Brooks. I won't bother reading your column. The simple answer to your question is: I don't know, but the Republicans sure know how to divide us and be corrupt. So the real question is, why are you still a Republican?
8
Anyone united with me in thinking David Brooks is a Republican apologist with no soul?
8
Mr. Brooks: You say that Trump has managed to tell a coherent story about the state of the nation, and you fault the democratic party for its failure to provide an alternative narrative. I have one question for you: 'coherent'? Are you serious? No one can blame Trump's opponents -- in the face of his flagrant disregard for the facts or the most basic norms of rationality -- if they are occasionally struck dumb by his shamelessness or by his followers' enthusiastic reception of such nonsense. I mean, what can one say in the face of such hateful, narcissistic bad faith on the part of both Trump and his followers? But as usual, you play the naif in the face of such manifest evil. Gosh golly, if only the democrats could tell such a compelling, coherent story! Only you and other equally complicit enablers could spin such nonsense.
19
(Democrats)"...decry the policies that restrict undocumented immigration, but they don’t really have any other policies to replace them." David, please! The Dems have proposed so many comprehensive immigration reform packages in recent years it's hard to count. Every one of them has been blocked by...wait for it...the GOP! So while I agree that the D's have failed to craft (or sell) an effective "national story," please avoid sacrificing yet another issue area to the gods of false equivalence.
10
Mr Brooks identifies the issue which will continue to keep Democrats from again achieving national power. They are stuck on the coasts, in fact in a few major port cities. The balance of the country wants America to remain a nation, not a tribal society made up of dozens of warring groups. Tonight should show that again
2
Brooks - I think a tree fell in the forest on this one and you were not there to witness it. It is not a difficult task to find exactly the Democratic candidate language you say is not there. It's not really good spin material or sexy for the headlines but, it is there.
3
Imagine asking Republicans to accept "a positive and uplifting" socialism (Bernie Sanders notwithstanding). "Social," like "national," are utterly neutral terms, but add the "-ism" and things change entirely, history closes in, signals flash. Mr. Brooks, as much as I applaud your call for courage in the face of challenges ahead, let's stick with the terms our history has defined for us.
1
I'd like to know what David Brooks thinks is the Republicans' pre-Trump "creedal story." In my view, Trump has forged a difference in tone but not substance. Every Republican President since Nixon has used the language of race to divide us; has kowtowed far too much to corporate needs and wealthy donors; has used American power indiscriminately and to our detriment.
Democrats have made many mistakes, too, of course, but in this election season it's clear to me that they believe the Constitution and the Rule of Law bind us; that not trampling the liberal order binds us; that caring for the earth also binds us. I'm satisfied that my vote today for a straight Democratic ticket was the only choice.
6
I don’t buy all this. It’s just more mischief-making by Brooks. The Dems don’t need a national narrative—whatever that means. They need to cultivate more tolerance and respect for traditional-values voters, and to rebuild their traditional big-tent.
Democrats will always be a collection of interest groups joined on issues of common interest—which often have been, and these days almost entirely are, economic in nature, with jobs, education, retirement security and health care most prominent among them.
When the dust settles after this election, it will be seen that the Democratic candidates who enjoyed the most success avoided divisive cultural/identify issues and focused on these paramount economic concerns.
5
Thank you Mr. Brooks for this concise analysis. I have been saying similar things to friends and family over the past month. You are much more articulate than I have been.
I am an independent. I was a moderate Republican when I lived in Minnesota. I am probably now a moderate Democrat while living in Utah.
I visited Italy recently. The issue of immigration is serious there. Most of the people I met said that they leaned liberal in their politics. That said, they were very concerned about the flow of immigrants into the country. It is testing the economic and social fabric of the country. Unconstrained immigration was not an option for them.
Democrats need to be clear that laws and rules do apply to immigration and border control. They can work to make those rules more practical and consistent with economic realities, but “compassion” cannot be the default position. Vulnerable and frightened citizens hearing this hear “open borders”. This issue of population flows will only increase over the coming decades with population and resource constraints increasing compounded by climate change. We better start to figure this out sooner than later.
8
Well, at least Dave shows us his cards on election day. He sides with the corrupt, the racist, the sexist, and the morally bankrupt, because at least Evil has brand cohesion.
When Brooks was grandfathered into the motley crew of current GOP, he objected a bit then started dressing down, enjoying a bit of slumming. Now he seems to relish it, as it permits a further unleashing of his upper class white resentment.
I predict the most interesting Brooks books will be not the ones he writes, but what is written about the corruption of a once-promising expert of "character".
7
Stop telling Democrats what to do and address your own party. Also be truthful helth care is 10 times the problem for everyday Americans that illegal immigration is and you know it.
10
I know what unites Democrats presently, and that is seeing the Real America destroyed by a bunch of yahoos calling themselves conservative when they are no more than radical, reactionary know-nothings devoted towards only tearing down the Government which they have been wrongly taught is THE Problem, and the Democrats know better.
The Republicans, however, are full steam ahead on the total destruction of Americans, the American way of Life, and anything that does not have to do with the getting the Rest of the money into their hands and making for Darn Sure it does not go into 'colored or calloused' hands. Minorities and Poor need not apply except to line up for total fleecing.
The Democrats see a lying, incompetent, bloviating fool who cannot keep his story straight for 10 minutes, and acting as if the USA were for HIS and HIS Family's Profiteering Only, and the Republicans are following gleefully in looting the Nation much like Cheney/Bush. We see him obviously committing treason by passing on top secret, International information to a 'known enemy' in our very own Whitehouse Oval Office with Russians and nobody else on hand.
How can the Republican Party continue in this treasonous act of taking over the Government by people bent only on profiting from it instead of actually Governing for ALL the People instead of funneling the cash to those who already have the most.
And you complain the Democrats don't react loudly to this?
No Need, Republicans are sinking themselves
2
Poor David Brooks. Always desperately looking for the convenient narrative to make white conservative supremacy sound morally righteous.
8
No 1 What the heck justifies an old white guy from the right wing asking this question?
(Yes, Mr. Brooks, it just struck me, you have always been an old white guy)
No 2 Notice how you don't discover gender in any of your observations of what is happening in the world. Seventy years of development have demonstrated that the most certain way to generate progress in hidebound cultures is educate their daughters. And that is why the Wahhabis running dogs dominating the lap of our Saudi clients like a Doberman slobbering on a ten year old. inflicted 9/11 on us.
No 3 You do not even know the right question.
3
You criticize Democrats for not having a message when your hypocrisy in not shooting down this idiot of a president for so many lies within your party. What is it that the Bible says about casting out the limb in your own eye before criticizing other for the mote in theirs?
CLEAN HOUSE in your party and cast out the liars, the graspers and the hate mongers among you...I dare you to speak to that
In my mind Republicans are nothing but sorry hypocrites.
6
Just more crying from Brooks that the Democrats won't say what he wants them to. Sorry Brooks, but just because your side has become Nazis doesn't mean Democrats want anything to do with the rest of you. Just because you personally are not a Nazi doesn't mean the rest of your ides still aren't abhorrent. Thank God the Democrats have not fallen for your trap.
5
The counter narrative is present. Democrats would have improved Obamacare and provided long term stability for premiums. Democrats would not have rejected climate change or the joint agreement with Iran. Joining the TPP was on track with Obama fully engaged in the negotiations with US membership assumed.
Democrats would never ever pass a tax bill favoring the donor class and wealthy. Democrats would not destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Agency or water down Dodd-Frank. The Democratic Party opposed Russian meddling, applied sanctions and would have strengthened sanctions given the nature of the intrusion by Russian military officers in hacking the DNC and Podesta.
Democrats would not denigrate and ridicule our intelligence community, FBI or Justice Depart. Publicly disparaging allies while erecting trade barriers not in the Democratic playbook. Their immigration policy is memorialized in the 2013 Senate bill never voted on the Republican House. Education costs and infrastructure are on their to do list.
In my fifty years of participating in elections Trump is the first President void of principle. The GOP committed political malpractice by allowing him to proceed in the nomination process. There is no GOP easily replaced by Trumpism. Unless the Democrats gain control of the levers of power nothing will change.
The question of the moment is how the GOP sunk into this hole taking the US down with it?
5
Tip for Democratic politicians talking about immigration.
1. Remind voters that nearly everyone here is descended from or is an immigrant.
2. Push for immigration "the right way". Make legal entry less of a nightmare to cut down on illegal entry.
3. Mandatory eVerify to disincentivize the demand side.
4. People coming here no matter the method are doing so because they believe in our national values and system. They want to be a part of America's greatness.
2
@JC
Oh please. Illegal immigrants have zero respect for our national sovereignty nor our laws... none of which are properly enforced, so we’re easily exploited. They get free healthcare, free education, have a baby (or two or five) and get automatic birthright citizenship and financial support for each of them. It’s an unbelievable racket. And US citizens are paying the price...in more ways than one.
4
The Democratic party was derailed toward the far left and became the party of the crowd, with hyperbolization of the minority agenda. The choice between Trump's populism and the party of socialism and the crowd is difficult and pitiful.
Political disputes are useful for democracy, but America should connect the idea of love to the neighbor.
2
I disagree. The Republicans ran on being anti-Obama and anti-Democrat without having a plan for healthcare except for repeal Obamacare, without having a plan for the environment except for let pollution reign, etc. They won.
I'm against illegal immigration, but I think to focus on the illegal aliens is the wrong approach. Why not penalize those employers who hire illegal aliens? Make the penalties strong enough so they hurt and act as a deterrent to hiring the cheapest of the cheap labor. Many of the illegal aliens come here for better economic opportunities; if American employers stop hiring the illegal aliens, the motive to come goes away. That won't stop people who are refuges, fleeing war, famine, gangs, and instability in their home countries, but refuges are different.
I think plenty of democrats have offered options besides Trumpian Republican policies. They're for shoring up and supporting our social safety nets--social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Stop calling them "entitlements". They're NOT entitlements when you've paid into them for your entire working life. You've earned them. They're for better funding for public education, K-12 and for public colleges and universities. They're for repairing our decaying infrastructure. Many are for improved public transportation. They're for making sure that health insurance companies can't deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions. They're pro-choice and access to birth control.
4
The Captain Louis Renault of American political commentary is in haste, as usual, to say how shocked he is to find the GOP in ruins, and to blame anyone besides himself for the wreckage. Most days it's impossible to take Brooks seriously, but today he demands our pure contempt.
3
So let’s get this straight; the Democrats should take advice from the pseudo intellectual on how to connect from someone who has not called out the rank and file Republican leaders?
4
Oh, Democrats don't simplify everything! Wow, how horrendous! Let's get Joe McCarthy back; let's make explicit Nixon's "Southern Strategy"; let repeat W's challenge: "either you're with us or you're against us." Seems David believes political expediency "trumps" integrity -- come on, my friend (I've always admired you), don't try to defend the indefensible. You are making a fool of yourself.
4
Nationalism is just a veneer for racism just like states rights and all the other Republican dog whistles.
4
Oh for heaven's sake. The Democratic message comes across loud and clear. It's America for ALL Americans. It's America for health, environment, education, for the best in us and not the worst.
David Brooks, you have not contributed much to the discussion in over two years.
At least can you unplug your ears?
6
What unites us most is Sports where whites get to cheer for
whatever color you like except white. That's the only uniting
force I can think of. (Leave out ice hockey--really a Canadian sport).
.
“Build a pan-ethnic nationalist coalition”? Wasn’t that Omarosa’s assignment?
But seriously folks, why no national story from democrats? Because thinking as a “national” makes one a “nationalist” and they associate that word with Nazis. They are THAT mentally stunted … rolling down the grievance highway with intellectual training wheels on.
And they are too busy counting their grievances and unfulfilled expectations -- given to them by a fantasy, pleasure-filled, instant gratification, immature culture. This is a fractured culture and society. It’s going to take a while to recover.
2
You mean, besides football? And McDonalds and cheap TVs?
As a liberal, I agree with the thrust of this piece. If you're a humanist, your nationalism will not be bellicose; if you're a creep, your globalism will be totalitarian.
I actually like David Brooks; I enjoy listen to him banter with Mark Shields on the PBS NewsHour every week. He's one of the "good ones". However, his problem consistently is that he is an outsider trying to put his values on how he feels the Trump Resistance should be. It's like when Democrats get their hopes up with Jeff Flake but then get mad when he basically acts like a Republican, which he is. David Brooks is ultimately mad that Democrats are the resistance but not in the mold he envisions. And honestly, I'm glad.
1
@V. Sharma, MD
"One of the good ones"!You must have missed the areticle where he proposed as if he had no idea what he was saying that generational poverty was caused by genetics not social ills.
If I recall Mr. Brooks, you are in favor of a nationalism if properly qualified. The issue with nationalism is that it relies on fear of the Other which historically justified forms of genocide (even here in these United States). We are the United States of America, not the America. Our constitutionally based representative democracy presumes division of power and separate but equal visions of organized society (otherwise known as state rights and communities of interest). Nationalism is therefore antithetical to the intellectual heritage of this nation. We are a nation of states and communities, some more inclusive than others. President Trump, and his sycophants in the GOP, offer an exclusive vision of nationalism that challenges this heritage. However, an inclusive vision from the Democratic Party would promote community formation that spans race, class, gender, sexuality, faith, religion, ability, and political affiliation. If I recall our last president started out his career organizing and uniting communities instead of dividing them. He was also re-elected to office. Unfortunately some communities got left behind during the recession and the Democrats failed to bring those communities to the fore during the Clinton campaign. Democrats need to accept these Untied States are center right and a capitalist political economy will always create losers. As Trump knows, no one wants to be considered a loser Other.
1
David, Perhaps you need to get your hearing checked? (Along with a few of my fellow readers here, as well.)
As an Independent (no man's land: no party), allow me to illuminate the Democratic message that I have heard:
- Character matters.
- American values matter: We ALL deserve the opportunity for a better life, no matter who you are or where you started.
- Decency and civility matters.
- Rule of law matters.
- Objective truth and objective reality are tangible items.
- Our institutions matter.
But perhaps most importantly, the Democrats I am listening to are preaching hope, not fear.
A few months back, I recall you praising candidates for focusing on the issues relevant to their districts. Because this is not a presidential election year, there is no single person to carry a "national" message. But the bright, positive candidates I am seeing all over this country view healthcare as a right, not something that is solely for the wealthy of this nation. They are running on sensible gun control, and environmental issues, because we have one earth, and there are no do-overs.
But most of all, they see what the constant lying, bigotry and hatred of the Republican Party is doing to our country, and it is the Democratic Party who is calling on us to demonstrate our humanity ~ for each other, and for the world.
Please listen. The message is there.
3
"Democrats have a very strong story to tell about what we owe the victims of racism and oppression. They do not have a strong story to tell about what we owe to other Americans..."
This is the crux of the Democrat's weakness as a political force. It is grounded in the Democrat's denial of the existence of competition in the face of scarcity as a fundamental reality.
1
@Robert M
In this land of plenty, we do not have scarcity. We have been fed a notion of scarcity by a few who create an imaginary scarcity to convince us that we can't afford any poor immigrants. On the contrary, far too many Americans simply refuse to do dirty, hard, or low-rated jobs that immigrants from poor countries are eager to perform. They are not the beggars trump makes them out to be. They want to do those jobs harvesting crops and other low-paying jobs, not take welfare.
2
I have Taught high school for 40 years and for the last 25 my students and I have had preached to us diversity, multiculturalism, equity, sexism, racism, recently patriarchalism blah blah, to the exclusion of everything else. One scriptural text was Howard zinn’s history book indicting America for all the sins of its fathers. Today’s Democrats seem to be those indoctrinated by this lifelong history lesson. They buy into this Sense of original sin branded into us by identity politics and can’t find a way to be forgiven. Hence, there is little good that unites us. That we share so many great historical events, cultural achievements, ideas, values, economic successes and failures doesn’t matter when our educational practices and emphases bog us down in imperfections, grievances and resentment.
2
Why is it up to a political party to unite us? I don't want a political party to unite me with my fellow citizens. It is a ridiculous proposition on the face of it.
What unites us should be our common agreement with and allegiance to the principles set down in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the rule of law. And that allegiance is part of what should define us and guide is toward supporting the political party that best supports, through their actions and goals, the aforementioned founding documents.
1
Democrats know exactly what unites us--shared values, honor, dignity, concern for all, peace, prosperity that reaches everyone, and a livable world. Democrats have never lost sight of the Judeo-Christian traditions that have turned barbaric human/animal traits and tribes into civilized humanized cultures and civilizations. Democrats have always been and remain passionate about what unites us.
Republicans, on the hand, are divided into two groups. One is the new party of Trump, those passionately fighting for a return to barbarism and eye-for-an-eye tribalism. The other Republicans are the passionless intellectuals like Mr. Brooks who wring their hands in great angst and type timidly, "Democrats, do something!!"
2
Democrats do know exactly what unites Americans: the arc of justice, the Statue of Liberty, the promise that when we cast our votes together that we hear each other.
2
The very premise of this piece is a lie. It is the Republicans who need to provide an alternative to the divisiveness and hatred exhibited by the President and his fanatic, reality-averse base if they wish to remain relevant as a party that represents all Americans.
3
Democrats and the whole world knows that being diverse and inclusive is what unites us.
That being xenophobic and white supremists divides us.
3
The actual question is why do Republicans hate our nation and what it stands for? Why are they trying to turn it into an Apartheid Kleptocracy? Why are self-identified Republicans so opposed to providing a reasonable, common healthcare system?
Democrats have shown what they stand for: fairness, decency, and good governance. That Mr. Brooks and his fellow party members have become so enamored of hatred, fascism, and tyranny is the real issue here.
4
It's a simple and false argument to say the Democrats don't have a national message. No party that is out of power that does not have a single leader has a national message. The party that holds the presidency has a national leader...the president. The other party has multiple leaders and cannot provide a single voice...unless of course you prefer an authoritarian party.
2
Trump is an American citizen because he was born in America, period. If he had to take a citizenship test, I'm quite sure he would fail. After all, he thinks he can rewrite the Constitution single-handedly.
2
Laughable.
"After 30 years of multiculturalism, the bonds of racial solidarity trump the bonds of national solidarity."
Or rather, with the continuation of centuries of anti-white racism, people of color are continuing to find ways to stand in solidarity and thrive in the face of injustice and hatred.
"Here’s the central challenge of our age: Over the next few decades, America will become a majority-minority country. It is hard to think of other major nations, down through history, that have managed such a transition and still held together."
The groups you're talking about have no internal cohesion: there's literally NO SUCH THING as white people or black people. These are purely political categories. We are not looking at the ascendance of one ethnic group, religion or people over another. What we're talking about is that the people who get to be called "white" will no longer constitute a majority over ALL THE OTHER KINDS OF PEOPLE.
The fact that some white people (some named David) are freaking out over what is, quite frankly, a not very momentous event says far more about those people than about the objective facts. Could it be such people are themselves symptoms of some malaise? Could you be part of the problem?
1
Don't you think the "moderate" GOP caucus should be asking themselves this question? To just shove this responsibility onto the opposing party is so short sighted. We need two parties. GOP heal thyself before decrying the maladies in other parties.
3
Both parties are playing a nasty game of identity politics. As the left doubles down on silo-ing Americans into ever more thinly-construed racial and sexual "identities" in order to pander to collectivist notions of the "oppressor" and the "oppressed," the right becomes inflamed with toxic white nationalism, nativism and other forms of bigotry, racism and xenophobia. Meanwhile, pressing issues such as cataclysmic climate change and income inequality go unaddressed.
We should have a referendum on open borders. If it wins, that's that. If it loses, we need clearly defined immigration laws. Democrats haven't neglected to enact such laws out of a rejection of racism. They've neglected to do so for 2 reasons. One is to secure the Hispanic vote. The others is to please supporters, whose businesses thrive on hiring illegals for $3 an hour.
3
I cannot comprehend the Left’s obsessive cheerleading for illegal foreign migrants. What....we don’t have enough economic social, cultural, and ideological divisiveness in this country that we have to import more chaos? Our cities aren’t crowded and violent enough?...we don’t have enough homeless?...our environmental resources, schools, healthcare providers, and welfare services aren’t burdened enough?
Please explain the Left’s obsession with the millions of foreign migrants illegally residing, or attempting to reside, in our country.
Thank you.
3
A primary effect of wedge issues is to divide people, often irrationally and emotionally. It's hard for me to see our country uniting unless those wedge issues recede to the background. There's a lot of money and power depending on the public being fully wedged, so to speak, so I don't see much unity possible in the near future.
1
I reject the premise that the kind of nationalism you describe is something to aspire to. We need to stop thinking that being born within these borders is some kind of divine providence. Let’s call it what it is, straight-up luck. Luck that our ancestors made their way here, luck that some Trump from the past didn’t keep them from emigrating, luck that the founding fathers wrote a constitution that has served us pretty.
When my kids were young we had a book on geography that illustrated how lucky they were to live in a wealthy country. They spun a dial and there was only a tiny section that represented the world’s population that had the wealth and food that we had. You could spin over and over again and not land on the standard of living that we Americans enjoy.
This drumbeat driving people to nationalism is the result of resentment about immigration resulting from war and instability around the globe. A UN Refugee Agency report estimated in recent years over 65 million people have been forcibly displaced. And who are we Americans? We are conglomeration of people who have ourselves been displaced over the last few hundred years, prioritizing our needs over those of the native people.
We should strive to be good citizens of the world, aligning ourselves with other world leaders, not strongmen, to improve the lives of people around the globe. This is one instance where doing the right thing is also in our national security interests.
2
@SC: I agree with you. Too many people confuse patriotism and nationalism, but they are two different things. I consider myself a patriot but not a nationalist. Patriotism is love for one's country; unbridled nationalism gave us two world wars within twenty years during the 20th century.
But this country is now so divided that I wonder whether anyone or anything can unite us. We need a Washington, a Lincoln, a FDR. They were uniters, not dividers. Trump is a divider. Lincoln went to war to prevent the union for disintegrating and after the war welcomed the southern states and people back. I think we're still fighting the Civil War, but this is the Civil War 2.0. Given the deep divide, I am re-thinking the whole secession thing. This time, if the South wants leave, I say let them go. Bring all of the military bases back to the North, let any taxes go to support those of us who want to spend it on the military, infrastructure, education, healthcare, social services. If the South wants to return to 1850, fine, just don't drag New England, New York, and California with them.
I am an immigration attorney but I support enforcement of our immigration laws. Our laws have flaws; nothing is perfect. But it does allow certain undocumented immigrants who deserve it the opportunity to gain legal status. It's not gaming the system; it is my job to literally work within our current immigration scheme. One of my issues with our asylum situation is that when so much of DHS's resources are diverted to processing many asylum claims at once, it takes resources away from others like my clients who are trying to immigrate using the regular channels. Processing times for USCIS have expanded triple- and quadruple-fold. Realistically, our current system cannot sustain these changes. However because of our history with deporting criminal aliens which led to the spread of the gangs now wreaking havoc in Central America, I feel we bear a moral responsibility for dealing with the problem. I would support the creation of a separate entity under either Homeland Security or the State Dept. which deals solely with processing and expediting refugee applications, and set up offices throughout Central America for it. We currently have a protocol for those who wish to apply for refugee status, but it is slow, cumbersome, and involves too many agencies. This may help to keep these individuals, many of whom are escaping horrible circumstances, from overwhelming our borders and our immigration system but still allow them the opportunity to apply to enter the U.S. legally.
3
@RN
The GOP is winding people up with lies about the facts of our laws. They are cowards and traitors who do not care about the truth and would not acre one wit if they woke up tomorrow and realized no one cared about immigration any longer. They would simply find another topic to lie about and create fear about. They are not Americans they are anchor citizens!
1
A more equitable and affordable health care system.
Renovated and updated infrastructure, mass transit.
A program to meet the nation’s need for affordable housing.
A more sensible, equitable tax code that does not favor money made from money over money earned by labor - and that does not exacerbate what is already toxic income and wealth inequality and exploding deficits.
More spending on education, less spending on an already bloated military budget.
A rational, compassionate immigration system that is based on reality, not on resentment and demonization of refugees fleeing poverty, violence, famine and war, seeking a safe harbor, and foreigners seeking an opportunity to work hard, contribute to our economy and make a better life for their children and grandchildren. One that acknowledges we desperately need immigrants because we have a low birth rate, an aging population and a shortage of labor.
A fair election process, not one that permits one party to suppress voting by its opposition. Not one that runs on big money and the influence it buys.
Separation of church and state.
Protection from our epidemic of gun violence. A meaningful program to abate the death and destruction wreaked by opioid addiction.
A rational response to climate change. Clean air, water and land.
Shall I go on? We already know the Trumpublican Party will address not one of these issues in a productive way. Democrats may not have all the answers, but they’re ready and willing to try.
3
In my case it's decency and humanity. Tough concept for you Mr. Brooks? Arbitrary borders won by war or waterways are meaningless to me.
3
There are at least 3 things going with illegal immigration: the cost/benefit of border security, the desire of certain employers to have under the table employees, and the fundamental questions of how many people can we assimilate per year, and how many do we wish to assimilate? Trump’s base would say we want a very limited number of legal immigrants only. The GOP business community on the other hand needs both green card workers and illegal immigrants. They pay taxes, don’t vote (their kids won’t for decades), but they do affect the census (if we do a proper count). This is more of a GOP internal conflict than anything else. Democrats might weigh in on the humanitarian aspects, but these are not voters that we are arguing about.
Sad to say they don't. Washington has turned into government by combat... as if the 21st was the 14th century. And even sadder... there is no one on the horizon to lower the level of violence.
2
There you go again, David, insinuating that there is public service going on as the GOP loot the treasury and our ideals along with them under cover of the liar in chief. The disunity is a both a fuel for and a function of the realization of Lord Acton's 'power corrupts'- and when one honest republican votes to do what is best for the country as a whole, then we will have the beginnings of the government that the framers had in mind.
1
As far as I can tell, the only people who don't share our values, threaten our safety, and take our jobs, are republicans.
3
I have two answers to Brooks’ question: one is that Democrats understand what makes America special, respect for truth and liberty, and Republicans have rejected those values. Second I have no desire to be united with anyone who has ever voted for Trump and his nasty xenophobic version of the GOP.
5
But it Is not just about nationalism, which in itself is too often branded as a fear issue. It is also because many, many of us are not just only about the state of the economy, but we do not want cynicism, we do not want to listen to a president hurling racist epithets and contradicting himself the following day, we do not want cruelty and lack of compassion, we do not want crude generalizations, we do not want divisions between us, we do not want the poor made fun of, we actually all dream of a good moral compass and decency, as old fashioned as it may sound.
Why does Brooks always ask questions of Democrats? Why doesn't he demand Republicans be accountable? In fact, not so long ago the erudite columnist was a Bush apologist and Clinton skeptic. It's always the moderates who must approach reactionaries according to him. Those who despise reason must be approached and with extreme care to not offend. Why? Their ignorance is offensive. They have been "offered" sanity over and over again despite Brooks' commentary. Perhaps they are simply not receptive.
7
@sunnyshel
Agreed. We owe the reality-averse among us nothing but contempt.
In the near future majority-to-minority transition, I hope the nation does not become vulnerable to a charismatic leader--the classic "man/woman on a white horse"--who unifies but at the expense of our Constitutional values. And why is that the prominent fascists or blood and soil nationalists and antagonists never seem to have served in the U.S. military, or in some other significant position of national service? Some days it's like we have never recovered from Vietnam and Watergate, except that modern communications technologies and pervasive social and other media have amplified divisions.
A Democratic national story? I thought that was what Barak Obama was offering: "... we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states. We are, and always will be, the United States of America." And a majority of Republicans said, and say, the 'believed' that Obama wasn't born in America, not a real American. So, where is the failure? In the story's teller, or in those who refuse to hear?
5
Brooks is right about one thing: The democrats' position on immigration has devolved over the past several to one of unconditional support for illegal immigrants. The call to abolish ICE, the hysteria over the treatment of migrants at the southern border, the complete lack of any proposal to control the flow of migrants and "refugees", all this amounts, for all practical purposes, to a demand for open borders, notwithstanding democrats' repeated denials. This is the result of the disproportionate influence of the extreme left within the democratic party, which makes it difficult or impossible for democratic office holders to adopt a more reasonable position on immigration. This is the democrats' Achilles' heel. Most Americans want the border to be controlled and illegal immigration to be rolled back. Unless the democrats can figure out a way to talk about this, they're going to have trouble winning elections.
5
A Democratic Creed? I nominate Truth, Justice, and the American Way. ("Way" meaning the path of tolerance, fairness, and political sportsmanship.) With regard to this election, the creed means a Congress that performs its Constitutional duties, including unbiased investigation and government oversight. It means giving all American citizens access to medical care. It means protecting the health of children by cleaning up the environment. And, of course, it means draining the Trump swamp of corruption and conflict of interest.
3
David Brooks, I think, has found the words that accurately sum up the current political view of this administration: cramped nationalism.
I would contend that the part of the reason why Trump was elected in 2016 was that the sum of the Obama administrations was "rudderless nationalism", a condition that The People chose to reject.
So, to Mr. Brooks question about the Democrats knowing what unites us, I have to say no they don't. And, they won't come close to understanding what to say and do until they accept that "pride in nationality" is as deep as the pride in the home town teams that win the Super Bowl, the World Series, the Stanley Cup, or the NBA Finals.
Governance of a nation is done in the context of nationality and the types of pride and concern that "nationality" engenders in body politic.
When the Democrats worship a candidate like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who thinks that somehow the money to pay for "Medicare for All" will just appear like the money to pay for a rent hike because we have to live, it doesn't bode well for the concept of leadership that actually can get done what they are proposing.
The contrast is pretty stark. The Republicans have delivered on what they promised; the Democrats have not.
One may no like what has been delivered, but when one is talking about things that are delivered, not having delivered anything is a major hurdle to get over.
2
In 2016, the American voter sent a clear message that they were fed up with illegal immigration and wanted a border wall in order to control it. US elites have ignored that message. The business community and its mouthpieces in the media have worked to redefine immigration restrictions as racism. As Brooks points out, this leads directly to support of open borders. The business community is thrilled by the possibility of open borders, because it keeps labor costs. down. Voters won't be so thrilled, once they realize what that means for wages.
In 2018, Democrats will get away with it because voters are focused on Trump's unpresidential behavior. However, by 2020 pressure from the business community and their media outlets may succeed in moving the Democrats to an explicitly open borders agenda.
This will create opportunities for Trump Republicans. The illegal immigration issue is not going away.
51
@Schrodinger It was only a minority of voters who sent that "fed up" message. The vast majority of us said "It's fine."
Even if you're correct about the business community's preferences regarding immigration, it becomes a moot point once the minimum wage is at an appropriate value.
19
@Noel Deering
Unfortunately, even a minimum wage of $15/hr or $30k/yr, which most hourly workers are not receiving, does not provide a living wage and one that includes health care. Simply put, the minimum wage does not equal a living wage. It's just a scrap offered by the oligarchs who run our country.
22
@Schrodinger Trump did not win the popular vote. No Republican President in the past two decades has won the popular vote. This is why the GOP spends an enormous amount of resources to ensure that all Americans will not have the opportunity to vote. If you do the math, there are not enough one-percenters to elect their puppets. Even with voter suppression and district gerrymandering, they still need to hoodwink enough gullible FOX News watchers to vote for them.
26
David Brooks is right: a focused message that tells all the resentful whites across the land that this country belongs to them, and only to them, will win every time.
