I remember sitting in a police station in Madrid to report a theft with a brand new US Passport issued to me on the day of the theft, when my original passport was stolen along with other stuff, and the police (Guardia Civil, Franco's fascist pigs) were looking at each other commenting suspiciously on the brand new passport as they reluctantly took my statement.
Americans don't know how lucky they are and I'm sick and tired of Republicans running down our government employees who, by the way, are far fewer in number as Obama slimmed down the bureaucracy during his 8 years in office.
It is truly sad to see Red State America opting for Dollar Don's Fascist America. I don't think they understand what is in store for them. They will have to learn the hard way what so many nations had to learn for themselves back in the day when USA stood steadfastly with FDR and his allies Great Britain, France, Poland, Serbia, Greece, Belgium against the Fascist forces in Europe.
31
Best piece by Mr Brooks in a looooooong time.
12
Mr. Brooks once again plays footsie with the issue and truth at hand. The revelations brought forth in these impeachment hearings are devastating, not some High School debate match. He sites the courage and conviction of our diplomats. Very true! But how about the courage and conviction of the Democrats indicting, what is an attack on our democracy by an ignorant, racist, avaricious President and his Republican cohorts? Instead he takes a swipe at the left once again.
You and ALL Americans should be outraged by this malfeasance and corruption which has seized our government by the throat and is on the verge of choking it to death. Instead you write this pablum of how all our representatives fall short of the courageous diplomats. Mr. Brooks and his ilk should be demonstrating more courage themselves by standing up to this totalitarian menace and his marauding crew of sycophants. We are way beyond politics now and it seems you have not grasped the enormity of the moment. Your “umpiring” serves to give solace to those many Americans still on the fence who can now write this off as politics as usual. It also puts a bit of steel in the backbones of Senate Republicans who can point fingers at the political theater they claim is taking place. Now is the time for YOU to display the courage you erroneously claim is lacking in our Democratic representatives. If a mirror is handy, perhaps you take measure of the image before you.
23
Brooks finally gets it. The swamp caller have their feet wet.
2
This is cute! Really cute. A Reagan conservative asking us to trust people in the government.
Did I read that right, about “these good people?”
You guys have parroted their brain dead maxim of government being bad for decades. Don’t act surprised to see the slow moving car wreck of libertarianism and conservatism blow up on your faces.
20
David Brooks again makes the mistake that we often see in journalism today: both sides of this issue have bad actors (or should we say “there are good people on both sides”?). No, Mr. Brooks, the people working today in Government AND the people mobilizing for gun control, women’s rights, immigrant’s rights and other social issues are good, decent people worthy of our respect and admiration. I’m so tired of NYT journalists bending over backwards to find fault with “both sides.” The NYT and other media outlets brought us Donald Trump as President by their constant harping on Secretary Clinton’s emails — all in the name of fairness. Dare I say “Get over it”?
18
It is so very painful and hard to admit a mistake. David Brooks will defend his position till he dies. he will never admit he was wrong about his beloved Republican party
14
Mr Brooks, now write the column calling out those profiles in cowardice, the craven Republican Senators and their fellow lick-spittle Republican members of Congress. Call them out by name-- McConnell, Graham, Cornyn, Thune, Kennedy; McCarthy, Jordan, Meadows, Ratcliffe and all their fellow enablers of the Demagogue in Chief
24
I notice that this essay is the polar opposite of an essay published on 19 July 2010 in the New York Times titled "The Technocracy Boom":
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/opinion/20brooks.html
Who is the author of that essay?
David Brooks.
5
One of your finest columns, Mr. Brooks.
4
Mr. Brooks writes that ,”I had a feeling of going back in time.” Why? What time? You were in the present Mr. Brooks.
2
What is so sad about this piece is that it even had to be written.
6
Decades of Republican propaganda aimed at destroying national institutions have paid off, huh Brooks?
13
wow, great!
Yet you oppose impeachment...
5
I have written any number of comments today to the NYT about Diogenes the Cynic. He was purportedly the greatest comedian of his time but he was unswerving in his devotion to truth.
Some say Diogenes was not born in Turkey but in the Crimea. Zelensky is not a comedian he is a writer, lawyer, director, producer public intellectual and truth teller. I can think of no greater crime than calling him a comedian.
Its been more than a century since my great grandparents fled Ukraine, I often wonder what they would think if they saw Ukraine's Prime Minister and President. Today I wonder what my father would say if he saw a Jewish Nazi working in the White House writing laws and encouraging hatred. I know what my father would say;he would say; Reagan.
I am a wholehearted supporter of the government workers here in Canada they are the best but words like I was just following orders remind me of Quebec's motto of je me souviens and far too few of us really remember and far too many of us remember what we are told to remember.
7
Thank you so much.
1
My mother was a career civil servant: first Small Business Assistance disaster relief, then IRS auditor, finally Air Force auditor. I knew in high school that I could make her go ballistic with one phrase: "Close enough for government work."
You want to put a flag pin on your lapel and "Support our troops"? One of my mother's audits helped ensure they had the right chemical protection suits--going into the first Gulf War.
Another audit found that a teeny tiny little part on some airplanes weren't being maintained in a timely fashion. Big deal, it's not like the part was used that often--it was only the explosive bolts for fighter jet ejection seats.
She WAS from the government and she WAS there to help and [expletive deleted] to you, Ronald Reagan.
14
Well said. Thanks. 🇨🇦
3
Where was this opinion piece when rump was running for office?
Where are these sentiments during Mr. Brooks' incessant whinging about 'the elite'?
7
Great column.
1
But David, how does this square with your dislike of the meritocracy that I've heard you express in other pieces?
6
David weren’t you a New Yorker before you became a beltway insider pundit? Trumps total disregard for rules regulations policies tedious processes stem from his New York style of running a real estate business, we are being told.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/15/trump-style-quid-pro-quo-impeachment-071052
1
Bravo, Mr. Brooks.
2
David, I still read everything you write - and look forward to your PBS weekly summaries- and I’m happy to see you give attention to our dedicated, hardworking and honest governmental core. They are the antithesis of the wretched trumpian forces that have violated the security of our nation.
One could almost substitute “
Hitlerian” for “trumpian”.
Many of us saw this clearly in the lead up to the 2016 election. I only ask how and why you did not make the brave step to call out exactly the kind of Nazi like wave cane along with trump then. William Shrier warmed about this returning - long after he witnessed such parallel behavior in 1930’s Berlin. Surely you’ve read Berlin Diaries and The Rise and Fall of the third Reich? I expected more from you based on your strong moral core. But despite this I remain optimistic that you’ll call out what we have in the Oval Office for what it is. Bad, on both sides. ( And even the Fuhrer built more infrastructure than the Don.)
Put the country above the fake conservative remains of nearly every corner of the curry or GOP. ( And believe me, it’s obvious there’s plenty of corruption on the Democratic side, too.)
3
Lions led by an especially doltish donkey.
And damnation to all enablers of the Republic Party project of untrammeled white nationalism that is so important to the core of this party (with the possible exception of denying women their full rights as human beings) that they are willing to cheat, bribe, steal, and of course lie with abandon to preserve with odious Trump regime in power. Thanks conservatives, intellectual or not. You guys created this Frankenstein that we all now have to lasso and keep from imposing modern fascism in 21st century USA. Thanks a lot.
4
But these good men and women don't fit into the image du jour - first established one could argue by the Rambo movies, when the rebel, done wrong by the establishment, grabs the biggest gun he can find, and Godzilla-like, proceeds to blow the place up, indiscriminately killing many innocents along the way, and caring less about any one but himself.
So the meme is immortalised - the muscleman, looking for all the world like a condom full of walnuts (pace Clive James), thick as the 10 bricks he can shatter with one blow (big deal), semi-automatics hanging off every available bicep, blasting his way as a one-man purveyor of justice. We're still getting them foisted on us in movies from Hollywood (no where else on earth still produces them); now the protagonists are called Rock or something - Rock?? please....
Give me the Ambassadors Taylor, Yovanovich and Mr Kents anytime. The Godzillas are soooo last century.
1
But David all those Republicans you have supported all these years have broken the Federal system..
Your Republican Yokels think that these fine Government workers are part of the Comet Pizza conspiracy..
David call out these Cra Cra Crazy Republicans every day to their faces..
5
Yep!
1
Trump: a village idiot lacking a moral/ethical compass.
(I believe most village idiots are actually moral and ethical).
Allow me to turn back one of trump's comments he used on McCain: " I like people who weren't caught"
Thank god Taylor, Kent, Yovanovitch, Hill, Vindman, !!!
4
The Trump administration is getting rid of these public servants as fast as he can so he can bring in more corrupt cronies. If this guy serves another term, the U.S. will look just like Russia with all it's corruption and rule by Oligarchs. And it appears this current Republican party will be just fine with that. What happened to them. How did money and power become more important than the Constitution, Rule of Law and the good of the country.
5
The dedicated and conscientious public servants on display this week are a wakeup call as to how far, as a country, we have accepted and normalized aberrant behavior, and have come to tolerate the gang of criminals in the white house and congress. I'm really not sure the purpose either serve at this point, other than self dealing, schmoozing and getting good seats to sporting events and concerts. I would gladly hand the whole shebang over to moral bureaucrats rather than the bunch of elected bloviators we see every day.
4
Thanks for checking our cynicism. I pray that the Good will not be driven out of positions of authority.
2
Thank you, David Brooks. This is the best column I've seen in the past month.
1
Yes William Taylor and George Kent ate outstanding public servants.
George Kent, a State Department expert on Ukraine told lawmakers at the Wednesday impeachment hearing that he raised concerns about Hunter Biden’s job with a Ukrainian natural gas firm in 2015 — but the Obama/Biden administration blew him off.
Some issues Democrats would sweep under the proverbial rug but Trump promised to lift the rug and that’s one of the reasons people elected him and of course self righteousness Democrats are flipping out and want him removed at all cost.
1
What it totally messed up in this David Brooks opinion piece is that David Brooks does not say "shame on the Republicans for attacking these civil servants."
Instead, Brooks uses the right wing talking point "insiders" -- but pretends that by using it he can thus excuse the attacks that his own beloved party is making on them.
As usual, Brooks really wants to report that when the Republican party he has embraced and whose corruption he so frequently pretends is totally fine calls these civil servants "insiders" to smear them, Brooks says it is okay because they really are insiders.
How about just writing a column condemning the corruption and lies of the entire Republican Congress, Mr. Brooks?
It's shocking that Brooks will do everything but call out their corruption and would prefer to enable it than criticize it. This is how the fascists took power, with enablers like David Brooks who keep figuring a way to legitimize attacks like "insider" rather than actually call out the lies for what they are.
9
Brooks says, "Trumpian conservatives say that Washington insiders are unelected bureaucrats, denizens of the swamp, the cesspool or a snake pit. Some progressives call Washington insiders the establishment, the power elite, the privileged structures of the status quo." Another example of his constant "bothsiderism". It's clear which party is tearing down and politically harassing career federal employees. Why can't Brooks just say it?!
8
Yes. Best Brooks column ever (and I'm generally not a big fan).
Great column, Mr. Brooks. One of your finest.
Thank you.
2
Thank you for lucid insight.
2
Only in the United States could the word “elite” be pejorative.
3
I agree with all you said David Brooks. 100%.
2
How many Fake Presidents a/k/a Trumps would you gladly exchange for 1 William Taylor or 1 George Kent? One million, five million, ten,...?
4
For years it has impressed me how David Brooks is the Times best Rorschach blot, as (frequently highly Recommended) commenters read into his column stuff that simply isn't there.
2
Wow, David, you are forgiven for that corker a couple weeks ago.
This is overdue thinking.
Who is this "we" you are referring to? It's your party, the GOP, which is anti-science, anti-education, anti-experience, anti-expert.
It's the GOP which puts incompetent boobs in good-paying, taxpayer-funded jobs at every level of government for the sole purpose of destroying government. This allows the billionaires and corporations who own the politicians to extract resources from our environment and taxpayers without regulatory oversight.
Focus your "we" on those who are to blame - your party, the GOP.
7
David Byrne had similar thoughts in this Talking Heads song, one the lyrics of which is "some civil servants are just like my loved ones - they work so hard and they try to be strong":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-e3waxCNNs
1
Well Mr. Brooks, it's your beloved republican party's members in Congress and right wing media that are disparaging those wonderful public servants. For shame!
5
Well said. Always enjoy David Brooks articles - but there's no option to get mobile alerts when his articles are published.
Taylor and Kent make Jordan and Nunes look like a bumbling Borat, trying to promote Moscow's version of events without a hope of success.
4
Nonsense.
Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning came forward to bipartisan political condemnation.
Taking personal and professional risks that these effete elite foppish privileged and powerful people in the State Department haven't taken.
Had the secretive legally protected whistleblower not come forward what would we know and when would we know it? If at all?
2
I'm a leftie and this is the first David Brooks column with which I absolutely agree. Every word.
1
Mr. Brooks,
You built a career on trashing the Federal Government.
The American people do not need your Johnny-come-lately endorsement of these Civil Servants.
You are part of the reactionary establishment that spawned Donald Trump. If you are going to write columns recanting your previous positions, please have the grace to start by apologizing for your previous grievous errors that have helped bring us here.
Dan Kravitz
8
If Brooks were genuinely and honestly interested in delving into this subject, he’d have to admit that the Republican Party, which he has long been a shill for, has held as a central tenet, the denigration of the people whose goodness and decency Brooks whispers to us about in this weak column. Anyone remember Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. If I cared, I’d comb through old Brooks columns and trot out his stance on the matter. But I don’t care to waste the time.
6
I know of no progressive who calls "insiders" the elite. We call elected officials, like Hillary, or Biden the elite because they deserve that tag. They want to be on that pedestal, that's fine, now deal with our negativity towards your glad handing of corporate interests or any hint of snobbery/elitism. We may indeed vote for you, our Democrat elitists, but make no mistake, any deviation from our idea of public service, we will let you know of it.
Now conservatives and Trump?....whoa....whole different story. Beyond elitism.
Con-Men & Con-Women.
1
Foreign Service career diplomats are not “Washington insiders”, with the exception of people like Henry Kissinger who grew rich selling access, or lobbyists such as:
Ashcroft, John (R), Brown, Scott (R), Cleland, Max (D), Coburn, Tom (R), Cohen, William S (R), Corzine, Jon S (D), Craig, Larry (R), D'Amato, Alfonse M (R), Daschle, Tom (D), DeMint, Jim (R), Dodd, Christopher (D), Gramm, Phil (R), Gregg, Judd (R), Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R), Kerrey, Bob (D), Landrieu, Mary (D), Levin, Carl (D), Lieberman, Joe (I), Mitchell, George J (D), Santorum, Rick (R), Simpson, Alan K (R),
2
Every now and again, Ross is 100% correct
Quoting Mr Levin is confusing. Brooks uses the quote to show how trump is a perpetual outsider not formed by institutions. That is not true. What is true is that trump is a delusional maniac applying his dementia to conning people while bigots celebrate his genius.
2
These same "institutions" gave us James Comey and Bob Mueller; respectively the sower and snowball roller without whom Kent and Taylor are still unknown
I'm waiting to hear from other very good people, such as Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, as well as the ones IG Horowitz is investigating. Surely they deserve the same descriptions you gave to the four you named.
I don't disagree with your high opinion of Taylor, Kent, Yovanovitch and Hill. I just think you cannot expect me to believe that all federal employees deserve such praise.
Please someone bring back the “deep state.”
This is vintage Brooks at his best. Bravo
Kent and Taylor are such an inspiration...they are solid, serious, knowledgeable about their fields and empathetic. I fell in love with them! Such a contrast to our president who knows nothing, can learn nothing, makes no bones about being an idiot, and appoints incompetent people.
2
Every time a MAGA nut derides the so-called “Deep State” they are insulting everyday Americans—our friends, brothers, and sisters—who go to work everyday whether it is a Republican or Democratic administration leading the government. The term “Deep State” is an insult to us all.
3
OK, I once again confused by Brooks....
Aren't Washington insiders the kind of "out of touch elitists" that Brooks has been disparaging over the past months?
Aren't "public servants" the kind of people who Conservatives disparage as not doing any kind of "real" work because they don't "make anything"?
Aren't they just "bureaucrats" that everyone loves to hate?
Didn't St. Reagan tell us that "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help"?
Mr. Brooks, I think that it's you who are confused, not me. Why did you have "a feeling of going back in time?" People like this never disappeared; they've been doing their work all along. They've never been "self-centered," and they've always dedicated their work totheir "organizations" (which is de facto the country itself).
However, you were too drunk on the Conservative Kool-Aid to acknowledge their work, and too busy disparaging them to appreciate how they've quietly kept our country running all along.
I've said this many times over the past few years, since you've had your midlife crisis/epiphany: I'm glad that you're finally opening your eyes to see beyond your old bubble, and acknowledge what we Lefties hav been trying to tell you all along. But please stop pretending like you've suddenly uncovered new truths yourself! Rather, you've simply uncovered your eyes and took your fingers out of your ears.
5
Guess who's been actively trying to defund, defame and disparage good government for 39 years, Mr Brooks ?
Your faithful Republican Party has been undermining government competence and decency since the first Republican reality President Ronnie Reagan preached that "government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem" nonsense on January 20 1981 and the GOP has been falling all over those words for 38 years.
Actually, lack of good government is the problem, like when the EPA is staffed by polluters, the SEC is staffed by swindlers, the Supreme Court is staffed by oligarchs, and the Cabinet and Presidency is staffed by crooks, creeps, cretins and cravens intent on destroying good government.
It's great to see earnest government employees doing honest government work and serving the American people.
