "war on drugs."
It was idealism that led to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Unleashing the power of financial capitalism to be creative was obviously opening up a path to the city on the hill, where the eyes of the world would look on the USA with envy and admiration. Bush 43's proposal to privatize social security was idealism thwarted.
Idealism, combined with the peculiar attitudes which Reinhold Niebuhr called The Irony of American History, is a very dangerous game.
Instead, we hard-nosed systems thinking. We need the kind of thinking that led to the banning of tetraethyl lead in motor fuel, which in turn led to a reduction in urban crime.
We need a realpolitik approach to the middle east, not the idealistic approach that insists on exporting Jeffersonian democracy at any cost.
When drugs are the only product some people can sell to make a living, we need to understand that those people will sell them.
We need wonky regulations, wonklly enforced, in the financial sector.
To slam Secretary Clinton for being interested in hardnosed systems thinking is to beg for more Cheney/Bush idealism. Heckuva job, Brooksie!
3
I will only make one comment. Capitalism, if it was a person, would and will never be gracious, kind or concerned with the community. It has always and will always be ruthless, taking and destructive. That scibes like Brooks painted as such shows not only their lack of understanding of the true nature of capitalism but their willingness to shill for the principle. I will only make one recommendation. Pick up a competitors rag, Bloomberg, and read the piece on Goldman Sacs and their pillaging of Libya. It might even help open D Brooks eyes.
2
As an addition to my previous posting: Idealism is the privilege of the youth. From a mature adult candidate for the US presidency, as is HRC, we expect having transformed her idealism into pragmatism and the capacity to show how some of her ideas can be realized. If DT is elected as the next president, all those who undermined HRC's candidacy and all those who don't vote for her will be responsible for what this Republican President would do to this country, to the international community and to the standing of the US in the world.
1
Back in the nineties, Mr Brooks wrote a piece for (cringe) the Weekly Standard, touting some vague notion of national greatness; imploring fellow citizens and their govt to strive for something higher than, say, mere balanced budgets. For neocon boomers the Iraq jaunt presented a golden opportunity to reach for the stars. Dubya "I've got God on my side" Bush was confident he could outdo his cautious old man. Fellow draft dodger/post-Halliburton Cheney was emboldened as well. Let the great march through the Middle East commence! This is our time.
The Clintons also had visions of grandeur. In '92 they struck me as scrappy, unsophisticated grad students ripe for a comeuppance. It was a rough road, but ultimately capitalism and postmodernism's lax mores saved their rears. No penance required in this day and age.
The Donald was also confident he could outdo his old man and move from Queens into the Manhattan big leagues. By the end of the "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" decade, daddy had to bail him out big time.
Wall Street. Boomers scoffed at their staid predecessors. They could do much greater things with OPM and less pesky regulation. I worked at a Wall Street firm and eventually realized it was smoke and mirrors. And that was way before the wipeout.
Now, after all the drama and striving, our chastened Mr Brooks preaches solidarity and community. Let us focus on more "modest" goals.
It was a long road to this fraught moment, But the damage is not yet done.
The Clintons also had visions of grandeur. In '92 they struck me as scrappy, unsophisticated grad students ripe for a comeuppance. It was a rough road, but ultimately capitalism and postmodernism's lax mores saved their rears. No penance required in this day and age.
The Donald was also confident he could outdo his old man and move from Queens into the Manhattan big leagues. By the end of the "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" decade, daddy had to bail him out big time.
Wall Street. Boomers scoffed at their staid predecessors. They could do much greater things with OPM and less pesky regulation. I worked at a Wall Street firm and eventually realized it was smoke and mirrors. And that was way before the wipeout.
Now, after all the drama and striving, our chastened Mr Brooks preaches solidarity and community. Let us focus on more "modest" goals.
It was a long road to this fraught moment, But the damage is not yet done.
1
Perhaps you are right about the lack of idealism in this presidential race. When the SCOTUS issued its decision in Citizens United the idea of idealism was dealt a death blow, to be replaced by an all out war to use vast sums of money to pursue selfish interests and an ideology that says that only the rich are worthy to lead. Further, they are to lead by influence not by election. It is a mess, and until we get a congress which can put limits on campaign financing it is not going to get better.
1
Sorry, David, but it's people like you who kill idealism. On the one hand you speak to lofty ideals, while on the other hand you align yourself with people who make their livings by parasitizing the poor and disadvantaged. Your life appears to be an exercise in hypocrisy and this is not lost on those paying attention.
2
Yes, because the 1960s had idealistic, progressive people and they completely vanished after 1970, which should be confusing to David Brooks and other conservatives who seem to be constantly complaining about the progressive atmosphere on campuses and its "political correctness" that they so dislike.
Similarly, the 1980s was filled with people right out of the movie "Wall Street", Gordon Gecko types who wore their hair slicked back and preached the virture of greed -- people who all vanished the moment that 1990 hit, which should be a surprise to anyone seeing the Trump family with their slicked back hair preaching the virtues of the unbridled pursuit of profit.
This is the kind of analysis that David Brooks has engaged in for years in this column, repeating stereotypes and making over generalizations as if they're brilliant and perceptive insights, rather than tired and cartoonish cliches. Everyone in the city eats in fancy restaurants, and everyone outside of cities goes to Applebees and eats at the salad bar, in one of Brooks' most famous caricatures, which became a particularly mockable example once people pointed out that Applebees has no salad bars and that meals there actually cost considerably more than Brooks stated.
In these kinds of weak-minded, facile "insights" everything is black and white, binary, the elites all wear Armani and the non-elites all wear overalls, or work clothes from JC Penney, and all of this is supposed to be taken as brilliant insight.
Similarly, the 1980s was filled with people right out of the movie "Wall Street", Gordon Gecko types who wore their hair slicked back and preached the virture of greed -- people who all vanished the moment that 1990 hit, which should be a surprise to anyone seeing the Trump family with their slicked back hair preaching the virtues of the unbridled pursuit of profit.
This is the kind of analysis that David Brooks has engaged in for years in this column, repeating stereotypes and making over generalizations as if they're brilliant and perceptive insights, rather than tired and cartoonish cliches. Everyone in the city eats in fancy restaurants, and everyone outside of cities goes to Applebees and eats at the salad bar, in one of Brooks' most famous caricatures, which became a particularly mockable example once people pointed out that Applebees has no salad bars and that meals there actually cost considerably more than Brooks stated.
In these kinds of weak-minded, facile "insights" everything is black and white, binary, the elites all wear Armani and the non-elites all wear overalls, or work clothes from JC Penney, and all of this is supposed to be taken as brilliant insight.
3
Our current president embodies what you suggest and look where that's gotten him. When presented by progressives, idealism is scorned and those delivering the message, pilloried. It seems that lofty ideals are only tolerated on the right when those on the right deliver that message.
Hillary was openly idealistic when she delivered her commencement speech and continued in her idealistic march throughout her entire career. Her idealism was based upon pragmatic approaches. In the preamble to that speech she had said that the challenge was to "practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible possible." Idealism through pragmatism.
Thousand points of light make a nice sound bite. Nine or ten practical programs may not inspire, but a program that gives health care to millions of children has an ingrained inspiring message. Give me that details; I can do without the sound bites.
Hillary was openly idealistic when she delivered her commencement speech and continued in her idealistic march throughout her entire career. Her idealism was based upon pragmatic approaches. In the preamble to that speech she had said that the challenge was to "practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible possible." Idealism through pragmatism.
Thousand points of light make a nice sound bite. Nine or ten practical programs may not inspire, but a program that gives health care to millions of children has an ingrained inspiring message. Give me that details; I can do without the sound bites.
3
How tragic it is that so many millions of our electorate will vote for one of these these two non-leaders simply because they hate the other non-leader.
It's an election by default and a choice made when there really isn't one. Rather than tell the major party bosses that they won't support their candidates, they line up at polling booths like the lemmings they are.
Don't waste your vote on either major party candidate. Find and vote for a leader.
It's an election by default and a choice made when there really isn't one. Rather than tell the major party bosses that they won't support their candidates, they line up at polling booths like the lemmings they are.
Don't waste your vote on either major party candidate. Find and vote for a leader.
1
I agree that Trump has shown us what it looks like when you put yourself above the community. I would argue that the GOP has been putting its success above the success of the nation since at least the mid 1990s and the Contract On America.
They've decided that a majority of the majority needs to agree on something before it can be put to a vote in the House of Representatives. They've decided that they would rather do nothing than compromise. They've decided that they'd rather choose their voters through extreme gerrymandering, than have to compete for those voters. They've decided that their primary goal is to frustrate the Executive Branch hoping to make the President look bad, rather than get any work done.
Much of Hillary Clinton's lack of warmth in public is a result of having to deal with openly hostile attacks by the GOP and Limbaugh and Fox News for years. They're all happy to make things up and go on the attack, rather than work to build a better nation. Trump could never have happened before, but even the conventional GOP candidates are afraid of taking on the ideologues.
When the GOP or its successor decides that government is necessary, and governing means compromise, then most of what ails us politically will drop out of sight. And only then can progress on real issues be made.
Fix the political system first, otherwise there will be no improvements in the majority of Americans lives.
They've decided that a majority of the majority needs to agree on something before it can be put to a vote in the House of Representatives. They've decided that they would rather do nothing than compromise. They've decided that they'd rather choose their voters through extreme gerrymandering, than have to compete for those voters. They've decided that their primary goal is to frustrate the Executive Branch hoping to make the President look bad, rather than get any work done.
Much of Hillary Clinton's lack of warmth in public is a result of having to deal with openly hostile attacks by the GOP and Limbaugh and Fox News for years. They're all happy to make things up and go on the attack, rather than work to build a better nation. Trump could never have happened before, but even the conventional GOP candidates are afraid of taking on the ideologues.
When the GOP or its successor decides that government is necessary, and governing means compromise, then most of what ails us politically will drop out of sight. And only then can progress on real issues be made.
Fix the political system first, otherwise there will be no improvements in the majority of Americans lives.
1
On an intuitive level I share Brooks' thoughts on our age and both candidates. But they are both products of that age, and the culmination of a decades long cultural war that has been dogging Gen Xrs and now Millennials ever since. The real monster is globalization, not either candidate's brand or style.
The cynicism shared by both candidates is the reality that in our age, and our current system, there are no better angels, just a couple of happy shareholders of multinationals, cheap good flooding the markets at inflated 'brand name' prices, no job security, a corrupt health care system, and an "idea" of country that has been traded away. And this isn't felt only in the US; we see a rise of the far right in Europe (their iterations of Trumpism) and a Middle East that only becomes more violent and full of unrest. No amount of preaching by liberals about the benefits of 'multiculturalism' and borderless societies" is going to shake the profound sense in most people's gut that nobody really cares if a private citizen lives or dies, as long as he pays his taxes.
Until the elephant of the global economy, and our (lack of) economic philosophy is revised, the 'higher angels' that Brooks alludes to will remain nascent. We need a 21st century Keynes, maybe even female, who can construct an economic architecture where the majority of people in this country will benefit, before any kind of moral trust can be placed in this society.
The cynicism shared by both candidates is the reality that in our age, and our current system, there are no better angels, just a couple of happy shareholders of multinationals, cheap good flooding the markets at inflated 'brand name' prices, no job security, a corrupt health care system, and an "idea" of country that has been traded away. And this isn't felt only in the US; we see a rise of the far right in Europe (their iterations of Trumpism) and a Middle East that only becomes more violent and full of unrest. No amount of preaching by liberals about the benefits of 'multiculturalism' and borderless societies" is going to shake the profound sense in most people's gut that nobody really cares if a private citizen lives or dies, as long as he pays his taxes.
Until the elephant of the global economy, and our (lack of) economic philosophy is revised, the 'higher angels' that Brooks alludes to will remain nascent. We need a 21st century Keynes, maybe even female, who can construct an economic architecture where the majority of people in this country will benefit, before any kind of moral trust can be placed in this society.
1
The idealistic social movement of the sixties and seventies, especially the development of environmental awareness, did not weaken the community. The movement was largely rejected and vilified by the mainstream of society, but its legacy has strengthened our values forever. Obstructionists to the movement, apologists for the status quo, claim failure because they don't see sweeping change. But then, your blindness has always been the problem. Get out, wake up, look around you. Clinton still carries the inspiring message of the common good and real progress for millions and millions of us. You just can't see it or hear it (rather than incisiveness your job seems to require myopia), any more than you could decades ago.
The great shame of the nation right now is the level of support it has shown for a brutal, ignorant presidential candidate. But the huge American community that has benefited from the progressive social changes since the sixties will reject him, and this will be a triumph of our ideals.
The great shame of the nation right now is the level of support it has shown for a brutal, ignorant presidential candidate. But the huge American community that has benefited from the progressive social changes since the sixties will reject him, and this will be a triumph of our ideals.
1
HRC's signature effort when she was First Lady was a national healthcare program. She saw healthcare as a basic right for all Americans. Her cause was defeated but her effort paved the way for the Obama administration's Affordable Healthcare Act, which has reduced the number of uninsured to a record low. You opposed that national healthcare program Mr. Brooks as being too big and cumbersome. You offered no substantive alternative, nor did the Republicans. The ACA has lots of issues, but who's the one who lacks idealism?
5
The '60s was about making the moral underpinning the most important thing. Clinton and her generation may have failed that, but they keep trying in a stiff headwind of greed, racism and trickle-down voodoo.
The '80s was about doing away with any moral underpinning. Trump seems pretty successful at that part.
The '80s was about doing away with any moral underpinning. Trump seems pretty successful at that part.
1
As always an equivalence, where there is none. In fact, Hillary comes much closer to speaking to her lofty ideals than you come to writing a realistically balanced column.
3
Please, David, think about what you're saying. "Better Together" may not be that catchy, but neither is "to build a more perfect union" which is, of course, what it's referencing. And her long list of "interest" groups are merely an attempt to show that everyone has a place at the table. Funny, she's socially liberal and fiscally conservative, which used to be called Rockefeller Republican, and used to be what I thought you were. But maybe you don't know what you are anymore.
3
'The death of idealism' has a lot less to do with the candidates than it does with the rise of social media and the fracturing of news media and talk radio into al a carte markets where the public can gorge itself on per-conceived ideas and opinions. All sides (but especially the right) now have their own set of 'facts', and as we have lost a common set of ideas and information, political debate - from talk over the back yard fence to the halls of Congress - has degenerated into vilification of anyone with opposing views. No longer are people simply wrong, no longer do people asses the facts and come to different conclusions, they are immoral. Falsehoods become accepted as truth through constant repetition, and debate has degenerated into zinger contests that reduce nuanced thinking to bumper sticker slogans. The internet, which can bring the knowledge of the world into our computer screens instead facilitates the construction of islands of recalcitrant ignorance.
Mr. Brooks laments the death of idealism, and tries to spread the responsibility equally. Simple fact-checking the news of the past 3 decades suggests one side deserves the lions share of the blame, and Mr. Trump is only the epitome of the process.
Mr. Brooks laments the death of idealism, and tries to spread the responsibility equally. Simple fact-checking the news of the past 3 decades suggests one side deserves the lions share of the blame, and Mr. Trump is only the epitome of the process.
4
David, David, David. An "entire absence, in both campaigns, of any effort to appeal to the higher angels of our nature"? Did you watch ANY of the Democratic Convention? Did you hear anyone say, "We are not in this alone. We are in this together"?
For that matter, have you read "It Takes a Village"? Hillary Clinton has had her idealism tempered, over the years, by the realities of politics and human nature. But she remains determined to achieve good things in the world, whether you try to toss her into the same box with Donald Trump or not.
For that matter, have you read "It Takes a Village"? Hillary Clinton has had her idealism tempered, over the years, by the realities of politics and human nature. But she remains determined to achieve good things in the world, whether you try to toss her into the same box with Donald Trump or not.
492
Clinton's slogan is "Better together."
2
Death of idealism in America?
America is an odd country. I have personally been witness to both right and left wing politics hijacking, crowding out, censoring words to the point that out of a nation of millions more people than in the past we seem to have less literary genius than in the past. Physics however seems completely acceptable to both right and left wing parties--indeed it has been fashionable for decades to equate being an intelligent person with physics.
This is strange because physics seems hardly a promoter of idealism. Please physicists correct me if I am wrong, but my reading is there was a Big Bang and we are now in an arrow of time headed toward entropy which makes all human endeavor essentially a conservative process (futile resistance against entropy), which is to say our right and left wing political parties are both actually conservative and just resist evil, death, decay, sadness, suffering, entropy in their own ways, but both are essentially self-deceiving and futile parties...There is no right wing preservation of nation or heaven by God nor is there a left wing utopia of all equal and happy. Our only hope is that the universe expands and then somehow contracts, reversing time--reversing time our ideal, turning the whole of universe back to the beginning. All this well illustrated in the film "Mr. Nobody". How can our politics be idealistic when our most celebrated science is rather less than idealistic? And does physics just lead back to religion?
America is an odd country. I have personally been witness to both right and left wing politics hijacking, crowding out, censoring words to the point that out of a nation of millions more people than in the past we seem to have less literary genius than in the past. Physics however seems completely acceptable to both right and left wing parties--indeed it has been fashionable for decades to equate being an intelligent person with physics.
This is strange because physics seems hardly a promoter of idealism. Please physicists correct me if I am wrong, but my reading is there was a Big Bang and we are now in an arrow of time headed toward entropy which makes all human endeavor essentially a conservative process (futile resistance against entropy), which is to say our right and left wing political parties are both actually conservative and just resist evil, death, decay, sadness, suffering, entropy in their own ways, but both are essentially self-deceiving and futile parties...There is no right wing preservation of nation or heaven by God nor is there a left wing utopia of all equal and happy. Our only hope is that the universe expands and then somehow contracts, reversing time--reversing time our ideal, turning the whole of universe back to the beginning. All this well illustrated in the film "Mr. Nobody". How can our politics be idealistic when our most celebrated science is rather less than idealistic? And does physics just lead back to religion?
Let me say from the start; I am a Capitalist by nature. As a social tool it's a marvelous invention. But Capitalism is represented by many faces. Or, if you like, a coin with two sides. You have the uplifting strivings of the likes of an Elon Musk, a Jeff Bezos, the late Steve Jobs and all that ilk. And then you have those who serve only self; and who use the rules of our Democratic Capitalist society to enhance their self-interest in a maximum way. The rogue Capitalists.