As has been shown in Russia, Hungary, Poland, Italy, Austria, Switzerland and Brazil, just to name a few. (And, of course, Germany, France and the UK are racing to catch up.)
David Brook is right: nationalism sells best when it depends on fear & loathing. Great.
4
The immigration issue is really not that difficult. We need a secure border for national security and sovereignty. We need to treat asylees humanely and lawfully, giving them a fair opportunity to prove their asylum claims according to law. Women who are victims of domestic violence should be recognized as a social group for asylum purposes. ICE has a proper role to enforce our interior immigration laws, but ICE should be ordered to focus their efforts and priorities on removal of criminal aliens and gang members. Immigrants who are otherwise law abiding and have US family members should be left alone, as they were under Obama policies.
2
“National identity is the most powerful force in world politics today. Most of the strong leaders around the world were swept to power with a strong nationalist story and govern in nationalist ways.”
Turn back the clock to 1940, and David would be wondering why the Democrats weren’t embracing totalitarian dictatorship as the only way to have a strong nation. Tell us David, do you really want the Democrats to emulate “Russia, China, India,” and even Brazil? These are your role models? Of course they may be Trump’s, but I think we may fervently hope that the election today will show that the great majority of Americans reject the “nationalist strong-man” image he and his true believers have been peddling.
4
Down the stretch, Democrats have definitely focused on more tangible issues like health care and abandoned lofty topics that the highfalutin, tweed jacket crowd Brooks trucks with likes to discuss. Weird. It almost seems like they want to win elections.
when Bernie Sanders did exactly what David Brooks now proposes (drop 'identity" politics in favor of issues which would favor those who see themselves as victimized by "identity") he was decried from both left and right.
Nothing so sad as a man ahead of his time.
2
The fundamental problem that Democrats have is that Republicans can take positions that are "strong and wrong," with certainty trumping any level of complexity. In that sense, they come off "meek" by comparison to the flame-throwing Tump. "Strong and wrong" can outdo "rational and intelligent" when a middle ground on immigration is what is needed - which is precisely what the Democrats prefer.
Sadly, it appears that Trump has a stronger political hand in attaching fear with immigrants, whereas the Democrats, partly because they are not in power, have little or nothing to counter the attacks. It's true that their narrative is lacking, but it's a darn hard one to create in this environment.
Democrats stand for decency, which includes LGBT rights, a gun safety position, and allies in the globalist world, is bad-mouthed by Trump's ability to galvanize his base witha chaotic, flame-throwing style, red meat, anti-immigrant rhetoric, and anti-globalist positions. If the society is not educated and open-minded in these issues then Trump and his fear schtick keep the base plenty entertained, and the establishment and moderate Republicans voting in lock step, based on the desire for power.
The stock market is a boost for corporate Republicans, which Trump falsely takes credit for with the huge corporate tax cuts and the cutting of environment and regulation protections. Look at the mess that's been created.
1
When Barbara Jordan chaired a national commission on immigration during the Clinton administration she urged that illegal immigration be curtailed, we admit more refugees and that we support all immigrants to become as integrated in to our society as Americans. That’s what our policy should be as Dems.
2
The political debate has become so polarized in the US that it feels like those with moderate views no longer have a voice.
A moderate viewpoint would have suggested that Democrats admit that as Susan Collins stated, the evidence against Brett Kavanaugh did not meet the standard of "more likely than not." Such Democrats might have issued a mea culpa: the Me Too movement has gone too far. There is a place in our democracy for due process and we should accept that along with the Republicans.
But feminists at the extreme prevailed.
A moderate viewpoint would be: We want to treat illegal immigrants compassionately, but we need to uphold the law. So it is dysfunctional to set up sanctuary cities, and wrong for Obama to give amnesty to Dreamers via executive action. We need to hash immigration out in Congress, even if it means actually discussing issues with people we disagree with; that is the essence of democracy, is it not?
A moderate viewpoint would be pushing for universal health care, not making further tweaks to Obamacare, which Jonathan Gruber bragged had subtle incentives that ordinary Americans would not understand, and that Obamacare's advantage was it's lack of transparency. Gruber's attitude represents what is reprehensible about liberals---they are sanctimonious and despise the working poor.
Have Democrats lost their message? Yes. Fortunately for them, Trump is a terrible spokesman.
No rational election choices put America's democracy on life support.
2
"If you don’t offer people a positive, uplifting nationalism, they will grab the nasty one." Republicans were offered a positive, uplifting nationalism for eight years, and they spat on it and chose Trump. The nasty sort of nationalism is what they sought out, it wasn't the only option left to them. It is the clearest reflection of the hatreds that drive them, and nothing would sway them from it.
3
The Democratic party was derailed toward the far left and became the party of the crowd, with hyperbolization of the minority agenda. The choice between Trump's populism and the party of socialism and the crowd is difficult and pitiful. Political disputes make sense, America can only connect love to the neighbor.
What unites us are American ideals. The American ideals that Trump throws out in favor of his nationalist, protectionist, ignorant vision. The GOP goes along with that vision without oversight, critique, or decency. Consequently, what you'll (hopefully!) see is a referendum on Trump and the GOP. Hopefully, tomorrow is the start of putting America back on track.
Nationalism is contrary to the best interests of the species.
Mr Brooks, I thought that you were supposed to be some type of leftist Republican?
What we want now is a white ethno state called the Confederate States of America.
1
It sounds like David Brooks wants something settled. For me though, an immigrant who was raised here, this country is in a perpetual state of becoming. Reaching for better execution of its founding principles: "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty for ourselves and our posterity." That's a worthwhile set of challenges to rally around. David's right that his party has abandoned the effort. But I think there are a lot Democrats who are able for the work.
David Brooks is entirely correct in pointing out the value of a cogent, concise, uplifting narrative. The Democrats, sadly, have said much but none of it has had the simple elegance that would grab the imagination. If the Democrats end up doing well tomorrow- I, for one hope they do, it will be because of the lack of civility on the other side- not for the genius or pithiness of the Democratic message. There is justifiable anxiety across the land.
36
Mr. Brooks,
Trump's nationalism may have overturned the historical ideal of American nationalism, but it has not replaced it. The historical ideal is present. For Democrats, it is a GIVEN. Always has been. And what you are hearing from them is not a rehash of it, not some made for the media meme, but rather a long list of specific goals (long opposed by Republicans) that will move the nation toward that ideal. Other commenters have cited many of them.
Anybody who was brought up with this historical ideal, anyone born elsewhere who bought into this historical ideal and came here: these people do not need Democrats to tell them what they already know and believe in deeply, while it is clear that the others - those who have turned their backs to it - don't want to hear a word of it.
Even you, Mr. Brooks, know that there are more people in the US who adhere to the historical ideal than people who don't. You know as well that the disparity in numbers of the two camps keeps growing. It will continue to grow even in the worst case scenario in today's elections. Today's election is important because it will determine whether the (re)ascendance of that ideal comes sooner and peacefully (in the ideal manner) rather than later in the manner preferred by Trump and his nationalists.
David Brooks,
What you're really asking is "Why won't Democrats concede to conservative demands, so everyone is forced to be united in ONLY the Republican way of life?"
Your idea of being "united" means that the majority of Americans must give up the social compact, freedoms and protections of Democracy in order to accommodate the tyrannical minority rule currently called Republican, which consists of the 1%, the corporate elite, foreign investors, and a minority of Americans who are mostly older white southern/ rural men.
It is Republicans who must choose to be united with the majority of Americans. Not the other way around.
It is Republicans who must work to create or unity. Not the other way around.
It is Republicans who must understand the difference between business and government, between personal and public, and between democracy and kleptocracy. Not the other way around.
You people have had myriad chances to lead the nation. You have failed every time to do anything other than drive us into debt and turmoil, and enrich the wealthy 1% class.
1
Do Democrats know what unites us?
2008, what happened? An entire nation UNITED to make history. And as quickly as WE did that, the same group of "Americans" that has been working hard to break the republic decided that unity was NOT what they wanted and quickly went to work to dismantle that.
What else do you have to offer, David, except rhetorical questions and watery polemics about "Liberals and Democrats"?
The entire exercise gets tiring when the answers are the same no matter the era: We know who's doing what, and why.
But, it appears you, and many others, would rather pose philosophical questions than make an actual point.
2
Well, David, most of us are united by a loathing for our current president.
5
What unites Democrats?
An economy driven by demand, not "supply side" and "trickle down" voodoo economics. Driven by demand means that non-wealthy people have money to spend on goods and services. Non-wealthy means wage-earners who need jobs to buy goods and services, but It also includes the poor who buy goods and services.
Democrats believe income inequality is a huge problem, because it prevents the virtuous cycle of demand driven economics.
Democrats have a definition of "community" that includes people of all colors, religions, etc.
Democrats believe what the Constitution says about religion: you can be any religion you want, and the government has to stay out. The government can't endorse one religion over the other.
Democrats believe that large corporations with monopolies will crush small businesses and citizens and must be regulated.
Democrats believe we should not destroy the planet so that a handful of people can get insanely rich. Democrats believe that we can redesign our world to conserve--creating jobs too.
Democrats believe we need rules around immigration, and that our immigration system is obsolete--but Republicans refuse to make the bipartisan efforts needed to overhaul the system. and BTW, Immigrants do not have the power to make your wages lower.
But Democrats have learned the hard way--when you get into the weeds of actually changing policy, voters are turned off. (Fear and demonization--the GOP approach--require no real attention.)
2
Probably the only column by Mr. Brooks with which I have ever agreed 100%. My wife, the daughter of a legal immigrant father, voted GOP on the single issue of immigration. I voted straight Dem in our very blue state. I consider myself a progressive, could never vote GOP again in my life, despite having been Republican once, and young. But the Democrats can’t have it all. They need a vision very much like that of Mr. Brooks, or we are doomed to what may become another civil war between the new-Confederates now in charge and various splintered opposition groups. I suspect the latter, as the Democratic Party these days is a messy coalition, while the GOP is racist, rabid, and united.
As an old white man, I would have appreciated seeing a peaceful, optimistic demographic transformation honoring those ideals Mr. Brooks describes. I fear I will not, and I grieve for my new grandson and the country and world he will inherit. He deserves better. We all do.
Tomorrow will tell the tale. We will have a very good idea by the time the election results are in as to the kind of country we are and wish to be. I am not hopeful.
1
Mr. Brooks makes an excellent point that the Democratic Party has not countered Trump's nationalism with anything substantive. We are not a nation based upon ethnicity or geography, but rather on ideals. We must focus on the basic principles on which our nation is founded: equality and justice for all, regardless of origin. That is American nationalism (as well as a solidly christian approach.) Democrats would do well to pick up such a banner.
1
For a start, grab the immigration issue and put a really good policy solution out there -- a comprehensive bill (yet again!) that can get bi-partisan support because it would fix the current flaws or at least address them. We can't just keep fighting over legal and illegal, yes or no path to citizenship, fix or not fix asylum process, and on and on.
Most people are okay with immigration if they think it is handles well, which it isn't these days. Democrats could push this issue, even if it becomes the third time Republicans have killed reform. Remember when we almost had it passed? W. and Obama supported bill nearly made it.
The Republicans are divisive, yes, but at least they believe, truly seem to believe, that they (emphasis on 'they') are united as "Americans." You may disagree with their definition of what constitutes "America." You may think that their definition of "Americans" deliberately excludes quite a few Americans who don't look like them (overly simplistic and wrong, btw). But it's a message of unity that voters can grasp. Compare that with the Democrats, who have brought us identify politics, which by its nature, design and intent, is divisive. It can be nothing but divisive. We are all members of an identify group now - including, naturally, the white nationalists, who have really embraced their identities - in competition with each other for the greatest grievances. The irony (or tragedy, I think) is that the Democrats didn't used to be that way. The very words we used - desegregation, integration - reflected the view that we might have come from different places, but inside, we were all the same, with the same needs, desires, fears and hopes. This was a uniquely American ideal - multiracial, multicultural Americans aiming for common ground. Sure it sounds trite today; but at least we tried, and it gave Democrats something of substance to believe in and support.
I'm sorry. Those, like David, who say Democrats don't know what unites us are intentionally not listening. I'll admit there is no one strong voice for the future, delivering their message but that does not mean they do not have one. The core of what most Democrats are running on is basic common decency. Voters are also worried about healthcare, medicare, social security, climate change, education and there is more. Obama has lost his voice campaigning on all of these issues for great candidates. The message of hope has never gone away. David's ignorance is striking sometimes.
4
Really? The only crickets I hear are those of the Republican caucus, particularly its leadership, that has enabled rather than challenged Trump in the face of his racism, anti-Semitism, policies that serve to marginalize members of the Queer community, attacks on out values, institutions and the press, all designed to split the country in order to further empower Trump.
4
Most often I find it worthwhile to read Mr. Brooks' column, but not today. I find ridiculous his argument that Democrat opposition to the Republican Party's blatant xenophobia and race-baiting is in itself an insufficient raison d'etre. He then goes further and asks the Democrats to provide "a positive, uplifting nationalism"; he guarantees their failure because a positive, uplifting nationalism has never existed. "Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first." Charles de Gaulle.
3
It was mostly heavy-caliber rifles and Northern marksmanship, combined with industrial scale logistics, the telegraph and the railroads. Vast numbers of artillery.
The first large-scale industrial logistical war. World War I with muzzle-loading artillery. Lee ordered an infantry charge against concentrated grapeshot. Pickett's charge showed what artillery could do when well-supplied with ammunition.
The American Civil War united the country in grief. American industry united the country in economic power. The abolition of slavery and the guarantee of equal rights united the country in moral leadership. Lincoln united the country with moral purpose and a sense of right and wrong.
Adoption of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments united the country in the rule of law and equal rights.The Constitution unites us all.
2
David,
You miss a major point about immigration by saying America will become a "majority minority" nation. You assume that Hispanics are a "minority" and a voting bloc, like African Americans. They are not.
Hispanics assimilate naturally, as have other ethnic groups before them. As they mainstream, they will become members of all parties, intermarry, and tend to become more Anglo even as Anglo families have more Hispanics ... Italians ... Irish, etc. in their lineage.
In a way, assimilation of immigrants will ameliorate some problems while creating a problem for the democrats. They profit electorally by labeling Republicans as racists in an effort to scare minorities to the polls. Once today's minorities no longer feel like minorities, gain wealth and political positions, and even become republicans, what will scare them then?
1
What united the Union against the Confederacy in the Civil War? Not all of them decried slavery, though many did. Not all of them demanded equality with African Americans, though a few did.
They were united in resistance to rebellion. Worked then. Maybe the Democrats can highlight how anti-American the Trump-era conservatives are.
As many other commenters have pointed out, Mr. Brooks is wrong that Democrats did not articulate what make us Americans. Many democratic candidates did, with different favors. The reasons that many people like Mr. Brooks didn't hear it because they do not have the megaphone that Mr. Trump has. Many people like Mr. Brooks didn't hear it because Mr. Trump is a decent salesman even if he isn't any good at other things. The only person who has equal standing is Mr. Obama but he has done his part and his time has past. With the enthusiasm on the democratic side, I have no doubt that a new standard bearer for the Democrats will rise up and articulate a forward unifying vision for all Americans.
1
@Peter
Beto's doing a good job with the Democratic vision thing. I'm not sure David has paid attention to Beto's speeches.
Okay, I am an optimist on this and I may be oversimplifying as well, but I don't think this is as difficult a problem as Mr. Brooks makes it out to be.
As a country, we need to teach and rally around our idea of what a country is, what a citizen is, and what a nation is. And part of that is the vision that, as a nation, we are always improving on the ideals of our founding: that people could govern themselves, that they should be able to pursue their vision of happiness, that all citizens are free to have input into government institutions, that all can voice their views, and practice their religion, and more.
Our history, through its starts and stops and its two steps forward one step back version of progress, has generally marched toward equality, freedom, and fairness. Take the right to vote: first white males with property, they all white males, then all males, and then all women. The same progressive march can been seen in gender equality, economic opportunity, and other aspects of life.
That is the national identity and ideals that the Democrats and Americans can rally around as our story. It goes back to our Declaration of Independence. That is what makes America great and what can bind a nation together.
With his trademark insight, broad vision, and deep thinking David Brooks again demonstrates an amazing ability to cut through the chafe and drive to the core of what historically has defined America as a unique pioneer of equality-based, inclusive self-governance. Brooks describes, in his customary eloquent terms, what always has made America great. Trump's copyrighted MAGA is an anachronism of distraction; there is no "again", MAG (sic) is what's driven real Americans from our beginning, Trump's again applies to fake Americans.
Brooks is a Conservative and a Republican secondarily, he's an American and a humanitarian first and foremost. And he's right, we Liberals and Democrats would do well to adopt a page from David's book. I know he'll gladly share his thoughts with us as we step out of our shells that are defined more by political than by rational fears, and reinvent ourselves as outspoken champions of what historically made America great.
Should the Democratic coalition somehow prevail over the Republican naysayers during the next four years, yet fail to realign themselves with our American experiment's founding principles as Brooks suggests they must, the period 2022-2026 will be destined to repeat the period 2018-2022, and America will remain no greater than the dredges to which Trump and the Republicans have dragged it today.
The choice is ours to make, America is ours to lose. Give Democrats the chance to salvage this mess, but make sure they clean up their act.
2
I think if you set the bar for coherent national identity the way you do, then neither the republicans nor the democrats are succeeding. But if you don't disbar the e pluribus unum narrative Obama always hits , then there is a narrative that is about the present and the future, about what we could be that meets your criteria.
This doesn't satisfy conservatives, who check proposals against 'who we are, what we have been '. Both modes are imaginative projections, fantasies really. But one is about what is unsettled and could be better. The other is about what has been good and should remain unchanged. Think about the fact that conservatives have been against almost every expansion of liberty and rights, every expansion of franchise since Lincoln. Women vote? No! Conservative democrats in the south said no to civil rights. Gay marriage? No! Ex felons who served their debt vote? No way ! Both sides freak out when their imaginative projections are threatened.
I guess the inevitable failures of acting on those fantasies for a future not yet won, is just more preferable to reaction based on a romanticised version of the past never lived. It's also a more compelling narrative for a country started as ours was, warts, slavery, genocide and all.
My great-grandparents entered this country through Ellis Island in the late Nineteenth Century. They followed waves of immigrants from Ireland, Italy and other European countries, as did the Drumpfs. They spoke no English, had no remarkable skills except a deep desire for a better life for their children.
They faced deep discrimination. They persisted. Mr. Brooks, they knew what unites us, and that is freedom and equality under the law. That so many descendants of those immigrants need to be reminded of this core truth is tragic and could potentially undermine our future as a democratic republic.
1
Mr. Brooks,
It is truly amazing to me that you and other intellectual Republicans, willing to criticize their own party’s empty pursuit of power at all costs, can only do so while saying the Democrats are worse. It’s astounding. Democrats have beat the drum of increasing Americans’ access to health, education, equality, and fairness for all while Republicans destroy health and education, cut taxes for the rich while running up the deficit, and divide the Nation into ‘us’ and ‘them.’ None of these efforts are even the result of the current President. This has been the direction and battle cry of your party for generations, he just got on board.
Perhaps you should listen harder Mr. Brooks to the underlying direction of the Democratic Party. I know it’s difficult to hear above the current noise and panic of your fear mongering Party.
Listen, it’s America calling Mr. Brooks. We’ll take it from here.
3
David is aiding and abetting Mr. Trump. The Trump Republicans are doing irreparable damage to our democracy. If they come out on top today, a permanent white Christian nationalist Republican autocracy is not out of the question. Yet David, today of all days, devotes too many of his column-inches to quibbles or misrepresentations vis-a-vis the Democrats. The Democrats have campaigned on policies that are sane, skeptical, honest, decent, humane, equitable, and pragmatic. They have barely mentioned Trump and they have not responded in kind to Trump's lies, demonization and fear. Franklin, Washington, and the other founders would have done the same. Moreover, they would have vigorously resisted the Trump Republican embrace of hatred and fascism.
I quote:
"... It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support ... May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid." G. Washington
3
Faced with Trump's threat to our democratic institutions, Brooks zeroes on what he considers the key issue: the Democrats' "failure" to adopt policy positions he approves of on immigration and national identity. Give me a break.
One can agree or disagree with particular policy positions put forward by the Democratic Party or Democratic politicians. But as they are currently the only small-d democratic political party in the United States, one might think Brooks would cut them some slack and, who knows, use his op-ed piece on Election Day to urge voters to reject Trump and the Republicans.
What a surprise, he doesn't. My conclusion: Brooks is simply one of many non-Trump Republican fakers who will do or say anything to distract others' attention from the outrage that is the Trump presidency.
2
The Progressive Left took over the once centrist democratic party. The JFK party is dead and was kidnapped by left-wing extremists.
The ideology of the progressive left is dangerous for freedom and democracy, as is the ideology of communism.
The Democratic Party's program is socialism. It's a dead end.
3
David Brooks faults the Democrats for not having a counterbalancing narrative to Trump's nativistic political demagoguery. In doing so, he seems to say that Trump is the origin of the racial politics infecting our system. Trump didn't invent racial politics. The Republican party, of which Mr. Brooks has been a staunch pillar, has been practicing voter suppression and white identity politics for generations. It is people like Mr. Brooks who fertilized the ground for Trump. I can only assume he is proud of his life work.
1
Abraham Lincoln was a nationalist. He wanted to save the Union, even at the cost of continuing slavery. He was a liberal nationalist. Trump is a conservative and racial nationalist. He wants to keep whites in control, and deport immigrants and blacks if he could.
We are still facing the conservative revolt that began in the sixties and led to the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. The United States accepted many liberal advances in the sixties--the civil rights revolution, the women's movement, the progress made by gays and lesbians. But these advances did not have widespread support. They were pushed through by elites in the media, in the universities, in the corporate world. They made many ordinary Americans uncomfortable.
It is possible but not likely that Trump and Fox News are so
extreme, they may retard or even reverse this conservative movement. Today's election may provide a signal.
1
Like a lot of self serving Republicanism..... it omits the fact that the Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 Presidential elections.
They must know something.
1
@strangerq
The Constitution is not democratic. As Charles Beard explained in his landmark book, The Economic Origins of the Constitution, it was forced through by wealthy planters and financiers, who instituted the electoral college as a bulwark against popular democracy.
Democrats for Edmund Burke!
Sound laughable? What unites us are our institutions: from the Post Office to public schools, from research universities and libraries to hospitals, and finally to a new form our institutions: our small businesses: coffee shops, bookstores, gyms, restaurants, small farms, craftspeople, service workers.
1
Happiest Americans I've seen any time recently were the thousands attending a Dia de los Muertos festival at the University of Oklahoma Sunday. Viva ! I hope they're all voting for Democrats today.
Exactly. Democrats are so focussed on the pursuit of diversity that they barely understand the nature of community. We need diversity but only within a political and social system that prioritizes community as the foundational good.
1
You know who is anti-American and pro-immigrant? Donald Trump. NAFTA was designed, in part, to keep Mexicans from coming over our border. It worked, the current immigrants are from countries that weren't part of NAFTA. Guess who wants to get rid of NAFTA? Another reason people are fleeing Central America is because their crops are drying up due to Climate Change. This trickle will turn into a flood in just a decade or so, as Climate Change really begins to take effect. Where are 3 billion Bangladeshi's supposed to go when the seas rise 3 feet? Some of them are going to come here. There are going to sit in our backyards along with a bunch of Floridians.
If you want to keep America American, the last thing you should be doing is voting Republican.
51
@Phil - you are so right about climate change. If our grandchildren could speak to us from the future, they would beg us to put sustainability at the top of the list of issues. That means population control (inc. immigration), conservation of resources, addressing climate change. Neither party is acting responsibly, in my opinion, and issues of sustainability are almost totally ignored in NYTimes op-eds, editorials and comment sections. I will vote straight Dem today, but just as the GOP needs to rethink climate change and family planning, the Dems need to rethink unsustainable population growth via immigration. As is, we are cruising for disaster.
3
@Phil - two points: 1. Trump is by no means anti-NAFTA. He just rebranded it USMCA - got a concession out of Canadian dairy farmers, and it's back - exactly like it was. 2. There are plenty new areas for farming opening up in Siberia, Nunavut and Patagonia - why not go there instead?
1
@Phil, Donald Trump is anti-American AND anti-immigrant. Everything else you said I agree with completely.
2
I have always doubted David Brook's analysis and his biases, and lIke the party and class interests he represents he has never ceased to fail me. Can't the Times and conservative pundits do better than this?
What distinguishes Trumpian nationalism from the national socialism of Hitler or Musolini? . And to what destinations have nationalisms taken to the nations that consecrated it as the best option in history? . What usually started as a feeling in practice, in real reality (not in the bookish version from which they draw their arguments, political snobbery or politicking frauds) always led to a lethal injection of democracies, to isolationism, to the centralization of power in a few sinverguenzas or denentes dictators. Perhaps the bizarre administration of the current president of the nation and the institutional tear that has been achieved by raising the flags of an interested, corrupt nationalism that is ending by subordinating the spirit of what was the most exemplary democracy on the planet is not enough. Many questions many answers David.
I know you don't bothering reading your comments, David, but do you ever talk to Democrats? Do you ever bother to look at the Democratic Party's website and read our platform and planks? Have you listened to the messages the Democratic candidates have been giving? We're focusing on healthcare because it is the number one issue identified by most Americans as the number 1 problem in our country. We have chosen to give positive messages instead of hate, fearmongering, and lies that voters have said they've had enough with and are sick of it. You accuse Democrats of living in a bubble but really, David, you and your kind are ones who stick to your little GOP echo chambers and lash out at us when we try to hold your party accountable for all of the egregious failures of the GOP congressional members to try to be bipartisan and to hold Trump accountable for his childish lies and hate. Wake up, dude, the Democrats are about rising tides lifting all boats, inclusiveness even when there are differences of opinion, and working towards compromise. The GOP? Not at all. McConnell and Ryan are proof of that.
1
Is he kidding, or what?
First, the MSM propaganda was " what do the Dems stand for politically?"
We found out this year. Their unified message of health care and protecting the safety net is so potent the GOP is cribbing it.
So now the propaganda MSM flips to this ridiculous question:
"What is the Democratic national story? "
Proof that the Democrats have a national story? The conservatives have NAMED it! They call it "identity politics."
Brooks is just another conservative looking to dump Trump's total failures on immigration into the Democrats' lap even though the GOP is in unified control of government yet cannot get an immigration bill out of its own caucus.
Define "us" Mr. Brooks, pls. You are smileyface for the Trump party, and I don't think I am included in your definition. Which is to say: I don't want to be associated with you, thank you.
2
Dear Mr David Brooks, You ask for the myth that unites. Here is the myth that those of us in the Democratic party stand for and revere. It would take a politician to put it into a slogan. But Manley Hopkins put it well. It is counter to all ideas of nationality and person-hood that is about "purity" and "blood" and conformity to a white nationalist idea. It is about unity in the splendor of the "counter, original, spare, strange"
Pied Beauty
By Gerard Manley Hopkins
Glory be to God for dappled things –
For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;
For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;
Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches’ wings;
Landscape plotted and pieced – fold, fallow, and plough;
And áll trádes, their gear and tackle and trim.
All things counter, original, spare, strange;
Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)
With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;
He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:
Praise him.
This was an inspired bit of concern trolling.
Nothing could be sadder or more confused than an article written by a conservative Republican (for all the "moderate" noises he sometimes makes) excoriating Democrats for not rescuing the country from the abomination for whom he and his Republican associates have for the last 50 years been preparing the way.
Mr. Brooks, where have your Republicans been in this? I remember a time in American politics when it was said that conservatives and liberals basically wanted the same things, but differed on how to make them happen. Republicans now talk openly about those horrifying blood-and-soil issues as if they were in 1930s Germany, and as if their parents and grandparents hadn't given their lives to stop exactly the same sort of thing in WWII. Shame on you.
1
This is most importantly a transition to a digital, globalization friendly, climate-concerned, non-authoritarian generation. Hopefully they will have enough time to fulfill the goal of all children being entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
1
Do Democrats know what unites us? No. I’ve worked with the party here in Georgia...have asked a million times...what is our platform? Always...the answer is “vote Republicans out!” If Stacy wins here...it will be a miracle...y’all- say a prayer....
40
@A Aycock From what my uncle in Roswell tells me, there's not much in the way of persuasion on either side of Georgia's political divide — one's party ID largely indicates who the voter thinks is worth even being included in a vision for advancing prosperity in the state. Hence it's just a turn-out operation, plain and simple.
@A Aycock - Nonsense! Nationally, the Democratic platform is about healthcare, rational (not racist) immigration policy, higher minimum wages, income disparity, housing. Locally in Georgia, you can add GOP voter suppression activities. Whoever you say you're asking isn't very well informed.
9
@A Aycock - You might look at Hillary's platform and detailed facts sheets.
8
Brooks is correct. This is a time when unity must occur through American ideals and principles (the ones we’ve been struggling to realize since our country’s start) instead of the policies that serve these aims. Identity cannot be constructed with a set of policies or programs (health care, etc), it is created by rearticulating the vision that has guided our best behavior. Policies change, as they should, to accommodate societal changes——eg- in an aim towards providing equal opportunity for “success” affirmative action was developed. But there will, hopefully, very soon, come a time when it’s unnecessary. The principle is equal opportunity, not affirmative action.
Mr. Brooks, you have put yourself on the road to becoming a Trumpist.
2
"Calls for law and order on the border are taken as code for racism. "
What complete garbage! Everyone wants law and order on the border. It's the calls for warehouse imprisonment and child separation of people seeking asylum--people who were previously treated with at least some degree of humanity, by Democratic and Republican administrations alike--that is taken as "code for racism". It is the invocation of a totally NON-existant problem--the threat to our lives and sexual purity by evil illegal Hispanics--to sway gullible voters, that is taken by the not-so-gullible as "code for racism."
I am done with sheepish "conservatives" still injecting their "blame the liberals" thought pattern into their apologies for the chaos that they have engendered.
2
At one time David I had hoped that you had turned a corner. Your writing seemed introspective, thoughtful with a concern for the state of the nation. You appear to have reverted to the classic Republican parlor game of tying yourself in knots to come up with criticism. If you can't hear the Democratic party message this year than have your ears cleaned, come down from your tower, hit the streets and have a listen.
1
Smart point -- crickets indeed. The door is wide open. There is no lock and yet... all we have right now coming from the US (Northern neighbor here) is "Not one of us, therefore against us".
Further, it has been years since the DNC has actually listened to anyone other than media fire-forget-repeat and political talking heads. I take the point as well: DNC lacks a pair of ears and good glasses to check what is happening for each and everyone in your country.
On the hand, I agree, mostly, with the phrase "all elections are local." The DNC, by not driving a message from "on high", is at least being smart and short-sighted. That's not enough for the first and foremost idea "government of the people, by the people, for the people."
Yes HUMAN DECENCY
1
Good job, David.
Your continued effort to sanitize the word nationalism is sickening. Nationalism is by DEFINITION and exclusionary vision of identity and you cannot scrub that away in some G-d awful effort to excuse the Republican Party's shameful acquiescence.
Your original column on the topic was revolting, and the danger it represents was made all the more clear by the Nationalist who ended the lives of 11 congregants of Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh. That you can continue to try to talk about "American nationlism" as an appropriate term for love of country is sickening.
You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself.