Too bad that America's radical right wing has brainwashed 40% of Americans to think that taxes and government are evil.
The only thing protecting most Americans from socioeconomic and criminal disaster is government.
Why is the radical right so opposed to government ?
Why are Ronald Reagan's destructive words and legacy so glorified when they should be held in disgrace for wreaking absolute havoc on this country ?
Here's another patriotic idea that's just as impressive as the public service of these brave diplomats doing their humble jobs: American citizens paying their fair share of a progressive tax code.
Grand Old Phonies 1980 - 2019
Nice GOPeople
5
FSOs are "insiders" like a Peeping Tom is a member of the family. Heck -- they're not even invited to dip a toe in the "swamp."
A modern state requires a professional disinterested bureaucracy. But it must be accountable to the citizens -- cf. Japanese military pre-WWII which wasn't. With us accountability comes through the budget (Congress) and policy directives (President). The "swamp" subverts both.
The "insiders" the populists are talking about is composed of the agents of "rent-seekers" -- their lobbyists and "revolving door" appointees. Those are the real insiders.
N.B. No one worries about what a striped pants Cookie Pusher from Harvard might be up to.
Mr. Brooks, you tend to find something positive and then overdo it.
"We don’t celebrate these people."
We don't celebrate most people who do their jobs and yes most people do even in Washington.
However, for perspective, I suggest you watch (again hopefully) the series Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister. True UK, but applicable here.
Everything is relative. A righteous man in Sodom is still in Sodom.
1
What seems to be dividing us is where we place the blame for the weakening of our institutions.
Brooks often places it on all those liberal baby boomers preaching free love -- the hippies who rejected institutions and lived by the creed that if it feels good, do it, and hang the consequences.
Others place the blame on Reaganites who felt regulation stifled the individuals in whom the strength of out country resides and who claimed government was the problem. Institutions that created a subclass of the weak who sucked the strong dry had to be weakened.
Compounding the problem of division is out tendency to frame morality in terms of social liberalism versus social conservatism. We pit what we call the liberal Hollywood elite who claim moral superiority because they can afford to support the latest causes (while carrying on immorally themselves) against the social conservatives who, say, claim the LGBT community is debauched (while hiding their own personal debauchery behind closed doors).
What we need to do is forget about blaming others and start looking at morality as following the path that recognizes a common good. We need to defend and improve the government we have in common and start to see that closing our minds and simply pitting ourselves against each other is what really destroys institutions. Morality like that exhibited by Taylor and Kent can be more common if we create a society that in fundamentally moral. Good government is the answer, not the problem.
3
Many joke about "Close enough for government work," or "I'm. from the government and I am here to help you." Our diplomats testifying are an example of government at its finest.
Think of what happens without effective or rolled back regulations: the 737-MAX MCAS system. Close enough was 8600 flights a week, for well over a year, with two failures. Is 99.9996% perfect close enough for you?
What happens when the current administration is trying to help you was embodied in the AHCA, remember that (think John McCain's vote)?
I'll take a real government, with all its flaws, over arrogance, stupidity, incompetence and evil any day. I may complain, but at least I will fly safer and be able to get medical care.
5
This column is typical of the phony both-side-ism that mars even the best of Brooks' columns. Sure, "progressives" who are vigorously promoting Medicare-for-All believe that government is invariably "corrupt. No one is to be trusted." It was Brooks' beloved Reagan who launched the Republican attack on government, including the professionalism of the civil service, that continues to this day. This attack comes from a deep place: that markets are superior in the selection of ends and the delivery of services than government. Thus generating cynicism about government institutions is a core part of the Republican playbook. Yuval Levin's book looks to be yet another effort by political conservatives to avoid looking in the mirror in explaining the rise of Trump and the cynicism they may deplore.
3
Yes Mr Brooks, political campaigns have been waging war against government since Ronald Reagan. Carter may have run as an outsider, as the governor of Georgia he in many ways he was, but Reagan sharpened the spear by claiming government itself was the enemy.
Having spent 30+ years working in a hospital I am acutely aware that there is no joy in "I told you so" but I have to admit I get a slight bit of joy reading you and George Will these days. But I won't hold my breath waiting for either one of you to offer a mea culpa for your long-time defense of political activity set forth only to erode trust in our democratic institutions.
9
I am filled with pride that these are the professionals of the US State Department the world sees. They are indeed the best of us.
6
Many of these patriots are paid quite well. ... And, their deferred compensation (i.e., retirement benefits) is not too shabby, either.
3
@Old patriot than we should be thankful we have a system that affords a pay level that does not turn to corruption. you get what you pay for from a professional class who sink their time and lives into the careers...
5
I disagree
The people who that set an example are Jim Mattis, former US defense secretary.
If you fail , resign, THAN talk to the press
And Ms. Haley, former US representative to the United Nations
Resign
Do something else. There are plenty of options.
1
Couldn't agree more.
Anyone who thinks these folks are in it for the money are wrong. All of them could easily make well more in the private sector than the $150K-$175K salaries they likely receive in their public jobs.
4
I worked for OSHA for almost 30 years, at first in a clerical position and later in a professional position. I was stationed in at least 5 different offices, so I became friendly with many of my fellow workers. During training courses, I met fellow workers from across the country. I strongly assert that the great majority of workers, both clerical and professional, were devoted to doing the best they could in their jobs. Yes, there were a few slackers and incompetents, but there were very much the minority. Mid-level management tended to be effective in removing those who could not be mentored into productive employees.
We know about the volume of falsehoods currently spewed forth by social media and irresponsible news media outlets. Perhaps President Reagan's comments about the federal worker began the cycle.
4
I agree 95%, David. Most Federal employees with more than 5 years on the job are not "low paid" compared to most Americans. They might be able to earn more in the private market, depending on a lot of factors, but they're not making minimum wages and they have great benefits including health care, vacation and sick days and pensions. I worked for a state government for 26 years. I was never paid hourly as much as a floor sweeper at the local Ford plant, but I wasn't low paid, and I retired at 53 with a nice pension and all of those benefits.
I, too, was properly impressed with the professionalism of Mr.s Kent and Taylor, and with their patient, non-partisan attitudes, despite the slander and innuendos of some of the "public servants" involved in the hearings. I wish them nothing but the best.
9
You know why this is a secret? Because conservatives like David Brooks have been saying the opposite for at least a few decades now.
How often have you seen comparisons of public sector pay rates vs private sector pay rates, with absolutely no account taken of education rates common in each? Who else remembers Reagan saying, "Government is the problem."?
Trumpian conservatives did not start the denigration of government employees.
3
I would like to know how I can express my gratitude for what out civil servants do. An address, state department...
I remember the person who most dramatically turned America against the government. He said: "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Forty years later we reap the evil he sowed.
13
@Bruce Wheeler`
Pretty sure Reagan's words would not have resonated with people if they didn't feel their lives negatively impacted by institutions like discriminatory and abusive police officers, family court judges, etc.
One of your best columns and a welcome reminder to everyone that real conservatives still exist. I just wish you and others would stop referring to Trump's far right as any kind of conservatism.
4
in my previous career I worked with many civil servants. Almost to a person they were diligent, cautious with public money, careful that they followed every rule governing their realm, and understood their role in promoting their institutional goals. Do institutions need reform? Yes, of course. I would start however, with asking how we reform the political class first. From what I've seen and read in the last few days, i don't think many of what I've seen on the Republican side could even pass a citizenship test, let alone be trusted with responsibiilty for decisions that affect hundreds of millions.
6
I suspect that the reason why the GOP pounds so hard on the concept that people should "watch out" for "big government" is because "big government" is the only thing protecting the little guy from being harmed by an unregulated and powerful elite of multinational corporations. To quote the GOP's saint Reagan: "Government can't solve our problems. Government is the problem."
Look at Trump's EPA this week, trying to argue that scientific studies that abide by patient privacy laws (as most important ones do) can't be used for determining public health policy because the corporations that want to pollute our waters deserve a right to know the names of everyone in each study. They are weakening the government for personal gain, just as Trump does.
The alternative to a good government is corrupt government. People say they are worried about us turning socialist, like Venezuela. But socialism isn't a problem in Sweden. It isn't socialism but corruption that doomed Venezuela, as surely as it has doomed many right-wing governments in nations like the Phillippines.
Anti-corruption is the foundation of a good society. When the leaders use the government to enrich themselves, their kids, their golf courses -- and to investigate political enemies -- it is the beginning of the end.
9
@RVC
1. The failure of the EPA to do their job is why people in Flint, and thousands of other communities have lead water.
2. The failure of data protection laws is why you have credit "bureaus" discriminating against people, preventing them from getting housing and jobs. It's why you have Google vacuum up people's health data from medical providers. Because it's all legal.
1
@DavidBrooks, please stop referring to Trump sycophants as "conservatives" (or even "trumpist conservatives"). They are Republicans, but the GOP has forsaken conservative values in its rush to form a cult of worship around DJT. Since November 2016, the GOP party has divested itself of conservative values and -- while it once may have been accurate to use the conservative label to describe the party -- that is no longer the case. conservatives believe in character, values, free trade, budget responsibility, and leadership overseas in confronting (not enabling) tyrants. The current GOP no longer reflects those goals. Conservatives generally object to Trump. The GOP worships him. The two are of separate camps now.
6
I generally agree with, and am appreciative to Brooks for, the thoughts in this column. The depth and character of these civil servants who have come forth in this (one hopes) denouement--especially in comparison to Trump's and his toadies', complete amorality--is staggering. I do cringe when Brooks puts in a line about "Trumpian conservatism". This knee-jerk labeling of all sorts of behavior as either conservative or liberal, or left or right, is totally beside the point. Trump is completely devoid of any ideology or philosophy, other than his own self-serving.
3
Partisan hacks out to get a duly elected president. This impeachment is not going to end well.
2
"Trumpian conservatives say that Washington insiders are unelected bureaucrats, denizens of the swamp, the cesspool or a snake pit." No Mr. Brooks, this attitude is endemic in the Republican Party and dates, at least, to Reagan, the man you say inspired you to become a Republican. In case you forgot, he coined 'I am from the government and I am here to help.' not as a serious statement but as a near epithet.
4
Thanks for this insightful column. My dad was a hard working civil servant whose work protected many American lives. I also know many other hard working government workers who do great things for citizens of this country. I am tired of civil servant bashing.
153
Mr. Brooks, you are simply too late to the "let's make amends" party!
Please reread your columns from 2015 and 2016 and notice how many times you countenanced an "understanding" of the Trump message and its appeal.
Sure, you said he was a pretty horrible guy personally. But, then, a few paragraphs later elicited a kind of grudging respect for his "drain the swamp" refrain.
Well, I've got a secret for you, Mr. Brooks. There is no swamp and most of us not duped by Republican talking points always thought government service was dominated by good, hard-working people.
8
It is not surprising to read Mr. Brooks' praise of Washington insiders. They do, like Mr. Brooks, think that they know better than the "deplorables" who elected President Trump.
Deplorables are not invited to embassy parties to sip champagne and eat caviar - though they may work for the caterers, loading the food on the truck.
Deplorables don't wear bow-ties and they don't wear fancy suits - though they may work at the docks, unloading the imported textiles from other countries.
In this inverted world, the "insiders" are sacrificing themselves, for the good of the deplorables. How noble of them.
4
It takes an "insider" to know one, I suppose. Is there anyone more on the inside of the self-reinforcing Washington culture than our Mr. Brooks? Gee, wish the rest of us peasants got "off the record" briefings by our public servants--tidy little secrets passed from one inside-the-beltway type to another. A wonderful roundelay--for those admitted to the inner sanctum.
Yes--we peasants voted for a klutz to air out the bow-tied types who have accrued almost unlimited power in the administrative state. We got an inept bumbler (who also, in case no one in the media looked, has actually tried to do what he promised the voters). But rather than wait for the peasants to reelect the jerk, they opted to let the CIA stage what amounts to a coup (their speciality, Mr. Brooks). They might pull it off--an outcome far, far more sinister and serious than another term for the most hated man in Washington.
2
This is Brooks at his best, maybe, but still republican view.
We need these people with vast knowledge. Many years ago, working as a carpenter, a former CIA specialist-history of western Europe, who said he had briefed every president from Ike to Reagan on many aspects of the European history. Who were alleys and when and why. Important stuff when trying to make, hold and build new alliances.
Trump and his fanatic followers in the House, Senate and WH want no part of history, reason or facts in general.
Look soon to new boiling point of water not 100C or 212 F but 50 T , as for trump, the others are just too hot.
The anti-Russian/pro-Ukrainian Washington Insiders, such as Lt.Col. Vindman , are trying to prevent Trump from achieving vision of U.S. strategic interest and from defining U.S. foreign policy goals.
In his opening remarks to the confidential hearing, Vindman said, "When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration's policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects, this alternative narrative undermined U.S. government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.
It is the president,"not consensus views of the interagency" who determines foreign policy.
Trump may think it is not important to deter Russia, but to get along.
That is a very legitimate point of view.
Trump believes that he was elected to change US foreign policy, having stated his opinion on Russia during his campaign and won the election. It is not 'malign influence' that makes him try to have good relations with Russia. It is his conviction, legitimized by the voters.
The Establishment and its media have demonized Trump, but he is the Elected president.
Would a President Sanders be equally demonized and resisted by Washington Insiders if he tried to end Forever War and get along with ALL countries.
4
Well, gee, imagine that, civil service employees having it made clear to them that their exit would be welcome. It happens all the time, particularly to older employees at the top of their pay scale. You supposed to try human resources, but I've known of some pretty blatant cases of age and disability discrimination.
And now we're going to impeach a President because a civil service employee can claim to have been treated badly? When they want you gone, you leave with dignity, you don't whine before Congressional committees.
3
@Mary I hope you have had the time to watch the live hearings, and if you have, are you saying you do not believe any of the statements made by the diplomatic service employees? I can't imagine anyone wanting to ruin their lives by bringing out in the open, in a hearing,
facts that wouldn't hold up to thorough checking. Or a president that uses social media to destroy a career of a person which until now, has served for decades without any disparaging information surfacing about them? And putting their lives in danger being posted where there are active wars, etc. happening? The United States would be lost without these knowledgeable, patriotic and soft spoken people, working hard trying to keep the affairs of intertwined nations running smoothly. I am grateful for them, have immense respect for them and hope all turns out well for them after these hearings are over.
I'm heartsick and appalled that a reputation can be ruined by planted rumors, smears and social media. How terrible that it is common now.
4
Well said and accurate. We are a desperate people looking for easy (lazy) solutions to complex social problems. The ecessary essence of a successful American ideology of rugged individualism has to be sound moral and ethical principles. We have lost our way.
1
Right on the mark. No one could have said better.
1
I fear the damage already inflicted on our democratic institutions and those who serve in them will take 30 to 50 years, if ever, to remedy. Look at the mismatch of judges, thoughtless deregulations, erratic foreign policy, corrupt diplomacy, etc. What we see today is a nationalistic populism. This is one of the steps before merging into the highway of fascism. What is in the way of a potentially corrupt and fascist government are those institutions, and their dedicated patriotic serverants/caretakers, that protect and nurture democracy. Democracy is a mere abstraction until those dedicated men and women help make it realizable!
6
I truly wish that you could learn that this is not about "both sides do it". Your party, the Republican Party, has spent the last forty years trying its very best to destroy faith in our government. It was the party that claimed that government was the problem, not the solution. It was the party that whined about deficits and then did its very best to ignore the fact that its policies increased them. Trump is not an aberration; Trump is the absolute result of what you get when you demonize the people like Taylor and Kent and Yovanivich, when you sneer at knowledge and personal honor and lie at will every single time you open your mouth.
3
Yes, quietly effective forces such as Taylor and Kent should be applauded and honored.
But alas! We are too busy routing out the corruption emanating from the top, appointing unqualified judges to lifelong positions, and institutionalizing inferior and self-damaging policies. We are distracted by the glaring light of criminality and incompetence.
3
I've worked for various levels of public government. It's a job. You hang your politics at the door. If you're virulently political, don't apply for departments which disagree with your sensibilities. Go work for a political campaign or a non-profit or something. We aren't about causes. We are about services. Whether you're serving in Afghanistan or stamping checks at the welfare line, "public service" is a customer service position. You exist to serve other people. If you can't handle that reality, don't join the service industry.
3
A fitting article on our nation's civil servants.
Let's be clear, Mr. Brooks. This column is too little, too late.
You have been writing about a variety of other topics about the boarder society while Fox news, Trump and his supporters in Congress have decimated the conservative movement.
You need to call out the Present and his supporters in Congress. The Congressional Republicans are cowards and are completely feckless. They have violated their oath to defend the Constitution of the United States in the most profound ways.
We now are in dangerous and perilous times. You, Mr. Brooks, have work to do.
3
Great Column, David.
Now, If Elizabeth Warren happens to win the Democratic nomination, will you vote for Trump? Will you not vote at all (meaning you are voting for Trump).
I am real curious about how you and other "moderate" Republicans really care about these institutions which you wrote about remaining intact.
You can type your answer here _______________________.
1
Good editorial, David. How Trump's escapades must weigh on the morale of these dedicated and selfless public servants! After all, "when you elect a clown, expect a circus."
1
Magical Thinking and the Power of Reinforcement. Trump is making a mess of our how our government is administrated. In other words how our government really works on a day to day basis. He is a master of magical thinking, fantasy, and reinforcing among the masses. My take is he knows exactly what he is doing to support his own corruption behaviors.
1
Part of the harm of the current populism is to mistrust experts who are qualified in their field in favor of such “experts” as Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Tucker Carlson. Buried deep in their legal disclaimers is the disclosure that they are all “entertainers” and not journalists, as they do not wish to be liable for all their many falsehoods.