Mylan's executive class raising the price on their epi-pen is one example of that type. Martin Shkreli and his jacking up of the price for a medication from $13.50 per pill to $750 overnight is another. And then there's Wells Fargo CEO, Stumpf and the executive board. Trump is another example of the breed.
They never represent anything, or anyone, other than themselves. They are the embodiment of Greed, Avarice and self-interest. The underbelly of human character unconstrained by any societal sensibilities. They are allowed in our society because of its "free to be you and me" ethos. Consequently society must do the occasional smack down whenever they are egregious in their actions.
I get that they are an inevitable consequence in a Democracy; but this doesn't mean I should bow to them. I will not vote a rogue Capitalist into the Power Oval to represent me on the domestic and international stages. Because representing me is not their style is it?
John~
American Net'Zen
Mylan's executive class raising the price on their epi-pen is one example of that type. Martin Shkreli and his jacking up of the price for a medication from $13.50 per pill to $750 overnight is another. And then there's Wells Fargo CEO, Stumpf and the executive board. Trump is another example of the breed.
They never represent anything, or anyone, other than themselves. They are the embodiment of Greed, Avarice and self-interest. The underbelly of human character unconstrained by any societal sensibilities. They are allowed in our society because of its "free to be you and me" ethos. Consequently society must do the occasional smack down whenever they are egregious in their actions.
I get that they are an inevitable consequence in a Democracy; but this doesn't mean I should bow to them. I will not vote a rogue Capitalist into the Power Oval to represent me on the domestic and international stages. Because representing me is not their style is it?
John~
American Net'Zen
2
>>>>
Nothing new here.
"[P]eople have always been very discontented with governments, laws and public institutions; for the most part, however, this has been only because they have been ready to blame them for the wretchedness which pertains to human existence as such."
Artie Schopenhauer
Nothing new here.
"[P]eople have always been very discontented with governments, laws and public institutions; for the most part, however, this has been only because they have been ready to blame them for the wretchedness which pertains to human existence as such."
Artie Schopenhauer
3
Years ago at a party a close friend, perhaps the only person I have truly loved, in a lifetime now past 60, was to say 'do not ask what she thinks, for she only cares about herself'. Cruel? The end of a friendship? I smiled because there was truth in what she said in front of a small audience, and earlier was remembering her and wondering if David Brooks would write something today.
My friend came from a hard-working Republican Family and her parents were toiling the soil in MA. during the Great Depression. They achieved what is known as 'The American Dream', and distrusted outsiders. Their daughter went to Wellesley and fell in love with a man, involved with Civil Rights Movement. My friend had heroes, and heroes sometimes let you down.
Reading about the age difference between the two Presidential hopefuls has been helpful in revealing that I am reaching the stage where little surprises me. But I can be better prepared and do better by asking questions and keeping my own counsel.
For those who care to know, The President is not always on the Golf Course, Hillary Clinton would easily beat Trump at a National Game of Jeopardy and David Brooks is not an irresponsible yahoo. He is inspiring this American to revisit Montaigne, get my act together and vote for the least 'Popular' candidate if asked.
My friend came from a hard-working Republican Family and her parents were toiling the soil in MA. during the Great Depression. They achieved what is known as 'The American Dream', and distrusted outsiders. Their daughter went to Wellesley and fell in love with a man, involved with Civil Rights Movement. My friend had heroes, and heroes sometimes let you down.
Reading about the age difference between the two Presidential hopefuls has been helpful in revealing that I am reaching the stage where little surprises me. But I can be better prepared and do better by asking questions and keeping my own counsel.
For those who care to know, The President is not always on the Golf Course, Hillary Clinton would easily beat Trump at a National Game of Jeopardy and David Brooks is not an irresponsible yahoo. He is inspiring this American to revisit Montaigne, get my act together and vote for the least 'Popular' candidate if asked.
"Interest group liberalism" is one of those conservative memes that don't hold up to close inspection. Good public policy is all about covering the gaps left by the failure of free markets. Health and child care, the environment, protection of the vulnerable are all examples of things that free markets fail at miserably. Why then should the ability to come up with careful policy proposals be viewed as "buying votes with federal money"? I believe the underlying fear behind the meme is that many Democratic policies aim to do do good among large sections of society as opposed to targeted interest groups with powerful lobbies.
3
You write, "When asked why she wants to be president or for any positive vision, she devolves into a list of programs. And it is never enough just to list three programs in an answer; she has to pile in an arid hodgepodge of eight or nine. This is pure interest-group liberalism — buying votes with federal money — not an inspiring image of the common good." Not an inspiring image, you say? As compared to what? Trump's plans?
Come on, David! Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Clinton, despite her apparent unpopularity, is offering the voters a good package. Not so her opponent.
America has to get out of this stupidity with its sanity and that is a tall order. Idealism is just a corner of it all.
Come on, David! Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Clinton, despite her apparent unpopularity, is offering the voters a good package. Not so her opponent.
America has to get out of this stupidity with its sanity and that is a tall order. Idealism is just a corner of it all.
4
David, I love the quote you gave from Hillary's commencement speech. If nothing else, Hillary is prophetic.
"The challenge now is to practice politics as the art of 'making what appears to be impossible possible'. The impossible being that Donald Trump could win the election...the impossible becoming possible.
Oh and to add, we currently have an idealistic President. That would be Obama. And we had one running against Hillary. His name was Bernie (and he is a Baby Boomer as well).
"The challenge now is to practice politics as the art of 'making what appears to be impossible possible'. The impossible being that Donald Trump could win the election...the impossible becoming possible.
Oh and to add, we currently have an idealistic President. That would be Obama. And we had one running against Hillary. His name was Bernie (and he is a Baby Boomer as well).
2
"She devolves into a list of programs..."
So it's great to have idealism, but bad to have practical ideas for implementing your ideals. Okaaaaaay, got it.
So it's great to have idealism, but bad to have practical ideas for implementing your ideals. Okaaaaaay, got it.
7
Your Eeyore, lookin' for someone to nail my tail back on routine is the perfect foil for Chicken Trump's "the sky is falling, I tell you its falling. It may look like the sky is still up there, but hey, people: the sky is falling and its only because I (me) told you. Talk about childish '60s self-important idealism from the two-a-youse (culture war! culture war! culture war! eh?) Oh dear, Oh my. This game of Chicken Trump is going where? And gosh golly it won't be your doin'.....Right?
3
"At some point there will have to be a new vocabulary and a restored anthropology, emphasizing love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity and neighborliness that pushes people toward connection rather than distrust. "
*******
White America has always believed it was doing all of this, while segregating blacks and other minorities. All that "love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity and neighborliness" did NOT include connection with those who worshipped a non-Christian god. It did NOT include a connection with those whose skin was dark, or spoke a different language.
And this present Republican candidate is doing all he can to make sure that that "connection" never happens. And those who support him agree that this connection is not wanted in America.
*******
White America has always believed it was doing all of this, while segregating blacks and other minorities. All that "love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity and neighborliness" did NOT include connection with those who worshipped a non-Christian god. It did NOT include a connection with those whose skin was dark, or spoke a different language.
And this present Republican candidate is doing all he can to make sure that that "connection" never happens. And those who support him agree that this connection is not wanted in America.
3
Wow, Hilary Clinton and the rest of us late 1960's graduates, aren't even allowed the "idealism" Hilary Clinton expressed in her Wellesley commencement speech without David Brooks adding the qualifying adjective
"self-important." Meanwhile there was Donald Trump graduating in 1968 and embarking on the career as the scion of a billionaire real estate mogul and learning the tricks of the trade i.e how to make sure no African Americans and minorities got housing in their buildings. When looking back on this time as a freewheeling bachelor, Trump only remembers the travails of avoiding STD's and speaks of having been too busy with other things to take much interest in the Vietnam War. Hilary Clinton's "idealism" might be slightly frayed at the edges by political realities and personal and professional ordeals, but she is still defined by it, whereas Trump is only defined by overweening self-interest.
There is absolutely no equivalence Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. None!
"self-important." Meanwhile there was Donald Trump graduating in 1968 and embarking on the career as the scion of a billionaire real estate mogul and learning the tricks of the trade i.e how to make sure no African Americans and minorities got housing in their buildings. When looking back on this time as a freewheeling bachelor, Trump only remembers the travails of avoiding STD's and speaks of having been too busy with other things to take much interest in the Vietnam War. Hilary Clinton's "idealism" might be slightly frayed at the edges by political realities and personal and professional ordeals, but she is still defined by it, whereas Trump is only defined by overweening self-interest.
There is absolutely no equivalence Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. None!
13
Well said!
"Get what I can for myself, and everyone else can take care of themselves." Hasn't that been the Republican mantra for decades?
7
The era I really miss is the 90's. Almost everyone did better. Of course, the Bush era ended all that.
3
David, you have become cynical indeed if you think that ideas to help people who need it the most is somehow buying votes with government money. People have become too isolated, but it is a surmountable problem that I believe is finally getting attention. Please, try to see the bright side a little. I am very optimistic about the direction of the country.
2
The criticism of lack of poetic and emotional quality in Clinton's campaign would be perfectly valid... if she was running for an Oscar nomination, but I would have thought that a presidential campaign is more than that. Her stress on programs and the lack of language related to love, friendship, solidarity, etc. would be a valid criticism if we could legislate love, friendship, solidarity, but policy is more complicated than that, and as far as I know we will still require some programs to reach these noble ideals, so we might as well have a discussion on them (particularly considering that campaigns would be dully similar if candidate focused on ideals - anyone against love? - ok, maybe the Donald...)
4
"And it is never enough just to list three programs in an answer; she has to pile in an arid hodgepodge of eight or nine. This is pure interest-group liberalism — buying votes with federal money — not an inspiring image of the common good."
I've got to hand it to you, David: not everyone could find a way to make the providing of *more* information a sin.
I've got to hand it to you, David: not everyone could find a way to make the providing of *more* information a sin.
13
The Founding Fathers wer the first to point out that without religion and morality, the system they. Had designed would never work. For most of our history, the US was led by a bunch of religious do-gooders.
When religion mutated into secular liberalism, things started to fall apart. Modern liberalism has gradually turned into the self-interest of the affluent classes. You can make a nice living "helping" the poor, and running the country. Your house in Chappequa awaits.....
When religion mutated into secular liberalism, things started to fall apart. Modern liberalism has gradually turned into the self-interest of the affluent classes. You can make a nice living "helping" the poor, and running the country. Your house in Chappequa awaits.....
"Clinton gave her Wellesley commencement speech in the spring of 1969. It was filled with that ’60s style of lofty, inspiring and self-important idealism" Wow, Lord Brooks is going pretty far back to find a way to smear Clinton. The interesting thing is that he doesn't point out the fact that she's worked to try and make what she wanted a reality. And if she's a policy wonk who gives more of an answer than people have patience for that's still better than what the GOP in its current incarnation does. They just cite the usual small government, less taxes, less regulation argument unless it involves abortion, corporate donors, or a way to put people in jail. I'll take Clinton's idealism over Brooks' shilling for the GOP any day.
Clinton and Trump are part of the early baby boom generation. Those of us born later have had a different experience. We grew up with Watergate, the gas crisis, hostages in Iran, a job market that became extremely unfavorable, a rise in the costs of everything while salaries didn't and unions were busted. Don't confuse the idealism of the early boomers with the cynicism of people born after 1955. We haven't seen a country resembling "Morning in America". We have experienced job loss, medical bankruptcy, a decrease in our standards of living, and a GOP that is completely uninterested in the middle class, the unemployed, etc. In short, the GOP cares not at all for the majority of Americans be they white or any other color.
Clinton and Trump are part of the early baby boom generation. Those of us born later have had a different experience. We grew up with Watergate, the gas crisis, hostages in Iran, a job market that became extremely unfavorable, a rise in the costs of everything while salaries didn't and unions were busted. Don't confuse the idealism of the early boomers with the cynicism of people born after 1955. We haven't seen a country resembling "Morning in America". We have experienced job loss, medical bankruptcy, a decrease in our standards of living, and a GOP that is completely uninterested in the middle class, the unemployed, etc. In short, the GOP cares not at all for the majority of Americans be they white or any other color.
24
The country is financially bankrupt and about to confront resurgent and aggressive enemies internationally. We funded them. It is interesting to note that the last of the Baby Boomer elections shows that the idealism of the 1960's and the elevation of "greed is good" are both morally bankrupt.
1
Check yourself. You may not be one of us Imperfect humans.
2
Spot on about Trump. I worked in New York for 30 years and he was as he is now the sleazy side of capitalism. You're wrong on Clinton though. She may not talk a good game but she has lived one. Though her speeches may not have grandiose vision, they are peppered with how to get things done through actually living your life as someone who cares. The vision thing is over rated. What we need at this point is someone who actually cares by doing and who has lived their life that way. It is the mistakes of George Bush 2 that hurt the Baby Boom generation politically wise. Don't count on the Millenials to be any different from their parents. From what I can see they are truly self centered. No, Mr Brooks the only thing wrong is that Republicanism, starting with Reagan, destroyed itself by getting in bed with Southern white males. There in is the biggest tragedy of the boomer political generation.
21
If Mr. Brooks was listening to Sec. Clinton's campaign speeches, he may find that she does speak for compassion, empathy, caring, and helping one another. "Stronger Together", Mr. Brooks, is usually the core message. Yes, there are detailed plans describing why they are necessary and who they would help. I think Mr. Brooks is using some false equivalence in describing the two candidates.
I listen to the speeches of both candidates and agree Donald Trump lacking in positive human qualities. Trump has no ideology, yet the 1960's Boomer Sister I hear on the campaign trail today is evident in her appeal to humanity.
My generation was political and discussions included ideological phasing of the times. Today many in my generation use different words to describe progressive ideas and policies to unburden Americans laboring in the richest country in the world, a country that has broken its pledge to share and to care.
In the 1960's, my generation fought for Civil Rights, against an unjust war, to address income inequality, and witnessed the rebirth of the women's movement and the birth of the LGBT movement. My generation was out in the streets, "singing songs and carrying signs". Perhaps inspiration works both ways, Mr. Brooks.
I listen to the speeches of both candidates and agree Donald Trump lacking in positive human qualities. Trump has no ideology, yet the 1960's Boomer Sister I hear on the campaign trail today is evident in her appeal to humanity.
My generation was political and discussions included ideological phasing of the times. Today many in my generation use different words to describe progressive ideas and policies to unburden Americans laboring in the richest country in the world, a country that has broken its pledge to share and to care.
In the 1960's, my generation fought for Civil Rights, against an unjust war, to address income inequality, and witnessed the rebirth of the women's movement and the birth of the LGBT movement. My generation was out in the streets, "singing songs and carrying signs". Perhaps inspiration works both ways, Mr. Brooks.
16
David, we had an idealist elected twice, and he was met with obstruction and derision at every turn by people like you. In the process, the Republicans have caused a cancer in our governance to metastasize. At this precise moment in time it may seem that neither candidate is the president you want, but one of them surely is the president we need. Hillary Clinton may not appeal to the better angels of our nature to the extent that you would like, and Trump does not even try. But the country is wounded; the country is ill. When the patient has a tumor, you call a surgeon, not a poet.
24
Mario Cuomo said this about politicians: “You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose.” Secretary Clinton is ready to govern. When Donald derided her preparation for the debate, Secretary Clinton said: “Do you know what else I prepared for? I also prepared to be president.” Unlike Donald’s many groundless boasts, Secretary Clinton merely stated a fact. She is ready, tested, and prepared to hold the highest office in the land.
Sure, Secretary Clinton is no longer the idealist she was in college, but remains an inspiration. If you want the human touch, Mr. Brooks, look up “Hillary shimmy” — surely the most joy any politician could bring to a debate. Poetry in motion, if you will. At her various inaugural parties, I expect Hillary to shimmy and dance the night away, and then get straight to work. I’m with her.
Sure, Secretary Clinton is no longer the idealist she was in college, but remains an inspiration. If you want the human touch, Mr. Brooks, look up “Hillary shimmy” — surely the most joy any politician could bring to a debate. Poetry in motion, if you will. At her various inaugural parties, I expect Hillary to shimmy and dance the night away, and then get straight to work. I’m with her.
19
For years I have supported the Clintons and liberal politicians in the Clintonian style of campaigning on a litany of programs. Every time I watched a speech, I was impressed with the candidate's (or office-holder's) grasp of the issues (important to me, at least) and ability to describe specific solutions in the form of programs. This struck me as the good and proper role of government: where free markets drop the ball, the government steps in. But every time I watched those speeches, I thought that something was missing. Meanwhile, Republican speeches were long on rhetoric -mostly in praise of America and the power of markets and people, not government, to effect positive change - but short on substance (Trump is short on both). So being an educated liberal, my role was to sneer at the Republicans as simple-minded sheep, and I complied. Now, years and many elections later, I find the Democrat "program" speeches to be hollow, inadequate, but still maddeningly necessary under the prevailing view of the role of government. For me, this column identifies and does a good job of explaining the problem.
2
Agree. The campaign has been pessimistic with Clinton playing the middle of the road pessimist and Trump playing the doomsday pessimist. Most Trump supporters I know personally are just one step short of standing on the street corner with a sign claiming the end is nigh.
Hillary had the idealist shamed out of her buy the likes of you.
9
Mr Brooks Mr Trump is slowly drowning your party. Grab a life raft fast.
I must be missing a lot from this column, particularly David's conclusion: "At some point there will have to be a new vocabulary and a restored anthropology, emphasizing love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity and neighborliness that pushes people toward connection rather than distrust."
Mrs. Clinton, vilified constantly as she always has been, is not the best carrier of her message, "Stronger Together." But isn't that theme, and the basic policy programs of her platform, her belief in what David is seeking--love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity, neighborliness and increased connection?"
If you read her platform and listen to her stump speeches, the above aspirational qualifies are what she talks about. But everyone is so tuned out on her candidacy, and she doesn't have her husband's gift of expression, to make that clear.