1
jeez, dave, 'a mind set that creates unity', paraphrasing. as a liberal democrat, sounds great to me. do you think 'centrist' republicans care to join with us on that sentiment? how will that go over with the fox media, limbaugh, mcconnell 'wing' of the gop?? you think they would be amenable to 'unity'??? last, who's dividing the usa???? schumer or trump????? you can't blame the democrats for everything.......
2
Hey, Brooksie - not scapegoating immigrants, Jewish people, people of color, Muslims, and GLBT people for the country's problems IS a good step in uniting the country instead of dividing it. Keep on trying to bring the US back to some idealized 1950s, pro-corporate version that you have in your one track mind...see where that has got us?
1
What unites us? It can't be racial equality because Republicans only tolerate white people. It can be religious freedom because Republicans only like Christians. It can't be economics because Republicans don't like people who are not rich. I know what it is that unites Americans, ignorance.
2
If the Dems and liberals want to re-elect Trump/GOP then please go forward with all of the endless support for illegals, anchor babies, 'economic' refugees, sanctuary cities and DACAs, et al. This is the why of Trump.
Ask yourselves, it it really worth it?
David Brooks continues to be a Republican, excuses that by writing a few lines against Trump, and continues to insist that our problems must be solved by Democrats. It's a low level of responsibility for an NYT columnist.
Dumb question
We know who divides us today - the current administration and the spineless gop
(They divide us like you woefully naive defense of nationalism last week - akin to defending dressing in black-face because you act on your definitions vs know definitions)
so neutral is good outcome, because there is nothing in the Democratic Party as divisive as the current GOP - nothing
2
Some how the Times feels obligated to run the alt view from this guy and Brett Stephens. There may be a couple of other conservative clowns in the fold too. If I want to read the alt view of American politics, and I'm putting it politely, I would read the Chicago Tribune or Wall Street Journal or watch Fox News etc. That prospect makes me angry because we already live life under a border line Nazi regime. Get rid of these two people and save some money, they serve no purpose and do the product no favors.
Brooks is spot on but he misses a major reason for why the Democratic Party has failed to have a national story. The multiculturalism that has become all the rage, seemingly as a middle finger to Trump, entails embracing cultural worldviews that undercut not only the Democrats own views but democracy itself.
Democrats decry Christian bakers who refuse to make cakes for gay couples but openly champion the BDS movement, condemn Trump's travel ban and stand with the Palestinian leadership which is effectively Hamas. All the while refusing to grapple with the harsh reality that Islam in practice across the world fuels misogyny and homophobia on a scale that far surpasses baked goods.
In their rush to bring in more migrants in the hope of gaining minority voters, they fail to consider the deeply conservative cultures many of these people hail from. Most Central and South American cultures are highly patriarchal and Catholicism runs strong there.
And then there's what I call the religious left. I loathed the Republicans for their insistence on dogma and refusal to engage in real debate on topics like tax cuts, climate change, and foreign policy. Today's Democrats are just as bad. If you don't support open borders you're a racist. If you don't think the government should be deciding what cakes a baker makes, you're a homophobe. If you're not a Democratic Socialist you must be a fascist Proud Boy. The Democrat Party not only lacks vision, it has also become stupid.
2
David,
If you're not fighting autocracy, you're not doing your job.
1
Before we can agree on a unifying strategy to counter Trumpian nationalism, we need to acknowledge the unprecedented nature of the problems facing society. A proper cure requires a proper diagnosis.
We will be dealing with the persistent consequences of the Great Recession combined with looming environmental catastrophe, overpopulation, desperate mass migrations, relentless job losses from automation and artificial intelligence, and obscene concentrations of wealth.
If left unimpeded, nationalistic leaders will misdirect, scapegoat, and waste resources in murderous but pointless conflicts. And all while getting richer at the expense of their subjects.
We need a populism that acknowledges these realities, unites people democratically, and prevents folks from acting on their worst impulses.
But I guarantee those empowered by the ascendant right won't go quietly. They'll do everything in their power to counter meaningful actions. It will be Obama level Republican obstructionism on steroids.
2
H L Mencken on the Brooks/Trump base.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of the president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people... On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
3
Democrats should follow Obamas exmaple in 2008 -- promote the American creed
1
A nationalist is any person who thinks their nation is worthy of supporting. I am proud to be a nationalist. I can only WISH that all of our presidents had been the same way.
Democrats at one time defended our country from communism, Hitler's Nazis, and even illegal immigrants - because they lowered workers' wages. when Ceasar chavez' cadres went out to punch up illegally-present farm workers, Democrats cheered.
We don't so much have a Democratic Party any more so much as a media-dominated elite club where a few thousand of Those In Power direct mobs here and there to enfore their angry code.
2
@L'osservatore
Right. I'll remember that the next time I see Trump at a rally encouraging his supporters to commit violence against members of the news media and people who don't support Trump. By the way, Trump is the Republican president, and his supporters are mostly Republicans.
If you ask Mexican Americans if we should allow immigration, they think there should be more Mexicans. I f you ask Chinese Americans if there should be immigrants, they want more Chinese speakers. If you ask Ethiopian Americans what they think, they are all for more Ethiopians. What of Philipinos? And Nigerians? Salvadorans? Russians?
If you are honest you understand that people want more of "their" people to come. This is no different from Whites fearing dilution of their majority. All this talk of multiculturalism, national identity being non racial..it fails observation. Whites were/are more open to immigration when their majority is not threatened. It is true in Japan, Germany, France, the UK, everywhere. You have to ask, why is that different, or wrong?
7
@pigfarmer It's not necessarily right or wrong. But we need to look at it though a prism of culture and not race or ethnicity.
Culture clashes are called CULTURE clashes for a reason.
The Democrats don't have a national story that is any different from America's story and they shouldn't have to go around repeating that same story for Trump's base of white nationalists, who should have been paying attention in high school history class. They might have also learned at the same time that Nazis are bad guys and fascism is no way to run a country.
No, Mr. Brooks, "democrats" have not failed to offer a response to The Con Don's destructive rhetoric and beliefs.
WE THE PEOPLE across America are speaking out in voting booths and with other actions. Socially Conscious democrats/independents are listening.
Conservatives like you are not.
Theremin lies the difference.
5
With regards to "open borders", yeah open them up. If the factory I work at moves to Mexico I should be able to go and work in Mexico at that factory. Why can capital move freely across borders but my labor can't? If I want to work in Australia, UK, Canada or even Mexico I should be able to jump on a plane and go work there. I can't because the capitalist want to control the labor and price inputs.
2
The article is exactly right.. Democrats lack a unifying message for the entire country, and they haven't had one for years.
However, for Mr. Brooks to place immigration as the preeminent issue of national unity.. shows a lack of insight and imagination.
America's unique history, strength in the world today, vision and direction we offer for the future... are all national themes that can unify our large & diverse country. No need to fall back on immigration as an excuse for unity..
But, it's true... Dems offer little vision of unity of any sort.
1
A majority-minority country? How is Brooks still writing for the NYTimes. The idea that other nations haven't been able to get past changing demographics is ridiculous. Brooks forgets that white identity has changed multiple times in our history. Before it was only WASP, but it expanded. There was a time when Polish people, Germans, Dutch, and Irish weren't considered white. There were the minority; no one thinks that way now. If we only looked as WASP as being the majority, we're way past the point of no return. However, America is still standing.
Furthermore, our representatives are mostly white men. It hasn't mattered how much of the electorate people of color make. This country has always been filled with people of color and when they out number white people America will still be here. Technically, I'm white. Hispanic is just my ethnicity. Does that mean whites will still be in the majority?
Also as a Mexican-American you don't have to worry. America will still be America just with more tacos and elotes. What's not to like
“If you don’t offer people a positive, uplifting nationalism, they will grab the nasty one. History and recent events have shown us that.”
Good point. The reason “nationalism” has become a code word for racism is because that is the way republicans use it. They countenance it in dog whistled language that speaks to the fear and anxiety of disenfranchised whites and they get results. But they also helped to create the environment in which those people find themselves.
1
In 25 years America will be a majority-minority country with a GDP probably about 75% of China's GDP. The US risks having a infrastructure that is decayed, citizens that are poorly educated, land and air that are polluted and a safety net full of holes. I think the Democrats should emphasize these risks and campaign on policies to address them effectively-- ideally, to prevent them.
What if you don't want to be a minority-majority country? What if you liked your country the way it was? Why does it have to change? We don't owe anything to foreigners who want to come here. They should stay in their countries and work to change things for the better. Otherwise, the flow will never end.
3
Was Mr Brooks vexed by the observations about his last column when he proclaimed he was a "nationalist" ? He comes out today with "a positive, uplifting nationalism" as opposed to "the nasty one". Could he give us examples ? Being a nationalist infers that your nation is superior to other nations. Nothing noble, "positive, uplifting" in that arrogant and agressive feeling. Being proud of your national identity, your national story, your nation's values, is, I guess, what Mr Brooks wants to celebrate. Nothing to do with nationalism in that. It's just called "patriotism". Two quotes by French "patriots" to continue the debate : "Patriotism is the love of one's own, nationalism the hatred for others" (Romain Gary). "Nationalism is war" (François Mitterrand).
Do Democrats know what unites us?
I hate to be a downer on this most important of days. So, go vote and we’ll see where the chips fall.
But to answer the question: very little unites us. And I don’t see much hope in Brooksian fantasies like “the historical ideal of American nationalism…united by creed… a shared American dream — pioneers settling the West…” Please – the Native Americans are where in this dream? It’s all smoke and mirrors, marketing for a dream never realized, a noble experiment that failed – one that could never have envisioned the future.
It was an experiment without adequate controls, checks and balances, with too many loop holes; one that failed to definitively define “freedom” in favor of the collective and instead opted to define it as individual and property rights. It failed to factor in the power of human greed and racism, that democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
The experiment was a crap-shoot. As Ben Franklin supposedly said, our government is a republic “if you can keep it.”
We’ll see if we can keep it. But regardless of what happens in today’s election, I think the country has been cleaved down the middle – never the twain shall meet; never again “united” – because we have never really been there.
In the future, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the nation break into multiple countries: one a social-democracy that privileges the collective, and the other a Wild-West collection of disparate individuals.
80
Not smoke and mirrors. Simply crippled by human myopia and greed. As a nation, like an individual, we aim and stumble greatly, attempt to make amends, do better, move forward and try to have policies that balance competing needs but work towards our ideals.
6
@Michael
Thank you for your clarifying honesty about preferring the collective over "individual and property rights."
Thankfully, due to the grand bargain of the Electoral College, you and those who side with you can never achieve your ideals nor will succeed in splitting the country. And even in the canyons and condominiums of our great Coastal cities, the spirits of our Founders and Ayn Rand burn brightly and hold sway.
BTW, a like spirit and wave is rising in Europe as hundreds of millions begin to understand that the collective, as ruled by far-away unelected Brussels technocrats is intolerable.
3
@Michael
I'm not trying to be facetious in thanking you for your discourse on the reality of our history; our inbred idealism needs a sharp reminder of how ugly its implementation has been at times. Nevertheless, may I remind you that the disappointment which you appear to express in an otherwise noble endeavor requires just such an idealism to serve as an impetus for its success?
The very idea that hordes of immigrants displaced the original occupants of our lands, and in the process relegated them to a status which today occupies the lowest rungs of our underprivileged socio-economic-political order, is an anachronism in and of itself. It very much is on a par with the forcible displacement of an entire race of people from their historic homelands on another continent for the sole purpose of underwriting, as slave laborers, the development of our Southern economy. And the conquering of another race which settled our West and today's Latin America before Manifest Destiny directed our arrival in California and the Southwest.
Yes, you are right is so many ways. I, and many like me, share your frustrations in how this has turned out. But like David Brooks and Ross Douthat, I remain an optimist. It is not yet too late to right our ship of state and turn it around. Our real American ideals have not changed, only the phony ones have. We have an opportunity in 2018 and 2020 to put our country on track again; we have only to show up at the polls, vote and hold ourselves to it.
6
"If the Democrats are going to lead this transition, they’ll need not just a mind-set that celebrates diversity, but also a mind-set that creates unity. They’ll need policies that integrate different groups into a coherent nation, with shared projects, a common language and culture and clear borders."
Crickets from the Democrats on this? Are you sure you've been listening, Davyboy? Or has Madame Tussaud's moved into your ears? This is EXACTLY what the Democrats ARE doing, e'en as I type, my worthy sir! It doesn't come as whole cloth, but if you actually watch you might find it in the process of coming together. Not right now and not over you (or me), but, piece by piece, strand by strand, the narrative IS being expanded to include more of us. Hell, that's a big part of what we Democrats are, and have been, about and most of us actually do remember that!
That’s just out and out bull! David, you’ll do almost anything to bash the Dems. Crickets...really? We are running on what Americans (other than the trumpeters) really do care about. Why health care? Because whatever gains may have been made in income the past few years, have been lost to draconian health care conversations and spin. For every dollar gained in income, 2 or more dollars are spend on healthcare. The GOP is so obsessed with getting rid of Obamacare that they will do almost anything, except come up with a good plan of there own. Now, on to immigration. All everyone has done over the last two years is try to counter the Groper’s craziness on immigration. If all we ever do is feed into the crap he gives us, we’ll never get out of this cycle of chaos. Democrats want reasonable reform, but it’s hard to get to with a lunatic in the house.
You say, “Politically, Democrats have wound up in a place where they decry the policies that restrict undocumented immigration, but they don’t really have any other policies to replace them.” Well, I could replace ‘restrict undocumented immigration’ with almost anything, like healthcare, income inequality, racial disparities in almost every area, and on and on and on. Change DEMS to GOP, and there you have it...nothing done by the party of NO. The GOP has been irresponsible for years, but does a much better job of spin. We have a plan, we have energized millions to become active and we WILL take the country back to stability today.
2
The premise of Mr. Brook's entire argument is that we define ourselves based on immigration and that the Democrats have not said anything about that. Mr. Brooks, it seems to me they have said volumes about it. Unfortunately, maybe you cannot hear it, or understand it, or believe it.
You and your fellow conservatives define 'us' around immigration. Many Americans, including myself, define 'us' as inclusion of all, into policies, legislation and protections. We define 'us' as having equal access to healthcare and an environment that protects 'us'.
Mr. Brooks, it is not just Mr. Trump and his supporters who do not clearly understand what makes the United States 'us'. You fail to see it through your lens 'merit', of 'deserving' of 'rose colored historic practices'. Us, Mr. Brooks, is what makes Americans strive for equality and equity for all, not just the few and the powerful. Sorry, but your definition of how we define our nation is woefully lacking in any sense of 'us'.
2
Yes David we do. You consistently write these lofty out of touch with real ideas and issues and still posture as some principled Republican. There is no such thing anymore. Republicans are now the largest white nationalist group in the world, they only want power for power and money’s sake, and the rest of us be damned. Shame on you for writing such irrelevant and simply not true things over the last three years.
There is no what aboutism, both sides do it, etc. democrats believe in compassion, empathy, fair treatment, we all rise together, decent health care schools and infrastructure. What do republicans believe? Hate, greed, power, racism, sexism, tearing up Mother Earth so fossil fuel goons can profit, and when tRump spouts insistent lies and what do we hear from any republicans? CRICKETS.
Shame on every one of you that voted for this hideous frightful mess but today is your chance for redemption - vote Democrat EVERY single race!!!
3
It is the economy, Mr. Brooks
A French look at US midterms (LeMomnde 2018/11/5)
by Yannick Mireur
A French political scientist and author specializing in American affairs and U.S. foreign policy. The author of two books on American politics and society "Après Bush: Pourquoi l'Amérique ne changera pas" (After Bush: Why America Will Not Change), 2008, and "Le Monde d’Obama" (Obama’s World, 2011)
From LeMonde, yesterday
“We now know the character of the American president: narcissism, fabrications, inculture, absence of any historical and strategic thought. However, we must recognize his coherence in his goals and the rupture with the political elites that he hands out.
He is legitimately answering the two sources of American discomfort for twenty years on the future of America as a nation and economy, immigration and commercial combativeness are the two pillars of its political success with a popular electorate whose fears are not imaginary.
The stagnation of the median wage for two decades and the double shock of digital and globalization feeds a loss of benchmarks to which Donald Trump gives the long-awaited response in circles that felt abandoned by successive alternations since Reagan. In short, Mr. Trump instinctively knows about "country" America that has the blues, where Hillary Clinton sounds wrong and Barack Obama seemed to fall from the moon”
Just after the last presidential election in January my wife's grandma died and we attended the funeral in Cleveland. Over lunch after the funeral I asked her cousins, both in their late 60s, who they voted for and they said "Trump". I was somewhat aghast as a Los Angeles liberal how they could do such a thing. Now their mom had come over from Slovakia, worked hard, done the American immigrant thing and they were (hard to put too fine a point on it) LIVID, incensed at going down to the welfare office and seeing all these "illegal immigrants" who had jumped the line and were claiming benefits that they had worked years to enjoy. They were super animated, angry and motivated. I was shocked. They weren't concerned about global warming, women's rights, equal wages blah, blah. I realized then what Trump had tapped into.
8
is not one element of our common culture the so-called rule of law? For me, it's that simple. No issue at all with legal immigration - couldn't care less about race, creed, color or anything else. So long as you followed the rules.
(not going anywhere near "innocent until proven guilty")
If I am not correct, please tell me, in declining order of importance, what other Federal and State laws I can ignore.
Thank you.
6
If all there was to it was to follow the rule of law, as you say, we would still have the right to own other human beings as slaves, women would not have the right to vote, and so much more. Laws can be just or unjust. We don’t live under a king; instead we have a legislative body under the Constitution that makes laws and may change them. This framework recognizes human nature and that we, as a nation, can become more enlightened by appealing to our better angels thereby creating a more perfect union.
So the crickets in Brooks’s neighborhood are too loud for him to hear Democrats’ appeals for unity by way of, for example, shared health care, education, and equal protection under the law? They have to specifically harp on immigration in order for him to recognize immigrants will be part of that shared story? Sheesh!
5
Well certainly the Republicans don't know in fact they seem to want to purposely pit us one against the other so we won't notice as they rob the poor to further enrich the rich. Didn't need to read the piece for this comment.
3
Mr. Brooks actually has no clue what a progressive thinks. No one wants to completely open our borders, nor do we completely want to close them. The reality is the there was almost no problem with our borders. They were not letting "really, really bad people" through our borders by the droves. Even Mr. Brooks would admit that the caravan moving toward our southern border is no real threat. It does represent a humanitarian tragedy. Middle eastern terrorists would hardly use that as a means to get into the US. There will be no storming of the borders. The real problem was immigrants that were already here. Some were the Dreamers, and some had been productive members of society who had been here for years. The real objection to ICE is how it treats those it picks up. It forces people underground. It isolates them from the community and the police. It increases the ability of people to exploit them, and for no real purpose. In general, they are not the scary, disease infested people Trump claims.
The Democrats do have a positive message: We are one people. This is not a scary country. In fact, it is a scarier country now that the Republicans, Fox News, the NRA, and Donald Trump have been spreading their story of fear and distrust. Should that story be louder and stronger? Definitely.
4
This story about Democrats not having a narrative or a plan is just ridiculous. The media has decided that the Democrats don't have a national story so that's that. Democrats have been saying loud and clear this election season that it's the party that believes workers aren't sharing fully in the prosperity of America because the deck is stacked against them. Plans abound but there are a few through lines, medicare for all because its efficient and cost effective, strengthen social security, fix the broken immigration system with a path to citizenship for undocumented who work hard at jobs you and I wouldn't do.
Clean energy and addressing climate change. Dems believe that we're the nation that can do anything if we put our minds to it. We've done it before we can do it again.
3
First, sure wish I could get an uber elite job and corresponding paycheck spouting inane false equivalencies about false binary choices. Such is the drivel that cascades off David's screen. The democratic vision of national pride is a nation that affords each of us our human rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is scant need for civil rights when all enjoy their human rights. Health care is a human right. Without health life is pretty meaningless. When your restricted by costs and the availability of care there is no liberty and there sure ain't no pursuing happiness.
3
If you live on the Left Coast East Corridor (Boston, New York, Washington) or the Left Coast West-Northwest Corridor (San Francisco Bay Area, Portland Seattle) it is de rigueur to ascribe support for Trump or his stand on immigration as nationalist and nativist-and always as racist. Since even independents and some Democrats can see what has happened in Europe and can see beyond the horizon here and are thus quickly becoming nationalists without any hint of racism, the elites now must add the term "blood and soil" to nationalist in order to distinguish Trump and his supporters from legitimate nationalism.
What these blinders conceal to the injury of those wearing them is the future. There is no way a majority of American voters, let alone a plurality of electoral college voters, are going to accept open borders, catch and release and abolishing ICE. Even a modest amount of travel to or through the great center of the country would disclose this immutable fact.
So, the Democrats have gone down the rabbit hole in following their Leftist-Socialist wing and there is no way out until they come to their senses on the immigration issue. Nothing else will save them-not health care, climate change, trade, tax, medicare for all-as it is clear from Europe's experience and the burgeoning electoral response thereto, that protections against unchecked economic migration from failed or failing economies and countries that have a land bridge to the U.S. must be dealt with.
3
For goodness sake, David Brooks.
My 10th-great grandfather was William Bradford, the leader of the Pilgrims. My ancestors fought and died in every American war. My father was West Point, Class of 1953. My blood runs red, white and blue.
You’re suggesting that because I’m a Democrat, I don’t understand what unites us?
Do you understand, Mr. Brooks? You spent a career building the Republican Party into the monstrosity we see today. Do you understand what America stands for, Mr. Brooks?
4
I have yet to meet any US citizen who is against Legal Immigration. Most US citizens I know are against illegal immigration. Republicans and Democrats can argue about the numbers, but there is no argument for illegal immigration.
1
Brooks says: "What is the Democratic national story? A void." But he is confused. What really befuddles him is: what is the Democratic *slogan*?
The Democratic party is running on health care; easier and cheaper access to education; addressing climate change; making sure people have a living wage; equal treatment regardless of race, sexual orientation, religion and so on; voting enfranchisement; a free press; honoring America's international allies; and of course keeping our country safe and secure.
And it turns out that these are unifying elements that the large majority of the public already supports, regardless of party affiliation.
3
Off the mark, once again, Mr. Brooks. Do Republicans know what unites us? Watching the faces of the crowds behind Trump, the answer is obvious: they are high on the license he provides them to unleash their hatred for brown people, immigrants seeking asylum, Democrats, Nancy Pelosi/Dianne Feinstein/Chuck Schumer, 'globalists', environmentalists, etc., etc.
Anyone who speaks out against the totalitarian threat in this unleashed hatred is branded a left-wing extremist. That's how far toward authoritarianism Trump has pushed us.
3
It's pretty hard for the Democrats to sell the concept of "we're all in this together" (to quote the great Red Green) when all the Citizens United money and Faux News is screaming about how greed is good and to let the Devil take the hindmost. America's litmus test has been the presidency of the Orange Horror, predated by the anti-democratic power-grabbing of Repubs like the dopey Reagan. Caring for your country starts with the acceptance that "the others" want a decent life too.
2
Just another wilted word salad from mr. Brooks. He has really nothing useful to say about either the democrats whom he disdains or the gop whom apologizes for. At this point in time, as mr. Trumps off the rails neo fascism rules the airwaves the Dems are doing the right thing by running strong candidates in every local district and national race. Now is the time for the Dems to take action, and put the brakes on trump before he wrecks the country. That’s enough of a unifying theme for now, building the vision for what comes next can wait until they have the votes in Congress.
2
Democrats just have to remind people of American greatness:
- Founders of some of the world's most successful companies: American-born and immigrants
- Some of the best athletes in the world: American-born and immigrants
- Soldiers that fought for America in World Wars, Vietnam and the Middle East: American-born and immigrants
- Among the greatest artists in film, music and literature: American-born and immigrants
- Over a century of the greatest and most inventive scientists: American-born and immigrants
The greatness in America's future: American-born and immigrants...as it has always been.
1
There’s such a thing as ‘too much diversity’. The cacophony of competing minority interests destroys any sense of national unity. The notion of absorbing an endless....and I do mean ENDLESS...stream of poor, migratory foreign nationals who cross our borders illegally with an air of entitlement...is destructive to the economic, social, cultural, political, and environmental well-being of our own citizenry. I’ll vote for ANY party who can stop it.
1
Mr. Brooks is being naive. He fails to see with clarity a horrible truth.
The Democrat Leadership that allowed a minority party to take the Presidency, the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, 70% of the governorships, and 70% of the State legislatures is "Democratic" in name only.
They are Not Democrats - they are secret Republicans.
The Republicans not only took over all the above, they also took over the Democrat Leadership.
There is no other viable explanation for losing the entire country. Not even endemic incompetence. It had to be a willful act.
Until Democrats wake to this view there will be no cleaning house and no way forward.
I would like to test some unifying messages. So far, I have come up with "Stronger Together" and "Yes we can!" I think those could fill the void that Brooks seems to think is at the center of the Democratic Party. Which tells me, mostly, that he isn't actually listening to us. Which doesn't surprise me, because women, especially older women and people of color are rendered invisible and silent by most of the media including, sadly, the NYT.
And pointing to leaders in Russia, China, India and Turkey as embodying national unity seems like a sick joke. Ask Tibetans whether China is unified, or ask Chechens and Muslims whether Russia is unified, or ask Muslims whether India is unified, or ask Kurds whether Turkey is unified. This piece is generally even more shameful than the average Brooks column.
1
Brooks shows a singular genius for deflecting blame onto those inept Democrats for the damage the Trump Party, which he disavows but whose ugly strain of “Nationalism” he seems to somehow retain a grudging respect for, is inflicting on America. Is it too much to ask citizens to move beyond jingoism and oversimplified national credos, invite them to think critically and embrace, at some healthy level, the fact that our democratic republic continues to be a gloriously messy experiment? Our “shared project” should be, first and foremost, to respect and hold up our differences and reject lockstep thinking at the extremes.
Complete nonsense.
The only people who’ve been campaigning with a message of unity are the Democrats.
Have you not watched the campaigns of Beto, Andrew, and Stacey? What else have they been campaigning on?
(Even if “unity” is not a message that has been evaluated, let alone proven, as politically effective)
3
Trump does offer a choice, vote Republican and live in a nation with no freedom or vote Democrat and maybe live in a free country. The problem is all those knuckle heads who consider their cultural identity so important that a liberal democracy shared with a lot of people with varying cultural background is loathsome, so they are willing to destroy it. Sad but that is what Trump is playing to in his base.
1
Republicans didn't have unity in 2010 or 2014. They had no message except "Obama bad!" As I recall, they did quite well in those years' midterms. Unifying messages are for presidential candidates. During the midterms you don't need unity. You need a target. Republicans had Clinton and Obama, Democrats had Bush and now they have Trump. 9/11 saved Bush's first midterm election. Does Trump have a 9/11? Let's see if that distant migrant caravan fires up the voters the way bin Laden did.
1
David - do you believe what you write or do you write to provoke responses? The notion that the Dems' national story is a void is absurd. If you haven't gleaned the Dems' national story, you aren't paying attention. Worse, you're peddling something similar to your evil party's line about how that Dems offer no proposals or plans to address our problems, and are just running on how horrific the GOP candidates are. (And while many of the GOP candidates are horrific, it's not true that the Dems have no substantive agenda beyond healthcare). So, just to enlighten you, the Dems national story is actually this nation's founding story, and has been our story for most of our history since. A story founded not on one's national identity or religion or race. A story that is written on the basis of ideas, ideals and values. Hard work. The transformative value of education. The freedom to express oneself as one chooses and to worship whom one chooses. The ability to improve one's station in life without regard to "class" or birthright or caste. It is, indeed, quite the opposite of the GOP "national story". Not sure how you could miss that. Unless, like your party, you ignore what we all know to be true for your own political expediency.
2
What’s that you say? I can’t hear you, I have to go back out and urge people to vote blue today. It has to do with saving our fragile democracy from narrow minded ideology.
1
Democrates haven't put forth an alternative policy, or challenged with any strength whether there is any issue. Donald Trump is hard to stand up to in my mind. With him, it's not just proposing a different policy. It's proposing a different reality. He has control of all the props that can make his reality look real, i.e., ICE, the military, Fox Cable (they're not news), Homeland Security, the Justice Department, and most of all, no restraining values. It seems to me a reasonable voice has so little volume in the face of that. On top of that, lots of people cant face up to the need to accept "the other".
The play, “Hamilton” has appeared in this decade at the most propitious time for our civic education and perhaps for David, in particular. The tension between Hamilton and Jefferson remains with us to this day and has resulted always around our vision for our Nation and it’s place in the scheme of things. The tension continues.
Obama did just what Brooks suggests, offered the one nation position, offered the vision of recovery together from near ruin, and republicans completely rejected it and their nation and any forward vision for it. Brooks is right, the democrats are the only party out there worth leading us going forward, and they have been that for two decades at least.
5
Dear David:
I do enjoy your thoughts, but sometimes I do feel really steamed after reading your column.
Like today. You may think Democrats stand for nothing, but I know we stand for. fairness and decency.
Take health care - the only major new policy in how long? If you have insurance you don not know just how important the ACA is. I do-even though I have been fortunate enough to have insurance - because as a physician I have witnessed first hand what happens when the amazing technology America has developed (mostly taxpayer funded at origin) is with held from the ones who really need it, or the even more heart-breaking denial of basic care that would keep people healthy. If I had your megaphone, I would use it make people aware of the vast amount of good that has been done by this law, and how much better it would have been if all its provisions were funded, and how we could make it better.
And where does the Republican Party stand on reducing one of the highest rates of maternal mortality in the developed world? Where is their plan to make the average citizen healthier? Where is their plan to prevent medical bankruptcy? I could go on and on.
Do Republicans stand for fairness and decency? Not if you watch their deeds instead of their lips.
So how can any thoughtful person be a Republican today in America?
6
@Janet Krommes
Thank you. I was steamed too.
It’s as if these folks (David and Bret Stephens) are writing:
Don’t expect anything from Republicans. We are completely immoral lying hypocrites. We blow dog whistles and run our politics on division and fear. We are fine with Russia interfering in our electoral process and people losing healthcare. We are too spineless to hold out leadership responsible.
But, what have you done, Democrats?
Oh, and pick a middle of the road candidate for 2020 that we can IN THEORY support...
2
Democrates haven't put forth an alternative policy, or challenged with any strength whether there is any issue. Donald Trump is hard to stand up to in my mind. With him, it's not just proposing a different policy. It's proposing a different reality. He has control of all the props that can make his reality look real, i.e., ICE, the military, Fox Cable (they're not news), Homeland Security, the Justice Department, and most of all, no restraining values. It seems to me a reasonable voice has so little volume in the face of that.
1
When I went to the University I rejected large portions of the social sciences curriculum as anti-knowledge, as a religion for the secular unschooled, but even less consistent with reality.
What bothered me was that social scientists seemed to conflate morals with facts. This had the danger of leading to bad choices when the underlying facts were not fully understood.
Liberals condemn conservatives for denying global warming. But both liberals and conservatives rejected the message of Paul Ehrlich's Population Bomb of 1968 which argued that exponential growth of population would destroy living standards over time.
The Chinese heard the message and instituted a one-child policy in 1979. But there is still NO DISCUSSION of the need for such a policy in the third world or in the US.
Since the last immigration reform bill in 1986, the US population has grown by 86 million, an increase of 36%. Yet as Robert Brooks points out, liberals regard as "morally suspect" "any position that falls short of open borders."
In a sense our emphasis on democracy reflects our chauvinism. Plato didn't agree. He saw the Athenian democracy put his mentor Socrates to death.