It is Trump’s misfortune to take on foreign service officers in the US diplomatic corps. The Foreign Service Exam, which must be passed before entering the diplomatic corps, is one of the most difficult tests on the planet. Trump has decided to take on the brightest of the bright, and now he is paying the price.
Even fully qualified experts are not infallible. Just look at the scattershot opinions of economists and stock market prognosticators to realize the fallibility of some experts. It takes a well educated populace to discern the presence of bias or overlooked data.
But the pundits on Fox News are spectacularly incandescent in their bias and ceaseless slanting of right-wing propaganda. Their existence and ongoing enrichment depend upon a viewership that does not engage them critically. If that viewership thinks that elites are looking down upon them, they are absolutely right—if “elites” is taken to mean people who engage in critical thought.
MSNBC, CNN, and NYT have their unwarranted biases too, but they are infinitely less malign in purpose and result than the Fox propaganda machine.
2
Unfortunately, the GOP has convinced the great unwashed that anyone who is educated, experienced and/or professional is a member of the "coastal elite", whom the GOP has derided, denigrated and ridiculed. So the cult have no respect for professionals, dedicated public servants and protectors of our institutions. In the GOP's telling -- a la the Nunes and Jordan accounts -- these dedicated public servants are part of the deep state, which literally runs pedophile rings. The GOP has done a great disservice to this country, by encouraging ignorance, discouraging education, and peddling conspiracy theories and lies. So here we are, on the precipice of the end of our national experiment, because a bunch of powerful, generally rich, white men have bamboozled the masses into distrusting those who have earned their trust, and trusting those who have done just the opposite. Black is white. Up is down. And we're all the worse for it. Except those powerful, rich, white men, and their oligarch benefactors.
1
Spot on, David. I have seen firsthand much to buttress you argument here.
It always seems that the higher you go, with exceptions of course, the more the idea of public service degraded and self service takes over. The apex of that is of course that pathetic load keeping the seat warm @ 1600 Penn.
In “The Second Coming,” one of the finest poems of the 20th century, W.B. Yeats predicted the current predicament the world finds itself in on many fronts: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity.” Many societies in many eras have faced this same situation, and either found a way through to survive and thrive, or have succumbed and vanished. Here in America we have our “rough beast” slouching toward ignominy forever, and indeed his minions are full of passionate intensity. The civil servants who have so bravely stood up to this “blood-dimmed tide,” and those who will hopefully continue to come forward, are intense, as well—dispassionately so, led by facts and that brand of critical thinking born only of hard-earned, honest experience. Now more than ever in recent history, the question can’t be ignored: Will the best find their conviction and turn away the darkness descending on our Constitutional republic?
4
Simple, elegant language that describes the very best of our nation-----this message is critically important for every American to understand during these trying times. Thank you Mr. Brooks.
1
I don't know why so much time is being spent explaining this. There are three bases to fire an at-will employee: good cause, no cause and bad cause.
Good cause - you screwed up.
No cause - Thanks for your service, we're replacing you.
Bad cause - You're fired unless you [fill in illegal act] or You're fired so that I can [fill in illegal act]
2
I’m urging people to watch or listen to Ambassador Yavonovich’s opening statement this morning—at least the last four or five minutes. Add one more to the list of dedicated, moving civil-servant testimonials arising from these impeachment trial sessions.
1
I greatly appreciate this column. I’m soon to be 75 years old and would only point out that a core reason I always despised Ronald Regan was that one of his fundamental political campaign tactics was to denigrate government. Regan’s political exploitation of that stance was always destined to be ruinous. David, did this ever occur to you?
2
For those wanting this to be more engaging and entertaining, please know that we should be grateful for "boring" diplomats. We should want sober, strong, staid people of integrity conducting the work of foreign policy so that our relations with other nations are good, stable, and predictable.
May we NOT live in entertaining times. Please listen deeply to and support our career diplomats.
3
As I watched them testifying on Wed. I was humbled by the dignity that they displayed. If you watched as I did, you saw men of honor being questioned by, in more than a few case, men with little honor. It saddened me to watch it play out. In the end I was comforted by the belief that when they went home that evening they were able to hold their heads high, unbowed. They shed the caustic onslaught like a duck sheds rain off it's back. Truth was their comrade in arms, and that was as it should be. We are indeed lucky to have men like that serving our nation.
How many movies have we seen where The Government is the bad guy? From ET to Stranger Things and many, many in between. Uncle Sam is the bad guy, hey folks... Uncle Sam works for us! We elect the people making the rules and writing the laws. Public opinion still can make a big difference in persuading attitudes in congress. Start demanding more from our elected officials, not less! It is government for the people and by the people. If we do not take being a citizen seriously then we will continue to get more of what we now
"Look around. Strongman politics are ascendant suddenly, whereby elections and some pretense of democracy are maintained — the form of it — but those in power seek to undermine every institution or norm that gives democracy meaning..."
Thank you Mr Brooks. You are starting to sound very much like a highly respected and eloquent past president of the United States. Quote courtesy of Mr Obama, speech in Johannesburg, SA, transcript from this very paper July 17, 2018.
Finally a David Brooks opinion piece I whole heartily agree with, and I speak as a civil servant.
But I want to remind you that it tends to be the Republican Party who attack and demoralize the nations civil
servants not the Democrats.
Time for conservatives like Brooks to connect the dots and cut the cord with the GOP...sometimes old institutions do need to die in order to save a nation.
We need a true Conservative party in this country that values, education, expertise, professionalism, worldliness, knowledge, science, facts and wisdom, coupled with a genuine desire to create a society with equal opportunity, social, environmental and economic justice and liberty for all its citizens regardless of sex, race, or creed.
Am I delusional?
3
Mr. Brooks, how about convincing your Republican colleagues and friends to stop attacking and smearing these remarkable public servants? They are the ones who need to hear/read what you are saying and to show some measure of decency and respect in their approach to the impeach inquiry underway.
3
Thank you Mr. Brooks and your fellow republicans for spawning this mess in the first place. Your complicity over the years as a member of the republican party, and your years of not speaking out, and your years of support for their lies and attacks...
look in the mirror, sir.
You are speaking out, but it's too late.
The damage has been done.
Thanks again.
1
I wonder whether Mr.Brooks read the
excellent article on our lovely local
beauracrats who spent a couple of
days eating, drinking and dancing
the nights away in a luxury resort
in Puerto Rico? O did I mention
all the lobbyists who were there as
well plying them with liquor while
lobbying the corrupt Albany and
New York city machine?at the risk
of sounding like Nick Carraway
listing all the "beautiful people"
at Gatsby's party, there were the
mayor, the governor, the State
attorney general, the Brooklyn
D.A.and a contingent of the usual
suspects from Albany. yes,there are
good beauracrats, but the vast majority
of them are arrogant, self entitled
apparatchiks,no better than the nasty
people at the DMV who make our
lives miserable.I am sorry for all this
cynicism, but Mr.Brooks's article goes
just a little too far.
2
Your best piece of the year.
Trump is not "self created and self-enclosed." He was created by his father who provided hime with a $400 million dollar nest egg. He was created by a political system that caters, in return for campaign contributions, to realtors by providing them with an extraordinarily generous tax environment. He was created by media more fascinated by lusciousness and lies than by faithfulness, honesty, and goodness. Go figure!
1
The GOP, in its Libertarian binge it’s been on the last 40 years or so, thinks “good governance” is an oxymoron. It’s not possible, so why even try? In fact, let’s rip up what’s there in the process. That’s a big reason why we got here.
1
Exactly right. Institutions are not the problem. The problem is that when the Reagan Revolution cowed Democrats into imitating Republicans, the middle class and especially labor began a swift demise into desperation. When a huckster came along who seemed to treat both parties with the contempt they had earned, desperate voters jumped on his bandwagon. Scapegoating, name-calling, xenophobia and empty promises won the day. And even now, as the Republican Party embraces Trump with both arms, many middle class and lower middle class voters still perceive him as anti-establishment. Actually, as Mr. Brooks so ably shows here, Donald Trump is anti-institution. If he has his way, the Republic is lost.
What I admired the most was the stoicism of these witnesses in the face of brutal attacks from the know-nothing and potty motor mouths of Nunes, Jordan, et-al.
Personally, I would have shot back some choice expletives and thrown my chair at them on several occasions.
Credible Professionalism vs. charlatanism. That’s what jumped at me the most at these hearings.
3
"We don’t celebrate these people. Trumpian conservatives say that Washington insiders are unelected bureaucrats, denizens of the swamp, the cesspool or a snake pit. Some progressives call Washington insiders the establishment, the power elite, the privileged structures of the status quo."
Why the false equivalence? The left isn't demeaning our foreign service professionals. The Republicans under Trump are. They call them the "deep state". The right has lost the contest of ideas so they must lie and cheat to hold power. It's so dishonest to imply that "both sides" are not celebrating these worthy professional when it is overwhelmingly one side. Saying otherwise weakens your argument.
2
Good public servants are worthy of our praise, but conservatives like Brooks make their job extremely difficult.
Brooks and Levin are fervent conservative opponents of big government – that’s the “public” in public servant, all those “very good people working hard for low pay and the public good.” Brooks consistently campaigns for “localism” over federal institutions. But now he has the chutzpah to cherry-pick an aspect of big government and spin it as an example of conservative virtue: inherited “institutions.” He seems to want it both ways: institutions, but just not big ones. The irony is lost on Brooks.
And it is the conservative worship of individual freedom, executed through the free-market, that stripped the middle class of its right to share in the Dream, and triggered the anger and resentment that gave us Donald Trump who makes life extremely difficult for public servants – and everyone else.
And individual self-interest has also manifested itself in Brooks' Republican Party that has now put self-interest over the county’s interest. But he won’t talk about that or his part in creating the problem: that once you let self-interest out of the bottle and weave it into the social fabric as the ultimate good, you can’t put it back. Brooks fails to recognize the Achilles heel of individualism: that so-called “rational” choices made by individuals, multiplied exponentially, result in collective irrationality – like vast inequality and climate change.
'fess up David.
3
I spent twenty+ years working in the private sector in financial services. Good salary and benefits, cushy travel, plush office space, up to date technology. I've been working in state government about eight years. It's hard work with lots of disappointments: political pressures, short funding, inadequate staffing. Still, we get the job done and develop policies, systems, and processes that deliver life enhancing services to tens of thousands of our fellow citizens and their families. I don't compare what I do with the men and women who have been shamelessly abused by the president and republicans during and before the impeachment hearings. But I recognize their professionalism and dedication and it gives me hope that right may reign over wrong. What an impressive group of people.
5
There is a first-rate, deeply reported book by Michael Lewis on this issue: "The Fifth Risk" (2018). Here's a quote:
"A surprising number of the people responsible for [important success stories in the US government] were first-generation Americans who had come from places without well-functioning governments. People who had lived without government were more likely to find meaning in it. On the other hand, people who had never experience a collapsed state were slow to appreciate a state that had not yet collapsed."
4
I served in the Defense Department for more than 37 years, finishing my career as a member of the Senior Executive Service. Of the thousands of careerists I encountered in my time, nothing was more true of them that their dedication to the proposition "Mission First, People Always."
If you want to make America great again, living and working in consonance with that is a pretty good starting point.
4
Well said, Mr. Brooks! With the help of our public servants, we might still "keep the Republic."
4
I normally disagree with much of what Brooks says, but I wholeheartedly agree with everything here. As a pubic servant myself, I'm surrounded everyday by people just like the ones we're seeing testify and even I needed the reminder this week that those people are still out there, doing their jobs and caring and thinking deeply about the institutions and policies they serve. What a breath of fresh air.
It takes a lot of education followed by 20 or 30 years of experience to create professionals like the ones who are testifying. If we don't continue to invest in our institutions and keep the pipeline full of future professionals, we're all going to wake up one day and realize we're fresh out of experts. And that will be the way our republic ends.
3
This is an important and insightful observation. We may not have a perfect government, but we have many professional and dedicated people serving us well.
4
We are seeing firsthand what happens when the reins of government are turned over to a bunch of self-serving businessmen who are busy undermining and dismantling our institutions and safety nets for the benefit of themselves and their cronies. Contrast this collection of ethically impaired flim-flam artists with the dedicated public servants who they vilify on a daily basis. Three cheers for the deep state.
4
An individual's attraction to populism on both the left and right seems to correlate well with the earlier stages of development posited by developmental psychologists/theologians/philosophers, such as Erik Erickson, James Fowler, and Ken Wilber. We all grow through stages like this as we mature emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually. The key lesson for society is to provide education and support groups that intentionally focuses on growing us up while we resist putting less mature individuals in charge of things. Unfortunately, crisis causes most people to revert back to earlier stages of development and the US is still suffering from the Great Recession and the post 9/11 world order, to say nothing of social media and the rate of change in our lives. It would be wise to reinstate content restrictions, akin to the FCC broadcast rules in the 1950's-80's on major communications platforms that restrict the spread of conspiracy theories, and outright lies about the institutions that embody our most mature expressions of how we govern ourselves.
It's disturbing to me that, in our "democracy" we cannot count on our government to tell us what they are doing, but must rely on whistleblowers and leakers. Kudos to Edward Snowden, Daniel Ellsberg, Father Berrigan, Colleen Rowley, Mark Felt, Frederic Whitehurst, and many others who had the guts to reveal what is being done in our name and with our tax dollars.
I would like to point out that popular entertainment has taken boundless profit in the process of delegitimizing these most devoted and ethical public servants. Think how they depict the CIA and the state department. Its members are depicted as people who can run at olympic speed, turn somersaults and shoot so accurately as to bring down helicopters and explode assorted motor vehicles while engaging in these miscellaneous acrobatics. In reality they are patient, bookish people who sit at desks in Washington reading the popular press of other countries in obscure and difficult languages and preparing digests of what they read or going through documents finding out what officials are in power and which have been replaced and trying to find out the political, familial, financial and intellectual affiliations of all these individuals and preparing reports of this indispensable information. Spies of the sort everyone believes are ubiquitous probably represent less than a half percent of these institutions if there are any at all.
Ever since Ronald Reagan ran for president on his anti-big government agenda, I've watched the Republican party's relentless campaign to sow contempt for Washington. Behind it are the corporate and financial bankrollers of the GOP who rail against federal regulation while feeding insatiably at the federal "swamp." From agricultural and energy polluters to the murderous gun manufacturers they have been politically (and lethally) effective at elevating private gain over the public good. Bravo to David Brooks for giving recognition to the new "little guys" - the thousands of government workers whose thankless job is to maintain the safeguards of our democracy.
1
Thank you for saying this. I'm always struck by the Trumpers who say they like him because he "shakes things up." For what purpose? Once he has destroyed our institutions, he has nothing to offer in their place. They should ask themselves why he wants to destroy everything. Could it be because the fewer the regulations, the more he can steal from the people? That's my best guess.
3
In the past I have generally not subscribed to your views, Mr. Brooks, but I always read them. But I give you some benefit of the doubt, saying david is just trying to be an old-time Nelson Rockerfeller or Jacob Javitts type of now non-existant Republican.
But this piece is the best you have ever written. It encapsulates my opinion of these three American patriots, Taylor, Kent and now Ambassador Yovanovitch. They are hard working Americans beyond belief, while the President of OUR United States with the most disfunctional government in the whole of OUR history tweets away, also beyond belief.
3
Both-siderism: "Some progressives call Washington insiders the establishment, the power elite, the privileged structures of the status quo." Please be kind enough to identify those progressives, Mr. Brooks. Remember you can only reference non-political insiders who have been attacked by progressives.
2
November 15, 2019
Yes in praise the American education systems that encourages the best in scholarship and with one goal living a better life from the struggles in lessons learned from the past. What Trump is doing in his office as President is not sophisticated examination and delivering of the the learned insight from the best of our socio - psychological - political citizenship - all for making the new generation a more informed and participant in taking ownership for the future of land of grace and liberty's light
1
May I suggest Mr. Brooks sends this opinion piece to each and every member of the GOP Congress, especially members of the Senate. The integrity of the Office of President cannot be a partisan issue. Our nation is bigger than and more important than whomever wins the next election. And it is past time that all members of Congress act in support of their oaths to protect the Constitution and the nation.
1
Since the earliest musings on Democracy, it has been written that it is the character of the leaders that determines if a democracy works. Ordinarily, one would look to the elected officials for leaders and character. In our Trumpian dystopia, we find that character protecting our democracy in the professionals who populate gov't departments and not in the White House, elected Republicans or political appointees in the various departments. Trump doesn't trust these professionals and sows distrust in them via tweets. Edward Luce in The Retreat of Western Liberalism, referring to our modern western liberal democracy, states: "Trust is the glue of a successful free society; fear is the currency of the autocrat." Trump, by his actions, has once again revealed himself to be an autocrat ; "an unabashed autocrat" in Luce's words. Trump's distrust of gov't professionals is undoubtedly d/t his fear/anticipation/expectation that they would have the character to not be bullied by Trump (or a tweet) and make decisions based on the best interests of the gov't, country, and Constitution they serve. It appears that these professionals, the "deep state" according to Trump and his sycophants, have become the guardrails of our democracy, and we should all be thankful that they have the character we should want in each of our elected officials.
2
One would hardly know that people on the right were watching the same hearings, based on your take on the testimony of Messers Taylor and Kent. "Are you a Never Trumper?", shouted Big Bad Jim Jordan at Ambassador Taylor, followed by , "And you're their star witness?", in mock astonishment. All of these insults hurled being duly noted as demolishing the case against Trump by Hannity and others of his ilk. It's like a parallel universe, where we can't even agree on a set of facts.