Donald Trump may be the most extreme example of capitalism run amok, but David's halcyon memories of the Greed Is Good philosophy that began in the 80s are totally off base. That era ushered in takeovers, leveraged buyouts, and the stiffing of the little guys downsized into oblivion in many cases. I can't remember one single example of "...capitalism not only as a wealth-generating engine but also as a moral system, a way to arouse hard work, creativity and trust" stemming from that era.
Reagan smiled and extoled the virtue of trickle down but our economic transfer of wealth from the middle class to the .1% began in his administration.
Mrs. Clinton, vilified constantly as she always has been, is not the best carrier of her message, "Stronger Together." But isn't that theme, and the basic policy programs of her platform, her belief in what David is seeking--love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity, neighborliness and increased connection?"
If you read her platform and listen to her stump speeches, the above aspirational qualifies are what she talks about. But everyone is so tuned out on her candidacy, and she doesn't have her husband's gift of expression, to make that clear.
Donald Trump may be the most extreme example of capitalism run amok, but David's halcyon memories of the Greed Is Good philosophy that began in the 80s are totally off base. That era ushered in takeovers, leveraged buyouts, and the stiffing of the little guys downsized into oblivion in many cases. I can't remember one single example of "...capitalism not only as a wealth-generating engine but also as a moral system, a way to arouse hard work, creativity and trust" stemming from that era.
Reagan smiled and extoled the virtue of trickle down but our economic transfer of wealth from the middle class to the .1% began in his administration.
29
I remember in graduate school, our professor reminded us after Reagan was elected, "Even the Devil knows how to smile".
If Trump doesn't fit anywhere with any moral or civilisational frame of American society of any era, and that he has proved again and again without doubt, is it necessary to drag Clinton all the time you want to beat Trump with moral stick, and thereby find some faults even with her too simply to appear impartial and just in public eyes?
18
Brooks did not invent ''false equivalence,'' but once again, paints with a very broad brush to obscure details inconsistent with his world view.
Capitalism needs more than ''a counterbalancing ethos of moral restraint.'' It needs a system of laws and regulations to control con artists like Trump.
This requires an government actively interested in protecting the integrity of markets, consumers and the environment. We don't get that, because our Republican-controlled Congress serves masters other than the majority of Americans.
Clinton's long list of programs is not a failure of idealism, it is a list of the things the Congress has refused to act on since Obama has been President.
It is not interest group politics, it is the portfolio of programs that most Americans know we need but can't have as long as Republicans control the Congress.
Capitalism needs more than ''a counterbalancing ethos of moral restraint.'' It needs a system of laws and regulations to control con artists like Trump.
This requires an government actively interested in protecting the integrity of markets, consumers and the environment. We don't get that, because our Republican-controlled Congress serves masters other than the majority of Americans.
Clinton's long list of programs is not a failure of idealism, it is a list of the things the Congress has refused to act on since Obama has been President.
It is not interest group politics, it is the portfolio of programs that most Americans know we need but can't have as long as Republicans control the Congress.
44
Donald Trump's first mention in the NYT was in 1973 defending Trump Management Corp's practice of discriminating against black people and violation of the Fair Housing Act.
Trump said this about the charges: “They are absolutely ridiculous.”
“We never have discriminated and we never would.”
Trump's company, represented by Senator Joseph McCarthy's Red Scare lawyer Roy Cohn, counter-sued the government as a bullying tactic.
Trump later 'settled the case' in 1975 without any technical admission of 'guilt', but Trump Corporation was forced to change its racist ways in the government 'settlement'
Forty-one years later, Birther-In-Chief Trump 'settled' the racist Birther Lie with the American people without any admission of guilt, clearly forced to change his racist ways due to public outrage of his lies.
Donald Trump has held very firm to his ideals of racism, lies, denials and bullying for enormous personal profit.
Then there's Hillary Clinton, the practiced and pragmatic centrist who practices Henry Clay's great American tradition of political compromise, who wrote to her youth pastor from Park Ridge asking “Can one be a mind conservative and a heart liberal ?” as she journeyed toward progressivism....and whose first job was at the Children's Defense Fund defending the most vulnerable in society.
There's no comparison between these two Presidential candidates, as we saw the other night.
One is a Prophet of Profit, and the other remains an idealistic public servant.
Trump said this about the charges: “They are absolutely ridiculous.”
“We never have discriminated and we never would.”
Trump's company, represented by Senator Joseph McCarthy's Red Scare lawyer Roy Cohn, counter-sued the government as a bullying tactic.
Trump later 'settled the case' in 1975 without any technical admission of 'guilt', but Trump Corporation was forced to change its racist ways in the government 'settlement'
Forty-one years later, Birther-In-Chief Trump 'settled' the racist Birther Lie with the American people without any admission of guilt, clearly forced to change his racist ways due to public outrage of his lies.
Donald Trump has held very firm to his ideals of racism, lies, denials and bullying for enormous personal profit.
Then there's Hillary Clinton, the practiced and pragmatic centrist who practices Henry Clay's great American tradition of political compromise, who wrote to her youth pastor from Park Ridge asking “Can one be a mind conservative and a heart liberal ?” as she journeyed toward progressivism....and whose first job was at the Children's Defense Fund defending the most vulnerable in society.
There's no comparison between these two Presidential candidates, as we saw the other night.
One is a Prophet of Profit, and the other remains an idealistic public servant.
261
You say that Trump reminds us how corrosive capitalism can be when unaccompanied by a counterbalancing ethos of moral restraint. Yet you and most other conservatives want to limit government restrictions on capitalistic endeavors. You continue to believe that the invisible hand and the rising tide will ultimately benefit everyone.
Even in more idealistic times, times in which community was stronger, there were individuals whose main goal was to amass wealth. There were also individuals who would strike out when angered, physically hurting others. Which is why we have laws to prevent them from doing so. We can't count on every individual to practice an agreed upon moral ethos, so why should we imagine that capitalism will adopt and practice an ethos of moral restraint on its own? We needed acts like Glass Steagall to keep business on a less selfish, more ethical path.
The disaster of 2008 happened and few were actually prosecuted because what they did was not technically against the law. Does that not say something about the state of laws governing business practices?
Never, not even during the Reagan years, was unrestrained capitalism a moral system, a way to arouse hard work, creativity, and trust. Lawless capitalism arouses anger and frustration in those who of us who do follow the law, pay taxes and try to live morally and ethically -- those of us who in some people's opinion are society's dumb chumps. If we're so smart, why aren't we rich?
Even in more idealistic times, times in which community was stronger, there were individuals whose main goal was to amass wealth. There were also individuals who would strike out when angered, physically hurting others. Which is why we have laws to prevent them from doing so. We can't count on every individual to practice an agreed upon moral ethos, so why should we imagine that capitalism will adopt and practice an ethos of moral restraint on its own? We needed acts like Glass Steagall to keep business on a less selfish, more ethical path.
The disaster of 2008 happened and few were actually prosecuted because what they did was not technically against the law. Does that not say something about the state of laws governing business practices?
Never, not even during the Reagan years, was unrestrained capitalism a moral system, a way to arouse hard work, creativity, and trust. Lawless capitalism arouses anger and frustration in those who of us who do follow the law, pay taxes and try to live morally and ethically -- those of us who in some people's opinion are society's dumb chumps. If we're so smart, why aren't we rich?
20
David Brooks, 2009:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/opinion/05brooks.html
"If the Republicans are going to rebound, they will have to re-establish themselves as the party of civic order. First, they will have to stylistically decontaminate their brand. That means they will have to find a leader who is calm, prudent, reassuring and reasonable.
Then they will have to explain that there are two theories of civic order. There is the liberal theory, in which teams of experts draw up plans to engineer order wherever problems arise. And there is the more conservative vision in which government sets certain rules, but mostly empowers the complex web of institutions in which the market is embedded.
Both of these visions are now contained within the Democratic Party. The Republicans know they need to change but seem almost imprisoned by old themes that no longer resonate. The answer is to be found in devotion to community and order, and in the bonds that built the nation."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/opinion/05brooks.html
"If the Republicans are going to rebound, they will have to re-establish themselves as the party of civic order. First, they will have to stylistically decontaminate their brand. That means they will have to find a leader who is calm, prudent, reassuring and reasonable.
Then they will have to explain that there are two theories of civic order. There is the liberal theory, in which teams of experts draw up plans to engineer order wherever problems arise. And there is the more conservative vision in which government sets certain rules, but mostly empowers the complex web of institutions in which the market is embedded.
Both of these visions are now contained within the Democratic Party. The Republicans know they need to change but seem almost imprisoned by old themes that no longer resonate. The answer is to be found in devotion to community and order, and in the bonds that built the nation."
10
A 103 year old lady just voted for Hilary Clinton in Iowa. How's that for idealism, Mr Brooks?
It is said that the older you get, the more conservative - or more like your parents - you become. Since you were once a Democrat but turned Republican early, maybe a bit of introspection is in order. Perhaps it is a topic of your column. Not only it will help to silent your royal opposition but also shred some light to curious fence sitting readers like myself.
But back to Mrs Clinton and Mr Trump. There is no question Mrs Clinton has had a lot of wear and tear through the years. Unlike Sen Bernie Sanders whose evergreen strength is remarkable this year. But then, let's be fair, Bernie has lay slow in Congress all these years. He didn't have a big bull eye painted on his back, let alone in front and in the forehead.
Speaking of bull eye, evidently Mr Trump is the guy who has been painting on other people's back - and front and other body parts. After all, he could be the first ever Bully in Chief at the White House. He makes President Johnson look like a boy scout! So let's just say Mr Trump was born without idealism and has never acquired any.
So is Idealism dead? I dunno. Perhaps we have lost our innocence a long time ago. And to some, like the Native Americans and blacks, they have not seen any for centuries. However, maybe we have a chance of pragmatic idealism with Mr Clinton comes Nov. And email server will not change an iota of it
It is said that the older you get, the more conservative - or more like your parents - you become. Since you were once a Democrat but turned Republican early, maybe a bit of introspection is in order. Perhaps it is a topic of your column. Not only it will help to silent your royal opposition but also shred some light to curious fence sitting readers like myself.
But back to Mrs Clinton and Mr Trump. There is no question Mrs Clinton has had a lot of wear and tear through the years. Unlike Sen Bernie Sanders whose evergreen strength is remarkable this year. But then, let's be fair, Bernie has lay slow in Congress all these years. He didn't have a big bull eye painted on his back, let alone in front and in the forehead.
Speaking of bull eye, evidently Mr Trump is the guy who has been painting on other people's back - and front and other body parts. After all, he could be the first ever Bully in Chief at the White House. He makes President Johnson look like a boy scout! So let's just say Mr Trump was born without idealism and has never acquired any.
So is Idealism dead? I dunno. Perhaps we have lost our innocence a long time ago. And to some, like the Native Americans and blacks, they have not seen any for centuries. However, maybe we have a chance of pragmatic idealism with Mr Clinton comes Nov. And email server will not change an iota of it
10
The higher angels are corroded away and not left to appeal to anymore. Even the angels that respond to facts are pretty much pummeled into oblivion. We have a vast part of the electorate for whom birtherism and voter fraud are real and climate change is not.
6
"...writers celebrated capitalism not only as a wealth-generating engine but also as a moral system, a way to arouse hard work, creativity and trust."
Come on. A moral system? You mean the one that kicked off offshoring, making money on financial products instead of goods, breaking the middle class, and destroying Main Street? The one that turned American business into a "stock price uber allies" nightmare? The eighties was all about showing that working hard was for suckers--and being a "smart businessman" meant scavenging companies for all they were worth. The only folks who arguably got lasting riches from that era were Wall Streeters, coke dealers, and crack dealers.
Come on. A moral system? You mean the one that kicked off offshoring, making money on financial products instead of goods, breaking the middle class, and destroying Main Street? The one that turned American business into a "stock price uber allies" nightmare? The eighties was all about showing that working hard was for suckers--and being a "smart businessman" meant scavenging companies for all they were worth. The only folks who arguably got lasting riches from that era were Wall Streeters, coke dealers, and crack dealers.
2
You forgot one of Trump's more charming qualities, that of out and out thievery, as when he said we should simply take another country's natural resources. To twist the motto of the ad campaign of an investment company a decade or two ago: "Trump made his money the old fashioned way: he stole it".
9
Shame on you, David. Clinton has her faults and a complicated history, but she envisions a brighter future for this country. She has been tested in the fire and is a survivor with a solid progressive program. Donald is everything any decent American despises - unadulterated cupidity and greed. Please do not put them on the same moral level.
28
I agree that poetic and aspirational qualities are not expressed in lofty rhetoric by Hillary Clinton but I have no problem hearing and seeing it in the way she's approached her campaign. Her courage and resolution in the face of shrieking right wing attacks should earn the admiration of any responsible citizen. Go on YouTube and search for "Clinton death list" for example and see an endless number of videos containing complete nonsense contributed and watched by alt right fanatics. Mr. Brooks, Hillary is our warrior combating the lunatics emerging from your Republican party and as such, has shown far more guts than I've ever noticed from you. Recognize her strengths.
16
"At some point there will have to be a new vocabulary and a restored anthropology, emphasizing love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity and neighborliness that pushes people toward connection rather than distrust. Millennials, I think, want to be active in this rebinding. But inspiration certainly isn’t coming from the aging boomers now onstage."
Your idealism sounds marvelously consistent with Clinton's observation that "it takes a village." Remind me, David, how did Republicans respond to that one?
Perhaps Clinton's reticence to speak in idealistic platitudes has been informed by fighting your party's negativism, amorality, and cynicism. Too bad you insist on creating false equivalencies between the two candidates; it seems to have blinded you to the idealism that informs Clinton's agenda.
Your idealism sounds marvelously consistent with Clinton's observation that "it takes a village." Remind me, David, how did Republicans respond to that one?
Perhaps Clinton's reticence to speak in idealistic platitudes has been informed by fighting your party's negativism, amorality, and cynicism. Too bad you insist on creating false equivalencies between the two candidates; it seems to have blinded you to the idealism that informs Clinton's agenda.
27
"When asked why she wants to be president or for any positive vision, she devolves into a list of programs. And it is never enough just to list three programs in an answer; she has to pile in an arid hodgepodge of eight or nine."
Mrs. Clinton is running for the position of President, where she will be asked to lead countless programs and agencies; not only should she utilize these programs, that's one of her primary responsibilities. Is that task exciting in a headline? Perhaps not, but that doesn't take away the importance.
The days of higher angels in the presidency have apparently passed us, but that's not the fault of those running now. We've witnessed President Obama attempt to make positive changes to our health care system, an effort undertaken by president after president unsuccessfully, only to be rewarded with seven years of partisan efforts to undo the work, rather than working together to improve it.
During the campaign, Mrs. Clinton was criticized for not having big ideas. Big ideas can not happen in this era where the goal of legislators is to stop the President at every turn. I'm not looking for a candidate that is out to do what may be idealistic but undoable. Instead, I want competance in the day to day work.
Mrs. Clinton is running for the position of President, where she will be asked to lead countless programs and agencies; not only should she utilize these programs, that's one of her primary responsibilities. Is that task exciting in a headline? Perhaps not, but that doesn't take away the importance.
The days of higher angels in the presidency have apparently passed us, but that's not the fault of those running now. We've witnessed President Obama attempt to make positive changes to our health care system, an effort undertaken by president after president unsuccessfully, only to be rewarded with seven years of partisan efforts to undo the work, rather than working together to improve it.
During the campaign, Mrs. Clinton was criticized for not having big ideas. Big ideas can not happen in this era where the goal of legislators is to stop the President at every turn. I'm not looking for a candidate that is out to do what may be idealistic but undoable. Instead, I want competance in the day to day work.
31
'...a new vocabulary and a restored anthropology, emphasizing love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity and neighborliness that pushes people toward connection rather than distrust.' It might be useful to find out what other parts of the industrialized world is like. Canada still has a collective mentality, unlike the United States, which emphasizes the rights of the individual over the group's. Hence your liberal gun laws, and lack of health care. I don't see a way forward in your polarized world; it's difficult to feel great bonhomie towards your fellow citizens who are open-carrying. And where nearly 50 percent of your citizens think that Trump for president is a good idea.
19
Oh, David! Your guy is a bum so you have to denigrate the other candidate to make it all look fair and balanced. We all know that this false equivalency was exposed for what it really is a long time ago.
26
The so called "uplift" Mr. Brooks speaks of is not tangible. What is not idealistic about a list of programs? Is it bad for a female leader to have her act together and actually have a plan?
21
No, I think the point for conservatives like David Brooks is "it is bad to have a female leader." Male privilege always resists losing that privilege. See what happens when a spouse takes a stand...
Wow, how neat is this- start with a proposition and then distort reality to fit it into your box and you have your weekly column. I'm not a huge Hillary fan, but how can you so completely reduce her policy efforts to paying off individual constituencies with federal money- what an absolute conservative canard!
That happens to be how government addresses problems- by initiating programs that actually cost taxpayers money. The real question is, which taxpayers at what rate.
Mr. Brooks, in an effort to maintain your increasingly difficult position as a spokesman for conservative "ideals" you have truly become a king of false equivalencies in this column.
Clinton remains the idealist she was as a college student- but she has been hardened by the nature of the political game. This article is the kind of obstacle she has to deal with on a daily basis.
That happens to be how government addresses problems- by initiating programs that actually cost taxpayers money. The real question is, which taxpayers at what rate.
Mr. Brooks, in an effort to maintain your increasingly difficult position as a spokesman for conservative "ideals" you have truly become a king of false equivalencies in this column.
Clinton remains the idealist she was as a college student- but she has been hardened by the nature of the political game. This article is the kind of obstacle she has to deal with on a daily basis.
62
"Death of Idealism" is a perfect title for your editorial. That is precisely what took place over several paragraphs and a bunch of decades.
I remember being raised in a more idealistic America. But, I was not a fool.
Before my ninth birthday, I learned that the Dodgers were moving from Brooklyn to California. I asked my father how that was possible,and he responded by saying, "It's just a business, only a business."
In Monday night's debate, I heard a man tell us that he was a businessman, suggesting he was capable of exploiting any legal loophole and that qualified him to be our president.