In the past our immigration came from European Countries. The Bill of Rights was a reaction of overreach by British monarchs. The French declared a revolution with the US as a model.
But China is rising and has had autocracy for 2200 years. If we become truly multicultural, why exactly would we choose democracy?
1
First, mid-term elections are defined by local issues not national issues, so a national Democratic message isn’t that necessary. Second, Democrats don’t have to say anything about immigration because Republicans say enough. A Democratic National Committee campaign message about immigration would allow Republicans an opportunity to define their position in terms of whatever the DNC says rather than what it so transparently is: racism. Finally, reasonable people do not need a national Democratic message. No one who is not entrenched in identifying as a “republican” or aligned with trump needs a message from the DNC. trump says enough.
4
good piece. as a former Republican converted to Democratic party more recently, it's important question. i think the answer has to be jobs (which includes infrastructure, education), healthcare, economic equality (reducing economic inequality). I think the message has to be something like stronger together (with women, with diversity). I'm hopeful that Kamala's message of "is this the best we can do" can become stronger going into 2020.
1
"First, these days nations often define their national identities through their immigration policies."
Really? If you asked an American or French or Russian person how they define their national identity, they would most likely list their country's shared ideals, history, greatest leaders, cities, and culture.
4
David raises some good points but I think, and he's pointed this out in previous articles that both sides are entrenched in their separateness. Currently what isn't uniting Democrats is a Nationalist agenda. Dems find the idea repugnant. Dems seem more european-socialist and perhaps the principles haven't been embraced, celebrated or effectively articulated. Europe has solved a lot of issues we grapple with. Healthcare, Immigration, Gun Control what's missing is the charismatic leader who knows how to communicate a positive message that appeals to centrist as well as those on the margins. I think if Oprah were to change her mind about politics she would find a very united democratic party supporting her.
Interesting, but wrong, question at this time. The challenge at hand is to limit the damage wrought by a reckless president and the party that enables him.
That is the most important problem right now. Let that first be dealt with, then, the other problems will be faced. Problems can't all be solved at the same time all the time.
1
@Frea
This president is the best news American WORKERS ever got. Period.
The problem is--not with immigrants by the way, they are what has made this country great--it's politics. The U.S. federal government is responsible for international borders, not the states for their border that happen to be international. But this country has had some kind of relationship with Mexico that has prevented the U.S. government from addressing the issue. If there are any problems for the states from immigration, that is likely to be all on the states. I doubt there is any discussion between the states and federal government about it. Nothing in the news anyway.
So basically it's all sloughed off: the same situation goes on forever. And, it's not an issue unless someone complains.
Complaint is all a Trump thing. No one else really cares. Sure, there is racism, but there has always been that. This country has always found a way to deal with it and will always do so.
What does this have to do with Democrats? Nothing, and nothing with Republicans either. Our relationship with Mexico in this matter may not even be articulated beyond politicians on both sides of the border trying to make deals for this and that, NAFTA and other things. The situation has just gone on.
It will probably remain the same after Trump is gone. The states could sue the federal government but you never hear that happening.
No one cares but Trump, not even his people really, beyond some of them acting mean towards Hispanics in lines at the store.
"The character of this country is on the ballot. The politics we expect is on the ballot. How we conduct ourselves in public life is on the ballot." President Barak Obama said at a rally in northern Virginia yesterday.
I think we can safely say that President Obama speaks for the Democratic Party, don't you? Sometimes there are greater issues than kitchen table ones. At least that's what I learned from reading the Bible...and what life has taught me in my 69 years.
4
How can either party have a "national" story? If the focus is on each party's story, how can their ever be "unity?" Trump has exposed just how divided we are by race. For the foreseeable future, that will keep us from having a true "national" story or "unity."
While I agree with much of the sentiment in this piece. Right now Dems need to win. The national message of the Dems must show up, and soon, but right now its about winning those critical seats.
Taking a page from McConnel, win now, worry about the larger message later, if at all.
The truer American spirit that Mr. Brooks details, is there in the Dem mix, it backs up the idea that when Dems take the House, (maybe the Senate) that resisting Trump is to bring our better nature back to the fore. To check his power, and his degrading influence.
Nationally, going towards 2020, of course the messaging needs refining to focus on the national election. But right now we need to win locally, and then deal with Trump and his Band of Bad Dudes.
The crop of new Dems, the non traditional candidates...if you listen to them...they are part of that moral messaging Brooks mentions. If you listen...its all about righting the wrongs of this President, and history...not letting the strangling vines of fear and immorality to gain further purchase.
2
Democrats will have a unified response to Trumpism when there's a Democratic leader who can unify them. Right now, the goal for Democrats is to gain control of at least one branch of government, the House, and that's a district-by-district battle. A one-size-fits-all Democratic response before today would have been counter-productive. The next phase begins tomorrow.
6
Celebrating diversity is a much better way to promote and create unity than anything the Republicans have offered during my 50 years of having political awareness.
Mr. Brooks almost seems to be engaging in victim blaming here.
Is he unaware of the Republican record of divisiveness over the decades since Nixon and the "Southern Strategy"?
3
You're wrong David, but not for the reasons you might think.
Here is what you're missing: its not really about a *narrative*, so much as about a *plan*, and Democrats can't offer "other Americans" (ie. the non-Victims) any realistic plan that they will accept.
Because a more diverse society is inevitable, and because automation and off-shoring will almost certainly keep reducing available jobs for the low-skilled and semi-skilled, the Democrats simply can't honestly or realistically promise good-paying jobs and prosperity for all (white) Americans.
Instead, they would have to offer something about basic security and limiting the downside of health care and financial debacles, the need to protect the environment, and a future with some limitations to growth and prosperity.
In other words, they would have to offer ideas that would make President Carter's "Crisis of Confidence" speech look like "Happy Days are Here Again"! If they ever try, they are as good as dead.
Its actually not a matter of choosing "non-victims" over "victims". Its a matter of a lack of uplifting options.
That is, unless they want to just make things up, like their counterparts do. (And I DO appreciate your acknowledging that that is what they are doing.)
2
The challenge of our time is that voters are abandoning centrist parties in literally every country across the globe. Middle class voters have finally reached a tipping point; they feel they have not benefited from 40 years of technological change and globalization that have overwhelmingly empowered corporations. Trump understood this and Democrats had better do the same before 2020.
Only an anti-establishment platform and messaging will win in these times. If Democrats are to win in 2020, they will need to demonstrate to these "left behind" voters that they understand their concerns and have a plan to fix them.
1
E Pluribus Unum? And if so, how will Americans define "Unum" *in practice*?
David, David, David, the idea that democrats don't know what unites us is the wrong question. What should unite Americans is a sense of hope not fear, since that is what the Declaration of Independence says in so many words. What unites us as Americans is a sense that we can work hard and take risks, but that our community -- led by Protestants back in the 1700s, but all people of faith today -- will be there to help us when things go south.
The problem is that what people vote for today isn't hope, it's anger. The problem is that people think government doesn't work because they heard an anecdote or two to that effect.
Because democrats point out differences between us that should be respected is not a failure of unity, it's a recognition of fact. This country was founded on discrimination and is slowly, every so slowly, fixing that.
What should unite us is the Golden Rule, which in one form or another is written in every religious text I've ever read.
1
David B's critique is timely and important for Democrats to contemplate as we look ahead to the 2020 Elections (and beyond). Immigrants (and immigration, in general) have been the key contributing factor to the United States' unparalleled success in becoming the Global Power it is. Having said that, it is prudent and important to review and clarify Immigration Law once the Democrats control at least the lower House of Congress. The DACA children should remain and become citizens, of course, but other aspects of Immigration Law should be reviewed to ensure that they embrace our shared objectives of having a "pluralist society". This is the critical, defining characteristic of being a citizen and resident of the USA.
1
To me the Democrats story is quite clear: the party that in believes is human rights, voting rights; the party that knows our environment needs protecting not the least our planet. The party that is progressive, not regressive. The party that is inclusive.
Seems clear to me.
2
Not so. I have heard from many Democratic candidates and elected representatives that we are "stronger together," "a nation of immigrants," and "better than this." They talk proudly about their heritage as children and grandchildren of immigrants and the opportunities America gave their ancestors. I have seen with my own eyes white, black, brown, yellow, and red Americans in the crowds that attend Democratic rallies and work to elect Democratic candidates. I have heard Democrats stand up against bigotry of all kinds when they themselves are not the objects of that bigotry. Democrats are living the American story and working to keep it alive for the next generations. Show me some Republicans who are doing that.
3
I usually agree with David, but this time, not so much.
The Democrats' support of almost anything pro-immigrant is purely political. Their brand of identity politics requires that they have huge majorities of immigrant and minority votes if they are to win elections. If these populations start gravitating towards the Republicans, the Democrats are toast.
Although this scenario doesn't seem likely, the stronger economy, particularly as it pertains to higher employment for minorities, will be good for the Republicans.
2
Our story in this country is about opportunity. Equal opportunity. Fair opportunity. For everyone.
That's one creed that brought our immigrant parents and immigrant grandparents and other immigrant ancestors to this shore.
The other creed that did so is the one that refers to diversity. "E Pluribus Unum" is a thing. We all have value and we are all equal, or should be, regardless of what we believe, or the color of our skin, or the ethnic heritage of our family, or the economic straights of our family.
Democrats understand these bedrock American values in their very souls, Mr. Brooks. They are the reason that we are rising up to oppose Donald J. Trump and his craven band of neo-fascist, intolerant Republicans. The other party has forgotten these ideals.
That is particularly sad, considering how hard the GOP's legendary figures of yore fought for them. We fight for the principles of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, too, because those men personified an understanding that "E Pluribus Unum" and equal justice for all and the land of opportunity is for everyone.
1
How about a national narrative that celebrates diversity, cares about the health of its citizens, encourages rather than seeks to prevent people from participating in democracy, believes in a livable wage for all people, and, indeed, as perhaps the last great are Republican once said celebrates the “better angels of our nature?”
4
Rewarding labor should be first and foremost on the minds of the Democrats and their leaders. That is what Democrats have historically stood for. However, that does not include conferring citizenship on illegal immigrants. That is a separate can of worms. We have to have a consensus for that. If not, we will tear America apart.
Too late!!!
1
@caveman007
Reagan signed the 1986 Amnesty that didn't include onerous criminal penalties against the employers providing the paychecks.
Proposed Republican "corporate-sponsored immigration plan" represents REAL and NEW COMPETITION to good jobs and to elevating wages.
Expecting labor-friendly action from Republicans?
Expecting A Wall to stop those who overstay their student and tourist visas?
Expecting Americans to deny Dreamers citizenship?
Expecting the deportation of 11 million?
If you would stop dreaming that Trump represents anything other than corporate immigration and hysteria for votes, you might press Democrats for the things that matter:
a national employment database;
onerous criminal penalties for employers;
enforcement against employers; and
temporary work visas for those with significant history without other criminal acts.
Or continue believing Trump will succeed and watch the numbers grow.
1
First we must vote to destroy the threat to our constitution and he rule of law. Then we can debate about what we should strive for.
3
As we become a nation where whites become the largest minority, we will need a strong police and military presence to ensure equal rights and equal opportunity for all. We will need a leader who has the guts to uphold the law and go after white supremacists who will surely go on a rampage in the next several decades. If I was the military leader in charge of removing Clive Bundy and his gun-toting vigilantes from our government lands, I would have given them 30 minutes to surrender their weapons and leave. After that, I would have the police arrest and incarcerate them. I would also have used our military might to put some fear into these cowards who need an AR-15 to shop for beer. It's best to go after the extremists now, else we will have a worse problem in the coming decades.
2
David, not sure what country you have been in lately. Democrats have a story and they have an identity for America and it isn't hate,racism, putting children in cages, Counting there millions while others sleep on the street,taking away health care, social security, pensions and the best one is there love affair with themselves.
Are you upset that the democrats didn't walk into the GOP traps and there were plenty of them. When you hate so much as the GOP does, they have to lie about everything. Check out that Kavanaugh a drunk on the Supreme Court but a friend of Trump's
We are out in force today VOTING and we have a message and let me tell you if you didn't understand it maybe you will tomorrow. Democrats are here to stay. WE have a legion of people who care about there fellow American.
1
Yet again David Brooks provides cover and justification for Trump and his Republican enablers. Trump is neither a "nationalist" nor a populist ..he is a blatant racist and bigot and so are many of his devoted fans. He has taken his moves straight out of the Dictator's Handbook.. Do not attempt to make him look like a legitimate leader of the United States Mr. Brooks. That is an offense to all Americans who care about this nation.
2
In the longer term, the Mr. Brooks is correct. For this election, Democrats will rise or fall by who and what they are against.
As a life-long Democrat and long-time New York Times subscriber, I have turned to Times Opinion writers more ardently since November 2016. I was one of those "liberal progressives" caught off guard - I needed to understand what had just happened! Once again, Times Opinion writers became my teachers and, in the case of David Brooks, my political therapist. I made a concerted effort to read conservative opinion pieces. Luckily, the NYT brought Bret Stephens on board. And Ross Douthat, with his logic and brilliance and commitment to religious and moral issues, has become indispensable to my education as an older American liberal seeking some answers. Thank you for today's column - insightful and important. I'm certain this very issue is why Beto O'Rourke has captured the imaginations of so many. There is a way forward. We will find it, and it's important to include ALL of us in it. Thank you, Mr. Brooks, for another thoughtful column that aims to heal the great divide.
Mr. Brooks, please start blaming your own party for the nasty "nationalism" that has filled the Republicans' souls with inhuman rhetoric. Please acknowledge that Republicans gave us Trump, and demand that they figure out how to get rid of him and his ilk. Don't ask the Democrats to do your dirty work, unless per chance you have changed your political affiliation? You talk about Trumpian nativism in monotone, like its some bland conceptual theory, except that it has damaged America and the World in ways that we have not even begun to experience. If the Republicans do not want a pluralistic nation of immigrants, then they will literally kill to change it. This is the difference between the two parties. Democrats have a story, and millions more Americans voted for this story in 2016. The majority is being controlled by a deadly minority....oh, and Russia.
238
@Mike Your comment is standard "don't bother me with the facts" of any position other than my own standard hard rock Democrat. I would call it a classic closed mind. I am a lifelong Democrat turned Independent turned Republican (for this election at least) for the very reasons that David Brooks describes. Democrats don't want to move out of their hardcore agenda to recognize that the "deadly minority" at least know the a basic agenda they can support (in spite of Trump) in the current mess that is American politics.
2
@Dlud question: what agenda would that be that you and your fellow Republicans support? If you were previously a Democrat, then you know that the Democratic Party supports a diverse collective of people and works to improve society so that basic civil rights, human needs (like healthcare) and safety are assumed. It is certainly not perfect, but it is abundantly clear that there is no comparing the two parties, anyone who does is guilty of false equivalencies. Tax cuts for foreign corporations (fact) and targeting states with high numbers of Democratic voters to inflict as much financial pain as possible by changing the tax laws to favor their own Republican constituents, is divisive and harms the cohesion of the United States of America, and all to give money from the middle class away to foreign corporations? Indeed, I am very bothered by facts. How is it that the Republicans control all branches of the government and that includes SCOTUS, which I think most would say is blatantly partisan (remember Kavanaugh's tirade at his hearing?), and yet the continued anger, terror and hysteria that Trump stirs up and then his base copycats is happening....facts: the pipe bombs sent to Democrats, the murdering of Jews. One cannot deny these have anything to do with Trump and his party, you just have to watch any of his rallies, which I have, and they tell me a lot of the truth. White people, supremacists, and so much anger. No, no closed mind here.
14
@Dlud
The only "hardcore agenda" represented in this election is the President's.
5
It is remarkable that Brooks does not acknowledge the bipartisan immigration bill that was passed with overwhelming support. It never saw the light of day in Boehner's tea party congress. If a real immigration law was enacted republicans would have nothing to run on. No one to shift the blame onto after republicans in the Supreme Court gave corporation and the uber wealthy the right to buy elections.
Democrats are campaigning on bread and butter issues, and health care seems to top that list for anyone paying attention. It is far easier to get people motivated when someone is trying to take something important away.
It would be nice to see one of these so called conservative pundits not need to stoop to false equivalence in their attempts to coddle the republican party.
David,
I just checked and there are no house bills sponsored by either Republicans or Democrats that change immigration law or laws for those seeking asylum.
So, the "National" story that Repubs are offering? Yet another bald faced bunch of lies this time supported by twitter.
Keep selling the coolaid David. I am sure it pays well.
1
"They’ll need policies that integrate different groups into a coherent nation, with shared projects, a common language and culture and clear borders."
David Brooks has nothing to offer but fear of immigrants lite. This is the same old Anglo song and dance about the "unassimilable immigrant" that has been performed throughout American history, as if it takes work and policy and law to make fully "American" those who come here. All it takes is time and the absence of bigotry. But the biggest, most bigoted assumption is that there exists a decidedly superior American culture worth integrating to. Turn on the TV, flip the channels, and see how long you can maintain that belief.
2
"What is the Democratic national story?" Democracy. That has been the Democrats' story in the age of Trump. And it's a strong one, compared to the fascism and authoritarianism that the GOP is unleashing on us via this vile President. It's the best story there is and if you haven't heard it, you haven't been listening.
Democracy is on the line. Our story is simple: Turn away from authoritarianism and toward the messy, wonderful, beautiful, horrible diversity of the real America.
Immigrants are not the problem, Mr Brooks.
Illegal immigrants and their casual and fraudulent use of stolen Social Security numbers, along with the Democrats who enable such criminal behavior by illegal immigrants, are the problem.
1
"Anything that is pro-immigrant is seen as enlightened, and anything that restricts immigration is regarded as morally suspect. This framing unwittingly cuts the legs out from any position that falls short of open borders."
Sorry, don't know what Mr. Brooks is talking about, again. He continues to make grand inaccurate assumptions about Democrats while turning a blind eye to Republican malfeasance.
The answer for immigration that Democrats should have is the immigration reform providing border security and a path to citizenship for current undocumented immigrants, that easily passed the Senate and would have passed the House but for a minority of racists who were abke to prevent it from being voted on. As for what we owe to “other” (not victims of racism) Americans, how about universal healthcare, a baseline standard of living, education, commitment to the environment, for starters?
"Over the next few decades, America will become a majority-minority country."
An oxymoronic phrase worthy of Yogi Berra. Say what you mean plainly: whites will become a minority in the United States in the next few decades. Was that so hard?
The fact that people in power resort to Orwellian doublespeak to obfuscate this issue is probably the best indication of its disruptive power on American politics. Trump tapped into it and he won against all odds in 2016, refusal to deal with it honestly will deliver this country to him in 2020 regardless of what victories the midterms yield to Democrats.
I'm desperately looking for an honest centrist to take this platform away from Trump and his bullies, but it's just weasel words from the left and ethno-nationalist chest-beating from the right.
1
Wasn’t it Mayor David Dinkins who came up with the term “gorgeous mosaic” as an alternative to “melting pot” to describe the diverse NYC demography? He tried that as a Democrat worldview and it led immediately to Giuliani-time and stop and frisk. For Brooks to now suggest a similar Democratic worldview as a way to guide this country out of the hateful mess we’re in will only enflame the right even more. Let’s be clear—civil war 2.0 is coming to the USA and we better be ready for it. There is no political solution. I wonder which side the armed forces will fight for?
It’s hard to unify the country when one third of the population gets pretty much nothing but propaganda, lies, and distortions from right wing media. Cultural and information apartheid has been carefully cultivated because it works.
And the misinformed deplorables have disproportionate political control due to the residue of constitutional compromises necessary to unify slave and low population states into a new country. Legalized dark money from right wing oligarchs, gerrymandering, and voter suppression put the cherry on top of the anti democratic impulses of our ruling minority.
From polling and Trump’s rapturous rallies, these folks are simultaneously fat and happy while being aggrieved and near murderously angry. Financially, the top 0.1% get most of the benefits.
So, Democrats only strategy in this environment is to develop supermajorities that show up and vote. Without governing majorities you have no power to make changes.
Republicans under Hastert, Boehner, Ryan, McConnell, and Trump have doubled down and given up all pretense of bipartisanship. Witness Merrick Garland, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the appointments of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
First Dems have to unite the coastal, urban, and social groups on the outs. Then they need to deliver good government to everyone, whether it’s appreciated or not.
Republicans will have to learn at the ballot box to abandon their decades long flirtation with white ethnonationalism. That’s on them.
1
The Republican argument is fundamentally anti-American, yet David chooses to put the onus on the Democrats to initiate change. He refuses to acknowledge his own part in this as a Republican. What are you prepared to do, David?
For a long time the far left and the far right shared many views including anti-trade, anti-immigration and anti-Semitism. It has been liberals who have led America forward in culture and in economics.
I agree with David on this one. I think the Dem's have become unmoored from the bigger picture, which is rcognizing the concerns that people have.
There is a tension between the experience of the individual people, and the ideals that are there to organize and motivate them.
The Republicans are moving towards complete surrender to a principle, the fascist principle.
Let's see what the elections deliver.
47
@Marc
The Dems are so in touch with peoples's concerns that the GOP is copying almost verbatim THEIR message!
4
@Marc Democrats recognize the concerns people have and they mostly have to do with lies told by this administration, Fox "News," and the GOP. Democrats talk about healthcare and jobs, which are real issues. People are concerned with fantastical claims of plague-ridden, rapist immigrants who are the source of all their ails. We need Citizens United overturned and the FCC Fairness Doctrine re-instituted.
9
@Marc The concerns of people are real, albeit irrational. They are the concerns that I, as a Black man, have had since I could think. That White people now feel unsure, afraid, etc. So what. Black people have made it through by not tearing up our institutions (calling them to be what they could be, definitely), why do white people think that they have to tear things down?
8
“What is the Democratic national story? A void.”
This article is the most egregious example of the straw-man argument I’ve encountered in a long time (and I regularly teach undergraduates and grade their essays!).
The only real “crickets” here is Mr. Brooks’ feigned blindness as regards both the Democrats’ well-established vision of American unification, and the extent of BROOKS’ party’s complicity in the election of a real fascist demagogue to the highest office in the land.
I do not doubt the sincerity of Mr. Brooks’ efforts (in several articles now) to advance a vision of responsible nationalism per se. But why NOW, at THIS moment? He seems in effect to defend Trump’s use of the incendiary term even while being careful to denounce its more radical associations. This is self-serving sleight of hand, Brooks’ only real purpose being what it’s always been: to defend the GOP and demonize the Dems. But make no mistake. This sort of enabling defense of the “president’s” use of a white nationalist dog whistle is complicity in a white nationalist agenda, whatever are Mr. Brooks’ high-minded sentiments the contrary.
1
National identity is not the same thing as nationalism. What Democrats sometimes advance is more accurately described as racial plurality. You can be an American without being a white American. That's a completely separate issue from immigration policy. Only Republicans choose to conflate the two things. Their reasons are obviously political.
Nationalism, by contrast, is intentionally designed around oppositional identity. There has to be the other. Your identity doesn't exist outside a relationship with someone who is not your identity. You exist because "they" are different from you. This is the nationalism Trump has embraced.
The strange twist however is Trump's nationalism is not actually outwardly focused. The lines are obviously drawn along racial and gender lines. However, Trump's nationalism is directed towards the United States more than anyone else. Yes, he insults Central Americans and Muslims and so on. However, Trump is really attacking America.
You don't have the right to be an American if you don't look and think like me. That's what he's saying. That's Trump in a nutshell. White supremacists clearly got the message. The other Trump supporters appear to have invented an alternative definition for Trump's "nationalism." If Trump's a nationalist, his borders don't bare any resemblance to United States map. The two things are not the same.
DACA was part of the Democrat's vision for responsible immigration. The Republican leadership obstructed it, whether offering an alternative other than caging kids and building a wall. Your talking to the wrong audience Brooks.
1
"The Central Challenge of the Age" -- and I thought you were going to discuss climate change, not criticize the Democrats again. Silly me.
Brooks has once again crouched down and been anything but robust in his thinking and writing about the critical issues of our time-the president and his being enabled by the party he now heads. He does not decry what is happening in this country due to these people, but blames the democrats for not being stronger.
I look forward to reading your columns. Am stimulated by them. Your broad interests. Concerns. Focus.At times even feeling outraged. Not by your point of view. But rather by your presenting dynamic, complex, interacting multidimensional issues and problems which operate as continua, in singular, almost static, either/or states in a style of prognostic certitude. Lots of words. And that's part of the "rub." Words, printed, voiced, twittered, inadequately represent whatever they were created to describe. Explain. Inform about. Coverup. Answer. Question. Words are not IT! Just as any map is not the territory it was created to graphically represent. Should, CAN, columns have caveats to help us readers to slow down-aka the Slow movements in many areas of contemporary living? Consider: "I write 'Democrats,' as if its membership was/IS homogeneous.No way. Please remember that IT- as well as Republicans- is a diverse political entity." Should, CAN, columns have caveats to help remind us DIVERSE readers, who are also similar in so many ways, to somehow remember the potential and actual effects of ever-present, interacting, dimensions of reality on issues being focused on: uncertainties, unpredictabilities, randomness and lack of total control, no matter what our efforts are? When and for how long? Ourselves as well as with the help of others? "Central challenge." Surely more than one! What are the implications of adding an "S" for your central thesis? What is your image of "unity?"
The Democrats need effective slogans. These phrases or catchwords need to appeal at the gut level. Republicans have them. Dem's don't. That's been a major problem for Dems for decades. Calls to multiculturalism and sensitivity are not enough. Put some meat on those fragile bones.
You know, the United States had virtually open borders until the 1880's and the Chinese Exclusion act. Much of what this nation is is the result of our failure to secure our borders for the first 100 plus years of our existence.
The Republican xenophobes aren't just opposed to illegal immigration: they oppose legal immigration as well. The only immigrants they want in come from Norway or posses skills that multinational firms find useful now. They do not understand or appreciate how much this country owes to immigrants who came here with no skills but enough energy to work hard and contribute and do the jobs we prior sons and daughters of immigrants were too good to do and raise families that made unfathomably huge contributions to our strength and power.
No Democrat that I have heard of has advocated for "open borders." As far as I can tell, Republican xenophobes and racists define an open borders policy as one that would allow ANY brown people in. What Democrats have consistently advocated is a rational and balanced policy that would secure our borders without keeping people out because they are not white Christians. We need a balanced policy that secures the borders without excluding the immigrants that have given this country life.
When I talk to my fellow Democrats (or listen to Democratic politicians or candidates) I hear: We are all Americans and most of us (except Native Americans) have immigrants in our heritage. We the people believe in free speech, free press, freedom of religion, a fair playing field, opportunity for all. To address this we believe that Everyone should have health care, education, affordable housing and a job that can provide these things. We believe in fair government that invests in our future by addressing climate change, supports research to provide medical breakthroughs, makes sure that each person gets a fair shake and isn't taken advantage of by powerful businesses. We believe in upgrading our infrastructure and rooting out corruption. This is the Democratic united front.
And we welcome all Republicans to reap these benefits whether or not they work for it. We are a caring people who want to make sure the least of us, are treated as well as the best of us. That is what I hear and I suspect why so many have worked so hard to keep our democracy intact.
In my heritage alone, warring neighbors in their old countries, came together in America to marry, Catholics married Protestants, Jews married Catholics, Russians married Germans, Koreans married Japanese, Irish married English, Polish royals married Scottish peasants, Asians married white. We are America, we celebrate our differences, not as other, but as ourselves.
1
"united by creed"
What? This is no longer about the culture war? Is it possible to have a creed that synthesizes the traditional view of marriage and all the varieties of the Left? Or was the Creed never grounded in traditional morality. Must Conservatives now subject their children to doctrines in the classroom that are the exact opposite of what is taught at home? If parents teach their children that God accepts only marriage that is between a man and woman, are they homophobes? Or should children be taught that all opinions are equally valid in the eyes of all the gods?
The second flaw in Brook's argument is the notion that immigrants will thicken the ranks of the Left. 99% of immigrants are much more religious and culturally conservative than Evangelicals. They share with Evangelicals a literal reading of the Bible (and all that entails), and the only way they'll become Democrats is if Democrats tilt hard to the right. In the end, a literal reading of the Bible is the impasse here. Here's a project for Brooks: find a way to translate the most objectionable chapter in the Bible (Genesis 19) so that it doesn't conjure up the most severe consequences for non-traditional morality. Do that, and the culture war vanishes.
Strong leaders? Or bullies? We need new ideas to address our needs and problems. Time to live modern and use our intellects to improve our societies. Women and minorities in politics will mix thing up and be a change from the male lock step do nothings. Climate change and healthcare are good places to start.
1
Crickets? I would merely sigh if this were the first time I read David Brooks claim that the Democrats have no vision for the country as a whole, had no hand across the isle, etc. But he--along with many semi-centrists-- spent the past ten years(!) rolling out the same nonsense. At this point it's utterly infuriating. It's as if they chose to ignore everything Obama--or any Democrat--has ever said, give the GOP the benefit of the doubt every time, and then find an excuse to blame liberals for all our problems because they just ain't perfect.
To all the Mr. Brooks of the world:
The Dems don't pretend climate change is a hoax.
The Dems don't pretend you can cut taxes to raise revenue.
The Dems didn't lie us into an endless quagmire of a war.
The Dems aren't committed to gerrymandering or dominating the judiciary with extremists.
The Dems didn't rely on bigotry and lies to win the presidency. Obama wasn't the one calling for violence against his policital opponents.
That was all your team, Mr. Brooks. Your movement has been intellectually and morally corrupt for Decades. Trump is just the natural outcome of operating in perpetual bad faith, of holding others to a much higher standard than you hold your side.
Plenty of people could have told you all of that--and probably have been, for years--but you and all your self-certain movement conservative baby-boomer friends have been refusing to listen for most of your adult lives.
Which is why none of this is your fault, right?
4
Unfortunately what is uniting us on this day is the fear that Trump might prevail and we will lose our democracy. Some democrats have been talking about how we are a nation of hope and hopefully equality and that is a fine message, but also other democrats are silent on what we will do about the real issues. Many democrats are not real liberals, but just corporate lackeys. However, the threat we face today is so severe that we must put aside specific discussions and focus on turning back the fascism that the GOP has unleashed upon this country. Fascism by the way that conservative pundits helped to raise and bring to fruition.
1
David, point well taken - Democrats do have a hard time coming up with overly simplistic slogans that get pushed by a compliant media. But you could help change that with your voice. Why not come and join us to address these messaging challenges instead of standing on the sidelines complaining about what we don’t do? Remaining a Republican is no longer an option if you care about the things you’ve written about for years.
2
David: I agree with you. For eight years we had a president who stood for healthcare,the Iran deal,respect for Republicans,etc. Unfortunately, Obama cannot run again. However, I am confident that in 2020 the Democrats will run a candidate who will not be a bombastic, divisive, nativist and who will run on a platform supportive of Medicare, Social Security, a livable minimum wage, investment in infrastructure, etc.
I used to consider myself a "nationalist" in that I was proud (mostly) of my country and its continuing desire to fix things that were wrong. Too often it came up short, but at least voters elected presidents and representatives who (mostly) had some empathy for others and seemed to want to pull us together. Today, we have a whole different ballgame, with a "leader" who prides himself on hatred and divisions, and followers who love it. So, instead of a "nationalist," I am a proud Californian. We (mostly) embrace diversity and multi-culturalism. And we (mostly) rebuke those who pedal hate as a philosophy.
For once, I agree with what David has to say....