I was a young man during the upheavals of the 60's and early 70's, and well remember the terrible polarization of the times. Interestingly, once Nixon was removed from office, there followed a slow, but genuine, period of forgiveness. If I may be so bold as to suggest a reason for this, I think that Americans grew tired of the divisiveness, mostly generational (Don't trust anyone over 30), but also along a pro-war/ anti-war axis. By the time the war, or at least America's involvement in it, wound down, even the pro- and anti- people seemed to want an end to the strife. America healed.
That leaves us with a poignant question. Once the current occupant of the White House is dethroned, will America heal once more?
9
The anti-Russian/pro-Ukrainian Washington Insiders, such as Lt.Col. Vindman , are trying to prevent Trump from achieving vision of U.S. strategic interest and from defining U.S. foreign policy goals.
In his opening remarks to the confidential hearing, Vindman said, "When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration's policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects, this alternative narrative undermined U.S. government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.
It is the president,"not consensus views of the interagency" who determines foreign policy.
Trump may think it is not important to deter Russia, but to get along.
That is a very legitimate point of view.
Trump believes that he was elected to change US foreign policy, having stated his opinion on Russia during his campaign and won the election. It is not 'malign influence' that makes him try to have good relations with Russia. It is his conviction, legitimized by the voters.
The Establishment and its media have demonized Trump, but he is the Elected president.
Would a President Sanders be equally demonized and resisted by Washington Insiders if he tried to end Forever War and get along with ALL countries.
3
But the policy being implemented was Trump’s. He agreed to it. Why did he do that and then undermine it?
3
I spent 30 years in government service, and obviously worked political appointees from both parties. One observation from that service is those appointed by Democrats tended to come in valuing our public service and the programs we were tasked to deliver to the American public. Republicans tended to start off reminding us that we were lucky to have a J.O.B. (while of course taking advantage of all the pay and benefits that accompanied their appointments). That being said, I never saw anyone try and undermine an Administration once power transferred. We worked just as hard as always, trying to deliver to the public what Congress authorized. The hallmark of a Democracy and stable government is the antithesis of what Trump's people represent - professionals that are not corrupt holding allegiance to the Nation - not to the individual occupying the Presidency. Trump views loyalty as fealty to himself - not the Constitution. He likely admires Erdogan who fired hundred of career civil servants in Turkey because he decided they weren't loyal to Him. The law actually requires a federal employee to report waste, fraud, abuse and corruption. I am very proud of the Whistleblower, and the career staff who have had the courage to step forward.
17
One of the few consolations we have in the Trump Administration is that the bureaucracy doesn't move as quickly as Donald wants.
The people in government know their jobs and they recognize abuse of authority.
Let's hear it for the bean counters!
4
Michael Lewis's book "The Fifth Risk" is an excellent survey of the essential, life-and-death functions of our "unelected bureaucrats" as well as a warning about what could happen if you tried to run a government without them.
I have to quibble with Mr. Brooks on this one: "On the left many put their faith in social movements, without explaining how social movements are going to write and pass legislation." The late Rep. Elijah Cummings (of Baltimore, where I live) was a shining example of how successful social movements lead to the election of leaders steeped in those movements, which leads to institutional and legislative change. There are conservative examples of this as well. So I'm not sure why social movements constitute a "messed-up theory of how you do social change."
6
Mr. Brooks, while I agree that the conduct of Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent, as well as the other career foreign service officers and civil servants who have testified, are praiseworthy, your column rings hollow. It fails to acknowledge the courage and patriotism displayed by these individuals and the personal and professional sacrifices they have been forced to endure under the relentless campaign of personal and professional smears and threats emanating from the President and his followers. These dedicated officers and civil servants who have come forward have sacrificed their careers for love of their country. Meanwhile, you seem to absolve the President of responsibility for his actions by your statements that he is "unable" to obey the law and "unable" to consider anything other than his own private interests. It is not that he is unable to do so, but he is resolutely unwilling. Nor can his behavior be excused because of what you refer to as "outsiderism." In the history of our country, may so-called outsiders have taken the oath of office as President, most recently Barak Obama, but none have displayed such contempt for the institutions and laws of America as Donald Trump.
7
Very happy to see Mr. Brooks praising George Kent, William Taylor, Marie Yovanovitch, Fiona Hill and their colleagues for their unstinting professionalism, integrity and public service. I suspect the strange feeling he had while watching Kent and Taylor on Tuesday was nostalgia for a time when men like them were universally admired and men like Trump, Giuliani, Sondland and Mulvaney were universally deplored.
4
A few minutes ago our 'president' tweeted out an intimidating statement about Marie Yovanovitch as she testified during the impeachment hearings -- a nearly insane action even by his own standards of chaos and insult. A career service person being demeaned by a thug of a short-term president.
Mr Brooks makes a number of insightful points about how we, both left and right, can miss the boat in not grasping the import of those who serve the country 'on the inside.'
When people like Trump are put into power by millions of Americans apparently disenchanted by the country's direction, by its politicians or other reasons -- we see how putting his cronies in positions of power will have short- and long-term implications that are devastating and dehumanizing.
It is hard to believe that Republicans could re-elect Trump on the grounds of anything having to do with ethics, conscience, or human dignity.
5
"Epistemic authority" is another way to describe "insiders." They are the people who accrue the knowledge necessary to keep a representative democracy functioning. There is no way a leader can on his or her own address--in any deep way--the science of climate change, the maintenance of contaminant-free food, the vicissitudes of foreign policy, and the forces that shape markets. And so on. Yet in getting rid of "bureaucrats," #45 is flattening the organizational structure the executive branch. This wiping out of deep expertise, thus accruing more power for a small circle of shadowy figures like Rudy Giuliani with one person at the helm. Very, very dangerous.
7
We have the legislation, The New Deal was a simple and workable model for domestic policy and a robust policy of non-interference in the affairs of others is a good start for foreign policy.
Unfortunately our current crop of experts have been steeped in an institutional culture that privileges the interests of finance and the needs of global profit making over reasonable domestic policy and genuine self determination abroad.
2
Mr. Brooks tries to cast Washington bureaucrats in the image of saints. He tries to convince us that when individuals enter public service they somehow miraculously shed all vestiges of their subjectivity. They “work hard and for low pay.” Let’s make one thing clear: subjectivity is ineluctable and it can take different forms—even those that appear selfless; and by the way, the pay is not so low and the benefits are quite good. Bureaucrats may have their own esprit de coups. They may and often do see themselves self-righteously as serving the public good when actually they protect their own turf and raison d’être.
Bureaucracy rests on the principles of hierarchy. It is inherently hostile to the non-hierarchical democratic attitudes and values. Institutionalists and bureaucrats did not create this country. It was born in the fire of a revolution. Democracy was its midwife.
Make no mistake. What we witness today in America is the rise of democracy against elite hierarchies. Those who rose against elite rule do not wear white gloves and may use rough language. But they embody one fundamental principle that all people are created equal. The elites describe them contemptuously as “white supremacists,” “racists” and worse. They condescendingly refer to their movement as “populism.” Now Mr. Brooks tries to put the mantle of holiness on their opponents. This attempt is as phony as a three-dollar bill.
2
@Gennady
Actually. what we are witnessing is how nonpartisan civil servants are immensely disliked by elected officials who want to use the levers of government for their own political and financial benefit. That's the whole point of Trump empowering Giuliani to run a backdoor US-Ukrainian policy. It not only escapes the State department "insiders", but also Congressional oversight (i.e. the U.S. Constitution!). That's why corrupt elected officials hate an "unelected" nonpartisan bureaucracy. The latter is an obstacle to the use of government for personal gain!
This is why Trump was an advocate (in his now infamous telephone call with the President of Ukraine) for the former corrupt Prosecutor Generals of Ukraine. They were obviously people who he (or Giuliani et al.) could deal with. In this sense, Ambassador Yovanovitch was "bad news" for Trump et al., she was an enemy of corruption. Unfortunately for Trump, her replacement was no better for him, and actually blew the whistle on the attempts of the Trump et al. to subvert U.S. policy to Ukraine for their own benefit.
1
@Gennady If Trump believes all people are created equal, why do his tax cuts favor the 1%?
1
@Kenarmy They represent their own interests--the interests of government bureaucracy as a corporate group. Bureaucrats dislike Trump for many reasons and have made their attitude known. Again, subjectivity is subjectivity. One cannot get rid of self-interest. Self-interests of bureaucrats is more insidious because they claim that they do not have self interest and only serve public good. How come they are so different from everybody else? How come you buy this nonsense? Did Soviet bureaucracy have self interest? Absolutely! Do you think our bureaucracy is any different?
Thank you for this column. Having grown up inside the Beltway, I've always been dismayed by the antagonism that gets levelled at "Washington insiders." There's a world of difference between political appointees and career Civil Service workers. Political appointees certainly can be wonderful public servants, but they can also--as we've seen far too often during the past three years--be self-serving grifters who get their influential jobs for all the wrong reasons. But the Civil Service is full of hardworking, highly educated, modestly paid people who have committed their lives to working for their country. They deserve our respect.
4
“When public servants enter government, they shed their private interests to serve a public role.” I worked on the Hill for nearly three decades...that sentence is a hoot.
3
Mr. Brooks makes a fundamental error in logic: the issue is not public service, or platitudes about sacrifice, patriotism or expertise. Rather it is more an issue raised by the president, and now by their reactions of effective "union" solidarity, when they are reminded of who they actually work for, and to whom they are accountable. They are not a separate branch of government, though they appear to sustain that dangerous if not devious presumption. Mr. Brooks otherwise, not surprisingly, reflects the same attitude of incumbent privilege in his role as a Trustee of the University of Chicago, where he advocates for continued insularity of the academy and administration bureaucracy, rewarding themselves with millions in compensation, life-time benefits, retirement, lavish expense accounts, all while the "adjuncts," graduate students and non-tenure staff do the majority of teaching, and the parents foot the bill (Brooks just ratified with his Trustee colleagues a tuition hike that makes his institution the most expensive in the nation). He is indeed the consummate elitist, now all on on appeal in the Hearings. The Swamp is on full display, and the Democrats are losing public support.
1
@Matt Andersson The axe you're grinding about the University of Chicago connects imperfectly to Brooks's point.
You will not have forgotten, I'm sure, that we have whistleblower laws that are specifically intended to shield government employees at all levels from retaliation if they observe wrong doing. By their nature, these imply that government employees are not expected to operate under the Good German logic you have described.
They have a voice and options. This can result in abuse, but the risk of that is the tradeoff for a president or agency head having a counterweight against turning the government into his own personal lawless duchy.
I think most of us think the risk is worth it.
2
An appropriate article for this moment in time.
Those of us who read Brooks regularly do not need to always attack his frequent false equivalence between "left" and "right". It is his limitation and at this moment a source of his strength. He is an institution man, who does not connect how institutions arise out of a public in ferment sometimes, out of the apparent incoherence of social movements and social "moments" where it seems chaos beckons. He is unaware of this I only hope.
When he writes this article, he is at his best, because we need to defend these servants of the order. When he writes about the Occupy Movement, he is at his worst because he cannot comprehend it.
4
"People have messed-up theories of how you do social change. On the right many think that you need to elect some authoritarian strongman who will whip everybody into shape. On the left many put their faith in social movements, without explaining how social movements are going to write and pass legislation."
As always, Brooks argues that both sides are equally to blame, when in fact the blame lies squarely on the Republicans.
He seems befuddled to figure out how "social movements are going to write and pass legislation." Really, it's not all that difficult.
First: "Social movements" don't write legislation; people do that work. An elected official listens to their constituents (e.g. a social movement), and comes up with legislation to move toward those goals. It happens all the time. In fact, Dems have written (and passed!) dozens of bills through the House, which McConnell refuses to even bring up for a vote in the Senate.
So, the problem actually lies in the fact that Reps refuse to work with the Dems in any manner whatsoever. This started with Gingrich, and McConnell made it explicit during Pres Obama's tenure.
It's not a both-side problem; the blame lies totally on the Conservatives.
How do "social movements" pass legislation? By their elected representatives being open to work in good faith with other perspectives, and forge compromises. It's not particularly hard to imagine this; and it's not a "messed up" theory at all.
Unfortunately, Cons refuse to even try.
2
As is said by many people, perception is reality. So from my perception something smells badly in Washington. Why has it been so difficult to get the mechanisms of our government to sync with different thinking? Didn’t we have an election that the outcome changed our direction on a number of things?President Trump has been doing exactly what he said he would do. Your vision of what should happen is just that, a vision. Other people have other visions. Those of us not beholding to the Washington way of doing things may not be happy just know, but are getting happier as the ugly way Washington works is being exposed on a daily basis.
@Mike
"President Trump has been doing exactly what he said he would do."
Really? He said he would do away with the corrupt way that US government functions. So he replaced it with his own immoral and corrupt way of governing. Using the US government for his and his associates financial benefit.
The "vision" you all espouse apparently is to have those States (mainly controlled by Democrats) continue, and even raise, their bottom line financial support for States controlled by Republicans. Thus, we have the example of someone from Idaho, which receives $2 in Federal support for every $1 it provides in the way of taxes to Washington denigrating those that support your way of life. https://www.voanews.com/usa/all-about-america/which-us-states-get-more-they-give#&gid=1&pid=3. In other words, Red States are on welfare provided by Blue States, and want to continue feeding at the trough!
"...over the decades this outsider pose has hardened into an immature cynicism: Everybody’s corrupt. No one is to be trusted."
Since I refuse to give up my idealism, my faith in the striving of human excellence when we work together "in harmony" (as Plato, the Original Idealist, would put it), I find the observation above to be the most devastating one.
Trump is one man. But if this cynicism continues, we will have many more Trumps to come. Everything is rotten, no one is any good turns life into a depressing slog of barbarian against barbarian.
It is the cynicism we must fight and root out. It is not healthy.
2
You can also contrast the public service professional with their corporate counterpart. Not to say there isn't office politics in public service, but corporate culture brings out the absolute worst in everyone, something we see being played out right now by "businessman" Trump and his endless palace intrigues. It also seems that, with the emphasis on test-taking and jumping through arbitrary hoop after hoop, children are raised these days to expect a cutthroat work environment, along with the idea that public service is for suckers. How are you going to continue to find dedicated people if you don't treat and pay them well, and assure them they have a long career ahead of them?
1
Brooks praises civil servants for doing what is right. That's good. That's NOT enough.
Brooks fails to criticize those on the Right who call selfless civil servants "the deep state". NOT calling out the nutty conspiracy theorists gives them credibility. He enables Republicans to say that Jim Jordan's and David Nunez's defenses of Trump are every bit as TRUE as Schiff's description of Trump's behavior. That's false, but when Brooks fails to call it out, it can seem to be true.
6
People have lost faith in our institutions because the GOP has hammered home the message for decades that the government can't be trusted. Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich laid the groundwork for today's anarchic tendencies.
For this reason, Republicans who are appalled by the current state of politics and amazed by ordinary people doing their jobs in a non-partisan way sound like hypocrites.
4
Mr. Brooks - yes they are. However, it should be pointed out that commentators such as yourself used to argue that civil servants are elitist and play a superficial role in the functioning of a government. It is an absolute shame that it has taken a Donald Trump for conservative commentators to realize that our government and its public servants do actually play a stabilizing role in the functioning of a robust civic society.
1
Mr. Brooks's analysis is unique and valuable. He discusses interesting, thoughtful topics from an unusual perspective. This makes it especially distressing that he seemingly cannot ever criticize *just* his own party. He always includes false equivalences. This unfortunately makes the rest of his thoughtful analysis suspect.
"On the right many think that you need to elect some authoritarian strongman who will whip everybody into shape. On the left many put their faith in social movements, without explaining how social movements are going to write and pass legislation."
This is not correct. Progressives believe in government.
"Trumpian conservatives say that Washington insiders are unelected bureaucrats, denizens of the swamp, the cesspool or a snake pit. Some progressives call Washington insiders the establishment, the power elite,"
This is also not a true representation of progressives. We believe in government workers. We believe in government of the people by the people and for the people.
It would be much better if Mr. Brooks could offer us his valuable commentary and analysis starting from a basic place of truth and facts.
2
The gigantic contributions to American values of the sorts of "ordinary" public servants in all branches of U.S. government that Brooks here commends can hardly be over-stated. Take for example the I.R.S, which posturing Congressmen love to attack:
when did we last hear of an IRS agent asking for a "bribe" (a "quid pro quo"), as Trump clearly has done on a super-sized scale? The citizens of most other nations of the world would give almost anything to live under as scandal-free a government bureaucracy as we have in the U.S. And when you lose that ethos, and the trust by the public it produces, it is VERY VERY hard to get it back. It is utterly shameful that Trump and his Republican enablers are aggressively undermining trust in public servants, to long term, immensely severe, damage to our country.
2
The professionalism of U.S. public sector workers is no secret. Whenever I return to the USA for a visit, I am always impressed at how much more professional the government workers I deal with are than the workers in the private sector (where, for example, real "customer service" is so hard to find). It becomes immediately obvious to me that public sector professionals not only care much more about the well-being of society than private sector professionals do, they also care more about me as an individual citizen and as a human being. Mr. Brooks needs to reveal this so-called "secret" to the leaders of his own Republican Party and those who vote for an unprofessional hack like Trump.
2
These two gentlemen--and they are gentlemen par excellence--exemplify every virtue that is absent from Trump: intelligence, erudition, grace, self-confidence without arrogance, discipline, eloquence, knowledge, accomplishment. The list could go on. They make me proud to be an American. And few public personages have done that lately.