Legalism and ethics are not equal! Is it idealistic to want a president that has some concern for ethics? Would Trump move the White House to another state, if they made a deal behind the scenes to allow Trump to build a massive Trump hotel and Casino, right next door?
I don't think Hillary would consider the prospect. She may be a denutered bureaucrat, but she ain't no Trump.
I remember being raised in a more idealistic America. But, I was not a fool.
Before my ninth birthday, I learned that the Dodgers were moving from Brooklyn to California. I asked my father how that was possible,and he responded by saying, "It's just a business, only a business."
In Monday night's debate, I heard a man tell us that he was a businessman, suggesting he was capable of exploiting any legal loophole and that qualified him to be our president.
Legalism and ethics are not equal! Is it idealistic to want a president that has some concern for ethics? Would Trump move the White House to another state, if they made a deal behind the scenes to allow Trump to build a massive Trump hotel and Casino, right next door?
I don't think Hillary would consider the prospect. She may be a denutered bureaucrat, but she ain't no Trump.
16
"Of course, Trump was always a scuzzy version of the capitalist type. Somehow I got on the guest list of a few of the ’80s-era parties he hosted in the lobby of his skyscraper and would go for sociological entertainment."
Oh please.
Oh please.
16
Hillary has worked her entire public life toward being President. Everything is a bumper sticker directed toward that end. Her meager achievements, given the power she wielded and her time in public life, are pathetic.
Trump is a horror, no doubt, but Hillary's single minded drive to achieve the office is very very frightening.
A good column David, thanks.
Trump is a horror, no doubt, but Hillary's single minded drive to achieve the office is very very frightening.
A good column David, thanks.
5
If she had been a man she would have already been president with her abilities.
4
So Ed, assuming you've discussed her life-long goals with Hillary, me telling my own daughter that if "you study real hard you could someday be President of the United States", is (to your way of thinking) a 'very, very frightening' thing to suggest?
1
Not once in my fairly long life have I heard criticism of a man for his single-minded pursuit of a lofty goal. Why is this such a common objection to the first female major party presidential candidate?
2
First of all:
"Somehow I got on the guest list of a few of the ’80s-era parties he hosted in the lobby of his skyscraper and would go for sociological entertainment."
If ever a line revealed the man it was that one.
Now, on to the real issue. Brooks is right that there's little for anyone to feel idealistic about this time around, especially if one's idealism is only mustered by a candidate. By contrast, I find the anti-Trump spirit, both in and out of Hillary's campaign, to be quite idealistic. We are imagining turning back a tide of hatred, greed, racism, misogyny and stupidity. It's actually quite empowering and lofty. The media creates the idea that something is wrong if you don't "love" your candidate or you don't have lots of positive reasons for giving them your vote. I beg to differ. Defeating Trumpism is the most idealistic thing we can do right now.
"Somehow I got on the guest list of a few of the ’80s-era parties he hosted in the lobby of his skyscraper and would go for sociological entertainment."
If ever a line revealed the man it was that one.
Now, on to the real issue. Brooks is right that there's little for anyone to feel idealistic about this time around, especially if one's idealism is only mustered by a candidate. By contrast, I find the anti-Trump spirit, both in and out of Hillary's campaign, to be quite idealistic. We are imagining turning back a tide of hatred, greed, racism, misogyny and stupidity. It's actually quite empowering and lofty. The media creates the idea that something is wrong if you don't "love" your candidate or you don't have lots of positive reasons for giving them your vote. I beg to differ. Defeating Trumpism is the most idealistic thing we can do right now.
80
This is the death of David's idealism. He finally sees in the flesh of the Orange One what Brooks and his party has been preaching these past 2 decades. HRC on the other hand, is as idealistic as ever. She is a doer, a maker. Her head is full of policy ways to make a difference. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy or Jill a dull girl. We need these workers to keep our country going so don't criticize a hard working and well prepared HRC because of her intellectual success and, perhaps, some well deserved standoffishness.
No the progressives idealism has not died. It is just as uplifting as ever. It is just buried under an avalanche of 30 years of social injustice and right wing-nut Republican inept governance.
Do yourself a favor and vote for HRC in November. Reinvigorate yourself as you walk out of the polling booth knowing you did the right thing. Never to late to be saved, David.
No the progressives idealism has not died. It is just as uplifting as ever. It is just buried under an avalanche of 30 years of social injustice and right wing-nut Republican inept governance.
Do yourself a favor and vote for HRC in November. Reinvigorate yourself as you walk out of the polling booth knowing you did the right thing. Never to late to be saved, David.
149
I don't need or desire any emotional connection to the POTUS. Preparation, smarts, demeanor, temperament, experience, empathy, compassion, & allignment with my political beliefs are all that I require in a leader. I am female, 67 y/o. I'm with her.
168
"Millennials, I think, want to be active in this rebinding." Really? I can't get over the position of so many Sanders supporters who still shout " never Hillary". It's a naive, selfish, and politically (and personally) immature position. If Sanders becomes the Nader of this election the millenlials will watch the Supremes roll back the rights so many fought and died for in 1960s, including more than likely, some of their parents. Then again, never lifting their faces from their iPhones they many never see it happening until it's too late.
35
Mr. Trump is the present and the future of the Republican Party. He personifies the mentality of his constituency, which is why he is the party nominee.
13
I read a scathing and accurate indictment of Trump and a weak attempt to conflate his sorry life with Hillary's. That's how YOU contribute to the downfall of idealism -- you lie by deliberate conflation.
201
Why do most columnists, you included, feel compelled to always say ''he's horrible, but she's got big problems too'?
We all have faults. Not many of us are horrible.
We all have faults. Not many of us are horrible.
93
Hillary began her idealism with her old fashioned faith based Midwestern Methodism when she (and her youth group) baby sat for free minority women who had to work; AND as a child living at home with her conservative small business owner dad when she showed an early interest in presidential politics by becoming a Goldwater Girl.
She achieved scholastic success by sheer hard work at a public high school and was admitted to one of America's premier colleges Wellesley where she distinguished herself academically and politically by supporting liberal progressive Eugene McCarthy for president.
Since her college days she has continued to support, campaign, raise money, and recruit mainstream Democrats into a party that champions civil rights, labor unions, the environment, and regulations on big banks and Wall Street. She has a VERY LONG history of supporting women and children's health issues. As First Lady tackled the thorny issues of expanding health care for all Americans.
At some point David Brooks will have to begin to grudgingly acknowledge her early human touch with baby sitting for free minority women with her church group as an emotional connection with women and babies. What could be a more inspiring image than that?
As a wife, mother, and grandmother she soldiers on despite Rush hate radio, GOP investigations, Tea Party calumny, and Brooks' disingenuous cherry picking essays.
She achieved scholastic success by sheer hard work at a public high school and was admitted to one of America's premier colleges Wellesley where she distinguished herself academically and politically by supporting liberal progressive Eugene McCarthy for president.
Since her college days she has continued to support, campaign, raise money, and recruit mainstream Democrats into a party that champions civil rights, labor unions, the environment, and regulations on big banks and Wall Street. She has a VERY LONG history of supporting women and children's health issues. As First Lady tackled the thorny issues of expanding health care for all Americans.
At some point David Brooks will have to begin to grudgingly acknowledge her early human touch with baby sitting for free minority women with her church group as an emotional connection with women and babies. What could be a more inspiring image than that?
As a wife, mother, and grandmother she soldiers on despite Rush hate radio, GOP investigations, Tea Party calumny, and Brooks' disingenuous cherry picking essays.
218
You've nailed it, Cowboy.
3
Yes Cowboy...those defending real family values have been invisible in society. The free work that is done on behalf of families is staggering, and not counted as real work. By real family values, I mean pro-choice, pro-equal pay, pro- healthcare, pro-family leave, pro-education that's fairly funded for pre-k through college without going in to debt, ...
The right turned the phrase "family-values" into a weapon of religion and shaming instead of compassion and aide for care-takers.
The right turned the phrase "family-values" into a weapon of religion and shaming instead of compassion and aide for care-takers.
3
Thanks
2
We have always had idealists, but the confluence of idealism and capitalism was never strong. Even Adam Smith recognized that.
L'assiaz-faire capitalism has always been at odds with uplifted moral ideals. There is a reason the Courts had to rein in monopolies before the start of the 20th century; why unions got a footing; why child labor had to be outlawed. The progressive movement for social justice championed by Teddy Roosevelt and Dorothy Day were cures for the more Dickensian application of the robber baron era.
L'assez-faire capitalism prices epi-pens at outrageous prices because parents need multiple new ones every year to keep their kids alive. What the market can bear is extortion.
The antidote is the dreaded regulation. If people could be trusted to do the right thing, we wouldn't have any. We've been regulating for more than a century because time and again, people get away with what they can.
Idealism has never been the impetus for capitalism.
L'assiaz-faire capitalism has always been at odds with uplifted moral ideals. There is a reason the Courts had to rein in monopolies before the start of the 20th century; why unions got a footing; why child labor had to be outlawed. The progressive movement for social justice championed by Teddy Roosevelt and Dorothy Day were cures for the more Dickensian application of the robber baron era.
L'assez-faire capitalism prices epi-pens at outrageous prices because parents need multiple new ones every year to keep their kids alive. What the market can bear is extortion.
The antidote is the dreaded regulation. If people could be trusted to do the right thing, we wouldn't have any. We've been regulating for more than a century because time and again, people get away with what they can.
Idealism has never been the impetus for capitalism.
40
One of the slogans that captured the 'idealism' of the 80s stated that "greed is good." Reagan's assault on the belief that government could play a positive role in society encouraged this notion, because he and the GOP defined their version of individualism primarily in economic terms, as an engine of growth. Once liberated from the shackles of high taxes and onerous regulations, their capitalist heroes would rescue the country from stagflation while enriching themselves.
The market, rather than government, would reduce poverty by creating new jobs. The reelection campaign slogan, "It's morning in America," implied that Reagan had rescued the country from the gloom caused by well-meaning but incompetent bureaucrats who believed that they served as better stewards of the economy than self-interested businessmen.
The Republicans elevated Reagan's hostility to taxes and regulation to the status of doctrine, along with the conviction that government efforts to help the disadvantaged merely corrupted them. Trump, who equated morality with self-interest, thrived in the environment fostered by this ideology, and it inspires the only authentic part of his platform.
Clinton, heir to a very different tradition, still battles to restore the ideal that the society has a responsibility to its members. Her "hodgepodge" of programs, whatever their shortcomings, define America as a community and proclaim that self-interested individualism cannot create a humane society.
The market, rather than government, would reduce poverty by creating new jobs. The reelection campaign slogan, "It's morning in America," implied that Reagan had rescued the country from the gloom caused by well-meaning but incompetent bureaucrats who believed that they served as better stewards of the economy than self-interested businessmen.
The Republicans elevated Reagan's hostility to taxes and regulation to the status of doctrine, along with the conviction that government efforts to help the disadvantaged merely corrupted them. Trump, who equated morality with self-interest, thrived in the environment fostered by this ideology, and it inspires the only authentic part of his platform.
Clinton, heir to a very different tradition, still battles to restore the ideal that the society has a responsibility to its members. Her "hodgepodge" of programs, whatever their shortcomings, define America as a community and proclaim that self-interested individualism cannot create a humane society.
497
Look how well Reaganism turned out: rampant cronyism, actually criminal behavior at the top of most large corporations, the gutting of the national infrastructure and continual pursuit of endless, unwinnable wars, throwing literally 2/3rds of the citizens' wealth into the war dumpster for no purpose whatsoever.
Individualism? More like vicious, medieval tribalism. Russia has nothing in us in that regard. The evil and salaciousness of our oligarchs far outweighs that of theirs, who look quaint and broad-minded by comparison.
Individualism? More like vicious, medieval tribalism. Russia has nothing in us in that regard. The evil and salaciousness of our oligarchs far outweighs that of theirs, who look quaint and broad-minded by comparison.
1
Contrary to your memory of the '80's, Gordon "Greed is good" Gecko was NOT held up as a role model in the movie Wall Street. Sorry.
Thank You.
Get what I can for myself, and everyone else can take care of themselves. Pretty much sums up the official slogan of the GOP since 1980.
34
I do not think that emotional connection is needed to be a good President.
We need Clinton's human connection; pragmatism; a"pile of arid hodgepodge" programs and the ability to implement them in the next eight years.
Let us leave Donald with his emotional connections and his emotional responses to policy issues.
We need Clinton's human connection; pragmatism; a"pile of arid hodgepodge" programs and the ability to implement them in the next eight years.
Let us leave Donald with his emotional connections and his emotional responses to policy issues.
271
Aurace:
"Clinton's 'human' connection? Which would that be? Her support of Wall street? Her support for wars? Her support for trade agreements? Her willingness to blow in the wind? Will the REAL Hillary please stand up?
And in the recent debate, she acted like a giggly preteen girl at a sleep over.
"Clinton's 'human' connection? Which would that be? Her support of Wall street? Her support for wars? Her support for trade agreements? Her willingness to blow in the wind? Will the REAL Hillary please stand up?
And in the recent debate, she acted like a giggly preteen girl at a sleep over.
Of course, Donald Rump's emotional connection is to himself.
Emotional and shallow.
David Brooks just gored Hillary Clinton (see Paul Krugman): making both candidates equal in calling HRC's early words grandiose (when Trump is grandiose through and through) and, even worse, after linking "good" with "devastatingly" he finds: "but she lacks the human touch when talking about the nation's problems". I find this comment out of human touch and out of intellectual honesty.
33
You are dreaming if you believe this damaged society can ever return to its promise of a decent, free republic with sensible norms, laws and institutions. Instead the emerging dystopia, engineered by the wealthy and the selfish and made unlivable by the famous and the elected, is revealed each day as corruption, hatred, incompetence and gross excess rule the day. The end of the experiment has begun; our children the boomers turned out to be parodies of their politics as their greed and excess gave birth to our grandchildren, who are incapable of original thought, clueless as to the workings of the world and selfie-absorbed to the point of laughable incoherence. As we exit the stage, we leave behind the bad scripts, the poor lighting and the lousy acoustics of our times.
6
Barack Obama talked about big things--and was mercilessly mocked by his political opponents, who called him shallow, and worse (far worse). Then he got into the prose of governing, and found himself opposed at every point--even when he espoused approaches that, if introduced by a Republican President, would have gained widespread applause. And the personal attacks didn't stop--they got uglier.
Selfishness and cynicism are a product of a corrosive political discourse--and what Mr. Brooks did not acknowledge is that most of it came from his side of the aisle. When hope and optimism fade, when hyperbole and insult are the only mans of discourse, can you really blame the voter for picking selfishness and cynicism?
We will get through this. We won't like it, but we will walk through this sewer and get the other side and start again.
Selfishness and cynicism are a product of a corrosive political discourse--and what Mr. Brooks did not acknowledge is that most of it came from his side of the aisle. When hope and optimism fade, when hyperbole and insult are the only mans of discourse, can you really blame the voter for picking selfishness and cynicism?
We will get through this. We won't like it, but we will walk through this sewer and get the other side and start again.
24
Sorry, David, but this is yet another one of those "false equivalency" columns that do one thing only: help Trump remain a viable candidate. There is no valid comparison between Trump's mendacity and Clinton's aloofness. We've had eight years of hearing why Obama just doesn't quite measure up; if Clinton is elected, I guess it will be another four or eight years of the same. Who knew?
15
Perhaps at some point Brooks will contemplate a campaign that would have uplift. A sad fact is that America has always had a broad streak of anti-intellectualism (cf. Susan Jacoby). This has precluded intelligent arguments and has progressively required that candidates campaign not in poetry, as Mario Cuomo said, but in Green Eggs and Ham jingles.
The world has changed. Populations overflow areas that progress towards desertification. Yet the party of Brooks denies the underlying causes of draught. And that is how they look at all the challenges of the modern world. America was discovered by an adventurer looking for an easier way to the riches of India, but all Trump can do is denigrate trade agreements, and denounce NAFTA as if GHW Bush didn't sign the original version.
To retreat from international trade is to shrivel. To embrace international trade in the spirit of brutal capitalism is to produce a population lost and bewildered. Clinton knows this, and has said, again and again, that programs are needed to help those hurt by automation, by moves to clean energy, and by the globalized market. Yet all the GOP, and Brooks, can do is reach back to the past to trash her.
The world has changed. Populations overflow areas that progress towards desertification. Yet the party of Brooks denies the underlying causes of draught. And that is how they look at all the challenges of the modern world. America was discovered by an adventurer looking for an easier way to the riches of India, but all Trump can do is denigrate trade agreements, and denounce NAFTA as if GHW Bush didn't sign the original version.
To retreat from international trade is to shrivel. To embrace international trade in the spirit of brutal capitalism is to produce a population lost and bewildered. Clinton knows this, and has said, again and again, that programs are needed to help those hurt by automation, by moves to clean energy, and by the globalized market. Yet all the GOP, and Brooks, can do is reach back to the past to trash her.
12
"i speak the password primeval.
I would give the sign of democracy;
By God, I will accept nothing which all cannot have their counterpart of
on the same terms." Whitman
"Freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place." FDR
The American Dream is in the E.R. on life-support. Truth, which is born of facts, is hanging from the lamppost, bleeding out.
The majority has been suborned and deceived, idealism mocked and besmirched with intentionally erroneous associations- like the falsely accused-the impoverished whore of socialism banished from the Capitalist temple.
"and that government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations, shall not perish from the earth."
I would give the sign of democracy;
By God, I will accept nothing which all cannot have their counterpart of
on the same terms." Whitman
"Freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place." FDR
The American Dream is in the E.R. on life-support. Truth, which is born of facts, is hanging from the lamppost, bleeding out.
The majority has been suborned and deceived, idealism mocked and besmirched with intentionally erroneous associations- like the falsely accused-the impoverished whore of socialism banished from the Capitalist temple.
"and that government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations, shall not perish from the earth."
2
Trump did not evolve beyond mere animalistic Darwinism. Clinton did. She is human, with all the imperfections that come to everyone who tries to be human. That is a fundamentally different level of idealism. To put them on the same level is a facile mis-equation.