Except I would add that the issue of Immigration should have been addressed 30 years ago. We now have some 20 million illegal immigrants that much of our agriculture and construction heavily depend upon. It's way too late to do anything but accept them as citizens, or at least offer a path to citizenship, that is, the right to vote. The number of new immigrants is so small, that it is really a bogus issue.
Immigration, contrary to the popular perception, is a problem caused by largely Republican farmers and business people. Too often they greedily seek higher profit margins on the backs of immigrants willing to accept lower pay. Then they claim that Americans won’t take these jobs, which is an intentionally untested proposition.
Certainly, in the case of small family farms and businesses, this may have some accuracy. Then again, the system as currently structured provides no incentive for determining its accuracy.
What is indisputably true, however, is the extreme level of hypocrisy practiced by Americans as we take advantage of cheap migrant labor while simultaneously railing about how awful it is for the country.
It's all about the opening to the show "Superman" in the 1950s and 60's: Truth, justice, and the American way!
What unites us? It's the Constitution. All our national values are there. I think that's all we need to focus on: its perfect blend of law and order and freedom and compassion.
It is sad that our President has never read it.
I agree that the Democrats need “a mind-set that creates unity,” but it must not be grounded in the abstractions of Brooks’ myths, dreams, and ideals, but in the reality of jobs, healthcare, education, and racial and gender equality.
Brooks is a dreamer, a never-Trumper moderate who suddenly finds himself without a political party in the face of Trump’s scorched-earth strategy. His imagined GOP has been hijacked by a perfect social storm and a loose cannon with orange hair.
His error is in failing to recognize that the GOP he lost was never the noble, morally honorable force he thinks it was. So to urge us to return to a glorious conservative era of “historical… American nationalism” – a nationalism that never existed beyond an ideal - is a fool’s errand.
Brooks lives in a bubble where conservatism rules as a principled, noble endeavor that is immune to corruption. It’s a utopia where we are all “united by creed, not blood” (even though that has never been the reality); where “our common culture is defined by a shared American dream” (you can’t get healthcare with a dream.) It’s a magical place where the extremism Newt Gingrich ignited in the GOP is an anomaly that can be reversed. And he wants the Democrats to reverse it by embracing more myth and dreams.
The problem with people who live by myth and dreams is that they ignore reality, and then are disappointed.
So – should Democrats pander to mythical unity like Trump, or one based in the reality of human needs?
1
David Brooks doesn't teach:
Reagan signed the 1986 Amnesty that didn't include onerous criminal penalties against the employers providing the paychecks.
Constitution isn't malleable just because Republicans like the ideas of weaponizing nominations and of an autocratic revision to purge citizens.
Republican "corporate-sponsored immigration plan" represents REAL and NEW COMPETITION to good jobs and to elevating wages.
Border operations of previous administrations actually deported more illegal migrants because more people were coming then.
Trump's LATEST POLITICAL STUNT is expected to cost taxpayers up to $200M.
"Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford said Monday that the US military will not be 'involved in the actual mission of denying people entry to the United States.' When asked about the border mission for active-duty troops, Dunford said the military will not be coming into contact with migrants traveling toward the border."
"'There is no plan for US military forces to be involved in the actual mission of denying people entry to the United States,' Dunford said, speaking at an event at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. 'There is no plan for soldiers to come in contact with immigrants or to reinforce Department of Homeland Security as they're conducting their mission'."
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/11/05/politics/chairman-joint-chiefs-soldiers-border-migrants/index.html
Not everyone is aware of the chirping crickets, but to those who listen deeply their sound is clear. When dealing with voters who react instinctively and impulsively to a political speech because their racial biases and quick judgements agree with a speaker whose lies appeal to them---it is almost impossible to sway them if you only want to say what is true. What a tremendous advantage for Trump who spews lies with every exhalation of breath and spouts imagined conspiracies that never happened---- supportive, yelling audiences accept all his unfair, unsupported conclusions because they felt it inside themselves all along. They will accept as complete truth that the migrants coming from the south are carrying assault rifles and daggers and not carrying little crying children. But all those I have spoken to---including Trump supporters---are at least aware of the soft cricket sounds that define Democrats--that Democrats want creed not blood to unite us, that all ethnic groups should be treated equally , that all are entitled to full health care, that Climate Change is a far greater threat than the Caravans. But the Trump inspired group prefers reacting instinctively and is not trained to think analytically---weeding out the lies and conspiratorial themes that Trump's rhetoric abounds with. His followers are firmly bound to him not because of Democratic failings but rather because of their intellectual inadequacies. No way they can be reached by reason.
2
Ideals are great. But if you cannot lead, cannot weaponize those ideals, you lose. If you have no high ideals, but can weaponize your views and can inspire others that you are a winner, you win.
--
In short:
Democrats have taken the high road to nowhere.
Republicans have taken the low road to victory.
-
VOTE.
1
A mid-term election is not the time for Democrats to coalesce around a unified national identity. It is a time for Democrats to reflect the policy concerns of the constituents they represent to bring those points of view to Congress if they are elected. This is the advantage for every party when it does not control the White House because Democrats do not have to apologize for the views of a President with whom many constituents may disagree. This is the big problem Republicans have with DJT - someone many members of their party do not like. When the 2020 election comes around is when there must be a more unified national vision for the Democrats - not before.
1
"Anything that is pro-immigrant is seen as enlightened, and anything that restricts immigration is regarded as morally suspect."
Democrats wouldn't be thinking this if they figured population, environment and climate change into the equation. I will vote straight Dem as always, but they are on the wrong track on immigration. What would be "enlightened" would be policies that look into the future with sustainability in mind, first and foremost.
2
How would we know if the Democratic Party had an immigration plan? The media is following the Trump rally circus - just as they did in 2016. If the media isn't focused on Trump, they bring out Independent Senator Bernie Sanders and pretend that he speaks for the Democratic Party - of which he is NOT a member. Yes, the Democratic Party needs a better, more succinct message about immigration, but the media needs to start covering the complexity of the immigration issue instead of giving hours of television and online coverage and pages of print to the lies and rallies of Donald Trump.
1
The ties that unite Americans, regardless of our various ethnicities and cultures, are our shared values — our civil liberties: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, gender equality, rule of law, and the rest of the panoply.
When we focus on these, we unite and can collectively work to ensure that they are cherished, championed and defended. That’s the winning strategy to grow as a nation through any majority/minority transition.
3
I sometimes feel sorry for David Brooks having to find fringe arguments in order to avoid discussing the raging infection at the center of everything. All too often he finds a “both sides” issue and tries to make Democrats equally culpable.
He’s way too smart to actually believe Democrats should tackle building a multicultural nation now. Now is the time to win elections.
Want to see a losing candidate? It’s a candidate who tries to lead with no followers. Politics is a skillful game of figuring out which way the wind is blowing and trying to get out ahead of it.
Don’t fault Democrats for caring about healthcare. If healthcare is an issue that could deliver votes for Democrats, it’s far more ethical than Republicans running on racism. It’s not a both-sides argument… not even close.
1
Barack Obama spent over a decade showing us what nationalism can look like from a Democratic perspective. In his keynote speech in 2004 where he said "nowhere else in the world would my story be possible" and "we're not red states and blue states, we're the UNITED States of America". Watching that speech more than any other, really made me feel proud to be American. At his inauguration, he decried terrorists who exploited racial and ethnic divisions in their own countries, and told them that we had those problems too in the United States, but we found a way to get past them and we'd show them how it's done. And he's said more than once that there's nothing that's wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America. Have I been the only one paying attention to this man? Because sometimes it feels like it.
9
Throughout U.S. history a violent and largely uneducated minority has opposed the "other." First, it was British immigrants. Then, the French and soon the Mexicans (ancillary victims of our multi-decades long effort to steal Texas). Then the Irish & Welsh (e.g., the Astor Place riots). All along, of course, the "Africans," whether slave or free. Post-Civil War, Chinese immigrants became a favorite target. At the turn of the 20th century Jews became the target. Many assimilated, but even the later generations of once-despised immigrants picked on the more recent unpopular immigrants of the later days.
Hatred seems endemic among a mostly poorly-educated class, although more often than not it is fueled by conscienceless politicians and certain religious leaders (e.g. Father Coughlin and the son of Billy Graham). The antidote more often than not has been reason and time. Occasionally it has been war.
Better public education, wider (even universal) enjoyment of economic security, and a leadership that openly urges the population to unite for the benefit of all often has overcome popular hatred movements.
Unfortunately, Trump fails in every one of these. He has sponsored tax breaks for the 1% with crumbs for the rest. His administration has attacked public education and deeply cut federal funding for public education. He openly denigrates minorities. And, he has daily attacks the majority of Americans who reject his divisive, prevaricating, hate-mongering.
1
Clearly identity, as lived by many Americans, creates challenges for them. Yet I can’t avoid believing that the opposition to the current Republican regime has erred in focusing so intently on a politics of identity.
It would be helpful to remember the spirit that founded our nation, and though we seem secure now, we must never forget that our destiny was not certain It was, instead, forged by the commitment of people–people we now refer to as patriots, but who were considered traitors at the time and for whom the penalty of failure was death.
That spirit was forged despite the reality that we were, by definition, diverse. Not necessarily diverse in the current sense, but nonetheless a group of people from different backgrounds who were united in their desire for self government. Despite their differences, not the least of which was that they were essentially thirteen different countries, they were bound together by a desire for agency. They wanted to control their own destinies, and that desire was stronger than their differences. And of course a large group of those people, slaves, didn’t have a voice at all despite having a huge stake in the outcome.
One important lesson for modern Americans is that they prevailed despite their differences. They united for a cause larger than their individual identities.
We would do well to remember that.
4
Seems like about every five or six op-eds Brooks gets it so wrong that it reads like part of a piece of fiction. Like the monologue of a confused character. This is that. And while that might be a compliment on the writing, it is definitely a sharp criticism of the content. But I needn't add any more to the discourse. Such beautifully written and lucid responses are buoying and hopeful on this whistle-stop day. Thanks fellow NYT readers.
1
OK, got it that the Democrats are totally responsible for the state of the country at this point. But what I don't understand is how they did that while being completely out of power at the same time. Please explain.
1
David is right -- Democrats need to put a vision out there time and again that is the "nationalist" alternative to Make America Great Again.This current election seems to be both a referendum on Trump's policies and the primary issue of health care and pre-existing conditions. As we move forward to the next election cycle, Democrats need to speak often, with a clearer voice, on what a different nationalist vision, one that promotes a unified view of a diverse America -- a belief in Constitutional freedoms for all, a vision of a better life for all Americans, quality public education accessible to all, support for a safety net that helps all in the working class, a more just tax structure in the face of inequalities, a working democratic government that solves problems like climate change and immigration reform, civil rights for all, voting reforms so that all can easily vote, working closely with our democratic allies, and simplified but effective government regulation. This vision is hard to transmit without a leader of the Democratic party - perhaps as one emerges during the next election cycle, this vision will become much more frequently orated. Also, these visions and ideas, unfortunately, are not going to change the minds of those who support Trump, because they see the world through a lens of threats to America and mostly view the world as "us" vs "them".
2
David, you wrote, "Over the next few decades, America will become a majority-minority country. It is hard to think of other major nations, down through history, that have managed such a transition and still held together."
You may want to take up residence in our 50th State of Hawaii. Live there among multiple races, religions and cultures. Live among a majority of Hawaii's population perceived minority on the U.S. mainland. Democrats far outnumber republicans, though most all celebrate the rich diversity that makes the islands a successful and special place.
2
Mr. Brooks:
I respect your contributions to national discourse. While I often disagree with your opinions and your positions, I appreciate the candor with which you approach wicked problems and attempt to resolve them.
However, I find that your ability to understand nuance is lost when you attempt to black box Democrats into a single entity that should have a single sound bite, a la the GOP. It indicates that you aren't listening.
The Democrats are this: E Pluribus Unum. It's what they have been advocating for since the 1960s. You referred to it as One America, but failed to see how Democrats have been working toward this goal, which involves respecting ALL people regardless of background, class, or origin.
5
Democrats need to reassure all Americans that respect for civil rights and property rights can coexist, that the preservation of the commons (air, water, national parks) is not inconsistent with the pursuit of private gain. They need to educate the American people that our money, our debt, and our taxes are all essential parts of a system that supports our prosperity--as established by Alexander Hamilton, who copied the system from the British. They need to counter the false story that money arises spontaneously in the private sector and that taxes are government confiscation. Otherwise, they are tweedle-dum to tweedle-dee.
4
In many ways, the midterm elections are a referendum on what kind of nation the US is in these turbulent times. The Trump type of nationalism is summed up by Karl Deutsch in that it is "a group of people united by a mistaken view about the past and a hatred of their neighbours". A Democratic perspective is characterized by John Stuart Mills view of nationalism as a cosmopolitan patriotism that embraces tolerance, equality, diversity and the common freedom and rights of the human species. Which one will you choose?
4
That the Dems duly narrate a fulfilling story for the victims of Trump bigotry is not without its reciprocal recourse for poor old white guys subverted in fears of disenfranchisement. Remember, antebellum slavery was a form of socialism without which there would've been no wealth on which our revolution could successfully hedge French help to assuredly achieve our independence. So, if the soon-to-be disenfranchised old white guys don't wanna pay reparations, then they can at least invoke America's spirit of liberty to excise any David Brooks-like "materialist nationalism" by kindly admitting that socialism was INDEED an integral part of our conception.
I mean just because the GOP is anathema to vision and innovation, no need to rush to summon mere quarterly returns on what Dems clearly got prosperously earmarked for the long run, Mr Brooks!
Good opinion David.
The Democratic national story is not a void. I see it as a rich tapestry of people (including immigrants) doing great things, even if they have less opportunity than others. The ideal is that we are all equal under the law and in society. The right no longer supports this ideal in any way.
The problem is not the Democrat's message, it's that Trump is taking *all* the oxygen in the room with garbage intended to dominate the news cycle. He has help from people who would prefer to read or write about other things than our national story.
Should all politicians resort to headline grabbing garbage because what matters most is boring? I don't think so. Take Fox out of the picture and our national dialogue would be vastly different. A big part of the problem in America is propaganda and an electorate that is vulnerable to blatant falsehoods.
2
A current article* in Sierra Club magazine (I’m a proud member) about the environmental and human consequences of the border wall failed to mention anything about the glaring immigration political and legal issues. Thus underscoring Mr Brooks theme about the Lefts inability to articulate a comprehensive response to such issues.
*”Mr Trump, Tear Down This Wall”
@macbloom
The Sierra Club used to be against population growth and immigration, due to its negative impacts on the environment. Over the years though, Caucasians had their birthrate drop below replacement level, and suddenly it became racist to talk about these issues:
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/us/bitter-division-for-sierra-club-on-immigration.html
@John Dyer
Birth rate or overpopulation is core to the environmental movement. To suggest it's a racist issue distracts from it’s chief progenitors; the religious right, woman sufferance and global theocratic oppression.
The Brooks dream ship has already sailed. The GOP created this disastrous mess with their repeated "trickle down" failure, their illegal partisan gerrymandering and their rhetoric. They are the most at fault for our current predicament. So, Mr. Brooks, please stop telling the Dems that they have to be the grown ups and welcome the GOP back in to make a unified country.
Which part of their predominant persona are we supposed to accept: hatred, sexism, bigotry, wealth inequality, environmental destruction, attacks on science, attacks on government workers, offensive and hateful language, lack of ideas...
We are so far beyond this point. It is time for the majority of Americans to regain control of the government that GOP/Trump have corrupted to the brink of collapse. And if the GOP get out of line, we can throw them into one of Sessions jails where Trump and his con men will be holding court in pinstripes.
3
@CA Dreamer
The spoiled brats are the GOP and at this point after all the lies, Mr. Brooks needs to get a grip because the people tearing this country apart are the Swamp king and his minions. Brownbeck went off to be an ambassador because he was ignorant he just about destroyed Kanas They have a four day school week because they cant afford to keep the schools open. His balance budget has destroyed peoples lives. This is Trump putting money in his own pocket at the expense of the American people. Once this white house is cleaned out Mr. Brooks can write about how they are changed people now that they are facing criminal charges.
David, Can you name a Dem senator / representative / candidate who IS making those positions you advocate? They’d have my vote.
Mr. Brooks is so far out of touch with reality and America as to have become a laughable figure and certainly one who wastes the most valuable Op-ed real estate in the American media twice a week.
The Democratic Party has a strong, central, unified message Mr. Brooks.
It is for education, economic and health security progress and equality for everyone with an urgent emphasis on halting the planet's plunge into the chaos of climate change.
If that's not a unified agenda and one of progress, I don't know what is.
For more than 80 years the Democratic Party has given the nation all those things and for the past 40 years has been protecting them (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Voting and Civil Rights Laws, Environmental Protection) -- protecting them from people who, like Mr. Brooks, proclaim they are conservatives.
Wake up Mr. Brooks. America has passed you by and your pose as a responsible conservative has become the fact of a cynic who simply brushes away anything inconvenient to his arrogant view of a nation at war with itself and incapable of solving its problems.
We are capable of that and the Democratic Party is the vehicle for the next generation of public policy progress and change that will put us back on a forward path and leave behind the failed and failing conservative understanding of the world, of the United States, of the future.
The Times should find another voice than Brooks for his space on its Op-ed real estate.
5
David mentions India joining the nationalist fervor. David ought to brush up on her history. For hundreds of years islamic invasions from Central Asia Persia Turks..have way to European occupation. As soon as she gained independence from the British, she’s absorbed waves of refugees, from East and West Pakistan...Tibetans..Bangladeshis..the list goes on and on. A poor overpopulated country barely keeping its populations fed and healthy. So now they look at themselves and ask who are we, can we please focus on keeping the nation afloat. It’s hard for you to understand cuz you don’t understand the toll it takes on a country that has been constantly invaded occupied since the 12th century until just 70 years ago.
3
Mr. Brooks ...
When describing Trump's nationalism, you leave out a most crucial component of his narrative .. it is completely based on LIES ... why don't you call out this important reality? There is a trace of the old-fashioned and manifestly bankrupt "GOP Said/DEMs Said" logic at work here in your perspective, and it seems to me you haven't been paying much attention to (or are ignoring) the degradation of the discourse (engineered by decades of Republican propaganda: trickle down econ, self-financing tax-cuts, Democratic "open borders," their "support" for pre-existing condition protections, and on and on). This nationalism is not just cramped, it is based and fueled by a fabric of lies. Help us all clarify the true nature of this horrible power grab. Please.
4
It took a column by Denny Westneat to help me realize that the Democrats have run an extraordinarily disciplined race this time around. Unlike the media, they have resisted taking Trump bait. They have led by example instead. He reported that Trump was mentioned only 5% of Democrat ads.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/the-most-surprising-things-about-election-2018/
While Trump rages about "mobs", Democrats have been out ringing doorbells, calling voters, running for office in record numbers.
When Dems retake the House, Nancy Pelosi laid out some priorities. They reflect the reality that we are a deeply divided nation, that Republicans may still control the Senate and still claim the current occupant of the White House.
Chuck Schumer bent over backwards to try to get an immigration deal. Trump and/or the Republicans let it be known they don't want one and won't pass immigrant legislation. Mr. Brooks, please look at who is in power in the sanctuary cities, which party has welcomed citizens who came to the U.S. from other countries to vote, which party is providing legal aid to families facing separation from their kids and deportation even if they seek asylum.
People who take on Trump with words, like Elizabeth Warren, are treated badly by Trump, other Republicans, and the media. Sometimes, actions and restraint are much more powerful.
When Dems take the House and maybe the Senate, watch them reach for what is possible.
4
Another week, another column by Brooks Republicansplaining how Democrats are solely at fault for the descent of America into a divided and failing society. He speaks of Trump as though he isn’t the Republican Party’s leader, and barely mentions his party at all. It is Republicans who ceased even pretending to be Americans in 2008 when a black man was elected president. It is Republicans who, under the false banner of rejecting political correctness, ceased pretending not to be racist, sexist, ignorant and mindlessly angry. It is Republicans who have shown no ability to actually run the country once in power. It is Republicans who exhort their base to hatred of immigrants, people of color, and anyone who looks, speaks or acts slightly differently than they. If Democrats don’t campaign in the manner most pleasing to professional Republican Brooks, it is because they fear the increasingly unhinged and violent reaction of the right. I am no longer surprised at the lack of honesty and mindless right-wing partisanship in Republican columnists like Brooks, Stephens or Douthat. I just wish they had morals and a sense of shame.
2
How many times has Brooks and his GOP cohorts told the Democrats not to wage identity politics? And now he's berating us for taking that advice? Ugh.
2
I fear a code or story of "pluralistic nationalism" pitched politically would snowball, still want to "build a wall", want to pullback, insulate, hoard. Keep it diverse and "plural" but vet and weed out that "plurality". I don't like it; that's the wrong impulse to seed.
The big issue facing us in climate change. To tackle that we will need hyper globalism, hyper transparency, no walls, one flag: Planet Earth. The right message to send now is that the people in Yemen are our brothers, our sisters; the people in the "caravan" are our brothers our sisters. If we gesticulate and posture and flinch and equivocate with a dueling narrative called pluralistic nationalism, the nationalism side wins out. Better to go all in with an inclusion narrative. That does not mean draft naive laws with immigration or otherwise. Stay smart. But, our story is global inclusion, not a trace of you can't come, you are not included, we won't help you cause it costs too much, we are better than you. That's not America.
2
The US has been fighting against all hope to not sink into fascism since the McCarthy era.
But one of our parties keeps wanting to just flirt a bit with it. Ya know, not like all the way. Just a little bit.
1
So the Democrats don't have a good nationalistic story. I guess David Brooks is telling us to go with the "strong" leader and just forget that he is totally corrupt, lying, ignorant bully who will unite us through hate and divisiveness.
Sounds like a great plan.
3
Mr. Brooks is lost and confused. He believes that unless Democrats use the same approach, methodology, or style for getting a message out to all of America there is no united message. This is simply bunk. I would like to use a different word but I've learned that the Times won't print my response if I do, so I'll just go with the ancient...bunk. Democrats are very clear what they stand for and about. There isn't any fuzziness. The fact is that there are so many things they stand for that all stem from fairness and equality that it's difficult to mention them in a short soundbite. Fair wages, fair treatment of minorities, LGBT folks, women in the workplace, the poor, elderly, and young people looking to get a chance to go to college are a hallmark of the left. Mr. Brooks, you don't get it. And one more thing...your version of the Republican party left the station a long, long, time ago. You are a dinosaur, relic, or an afterthought in the eyes of the right today. Say goodnight. It's time for you and the likes of the Bushes, John Kasich, and Mitt Romney to wave goodbye. They don't want you anymore.
2
The Democrats have a terrible local ground game — most state houses, senates, and assemblys are controlled by Republicans because Democrats under Obama were ridiculously lazy; happy to see you suffer the consequences of our better ground game
When will David Brooks become a Democrat and help them find the answer?
It is not Donald Trump's fault that America is a racist country. It is his fault for using this cancer as a political tool to amass power. It is David Brook's fault for normalizing this. He needs a vacation because his work has been "fine". But really not up to the task in these times especially on the most important opinion page in the nation.
2
Mr. Brooks:
So, if decency doesn't prevail in today's election it will be because of the failures of the Democratic Party? And if there is a raging inferno it's the fault of the fireman trying to put it out? Apparently causality is not on your intellectual agenda today. How about pointing out the need to take the matches away from the arsonists?
You need to write about what needs to be done to fix your party. It and you are the reason we are where we are. Why not try accepting some of that individual responsibility you're always touting? Stop handing out matches with every column you write that avoids the painful truth of your complicity and duplicity. Instead of shifting the blame, as always, try facing the facts. Who are the republicans uniting?
2
The founders of the United States made the courageous choice to put their faith in the ability of people of goodwill to choose between competing options in the marketplace of ideas.
.
They preferred government based on reason to government based on the divine right of kings.
.
Advertisers know that in any marketing campaign primal emotions such as fear and greed are far more effective motivators than reason. They speak to primal and tribal fears.
.
The present campaign is a direct assault on the foundational principles of American government. it is an attack on everything for which Franklin lived his long and productive life.
.
When you stoke the fires of prejudice, you replace goodwill and reason with hatred and superstition.
.
You replace the marketplace of ideas with the ignorance of tribalism.
.
Without goodwill and reason, Democratic government cannot function.
.
This is the foundation of the Republican campaign.
.
Barack Obama had the antidote. He made fun of it:
"Why are those people so angry all the time? It tells you something ..."
.
Yes it does.
Yes, indeed, it does.
.
Tyrants can withstand many things.
But tyranny falls when it becomes the butt of laughter.
2
Well David, you’ve got the future right for once. Yes, tRump’s white nationalism is on the wrong side of history. I’m amazed he threw in with a strategy that cannot last. But he’s always been a cheap shot.
As for your bizarre assessment that without white nationalism we don’t have a national identity — what? Are you for real?
Brooks you need therapy not a place on the NY times Opinion page. You have penned multiple paragraphs on all the things the Democratic part has done wrong in the last two years and hardly a whimper to what Trump and his enablers in your party have done to the dignity of the Presidency, to truth, to the environment, to the rise of anti semitism, racism, misogyny, xenophobia and the rule of law.
Denial may be a defense mechanism but it is not healthy.
1
@Edward Blau
Mr. Brooks must be a quiet supporter of Trump and his pack of lies, there is no other explanation for this constant harping that the Democrats are the issue and not the lying racist in the white house.
If you want to stop illegal immigration crack down on the people that employ illegals. It’s no coincedence that the majority of those people tend to be Republicans; farmers, contractors, rich white people that want cheap labor at their various estates and businesses.
The solution is clear. The whole argument is a strawman, it’s the new “abortion” divised to lead discourse into a dead end so Kleptocrats can keep up the stealing. Classic divide and conquer.
3
Wowzer. What twist you did here, David. Our “creed” is the story of African-American slaves coming here and rising toward equality? Um, no, David. That’s quite a spin you put on it. A very white-man’s spin. Even stupid old Trump gets it more right than you as he jets around the country gasping for a continuation of white supremacy.
1
The central challenge of the age: tuning out people like David Brooks.
2
Finally a DB piece I can wholeheartedly agree with. DT is a monster with monstrous
policies but at least Americans know what his policies are. Democrats, for the love of country please make very clear what your immigration policy is! We can’t afford to let the wannabe King in chief demagogue this issue!
"If you don’t offer people a positive, uplifting nationalism, they will grab the nasty one. History and recent events have shown us that."
INDEED. You have shown us that, by reiterating the Republican mantras.
Remember the Obama era, when Democrats passed health reform with NO help from Republicans?
Remember Merrick Garland, the appointee that did not get an interview?
Remember every obstructionist thing the Republicans did?
Gerrymandering mean anything to you?
The question is do you, David, know what unites us? or have you just become a propagandist of fake news?
2
You rightly identify that Trump's message is destroying our national identity. Then you argue that it's the Democrats' fault for failing to have a convincing message? Sometimes you make me despair, Mr. Brooks.
Maybe, sadly, the true story is that too many are not listening to rational and compassionate voices because they like what Trump has to say. About 42% of Americans LIKE what is coming out of the White House. Yes, it is disheartening and depressing that so many people in my nation are willing to overlook his attacks, but the truth might be that too many Americans are stupid, racist, and selfish enough to support him.
That isn't a failure of either party; it is a failure of our nation.
1
David needs to do more research. I took 3 minuties and visited the websites of three past and future candidates to find their immigration plans and - surprise! - they have them. Indeed, Ayanna Pressley talked about abolishing some of ICE’s mandates and was met with “Abolish ICE!?!” from the media.
But David wants to know why Dems aren’t talking more about immigration. I think the Presley’s treatment by the media helps explain some of this. It’s a reasonable position to say that ICE should be curtailed, but it also leads to the kinds of lazy reporting that frames the issues at two extremes.
And, anyway, the policy differences are already clear. Trump and the Republicans want to block all immigration unless the immigrants are white. Democrats want to encourage and control immigration from countries around the world. Trump and Republicans are using that caravan of women and children 700 miles away to scare Americans. Democrats are focused on real threats that exist right now at home. Immigration isn’t one of them.
Trump and the Republicans have already shattered all the core beliefs that have made America great. I believe all Americans are smart enough to understand that and will vote accordingly. Saying Dems haven’t talked enough about immigration seems like sand throwing.
HRC
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/immigration-reform/
Stacy Abrams
https://staceyabrams.com/immigrantjustice/
Ayanna Pressley
https://ayannapressley.com/issues/equity-agenda/
Has Mr. Brooks heard of Beto?
What David Brooks hears when Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey,
Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum spend weeks telling our national story:
Crickets.
Time to take a fearless inventory, Mr. Brooks.
2
Hypocrite, first cast out the beam in your eye and then you will be able to see the mote in your brother's eye.
Brooks ignores the beams in the Republican eyes and can only see the motes in the Democratic eyes.
2
"And yet what have we heard from the Democrats? Crickets"
Because Democrats talking about single-payer health care, regulation of gun ownership, humane immigration policy, somehow don't generate media profits quite like a bloviating corrupt ignoramus does. His mentally-limited screaming is more visually enticing than a couple of dedicated politicians talking about health care. Until Democrats get all the visuals now dedicated to an idiot, nothing will change.
Would somebody teach Democrats to tell a story!
I have to wonder - what does David Brooks feel he can gain by falsely claiming that the Democrats message is "crickets". SMH....shameless enough to call him "fake news media".
2
“Give me your tired,your poor ,your huddled masses yearning to be free,the wretched refuse of your teaming shore..
Give these the homeless tempest tossed to me ,I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
Emma Lazarus .
This should be our nationalist message.
"But if the Democrats are going to lead this transition, they’ll need not just a mind-set that celebrates diversity, but also a mind-set that creates unity. They’ll need policies that integrate different groups into a coherent nation, with shared projects, a common language and culture and clear borders."
What we need is a policy of complete seperation!
Seperation -zero tolerance and zero magnanimity -for the racists -xenophobes - greedy grifters -anti science bible belting demagogues -the gun nuts and liars and conspiracy pedlars.
There are enough Americans outside this sphere of sociopathy anger and narcissism to synthesize our hard won core cultural humanistic and progressive values as a country:
And move forward without them BUT open to accomodating those who want to follow.
BUT with zero tolerance for anything resembling the moral and artful dystopia and incompetence and shabby fear mongering and deception and power/greed that is trumpism.
"Anything that is pro-immigrant is seen as enlightened, and anything that restricts immigration is regarded as morally suspect."
DNC Politburo dogma and Marcuse cultural Marxist propaganda--the core of the Democrat sovereignty thesis--a "nation" without borders, voters without citizenship.
Where's Hillary the "Gold Standard" globalist when you really need her--pining away about the White House?
2
The only thing that has ever united Americans is a foreign threat. Even the Civil War which pitted one country (the Union) against another (the Confederacy) tended to unite (white) people who lived in each regardless of their circumstances in respect of religion, ethnicity, and income.
Maybe T-Rump is on to something by equating a few thousand Latino peasants with the "Yellow Peril." Can't the Democrats find a foreign enemy? Russia? Muslims? Cyclists: aren't most bicycles made offshore? Ah, yes - Canada. Clearly, as anyone with a map can see, it stands above the US and must be brought down. Dems: open your eyes!
"Nationalism" is just another term for racial bigotry.
Please change parties David - join Max Boot and other conservatives. Then you can join the call for action. You have been an enabler for too long.
1
David you just are not discerning the emergency.
Go away if you can’t. Stop lecturing . You are an ineffective agent of chaos.