2
Yes, praise to our Washington insiders, but there is much more here that triggered this praise. A very corrupt Administration and a Republican Congress that has allowed it to fester. These career government employees are our last line of defense, and thank God they know it, and have come forward.
We've seen nothing like it before, even Watergate found it's way to the truth and the Republicans agreed ultimately that Nixon had to go.
These Republicans have all fallen into the abyss and decades will go by before they'll ever see the light of day again.
1
David, I am DESPERATE for hope. Really. I cling to the least little incident trying to hold on while my husband constantly reminds me that we're in a cold war and that Trump will probably be re-elected.
Why aren't these civil servants rising up and revolting? Why were they quiet when Trump shutdown the government last Jan/Feb and/or when he froze hiring and professional advancement 3 yrs ago when Trump became president?
I despair, despair, despair.
1
Trump is certainly the consummate outsider. And Clinton was the consummate insider. And Trump won. Not by much, and arguably only technically. But he won, and the millions of Americans who passionately support him are thrilled. And now the insiders are trying to kick him out because he refuses to behave properly, like one fo them. I see why he drives them nuts, but this is who the people chose. And another election looms. Perhaps the people will choose more wisely this time, although frankly I can’t see how Warren would be a wiser choice. But anyway, stop with the shabby attempt to overthrow an election. Look to the future. It’s almost here.
Excellent article, Me. Brooks. In this toxic Trumpian environment, both of them brings fresh air to us. The entire nation is indebted to them for their patriotism. It takes lot of courage to come and share the truth knowing the nasty child bully who thrives on bullying, revenge and fear,
They are the true heroes and salute to them for the extraordinary courageous act for the sake of our great nation. Trump should be ashamed
2
This is interesting. Incompetency happens. Our institutions have been incompetent at dealing with the reality of Americans. Trump is an incompetent individual. Populism is not about persons. It is about organized institutions and cults of personality.
To be competent is to know how to be a person, responsive to all human beings, with prejudice towards none. To be competent is to know how to build and to destroy institutions.
These so-called public servants will bring Trump down, but they will have to show considerable more courage to represent ALL Americans.
This is the sadness, the grief of out times.
A grief which you, David Brooks, seem unable to recognize or honor.
That is sad.
Republicans have been beating down on the federal government since the reign of Ronald Reagan. "The government is the enemy and it is to blame for our society's problems" has been your party's mantra for thirty years. Mr. Brooks, you and your fellow Republicans owe government workers and the American public at large a profound apology. The Republican party's grossly misleading rhetoric has created the mess we are in now on so many levels. You and your party created Donald Trump and his constituency and now he's burning our democracy down. Your debt of gratitude is way too little way too late.
1
“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Set the table for Republicans and for Trump. Reagan’s repudiation of government planted distrust, Roberts court fertilized it with Citizens United, and Trump reaped a government vulnerable to plutocracy. Taylor and Kent stood against the erosion of trust and Democrats gave them a spotlight. Nunes was a caricature of bad actors. Jordan proved conclusively that Lindsey Graham’s staccato diatribe tactics are useless when confronted with integrity. The absurd demand for “first hand witnesses” while Trump obstructs their appearance was blasted by Congressman Peter Welsh "I say to my colleague, I'd be glad to have the person who started it all come in and testify, President Trump is welcome to take a seat right there."
Is government of, by, and for the people possible if “insiders” stop doing their jobs?
1
While I admire and celebrate the professionalism of the government employees who are testifying, I think the underlying message is the utter moral bankruptcy of Republicans and the GOP. I don't think you need to be a lifelong institutionalist at the State Department to understand that Trump's shakedown of a foreign government for political dirt is unethical and possibly illegal.
2
Thank you. Your essay is spot on.
I too am impressed with the courage and competence of these public servants.
Please save us from the ignorant who see expertise as obvious and easy. The glorification of Dumb and Dumber is biting us big time.
1
These insiders look especially good because the Republicans and their president are so bad.
And while Pelosi accused Trump of bribery it was hypocritical, because all of our politicians can be bought in our pay for play system, which makes the insiders look even better.
How do you eat an Elephant? ….One bite at a time!
It takes time and effort to build an institution that works well. The bad apples are not found, and easily rooted out. If they're adept at putting on a show, questioning their deeds can be quite stressful. To my mind, that's how a lie becomes superior to the truth.
1
I'm sorry, but it's hard for me to see someone who received from his Daddy hundreds of millions of dollars, plus a back stop when his incompetence ran his business schemes into the ground, as "self-created."
A fine essay otherwise. The Republican party has no shame, and no loyalty to the United States.
1
I believe that the President’s disrespect for government workers is due to his total focus on money. He basically doesn’t believe that someone can work for a higher cause. A person’s worth is totally tied to how much money they earn or have. Civil servants must therefore be fools and not too smart.
2
trump and the vast majority of his acolytes and cohorts could not pass the requirements for entering government service.
Neither the intelligence test nor the background and drug tests.
(to say nothing of the fact that virtually all of his base voters could not pass the citizenship exam)
2
They also spoke plain truth, instead of the bobbing and weaving, distracting, fast-talking, defending the indefensible antics of Republicans in Congress. You don't have to be a foreign service officer or a longtime public servant to have integrity and be truthful. You just have to be good. Brooks is right, though; basic decency is in short supply in some DC circles.
2
Civil servants are about function. Trump/GOP is about dysfunction.
These "servants" provide the structure and delivery of services your tax dollars pay for. Good luck without them. Watch your tax money feed corruption under the GOP swindlers as it already is where honesty and facts are firing offenses.
2
Usually, heroes are humble and self-effacing not bombastic and full of themselves. George Kent and William Taylor will go down in American history as two humble(Washington Insiders) men of courage who are trying to save American democracy and its Constitution. Now contrast these men with the rude and boorish Senators such as Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes. It is moving that
we still have courageous men of conviction who will stick their necks out to tell the truth like it is instead of making up excuses for the president with political theater.
David, you couldn’t have been more right at any point in your life. People are so cynical in this country that they believe the government cannot accomplish anything of a positive or useful nature. And yet they are able to articulate this on the very platform (The Internet) that was invented by our government.
2
The GOP, Trump, Reagan and the far right hate the government professionals is for the very reason that David cites, that they are people dedicated to their job and doing their duty to the country and are generally non partisan. To a party like the GOP where winning and party loyalty are everything, this is as revolting as Bill Maher at a Chautauqua tent meeting, they are all about winning first, party first, and to a Donald Trump who has never, ever in his life had any kind of higher calling other than his own ego, their professionalism is a stark mirror held up to his narcissism.
This is an interesting piece in general, and also is one of the biggest refutations of the notion that the president should be the CEO of USA, Inc. One of the areas where a president differs from a CEO is a CEO is a dictator of sorts, while it is a wise CEO who tries to get the loyalty of their employees they don't have to; whereas the president is the head of the government and because government workers are not political appointees, a president has to try and get their loyalty (something Trump obviously has no concept of; loyalty to him is one way only). The president is influencer in chief among their various roles.
1
Listening to the radio, I was immediately struck by how thoughtful these men were. They were careful with their words, and calm also. They reported on what they heard only, never straying from that path.
We need more civil servants like that and fewer yes men and women like we have now in this drunken administration.
3
I was as fascinated in the todays impeachment inquiry as i was watching the Nixon impeachment. The only difference in todays hearings was the public denigration, the intensity of personal attacks on their character they endured from the republicans as they were willing to testify. As the president they tried to protect they took on the mantle of attack trump has relied on all his adult life. Attack, attack, denigrate, denigrate. They personally knew these men were honorable, sacrificing civil servants, yet they disparaged their character and truthfulness for the sole purpose of protecting a despicable, corrupt leader of their party. Talk about the cesspool in Washington today, the republicans represented the slimy creatures that only crawl out of cesspools.
4
“Washington IS the problem” said Reagan,
and that was the beginning of the denigration of competent, faithful public servants. This was followed by Newt Gingrich who gleefully shut down the government with no concern for the bureaucrats whose work and paychecks were dangerously interrupted. And now we have Trump who attacks the professionals in the Executive branch as “DEEP STATE”.
Republicans have been destroying the morale of government workers for decades.
3
Trump's not self-created. He inherited his wealth. His family built an empire with two ledgers believing the were Made Men. They walked away from his bankruptcies with other people's' money. Trump stiffed students at a fraudulent university and used a charity as a personal cash cow. He's not a self-made man. He's a charlatan and a fraud out for himself.
2
>Trumpian conservatives say that Washington insiders are unelected bureaucrats, denizens of the swamp, the cesspool or a snake pit. <
Yes, they do, and everything you say about those Trumpian conservatives is true.
> Some progressives call Washington insiders the establishment, the power elite, the privileged structures of the status quo. <
No, they don't. You are conflating decent, hard-working honorable civil servants with lobbyists for the rich and powerful.
Darned few progressives have ever said anything like that about people like Taylor, Kent, Yovanovich, and Hill. Or about any of the other dedicated civil servants who toil alongside them -- whether it's the Labor Department statisticians that Republicans like Trump libel whenever it serves their purposes, or the hard-working National Parks Service people that Republicans call jack-booted thugs when Republicans force them to close the parks due to a government shutdown.
2
"Some progressives call Washington insiders the establishment, the power elite, the privileged structures of the status quo." Some? Who are they Mr. Brooks name names?And even if they do challenge the establishment, it is in no way equal to Trump, his lackey Guiliani, or other of his minions and supporters in Congress. It is clear who they are on the right. It is clear Stephen Miller is a racist and what of all these people outing the whistle blower and Republicans we can name. If you want to argue that there are Progressives of equal malice then be a man and name them otherwise just shut up!
2
As a Canadian with American family members I follow US politics. Watching Taylor and Kent at the Impeachment Inquiry, I thought, now these two are Americans. The Republicans defending the un-American Trump were like clowns in comparison.
2
Having watched yesterday's edition of the inquisition I come away with the impression that Ambassador Taylor is not especially bright and is definitely 100% clueless. It is remarkable how little, if anything, he seems to know about actually anything. By contrast Ambassador Kent is sharp and knowledgeable yet hardly a silver bullet against Trump, indeed betraying quite a bit of tantalizing catnip for those of us who consider the Biden clan highly problematic ... to say the least.
"On the left many put their faith in social movements, without explaining how social movements are going to write and pass legislation."
That's funny. Before the GOP started pandering to the ultra right and old white nationalists, back in the 60s before Nixon and the GOP stench really started to smell, social movements were pretty good at writing and passing legislation - we got Medicare, we got Clean Air and Clean Water, we got Civil Rights and Voting Rights. And then the right moved in and who is it who is keeping legislation locked up right now? A Republican Senator from Kentucky who has a desk full of paper and who swore never to even consider anything a democrat sent over so that he could ensure a democratic president would be one-term (didn't work). Social movement legislation isn't passing not because it's not there (HR 1 is a great example) - it's not passing because McConnell makes sure it's never even discussed. The problem is with the corrupt GOP that wants power to itself, and they are the ones who have brainwashed the rank and file and fomented distrust of the people you praise in your article (remember Reagan?). Take your responsibility Mr. Brooks. You had a hand in this too.
3
Robert Brooks makes starts well when he writes,
"The public buildings of Washington are filled with very good people working hard for low pay and the public good."
But I don't follow his transition to the notion that insiders are good, outsiders bad.
The problem confronting US society is excessive partisanship. Moreover, on crucial issues both sides are wrong.
Thus Trump is wrong to call global warming a "hoax," while liberals are wrong to ignore the primary cause of global warming---population growth.
Biologists tried to warn us. For example, Garrett Hardin described "the tragedy of the commons" in an article appearing in Nature, 1968, and Paul Ehrlich published the Population Bomb in 1968. The basic argument was that the earth has a finite carrying capacity, hence that population growth would run into limits.
Since 1968, world population has more than doubled, adding to global warming. Yet people are still not even TALKING about population growth.
That's because people accept explanations of insiders.
Conservatives believe that birth control is sinful, while liberals seem to argue that any talk of controlling population growth is racist.
So we have done NOTHING regarding population growth for the past 50 years.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has described Garrett Hardin as a purveyor of "hate speech."
By treating SPLC as a legitimate news source, the NY Times is promoting censorships by the SPLC that prevents effective measure to combat global warming.
I'm happy to agree with Mr. Brooks on the importance of dedicated public servants. But when he applauds the "whistleblower's" revelation of Mr. Trump's conversation, I wonder what the result would be if he were to examine actions of recent presidents. Which among them would NOT have merited whistleblowing of this sort? Is Brooks secretly a disestablishmentarian?
This is an excellent portrait of the two gentlemen who testified during the first day of the impeachment hearing. With calm and grace, they answered questions and responded to the ridiculous attack dog Jim Jordan without ever losing their cool. These are the kind of people who have our nation’s best interests at heart.
1
I really cannot fathom why more Republicans do not put the rule of law ahead of Trumpian loyalty? He sells out our allies, and qualified public servants, cozies up to dictators, and shakes down the Ukraine for dirt on Biden. Even if a Republican lost the next election for walking away from Trump, he/she can find another job (isn't unemployment at records lows?) Will they explain to their children and grandchildren how they were responsible for allowing this debacle to go unchecked? What a dark time.
1
Almost every Washington D.C. federal employee makes more than the average American. These people do not believe in the Constitution.
Why not comment on the brilliance of conservatism and the people who represent solid Conservative values during the questioning? Not at all like those radical liberals.
Read Michael Lewis, “The Fifth Risk”. You will see more of the same, and all critically important to a functioning country. They are dedicated, moral, and everything good that the bought and sold politicians are not.
2
Oh David, remember when you thrilled to hear your hero Ronald Reagan declare. "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
The "elites" have failed us and into that vacuum has crept the Reagan-Trump continuum.
In your example, wouldn't you like back all of those many columns maligning Obama, a public servant cut from the same coat Taylor & Kent spring from?
1
Mr. Brooks seems to forget a third group beyond Trump Republicans. But first, it is worth mentioning this weeks both-sides caricature of liberals who, according to Mr. Brooks, believe public servants are establishment elites. There might be a sliver of truth to that, senior treasury officials who six months earlier worked at a private equity firm or Goldman Sachs comes to mind, but I don’t think you’ll find progressives giving the GSA employees that ensure the 9/11 memorial is cleaned to an “immaculate standard” a hard time.
The group you fail to mention is traditional pre-Trumpian Republicans that for decades maligned public servants as lazy, incompetent losers that would never cut it in the “real world” of business. The only exception were the public servants that carried weapons or decided in some way where weapons should be pointed, they were spared public ridicule infective. However, at cocktail parties and dinners ‘among friends,’ those same Republicans also deride law enforcement and military public servants as overpaid or incapable of finding more gainful employment.
- Guy who used to attend a lot of those cocktail parties and shamefully, used to nod in agreement
2
Well, Mr Brooks, back when Ronald Reagan declared that “government is the problem,” the people you praise today are the people who make up that government, the people who were likely to say, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help,” Reagan’s so-called “nine most terrifying words in the English language.” Republicans like you and Newt Gingrich helped demonize people like William Taylor and George Kent, who pursued public service instead of a more lucrative career in private institutions. Now they are the people who are trying to save the country and you better hope they succeed.
2
This piece comes from Brooks’s Edmund Burkian philosophy that there is wisdom in tradition, continuity, sentiment, and sympathy. Fine. But he tries to draw equivalents between the parties and that won’t wash. Learn from your master, Brooks. Reread the history of the French Revolution. The society will totter when there are people in power dedicated to ignoring the common good for their own narrow interest. That is the Republican Party, and Trump is their Louis 16. The Democrats have been the party of good government for a long time, despite corrupt examples. The whole Republican Party is a corruption, intent on making a might-makes-right society with no traffic cops, no umpires, no science, and no institutions.
2
"Trumpian conservatives say that Washington insiders are unelected bureaucrats..."
I've got news for you: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 'TRUMPIAN CONSERVATIVE.' That is a contradition in terms. Followers of Trump may be bigots and misogynists (first and foremost), stooges, fools, gangsters, cynics, nihilists, or sycophants. But none of them are conservatives. Do not make the fatal mistake of associating Trump with a set of beliefs! He believes nothing.
A true conservative is as shocked as any liberal at the Trump assault at our institutions, including the NSC and the State Department. Actually, more so.
Nobody with a belief system--any belief system, even one that is 100% wrong--nobody with any beliefs at all, in fact, can possibly hew to Trump. Doesn't the example of John Bolton elegantly prove this point?
2
“Trump conservatives say that Washington insiders are unelected bureaucrats, denizens of the swamp, the cesspool or a snake pit. Some progressives call Washington insiders the establishment, the power elite, the privileged structures of the status quo.”
More both sides false equivalencies from “fair and balanced” David Brooks.
Shocking.
“Some progressives” are irrelevant at this moment in history and “Trump conservatives” ARE the GOP. It’s the GOP’s and Fox’s denigration of these civil servants that you rightly praise that is the outrage currently at hand.
2
Too Little Too Late David
You "moderate" republicans have been debasing public service and public servants for far too long to have you come back and throw them a sop.
The alternative to their public service which is openly transparent and accountable is to the secret machinations which construct alternative realities and conspiracies.
With your more radical minions we see the Trumpnocrats corrupting the American constitution in a web of obfuscations and corruptions.
We see Mitch stage a constitutional coup in refusing to bring the nomination of Merrick Garland to the floor of the senate under a "theory" that the decision should be made by the next president. So we end up with Bret Kavanaugh the Frat Rat Supreme Court Justice and his smarmy counterpart Neil Gorsuch, both Federalist Society members which you never note is funded by the extreme right wing of the Kochs et al.