13
First, capitalism did not defeat the Soviet Union. It was defeated by the concerted efforts of the governments of the United States and Western Europe, and by the resistance of the people those states dominated in Eastern Europe. It was defeated by the sacrifice of the people of the states who put tax money into their governments' opposition to the Soviets. And the victory was gained just as American capitalism became less idealistic and more self-indulgent.
As to the difference between Trump and Hillary, Trump is being accused of doing what he has arguably done whereas Hillary has been accused for years of doing imaginary or way-overhyped wrongs.
You want a grand race with uplifting ideas and ideals? I refer you to the Southern Strategy, the wrecking of the economy, the obstruction of the GOP for the past eight years, eight Benghazi committee inquiries, and the basket of accusations thrown against President Obama and Hillary Clinton.
You cannot fight racism and hatred in a Presidential race with flowers and chocolate. The GOP is now in bed with the worst of the worst. A fight against the alt-right is steeped in hatred and won't be defeated without a struggle for the soul of the nation. If there were any idealism in the GOP, the leadership would have stopped Mr. Trump long ago or disavowed him to a man and woman.
False equivalency won't wash.
As to the difference between Trump and Hillary, Trump is being accused of doing what he has arguably done whereas Hillary has been accused for years of doing imaginary or way-overhyped wrongs.
You want a grand race with uplifting ideas and ideals? I refer you to the Southern Strategy, the wrecking of the economy, the obstruction of the GOP for the past eight years, eight Benghazi committee inquiries, and the basket of accusations thrown against President Obama and Hillary Clinton.
You cannot fight racism and hatred in a Presidential race with flowers and chocolate. The GOP is now in bed with the worst of the worst. A fight against the alt-right is steeped in hatred and won't be defeated without a struggle for the soul of the nation. If there were any idealism in the GOP, the leadership would have stopped Mr. Trump long ago or disavowed him to a man and woman.
False equivalency won't wash.
42
Brooks wants a society that emphasizes: love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity and neighborliness. What a wonderful notion, I agree.
We need more "us" in the US.
We need more "us" in the US.
1
"Brooks wants a society that emphasizes: love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity and neighborliness."
And yet he's still a Republican. Go figure.
And yet he's still a Republican. Go figure.
2
David, You write: "When asked why she wants to be president or for any positive vision, she devolves into a list of programs."
It makes no sense to attack Hillary for coming up with specific ways of fulfilling her vision, her ideals. The presence of specific plans does not mean that she has no values.
Hillary has made her ideals of community and compassion the cornerstones of her campaign. She says that we will be "Stronger together". And she says that "Love trumps hate."
Yet rhetoric is not enough. We also want to see her plans. To criticize her for offering specifics means of achieving her goals is not an argument likely to convince anyone that there is something wrong with Hillary. You are taking an obvious virtue and trying to make it a fault.
Hillary has strong ideals. She has worked all her life for Community (It takes a Village), and for children and for health care. Obviously, she has ideals, and she also has plans.
It makes no sense to attack Hillary for coming up with specific ways of fulfilling her vision, her ideals. The presence of specific plans does not mean that she has no values.
Hillary has made her ideals of community and compassion the cornerstones of her campaign. She says that we will be "Stronger together". And she says that "Love trumps hate."
Yet rhetoric is not enough. We also want to see her plans. To criticize her for offering specifics means of achieving her goals is not an argument likely to convince anyone that there is something wrong with Hillary. You are taking an obvious virtue and trying to make it a fault.
Hillary has strong ideals. She has worked all her life for Community (It takes a Village), and for children and for health care. Obviously, she has ideals, and she also has plans.
51
You further say that "[t]here is an assumption, in both campaigns, that we are self-seeking creatures, rather than also loving, serving, hoping, dreaming, cooperating creatures." That's precisely why our government was instituted--to manage the self-seeking part. The loving, serving, hoping, dreaming, cooperating parts function even in the lawless jungle.
2
You gotta love the one you're with.
We ask too much of Presidential candidates. I want a strong leader who is honest, stable and agrees with me on the most important issues, such as national security and the American economy. If one candidate is closer to that ideal for me than the other, then I will vote for that candidate. Today, that would be Hillary Clinton.
I respect Mr. Brooks and his columns, but he is asking too much here. He wants to roll back the sociological trends which he dislikes. While it might be a good thing to have a candidate who facilitates "love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity and neighborliness that pushes people toward connection rather than distrust", we have bigger fish to fry, and must choose between two imperfect candidates.
We ask too much of Presidential candidates. I want a strong leader who is honest, stable and agrees with me on the most important issues, such as national security and the American economy. If one candidate is closer to that ideal for me than the other, then I will vote for that candidate. Today, that would be Hillary Clinton.
I respect Mr. Brooks and his columns, but he is asking too much here. He wants to roll back the sociological trends which he dislikes. While it might be a good thing to have a candidate who facilitates "love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity and neighborliness that pushes people toward connection rather than distrust", we have bigger fish to fry, and must choose between two imperfect candidates.
5
Idealism is an Ivolutionary phase between materialism and realism in the human journey to full Self-consciousness. The entire journey may be called an Ivolution; tbat is, an evolution of Self-consciousness as opposed to an evolution which is biological or physical.
1
It is really a shame that Brooks, one of the few columnists who tries to read history and sociology and moral philosophy to inform his writing, cannot get beyond his ideological blinders when reading or when writing. His description (emplotting) of history is so overly simplistic and contrived that it hardly conceals his unintentional (?) deception of our past. Capitalism (what does he mean by this) defeating the Soviet Union (as if Putin does not exist), Reagan as truthfully raising moral issues (GE "True" lies and distortions), 1960s youth as being self-important (weren't they challenging a racist, militarized society to be true to its democratic ideals?). Before concluding about the state of our world, it might be best if Brooks went back to the books he reads and open his eyes this time while reading. He might find a different story that better fits our past.
4
It is hard to remember now - what a horror Trump Tower represented when it went up in the early 80s. The gaudy and brash bronze and marble monument to the new capitalism - replaced an Art Deco masterpiece. It did not help that Trump reneged on his promise to preserve the friezes of the Bonwitt Teller building, and destroyed them in the dead of night.
Even if he had, the change in the fabric of New York was clear. Gone was the glided age of the beginning of the century and here was the new wave of unbridled triumphalism at the end of the century. That brought with it mid-block skyscrapers, skyrocketing real estate, mortgage backed securities, and the largest shift in income since the industrial revolution all ending with $10,000 per sq ft penthouses on 57th street.
Indeed, Trump and the Trump Tower represents the death of the New York I grew up in; the New York that once made it the most vibrant and exciting city on the planet. And turned it into the playground of the uber-wealthy.
That is who and what Trump is.
Even if he had, the change in the fabric of New York was clear. Gone was the glided age of the beginning of the century and here was the new wave of unbridled triumphalism at the end of the century. That brought with it mid-block skyscrapers, skyrocketing real estate, mortgage backed securities, and the largest shift in income since the industrial revolution all ending with $10,000 per sq ft penthouses on 57th street.
Indeed, Trump and the Trump Tower represents the death of the New York I grew up in; the New York that once made it the most vibrant and exciting city on the planet. And turned it into the playground of the uber-wealthy.
That is who and what Trump is.
14
$10,000 per square foot! My husband and I lived in Manhattan in the '60s working as dancers and doing whatever jobs would keep us afloat. The idea of reaching $10,000 per year as our joint income seemed unimaginable. Our then $125.00 per month apartment sold in 2015 for $717,000 plus $1500 per month maintenance. We loved NYC. Now, how do those like us, pursuing a dream and not in an upper income bracket, survive in NYC? A Republican from Colorado, moving to NYC showed me a new reality that broadened me. I became a Democrat and will remain one. At age 83, I have a memory of WW II and Hitler -- the "buffoon"; witnessed greed and Racial intolerance at work in America (btw, I'm white); voted twice for Obama and would never vote for Trump. Having watched Hillary Rodham Clinton be attacked for years I understand her self protection. To close, I say loudly and clearly, I'M WITH HER!
Let's do a quick count: 5 paragraphs critical of Trump and 1 critical of Clinton. (Gee, David, who you gonna vote for?)
I grew up in the '60s too, and remember airy rhetoric opposing flawed policies. The rhetoric did not win the day, nor should it--unless coupled with actions that count. I have learned to put my trust in someone who offers me ideas that I can literally count, as in tangible and accountable programs that we can measure and assess.
I love the soaring rhetoric too, but reality is based on things we can measure. Let's celebrate that, too.
I grew up in the '60s too, and remember airy rhetoric opposing flawed policies. The rhetoric did not win the day, nor should it--unless coupled with actions that count. I have learned to put my trust in someone who offers me ideas that I can literally count, as in tangible and accountable programs that we can measure and assess.
I love the soaring rhetoric too, but reality is based on things we can measure. Let's celebrate that, too.
101
Mr. Brooks has made absolutely no secret of how much he thinks Trump is a low life. He's been doing that for 2 or 3 months. And I agree with him.
So, is Trump your candidate? Sounds as if he is. Wonder what "actions that count" we'll get with him.
"capitalism degraded to pure selfishness." What other kind of capitalism is there? Only in boyish dreams do heroes like St. George (now an Englishman) slay the dragon.
"There is no uplift in this campaign?" I find it very uplifting that a little old lady can wipe the smug smile off the face of a grafter and show the vacuity that has become the heart of the GOP. The only response Brooks seems to be able to find to the horrors Trump represents is to tear down a decent woman.
"There is no uplift in this campaign?" I find it very uplifting that a little old lady can wipe the smug smile off the face of a grafter and show the vacuity that has become the heart of the GOP. The only response Brooks seems to be able to find to the horrors Trump represents is to tear down a decent woman.
19
Trump is trash.
Clinton is what a lifetime in politics looks like.
Our democracy should be able to do better, and it is chilling to see what we have produced in this age when so much will be required, both from us and those we elect to carry our voices.
Clinton is what a lifetime in politics looks like.
Our democracy should be able to do better, and it is chilling to see what we have produced in this age when so much will be required, both from us and those we elect to carry our voices.
2
"Trump reminds us...how corrosive capitalism can be when unaccompanied by a counterbalancing ethos of moral restraint." Mr. Brooks: the restraint you call for must not be merely moral--it must be LEGISLATED if citizens are to depend on its functioning.
5
With all due respect I think that new idealism must come from Conservatives, like with believing in something (infrastructure, innovation, recognition of the new capitalism of conglomerates who own our politicians) other than fighting everything worthwhile with a big partisan NO. That's not Trump or Hillary. That's the Republican Party which you've been championing for years and years. What do you think of Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan's leadership and ideology. Trump is the least of it.
4
David, I'd like to see a column in which you simply list the good that Hillary Clinton has done in this world over the decades - at home and abroad, lives changed and lives saved. It's a long list. Your willingness to somehow lump her in with Trump is not only ridiculous but actively harmful for our country. I'll say it again - you'll gain my respect when you say that voting for Hillary is an act of patriotism whether you like her policies or not.
9
"...the need to rebind the fabric of a society that has been torn by selfishness, cynicism, distrust and autonomy."
Lord Brooks. You need to clean your glasses again. You see a false equivalence between the candidates and their party's. There is none. Since 1980 it has been your party and creed that has been the destroyer. Selfishness & greed over all else. Coupled with the cynicism of caring nothing for others or the country's best interests. The distrust of government and the denigration of our institutions that has come close to breaking our society. All from your party of the Grand Old Pirates.
Your constant lament about our country's problems coming from us all is an increasingly thread bare excuse for not owning up to the failures of Movement Conservatism to improve the country in any way.
Your party is dying and will soon be consigned to history with a failing grade. In the meantime the rest of us have work to do to fix things up for those coming after us. If you would just clean your glasses you could actually help us out.
Lord Brooks. You need to clean your glasses again. You see a false equivalence between the candidates and their party's. There is none. Since 1980 it has been your party and creed that has been the destroyer. Selfishness & greed over all else. Coupled with the cynicism of caring nothing for others or the country's best interests. The distrust of government and the denigration of our institutions that has come close to breaking our society. All from your party of the Grand Old Pirates.
Your constant lament about our country's problems coming from us all is an increasingly thread bare excuse for not owning up to the failures of Movement Conservatism to improve the country in any way.
Your party is dying and will soon be consigned to history with a failing grade. In the meantime the rest of us have work to do to fix things up for those coming after us. If you would just clean your glasses you could actually help us out.
9
Apples and oranges. You cannot compare a candidate who is clearly mentally disordered with a candidate who is not, no matter what point you are trying to make.
5
Idealism raised its proud head in the Bernie campaign.
1
Brooks complains that "[Trump's] ethos is: Get what I can for myself, and everyone else can take care of themselves."
Ronald Reagan launched that ethos. "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" He made cutting taxes and tax avoidance into practically a religious cult. Trump -- a creature of the 80s mentality -- is the result.
The idealists who tried to fight this whole approach were vilified for decades and are still being vilified. Too many idealists in the Democratic party actually bought into the whole thing to a significant degree.
I don't blame the Boomers who came of age in the Sixties. They were just trying to stop the Vietnam war. I blame the Yuppie generation that came of age and got into power in the early 80s. The Yuppies took the greatest inheritance anyone could possibly have (postwar America) and turned it into mess as a result of rampant greed.
Ronald Reagan launched that ethos. "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" He made cutting taxes and tax avoidance into practically a religious cult. Trump -- a creature of the 80s mentality -- is the result.
The idealists who tried to fight this whole approach were vilified for decades and are still being vilified. Too many idealists in the Democratic party actually bought into the whole thing to a significant degree.
I don't blame the Boomers who came of age in the Sixties. They were just trying to stop the Vietnam war. I blame the Yuppie generation that came of age and got into power in the early 80s. The Yuppies took the greatest inheritance anyone could possibly have (postwar America) and turned it into mess as a result of rampant greed.
13
“We’re searching for more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating modes of living.”
She dreamed of a society in which trust would be restored. “Where you don’t manipulate people. Where you’re not interested in social engineering for people.” The words were grandiose, but at least there was a spiritual ambition to them.
Good one!
She can open up herself to that vision once again healing herself and the nation
She dreamed of a society in which trust would be restored. “Where you don’t manipulate people. Where you’re not interested in social engineering for people.” The words were grandiose, but at least there was a spiritual ambition to them.
Good one!
She can open up herself to that vision once again healing herself and the nation
1
What a cop out. It is apparent that Hillary has not made an emotional connection with you. But she makes an emotional connection with me and many others. And Trump, what an amoral intellectually challenged boob that is. And, your recommendation is that the millenials will need to correct this Republican created fiasco because, what? The GOP "adults" in the room couldn't find the gumption to oppose this loudmouth baby man. But they could band together to block anything one black man, a good and moral father and husband, tried to do as president. Not accepting responsibility, shifting blame, same as that old man, a thrice married adulterer, with the bottle blonde comb-over and noxious little squint. What a hypocritical cop out, perfect. Leave it to the rest of us boomers to correct, David.
37
If you are writing about idealism and human values, why can't you speak plainly about them with old, reliable words instead of this new vocabulary ? I am deeply puzzled about the lack of discussion about core Christian values by either candidate or most commentators. What has happened to "In God We Trust"?
Trump clearly rejects the most important Christian values: many of the ten commandments, the golden rule and obligation to minister to the poor as the good Samaritan did, and the sanctity of marriage. Many of the programs Clinton favors are focused on these core Christian responsibilities. But neither of the candidates accepts "Thou shall not kill" or the idealism of the Prince of Peace; both want to perpetuate our 15 year old war. The great irony of the race is that Republicans still seem to wear the mantle of Christianity and few are pointing out how poorly it fits their character and platform.
Trump clearly rejects the most important Christian values: many of the ten commandments, the golden rule and obligation to minister to the poor as the good Samaritan did, and the sanctity of marriage. Many of the programs Clinton favors are focused on these core Christian responsibilities. But neither of the candidates accepts "Thou shall not kill" or the idealism of the Prince of Peace; both want to perpetuate our 15 year old war. The great irony of the race is that Republicans still seem to wear the mantle of Christianity and few are pointing out how poorly it fits their character and platform.
141
My (limited) understanding is that the commandment is more appropriately stated as "thou shalt not murder" - killing was justified in certain situations.
As far as David's column goes, I'm (almost) speechless. He cites truly horrendous values and ideas from T***p, and simply quotes a genuinely idealistic speech from Clinton and, without a shred of evidence, insists she has lost that idealism.
David, you're wrong.
As far as David's column goes, I'm (almost) speechless. He cites truly horrendous values and ideas from T***p, and simply quotes a genuinely idealistic speech from Clinton and, without a shred of evidence, insists she has lost that idealism.
David, you're wrong.
2
Leigh Coen, I seem to remember the church was behind slavery. "In God We Trust" indeed.
1
These people are running for President; they are not running for Pope. Please, you can't be serious.
2
The funniest part of this column is the image of David Brooks hanging out at Trump Tower parties in the '80's for "sociological reasons." I'll bet he also had a subscription to Playboy for the articles.
11
The serial false equivalency endemic to the media in this campaign has now been echoed by David Brooks. Equating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, because they were both "boomers", is like equating the Marquis de Sade and Mother Theresa because their both "human". " This boomer versus boomer campaign has decimated idealism". David, Idealism has been dead since the Constitution legitimized the slave trade and counted slaves as 3/5 a person. David's condescending remarks about attending Donald's party for " sociological entertainment"( his Margaret Mead period ) reminds us that his "vanity" has not been subjected to anyone's "bonfire". His Calling for a "restored anthropology" is the kind of electrifying slogan that will galvanize Millennials into a frenzy of connection that David advocates.
5
"counted slaves as 3/5 a person. "
The 3/5 compromise concerned representation in Congress. It was not a statement of the slaves' humanity.
Had the South been able to count slaves as a whole person the Southern states would have had more representatives to the House of Representatives than the other states allowing them control of national policy.
The 3/5 compromise concerned representation in Congress. It was not a statement of the slaves' humanity.
Had the South been able to count slaves as a whole person the Southern states would have had more representatives to the House of Representatives than the other states allowing them control of national policy.
You were invited to Trump's party, Mr. Brooks, because he's your people. He represent the class in whose service and for whose benefit 'movement conservatism' has always operated. The only difference between Trump and other 'job creators' is that his egomania forces him to say in public what they all believe in private.