And you are oblivious toward your responsibility to condemn your party on Election Day and vote and abandon this clown show governing elite.
1
Mr. Brooks needs to look again at the phrase "E pluribus unum," which means "out of many , one."
It doesn't mean "only one is enough."
1
Of all the wide spread delusions running rampant on our planet, "Nationalism" is purest evil.
I ask:
What IS a border? A man made construct for control of populations.
What is a nation? A man made construct for the control of populations.
What is religion? A man made construct for the control of populations.
This list can go on for a long time, but these three questions show the quandary in which we find ourselves.
Do any national borders on the planet bear any resemblance to what they were just 100 years ago? What about 1000?
How about nations? What nation today operates on the same principles upon which it was founded?
How about religion? What religion on the planet tells the same story today that they told 500 years ago? None?
All of this nonsense is only to control the time in which we live; it has nothing to do with the REAL future. Hint: the future is NOT 10 years from now.
So who cares whether the majority of our population is white or brown/black, christian or not, rich or poor?
Israel is a perfect example of our conundrum. It cannot remain true to its principles and remain the Jewish State. Not possible. So what do they do? They become what they once despised.
Same here, folks. If you vote for a Republican, you are under writing Fascism.
Thanks a lot.
Again, David Brooks fails to mention slavery.
1
Should Democrats really be taking advice from a Republican commentator who views the left marching for 'Black lives matter' as the equivalent of the right marching for 'Jews will not replace us'?
3
This column, like almost all of Brooks' columns, amply demonstrates that he is an ideologue in philosopher's clothing.
1
45's hypocrisy about immigration needs to be called out. Ivanka is an "anchor baby" and Melania is the first link in a chain migration from Slovenia.
Such an intellectually lazy piece. African Americans in fact have more positive views towards immigrants, even illegal/undocumented, than just about any other demographic. But it’s much easier to simply write what you wish to be true than to take 2 minutes to actually check.
1
As you point out, Mr. Brooks, the Democrats have moved leftward in response to Trump's extreme "nativism." Immigrant activists, aided and abetted by Democrats, have successfully obliterated the distinction between legal immigrants, and those who enter the country illegally. This is a critical distinction. If we abandon it, we abandon the rule of law. A country without borders and laws controlling immigration, ceases to be a country. I am no Trump fan, and generally vote Democratic, but we must have "law and order" on our borders. Certainly the byzantine system we currently have, needs to be re-designed. Protecting American workers is important, as is recognizing that many industries depend on immigrant labor and innovation. The best solution most likely lies between the most extreme views of the left and the right.
2
How's this for a unifying vision/project? A vast, national WPA-style infrastructure renewal bill; one which will provide jobs to all comers for the next 20 years or more and make America even more the envy of the world.
Such a plan would require new taxation, but it would pay off that investment in many multiples.
When We work together, We can't fight with one another.
1
I believe David Brooks is urging us all to find a way forward that will continue to integrate all immigrants into the nation we have been building for all these years. To rail against his views as if he's being anti-immigration is to miss what he's trying to say. I hope we will all think long and hard today - before the polls have closed, while we're all still "in transit", so to speak, without knowing the outcome - about how to move forward in integrating all immigrants into a cohesive, immigrant-welcoming nation that reflects them/us all.
1
Another underhanded softball pitch from Brooks.
David, you should read some Jennifer Rubin in the WaPo to see what a principled conservative looks like. Or listen to Max Boot of David Frum.
Your obtuseness is unbecoming of the Grey Lady.
2
Again, what is the deal with the NYT's Republican columnists, Brooks, Douthat and Stephens? Every column they write is the same repetitive exercise in concern trolling. It starts with a ritual sentence or two criticizing Trump and then launches into a full scale attack on Democrats for the unforgivable sin of being Democrats and holding Democratic views on issues. Talk about biting the hand that feeds!
Brooks, Douthat and Stephens are all men without a country. As never-Trumpers, they have been completely disowned and ostracized by the Trump-controlled GOP. No one listens to them there. They have no longer have any discernible political base or followers. No candidates in either party represent their views. Yet, despite their political impotence, they and others like them hold enormous influence in the media.
Apparently the only outlets left who will provide a forum for their outcast views are liberal publications and cable channels seeking conservative "balance". Just for a laugh, try to imagine for a moment the Wall Street Journal or Fox News hiring three liberal Democrats to "balance" out their conservative editorial views.
Not in a million years!
In a rational world, these people would be writing for conservative publications warning them of the dangers of Trumpism. Instead we have to listen to them lecturing us liberals in this liberal newspaper for being liberals. What a crazy world we live in!
6
I’m a progressive.
I can comfortably say “illegal immigrant”
I’m against abolishing ICE
I will fight fascism with my life if necessary
I will not let others like Mr. Brooks pin labels on me.
I’m a progressive
1
Sorry David, this feels like proverbial fence sitting. Unable to give Republicans credit for anything other than being dragged about by Trumpian flogging, you tear into the Democrats as though they have no stand, no plan. First of all, Trump and his %ers are like a train wreck on fire we can't extinguish (unlimited hatred and nonsense as fuel) - there is no plan, just his momentary uncontrolled "ideas" thrown at the cameras. It is a foul place in which we are stuck. But, I say - our local Democrats have never been busier, our candidates here in NY fare well, we've worked hard all year, meeting often, twice a week regularly and in between when necessary. We've petitioned, door knocked, rallied, picnics galore. Spreading the word, getting out the vote today. More $$s raised than in years and energy wild this day. Perhaps a quieter more plodding way forward, but look at the mayhem within which our elected officials have had to work, the insanity of McConnell's obstruction, Kavanaugh, minority in both houses. LIES abound. Today is the day to show the fight. Not sure you've helped much with musings. We read you, admire your thinking, but it's time to poll watch and send good luck to the hard fought.
3
You've obviously not been listening. The blue wave has been speaking loud and clear. Listen to the women.
Here's a better question, Mr. Brooks: Why did you vote for Trump?
Don't pretend you didn't. Just come clean and admit it.
1
"What is the Democratic national story? A void." What is the national story of the Republicans? They have no story or plan.
1
Yes, the Democrats “ could” have a meaningful story to tell that appeals to many to include compassionate conservatives as well. But don’t count on it as the free- stuff Marxist Democrats are taking change of the DNC and demanding that somebody else pay the taxes for their goodies that includes a living welfare wage with COLAS, free medical, education, housing and medicinal marijuana. For starters.
1
As against republicans who give stuff to the top .1% and leave the rest of us to pay the bill???
This is beyond pathetic! This is deliberate, intentional lying. The Democratic Party has had such a narrative for at least 55 years. Conservatives have controlled the country since 1966. With the story they adopted from the Dixiecrats. Media of all sorts ignores the Democratic Party's efforts to tell its story by ignoring it. Conservatives have always, ALWAYS, hated that story.
BTW, you've been a Republican forever. Why is the Republican Party exempt from a requirement to lead with a unifying national story? They own the whole works now. You mean your chosen conservatives have never believed the unifying story. When I hear an acknowledgment from you that your philosophy has never supported that story and what you are doing to change that, I'll consider it.
Until then, you are wasting your platforms. You've been on Sunday morning TV shows how many years? ENOUGH!
The GOP has 50 years of dog whistling America into a stupor. Donald Trump is the embodiment of all the lies of the so called conservatives and the Southern White Populist Prevarication .
There is no national monument to three of America's finest Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner who stood up for America's finest ideals and were martyred by those who hate what was the American dream of equality for all.
America has no Adrienne Clarkson our former Governor General who talks about Belonging : The Paradox of Citizenship and how regardless of colour, creed, or national origin if you come to Canada you are 100% Canadian. We are far from perfect in honouring this creed but our conservatives don't seek to divide us.
I am a Semite and like all Semites I am not White even as I sure look White. I lived in Red America and know they love Israel not because they believe deep inside there will be an Apocalypse but because they need some place to send us.
The GOP may yet bring peace to the middle East because suddenly we know how red America feels about all of us.
Trump has united the world I am praying that most of America rejects the conservatism that puts money and power over people and divides to conquer.
2
Part of this is on Chuck Schumer.... his behavior has strongly implied that he's a double agent....
3
"And yet what have we heard from the Democrats? Crickets."
Get the partisan wax out of your ears, David. Democratic politicians don't just talk about American values, they represent them.
Our nation's stated ideals are progressive. A majority of our citizens are progressive. The desperate unAmerican and sometimes illegal attempts by Republicans to hold power in the face of these realities will fail. But it's sure ugly in the meantime.
David you continue to sound like an old white Republican, which you are, trying to cling on to a past that actually was never here in America. After listening to you and Mark on PBS for years and reading your column, it would be refreshing if you would come up with something new and insightful. Your Republican buddies continue to pat you on the back. At least your are consistent.
2
"... Trump effectively defines America as a white ethnic nation that is being overrun by aliens — people who don’t look like us, don’t share our values, who threaten our safety and take our jobs. …"
This is yet another big fat lie, not unlike birtherism, and literally thousands of other lies since 2016.
The president is unhinged, ignorant, impulsive, amoral, dangerous.
The GOP members of congress are complicit, silent.
Checks and balances is in deep hibernation.
Restoring checks and balances is the by far the most important issue facing us today. It is the unifying force for all non-trump supporters.
I'm voting straight Democrat for this reason alone.
Identity liberalism threw out any common American creed years and years ago. They say that the “melting pot” analogy is racist. Expressing curiosity about and participating in cultural exchange will get you fired and expelled for cultural appropriation. References to America as a land of opportunity are forbidden. Due process of law, the presumption of innocence, civil liberties, and freedom of speech and religion are routinely attacked.
The sole creed of the dominant wing of the Democrat Party is one of grievance and revenge.
They are no more capable of providing a unifying message and unifying identity for all Americans than of natural flight.
1
Brooks writes — subliminally but unmistakably — a patently deceptive story of a Republican Party that has supposedly lost its true creed. In fact, of course, it has found a stronger than ever voice for what has always been its creed: xenophobia, racism, homophobia, misogyny, white nationalism, and the unmitigated greed of an autocratic oligarchy. No fancy dancing can hide that story. Meanwhile Krugman writes of our last stop on the road to totalitarianism. No two columns could distinguish more these two disparate voices. One is the voice of reaction. The other is the voice of the possibility for a progressive future. A reactionary versus a progressive — nothing has changed for either of these men and nothing has changed in the story they choose to tell: the morally vacant and intellectually bankrupt versus the morally honest and intellectually demanding. Alas, it is the former that is winning and the rest of us who are losing. Lord only knows how Brooks sleeps at night. But as a friend of mine always says, he undoubtedly sleeps well — and on silk sheets.
1
What on earth is a majority-minority country anyway? What's more, who cares! I'm a white guy, but really, I don't give a hoot about the color of one's skin. I only care about discrimination based on that silly distinction of skin color. Sadly, discrimination still exists. Brooks' column just proved it!
This guy is so tiresome. Believe it or not, we don't all need a national fairy tale to get through the day. Anyone with an IQ in triple digits understands the "alternative" to fear, hate and ignorance.
3
So a flunky walks into the President’s Office today and asks him whether it would be a good idea to rename the G.O.P. in honor of his supporters and Trump thinks for a moment and says “Let's call ourselves The Aristocrats.”
2
Dear Mr. Brooks,
Why do you talk about a “cramped nationalism” rather than spelling out what it really is? Nationalism, or an America first agenda would include all Americans but that is not the Republican agenda, is it? No, what you call “cramped nationalism “is purely about white male supremacy and maintaining white male privilege and power.
It may be painful to realize that the Republican Party is now the white racist party but if you listen and if you watch, the Republican Party is where the racists flock to. Racists may not be welcomed with open arms but their votes certainly are, and the Party knows that to win they need racists.
1
Mr Brooks, a Republican, is now a Trumpublican, and the party in power, the party the holds 3 branches of the government, the party that holds governorships, and has the vast majority of state legislators and state appellate courts, HAS THE WHIP HAND. Disunity in Democrats? what about Democrats that are leading in red states? do you think they need to abandon their lead, pronounce with one voice the Democrat ideals, and get out of that red state? Is that your plea, because the vast majority of $$, and the vast majority of News outlets, and the vast majority of broadcast stations, including the FoxNews stations and the 205 Sinclair broadcast stations, only 50 of which are Fox affiliates, are willing propaganda machines. Brooks endorses Trump, and asks Democrats to be uniform-- the easier for the asymmetrical political warfare to annihilate them. This columnist is idealist when speaking of Democratic policy, and tactician when defending his beloved Trumpublican party. All hail the one GOP!
Amazing-- David giving advice to the Democrats, and I kinda like it.
1
Or people who have been excluded for the sake of unity because they weren't white enough, male, enough, straight enough, or Christian enough aren't eager to visit that torment upon others simply so a new arbitrary circle can be drawn.
Read the Krugman column "Last Exit Off the Road to Autocracy." Maybe that will answer the subtitle to the Brooks column. Is survival of American democracy enough of a narrative?
Somehow, it seems harnessing the positive aspects of The Big Shaggy is an answer to the questions Mr. Brook’s poses today.
I read here in ‘History for Dollars’ on JUNE 7, 2010
I tire of David's pontifications. He has been complicit in the rise of Trump: accepting, justifying, and averting his eyes from too many GOP horrors.
It's too late to change the subject, for history knows where he stands, two-faced and cowardly.
P.S. Spare us your "insights" about the Democrats.
Strikes me as pompous to call this nonsense "The Central Challenge of the Age." Also it seems cowardly not to tell fellow Republicans that they should vote for the Democrats to preserve whatever decency still remains in this country.
2
David--if you don't hear "the Democratic national story," it's because you're either deaf or not listening. Listen, for example, to any one of Barack Obama's speeches.
Irony Alert. The Presidential Apprentice is an unabashed
“ Nationalist “ and a rabid foe of immigrants. And Two of his Three Wives ARE immigrants. The Parents of his current Wife obtained Citizenship thru Chain Migration, which HE raves against. Let’s teach our “ Great Mistake “ a Lesson.
Tomorrow. VOTE.
Poppycock. We had 8 years of a President who TRIED, incessantly, to deliver an honest and articulate case for national unity. You and others to the right of center chose to view the message as inadequate -- either because it was, alternately, too "dispassionate," or too "preachy,". . . or, let's face it, too "black." We lost the chance to act on a unifying message, because the messenger was actually interested in unity, and refused to concede to the divisive, falsified and/or mean-spirited policy goals of Republican leadership. The nation should be ashamed; and you should acknowledge your role in that embarrassment.
1
For such a vision, listen to the speech Barack Obama gave today in Florida.
Here's "positive, uplifting nationalism" to overcome Trump's neo-Nazi nationalism:
E Pluribis Unum
Out of many, one.
For powerful representation, see the excellent PSA created after 9/11, I am an American - at the end of the PSA, a black screen shows with the phrase "E pluribus unum".
1
Here's the link to the I am an American public service announcement:
https://www.adcouncil.org/Our-Campaigns/The-Classics/I-am-an-American
E Pluribus Unum
1
But luckily we have the great and the good, the Davos people, to tell us what we SHOULD want.
https://www.numbersusa.com/blog/lop-sided-majorities-31-toss-districts-want-caravans-kept-out-immigration-numbers-reduced
CARAVANS FROM CENTRAL AMERICA?
One week before Election Day, the likely voters in the "Toss Up" congressional districts who will decide which Party will control the U.S. House of Representatives had these views:
Only 12% want to see a continuation of the long-time catch-and-release policy of letting people who claim asylum at the border move freely around the country until their asylum hearing at some future time.
65% want all caravans stopped before they reach the U.S. border.
1
The republicans are instinctive creatures, of the worst kind lately. But the democrats have embraces a shallow, whiny definition of diversity. Worse, they put outlines on anybody, making a "Hispanic" (what the heck is that) feel more Hispanic than American by the mere exercise of form feeling and repetition. A disaster. And worse, handing over the list of Americans that are Hispanic to the nationalists. What a gift! The dems can do a lot of damage with the best intentions.
It think there is a lot of truth in what you say. The dems are still stuttering from Trump's sucker punch in the election. But I hope, just hope, that the American voters show the way. the party will have to learn.
This puts the cart before the horse. The people who are demonizing immigrants are scared primarily of people coming from south of the border. They are fundamentally racists and see the United States as a fundamentally white country. Trump, being a racist, threw mud against the wall, and it resonated with the racist base. That’s all this is, and nothing more. The people who were apathetic and did not vote handed him the election.
When a writer resorts to "crickets" in his argument, I'm out. Better things to do than to read on.
Sorry David, but you are just plain wrong. We have quite enough nationalism, thank you very much. What we really need right now is humanity
We had a democratic leader who professed all of the things that you recommend. His name was Barack Obama, and as I recall you gave him a pretty hard time.
The New Colossus
"Give me your tired,your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-toast to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Emma Lazarus
It's really that simple and it's enough.
1
Not "Abolish ICE"!
Stop Child Hostage Taking!
Why should that be considered extremist or divisive?
I think you are absolutely correct in terms of what is needed to somehow bring us back together. You are laying this at the Democrat's door, giving the "right" a pass because they just seem to not be interested. I would suggest that it must be the Republicans who take responsibility for this. As they are now doing, they can simply refuse to participate, take their ball and go home, wherever home is. Obama reached out. He was ridiculed as powerless because almost every overture was rebuffed. It is at least a two way street for communication - two to tango. Unless the one side that is resisting participation, cooperation, finding a way to compromise actually takes on the task of initiating such "coming together" it will never happen. Instead of new leaders on the Dem side, you need new leaders on the Rep side, dedicated to one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
1
@Geo Olson
Amen. With control of all three branches of government, the ball has been in the Republican's court to initiate a productive national dialogue. They have not only failed to do so as a Party, but have actively rejected the very concept. The onus is on them to show that they have something to offer all the people besides hatred and division.
Mr. Brooks has been suckered into Trump's divisive rhetoric, accepting the argument that defining an American in racial terms is the beginning of leadership. Thank goodness he was not involved at the beginning of our nation, when we decided that what unites us is the belief in equality, justice, and freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. We unite to oppose inequality in opportunity. We unite to protect our fellow citizens from enemies, foreign and domestic, including the enemies represented by restrictions to education, healthcare, housing, employment, and prejudicial law enforcement.
People from every 'nationality' as defined by birthplace and ethnicity, have flocked here with the common understanding of these unifying beliefs. When we abandon these in the vain pursuit of self-enrichment, dominance, and exclusion, we become a nation void of unity and defined by ethnic and economic status, just how Trump, McConnell, and Ryan like it. Their minority rule can only be held when the unity of beliefs is dispelled. Brooks' acceptance of Trump's premise of defining Americans in ethnic terms is a one-way ticket to preserving Trump's power. So, we must reject the premise and return to the unifying principles. The rest follows.
4
E pluribus unum. The central unifying and levitating genius of America is that we are a nation of immigrants, and from that diverse self-governing influx our nation has prospered. Not all thrive with the opportunities and setbacks, and the demographics and complexion change over time, but the idea endures and drives us. That is a non-partisan and fundamental American fact, and Trump's fear-mongering appeals to people who can't appreciate the wonder and genius of it.
2
I always come away from David Brooks' editorials feeling as if he considers himself separate and apart from all of the harmful activity of the Republican party. Never mind the huge budget deficit looming over the horizon. Never mind the rampant voter suppression. Never mind the cronyism and corruption in the White House. Never mind the crumbling infrastructure, Never mind the torrent of lies.
The real problem is that the Democrats do not have the proper vision. Thank you David Brooks for removing the scales from my eyes.
4
"Do Democrats know what unites us?"
Sigh...David, you are clearly overlooking the more important question: "Do Republicans know what unites us?" This is a problem that stems from both sides of the political spectrum and it is passed time for Republicans to put forward their narrative about what unites this country. Over the passed two years, Democrats have doubled down on the horrors of universal health care and a living wage. What national story have we heard from Republicans? They continually define things in terms of identity politics that alienates the other side. All you hear from their rhetoric is how un-American they find everyone who isn't in their party. Guns cannot be a solution to all our problems. Both sides are responsible for making this country an amenable place to live. Both sides need to make an argument to the American people. Where is the Republican argument? If it exists, I haven't heard it.
2
"After 30 years of multiculturalism, the bonds of racial solidarity trump the bonds of national solidarity. Democrats have a very strong story to tell about what we owe the victims of racism and oppression. They do not have a strong story to tell about what we owe to other Americans, how we define our national borders and what binds us as Americans."
Creative sophistry from an increasingly grumpy conservative betrayed by his heroes for quite some time now.
5
Crickets? That thunder you hear rolling across America is the army of Americans marching to the polls.
180
@Paul I wouldn't count your chickens until those eggs have hatched. The POTUS's base is extremely motivated to keep things moving in the right direction. If the GOP comes out ahead we may finally see the end of a long march to socialism that began under FDR. Let's return to the days when folks earned their keep instead of expecting a handout from the government. That's not too much to ask, now is it?
4
@Robert Howard
Robert, I suggest that you stop throwing the term socialism around as an epithet. Learn to distinguish between socialism--public ownership of the means of production of which we have relatively little, governmental rules for the capitalistic system which are necessary for it to effectively function and public welfare programs through which the less fortunate share in the society. If we want to bind ourselves together as a nation we need to do more of the latter.
The places in the world which do little or none of the latter two are places where most of us would not want to live. Somalia and Haiti come to mind.
22
@Robert Howard I agree 100% if the elimination of "handouts" begin with corporate welfare and a drastic reduction of the war department budget.
24
And we in need nationalism because? Nationalism since the 19th C. has been a wedge used to split people off a larger 'group' into groups organized by language, religion, race - we see that with Trump supporters too. In his rallies he is mostly repeating himself, trying to emphasize the 'we' versus 'them' story, though he is less articulate than other demagogues (like those whose name starts with 'H').
If the unemployment rate really is so low, and the economy is so wonderful, why are people worried about Central Americans 'taking their jobs'? It isn't about jobs and we know it.
3
David Brooks, Have you seen the show, Hamilton? I think it perfectly answers your question.
60
I like the part where Mr Brooks says Trump is bad, and Republicans have been seduced by him... but only as a doorway into his real argument -- that the Left is Bad, and Democrats are Weak. Worse, they have no direction to offer.
When the Democratic party does find its voice, Mr Brooks won't support that; he'll be there to tell us that their positions are Bad, and Wrong, and no direction at all.
1
Immigration in America started when the first boatload of colonist hit the shore. Just about every wave of immigrants has resented the next wave. The Irish, Italians and East Europeans (who were white) were not welcomed. Neither were any of the groups that followed. Somewhere the history books started lauding the "Great Melting Pot"- should have been classified as fiction.
Without immigrants, the United States does not exist. At a time of aging population, immigrant labor is necessary for our economy to function. The influx of European immigrants has dried up, not coming back. The rest of the world is non-caucasian.
Construction, agriculture and tourism function today only with the illegal immigration we currently have.
Immigration reform does not happen under Republican control because it is a great whipping boy for election time. Democrats spent all their political capital on healthcare reform the last time they were in control. Let's face the reality and start from there.
2
Republicans are ramping up their hype to lower Americans'
entitlements (Social Security and Medicare) - those things which American workers are entitled to because they *earned* them through decades of hard work. Republicans have to make up for their tax cuts for corporations, somehow.
This war against American labor and our elders has got to be put to rest. Vote out every Republican politician blighting,
infesting and rotting our nation - today and in the 2020 election.
1
Brooks is absolutely correct. From immigration to white identity, our political parties have chosen extreme positions that will continue to divide America as it heads into an uncertain future.
I recall Democrats and Republicans supporting immigration legislation that a Republican Speaker of the House refused to bring to the floor for a vote.
I can think of few columnists with a more short-circuited memory of his own adult lifetime.
1
In case one hasn't checked, "nationalism," especially of the ethnic variety, has a horribly murderous 250-year track record. The left (Brooks' "Democrats") know that. They also tend toward the "universalistic" values of the Enlightenment, not the narrow strictures of Romantic, Counter-Enlightenment -- nationalism. Brooks has been on this kick for a while now, apparently upset that Democrats have SO MUCH ON THEIR PLATE right now just trying to fend off the lunacy of "white ethnic nationalism" that they can't shape a counter-message that rebuts Trump's Party's rabidity. Well, that's because there is a great deal to be ambivalent right now, as Brooks points out, thankfully. How does one "protect" Americans against what is always to some degree a threat to their jobs by immigrants, while at the same time advocating for humane reform on immigration policy that honors the values of universalism inherent in the Enlightenment project, especially when nationalists are attacking every day from the Bully Pulpit of the American Whitehouse? It's daunting. It's also daunting to listen to Brooks criticizing the left when they are scrambling just to gain some power so they can check the onslaught from the right (nationalism). Brooks needs to see that a "unified view" might be a luxury while the left is fighting for the "universalist" life of a nation that has historically always been kind to immigrants. Let them win an election so they can force something on immigration.
2
Our country has allowed for too long immigrants to easily enter this country illegally. And also has allowed legal immigration for millions of immigrants. We have created our own problems. Look at what Merkel did by allowing just 1.1 million immigrants into Germany. What the U.S. has done over the past 75 years has resulted in a tearing down of our basic structure. Too much immigration has caused too many problems. And this doesn't apply just to those coming from the South. Immigration is good for our country but it must be reasonable. And the comment that DEMs "decry the policies that restrict undocumented immigration" is like saying that DEMS are pro illegal immigration. That is a false statement.
2
@Me Too
Sorry, but the idea that immigration is the signature problem facing this country is simply a lie.
For some diversity is a value, for others it seems a threat. When threatened rationality suffers. Myths are believed more easily. There is an emotional necessity for self preservation.
Feeling left out or betrayed by the nations government or elites is a powerful force. Weimar Germany saw the death of democracy when attracted to nationalist demagogy.
David may be correct. Rightly or wrongly in many quarters Democrats are perceived as a threat to "national values."
Its time to stop thinking of the "other" as being stupid, and appeal to a united theme.
Mark E. Boyken, M.D.
1
Mr. Brooks, Democrats are not interesting in uniting us. It's not what they do. In fact, the central tenet of identity politics is division. It's necessary for them to achieve their goal--which of course, is power.
The Liberal plan for victory is simple:
--Divide people into groups they generally identify with--Black, Hispanic, Gay, Transgender, Single Mother, Poor and Downtrodden etc.
--Create a narrative of victim-hood which emphasizes how badly America has treated them.
--Promise that you have the answers to all of their problems--which often involves showing up with a checkbook tied to the U.S. Treasury.
There is only one way I can think of to unify so many different interests--create an economy that improves the lot of all Americans--or a call to Patriotism--usually caused by a national calamity--such as the attacks on 911.
But since Liberals are reflexively anti-business, a roaring economy is not usually a uniting force. And since Liberals equate patriotism with nationalism--and generally despise this country and everything it stands for--that isn't really the answer for them either.
So...Identity politics is all that's left--and you can't unite a nation based on that.
2
@Jesse The Conservative
Extremely well said. Having been taught in the 60s and 70s that the only correct path to a colorblind and equal society was the elimination of racial identity as a chief delineation of groups of citizens of this fine country I am often amused that democrats still have yet to learn that lesson that was taught in grammer school.
The Trump administration has brought economy freedom and prosperity to nearly all here in flyoverland and I suspect the rest of US will be lifted up in the next few years if this election goes as we hope and pray. I am once again proud of this fantastic land of opportunity, God bless the USA.
1
@Jesse The Conservative
As usual, reality is diametrically opposed to the radical right-wing story line.
Division by identity politics is a signature feature of the President's agenda, likewise a "narrative of victim-hood" and "a promise that you have all the answers to their problems."
The Republicans "creedal story" has always been more of a "cover story", and a paper thin one at that.
That's how Trump was able to sweep it away so effortlessly, only losing a few die hard "never Trumpers" along the way.
Of course, those types had bought into the cover story and the myth all along and never really understood or honestly wanted to know what made the GOP tick.
The GOP has basically two power tracks, the "money" track and the "white nationalist/Christian evangelical" track, even though they love to disavow the latter.
When things begin to go against them culturally and politically (i.e., Obama's election), they deploy confected, economically "aggrieved" groups like the "Tea Party" as a cudgel and a distraction.
Now that Trump is their leader, they basically have been able to get rid of the "middleman" and honestly tell their people and everybody else what they have always been really about. Not that they didn't already know.
The problem, as always, does not lie with Democrats.
We know what unites us. The fact that you can't see that is a persistent blind spot that you obviously don't have the resources to overcome.
1
"If you don’t offer people a positive, uplifting nationalism, they will grab the nasty one."
Well, democrats do have a positive, uplifting nationalism: very simply, they are not Trumpites.
They want health care for all the people. They want to keep people from being shot with weapons of war. They want a fair tax code that spreads the bounty of this country, claws back the tax cuts from the millionaires and billionaires. They want equal pay for equal work. They want work places to be safe from harassment, our infrastructure to be safe. They want an empathetic immigration policy.
I want a world without Trumpites and Trump with his daily noise pollution, lies, insults, inanity, What a relief that would be. Until then, a democratic majority in congress would put a plug in that noise machine.
1
I seem to remember an immigration bill that was passed by an overwhelming majority in the Senate and endorsed by President Obama and NEVER taken up by the Republican controlled House. So how can you say the the Democrats have no message on immigration or does it just suit your politics to forget? I’m really tired of reading columns like this that take the Democrats to task for not solving a problem clearly created by Republicans. If the House under John Boehner had taken up the Senate bill my bet is that we would have an immigration policy in place and this discussion would be moot!
1
I'm afraid that to me, our nationalist-in-chief looks more like
a manque than the real thing, a spoof of Old World specimens.
Maybe that's because I get my news almost entirely from this
newspaper, and I tend to read between the lines. I notice that
Trump's rallies are called "raucous," but no mention is made of
the audience size. A photo of one, though, hinted that it consisted
of one tightly-packed bleacher section in a high school gym.
Our country headed down some spooky jingoist path? Snickers,
not fear.
Diversity with unity, clear borders, and a common, progressive culture. There's no other way forward.
Democrats have no intention to unify the country. There is no political success to be had with that strategy. Democrats will continue to push identity politics just as much as Trump does. Trump will bash illegal immigrants and Democrats will bash white men. This is what gets people to the polls to vote. If we continue down this path it will end badly but the two parties will have done what they can to hold power at the expense of a otherwise successful nation that should be finding away to unite.
I don't click on anything by Dowd or Douthat, usually not worth it. I do read David's columns because he is generally more open-minded and, I believe, a good soul.
But it appears once you've drunk the koolaide it really is difficult to escape. Just ask Max Boot. I've read his book and he makes many good points about what it means to be a true conservative. He rightly criticizes his former party because they are no longer conservative and have morphed into something truly dangerous that was always lurking beneath the surface. However, I cringed repeatedly as he cited Republican talking points (to mis-define Democrats) as if they were gospel.
David, I'm a liberal and progressive but no I don't want to abolish ICE or have open borders. We have always limited immigration to certain limits. I do favor doing more during times of crisis, like when Jewish refugees were fleeing Germany in the 1930s. Syrians today.
And yes, there is legal and "illegal" immigration. Get out of the beltway bubble and talk to real Dem voters.
Republicans AND Democrats have historically viewed immigration as a net plus for the country. The lack of comprehensive immigration reform in the 30 years up to 2016 is more a problem with the far right than with the far left. Look at where the majority of Americans polled during that time on the issues.