I served in the U.S. Army in Vietnam and then in the federal government. I saw the corruption and arrogance of the president's political appointees.
I also saw the service and dedication of incredibly knowledgeable civil servants. Note that civil servants work in the civil service.
David, your thanks is pretty thin gruel.
Vietnam Vet
4
Nothing speaks louder to the concept of "bureaucrat" than testifying that the president is upending *their* foreign policy aims.
1
Jeez-o-Pete, David - just because someone is knowledgeable about history (both recent and arcane) doesn’t mean that the Chief Executive isn’t the *decider* of policy - in fact, the President is the decider- career government employees get to advise, but not decide. To paraphrase a well-worn saying, a navigator of a ship is expert at saying where a ship is .., it does not qualify him/her to say where the ship ought to go.
When exactly did Nicolás Maduro become a ‘rule breaker’? That statement points to an extraordinary ignorance by Mr. Brooks. The USA is engaged in a vicious effort to overthrow a legitimately elected President of Venezuela; that fact is the true rule breaking here.
The rest of the column is a standard defence of the establishment, where Mr. Brooks resides – or as I prefer to call them ‘the nomenclature’.
“ … without explaining how social movements are going to write and pass legislation.”
EASY. Social movements elect politicians who will write, and enact, the legislation.
Current Practice: Lobbyists write the legislation and buy the politicians who enact it.
Civil Servants DO NOT pass legislation - that is beyond their remit.
1
Brooks writes "The wider disease here is “outsiderism” itself. For a half-century our culture has celebrated the rebel, not the organization man; the free individual, not the institutionalist. That’s fine and in many cases good, but over the decades this outsider pose has hardened into an immature cynicism: Everybody’s corrupt. No one is to be trusted."
Another example of my creed: "All ideas are double edged swords."
1
Thank you for standing up for unsung heroes.
These men are certainly shining examples of great Americans and deserve all of the accolades they are receiving, but I was struck while reading this how hungry many of us are for heroes.
It certainly took courage for Misters Taylor and Kent to testify and they did it with great dignity but, in the end what they did, very simply, was tell the truth.
But during this terrible time in our nation's history, in which we have a president who is a pathological liar, a Congress full of shamefully weak and pathetic Republicans who lie consistently to protect the president and their jobs and and a number of cowardly men and women who refuse to answer a Congressional subpoena, simply telling the truth does indeed stand out, and creates a new American hero. A bit sad.
3
Come on Brooks. It’s only been a secret to Republicans who have little use for facts, truth. Science, ethics or integrity that these civil servants embody to their core.
3
David, a good place to strart looking for the origin of anti-government nihilism that has so hurt our country is Reagan's famous dictum,"Government is not the solution, government is the problem."
2
Republicans have refined their opinion on the bureaucracy over the last forty years.
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." Ronald Reagan
"Bureaucrats behave very differently than a private-sector manager because their motivations are different. Permanent bureaucrats, no matter how senior, worry about their next job." John Sununu
"As a kid who grew up in Montana, I resent regulation being formulated and forced in Washington from bureaucrats that have never been to Montana. Ryan Zinke
2
So very well said. These professionals are what separate a working democracy like the US from the corrupted democracies in failed states.
1
I like this column. But aren’t Kent and Taylor representatives of the “elite” that Brooks relentlessly skewers? That’s the so-called out of touch, educated, coastal crowd that doesn’t get the values of community and tradition and gave us Trump by its snobby indifference. Among many things, Kent and Taylor showed they were part of no such crowd. They are deeply moral people with a vivid sense of patriotism. They also showed that it’s past time to retire the “elite” trope and to start again seeing such educated, committed people as every bit essential to the “real America” as anyone else.
1
Just look at William Taylor alone. West Point grad who asked for an infantry assignment and became a company commander in Vietnam. Served with the 101st Airborne. Became a professional foreign service officer.
Compare that to Donald Trump. Five-time draft dodger who now supposes he "knows more than all the generals." And yet, some 63 million voters seem unshaken in the cultish support of this man. That we've lost our way is a gross understatement.
2
When you say "we don't celebrate these people" with your usual false equivalence, what you really mean to say is that "Conservatives mock and denigrate these federal employees for no good reason." No need to make up an equivalent sin on the Progressive side. Now, that wasn't so hard, was it.
1
As I watched them testifying on Wed. I was humbled by the dignity that they displayed. If you watched as I did, you saw men of honor being questioned by, in more than a few case, men with little honor. It saddened me to watch it play out. In the end I was comforted by the belief that when they went home that evening they were able to hold their heads high, unbowed. They shed the caustic onslaught like a duck sheds rain off it's back. Truth was their comrade in arms, and that was as it should be. We are indeed lucky to have men like that serving our nation.
2
"A great question of the Trump years is whether our institutions can survive a president who is incapable of thinking outside his own private interest. Donald Trump uses public office as a gold mine to extract personal advantage."
Another cowardly stab toward accountability from a conservative pundit who can't quite get there. If the great question of our times is the survival of our democratic institutions, then why was Mr. Brooks, just last week, arguing the case against removing Trump from office - and taking the maggoty Mulvaney approach: let's get over it? And Brooks' genteel use of the word "advantage" when this criminal in the WH is using his office for wholesale, syndicate style extortion and graft. The great Washington insider Mr. Brooks omitted from his tepid column, and who we should all be thankful for, is the one person all conservatives, politician and pundits alike, share an abject fear of: Nancy Pelosi.
1
A well written column that I am sure Trump Nation types and the burn baby burn types will dismiss. While there are always problems with 'institutions', among which is institutions existing to maintain their own power rather than doing what they are supposed to and often get locked into group think, but that doesn't mean they aren't needed. In terms of people while there are always time servers, drudging through their time there and not doing much, there are also people who truly care about what they are doing, the foreign service is generally a classic example, as well as people who work for NSC and other organizations, they care about what they are doing and believe in it.
The real problem with institutions are those who run them, who generally are either outside appointees or are people whose ambition was to gain power. The Catholic Church is a great example of this; while the Vatican did very little to nothing about the Holocaust, priests and nuns, at the Vatican and in the church as a whole, risked their lives to save people as did lay Catholics. In the foreign service, where those heading the foreign service and groups like the NSC pushed the Vietnam agenda, career agents were gathering facts and data of the reality of the war, quietly challenged the people pushing this ideology, and ended up giving a lot of weight to ending that war. With the Iraq war, career intelligence and foreign service people knew it was a charade, sadly Dick Cheney et al won out.
One only needs to look back to Ronald Reagan to see where the demonization of government employees started. His use of “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” as an indictment against our own government. It was cheered and elevated as a mantra on the right to take back our government from those that are employed by that very government. Since that time it has become the driving force to get where we are today. The maddening aspect is that now you, David, lament what it has wrought. Yet there is no acknowledgement of the role you and other conservative influencers have had in this process. Now that this outcome has resorted in a destruction of trust in our government you worry? Go back and reread some of your old columns and ask yourself if maybe, just maybe, you should eat some crow as you wrote this. It is as if you suddenly opened your eyes to the corruption and dishonesty in the Republican Party and are dismayed by how this happened. It happens when accountability is blown off as being partisan, it happens when whataboutism becomes the rational to ignoring the rot within your party, it happens when excuses are made for the lying, cheating, and stealing of elections, that this is how you kill off democracy with a thousand cuts. The people who are working the hardest to defend our constitution are the very people that Reagan, et al demonized as being deep state, unelected bureaucrats, pencil pushers, these are the people we are depending upon to save our democracy.
1
As I watched them testifying on Wed. I was humbled by the dignity that they displayed. If you watched as I did, you saw men of honor being questioned by, in more than a few case, men with little honor. It saddened me to watch it play out. In the end I was comforted by the belief that when they went home that evening they were able to hold their heads high, unbowed. They shed the caustic onslaught like a duck sheds rain off it's back. Truth was their comrade in arms, and that was as it should be. We are indeed lucky to have men like that serving our nation.
2
I miss the old White Anglo-Saxon Protestants like Kent and Taylor who are no longer running the country.
They made me feel safer.
1
What? What Progressives call the people who work for the government "insiders" and "elite" and "the Establishment"? When Progressives complain about the Establishment we are talking about lobbyists, especially ex-Congressmen and women and Democratic Big Wigs. Why does David Brooks get away with making such a strangely dishonest comment?
I'm just reading "The Fifth Risk" by Michael Lewis and I recommend it to everyone, including David Brooks. I've never thought career government workers were anything but dedicated public servants. But starting with Ronald Reagan, conservative Republicans (and David is one) used the canard that the government was the problem. Mr. Brooks should know better and should try and refrain from "whataboutism" in his columns.
1
All true. However the Trump supporters see these same people as lazy free loaders that watch TV all day and that they have to pay salaries for.They are part of the anger that they feel. Trump knows this and uses it as part of his ability to get his base in the game. Government, immigrants, minorities, Liberals, democrats are all the targets that he knows to attack.
1
Good Mr Brooks, You are working hard at redemption
I do remember that it was your hero, Reagan, who popularized the notion that the government was the problem.
He was the ultimate inside outsider double play broadcaster but ,in retrospect ,he seems like a folksy, charming elder, not one of the instigators of the anti intellectual criminal charade we now have to deal with.
1
The deep state is overblown. People who work for institutions are deep state...police, firefighters, doctors, nurses, teachers, public servants ...I worry about the guys running Haliburton, Blackwater and other machines of war.
Well put and good follow up on Frank Bruni's column. Are you aware of the geopolitical theories of Ibn Khaldun, who had this theory of outsiders-insiders in the 14th century?
The contrast between Kent and Taylor and the Republicans was nothing less than extraordinary.
To not be taking the charges seriously, I mean come on Republicans. Wake up and get some moral decency and a backbone to stand up for it.
1
Thank you David Brooks, well stated. This should be but won't be read by every American.
Dear David Brooks,
This is one of the finest columns you have ever written IMHO. It's almost as if you shook off all the distraction, all the confusion and all the nonsense we have been witnessing for the past three+ years and zeroed in with laser precision on what truly makes America great, and conveyed it on these pages.
Kudos.
1
If invited, I will testify.
If subpoenaed, I will comply.
If ignored, I will cry.
Thank you, David.
You described the type of people who build our nation every day.
They, not our most corrupt ever prez, deserve respect and protection.
1
David, you may not know this, but these guardians of the establishment have a very long history of antisemitism most notably the State department. From my perspective, not much has changed.
Why is it that the followers of Donald Trump do not respect Bill Taylor, George Kent, Masha Yovanovich and other career diplomats? Instead, they listen to the personalities on Fox News. Or they admire the likes of congressmen like Jim Jordan or Devin Nunes. It is simple. They are the modern incarnation of Know-Nothings. They believe that thinking from the gut equals thinking from long experience and hard study. Their king is Donald Trump, the ultimate Know-Nothing.
I had a colonoscopy a few weeks ago, and afterwards was presented with photos of my gut. The ultimate selfie, I suppose one could say. If that is where Donald Trump's ideas come from, we need a miracle of help.
1
"We underestimate the value of experience"..
which is why Pete Buttigieg has no business being in this race.
Thank god we have un-elected bureaucrats.
The elected kind are fully bought and paid for by special interests. We should get rid of them.
1
@JFM we need elected officials because they are supposed to be our reps they speak for us, our concerns, our grievances, our demands. But the system is broken because the wealthy and corporate interests hijack these elected officials to redirect them away from we the voters’ interests. This is no less than bribery, what we call lobbying here, business as usual. Trump simply takes it to a totally different level, where getting things done at any cost is his style.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/15/trump-style-quid-pro-quo-impeachment-071052
"They’ve dedicated themselves to the organization that formed them, and which they serve."
What a slice of baloney! These people are taking calculated action to further their own careers.
Liberal mainstream media is using them to sell advertising, by giving them the same treatment it gave Mueller (boy scouts, war heroes, great guys your grandmother would like).
1
I always take David Brooks comments seriously. He is quite accurate here. Thank you to our hard working public servants. I wish I was as stalwart and thoughtful as Kent and Taylor.
1
Good thoughts, well expressed. But sir, in context, not even a mere mention of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart, and the other alternative fact media influencers that have polluted political discourse and perverted the genuine sense of patriotism.
2
Oh David -- you really need to see someone about your rampant case of both-sides-ism.
Social movements as the equivalent on the left of autocrats on the right? And their problem is that they haven't thought about who writes the laws?
You might reflect on the Civil Rights movement, the environmental movement, the marriage equality movement -- they changed the social atmosphere of the country and put pressure on Congress to write laws and the Supreme Court to recognize gay marriage.
Mass protests and letter-writing campaigns are aimed precisely at influencing those who write the laws. Social movements have been remarkably effective at effecting good. They are very far indeed from the lefty mirror of the world's dictators.
1
Not all government public servants are alike.
Mr. Brooks, you write now about the conscientiousness of public servents, but for decades you wrote anti-government criticisms. You helped foster the present tribalism that blocks cooperation between parties.
3
Yes. Let’s praise unelected bureaucrats. Let’s praise Deep State hacks. Career pencil pushers who’s very existence is based upon useless mind numbing service to the government leviathan.
Orwell has been proven right once again.
1
Good luck explaining this to most regular viewers of Fox News - because I've tried. Otherwise pleasant people would suddenly turn and harangue me at length for being wrong simply because I mentioned my confidence in governmental action stems from the non-partisan quality of the career people I've met. How do you overcome a mindset that denigrates your personal experience because of confidence in a propaganda tool?
2
What we witnessed Wednesday were two magnificent Americans. A patriot is not allowed to say "Yes" to the law and "Yes" to the Constitution....but just not this time.
David telling us these people are underpaid is laughable and also tells us who you are. They are all paid well over $125,000 annually. A months vacation. Excellent health care. Pension. Liberal expense accounts. How many Americans would love to have these jobs and be this underpaid? I am not judging their worth just your comment.
“For a half-century our culture has celebrated the rebel, not the organization man; the free individual, not the institutionalist.” No, David, in the political sphere your beloved GOP, beginning with Saint Ronald, has done this. Please don’t pin the blame on “Trumpian conservatives”—the entire GOP is being revealed as unpatriotic and morally corrupt.
2
The voters who elected Donald Trump, who appear at his rallies and and who vote reflexively for Republicans, do not deserve Taylor, Kent and the other fine civil servants highlighted by David Brooks.
2
David Brooks, it has been your party, starting with Reagan, that has made a 50-year marathon of continually and viciously denigrating civil servants.
2
When I was listening to the testimony of William Taylor, I kept asking myself, "How is it that Donald of Orange, a transparently corrupt, incompetent, lying buffoon, the President of the United States, when we have men like William Taylor?"
In 1969, when Corporal Bone Spur was getting his phony draft disqualification from the doctor his father bought, Mr. Taylor was leading an infantry platoon in Vietnam. He graduated from the top of his class at West Point. He has worked tirelessly at great risk sacrifice to himself and his family all in an effort to promote the United States and American ideals. His service has been characterized by honor and integrity.
Donald of Orange is a striking contrast. He has committed tax fraud. He has defrauded countless investors and bankrupted companies. He has bragged about assaulting women. We know he was part of a felony conspiracy that involved paying a porn star off to keep quiet. The state of New York shut down his private charity for breaking the law.
What the heck are we doing in this country?
Why choose the worst person possible for the most important job in the world?
And even now, when faced will clear and severe violations of the Constitution, we see Republicans defending this human disaster.
It is utterly surreal.
Thank you to Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent for their service. I felt something strange when I watched them testify -- something I haven't felt in a long time. I felt proud to be an American.
2
It is so easy to shut off concerns regarding the complexity of issues such as climate change and income inequality when you have political demigogues simplifying the issue with explanations about scientific hoaxes and all billionaires are evil and we can tax the rich to solve our social issues. The problem is not the politicians but the electorate and both side of the fence who ignore the uncomforatble and anxiety provoking facts that neccessitates shared sacrifice
“The wider disease here is “outsiderism” itself. For a half-century our culture has celebrated the rebel, not the organization man; the free individual, not the institutionalist. That’s fine and in many cases good, but over the decades this outsider pose has hardened into an immature cynicism: Everybody’s corrupt. No one is to be trusted.”
And who started that? Hmmm, let me see...
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."
- Ronald Reagan
“People have messed-up theories of how you do social change. On the right many think that you need to elect some authoritarian strongman who will whip everybody into shape. On the left many put their faith in social movements, without explaining how social movements are going to write and pass legislation.”
I don’t know about you, but on any day I would take leftist social movements even if they can't explain how they will write and pass legislation (but something that can be figured out eventually), over right wing-nut authoritarian strongmen who whip everyone into shape, have no regard for the truth or rule of law, erode our democracy, and in the process lead to the destruction of America.
2
Mr. Brooks,
Your Hero said, "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."
What say you? Are you having second thoughts?
2
“Trumpian conservatives say that Washington insiders are unelected bureaucrats, denizens of the swamp, the cesspool or a snake pit.”
Conservatives have been saying this for as long as I can remember, since Reagan. Mr. Brooks, this is a sign of your misperception at best, and bad faith at worst.
1
Bravo, Mr Brooks. For perhaps the first time, we agree on something. Psst...have you noticed which side is attacking these honorable people? You've played the conservative card - and the both sides do it card - for as long as I've watched you on Newshour, or written columns here. We Democrats are not the problem.
What are YOU and YOURS going to do about this?
3
The “ sedimented deposits “ of our knowledge are the public manifestation of our democracy .
2
Laughable that you seem to suggest only Trumpian conservatives don't celebrate these people. Try the vast majority of Republicans who so regularly demonize the federal infrastructure and mock the people that here you praise.