6
DAVID BROOKS Has made vastly inaccurate statements about Hillary, though I do give him credit for having described the depths to which Trump would sink the US. Hillary rose from the ashes of the Clinton healthcare program, to push for the legislation written by Ted Kennedy and Hatch, ending up with help for some 6 million kids. She wrote a book, It Takes A Village, trying to encourage people to understand what children require worldwide and in the US to be brought up strong and healthy. During her travels as Secretary of State, she identified the polluted air caused by cooking on open fires in the home as shortening the lives and affecting the health primarily of women and children. And she had developed a cheap, relatively clean burning stove to answer the problem. As a lawyer, she proves that she will make the world a better place by presenting her programs, chapter and verse, down to the impact on the budget for funding them. Rather than being given credit for or presenting well-designed, thoughful plans to improve the lives of people, David Brooks pans her. Why? Because he has to make a living. Unconsciously he draws some moral equivalence between Hillary and Trump. Really? David's piece is shameful. He is capable of far better journalism. Not to mention factual accuracy and fairness. If he's got an axe to grind with HIllary, he's barking up the wrong stump. David, a word of advice. Go get Trump and chop him down. Enough of your biases and prejudices!
6
Mr. Brooks: What you should be writing about as a major voice, pundit and opinion-maker of the Right is not the Death of Idealism, but the Gestation of the Right's Extremism and, yes, Bigotry. Yes, idealism has died, but it's largely been murdered by the Right's extremism, demonization of the Left's political, economic and cultural positions and its descent into racism and bigotry. The result has been a normalization of lies, of flat-Earth science denials, a just-say-no GOP Congress, a breath-taking disrespect for the (black) presidency (see Harry Reid's speech to the Senate) and a refusal to pay the price of civilization: taxes, consensus and compromise.
Hand-wringing about the Death of Idealism just doesn't answer and you, sir, are one of the aging baby boomers on stage that have brought the party of Lincoln to this pass.
Hand-wringing about the Death of Idealism just doesn't answer and you, sir, are one of the aging baby boomers on stage that have brought the party of Lincoln to this pass.
7
I just dont understand David's constant criticism that she lacks the ability to make an emotional connection. Maybe I'm just a WASP (how long since you heard that term?), and male at that, and her age, too. I dont care how likable she is, I want to see what she knows and what she can do, for goodness sake.
Do you care how likable your surgeon is, or your airline pilot? I don't. I want to know if she knows about governance and statecraft, which she does and Donald doesnt. I dont in fact particularly like her, but I want her and not him.
Do you care how likable your surgeon is, or your airline pilot? I don't. I want to know if she knows about governance and statecraft, which she does and Donald doesnt. I dont in fact particularly like her, but I want her and not him.
1065
He does this because he knows that some people need the rush. Maybe he needs the rush to break down and vote for gasp! a democrat.
3
Thanks to this laconic New Englander, I won't be writing 478 words to say what he did in less than a hundred. I and readers of the Comments are grateful. Sonoferus hits it right on the nose.
3
This may sound off-topic, but it has to do with Hillary Clinton's idealism.
"I dont (sic) in fact particularly like her, but I want her and not him."
I bet, if Hillary Clinton had a magic wand, America would be better off, but she doesn't; she has to deal with millions of people with various degrees of intelligence and personalities, with a great liability: she's a woman.
Sonoferu, I bet if you spent an hour with her in a coffee shop chatting, you would change your tune about not liking her. She is a mensch who dares not show her real self because after thirty years in politics, she realized she has to protect it. She must cater to a lot of uneducated dolts who believe everything they hear and have created a Frankenstein Monster in their mind hearing the nonsense her detractors concocted. I bet most of the negative things are based on the fact that she is a woman. Men get away with a lot more than what she is reputed to have done and been not been censured for their shenanigans the way she has.
Enough with the knee-jerk reaction to Hillary Clinton. She is putting up with a lot of rubbish because of her idealism.
"I dont (sic) in fact particularly like her, but I want her and not him."
I bet, if Hillary Clinton had a magic wand, America would be better off, but she doesn't; she has to deal with millions of people with various degrees of intelligence and personalities, with a great liability: she's a woman.
Sonoferu, I bet if you spent an hour with her in a coffee shop chatting, you would change your tune about not liking her. She is a mensch who dares not show her real self because after thirty years in politics, she realized she has to protect it. She must cater to a lot of uneducated dolts who believe everything they hear and have created a Frankenstein Monster in their mind hearing the nonsense her detractors concocted. I bet most of the negative things are based on the fact that she is a woman. Men get away with a lot more than what she is reputed to have done and been not been censured for their shenanigans the way she has.
Enough with the knee-jerk reaction to Hillary Clinton. She is putting up with a lot of rubbish because of her idealism.
5
False balance, yet again. True, Clinton does not possess the gift of soaring eloquence. But she plans to provide paid family leave, universal pre-K, refinancing of student debt tied to income -- all things that will make huge differences in the lives of people who are struggling to make it in America. I'll take that over poetry any day of the week. You call this "buying votes with government programs"? It buys mine!
10
And these programs are intended to solve very real problems for very real people who expect that of government. The private sector has no solution for these problems. Government does. That's how it works. Solutions buy votes. As do tax cuts btw.
1
She's lying to you, Bill. She has absolutely no intention of delivery on ANY OF THOSE THINGS.
She will sign the fast track TPP her first day in office.
She will sign the fast track TPP her first day in office.
1
Capitalism has defeated a counterbalancing ethos of moral restraint and has become very corrosive. And it isnt just Trump. The difference between Trump and the head of Wells Fargo or the top management of Volkswagen is that Trump does not hide who he is and how he operates. The heart of capitalism is competition, survival, and winning, not moral restraint.
Clinton's interest group liberalism is an attempt to right ancient wrongs and help those who need help. Its deeds speak to the values of loving and serving and caring. If it buys votes with federal money, Republicans buy federal money (in the form of military spending and revenue lost to loopholes) with campaign contributions. Selfishness, cynicism, distrust and autonomy are capitalist values. Binding up the fabric of society is not; if each of us take care of him or herself, the fabric of society will take care of its own creation. And Obama's soaring rhetoric was mocked and condemned as a foreign vision.
Hillary restores idealism by helping those who need help and righting ancient injustices. Her idealism expressed itself in the idea that it takes a village, but not in the comprehensive framework presented by Bernie. But it is there, and much better than the void of lies and lawsuits and narcissism the Donald presents.
Clinton's interest group liberalism is an attempt to right ancient wrongs and help those who need help. Its deeds speak to the values of loving and serving and caring. If it buys votes with federal money, Republicans buy federal money (in the form of military spending and revenue lost to loopholes) with campaign contributions. Selfishness, cynicism, distrust and autonomy are capitalist values. Binding up the fabric of society is not; if each of us take care of him or herself, the fabric of society will take care of its own creation. And Obama's soaring rhetoric was mocked and condemned as a foreign vision.
Hillary restores idealism by helping those who need help and righting ancient injustices. Her idealism expressed itself in the idea that it takes a village, but not in the comprehensive framework presented by Bernie. But it is there, and much better than the void of lies and lawsuits and narcissism the Donald presents.
28
Capitalism did NOT beat communism.
The Wests mixed economic system beat communism. That is to say Roosevelt and Truman beat Communism. Asking in 1954 about the threat of communism, Dwight Eisenhower said that it would fizzle out in five or six decades.
What happened to America since that is so depressing? Supply side bias economic policy bias is what.
Our system is a Free Market system. Market is a euphemism for demand: when Gordon Gecho says there is no market for buggy whips he means there is no demand for buggy whips.
As might be expected of a market oriented system, consumption is 70% of all economic activity. BTW consumption is another euphemism for demand.
Ergo: demand side bias policies have efficacy to positively affect the economy over supply side by a ratio of 2 to 1.
We hit supply side saturation in 1998 with the dot com bubble. We should have trashed that policy bias then yet here we are 18 years later continuing the supply side bias thanks to the GOP congress and we have GOP pundits such as your self wondering where did it all go wrong?
Simply amazing.
The real problem in economics is people and to a lessor extent, their aptitudes, are not provided on a demand basis but on a supply basis. This creates the legitimate pretext for a mixed economic system - where governments manipulate free markets - to square the circle between widgets demanded and humans supplied.
What is it you love most? Why are you hiding from it?
The Wests mixed economic system beat communism. That is to say Roosevelt and Truman beat Communism. Asking in 1954 about the threat of communism, Dwight Eisenhower said that it would fizzle out in five or six decades.
What happened to America since that is so depressing? Supply side bias economic policy bias is what.
Our system is a Free Market system. Market is a euphemism for demand: when Gordon Gecho says there is no market for buggy whips he means there is no demand for buggy whips.
As might be expected of a market oriented system, consumption is 70% of all economic activity. BTW consumption is another euphemism for demand.
Ergo: demand side bias policies have efficacy to positively affect the economy over supply side by a ratio of 2 to 1.
We hit supply side saturation in 1998 with the dot com bubble. We should have trashed that policy bias then yet here we are 18 years later continuing the supply side bias thanks to the GOP congress and we have GOP pundits such as your self wondering where did it all go wrong?
Simply amazing.
The real problem in economics is people and to a lessor extent, their aptitudes, are not provided on a demand basis but on a supply basis. This creates the legitimate pretext for a mixed economic system - where governments manipulate free markets - to square the circle between widgets demanded and humans supplied.
What is it you love most? Why are you hiding from it?
6
Morris Berman, Why American Failed, provides a synthesis of the comments by Brooks, gemli, and Luettgen. I am not a pessimist and neither is Berman, we're realists. Both Trump and Clinton have contributed to America's failure in their respective greed, and hustle-generated idealism. The likes of them have so badly beat down the "rest" of us that we lack the imagination and energy to proactively fight their causes. Luettgen and other Trump supporters think with their "what do we have to lose" attitude will put the nail in the coffin if Trump is successful. If Clinton is elected she will continue to fraud perpetrated by Obama, but only prolong our society's disease. We need a revolution, who will emerge? We will when it gets bad enough (on our death bed).
1
Hyperbole is so much fun. Have an IRA? Expect it to tank if Trump wins. The stock market is tracking Hillary's poll numbers. Not an accident.
2
"The stock market is tracking Hillary's poll numbers. Not an accident."
The market has been down all week.
The market has been down all week.
How can you write this with a straight face? Clinton's campaign slogans are "Stronger Together" and "Love Trumps Hate." She speaks extensively on the campaign trail about the transformative power of love.
The problem with the spirit of conservative bitterness that has swept the land is its conviction that government can do no right that it automatically dismisses people who are idealistic about the efficacy of government to increase compassion, hope, and security in the world.
That's nothing more than an ideological abstraction.
You're right--Clinton knows about "programs." I, for one, am excited to see what she can do with them.
The problem with the spirit of conservative bitterness that has swept the land is its conviction that government can do no right that it automatically dismisses people who are idealistic about the efficacy of government to increase compassion, hope, and security in the world.
That's nothing more than an ideological abstraction.
You're right--Clinton knows about "programs." I, for one, am excited to see what she can do with them.
30
See if you can follow this circular logic. Trump supporters are nostalgic for a time in America that they deem idyllic. Yet, how idyllic could it have been to produce all these ignorant and hateful Trump supporters?
12
Perfect!
1
With respect to Hillary, David is stuck in Cable-News like story line freeze. The story-line for the day is frozen no matter what the reality of the day is.
When I watched the debate, what I saw was a relaxed and delightful Hillary Clinton. She was laughing with everyone else about the disaster next to her and not at anyone. She was having fun and enjoying every minute of it. And it related with the audience.
And immediately after the debate, David, as if he missed the whole thing, comes out with the same old story he went in with. But, it doesn't matter because David doesn't relate to people very well. He is more of a theoretician in his ivory tower. It is not a bad thing. But, there are times that I just have to ignore what he is talking or writing about.
When I watched the debate, what I saw was a relaxed and delightful Hillary Clinton. She was laughing with everyone else about the disaster next to her and not at anyone. She was having fun and enjoying every minute of it. And it related with the audience.
And immediately after the debate, David, as if he missed the whole thing, comes out with the same old story he went in with. But, it doesn't matter because David doesn't relate to people very well. He is more of a theoretician in his ivory tower. It is not a bad thing. But, there are times that I just have to ignore what he is talking or writing about.
14
Without the both sides myth, Brooks would have nothing to write about.
2
This is one of your sillier columns, Mr. Brooks. We have a choice between someone who has a grasp of the issues facing the country and one who doesn't. Clinton may lack the oratorial, quasi-religious oratory of her hisband or President Obama, but so what? Her message is one of compassion, especially for women and children, and commitment, both foreign and domestic. You may characterize Trump as an '80s character, but his dabbling in real estate with his father's money long predates Trump Tower. For a policy wonk, you certainly are intolerant of other policy wonks, dating back to, yes, Al Gore. Moreover, faith has always been central to Clinton, whereas it is altogether new to her opponent.
14
" There is a presumption in both candidates that the lowest motivations are the most real." Well, actually no, Mr. Brooks. In only one candidate's rallies did you hear chants of "lock her up" or "build the wall". Only one candidate has empowered and energized white supremacist groups. Only one candidate consistently demeans women, demonizes minorities and degrades the civic discourse and gets away with it. We are self-seeking creatures, Mr. Brooks, and you have to alter our DNA to change that, but we are also capable of love, friendship, altruism and all the other qualities that define the better angels of our nature. But Trump revels in bringing out the darkest aspects of our nature.
His candidacy is a contagion that, even if he loses, will have debilitating effects on the American polity and might as well leave permanent scars. But, Mr. Brooks, at the end you are wrong. Idealism is well and alive in our country. The first woman president! Come, help carry the banner!
His candidacy is a contagion that, even if he loses, will have debilitating effects on the American polity and might as well leave permanent scars. But, Mr. Brooks, at the end you are wrong. Idealism is well and alive in our country. The first woman president! Come, help carry the banner!
11
At some point we got perpetual racism, Republicanism and hate. My God Brooks, Christians are going for Trump which translates to CINO, (Christians in name only). Brooks, you really need to go to a truth camp and try to center yourself, get over whatever your personal trama and understand where and why your moralizing is illogical and wrongheaded. Maybe your Priest might be helpful and truthful with you. Your children might tell you Dad!! -- get a handle on things and yourself.
4
HRC has the same problem that everyone who has lived the celebrity life of excess has. When encompassed in the bubble of unlimited personal comfort your vision of what is real is blocked by the lack of limitation of excess. There is an undeniable yin and yang to life. When your life has become too comfortable you forget just how uncomfortable it can be. You can not know hot from cold without having experienced both, but you can forget what you already know if you have been away from it for too long. HRC should take a page from the new pope's playbook. Avoid the pomp and circumstance of the wealthy few and immerse yourself in the lifestyle of the many. It will change your view of the world.
1
Yeah, that 14 mil she got from her dad to start her off in life really messed up her vision and ethics, right?
5
Hillary is not a dewy eyed youngster. She has lived in the Whitehouse, faced a craven press and so, to expect dreams from someone like her is silly. But we don't need a dreamy thinker in the Whitehouse, we need a person who can pivot from a national security briefing to a cabinet meeting about energy policy.
Why does sincere competence disturb this writer? I too swooned to Obama's rhetoric in 2008, but I can see now that we were wrong. With a Republican opposition that is absolutist (they WILL wreck the govt to save tax dollars) we need a tactician and even then we need a hope and a prayer.
David should really concentrate on a Republican Party that has destroyed reasonable compromise. But I won't hold my breath waiting for that column.
Why does sincere competence disturb this writer? I too swooned to Obama's rhetoric in 2008, but I can see now that we were wrong. With a Republican opposition that is absolutist (they WILL wreck the govt to save tax dollars) we need a tactician and even then we need a hope and a prayer.
David should really concentrate on a Republican Party that has destroyed reasonable compromise. But I won't hold my breath waiting for that column.
1217
Every one who swears Obama didn't do anything in office or was overmatched by the job should be drop-kicked into the alt-universe where President McCain died, President Palin looted the country, and President Romney finished us off.
Guess you weren't paying attention: http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/marchapril-2012/obamas-top-50-acco...
Guess you weren't paying attention: http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/marchapril-2012/obamas-top-50-acco...
6
You nailed it! thanks!
3
Strangely enough though, Senator John McCain is still alive and looks very hale and hearty at 79.
So he would NOT have died in office, as alleged and Mrs. Palin never would have become POTUS. (In any event, VP is mostly an honorary position doing not much but attending foreign funerals.)
So he would NOT have died in office, as alleged and Mrs. Palin never would have become POTUS. (In any event, VP is mostly an honorary position doing not much but attending foreign funerals.)
More false equivalence. Brooks' characterization of Clinton and the Democrats is flat-out wrong.
9
There is no equivalence between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Those who say that they’re both flawed are typically conservatives who are trying to assuage the embarrassment they feel that Trump is carrying the Republican banner. There’s no way to make him look better, so they try to make Hillary look worse.
Trump isn’t a “classic” anything. He’s the worst example of an amoral economic mobster of the kind that emerged in the 1980s, at a time when Saint Reagan was setting the moral tone for conservatives by declaring that schoolchildren could eat Ketchup.
Whatever her flaws, Hillary Clinton was an idealist from day one. If she was strident or grandiose, it was in the service of ideas that would improve people’s lives. Her ideas were lofty when she was in college, but Brooks can’t help tagging them as self-important, and reminding us that the aspirational tone is now absent.
Of course, we have a president now who was ridiculed by conservatives for his aspirational tone, and for the idea that hope and change were possible. He was set upon by the Tea Party for daring to suggest that the crimes and the despair of the Bush years could be put behind us.
Trump is the legacy of hate handed down by those who championed greed, and whose moral compass always pointed to whatever might enrich them.
Right now, there is no quest more idealistic than preventing Trump from becoming president. Hillary Clinton needs our support, not a screed that undermines her chances.
Trump isn’t a “classic” anything. He’s the worst example of an amoral economic mobster of the kind that emerged in the 1980s, at a time when Saint Reagan was setting the moral tone for conservatives by declaring that schoolchildren could eat Ketchup.