The leader of our party is still Obama. He's spoken out forcefully recently about our shared values, inclusion and national story. No crickets, no void.
1
It’s not easy but if the democrats are to ever really decimate their republican rivals, a better balance is required between identity politics and bread and butter issues of economic justice, higher wages, govt programs to build infrastructure and create jobs that people can actually live on, etc. one reason the die hard blue collar trump supporter exists is because he feels threatened by identity politics (this is as much his problem as one of overzealous advocates) and sees the dems offering no societal assurance that he’ll be looked after his factory closes or he loses his job to an immigrant willing to work for less, or gets sick etc; instead, encouraged by trumps toxic rhetoric , he is scared and seeks validation through demonizing other groups be they women, immigrants, racial or ethnic minorities, lbgt etc
When you mention 'common language and culture' as a shared proyect for the country, one may think we need to uniformize individuals so to conform with certain rules, however acinai...instead of trying to accommodate to the richness of our diversity to each and every individual...as we are not cut and molded with the same scissors. Solidarity comes in here, as we must find a balance between our own needs, however selfidh theur may be, with the ftreedom and rights of our neighbors. You didn't mention religion, however divisive it may be (witness the fanatics in the Arab world, Sunnis vs Shia, living an unresolved violence devoid of reason and feelings towards each other). Insofar nationalism, you must be careful here, as it evokes strong feelings towards 'fascism', of which Trump seems more than willing to try, however hateful and divisive (Us vs Them). No one said that this complex society is easy to satisfy, bor their needs met, especiaslly when we sustain a deep and odious inequality in this capitalistic system of ours. There is work to do, and it demands we all contribute to solutions...and not be part of the problems. Justice demands it. And without it, societal peace shall remain a distant dream...if not a cruel joke. And the joke is on us!
David Brooks annotated in parenthesis:
After 30 years of multiculturalism, the bonds of racial solidarity trump the bonds of national solidarity (for which races?).
Democrats have a very strong story to tell about what we owe the victims of racism and oppression. (Republicans are exempt?)
They do not have a strong story to tell about what we owe to other Americans (white Americans?), how we define our national borders and what binds us as Americans.
1
This election is NOT political or partisan. It is about our dehumanization. As a human being, where do you stand in your responsibility for and accountability to our shared values?
What unites us as human beings: Honesty, morality, ethics, integrity in ALL roles, relationships and interactions.
What unites and protects us as citizens: Equality, equity, shared power, justice, dignity, well-being for ALL. These are the central tenets of the Constitution.
These are the public face and enactment of the universal aspects of love: Care, understanding, respect, and responsibility for and accountability to the whole of life.
Without these, we are divided and polarized by the patriarchal world order of status, privilege, entitlement, power, control, and wealth that manipulates, exploits and dehumanizes us.
Best NYTimes column in a while; thanks you Mr. Brooks. If us dems won’t forcefully stand up for controlled borders and immigration along with the promotion a clear and common identity, we will never be able to effectively govern, let alone command political majorities.
1
Global environmental catastrophe, already occurring and predicted to spin completely out of control in the near future, is the central challenge of our time. If not addressed immediately and forcefully, any version of our country's "national story" will be a tale that is told. Today's elections are our last chance, and Democrats our last hope, to save what can still be saved of our planet and its creatures. I pray they, and we, are up to the task.
1
Lets see, the Democrats failed to provide a national vision because they did not, in Brooks' view, sufficiently focus on immigration, which is a fetish object of the far right, as an existential challenge. Whereas they did focus, at least based on the local political advertisements out here in the real world, on health care, education, and economic equality, issues that many Americans not cowering in fear of swarthy hordes coming for their daughters based on lies told them by Trump and his enablers, find compelling.
1
Brooks is clearly not paying attention or he is living in the United States of Amnesia.
President Obama and the Democrats are closing with an argument of unity. Everybody wants healthcare, jobs that pay a living wage, and a strong social safety net that is not threatened by a tax cut for the rich. They tell US that we are voting to restore integrity to government.
President Obama was deported in chief in order to gain support from the GOP for comprehensive immigration reform which the Senate achieved but that the GOP controlled House would not bring to the floor.
The ties that bind US are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: all humanity is created equal. . . life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. . . a more perfect union.
3
With the one sentence "Over the next few decades, America will become a majority-minority country.", David taints the issue. By stating this David is unknowingly declaring whiteness is what defines true Americans and everyone else are other. This is the problem facing Democrats - when the argument is framed in this way, how do you respond? Even a man paid to look at issues in an unbiased way can't help but fall into the trap.
The issue at hand is how do we determine who becomes a citizen from all the people entering the country and those born here. There is a process in place but often that has failed and needs to be updated. This has been impossible because the issue is too easily manipulated by fear which is stoked by Republicans in order to secure votes. This is an issue that requires deep debate but the right prefers to say ignorant things like "Democrats want open borders and don't believe in law and order!" This isn't a right or left issue though one side has made it that.
Again we need to decide what we want as a country and we can't start from white or non-white unless you want to formalize that in laws. I doubt the majority Americans wants that but it is hard to say when the issue has been so polluted.
David should ask more from the party that he elevated through his life and not ask Democrats to be the adults. It is exceedingly difficult when the children monopolize the airwaves and makes it impossible to even think rationally or intelligently.
4
Great column Mr Brooks. Until now I had not realized that the current political mayhem was a result of the Democrats failing to provide policy and leadership. I had been completely fooled into believing that the GOP's policy of total obstructionism during President Obama's time in office was the major cause for a massively divided country. I had completely misunderstood that GOP gerrymandering and voter suppression was done with a good heart for the benefit of the nation. I continually failed to grasp the Tea Party hate speech was meant to unite and pacify the nation.
Thanks for setting my mind at rest. It was the Democrats that failed us. Right?
5
The democrats have only to start reminding Americans who they are. Our story is how a nation of immigrants unites to produce one of the most successful nations in history. How a steady stream of immigrants produces the dynamism and originality which drives this success.
1
"Progressives are for abolishing ICE and our current asylum-detention procedures, but what would they put in their stead?"
Democrats are taking the Republican lead on this. The Republicans are all for abolishing the ACA and any semblance of a rational approach to health care insurance.
Why should Democrats have plans for when ICE is gone when Republicans have failed for years to discuss what is to go in the ACA's stead?
DB, one more thing: more working immigrants are needed to pay for baby boomers’ entitlements. This is far better than raising taxes and retirement ages and/or reducing benefits.
Abolishing ICE is a bad idea, as ICE controls the inflow of drugs, weapons and human trafficking. The idea of “open borders” is also unwise, as we DO need to control who’s coming into the country.
An immigration proposal Democrats should be pushing:
• Pass DACA, as it’s the right thing to do for dreamers.
• Pass comprehensive reform, similar to the 2013 bill. However, propose a better approach to enforce the southern border than a 2,000-mile wall. In addition to eminent domain fights, how you build a wall in the Rio Grande? There’s natural barriers (like mountains) in some places, plus fences and high tech methods would be more effective than a wall in other places.
• The reform should provide a path to citizenship for law-abiding undocumented people that are already here: pay a fine and back taxes, purchase health care, etc.
• Also from a fiscal standpoint, Democrats should work with Trump on his idea for a merit-based policy for some immigrants. Better educated immigrants will pay higher taxes, start businesses and commit fewer crimes.
More legal immigrants working on the books, paying taxes and having health insurance will be a needed fiscal plus, not a minus. In addition, legal immigrants earning minimum wage or higher will present LESS of a threat (not more) to lower paid native born workers.
Mr. Brooks is conflating a lot of things. He speaks about Republican voters, “those going to the polls in recent years who name immigration as their top issue” and Democratic politicians, “the congressional pro-Democratic [sic] only 4 percent mentioned immigration.” Furthermore there is no historical context. How many past elections made immigration and Xenophobia as the main narrative when no real immigration problem existed? I believe many Democratic voters have learned this lesson of history. Right now too many Republican voters are denying our history as confirmed by the quote, “these immigrants are different”.
It also is not accurate or fair to claim that the Democrats have offered no discussion or solutions to immigration and border security. Republicans have prevented any rational discussion or action in Congress to keep immigration as a wedge issue. So Mr. Brooks writes this is a no-win situation for Democrats then blames the Democrats for not solving the problem.
Some very good points. I will say some controversial things. Democrats should not shrink from pushing their major principles - that a diversified people with immigrants feeding us consistently makes us a better, stronger, more imaginative people. Needy immigrants escaping persecution are not 'bad' people - just as patients who go to the hospital through the ER are not 'bad' patients. Just as fighting for women's rights is fighting for human rights - and fetal rights should not be considered trumping the rights of a woman who has lived on this earth and through a man become pregnant, and thus no longer has control over her own destiny when she cannot make her own decisions about motherhood. Making women into nothing more than child-bearers ruins them personally and economically - while men inherit the upper hand. Not all women were made to be mothers - just as not all men were made to be fathers. I cannot but wonder if exit polls of 2016 were likely accurate, and the vote may have been abused - from without or within, who knows. Why would exit polls be right on for years and years and suddenly tell a different story when so much money and so much emotion came into the election? Democrats fight for rights that are more complex - higher ideals than fear - paranoia - and loathing - and must work harder to get their message across. Freedom - liberty - inclusion - quality of life just as much as life itself - they must not shrink from the challenge.
Democrats must insist on the profound difference between nationalism and patriotism.
And Mr. Brooks, who makes some good points in this column, needs to listen more attentively to what Democratic leaders are actually saying. We do not believe in "open borders"; we believe in an immigration policy which is orderly, humane, and takes into account our security and our economic needs (Canada provides a good example here).
2
I can't entirely disagree with your assessment of the Democrats, yet most of the air has been taken out of the room by Trump's incessant tweeting. Also, I'm not sure that anything reasonable and subtle, which is what I'd expect from a Democrat, will even work in this environment. It would be tantamount to fighting a fire with a squirt gun.e
For Pete's sake. Numerous people have been telling the Democrat's "national story" the last several weeks. Apparently Brooks hasn't been paying attention.
If Barack Obama, John Lewis, Oprah Winfrey and Stacy Abrams aren't telling our national story right now on the campaign trail, who is?
Is there some reason why David Brooks sees Obama, Lewis, Winfrey and Abrams speak and yet doesn't recognize they are telling our 'national story'?
Now why could that be?
3
Immigration is an issue that demands consensus. We have to agree on a solution. At the same time, citizens of some of the most violent countries on earth are descending on our border and demanding admission. We would be remiss if we did not take a skeptical approach to their advance. From this Democrat's perspective, it is weird that the person who is actually honoring his oath of office is Trump. He is a racist. He deserves to lose. But, the Democrats do not deserve to win.
We are placing all our chips on a losing issue, immigration. Where is the new William Jennings Bryant to give a "cross of gold" speech on behalf of the real Democratic Party, a party that put its members first.
1
David, at least one such Democrat exists. In fact, one was recently in office for eight years. His name is Barack Obama, and his words always struck a tone of national unity - he spoke about what binds us together, and he was unafraid to use national myths in his oratory. Read his speeches, they’re easy to find.
Problem is, despite his words, the opposition insisted on painting him as a malevolent liberal who looked down his nose at “real” America. In many cases they painted him as foreign. I don’t expect the opposition party to simply roll over and not challenge a president’s words, but Obama could’ve mimicked Reagan in every way, and Republicans and their media arms would have still insisted on painting him as the anti-Christ.
David your columns consistently fail to take into account the vast degeneracy of the GOP and its media machine. You generally try to make good points, but they’re often undermined by your refusal to look at our present political reality honestly.
5
I always find David Brooks' opinions to be questionable and often flat out wrong, but this one is coming from such a depth of wrongness that it's almost hard to believe that his editors waved it through. This is a supreme layer cake of wrongness alternating with gooey layers of blindness all topped with a decorative flourish of arrogant preachy falsehood.
It's wrong.
It couldn't be more wrong.
In response to Donald Trump's campaign based entirely on dividing the country, Brooks writes, Democrats could speak of unity. "And yet what have we heard from the Democrats? Crickets."
Here is Barack Obama, speaking stirringly at a much-noticed rally for Andrew Gillum this week:
“We’ve seen repeated attempts to try and divide us, with rhetoric designed to make us angry and make us fearful," Obama said, adding that Tuesday's midterm elections are a chance to shift to a "politics based on a sense we are all in this together."
Gillum's speeches are full of lines saying that we need people to unite us rather than divide us, it's the message of his entire campaign. Here's Kamala Harris:
"It is the responsibility of our leaders to use their role as public figures to elevate our discourse and bring people together.”
I could go on. And on and on. Unity has been the central message of Democrats.
David Brooks writes not from observation, preconception. He's not just a lazy thinker, but to a degree that it's impossible that it's not intentional. He is, in other words, a propagandist.
7
Mr. Brooks third paragraph: "Trump’s blood-and-soil nationalism overturns the historical ideal of American nationalism, which was pluralistic — that we are united by creed, not blood; that our common culture is defined by a shared American dream — pioneers settling the West, immigrants crossing an ocean in search of opportunity, African-Americans rising from slavery toward equality." ........I can't be proud of settlers and immigrants stealing Native-
American land. Especially since Whites have destroyed this land. And "rising from slavery" is a hard spin on a sick and cruel 500 year history of institutional slavery and aftermath of lynching, discrimination and 'Black lives still don't matter'. This paragraph Mr. Brooks, is a whitewash.
3
Democrats waited for Trump to sink himself, away from the fighting attitude of the guy they didn't consider seriously.
Pretty much all the comments so far refer to the painful fact that republicans are obstructing a the democrats’ message at every turn. That may be true, but this is precisely David’s point. As repugnant as Trump’s narrative may be, it is working. Therefore, quit complaining about how awful the republicans are and create a narrative that works! Complaining about the republicans, slamming them as racist or homophobic, etc is insufficient and has proven ineffective. Case in point:
it seemed unimaginable a year ago that the republicans might actually GAIN seats in the Senate. But here we are.
1
As I remember it, the Democrats and Obama attempted to tackle the difficult issue of immigration policy but were blocked every bit of the way. These midterms are a choice between hope for moving toward a possible solution or shutting down all hope in regressing to a racist "national identity ".
1
While I agree that the Democrats are doing a lousy job of capitalizing on the horrific nature of Trump era GOP, I have to wonder if it matters when the right will ignore, distort, or outright lie about it. The headline on FOX is going to be "Dems hate America and are funding caravans of dangerous middle-eastern Central Americans to attack your children and take your jobs, and separating children from their families and putting them in cages isn't really a bad thing after all."
Regarding a unifying Democratic message of national unity, it would appear that David Brooks has somehow failed to listen to Barack Obama over the past ten years.
2
I think you're out of step on this, David.
The younger people I know are nowhere near as interested in "party" or "nation" as your article suggests.
An educated millennial in Oregon has a lot more in common with her compeer in France than she does with a high school dropout from Alabama.
Younger Jewish people on the Upper West Side of Manhattan are more likely to share their Weltanschauung with young liberal Germans than with members of the Likud in Israel.
We've never been a "Nation State" in the sense that that term is most often used. Hence, United StateS.
"Open borders" or not, I'm thinking the generations behind us are already demonstrating that they have little time for these rusted concepts of "State" and "Party".
4
Baloney, David. Democrats do have a story, and it's clear. We're real Americans who are not afraid of immigrants. We always have been able to absorb them because we ARE THEM. Anyone who is afraid is ridiculously under the influence of their own and trump's campaign of terror - the "other", dark and not us - must be out to get us. This particular election should and will be an indictment of this group of so-easily-frightened people and their lying, crooked leader. The rest of us are looking at them all and saying, "Is this our country?" You may not see a plan, but the plan is to get our country back from the barbarians.
4
Crickets? What could those loud insects possibly have to do with politics?
I found it, David. I found the left-wing future, for this country and for the planet. That future, diversity, is at work day and night at the University of Washington hospital. Every human being I've met in my eleven days here (36 doctors, nurses, techs, social workers, ombudsmen...) is a competent, friendly, straightforward, well-educated member of the crew whose shared task is to help people, comfort people, heal people. And the members of this crew come from all over the planet...
Israel, Iran, Turkey, Spokane, Pittsburgh, Ghana, Italy, Jamaica, China, Japan, Seattle, Brazil, Canada, Philippines, South Korea, Senegal...
This diversity in action makes the Master Race nervous. The 2016 Republican convention was made up of 96% white people who believe in the narrow artless White Nationalist future for America. The future of America is not whites-only. We are the melting pot. The well-coordinated crew at the University of Washington hospital show us the way. In the blue states, diversity is already the norm.
5
@poodlefree
Well said, thank you--
Mr. Brooks insists that the great national narrative that must be clearly articulated by our political class include, as he puts it, "clear borders". What does a clearly defined border look like when our neighbor nations are failed states?
I have a friend at work who is in his late thirties. His mother crossed the border with him when he was thirteen years old from El Salvador because he was either going to leave his country or be forced into a gang that peddled drugs , killed and raped people. His mom had different aspirations for her son. His son is now a honors student in a SUNY university. He had different aspirations for his son, too.
What is a clear border Mr. Brooks? Does this one suffice for you: "Bring me your tired, your poor, your starving masses yearning to breathe free"?
1
The central challenge of the age may also be considered on the international level, not only socially but also ecologically. Every nation is challenged to become socially cohesive in diversity with clear immigration policies in a globalizing world. At the same time it is challenged to deal with the looming climate catastrophe which transcends an inward-looking and nationalistic perspective.
Personally, I consider the central challenge of our age’s ecological predicament to consist in using the unjust, unsustainable and, therefore, unstable international monetary system to deal with the looming climate catastrophe by basing it on the monetary standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of such carbon-based international monetary system are presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timun.net.
Declared an outstanding economist and effective climate activist: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.” Bill McKibben, May 17, 2011
America was founded by white Western and Northern European Anglo-Saxon Protestant men who owned property. And every white European Judeo-Christian group who did not match that pedigree inevitably became divinely naturally created equal persons with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
But the notable exceptional enduring exclusion of enslaved black and separate and unequal Africans in America, as a physically identifiable minority with a malign marginalized unique history stains America as a callous cruel cynical hypocrisy. Their lives still do not matter as much as the life of David Brooks and Melania Trump.
3
Changed the subject FROM immigration TO health care? David: you're looking through the wrong end of the binoculars.
2
Fresh Mr Brooks, change the channel from Fox News to ..... well, almost anything else, and then you might hear what Democrats and most of the US values. It isn’t the corrupt and corrupting hate that is currently passing for Republican leadership and policy. The most transparent and ignorant Republican hate being used to destroy our democracy is the attempt to keep voters from the polls. Especially voters with brown skin. This hate has been encouraged by a partisan Supreme Court along with their decision that every dollar is a person so corporations can buy elections.
2
1) Democratic Party leaders and candidates, e.g. President Obama and Beto O'Rourke, have been presenting a better vision for America. 2) When Rev. Jesse Jackson ran for President in the primaries, he created the "Rainbow Coalition". That diversity of Democratic supporters has expanded and become the character, legacy, and hope for the Party and Nation. 3) FDR once said, and I am quoting from memory, "A nation does not have to be cruel to be strong." 45 and the MAGA crowd do not understand the wisdom of this statement. 4) I like Stacey Abrams closing remarks. "Don't vote for me because I am Black. Don't vote for me because I am a woman. Vote for me because I am better."
2
"Most mainstream Democrats have always been pro-immigrant"
Gaylord Nelson the founder of Earth Day was a liberal and he said... "In this country, it's phony to say "I'm for the environment but not for limiting immigration."
conservatives are united by fear of change, fear of strangers, fear of immigrants
democrats can be united by showing they care for others - Including the lonely and cantankerous old white conservatives who believe everything FOX FAKE NEWS tells them.
maybe spelling out the benefits of change and multiculturalism - increased exports, increased sales, increased profits, better and cheaper imports, more variety, a wider range of choices, etc. - in a way that conservative rural farmers and unemployed rural conservatives can hear.
Do you hate your neighbours ? That tends to make an unhappy saga of bloodshed and pain, ritual payback and revenge.
Do you love your neighbours ? That tends to build a happy community of sharing and caring and helping each other through tough times.
All you have to do is realise that on this small planet we are all neighbours. Drop 'them' and realise it's all only 'Us' here trying to survive. Helping each other is the longest lasting source of human happiness. Ignoring the fake news sites that profit from scary fake news stories is a good start.
Hmmm - can you do an anti-trust thing to break up FOX NEWS ? I think it's too big - time to shut that baby down !
The narrow view that White is the color of choice and every other colorization is unacceptable, dooms this nation to abject failure down the road. We need every group to maintain our standing in the World. Whites are a diminishing group. I personally could care less about color. My only interest is what you bring to the party. Are the legal/ illegal immigrants going to strengthen us? Yes of course they will.
Immigration is a loser for Democrats. Mr. Brooks wrote it here. How can Dems fight for something they have never worried much about? The GOP will simply turn the tables. The economy and the disastrous tariffs are winners. Make the rust belt believe you will take care of it economically.
I really don't like Trump. He has always meed me feel extremely uneasy in the stomach. It would be ok of he were tough on one side but had a soft underbelly like many politicians, but he surely doesn't have that.
Some people underestimate the ability of a single, extremely hard man to cause death and destruction, especially if they're kind of wimpy like Trump, but it is real. Despite his lack of war experience and that he's never actually killed another person that we know of, I believe he helped slowly kill his own brother in the name of competition.
So if this man capable of nuclear war out of bull-headed obstinance? I think so. That is why he won the standoff with NK and he has both China and Russia worried.
None of us peace lovers will feel comfortable during his tenor, but that's kind of the point.
Now let's get down to the Democrats: What can they do to claim the nationalist drive within us all? They can be brave and stand in favor of true immigration over guest worker, virtual slave programs. They can stand in favor of strong border protections with a soft heart for amnesty.
Allowing guest workers is one of the worst policies of this new century. It is akin to modern day slavery, as is the use of very cheap foreign labor to produce American goods. Just another form of slavery, it is. Democrats can stand against this strongly knowing that the economics are behind them. Now we need to find good economists that know the truth. That is hard today.
1
I agree 100%. Multiculturalism must morph into the new American identity not just because it is right and good, but also because it is powerful and political. White people become brown people much more than brown people become white. Trumps veer toward the right anti-immigrationists is a pathetic attempt keep America White when ALL ALONG its intentions were to be a muticultured society unifying around a singular creed. Big mistake. We'll see if tomorrow sends in the message. It might take longer.
Democrats can:
Tell the world America is great,should/can be greater, is not in need of being made great again.
Remind American’s that there is a difference between “Deutschland Uber Alles” and “give me your tired, poor etc”.
Find some messages in Bloomberg’s video.
Say that not playing nice in the sand box requires time out, which is code for working across the isle, or term limits, or not being re-elected .
Remind American’s we are a nation of slaves and immigrants whose democracy fostered paths to good lives.
Education, reinventing, relocating are paths out of poverty.
Be for Illegal immigration and not paying taxes as American no-no’s .
There’s more. But hopefully readers get my point.
1
“This is true in Russia, China, India, the U.S., Israel, Turkey, Britain, Brazil and on and on.”
This is a weird hodgepodge of “nationalist” countries, half of them dictatorial, merciless. And Mr. Brooks recommends we learn from them?
Hey, send out goose-stepping soldiers on parade behind big guns.
So. The Democrats are accused of failing to deliver a trumpeted message and sounding, instead, like crickets.
No doubt that’s how Mr. Brooks hears it, since he is deaf to calls for civil rights, gay rights, and women’s rights ... which he dismisses as lefty identity politics.
But, sir, the history of the US does not match your glowingly description of a heroic, generous nation, defined by “a shared American dream — pioneers settling the West, immigrants crossing an ocean in search of opportunity, African-Americans rising from slavery toward equality.“
When floods of Irish immigrants arrived here fleeing a famine, they were derided as dirty drunks and met with signs, “Irish need Not Apply.” And the boatloads of Poles and Italians who landed on shore in the late nineteenth century? They weren’t considered “white.” They were viewed as a (filthy, alien) threat.
And please note, African-Americans haven’t reached equality. The GOP blocks them. Heard of Brian Kemp?
Don’t try to pretty up our history. Racism is still a powerful force in the United States, as are
misogyny and homophobia.
Listen harder. It’s the Democratic crickets who are singing our true national anthem.
Donald Trump “swept” to victory by losing the popular vote.
Accuracy in this day and age is pretty important, even when it comes to adjectives.
Democrats have a firm core belief in America. That includes immigration. We know and follow “gives us your tired, your poor”.
65 million of us know what we are doing and really have no interest in being condescended to. Maybe you should concentrate wholly on the simple evils of the Republican Party. Their silence on Guns, Trumps immigration policies and rhetoric, their healthcare dance
Tired of the Democrats are “silent”, “missing opportunities” repeated refrain. 65 million of us voted for the best qualified candidate. We lost, but was the winner worth it to America?
Sorry, but republicans and conservatives have more to answer for.
1
Trump and the Republicans are tribalists, not nationalists. They have no vision of "America." Their vision is myopic, limited to a mythical 1950s in which white men dominated by what they took for granted as divine right. That's how an in-group is tribal. Anyone who doesn't fit the model is an alien and doesn't belong.
1
Hard to foresee how the D's central focus on racialism/genderism/sexual prefernceism, which has fed the Trumpian white backlash, is ever going to lead toward a united nation. The creedal unifier has disappeared under layers of skin tone and other "differences" and it unlikely ever to be restored. Elites have trouble understanding the attraction of "Great Again," but decades of complaints about the nature of our government and society just may have persuaded the deplorables that there is noting there worth saving.
1
"Trump had a chance to build a pan-ethnic nationalist coalition but went with white identity politics instead. "
No, no, he didn't have that chance. Not with the Republican Party. He is not some alien excrescence forced on that party but rather an organic growth resulting from decades of moral malpractice. You've been a part of that benighted parade.
Here's some news from the American Deep South: that inclusive national myth you're lauding never included anyone, anyone, but white men.
2
Uncontrolled immigration is not a republican or democratic problem , it is a planetary humongous problem .
It is unsolvable, politicians and religious leaders throughout the world should have addressed it decades ago .
Instead they ignored it , and used it for their temporary advantage inciting procreation and denying birth control access .
Now it is too late , and the GOP wants to use this illegal immigration escamotage for their political advantage , using the tool of fear upon average misinformed Americans to achieve their goals .
It will take decades to reign in this demographic apocalypse , step by step, we must teach family planning , improve education and healthcare of these unfortunate human beings , we need another Marshal plan to cope with this human disaster.
Trumpian militias and military deployment to the border are ridiculous.
What are they planning to do ?
Build a human wall , or a real wall , or kill everyone approaching the border ? Nonsense !
"If you don’t offer people a positive, uplifting nationalism, they will grab the nasty one. "
When do you ask your own party to unite rather than divide? When do you ask your own party to work on our problems (healthcare, education, climate change) rather than wasting precious time focusing all of your attention on 3500 people seeking an American way of life? When do you ask your own party to be kind, compassionate, responsible, fiscally conservative stewards of our great nation? Why is your party allowed to behave like psychopaths while the other party is expected to be the nations therapists?
1
Democrats, define the problem and fix it!
Why do so many of our southern neighbors have to move north to survive.
Sure, Democrats are conflicted over immigration, but Republicans are as well. Look at the House GOP's remarkable flop on immigration reform earlier this year. Given the chance to strut their stuff on Trump's signature issue, the House Republican caucus opted to do … nothing. Consider also the fact that Republicans control the House Judiciary Committee and therefore, the immigration subcommittee, which decides how many green cards will be issued each year. This year, the committee approved 1.2 million, which may be a record. Translation: the GOP's tough-guy rhetoric on immigration is a charade, just a racist dog whistle. It's disgusting.
The United States has become a majority-minority country multiple times throughout its history. Each time we simply redefined our definition of what constitutes a majority to include Germans/Catholics/Jews/whomever.
This time will be no different.
This is nonsense. Senate Democrats had a deal on immigration reform with Republicans in 2013 and House Republicans killed it. Chuck Schumer and Trump had a deal and Trump backed out two days later. Trump doesn't want the immigration issue resolved in any practical way because his base will lose faith in him. Democrats can continue to be for common sense reform and hopefully someday there will be enough Republicans they can work with who are no longer afraid of Trump.
1
"Over the next few decades, America will become a majority-minority country." This tiresome cliche is as often used by the Trumpists as by triumphal left-wingers, and just as inaccurately. Both sides take it to mean that "whites" will no longer be the majority. This would be true only if Americans, uniquely in the world, continued to consider "Hispanics" (and Arabs, and Armenians, and Turks, and others) to be "non-white". The cliche also implies that the various "minorities" that would comprise the new "majority" have anything in common vis-a-vis "whites". They don't. The "Latino community" is not a community; "Asians" - you know, those Koreans, Pakistanis, Vietnamese, Sri Lankans, Japanese, et al - have nothing in common with each other but the definition of "Asia" as a "continent", and less than nothing with "Latinos". We might as well state that "white males" have always been a "minority" in America. It's true. So what?Shorthand used to make a spurious point is in the current atmosphere very dangerous.
I can say without fear of contradiction that I (an Independent) have no idea the "platform" of the Democrat party.
1. Most Democrat policy proposals are financially ruinous. Social Security and Medicare are grossly underfunded. They represent more than 1/2 of the Federal expense and are growing every year. Not to mention (I am 71) they stink. Where are the funds coming from for "free college" or "Medicare for all?" How about fixing SS and Medicare funding first?
2. Where were these great ideas when Democrats held the House, Senate, and Presidency? Nowhere! Why? The politicians knew they would be voted out of office if they passed such legislation - and they were voted out anyway.
3. It was all Bush's fault. Now it is all Trump's fault. A feeble excuse for "this dog don't hunt."
4. "Resist", racism, sexism, negative negative negative. Its really old. And unconvincing. Also mostly false if my acquaintances are any measure. Walmart still has lots of tiki torches for sale.
Facts: The global economy is here to stay. We need reasonable policies to deal with it. But you don't want to be a "citizen of the world." In the past 9 years I have lived in 40 odd countries. Racism? Sexism? Corruption? Being at the mercy of bureaucrats? Poverty? You ain't seen nothing if you live in the US, Europe, NZ or Oz.
I know everything Democrats are against (Trump.) I have no idea what they are rationally for - just what they irrationally support. That will never get my vote.
Anyone who indulges himself repeatedly in the slur "Democrat party" is no independent.
Don't insult my intelligence. I am nothing like you.
What a mess of an essay. Brooks starts by claiming: "National identity is the most powerful force in world politics today." Then ends concluding: "After 30 years of multiculturalism, the bonds of racial solidarity trump the bonds of national solidarity." In between he spouts several seemingly un-American, anti Democrat Fox News talking points - abolish Ice, pro immigrant and anti native born Americans.
Brooks is unwilling to directly admit that today's Republican Party is fatally flawed. That Republicans today are not conservatives, but dangerous, anti intellectual racists.
well done and on target Mr. Brooks... what we have now is terrifying and there's a deep void on the other side. It seems there's not much to hope for at this point unless we get some ethical leadership on the left, active citizens who vote and demand action for the common good, and a new cultural narrative of inclusion and generosity rather scarcity and fear. Too bad the supposed christians aren't leading this movement toward unity and celebration of diversity as they are called to do - instead they are aligning their hypocritical and judgmental selves to the most corrupt and immoral occupant and pushing a message of hate.
Hillary Clinton tried to do all that you prescribe in 2016. She was castigated by the left and the right for practicing “identity politics”. No wonder the Democrats are focused on pocketbook issues.