3
The phrase "Washington insiders" does not refer to career bureaucrats.
As for the high moral standards and integrity of the Foreign Service, one might read John Mason Hart's "Empire and Revolution" (Princeton Univ. Press), for starters.
Excellent analysis!
Kent and Taylor struggled to convict their boss of wrongdoing at the behest of a corrupt political ideology.
Ukraine is the most corrupt place on earth and the President is chief law enforcement officer of the US responsible for taxpayer monies and enforcement of the rule of law.
The constitution requires POTUS to affirm the integrity of those receiving US monies. Biden not excluded.
These “career diplomats” likely have many wonderful attributes but become simple swamp creatures in the Democrats years long effort to win back power by using the constitution itself in a corrupted way.
The American people will not vote the Democrats back into positions of power in 2020
Well written. Well thought out. Well done.
Trump doesn’t do “Public Service”
Remember that. Let it sink in.
Once you understand that. Everything makes sense.
Trump doesn’t do “Public Service”
Everything he does.
Everything he says.
Is for him alone.
Trump doesn’t do “Public Service”
3
Yes, there is a Deep State.
It rebelled against Obama. It forced him to continue the Afghan War even after he rejected three successive strategy statements and plans.
It enabled Hillary's rebellion against Obama, starting new wars in Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Ukraine, and pumping up old wars in Sudan and Somalia and Central Africa, and resuming the regime change/banana wars of Central America.
Then with Trump, it had a weak leader totally unlike Obama. It ran right over him, and it rebellion reached new levels.
Some hated Obama. The others now hate Trump.
What comes next? Will we ever get back to an elected government that the permanent state will obey? Today that is doubtful. We are ruled by aparatchiks, and our giddy Congress is delighted, as if that did not make them mere clowns on show.
What Mr. Brennan, you mean we do spy on Americans? But that's okay, you had to lie to us about that. Never mind us, just go on about your spying on us. THAT'S where we are today.
1
Dang it, I wish I could write like David Brooks.
I truly wonder if we needed to go through this period to pull back the layers that were covering a festering abyss underneath our society aching to be healed.
I recall that 50 years ago we learned that the FBI was spying on people and trying to out Gays. Its director was a liar, a blackmailer, and a homophobe. The first replacement director was a wimp who did what Nixon told him to do or what he thought Nixon wanted him to do.
How did it get fixed?
David Brooks argues that insiders are good, outsiders bad.
That is too simple. In my view, the most serious issue confronting Americans is global warming.
And sadly, both sides, conservatives and liberals, are wrong on this issue.
Conservatives are wrong because they tend to believe that birth control is sinful and abortion is outright murder.
Liberals tend to argue that China's one-child policy was "repugnant," that is racist to try to help solve poverty in Guatemala by providing family planning and economic support tied so smaller family size.
We were warned by a 1968 essay of Garrett Hardin called "the Tragedy of the Commons," which appeared in Nature.
Although Hardin was a mild-mannered biologist, he was characterized as a purveyor of hate speech by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Why can liberals not recognize that a DEMOCRACY CANNOT FUNCTION when the lives of individuals are destroyed by allegations of racism and hate speech that are unfounded?
It is the SPLC which exhibits hate speech when it characterizes others as motivated by hate.
Since 1968, the world population has more than doubled. That makes global warming twice as serious a problem, other things equal.
Africa is slated to double in population by 2050. Climate scientists worry that much of the equatorial region of planet Earth will become uninhabitable as a result.
Hundreds of millions of Africans may die gruesome deaths at an early age.
The hate speech of SPLC exacts a terrible price!
“I’m from _________ and I’m here to help.”
Maybe we should reconsider whether it’s scarier to fill in the blank with: (A) “a reality TV show”; (B) “Wall Street”, (C) “the Club for Growth”; (D) “the part of the English department that does theory”; or (E) “the government”.
Beautiful David!
"The wider disease here is “outsiderism” itself. For a half-century our culture has celebrated the rebel, not the organization man; the free individual, not the institutionalist. That’s fine and in many cases good, but over the decades this outsider pose has hardened into an immature cynicism: Everybody’s corrupt. No one is to be trusted."
And we have made the criminal mob boss our heroic "anti-hero"- i.e. Tony Soprano et al- and now he has walked off the screen into real life.
1
"A great question of the Trump years is whether our institutions can survive a president who is incapable of thinking outside his own private interest" writes David Brooks ~ who is also a master in word and print of separating the wheat from that stuff you throw away. To the Congress: "Get it right . . . but hurry!"
"At its best, the impeachment process is an attempt to protect our institutions from his inability to obey the rules."
The point is, whose rules?
The Constitution, yes.
The Establishment's rules, the status quo rules...
MAYBE NOT!
The laws, yes... but the rules that have guided "best and the brightest" have enabled and protected the status quo of obscene, colossal and growing wealth/income inequality where the richest .1 percent take in over 188 times the income of the bottom 90 percent.
https://inequality.org/facts/income-inequality/
The State Department/CIA/National Security Council, Military Industrial Complex version of the "best and the brightest" have brought us the Forever Wars, with regime change for any country who will not submit to US dominance and play by the Washington Rules.
Those "best and brightest" have obliviously, brought so much pain and destruction to the world... they make Trump's sleazy, brash, lying, crudeness, almost look good.
Praising “insiders” who don’t serve only Republicans? That’s heresy. It will take more than that for Brooks to make amends for his servile adherence to conservative Republican ideology. I don’t see that Brooks has learned from any of his disastrous support of this Republican administration which is destroying the country and our democracy.
1
Thank you George and William ... you give us hope!
1
Look at FOX and how they made fun of these knowledgeable people. That's the way Republicans think about these people. That's the party of deplorables indeed.
2
Thank you for defending us civil servants. You are "on the money" this time.
Thank you, David. This is one of your best columns.
Thank you, David Brooks. Thanks for making no false equivalencies and for stating clearly your respect for civil servants.
Well said and written David Brooks. You are one of the few conservative Republicans making any sense now.
1
I agree with Mr. Brooks that we've lost a lot when we lost our respect for our institutions, but I disagree with his characterization of rebels and comedians; many of the great rebels and comedians of the world didn't seek to destroy institutions, they sought to put out those who, like Donald Trump, had corrupted them. In their own way, these comedians and rebels were classicists or purists, driven to take extreme measures by the extreme damage done to the nation its corrupters had pushed to the verge of ruin.
1
I completely agree with the respect offered to the two witnesses, Kent and Taylor. Their intelligence and professionalism were a bright spot for me in our depressing political landscape and reminded me of the "real" US government, beyond our current ugly politics. What a good impression of America they must give to the people they work with overseas.
2
We don't have to disband the institutions, just reform them. The congress for instance is wedded to corporate influence, and they couldn't go against it if they wanted to. They know about climate change (it's all around us) but the endless dark money prevails.
But you're right we need our institutions and the dedicated people we saw defending us from Trump's obvious foreign influence. I thought he should have been impeached after the Mueller report refrained from exonerating him for obstruction of justice (which he has since done with impunity.)
The courts are being taken over by corporate friendly judges right up to the Supremes. So impeachment is our only hope. And Moscow Mitch will continue stonewalling, so we have some convincing to do. Let's see if the people want to restore some dignity to the office of the Presidency.
3
"In reality, institutions are the only vehicles for legislative change. " --- David Brooks
There is one other way and it happened between 1861 and 1865. If both the Right and the Left in this country do not wake up from their self Balkanization of America then the only way forward will be Authoritarianism with its practical death of the Bill of Rights or outright Civil War to try an restore it.
1
Social movements pass legislation by supporting candidates who espouse their ideas. Now that wasn't so hard , was it?
3
It's funny (well, not funny ha-ha) how we never even heard of the "deep state" until Trump came into office. But now his base sees it as some kind of problem. It's a problem because Trump wants to run the show like some sort of autocrat, not president, and he sees the "deep state" as an impediment to both his free rein and free reign.
Trump's base supporters really cannot conceive of a conscientious, honest, hard-working public servant. They cannot conceive of selflessness or heroics. That's why they like him. By obviously being anything but conscientious, honest, hard-working, selfless and heroic, Trump is, to them, authentic.
I'll take someone who "fakes it" any day of the week.
4
The skepticism toward government that began in the 1960s has turned into cynicism toward government and those "insiders" like William Taylor and George Kent who have spent the better part of their lives serving the public's interest, not their own. It is this rampant and unwarranted disdain for our nation's bureaucrats--more than Russian involvement or Hillary Clinton's emails--that ushered in Donald Trump's election in 2016. It is our democratic institutions and its civil servants, more than any candidate or platform, that will save us from tyranny.
6
When you hear people railing against foreign policy blunders... a few years ago I attended an conference where a highly experienced insider spoke. His key take-away was that in every top level meeting where a key decision was being made about another country, the one person who was not in the room was the state department expert about that country!
2
The left-wing bugaboo equivalent of the Washington Insider is the visceral, automatic hatred of corporations, CEOs, and their "minions". The anger towards them is stoked by liberal politicians like Bernie Sanders and media commentators like Paul Krugman.
Yet every American depends on corporations to cheaply and conveniently provide them with dozens of necessities that make their lives easy and enjoyable. In exchange for doing so, these corporations make their owners wealthy. It makes no more sense to hate on them than it does to hate on the bureaucrats who keep our government running. And while they might not be getting rich, they are certainly NOT working for "low pay".
@Paul
When wars are forever and not in defense of the country, but in defense of "national interest", meaning global domination by the US and regime change for countries that are not submissive to the US...
and when obscene, colossal and growing inequality means the .1 richest take in over 188 times the income of the bottom 90 percent.
Change is coming, by election or pitchfork!
Amazing that you think corporations are benign...
Like those pharmaceutical companies that got rich selling deathly addictive drugs to unsuspecting Americans, or polluting our air and water, and knowingly contributing to climate change, that will be very hard to stop now,
@Paul
Your distain for liberals is apparent, but as a 60+ year old liberal I never, ever heard any of my very liberal friends show “hatred” toward corporations. What I and my friends have a problem with is when corporations steal and cheat the system; like paying nothing or next to nothing in taxes, giving golden parachutes to CEOs who tanked their companies, polluting and denying it, not taking workplace safety seriously, not taking sexual harassment seriously, and hurting people by their unscrupulous business practices which leads to laying off THOUSANDS of workers. Here are just a few examples of those culprits- Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, and Adelphia. And don’t get me started about Facebook!
This statement troubles me- “It makes no more sense to hate on them than it does to hate on the bureaucrats who keep our government running. And while they might not be getting rich, they are certainly NOT working for "low pay"."
Help me understand the problem you have with bureaucrats being paid well? Are you implying that American government bureaucrats getting paid well somehow makes them corrupt?
Lastly, in 2008 Paul Krugman won the Nobel Prize in Economics. That gives him very serious cred my friend.
1
Thank you for this column. I’m glad someone had the courage to defend people who actually know what they are doing. It’s sad that our nation has come to this, but here we are. There is a difference between meaningful rebellion- think Martin Luther King or Elizabeth Cady Stanton -who broke rules for the greater good, and Trump, who breaks rules solely for his own good. Is our culture really so debased that people can’t see the difference?
12
The hearings - and the Republican "defense" - perfectly showcase the old proverb, "There are none so blind as those who will not see." The contrast between the conspiracy dripping, blabbering attacks by the Republicans(especially Sen Jim Jordon) and the reasoned, informed and patently honest responses from the "unelected bureaucrats" is blindingly obvious to all who can still see.
Thanks, Mr. Brooks for pointing out how destructive the 'deep-state' conspiracies are to our fine government professionals.
5
Another quality on view from the diplomats on Wednesday was the ability to think and speak clearly, with nuance, precision and consistency.
Our current president speaks in bursts of words that seem designed to convey feelings and images rather than thoughts. All he can do is repeat stock phrases (“perfect phone call,” “hoax”) without explanation. I wonder if he is even capable of formulating the concept that his own self-interest is distinct from the national interest. If not, he may truly believe that he did nothing wrong.
The Republicans who spoke yesterday also used words as Hollywood uses a film score, to gin up emotions. It was gratifying to see Messrs. Taylor and Kent keep to the substance.
8
Thanks for defending our loyal and dedicated civil servants, Mr Brooks. They form the backbone of our democratic institutions, the fabric that holds our Nation together. We should be grateful every day for their selfless service to protect our Nation and our rights. If the "swamp" needs draining, it is of self-serving populists and snake-oil salesmen, not our civil servants.
9
“Some progressives call Washington insiders the establishment, the power elite, the privileged structures of the status quo . . . . [T]he civil servant witnesses answering questions inspired a lot more confidence than the elected officials who were asking them.”
This is a well-deserved appreciation of our public servants, but I wish Mr. Brooks would rethink his both-sides-ism. Progressives have long respected the professionalism of civil servants, and the Democratic representatives, led by Schiff, were impressive, too. It was the Republican members alone who were lacking.
8
Messrs. Taylor and Kent seemed like good, honest people to me. Unfortunately the dopey Dems dragged them in to tell us about all the gossip they had heard and the whole thing came off as a waste of taxpayer money.
We obviously need people like them but one has to ask oneself has the whole bureaucracy become a self perpetuating, self promoting monolith that is way too large and way too expensive and really fails to meet the legitimate needs of the American people. In watching the hearings I couldn’t help but be struck by the picture they painted of how they and their colleagues spend their time with ego filled, useless chatter at lunches, cocktail parties and meetings about things which have little to do with our country’s needs. Did their activities help the single mother working 2 minimum wage jobs or the homeless vet or bring peace to the world? A country moving rapidly toward bankruptcy needs to reassess what its true need for folks like them is and adjust accordingly.
1
Our country is heading towards bankruptcy because the Republicans continually cut taxes for the rich and the national debt, since Trump has been in office, has soared.
6
If the world were as complex as a kindergarten classroom, we would not need such dedicated civil servants. But, as a student (and former teacher) of history, the world is even more complex than the commentators like Mr. Brooks make it appear*. Based on my experience it seems that liberals are more able to understand and deal with complexities than most conservatives. Compassionate conservatives seem to be semi mythical creature like unicorns (which have a basis in reality, rhinos). More and more, conservatives seem to be in the mold of Stephan Miller. I just have to look at Lindsey Graham to see someone who cannot fathom the reality that is right in front of his face. And, according to his recent statements, his response is to just shut his eyes and then disclaim that he doesn’t see anything.
* This is not a slight aimed at Mr. Brooks. It is his job to make complex things more understandable to the common person. Just as it was my job to make history, government and economics, all incredibly complex subjects, understandable to high school students.
4
@Andrew Actually, the country is not "heading towards bankruptcy. And the fact that, when I was practicing law, I also had lunch with colleagues doesn't mean I also didn't work my tail off. And yes, diplomacy (which includes lunches) does contribute towards "world peace."
5
There is no swamp in Washington. There never has been. The people hired to run the government are generally decent, informed, dedicated administrators who follow the laws that Congress and the President enact. The term bureaucrat is not an insult no matter how often it is shouted out of the mouths of some swampy politicians and pundits.
If you need a swamp to denigrate Washington, look for it in the House and Senate where self-serving politicians and demagogues often hang out. You might even find one in the White House. Keep your hands off those hired to implement the laws and policies of the people we elect.
9
Thank yo, Mr. Brooks. I don't often agree with you but this column is one of your best and most observant.
3
I agree. This is the key:
“A great question of the Trump years is whether our institutions can survive a president who is incapable of thinking outside his own private interest. Donald Trump uses public office as a gold mine to extract personal advantage.”
And Republicans for the most part have followed. In Gestalt therapy the direction toward or away from health is explained by using an elevator as an example. A huge weight is counterbalanced by another huge weight. What makes an elevator go up or down is adding or subtracting a much smaller weight...but enough to change the direction. Governmental institutions are all we have that can actually maneuver the necessary weights properly.
9
Great article Mr. Brooks. And perfectly timed, given the whiny response of Americans to impeachment proceedings as “too boring”. Unfortunately the GOP war on government has permeated into the bone marrow of a sizable number of poorly educated Americans. Add a dollop of self-absorbed social media-addicted citizens who confuse tweeting their discontent with actual participation, including voting every year, and you get us to where we are. The solution? Given the abysmal current state of many school districts, we need a President (and I wouldn’t care which party) who realizes that a state of the art, critical thinking based curriculum in every school in America will solve the great bulk of our problems. I’m waiting for that candidate.
4
David, why do you always feel the need to blame both parties? The Democrats believe the government can be used to make our lives better, the Republicans don't. One of the most destructive things Ronald Reagan did was to demonize government. He (and his fellow Republicans) pushed the idea that paying taxes was worse than burning your money, because the government was actively hurting society by doing things like "getting in the way" of growth. Remember "the most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'". This did not come out of nowhere.
11
@Kent James
Yes, exactly! Brooks seems to have convenienly forgotten that he spent his career supporting th right-wing ideology that has denigrated and undermined good people and good government agencies.
2
Both of my parents were lifelong civil servants. My father's career started in the army and ended when he retired from the Social Security Administration as a manager of a large city office. My mother also worked for Social Security and retired as a manager of a small town office. Both of them were devoted to helping people their entire careers. They were and are Democrats, but that had nothing to do with what they did at work-- tirelessly and honestly showing up every day for a combined fifty years of service to this country. So when Republicans and their ilk say government is the problem, not the solution, it rings hollow in my ears. My parents are exemplars of service to this country and role models for me. They are just two out of tens of thousands like them who quietly make this country a better place. Trump's goal is to install incompetent ideologues to create a self-fulfilling prophesy that government doesn't work, intended to sow distrust in government institutions. Shame on him and Republicans who don't value the work of every echelon of civil servants in this once great country.