Whatever her flaws, Hillary Clinton was an idealist from day one. If she was strident or grandiose, it was in the service of ideas that would improve people’s lives. Her ideas were lofty when she was in college, but Brooks can’t help tagging them as self-important, and reminding us that the aspirational tone is now absent.
Of course, we have a president now who was ridiculed by conservatives for his aspirational tone, and for the idea that hope and change were possible. He was set upon by the Tea Party for daring to suggest that the crimes and the despair of the Bush years could be put behind us.
Trump is the legacy of hate handed down by those who championed greed, and whose moral compass always pointed to whatever might enrich them.
Right now, there is no quest more idealistic than preventing Trump from becoming president. Hillary Clinton needs our support, not a screed that undermines her chances.
630
I can only say that I’m sorry to see the George Willification of David Brooks. The visceral distaste for Trump’s persona blinds both to the four years of drift a Clinton (redux) presidency will bring us, to follow eight years of do-nothing politics. It’s more important that we have a president who says noble things and accomplishes nothing than it is to have one who couldn’t find a noble bone unless it dropped on his head from a dino skeleton in a museum, but could forge compromises and cut deals to address our most intransigent and pressing challenges.
Is it unfortunate that Roy Cohn probably made up the invitation lists to those Trump parties that so entertained David in the 1980s? Yep. I thought this was going to be an election between staid establishments, between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. However, it turned out that the American people are pretty fed up with what Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton represent, and they’re not as picky as David and George about the solution. They don’t insist that it be politically correct, or restrained, or even “over-prepared”, but that it simply offer the prospect of getting us off the dime … finally. And, perhaps, in a rare burst of self-knowledge, they may realize that we DESERVE Donald Trump as penance for being such geese for so long.
Trump’s viability isn’t the death of idealism. As we’ve seen, the presidency isn’t that impactful any more.
Trump/Pence 2016: Embrace the Horror. Because we can no longer afford the alternative.
Is it unfortunate that Roy Cohn probably made up the invitation lists to those Trump parties that so entertained David in the 1980s? Yep. I thought this was going to be an election between staid establishments, between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. However, it turned out that the American people are pretty fed up with what Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton represent, and they’re not as picky as David and George about the solution. They don’t insist that it be politically correct, or restrained, or even “over-prepared”, but that it simply offer the prospect of getting us off the dime … finally. And, perhaps, in a rare burst of self-knowledge, they may realize that we DESERVE Donald Trump as penance for being such geese for so long.
Trump’s viability isn’t the death of idealism. As we’ve seen, the presidency isn’t that impactful any more.
Trump/Pence 2016: Embrace the Horror. Because we can no longer afford the alternative.
5
Enbrace the Horror? Really? Well, at least you are not sugar-coating the cyanide capsule you are prescribing to the American voter. At least Hillary, for all her wonkish charmlessness, has some notion of what needs to be done and some sense of decency.
13
That's right, pluck out your eye because it itches. It wont itch any more.
13
@Richard Luettgen, New Jersey: Richard, is it really "more important that we have a president who says noble things and accomplishes nothing. Who is it, please, saying "noble things?" Might you be referring to Donald Trump? As in "build a wall?" Or "kick them out?" Or President Obama is "the most ignorant president we've ever had? Or a beauty pageant winner has evolved into "Miss Piggy?" Or "Miss Housekeeping?" Or the one-size-fits all "pigs and slobs and dogs?"
Richard, these few, brief samples of "noble things" is how you match up "the visceral distaste for Trump's persona?" And you have the exposed nerve to equate them with with "eight years of do-nothing politics?" Richard, President Obama took office with every expectation of cooperation with Congress to move the country's business forward. Your Mitch McConnell and (then-John Boehner and Eric Kantor) and Paul Ryan were determined in their racist opposition. And you know it.
So President Obama has been forced to govern largely by executive order, a prerogative availed by many of his (recent) predecessors, an executive right angrily denied or challenged by the Right. I suppose you align this obstruction with "noble things."
Richard, "embrac[ing] the horror" will mean the repudiation of the "noble things" upon which our country was founded.
"Forge compromises? Cut deals?" Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un and Bashar Hafez al-Assad are all still out there. Your Trump admires their "style" of leadership. "Noble things."
Richard, these few, brief samples of "noble things" is how you match up "the visceral distaste for Trump's persona?" And you have the exposed nerve to equate them with with "eight years of do-nothing politics?" Richard, President Obama took office with every expectation of cooperation with Congress to move the country's business forward. Your Mitch McConnell and (then-John Boehner and Eric Kantor) and Paul Ryan were determined in their racist opposition. And you know it.
So President Obama has been forced to govern largely by executive order, a prerogative availed by many of his (recent) predecessors, an executive right angrily denied or challenged by the Right. I suppose you align this obstruction with "noble things."
Richard, "embrac[ing] the horror" will mean the repudiation of the "noble things" upon which our country was founded.
"Forge compromises? Cut deals?" Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un and Bashar Hafez al-Assad are all still out there. Your Trump admires their "style" of leadership. "Noble things."
27
I might have hoped that you'd said more about character. I think that's a lot more important than left /right. Interestingly the Vice Presidential candidates have a lot more of it than the heads of their tickets.
There is something amiss in our process to select the candidates. The most eccentric 20% of the electorate is choosing the candidates about 6 months before the rest of the country tunes in. We need a more representative process.
There is something amiss in our process to select the candidates. The most eccentric 20% of the electorate is choosing the candidates about 6 months before the rest of the country tunes in. We need a more representative process.
2
Capitalism in the 1980s was also about selfishness. It wasn't called the 'greed decade' for nothing.
David Brooks does write from an ivory tower.
David Brooks does write from an ivory tower.
12
Mr. Brooks writes a lot about heart, communal spirit, and the good old days, but he must know in his own heart that this is a flim-flam argument.
There was nothing idealistic about 1980s Reaganomics and capitalistic "trickle-down" ideologies. The prolonged GOP attack on the national government, it's defense of "gun rights," tax cuts, and "religious liberties," has been always essentially misogynistic, racist.
And then Mr. Brooks compares Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump and claims that she, too, has lost her idealistic youthful spirit, as evidenced by the fact that he finds her boring on stage because she talks about too many practical policies that might actually help women, children, the uninsured, and the unemployed in this nation.
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!
Even here in New York, where we pay high taxes, too many children arrive to school hungry. Government programs of the kind advocated by Hillary Clinton help to give them food. Early education. And, in time, college educations. And yes, those programs are complicated. Trump doesn't understand them. He doesn't care.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump hires white nationalists to run his campaign and siphons off money from donors to his "charitable" Foundation to buy pictures of himself and pay off a couple of (justified) lawsuits.
Mr. Brooks, if you refuse to acknowledge the vast differences between these two candidates, then, in my opinion, you are doing evil.
There was nothing idealistic about 1980s Reaganomics and capitalistic "trickle-down" ideologies. The prolonged GOP attack on the national government, it's defense of "gun rights," tax cuts, and "religious liberties," has been always essentially misogynistic, racist.
And then Mr. Brooks compares Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump and claims that she, too, has lost her idealistic youthful spirit, as evidenced by the fact that he finds her boring on stage because she talks about too many practical policies that might actually help women, children, the uninsured, and the unemployed in this nation.
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!
Even here in New York, where we pay high taxes, too many children arrive to school hungry. Government programs of the kind advocated by Hillary Clinton help to give them food. Early education. And, in time, college educations. And yes, those programs are complicated. Trump doesn't understand them. He doesn't care.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump hires white nationalists to run his campaign and siphons off money from donors to his "charitable" Foundation to buy pictures of himself and pay off a couple of (justified) lawsuits.
Mr. Brooks, if you refuse to acknowledge the vast differences between these two candidates, then, in my opinion, you are doing evil.
508
It would not be the first time.
1
Right on! I care about practical ideas to help people in need. As a longtime working single mom, I would have appreciated better access to preschool for my child, which I couldn't afford. David Brooks feels that if everyone were on his lofty moral plane, all the capitalists would generously provide out of the goodness of their hearts. What's wrong with government stepping in and taking the moral high ground? The government exists for us, the people!
5
I think that you have to stop telling people how they react emotionally to Ms. Clinton. Mainly this is because you can have no idea about what goes on in the minds of others--that's a sociological given. You can, however, see how people react to her, and the fact that she's where she is shows that she does arouse something inside of people.
We have a strong cognitive bias in Western society (i.e. the science of trying to know what's in people's mind) that clouds the more tricky issue of how to interpret people as social and culture beings. You blend that here and often in other places, and it's a better use of your writing than trying to guess at what other people think. Personally, I don't know what Donald Trump is or isn't in his mind--he might be quite lovely in there actually--but seeing how he is a social and cultural actor gives a much clearer view of his relationship to others and society.
We have a strong cognitive bias in Western society (i.e. the science of trying to know what's in people's mind) that clouds the more tricky issue of how to interpret people as social and culture beings. You blend that here and often in other places, and it's a better use of your writing than trying to guess at what other people think. Personally, I don't know what Donald Trump is or isn't in his mind--he might be quite lovely in there actually--but seeing how he is a social and cultural actor gives a much clearer view of his relationship to others and society.
3
"Personally, I don't know what Donald Trump is or isn't in his mind--he might be quite lovely in there actually..."
You've got to be kidding. You STILL don't know what's going on in that adolescent, selfish, nasty, fraudulent, narcissistic mind? Seems that Mr. Trump has found his ideal voter.
You've got to be kidding. You STILL don't know what's going on in that adolescent, selfish, nasty, fraudulent, narcissistic mind? Seems that Mr. Trump has found his ideal voter.
9
I agree one cannot tell what is in the real mind of the real Trump.
The public persona Trump is a different mattered: he is like Gollum - of two minds: one is a sociopath and the other is a narcissist, as I understand it.
Classic case,
1 - It is not my fault.
2 - it is somebody elses fault
3 - if it is anybodys fault, it is your fault.
4 - I did the victim a favor
5 - I am the victim.
This is all text book stuff and he did all of this this week.
1 The microphone was bad.
2 I won the debate.
3 Lester Holt picked on me.
4 I saved Miss Universes job.
5 See that, you save someones job and this is what thanks you get. I am the victim.
The public persona Trump is a different mattered: he is like Gollum - of two minds: one is a sociopath and the other is a narcissist, as I understand it.
Classic case,
1 - It is not my fault.
2 - it is somebody elses fault
3 - if it is anybodys fault, it is your fault.
4 - I did the victim a favor
5 - I am the victim.
This is all text book stuff and he did all of this this week.
1 The microphone was bad.
2 I won the debate.
3 Lester Holt picked on me.
4 I saved Miss Universes job.
5 See that, you save someones job and this is what thanks you get. I am the victim.
12
"There is a presumption in both candidates that the lowest motivations are the most real." Actually, only one candidate has labelled supporters of the other candidate as "deplorables." Only one party has written off an entire segment of loyal Americans - especially ones who would proudly stand at flag as pictured above Mr. Brook's column - as unworthy of political consideration.
Trump never wore the mantle of "idealist;" you know, that phoney characterazation worn by too many '60's protestors opposed to the Vietnam War - protestors who, among other "deplorable acts, spit on returning GI's. Once Nixon effectively ended the draft - gee, the protesting vanished and made clear the real motivations for protesting the war. Clinton was squarely in that group. A group exemplified by phoney idealism camouflaging naked ambition.
Like the debate "moderator" was, Brooks is rough on Trump and way to easy on Clinton allowing her to get away with blatant lies and false apology; the truth is that her email server was set up to collect money for the Clinton Foundation for providing favors - favors best rendered by the State Department - in return.
No idealist. "Crook" - a more appropriate description for HRC.
Trump never wore the mantle of "idealist;" you know, that phoney characterazation worn by too many '60's protestors opposed to the Vietnam War - protestors who, among other "deplorable acts, spit on returning GI's. Once Nixon effectively ended the draft - gee, the protesting vanished and made clear the real motivations for protesting the war. Clinton was squarely in that group. A group exemplified by phoney idealism camouflaging naked ambition.
Like the debate "moderator" was, Brooks is rough on Trump and way to easy on Clinton allowing her to get away with blatant lies and false apology; the truth is that her email server was set up to collect money for the Clinton Foundation for providing favors - favors best rendered by the State Department - in return.
No idealist. "Crook" - a more appropriate description for HRC.
3
Please read the results of research by fact checkers. Where is the evidence for the allegations in the third paragraph??
7
Mr. Brooks,
You sound jaded, and you appear to be in a state where nothing suits. I find Mrs. Clinton to be very inspiring and capable, two qualities that often do not exist in many politicians (Reagan was inspirational but not very capable, for example). I'm therefore quite excited about her candidacy.
You sound jaded, and you appear to be in a state where nothing suits. I find Mrs. Clinton to be very inspiring and capable, two qualities that often do not exist in many politicians (Reagan was inspirational but not very capable, for example). I'm therefore quite excited about her candidacy.
9
"emphasizing love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity and neighborliness that pushes people toward connection rather than distrust"
doesn't sound like any form of Capitalist society I'm familiar with.
doesn't sound like any form of Capitalist society I'm familiar with.
32
President Obama started us on the roads to universal health care, with the ACA; to affordable secondary education, with a plan for tuition free community colleges; and to seriously addressing climate change, with the signing of the Paris accords. These roads describe enough of an aspirational agenda, which Hillary Clinton promises to carry forth.
I am overjoyed to vote for her.
I am overjoyed to vote for her.
161
Agreed. My family and I have never worked for a candidate the way we are for Clinton. This is partly because of the alternative, but not entirely. Yes, she has some limitations as a campaigner (which she admits). But this does not mean she will be a mediocre president. She might even be a great one.
19
I should add that one of the reasons I like Clinton is that, while she seems to have sufficient ideologic inspiration, she is basically a detail-oriented nerd. I'm one myself but, more to the point, there is abundant evidence from the management literature that this kind of person makes a better leader than the "visionary". She is also, obviously, highly intelligent. The intelligence of past presidents has been estimated from their writings and been found to correlate very well with their performance, as judged by historians. Lastly, a H. Clinton administration seems likely to resemble the Obama and B. Clinton administrations, both of which were, by any objective standard (such as growth in per capita GNP), highly successful.
Her opponent has a "vision", and he can keep it. His intelligence is hard to judge, but most smart people seem to be a lot more interested in educating themselves than he has been. His natural gifts are more those of the con artist. And of course his previous experience with public office can't be used to predict his performance as president, because he has no such experience.
While doing his usual pontificating Brooks is here committing the same sin as the rest of the media, positing a false equivalence between the two candidates. Please.
Her opponent has a "vision", and he can keep it. His intelligence is hard to judge, but most smart people seem to be a lot more interested in educating themselves than he has been. His natural gifts are more those of the con artist. And of course his previous experience with public office can't be used to predict his performance as president, because he has no such experience.
While doing his usual pontificating Brooks is here committing the same sin as the rest of the media, positing a false equivalence between the two candidates. Please.
12
"That poetic, aspirational quality is entirely absent from what has been the Clinton campaign."
I understand this is an op-ed column. However, this is an absurdly broad statement. Honestly, I find it intellectually lazy.
I understand this is an op-ed column. However, this is an absurdly broad statement. Honestly, I find it intellectually lazy.
86
David needs to ask himself seriously why he and his friend were invited to the Trump parties in the first place, and how that might relate to his failure to see any idealism in Hillary's aspiration to the Presidency.
77
David, Americans are what they have always been - people. Like those every where. With ups and downs in the lives of their countries, communities, and personal.
The glories of capitalism came with seeds of its own destruction (Marx?) - financial deregulation and globalization and the corruption and cronyism of Washington in the pursuit of profit. People were just 'grist for the mill'. How is that for 'sociological entertainment'?
The glories of capitalism came with seeds of its own destruction (Marx?) - financial deregulation and globalization and the corruption and cronyism of Washington in the pursuit of profit. People were just 'grist for the mill'. How is that for 'sociological entertainment'?
5
Hillary makes an emotional connection with a lot of people, including me. I don't understand what is different about those like Mr. Brooks, who fail to connect.
18
Mr Brooks shows us how Donald Trump is unsuited to the presidency, by using copious evidence from the Trump-of-today. As he says: "Trump reminds us — even those of us who champion capitalism — how corrosive capitalism can be when unaccompanied by a counterbalancing ethos of moral restraint."
Against this he approvingly offers words from Hillary Clinton from nearly 50 years ago - and then dismisses, without quotes or reference, everything she had done since. The most specific criticism he offers is: "That poetic, aspirational quality is entirely absent from what has become the Clinton campaign."
Does he really equate the "sin" of unspecified failures to to aspire as being equal to Trump's failings, which, to quote the column are:
"As we saw on Monday night, Trump now represents capitalism degraded to pure selfishness. He treats other people like objects and lies with abandon. Proud to be paying no taxes while others foot the bill, proud to have profited off the housing bust that caused so much suffering, he lacks even the barest conception of civic life and his responsibilities to it."
Why is David Brooks unable to say that Hillary Clinton is at least a worthy and respectable candidate for president?
Against this he approvingly offers words from Hillary Clinton from nearly 50 years ago - and then dismisses, without quotes or reference, everything she had done since. The most specific criticism he offers is: "That poetic, aspirational quality is entirely absent from what has become the Clinton campaign."
Does he really equate the "sin" of unspecified failures to to aspire as being equal to Trump's failings, which, to quote the column are:
"As we saw on Monday night, Trump now represents capitalism degraded to pure selfishness. He treats other people like objects and lies with abandon. Proud to be paying no taxes while others foot the bill, proud to have profited off the housing bust that caused so much suffering, he lacks even the barest conception of civic life and his responsibilities to it."
Why is David Brooks unable to say that Hillary Clinton is at least a worthy and respectable candidate for president?
30
Oh no....Dear Mr. Brooks....It must be gloomy in the Ivory Tower clouds for
you today...you are having an "Eeyore Moment"....and Pooh says....Woe is You..
but not ME....because....just look Brooks and Eeyore.....don't you see ..
:the silver lining: just there and there and there.....Look what has happened
elsewhere....the sun is shinning....and the best things in life...will come true..