Do Republicans support capitalism?
Just wondering, because every major US capitalist success story is now a globalist company. Not really clear to me how you return the US to some pre-globalist reality without destroying American capitalism. Interesting contradiction there.
Republicans are against government efforts to mitigate climate change. Nothing is going to generate more waves of desperate migration in the next several decades than climate change.
Republicans have pulled support from international family planning agencies. Again, if you don't like migration, that is one of the stupidest policies you can have.
Republicans have now held the Congress and presidency for two years and made no legislative progress on immigration. Under Obama, the Senate passed new immigration legislation that the Republican House refused to take up. All we have is ICE indiscriminately rounding up illegals no matter if they are an asset to their community and have American children and spouses. Cruel and needless separations of children and parents. The lowest race based attacks.
Immigration reform is going to be poison for whichever party now touches it, thanks to Trump and the Republicans. For Brooks to criticize the Democrats on this issue and ignore the elephant in the room is just more Republican demogoguery dressed up in more erudite language. But no different in its effect.
David, you're still stuck on the old labels. Majority-Minority country means you do not see one, or even two Americas. You still see an America consisting and operating on a color wheel consisting of white, brown, black, yellow and red. Your argument makes sense to you because of where your stuck. A comment below makes the point that the composition of Democratic candidates in 2018 is the unifying message. Men, Women, native born, immigrants and people from all types of histories and experiences all supporting a common vision of a fair, honest nation made up of diverse people and ideas. What message more conveys the notion of forming the "more perfect union" the founding fathers intended when the broke with king and country? Alas, you're stuck in the age old "color chart" that was devised about 160 years that sustains our divisions an forms the basis for Trump's idiocy (yes, idiocy because claiming Trump is forming an autocracy would legitimize his incompetence and be an insult to autocracy).
You're a great guy but you've intellectualized yourself into a corner based on that old "color wheel." If you can't get past the biology or reality of a mobile, global world, you're never going to understand the positive message that's emerged in the Democratic Party. You will never see the diverse dreams and success stories that make up the unifying message of its candidates a message you've clearly missed.
Do the Republicans know what unites us?
Do the Republicans even care?
Even if the Democrats offer people a positive,uplifting nationalism, the voters of this country will still pick the nasty one.
The central challenge of our age is our pollution of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases (principally CO2) and destruction of species and the carrying capacity of our planet.
The idea that a silly division over American "nationalism" is, or should be the central challenge is ridiculous, particularly when the author admits it is "creedal" (Danger Will Robinson, Danger! 50-cent rarely used adjective here!)
Oooohhh ... Guess what? Those who argue over their creed are bucking the intent of the constitution and all rights established by the Civil War.
The first mention of "race, creed, or color" was by the Protestant Hospital of Milwaukee, in 1864. They vowed to take care of all equally.
David tries to sneak the camel's nose back under the tent; make no mistake about it, "creed" here is about racism and establishment of religion ... that feeds racism. It's white nationalism he's trying to sanitize.
1
For someone who is a republican you sure do worry what the democrats need to do. The democrats are the adults in the room who try to find solutions to problems. Republicans have abdicated any role in creating a society that works for our diverse nation. They ignore climate change, have tossed free trade out the window, try to undue Obamacare, and when given the opportunity to work with democrats on immigration they walked away. My question for you, David, is what are republicans doing to engage ALL Americans in facing our debt, education, healthcare and inequality. At this point why must democrats bend to your idea of a country that is no more. We are a diverse country and wishing it wasn’t so is not going to take us back to what used to be. Maybe you should actually talk and listen to us instead of begging us to fix your Republican Party that has turned itself into a white nationalist party. Fix that before you come lecturing democrats about what we need to do to make you feel more comfortable about your role in creating what passes for republicanism these days.
Hilarious that Mr Brooks deigns to chastise, analyze, and moralize Democrats' direction for after-the-election unity.
It's "almost" unapparent that Mr Brooks is sending a subliminal message to his target audience:
"Everything that Democrats don't say, don't get, and can't do."
You're not a trail boss leading pioneers, Mr Brooks. You're doing what you do. But this time, you're aiding candidates without the moral fiber to stand against the dangerous rhetoric, the corrosive economics, the unraveling alliances, and the rampant corruption, including the son-in-law-and-senior-government-official's unloading of a property (completely underwater with debt) to an investment entity used by the Qatari government.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/nyregion/kushner-deal-qatar-666-5th.amp.html
It's Hillarys' fault. No, seriously. Sort of.
Brooks is hazy or out of touch with some of his details, but his overall point is valuable. It's something Democrats and their allies could learn from. You could say it is the difference between Obama and Clinton as candidates. Obama had a story to tell about America. Clinton, for all of her other strengths, did not. When your candidate for President lacks a narrative, your party lacks one. Rebuilding is hard, necessary.
Brooks also overlooks one of Trump's strengths as a candidate--his ability to disrupt the narrative of the other. Please do not mistake this observation for an endorsement.
Hmm. Democratic politicians I’ve been reading have responded just as you suggest. What is your goal here?
Dems have to find better standard bearers than Schumer and Pelosi and Sanders. Hopefully, the new crop of governors being elected today will offer some potential leaders -- if Beto doesn't seize the banner. But Brooks is right: Dems need a catchier bumper sticker than "not Trump."
The best thing to emerge from this distressing inflection point in our history may be the deep dives our best thinkers have had to take since 2016 into what really divides us, what really unites us, and what we must and can do to restore and strengthen the foundations of our democracy and the health of our planet going forward. Brooks values-oriented op eds certainly provide many examples. When the mid-terms are behind us, I hope someone will publish an anthology of the most thoughtful and illuminating articles from various media and platforms over the past two years. Maybe it could be done like the PBS "Great American Read" challenge, where instead of books, readers submit articles and then vote on favorites among those submitted.
I see the central challenge of the next generations as being very similar to the challenge that faced the post WWII generation, i.e. the development of a rational globalism or a rational internationalism in a multi-polar world that is based on cooperation and not zero-sum competition. The premier issue that will test our ability to cooperate with one another is global warming and the need to shift away from fossil fuels to non-carbon energy sources. If we think migration is bad now, just wait to coastal areas and growing desert regions become uninhabitable for a billion or more people, and watch what happens to the migration of peoples. The world population is growing, and the expectations of billions of people to achieve a decent standard of living will be intense; so, we better stop navel-gazing behind our delusional walls and think bigger.
It is heartening that Democrats have so many voices in this election, but the one unifying voice even when not emphasized by some is an underlying belief that government can make things better for us all. How we will do this is our debate which must be allowed to happen as we expand the scope of our voice and message.
This is pluralism at its best and democrats need to encourage this as a model for the way government should work rather than the myopic nationalistic anti thinking and republican vision. Trump and Republicans have chosen one topic, immigration, to fill the emptiness of their vision for the nation. But the counter vision of democrats must be that of inclusion that will lead to a new birth of egalitarianism for our now benighted nation.
Complete nonsense. Trump has never referred to America as "whites" only. He has said that Americans should be put first. That's before the Europeans (which we have been clear in opposing on some issues), Asians, Australians (remember his conversation with the Prime Minister), Canadians, South America, Central America and Africa. You and the Dems have sought to divide us for decades based on our race. There is only one party that deals in racism and that is Democrats.
45
@Matthew Oh my goodness. You do remember the time he insisted Barack Obama show him his birth certificate? I’m afraid you are quite inaccurate.
71
@Matthew Central Americans are Americans, and they were here first. All the rest of us are recent immigrants, and the only party dealing in racism is the party whose leader calls refugees from poverty and violence "invaders" infiltrated by "terrorists". We have plenty of domestic terrorists about which to worry. They shoot up synagogues, churches, night clubs, yoga studios, schools, and they are empowered by right wing rhetoric and political policies.
167
@Matthew To use your phrase: complete nonsense. Everybody is for putting America first. The question is what does that? Trump's tariffs certainly don't. They are costing, and for as long as they last, will continue to cost the American economy billions of dollars in lost sales--sales which can never be recovered. That isn't putting America first, it's shooting yourself in the head.
29
Interesting, thoughtful and historically accurate (that the Democrats no longer have a nationalistic story to unite the country). Republicans have abdicated, as you pointed out, which begs the question will Republicans rally around a uniting national message if the Democrats presented one. It's certainly not trending that way either for the Democrats creating a uniting message or the Republicans doing a180 and being open to a United States. A lot of this eminates from Nixon's southern Strategy.
I do not understand the gleeful reaction much of the media and democrats have to the future white minority status in the US. It’s bizarre. This demonizing of whites and the obsession of the impending demographic change is causing a backlash and creating a tribal dynamic which Trump and the republicans are exploiting. I don’t think a majority minority status country is something that is stable. Case in point is Yugoslavia or even some EU countries to an extent. I’m sure I’ll get backlash for saying this, but I think the changing of the immigration laws in 1965 were not good for the country. The mass immigration from all over the globe of widely different cultures has diversified the country enormously. Add in the embrace or multiculturalism and you have a recipe for what we are seeing now. This tribal reaction and different interpretation of what it means to be patriotic and an American has torn the country apart. I don’t see it getting any better down the road unfortunately.
3
There is this great old(ish) movie called “The Dark Crystal.” In it, two warring factions- one, scheming and literally soul-killing but brilliantly strategic, and the other, kindly but hopelessly lost in academic theory and argument about how to deal with the threat from the others.
Turns out that they (spoilers!) were once a joined race that were physically split apart into darkness and light, yin and yang, etc. it seemed the darker side was stronger, but they were ruled by their impulsive gut reactions. The seemingly weaker, rational side was ultimately what prevailed, but only after they realized they could only be healed by rejoining each other.
I do not do the film justice- an early Jim Henson masterpiece- but you get the idea. We are a nation that is truly a mosaic, but like a mosaic we need the cement or grout to unite us as a nation, while allowing each individual to retain identity while contributing to the “big picture.”
I hope that we can realize that neither side can exist without the other- and that each is needed to moderate the negative impulses driven by fear, and to amplify the positive aspects not merely by hope but by common goal of becoming again one great nation.
We need to acknowledge there is a big rift- and agree to seek common ground. It will take hard work. But we need to elect representatives to do that, and not rely on only short term gain. And there will be sacrifice- which nobody likes. But we need to play the long game.
The Republicans under Trump are the party of lies and misinformation, not least about immigration. On that issue, Democrats could make a significant start by saying "let's get honest about immigration." ("Honesty about Immigration" isn't the catchiest slogan but it could bolster the Democrats' image as the "party of truth.") They should counter the fear-mongering by debunking the myths about immigration with regard to crime, job theft, and deadbeats. They should cite the numerous industries dependent on legal and/or illegal immigrants - agriculture, unskilled labor, beauty business, household help, etc. And they should point out the enormous and vital contributions skilled, legal immigrants make to healthcare, the tech industries, and so on - not to mention how many of their kids go on to higher education and productive careers. At the same time, Democrats should also cite their commitment to keeping undesirable immigrants away and develop realistic steps toward overhauling this mess of a process toward one that is tough but fair. It's time to get real about this overwrought issue that is fundamental to what America is all about.
4
Democrats support multiculturalism. Nationalism by definition is us v. them. You can't have nationalism without a "them." Nationalism requires that any "thems" that enter this country become part of "us." Trump appeals to those who don't like hearing foreign languages spoken in this country, or foreign religious or social customs practiced in this country. Multicultural nationalism is an oxymoron.
84
@Jay Orchard, This is not right. I grew up in an immigrant family. We maintained our heritage and still do. We got educated here. We worked here. We served n the military, enlisted and drafted. We were loyal to our nation which is the USA. Group identity and nationals identity are not mutually exclusive.
14
@Lawrence
Multiculturalism and patriotism are not mutually exclusive. The problem is with Trumpian nationalism.
19
@Jay Orchard An American quilt is not an oxymoron.
Country bumpkins do not understand liberalism.
4
Mr. Brooks, the fact that you can write that our common culture is defined by "a shared American dream — pioneers settling the West, immigrants crossing an ocean in search of opportunity, African-Americans rising from slavery toward equality" without mentioning Native Americans suggests why so many progressives feel that there is still a need for "identity politics."
5
I think the commenters objecting that Democrats have a ton of core beliefs, and a track record to prove it, are missing the point, and repeating the error Brooks points out. It’s not enough to be in the side of the right. We need a unifying, resounding narrative that we beat like drum, that sweeps all our beliefs and constituents up into one compelling idea. We Dems have been tone-deaf and allergic to that need since... oh... FDR? (Okay; maybe LBJ.)
Blaming Democrats for not having a consistent and simple vision misses the core problem: that our political & media & social media SYSTEMS no longer allow for reasonable and nuanced solutions to be discussed about the many complex problems that our nation - and the world - are facing. Outrage generally raises more money...gets more likes... turns out more voters (across the political spectrum).
We are told that leaders need simple stories that express our values, but real solutions require conflicting narratives to find some sort of tenuous compromise - which will likely need to be adjusted regularly as these solutions are whipped by the wild forces of politics, financial markets, nature, and all the rest.
Is there a way to tweak our political systems to allow for nuance and compromise? I don't know - but the best option I've heard of is Ranked Choice Voting (FairVote.org).
1
Regardless of differences that might exist on specific policies or strategies, ALL Democrats should embrace a common message as their common talking point. They should repeat this in almost every situation and proclaim it as strongly and as often as possible: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (& women) are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"!
Adroit mental gymnastics needed to follow the torturous logic of this essay. Don't agree with anything you say, and again, I could agree with everything you say. The juxtaposition of opposites equates to nil, which perhaps, is the point.
"Here’s the central challenge of our age: Over the next few decades, America will become a majority-minority country. It is hard to think of other major nations, down through history, that have managed such a transition and still held together." Mr. Brooks, you FINALLY understand the concept but you arrived at the wrong logical conclusion. WE are NOT holding together very well in 2018, what do you think will happen in 30, 60, or 90 years? You and I will not be around to see it, but the present political union will not hold together - especially when the essence of that union - respect for the Rule of Law - is flouted, dismissed, and cynically manipulated by a political party, led by an illiterate, dishonest, demagogue, in order to maintain its death grip on power using any means at its disposal. It was a good run but nothing last forever - not the the Pharaohs, the Romans, the Byzantines, the Ottomans, or the United States.
3
Brooks writes that "Trump ...effectively defines America as a white ethnic nation." The phrase "effectively defines" is the giveaway. Trump doesn't say this or anything like this, so Brooks has to interpret what Trump says as meaning in some secret way "white nationalism." Of course that's not true. Trump's proposal to change the immigration laws to a merit-based system from the current system would result in (a lot) more Asian immigrants, which is a bit hard to square with the claim that Trump only wants white immigrants. What is true is that Trump has found a weak spot in the Democratic coalition - immigration, where the Democrats are divided between open borders advocates and porous borders advocates - and he is pushing very hard on that issue because he knows they can't respond without either alienating the broader public or creating divisions among themselves.
2
I beg to differ with Mr. Brooks that we have not gone through this before. He may recall that in the 1880s through much of the early 1900s, we were a nation of WASPs. NInety percent of our major corporations were own and run by WASPs, mainly products of the Ivy League. Lest we forget, most of those august institutions were begun to education protestant ministers. Meanwhile, the immigration of the catholics began, much to the dismay of my WASP grandmother. She didn't understand their religion and they worked "too hard". The Irish who couldn't feed themselves, the Italians who couldn't govern themselves and the Poles who couldn't keep their country together, flocked to our shores and forever changed the WASP culture that was our "country". And, all for the better I would add. Now the so-called "Brown" people are coming and being equally vilified by our esteemed leader as something new. It's not new, it's just more of the same story.
1
"Here’s the central challenge of our age: Over the next few decades, America will become a majority-minority country. It is hard to think of other major nations, down through history, that have managed such a transition and still held together."
I'm wondering how we'll even handle the coming flood of 'climate change refugees' of our own coastal citizens. We haven't addressed climate chaos, exploding population, gun violence, declining resources, increasing inequality, declining air and water quality, or even perpetual storage, maintenance, monitoring, and security of toxic nuclear waste.
We took a bountiful land rich with resources and laid it all to waste. It's only going to get harder...
2
What unites Democrats, David Brooks, is concern for the welfare of people beyond our immediate tribe. We all know that perfectly well and deeply, and so do our leaders.
We believe in following international law on refugees, and giving them a chance to make their case. We believe that people who came here as young children and know no other life deserve to stay.
Apparently you've decided to rehabilitate the term "nationalism" and declared that it means something different from what we all know it means—so now you can use it to bash Democrats. Excuse us if we don't toe the line.
5
Sorry Mr. Brooks, but you falsely accuse Democrats of not having a vision to unite America.
First, you claim "Democrats have wound up in a place where they decry the policies that restrict undocumented immigration, but they don’t really have any other policies to replace them." But you contradict yourself pointing out "Barack Obama deported more unauthorized immigrants in his first two years in office than Trump has so far." You omit the Dreamers Act, legislation supported by Democrats, decried by Republicans. "You omit the fact that it was Republicans in Congress who stopped President Obama and Democrats from having a rational discourse and from formulating comprehensive, sensible immigration policy. In other words Democrats are not for open borders and have wanted to reach a bipartisan policy on immigration. Republicans have simply wanted to use immigration to frighten Americans.
And what do Democrats offer to unite America? A vision of equality and prosperity for ALL. Yes, it's an ideal, an ideal worth fighting for. No matter the color of your skin, no matter your religion, no matter your position at birth, Democrats want Americans to have the opportunity to live the American Dream. The American Dream transcends all the differences distinguishing Americans. It is far more uniting than the Republican white-skin power, gun-loving Christians-only vision of America.
The GOP you loved Mr. Brooks died decades ago; stop your mourning. Democrats are America's last hope.
4
Mr. Brooks asks: "Do Democrats know what unites us?" The question is better posed to Republicans, who have embraced the divisive philosophy of Trumpism.
2
The central challenge for America in our age, going into 2020 election, meaning viable Democratic alternative to Republican White Nationalism?
America today is a freak show, unable apparently to get above racial, ethnic, religious, sex/gender identity, etc. differences yet is a nation subjected to ruthless standardization where and when it can be implemented, which means typically corporate business control and people united as much as possible under product consumption, whether this means housing or entertainment or food or automobile.
Both the right and left are hypocritical when it comes to racial, ethnic, religious, etc. matters. If it's not White Nationalism we have a left wing trying to get as many minorities on its side to overcome White Nationalism but these "United Parties of the Left" have each no intention of transcending their racial, ethnic, religious, etc. categories, and for this I cite the evidence of Obama although being biracial perfectly comfortable with being called black.
Probably the dilemma of America is mirror for the world, all racial, ethnic, religious, etc. groups gradually contained like Native Americans on reservations, gradually broken down in various forms of standardization of product, until gradually all people are produced under similar ideology and interbreed in production of a new people in a standardized cultural and political/economic world. How education in all this deals with development of profound individuality is a good question.
1
Out in the wilderness because _his_ party has revealed its true colors---that to be American is white and only white, David Brooks has to argue there is no coherent, alternative vision. This isn't because the Democrats don't have such a vision but because Brooks can't admit his role, like that of all other Republicans, in creating the pathology of Trump and his party.
1
We need responsible immigration reform. But why do you continue to use the term undocumented immigrants? The correct term is illegal immigrant. The right word to use is illegal simply because they're illegally in the USA. I know progressives want to stop others from using the term illegal immigrant, often invoking the idea that no human being is illegal, but that's nonsense. The term is accurate. It's not a semantic discussion. I think, when the left hears illegal, they decided, well, let's just change the word & we'll be done with it. Is there something about illegal immigrant per se that is so dehumanizing that it can't be used in polite discourse for people who are trying to have an honest conversation & aren't trying to spin it?
We need to speak clearly so we define what's at stake. Undocumented seems to imply that some people forgot to fill out the correct paper work when crossing the border. That's not what happened. They entered the U.S. knowing they were breaking the law. They're here in the U.S illegally. That's why it's an issue. Can the left admit that the large number of illegal immigrants in the US, many of whom are relatively unskilled, gives rise to economic competition that harms job & wage prospects for voters who live here? Can they admit that one can have concerns about illegal immigration without being racist? That there may be a rational reason for being wary of a lax approach to this problem? If these questions aren't answered we can't solve this issue.
1
Trump's nationalism does not rely on xenophobia alone. It also relies on fear of women, African Americans, gays, trans and sex itself, it fears secularism, modernism, and science, and it fears non Christian's, particularly muslims, peace, taxes, poor people,big government, foriegn economies, and the rising challenges to American exceptionalism. So much fear swamps the Democrats ability to message an alternative. But the message is there. They are for getting rid of the fears, finding rational cures for our ills and creating a more perfect union.
We are all descendants of immigrants in our "Melting Pot" nation. For as long as we have been America, immigration and prejudice has been here. They were however, simmering below the surface and hardly a national crisis.
Then along came Trump of German ancestry. Trump has sparked the rising tide of hatred you call "Nationalism". Prejudice was always shrouded in the facade of "Nationalism".
The latest iteration of immigration is the Central American wave of immigrants, probably too uninformed to even know what awaits them here.
Trump has been globally portrayed as a very wealthy American who has persistently conveyed how "Great Again" our nation will be. That's why those immigrants are heading here.
Trump has no one else to blame for the caravans of immigrants he inspired to come here, but he will never admit it. He will divert from his own responsibility and inflict suffering on immigrants coming here.
Trump is no nationalist. He's a bigot, and a very dangerous one just like other nightmares of history. Stop making excuses for him. Thank you.
1
Political narratives have to be simple and pointed, and Trump has made so many issues that could hypothetically get bipartisan support utterly toxic, with immigration being chief among them. So Dems trying to hold the polar opposite stance of Trump doesn’t mean they have no ideas and want completely open borders - it means they’re striving for contrast with Trump.
Wow this article just about perfectly describes my views on how the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot with immigration.
Framing immigration as a racial and moral issue was a huge mistake. I am not going to allow anyone to enter this nation because of white guilt. As an independent, it's also obvious that the end of this argument is open borders.
What's worse though is the constant bashing of our country and our system. I cant remember the last time one of my liberal friends has said anything good about America. I may think things are not great right now, but I still am so proud to be an American and I'm grateful for the life I get to live.
1
Our Founding Fathers had a very low opinion of the capacity of average Americans to effectively govern themselves and did everything they could to keep real political power in the hands of aristocrats, men of intellect, religious skeptics and property owners like themselves. When the country elected Trump, it effectively proved the Founding Fathers thesis that the American people cannot be trusted to do the right thing except when under the strict guidance of wise leaders. The need, as always, is for more of them.
1
I have heard speeches at recent campaign rallies for Democratic candidates reinforcing the American ideas and values Mr. Brooks apparently deems as “Crickets”. It is acceptance of these pluralistic ideas, as Mr. Brooks points out, that have made us one nation, and it is rejection of these ideas that embody President Trump’s racist/ethnic blood and soil, anti-democratic nationalism over which two World Wars were fought.
I have voted Democratic because of the party’s broad, inclusive, responsive thinking and legislation that reflected practicing the democratic ideas upon which this country was created and that awakened a conscience in America to social responsibility of the government to those governed. Democrats did the right thing. Republicans are redefin8ng right and wrong to justify wrong.
I have never once heard a Democratic leader speak of open US borders. Why do some, Mr. Brooks, only hear what they want to hear? In this context, I seem to recall recent (203 or 2014) bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform from a Democratic Senate majority ignored in a GOP-led House. I know, I know. It is all Democrats’ fault Republicans have become so obstructive, so extremist, so racist, so hateful, so forgetful of American ideas that Democrats must provide solutions. Seems to me some cannot penetrate the surface of their justifications and excuses of doing this country a disservice.
1
anyone who believes that the republicans "have decided to pretend it's not happening" must have his or her head in the sand: half of the Republican strategy is predicated on reminding their increasingly aged, white, paranoid base that they are being replaced. The politicians who fashioned cages for children and ads around a "caravan" are very aware of the changes.
Where Brooks is right is that it is an economic issue, and issue that will only increase in its urgency as the planet warms and equatorial regions become uninhabitable. Trump and his party's buffoonish exercises in paranoia are only a practice round for the way our country is preparing for climate change: the military is the only branch currently acknowledging its existence, and will be the branch sent to deal with its victims.
Our economic and political behavior effects the whole global, and outside some kind of climate or colonial reparations, these people knocking on our doors deserve some of what is ours.
Nice touch, "unwittingly":
"Anything that is pro-immigrant is seen as enlightened, and anything that restricts immigration is regarded as morally suspect. This framing unwittingly cuts the legs out from any position that falls short of open borders."
The overweening point Brooks neglects is there is 3:1 support for stronger borders, with a near majority (depending on which poll) favoring a wall.
Yet media elites like Brooks regularly write of the issue as if truly restrictive policies against illegal immigration -- i.e., shutting down the ability of 300,000 - 400,000 people to enter the country illegally each year -- betokens a deranged or hateful mind.
Never is it seriously countenanced that 300,000 new arrivals a year makes a mockery of the rule of law and of sovereignty itself, undermining bourgeois middle class society by having certain elites decide which groups shall break which laws -- all whilst the selfsame elites demand fantastic compliance with the smallest jot of law in other areas (say environmental regulation).
The whole enterprise of endlessly tolerating all this chaos ultimately subverts democracy. It is not even clear, in purely humanitarian terms, that encouraging millions more to make a thousand-mile dangerous journey on foot is wise or reasonable.
Yet we now have a media class that can only parse this issue in terms of race, as with Europe, as if the very quotidian business of national borders is now outré.
2
Here's a scary thought. Imagine millions of white, mostly male Americans who have come to believe that money and power is their right by virtue of the whiteness. And that money and power has been bleeding away. This country owes its wealth and power to vast uncontested resources, being on the winning side in two World Wars, AND having an influx of hard working diversely talented people, bound together by words, not skin color. Magnificent uplifting unifying words.
Here's the catch: how many Americans have ever read the Declaration, The Constitution, the Gettysburg Address - not just read but understood how it happened, who did it, at what risky cost? If this sounds pedantic and lacking empathy, I get it. But is the point true?
1. David presents an excellent explanation why Democrats think it would be foolish to talk about immigration at election time. So excellent that it makes perfectly good sense not to do so, even if shaping an effective, and true, unifying narrative. I don't see the blame here.
2. "Anything that is pro-immigrant is seen as enlightened, and anything that restricts immigration is regarded as morally suspect." Oh David, please. Name three Democrats who are guilty of holding this preposterous position. Name one. How is this distinct from the lying Trumpian rally cry that "Democrats want open borders"?
1
If Dems were to craft a bill that included every "ask" the extreme right-wing republicans, miller, bannon, hate radio and fox claim is needed in order to "save" America, I'll bet good money such bill would never see the floor of any republican controlled house and/or one of trump's self-glorifying televised signing ceremonies.
Fomenting physical and psychological turmoil over immigration is the only issue the Right has to really get their team pumped and to the polls. It's a game, a political game for them whether their base knows/admits it or not.
Oh come on, David— stop assuming “whites” are a monolith. Like most residents of the coasts, I have friends of many ethnicities, several religions, and every race. My own extended family includes West Indian and Hispanic individuals, Christians and Jews. I cringe every time I hear how my obvious demographic— White woman— voted for Trump. I know very few Trump voters.
Accordingly, I don’t blame every individual in a red state for being a Trump voter. However, it’s lost on no one that the GOP today has most support in the former Confederacy and in largely rural states. If one has few or no acquaintances who are from other ethnic groups or faiths, one is more likely to be mistrustful.
A happy exception is Utah, because of Mormon familiarity with the horrible persecution of their faith in its early years. But a lot of other white Christians seem to believe that they are the original Americans and even that Biblical promised land passages refer to North America. This would be news to everyone mentioned in the Bible, all of whom lived in the ancient Middle East.
So I don’t buy your “Democrats don’t have a message “ idea. We do— it just isn’t a neat sound bite, especially not for those who don’t know or want to know more about all their fellow Americans, instead of just the immediate neighbors.
But it’s a lot more interesting and tolerant. Freedom is not zero sum.
“Immigration” has become a flag, not something really thought about. When the GOP propaganda machine is shut down, sanity can return and thought return. Until then health care, inequality, education, opportunity are more tangible problems needing solution that at least the 60% as yet not blinded by bigotry can work to solve.
It takes Brooks to turn the horrible behavior of Trump and the GOP into a criticism of Democrats. The Democrats DO have a national story; it's just that Brooks isn't listening and isn't receptive. It is pluralism, tolerance, education, social support and opportunity for all. Is that so empty?
3
David Brooks' heart is in the right place, but he is no thinking. Democrats are not going to convince anyone new with a nicer form of nationalism. Those that agree with the current Republican white nationalist agenda are not going to change their mind and believe we should all live together. The large majority of Americans already disagree with the white nationalist, so running on a platform that provides a nicer nationalism is a waste of time.
Democrats need to be about the People's business which Congress has been mostly ignoring for decades.
Brooks falls into the same fallacy as every other pundit and media outlet. A nation divided. Two warring camps. A generational realignment. All these and more ignore that there is at least a third camp-people who don't believe in either the Republican or Democratic party and end up not voting, voting for fringe parties, or hold their nose and vote for the least bad stink.
Similar thinking talks about how everyone who voted for Trump is a "Trump-supporter," ignoring that many of those voters were more AGAINST the democratic agenda and candidates than they were FOR Trump.
Polls consistently show that while Trump is blamed for pushing division, the media is blamed even more for its incessant pushing the story of America in two camps-a much easier story and surer ratings than reporting the complexity of middle America.
Mr. Brooks's column wastes too much column space. Here are three facts that explain the Democratic challenge:
1) Trump uses hate and scapegoating to unite his base.
2) Appealing to humans' lower demons is simpler and therefore (sadly but truly) more effective than appealing to our higher angels.
3) Democrats don't always agree on best solutions, because finding best solutions is not a simple task.
3
While David Brooks focuses on so nebulous a topic as national vision, and reaches his own questionable conclusion that the Democrats’ have failed to present a national vision, it seems to me that he’s placing the cart before the horse. He’s correct in implying that Trump has been quite effective in selling his ugly brand of nationalism to one segment of the American public. But Mr. Brooks pointedly ignores the overriding fact that 2016 saw more Democrat votes cast than Republican votes, which can be reasonably interpreted as a repudiation of Trump-style nationalism. And as Brooks’ colleague Paul Krugman points out in his column today, it’s a near certainty that nationally, Democrat votes will again outnumber Republican votes on this election day. The question isn’t one of vision or lack of vision. It’s the gerrymandered voting map.
1
Immigration IS a racial justice issue, David. You may not be able to see that because you don't know what racial justice would consist of. But that's fine; you just keep on seeing the moral imperative in Trump's pitch (which I can't see at all) and we'll keep seeing it in ours. Reconciliation of these views is impossible, so let's just see how tomorrow shakes out.
Mr. Brooks, I think you are helping perpetuate a falsehood by writing that "Calls for law and order on the border are taken as code for racism". Most reasonable people, liberal or conservative, agree that law and order, on the border and everywhere, help protect the rights of American workers and immigrants alike. Calls to set reasonable limits on immigration are welcome and constructive. Comments stating the utterly wrong equivalence between immigration and crime are racist indeed.
3
We as a nation will get our answer tomorrow. No "positive uplifting nationalism" is needed when people put on their thinking caps.
Unity has no appeal to those who support Mr Trump.
White power is the only message they want to hear and he is serving them that very red, white and blue dish.