Come on Brooks....go outside.put down the NYTimes turn off the TV..
and turn off the phone...go...out and see that the rain is good....and ...we have come a long long way....and ....there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
And if the NYTimes and the rest....all just took a good look at the small pace
of what is hopeful....that you will see that the turtles are still winning the race.
and the hare is exhausted...all pooped out from spinning.the news and running...in place...and the turtles are...trying to
make sense of no sense at all....well Brooks...look ....and ...just laugh at...
yourself....and ...doom...is a long way off....take a day off with Christopher
Robin and his gang...
you today...you are having an "Eeyore Moment"....and Pooh says....Woe is You..
but not ME....because....just look Brooks and Eeyore.....don't you see ..
:the silver lining: just there and there and there.....Look what has happened
elsewhere....the sun is shinning....and the best things in life...will come true..
Come on Brooks....go outside.put down the NYTimes turn off the TV..
and turn off the phone...go...out and see that the rain is good....and ...we have come a long long way....and ....there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
And if the NYTimes and the rest....all just took a good look at the small pace
of what is hopeful....that you will see that the turtles are still winning the race.
and the hare is exhausted...all pooped out from spinning.the news and running...in place...and the turtles are...trying to
make sense of no sense at all....well Brooks...look ....and ...just laugh at...
yourself....and ...doom...is a long way off....take a day off with Christopher
Robin and his gang...
2
One day historians might choose this column as the ultimate in the folly of "false equivalence."
163
Mr. Brooks wants to hear from the " higher angels of our nature". I'm sure he means those "higher angels" who want to repeal the Affordable Care Act and leave 20 million people abandoned without health care insurance. Those "higher angels"?
29
Interestingly, the one in the Democratic primaries who brought out hope and passion and enthusiasm was Bernie Sanders.
Yes he lost, but he embodied the unselfish; trustable because he didn't lie and wasn't in any lobbyist or corporate donor's debt. He saw with clear eyes what was going wrong and told us, and people knew the truth when they heard it.
We're not going to get near the truth this time. But millennials are the hope--they aren't willing to buy the party lines handed down to them w/o question. Social media's busting politicians and Congress for their pettiness and vested interest in nothing changing.
David you sound sad in this column. We all are.
Yes he lost, but he embodied the unselfish; trustable because he didn't lie and wasn't in any lobbyist or corporate donor's debt. He saw with clear eyes what was going wrong and told us, and people knew the truth when they heard it.
We're not going to get near the truth this time. But millennials are the hope--they aren't willing to buy the party lines handed down to them w/o question. Social media's busting politicians and Congress for their pettiness and vested interest in nothing changing.
David you sound sad in this column. We all are.
179
We baby boomers were once young and idealistic, but our idealism has been tempered by reality and pragmatism. I found Bernie to be idealistic but pretty much divorced from the reality of a polarized nation where he would accomplish virtually nothing. I also thought adulation went to his head. I also thought some of his ideas were so unrealistic as to be laughable.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is a pragmatist with a willingness to work as hard as she can--and that as we all know, is incredibly hard. She's willing to work across the aisle. And I totally disagree with David Brooks that she's not idealistic. She does live by the Methodist motto, "Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.”
I find her inspiring and hope she will be our next President.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is a pragmatist with a willingness to work as hard as she can--and that as we all know, is incredibly hard. She's willing to work across the aisle. And I totally disagree with David Brooks that she's not idealistic. She does live by the Methodist motto, "Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.”
I find her inspiring and hope she will be our next President.
8
I'm sorry to be so cynical, but...Millennials heard "free lunch" from Bernie. Idealism and truth? Spare me. Student loan forgiveness, free college, $15/hour minimum wages - that's $33K starting a job with zero education -- that's what they heard. Who at that age wouldn't want Bernie?
But alas, who would pay for it all? That's right, us aging baby boomers. No thank you. Earn what you get. There is no free lunch.
But alas, who would pay for it all? That's right, us aging baby boomers. No thank you. Earn what you get. There is no free lunch.
1
I don't trust a candidate who doesn't have any specifics no matter how much hope and passion he/she offers. The devil is in the details and the details are what we need, not self-presentation. In Sanders' case there is one exception to the "no specifics" charge and that was his health care proposal. That particular proposal points out the other Sanders' flaw; the proposal was political suicide and illustrates the fact that the man does not work well with others. You really can't see him working in anything but a single-minded fashion.
4
I remember 1976. The Democrats licked their finger stuck it in the air to gauge in which direction the wind was blowing and nominated an obscure Georgia governor because he was 100% conservative and represented the best of the conservative ideal. Jimmy Carter was the conservative ideal and he advocated the policies that would serve the American public well going into the 21st century. Jimmy Carter won and was shafted by both political parties and the corporate elite and the media piled on. America was no place for vision, integrity, idealism and morality.
In 1980 the Republicans looked for the unJimmy Carter.
They found Reagan the man who cut his teeth betraying loyal patriotic and talented Americans to the the FBI and the house UnAmerican Activities committee. They nominated the man who destroyed the reputation of friends and colleagues for thirty pieces of silver and the opportunity to open Disneyland.
The rest they say is history. To go from the greatest Empire in History to a country that may elect a buffoon and charlatan as its CEO and Commander and Chief in a few short weeks is no mean feat for any Empire least of all one that is still the greatest military force that ever was and one that still is the wealthiest Empire ever.
While Jimmy Carter tried to create a USA for future generations Ronald Wilson Reagan taught us that it is all about me, it is all about today and it is about image.
What is it about today's conservatives that makes them forget about why conserve?
In 1980 the Republicans looked for the unJimmy Carter.
They found Reagan the man who cut his teeth betraying loyal patriotic and talented Americans to the the FBI and the house UnAmerican Activities committee. They nominated the man who destroyed the reputation of friends and colleagues for thirty pieces of silver and the opportunity to open Disneyland.
The rest they say is history. To go from the greatest Empire in History to a country that may elect a buffoon and charlatan as its CEO and Commander and Chief in a few short weeks is no mean feat for any Empire least of all one that is still the greatest military force that ever was and one that still is the wealthiest Empire ever.
While Jimmy Carter tried to create a USA for future generations Ronald Wilson Reagan taught us that it is all about me, it is all about today and it is about image.
What is it about today's conservatives that makes them forget about why conserve?
42
I see the dreaded both-sidesism is bringing you down. How about trying a different tact?
8
David,
I presume the nice, fairly short speeches Reagan gave, that cloaked who he really was, and, what he really wanted, had the idealism you are looking for?
"Reduced government". Well, government grew faster under Reagan, particularly that part of the government associated with military contractor programs, than at any time since WWII.
"Reduced Spending". Another lie. And, again, Reagan funded huge, and, failed programs like Star Wars. Reagan began the current race to increase the deficit to the size of a Hydrogen Bomb.
"Make America Great Again". Yes, this was Reagan's mantra before Trump plagiarized it as his own. We all know what that really means don't we? Let's go back to the 1950's where employers don't have to hire blacks, women or Mexican Americans. Where barely qualified white, male workers got great jobs and nobody else could.
So, David, I can do without idealism if somebody has "8 or 9 real programs" that they have designed and targeted for - not themselves but,
America
Like Hillary Clinton has done.
I presume the nice, fairly short speeches Reagan gave, that cloaked who he really was, and, what he really wanted, had the idealism you are looking for?
"Reduced government". Well, government grew faster under Reagan, particularly that part of the government associated with military contractor programs, than at any time since WWII.
"Reduced Spending". Another lie. And, again, Reagan funded huge, and, failed programs like Star Wars. Reagan began the current race to increase the deficit to the size of a Hydrogen Bomb.
"Make America Great Again". Yes, this was Reagan's mantra before Trump plagiarized it as his own. We all know what that really means don't we? Let's go back to the 1950's where employers don't have to hire blacks, women or Mexican Americans. Where barely qualified white, male workers got great jobs and nobody else could.
So, David, I can do without idealism if somebody has "8 or 9 real programs" that they have designed and targeted for - not themselves but,
America
Like Hillary Clinton has done.
1079
I just posted and remarked on how Clinton, a poor communicator perhaps, has embodies the very qualities David is seeking and feels have gone missing from our political process. Her campaign is all about "stronger together," and lifting up the burdens of the middle and lower classes. Problem is, people are so angry and so weary of familiar faces that they are putting their belief into misguided trust of perhaps the most selfish exploiter of the middle and lower classes, Donald Trump.
For me, this is a triumph of anger and protest over the hard scrutiny voters should be using to determine which candidate actually can deliver on their promises of a better future for America.
For me, this is a triumph of anger and protest over the hard scrutiny voters should be using to determine which candidate actually can deliver on their promises of a better future for America.
16
The farce and tragedy of it all may rest in that many Americans fail to see in these political histrionics that they are about to vote for a self-proclaimed 'Man of The People', hiding a tarnished crown under his wig and restore Bourbon to the Throne. To The Precipice We Go.
1
Good christ, you could not possibly have gotten what Mr. Brooks said more wrong. He wrote in his article that the ideal of capitalism at work in the 80s was an inspiring one. He said precisely nothing about any policies by any candidate. Period.
I get the impression that line is as far as you read in this piece. I recommend engaging fully with a text and with the benefit of the doubt before you decide to disparage it
I get the impression that line is as far as you read in this piece. I recommend engaging fully with a text and with the benefit of the doubt before you decide to disparage it
Odd indeed.
The problems Mr. Brooks highlights, selfishness, cynicism and distrust began with his party's candidate announcing his pursuit of the Presidency within miles of where three civil rights workers were murdered and entombed in a levee.
His party followed up by gutting unions, offshoring jobs, raising the debt ceiling a, still record, 17 times in 96 months, tripling the total accumulated federal debt from G. Washington thru J. Carter. For, example, Star Wars.
It has been Mr. Brook's party that gives all the tax breaks to the 1%, simultaneously starving our public schools, our infrastructure, our elderly, disabled, and our healthcare.
It is Mr. Brook's party that has been the main player and beneficiary of thirty plus years of hate radio and Faux Disinformation.
Yours is the party, Mr. Brooks, of selfishness, cynicism and distrust.
You preach it, practice it and praise it.
The problems Mr. Brooks highlights, selfishness, cynicism and distrust began with his party's candidate announcing his pursuit of the Presidency within miles of where three civil rights workers were murdered and entombed in a levee.
His party followed up by gutting unions, offshoring jobs, raising the debt ceiling a, still record, 17 times in 96 months, tripling the total accumulated federal debt from G. Washington thru J. Carter. For, example, Star Wars.
It has been Mr. Brook's party that gives all the tax breaks to the 1%, simultaneously starving our public schools, our infrastructure, our elderly, disabled, and our healthcare.
It is Mr. Brook's party that has been the main player and beneficiary of thirty plus years of hate radio and Faux Disinformation.
Yours is the party, Mr. Brooks, of selfishness, cynicism and distrust.
You preach it, practice it and praise it.
73
"There is an entire absence, in both campaigns, of any effort to appeal to the higher angels of our nature." Brooks might find an absence to appeal to the higher angels of our nature, but only one of the two candidates with a real chance of winning appeals to the dredges of human nature - racism, misogyny, pride in not paying his fair share, crude remarks that any parent would punish a third grader for making.
I question Brooks's sanity if he feels that Clinton is on a par with Trump for appealing to the better part of human nature.
I question Brooks's sanity if he feels that Clinton is on a par with Trump for appealing to the better part of human nature.
893
I agree with Sally Gschwend's comments. Brooks is ignoring the messaging of the Clinton campaign to twist words into an indefensible thesis.
8
I've spent a career in advertising / branding in New York City. Clinton's opponents have spent, over the years, hundreds of millions of dollars 'branding' her as a liar, untrustworthy. In this business, say something enough and it becomes the (perceived) truth. The CEO of Ringling Bros. Circus once said, "We're the greatest show on Earth because we say we are."
Clinton's idealism has managed to survive the negative noise, slurs, put-downs from many corners for all these decades. It's not time for her to appeal to our "better angels" - it's time for the rest of us to dust off those angels, shake off the contentious despair and start celebrating our own good news. The country is great; the work will never be done.
Clinton's idealism has managed to survive the negative noise, slurs, put-downs from many corners for all these decades. It's not time for her to appeal to our "better angels" - it's time for the rest of us to dust off those angels, shake off the contentious despair and start celebrating our own good news. The country is great; the work will never be done.
7
Sally,
I disagree with you. And with Mr. Brooks as well. Mrs. Clinton does appeal to the higher angels of our nature. She spoke of reconstructing human nature. Not manipulating and engineering. These are some aspects that make up loving a person, idea, or society. A saying goes that if you are walking down a path and see a flower you cherish- do not pluck it. For if you pick it, to carry it with you, it will die and cease to be that which you love. Instead, if you nurture it and water it, as it is in the ground, it will grow and last for all things to be able love it; instead of the transient time you would have it if plucked. Mrs. Clinton is appealing to the very best of Human Nature, Love.
I disagree with you. And with Mr. Brooks as well. Mrs. Clinton does appeal to the higher angels of our nature. She spoke of reconstructing human nature. Not manipulating and engineering. These are some aspects that make up loving a person, idea, or society. A saying goes that if you are walking down a path and see a flower you cherish- do not pluck it. For if you pick it, to carry it with you, it will die and cease to be that which you love. Instead, if you nurture it and water it, as it is in the ground, it will grow and last for all things to be able love it; instead of the transient time you would have it if plucked. Mrs. Clinton is appealing to the very best of Human Nature, Love.
3
We've become a nation of cynics, because your Republican party and the reactionary right wing media giants have blasted idealism and any and all iconic beliefs into rubble 24/7. The irony of Trump, the morally bankrupt billionaire posing as the populist hero who is going to cleanse the national government of corruption and make America great is more than a cruel joke , one that did not occur in some vacuum.
245
Hillary Clinton changed my life. In my thirties, I was experiencing some rough times. I was lying in bed one morning listening to the radio and summoning the courage to begin my day. Hillary--in the midst of the Whitewater witch hunt--was speaking. She told how she began every day with gratitude, counting all the blessings of her life. I decided I would do likewise and for two decades I have begun my days just as Hillary suggested.
How's that for a human connection?
How's that for a human connection?
481
I am beginning to think David is not human. He lives in some far off place
were critical thinking doesn't exist. Comparing Trump and Clinton as equals, WOW!!!!
were critical thinking doesn't exist. Comparing Trump and Clinton as equals, WOW!!!!
11
In trying to identify our higher ideals, this piece at the same time discredits and tries to pigeonhole how those ideals can be expressed. Each of our gifts and talents, thankfully don't come in the same package. Good pieces of writing don't narrow our expression of ideals, but rather expand and broaden the possibilities of ways to serve greater good. We can't begin to define or quantify the many ways anyone can touch other's lives. How many are encouraged or inspired by a speech, or a demonstration of compassion, and empathy. One act of listening to someone in pain. It is narrow minded and myopic to discredit the impact of helping even one child. As Charlie Rose reminded us when he aired his interviews with Shimon Peres, when he was asked what he wanted to be remembered for, Mr. Peres replied "that I saved the life of one child."
6
"There is an assumption...that we are self-seeking creatures, rather than also loving, serving, hoping, dreaming, cooperating creatures."
Mr. Brooks, you're absolutely correct. And those virtues for which you pine comprised the gateway of Barack Obama's 2008 campaign. Now, after two terms in office, largely neutered by the scalpel-wielding House and Senate (which you applauded), you're now reduced almost to tears that the voting public has been reduced to cynicism and snarling? Aren't you a hoot? Isn't this rich?
Let's begin with your "idealism" of the 1980's halfway back toward the golden 1950's of latter-day Jim Crow and institutionalized segregation. Your sainted Ronald Reagan took office with all but George Wallace's summons to states' rights. His credo of "trickle down" did not so much "celebrate capitalism not only as a wealth-generating engine but also as a moral system, a way to arouse hard work, creativity and trust." But suddenly, the white working class lost its union protections, their "hard work" gone up in coded right wing promises and smoke, their foolish reliance on "creativity and trust" now largely responsible for jack-in-the-box Donald Trump.
You next refer to Hillary Rodham's commencement speech at Wellesley, when she shamed Senator Edward Brooke for his complicity in the culture that begat her rebuttals. Vietnam was still at full rage then, or do you choose to forget?
I'll take HRC's "faded" idealism to the Trump abyss, thanks.
Got anything else?
Mr. Brooks, you're absolutely correct. And those virtues for which you pine comprised the gateway of Barack Obama's 2008 campaign. Now, after two terms in office, largely neutered by the scalpel-wielding House and Senate (which you applauded), you're now reduced almost to tears that the voting public has been reduced to cynicism and snarling? Aren't you a hoot? Isn't this rich?
Let's begin with your "idealism" of the 1980's halfway back toward the golden 1950's of latter-day Jim Crow and institutionalized segregation. Your sainted Ronald Reagan took office with all but George Wallace's summons to states' rights. His credo of "trickle down" did not so much "celebrate capitalism not only as a wealth-generating engine but also as a moral system, a way to arouse hard work, creativity and trust." But suddenly, the white working class lost its union protections, their "hard work" gone up in coded right wing promises and smoke, their foolish reliance on "creativity and trust" now largely responsible for jack-in-the-box Donald Trump.
You next refer to Hillary Rodham's commencement speech at Wellesley, when she shamed Senator Edward Brooke for his complicity in the culture that begat her rebuttals. Vietnam was still at full rage then, or do you choose to forget?
I'll take HRC's "faded" idealism to the Trump abyss, thanks.
Got anything else?
537
Pop quiz, Mr. Brooks: which campaign is organized around the slogan "Stronger Together"?
"There is no uplift in this race. There is an entire absence, in both campaigns, of any effort to appeal to the higher angels of our nature."
Two thoughts:
1. Brooks must not remember Cory Bookers' remarkable speech at the DNC about love. The contrast could not have been more strong, from the tone of the RNC the week before. "Love trumps hate" is one of the signature slogans of the Clinton campaign. Perhaps your blind spot is showing, Mr. Brooks?
2. Please take half a second and consider the razor-sharp line that Hillary Clinton needs to walk, in terms of how she needs to present herself in this race. I invite Mr. Brooks to do the thought experiment about what kind of responses would be unleashed from the alt-right orcs supporting Trump, were Hillary herself were to move into a softer and more inspirational tone.