20
I had the same feeling after reading "the Fifth Risk" by Michael Lewis. It is a shame what the current administration is doing to undermine such valuable people and institutions of government.
6
Great book
The republicans, not only the president, have become the party of party loyalty. As we have seen unless all fall in line behind the beloved leader they will have their heads chopped off - currently by losing their positions, soon I expect their heads.
Civil service, which was designed to protect government workers from party pressures, are anathema to republicans because they don't succumb.
Lt. Col. Alex Vindman is losing his position because he did not follow party orders.
Kruschev was right.
3
@Marc Vindman hasn't been fired or "removed." See, Snopes - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/vindman-fired-nsc/
At their core, institutions of a democracy have the mission to advance democratic goals. Those people who have dedicated their lives to rule of law within such institutions are guardians of democracy.
1
I don't disagree with a thing said here or Mr. Levin's quotes. That said, one sentence devoted to "there are good reasons why people have lost faith in institutions," without further detail, does great disservice to that idea. Ultimately, the institutions established within the Constitution are those most important, and it is obvious to even 20-somethings that the elected and top appointed people favor donor interests over wider constituent interests. Trump is clearly the most corrupt president in US history, but Pelosi's use of the word "bribery," when bribery occurs openly every day in American politics, creates some irony. Trump sells off US foreign policy interests to further his election; members of Congress sell off domestic policy interests to fatten their campaign coffers and further theirs. Perhaps as important, "leadership" at traditional public institutions like public universities becomes transactional as decision-making in any important endeavor is left to the lawyers weighing liability concerns. Corporations funnel unseen money to think tanks as those corrupted voices sell a corporate agenda disguised as an ideological one to duped followers. These are not trivial issues, and the loss of faith in public institutions is deserved even if misdirected at times.
1
Ambassador Taylor and George Kent.
Our trust they won’t betray.
They speak the truth. They won’t relent.
May chips fall where they may.
The country needs more men like them.
They speak the truth to power.
Republicans create mayhem
and Trump is growing sour.
Obstruction is their tool of choice.
They have nowhere to turn.
Quite soon they will begin to voice
what is their main concern.
It’s Donald Trump! They all can feel
that something’s in the air.
Their boss is losing his appeal.
They will show their despair.
3
It's ok to have a president that isn't "politically correct", but it isn't ok to have a president that isn't correct politically.
2
“People have messed-up theories of how you do social change. On the right many think that you need to elect some authoritarian strongman who will whip everybody into shape. On the left many put their faith in social movements, without explaining how social movements are going to write and pass legislation.
In reality, institutions are the only vehicles for legislative change. That’s because they are the way to wield power safely. They have rules and structures and norms precisely because power is so dangerous when it is wielded by a lone strongman or by a mob.” — David Brooks
Of course David Brooks ignores the role of concentrated wealth in shaping, deforming, and exploiting necessary institutions AND social movements.
4
Both diplomats talked about the US anti-corruption effort in Ukraine.
We are trying to help a country with pro-Western values fight its corruption legacy that came from being part of the Soviet Union. Part of this entails respect for the rule of law, eliminating politically motivated prosecutions, and avoiding conflicts of interest.
When Biden’s son took a job as director of a gas company, Mr. Kent complained to Biden’s staff that this presented the appearance of a conflict of interest, which was not helpful in modeling good behavior.
And, now, Mr. Kent is speaking out about the apparent politically motivated investigations sought by Trump and how difficult it makes anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine. Indeed, one of the Ukrainians noted the hypocrisy.
If speaking truth to power, regardless of party affiliation, is part of the “Deep State”, we need more like George Kent.
3
@Rita
It this is about Ukraine policy, democrats fail miserably.
1
Faith in institutions requires, above all, that justice must always be seen to be done. If appointees to the highest courts in the land are nominated and approved by politicians, then the credibility of the law itself, the bedrock of any civilization, can, and now clearly has become undermined. Senior judges should be nominated by an independent panel of qualified jurists. The President and Congress should have no part in it. Federal judges should be required to retire at the age of 70 or 75.
One of the first goals of the tyrant is to undermine the law. The Constitution can then be deemed "phony" when it does not suit, and factionalized. The current system makes that all too easy. . The law has become a pawn in a political seesaw, rather than a purveyor of faith and reasonable certainty. It is the first of the dominos. Once it has fallen, the free press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and honorable service to the nation can be dismissed as worthless.
It’s a shame we don’t have more like Mr. Taylor, who refused to enter the political fray, only stating what occurred on his watch.
2
@rebecca1048
Actually we do, hundreds of them.
2
So unelected bureaucrats should set policy and run our government. Taylor and Kent are not honorable, they are just Deep State actors that did not have gumption to openly criticize Trump, argue their case and step down if they had to. They and their Democratic enablers started a whistleblower complaint to take down a president. If, like Mattis, they objected to Trump’s policy, both directly with the president and publicly, and then stepped down, they would have credibility. But instead, they colluded, spread speculation and never confronted or even met with the president. To be generous, they were insubordinate.
2
@Mark V You have a bizarre idea of government. The whistleblower correctly took the path that is provided BY LAW to complain of Trump's lawless actions. Kent and Taylor did their jobs, as best they could, including doing what they could to push back against those lawless actions. And now they have come forward to testify, despite being ordered not to. Trump is a president, not a king or a dictator, and there is nothing "insubordinate" about resisting his insanity. You apparently agree with Trump that his position means he is above the law (although I am pretty sure you wouldn't take that position if a Democrat was president).
5
This comment makes me want to cry.
1
Thank you for a wonderful and reassuring reminder, that the state is deep and full of talent, expertise, and non-partisan professionalism. In these times, it is this group and the majority of Americans who will outlast this current administration and we will become better from this. Those who would brand Americans who refute and deny Trump are NOT never-Trumpers, it is the Trumpers who are never-Americans. It is a critical moment we live in and all must be engaged and active or all will be lost.
3
This column reinforces my belief that as a republic we should provide some form of mandatory 2-year public service as a rite of passage into citizenship. It seems like the only way to force people out of their ideologically incestuous communities in order to form a more inclusive understanding of society and effective government.
13
David Brooks expresses well my own experience as a user of government services: for mail, for help with a Medicare or business license issue, for a car parking sticker. The government people have been at times short-tempered, busy but more commonly, they are knowledgeable and intent on helping, despite the handicap of their often ill-equipped, crowded offices. Thank you for the good sense today.
8
@Thomas Figel I have had in person and phone dealings with government officials - from those in the City Hall of my small city, to those at state and national levels. Without exception, they have been more pleasant - and more helpful - to deal with than, say, the folks who (eventually) answer the phones for AT&T, Verizon or Amazon.
2
Thanks for avoiding mention of "the church," Boy Scouts or other Brooksian representations of social order. It was refreshing.
I've noticed that the Times, although not accompanying this piece, has used many black and white photographs of Taylor, Kent and others while reporting on the hearings. It is very effective, evoking a sense of dignity and seriousness that characterized the Watergate hearings and other seminal moments in our history. Now if our representatives can live up to it . . .
3
I found listening to Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent to be like a breath of fresh air. They made me feel good about the future of America. An analogy for me coming from the health care world, is when an honest and well respected senior physician or surgeon with many years of practice speaks. You sit up a little more straighter and you are a little bit more attentive, to hear what they have to say on the medical topic being discussed. If what the Republicans snidely refer to as the "deep state" is composed of people like these, then we should all sleep better at night.
10
Yes!!! I have long thought that the incessant focus on electing "an outsider" was extremely misguided. When we elect an outsider he/she immediately surrounds him/herself with not elected insiders (e.g., G. W Bush & Chaney, Rumsfeld etc.). The truth is that the day after an election a POTUS must get up and govern, i.e., work within the system. That means having people who know how to do that both at the highest levels and below. It also means working with the thousands of servants and foot soldiers who make that system work year in and year out.
Intuitional memory is also important. If we toss the Congress every few years, we have no one who knows that this or that was tried and exactly why it did not work or who knows which experts exactly are the best sources on a given subject or sub-topic etc., etc.
Beyond that, a non-partisan workforce which is not made up of political appointees adds stability. Without them the lurching from one pole to another (one POTUS/Congress making policy, the next undoing it all) with greatly destabilize not only this country, but our relationships around the world and, therefore, the wider world.
10
Republicans lash out at these fine folks as being "unelected" and part of the deep state. Frankly, we don't not have the time to "elect" each an every person who enlists in the military, who processes our Social Security checks, who measures the air and water quality, or who work in the many missions around the world, caring about the creed of the US and its safety. Some people are called to do service for this country - they are not bribed to do it, they don't do it for a deal, they don't do it to garner attention. They are called because they believe in helping others, in a finer country, and in a better world.
6
@mormor And they don't do it to get rich.
1
I agree with the main point of this essay wholeheartedly, but in an attempt at evenhandedness, I think Mr. Brooks makes one false equivalence: progressives disparaging public servants as Washington insiders? In my experience, when progressives disparage Washington insiders, they're talking about lobbyists or politicians who no longer represent the interests of the people who elected them. Not the folks who work long hours for low pay in unglamorous government jobs. Only one political orientation really seems to have a problem with those.
9
Mr. Brooks fails to note that the institutions guiding our politics since the very beginning haven't been long-employed experts, they've been political parties funded and directed by self-serving wealthy elites.
Yes, it's good to have some institutional shaping of our society, but let's make sure institutions that represent the interests of the people have more of a voice than those that represent the interests of the folks in the gated communities.
4
But this dedication has almost always been true of the professionals who work in (and whose work is unsung in) the many government departments that do such necessary research and analysis and diplomacy. It was Reagan's small government approach that began the disarray and dismantling and successive mostly Republican administrations that continued to undermine these experts. Trump called them the swamp, but he and his supporters are the true swamp.
3
Unfortunately many Americans have been convinced that only someone like Trump (who really actually lives and thrives in the swamp) will drain the swamp (remember Trump was a Dem when he needed to be). It turns out that the plug at the bottom of the swamp is the biggest, strongest plug money can buy.
2
Thank you, Davis Brooks, for your succinct and clear analysis. I live in a retirement community where it is not useful to express an opinion on this kind of analysis. No talk about politics or religion!
But this analysis absolutely nails the current presidency and the sycophants with whom Trump has surrounded himself.
I appreciate the stability provided by these civil servants...the barbarians are at the gates and they are our protectors.
3
Taylor and Kent have made their indelible mark on the history of this country with their unflappable composure and soaring intellect, with a forthright honesty for all to see, living testimonies to the best we can be. A sharp contrast to the trio of Nunes, Jordan and Castor, ignoring the information presented for them on a platter for all to see, repeatedly spouting the same, practiced, irrelevant myths of their own creation.
What an impressive pair of public servants, dedicated to doing good. What a contrast.
2
@Jay Stephen I was inspired.
1
Excellent column, one of your best! "Rugged individualism" has run rampant in our society, to the detriment of our institutions and to the stability of our society. It is a fantasy of independence that has been foisted on the unthinking public. No man is an island.
4
As a member of the Australian Public Service (APS), I read the beginning of your piece with dismay. The contempt you described was disheartening, the views of both political parties towards those who run their departments, demoralising.
I am sure that my Civil Servant cousins are used to the pressure, and will solider on regardless. But I wanted to offer my support to them all.
The APS is committed to serving the government of the day, impartially and ethically. We exist to provide our Ministers (you call them Secretaries) with frank and fearless advice. Everyone I’ve met in my nine years in the public service has a clear sense of duty, of wanting to make a difference for the people of Australia. It is one of the things I love about working for the government.
Despite everything happening in American politics, I think you are right. As long as the civil servants remain true to their values, your government will survive, three ring circuses notwithstanding.
1
It is interesting that Mr. Brooks never mentioned the Weber's analysis of organizational models.
Max Weber "observed three types of power in organizations: Traditional, Charismatic and Rational-legal or Bureaucratic. He emphasized that bureaucratic type of power is the ideal one. " [http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/management/webers-bureaucracy-definition-features-benefits-disadvantages-and-problems/27893]
Both Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Kent demonstrated the many strengths of Weber's Bureaucratic authority model:
-People are paid and are full-time employees,
-They receive salary and other perquisites normally based on their positions,
-Their tenure in the organization is determined by the rules and regulations of the organization,
-They do not have any proprietary interest in the organization,
-They are selected for the purpose of employment based on their competence.
While the Bureaucratic model does have its weaknesses, the other two models, Traditional and Charismatic, have many more dangerous deficiencies that endanger democracy.
The entire Trump era is characterized by the Charismatic Authority model that "is a revolutionary and unstable form of authority. Followers believe that charismatic leaders have a close connection to a divine power, have exceptional skills, or are exemplary in some way" which encapsulates of Trump's claim of the "unmatched wisdom" and "I alone can fix it" mentality that the rabid right-wing media outlets now venerate and promote.
4
Your analysis is the antithesis in terms of succinctness and clarity, compared to David’s commentary.
I worked in government and many people were concerned with the public good. I take offense with your term Trumpian conservatives. Mitch McConnell, Peter King and the entire GOP have embraced Donald Trump. These so called conservatives have no principles. They show no concern with the growing public debt, getting rid of environmental regulations, gutting the ACA which provides health care to millions of Americans, trying to take away voting rights, etc.
The people serving in government are concerned with the welfare of their fellow citizens. Our so called conservatives are concerned with their donor class.
2
'On the left many put their faith in social movements, without explaining how social movements are going to write and pass legislation.'
How about the way social movements wrote national labor legislation after the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory tragedy? Or the way social movements wrote civil rights and environmental legislation in the 1960s? Seemed to work pretty well at the time.
5
Why, sure that legislation happened - because people turned to the institutions of governmental procedure to accomplish those reforms. Your question supports Brooks’ point!
@Andy Ballentine Yes, using the institutions of government to implement social reforms supported by social movements. My point isn't that you can't have legislation without government institutions, but rather that you can't have meaningful public reform without a foundation in culture and society. This is the value of social movements, to inform national progress.
3
@Andy Ballentine I think the point is that "social movements" look to influence governmental action. See these examples and, say, the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act (before the Republicans gutted it).
2
When William Taylor said humbly he was 5th in his class of 800 at West Point, and chose to get sent to Vietnam in infantry, it took great pause.
It made me think about him, even with all his other outstanding life experiences, he was a soldier, like my husband, a Vietnam vet, and like so many other Vietnam vets. They went to war, they were so young. Many were physically maimed for which they are now disabled. More than 58,000 of them lie in cemeteries due to their presence in Vietnam.
Taylor didn’t bring his war experience up, he was questioned. Many Vietnam veterans do not bring up their war experience either. They were scoffed, called horrendous names, shamed.
That moment of Taylor’s testimony, two days after Veteran’s Day made me see Taylor as a type of hero, yet just another ordinary man, gone off to that foreign country at a young age. He, like so many went clear across the world to fight for the rights of the Vietnamese people, a people and culture they had no idea of.
How dare Jim Jordan and the likes of the other Republicans on Wednesday badger William Taylor. Bad enough many who served in Vietnam were horribly treated when they got back to their homeland, but badgered disrespectfully fifty years later in a courtroom by grown men who supposedly represent our country, as paid leaders.
It was interesting about Taylor, too. He skimmed over the question about Vietnam quickly, the wartime experience, like so many of his comrades do, even sort of out of habit.
12
Mr. Brooks,
I highly recommend to check out Leo Gura on YouTube who has done a series of videos on conscious politics. He's a refreshingly open-minded and intelligent young person who has gathered the wisdom of our vast historical collective resources and made a meta-analysis of our values systems PLUS an entire episode with concrete policy proposals. It IS possible to uphold conservative principles AND have liberal values AND be respectful and inclusive of both, while forming real policy and real governance. Or, put another way with Integral analysis-we can actually think through policy, institutions and governance in real time, with fresh eyes and ideas taken from conservative and liberal principles. It's an ideal proposal which hasn't manifested in actuality yet. And I wonder, why aren't more people talking about this? Unfortunately, the dysfunctional constant crisis thinking of our failed ideological institutions is what grinds out news every day. As I see it, the future is meta-analysis and Integral politics-likely to rise from the ashes of the current meltdowns occurring among 20th century ideologies. The detritus that is burning is horrible, but, among the ashes, new shoots are growing, stronger and more inclusive-it is heartening to see. Please watch the young people and learn.
Washington Insiders, Public Service in America?
An analogy between theory of computerized, self-driving cars and Government Institutions of America can be made. The theory of self-driving cars is essentially that the moral/decision making process of humans is too variable, inconsistent, and that humans on the whole cannot be trusted to drive their own cars; therefore cars must be designed to not only transport but act as a moral/decision making exoskeleton, that morality and decision making must as much as possible be provided from without and that trust must be placed in an external source.
The bedrock of American Institutions, that America would be forced to fall onto that bedrock, is virtually identical to falling back on the tried and true, the basic, the most conforming, predictable, and consistent mindset; essentially America falling back on automatic program, God, Standard Operating Procedure, etc. and it's really ironic because these same people pose daily as the best and brightest of America, as if the spark of genius of America, if residing anywhere, will reside there.
It's pretty sad. With increasing population, a multitude of problems, it appears we are entering the age of distrust of not only individuals to make up their own mind, but humanity as a whole. We seem to be falling back to operating by the book, by the program, that the goal is to surround humanity by hardware of car, computer, institution, and program the mind to desired end.
Amen....but I'm afraid the contempt for dedicated civil servants is mostly a one-party phenomenon, and whenever it may have started, it blossomed and was nurtured by Reagan and his henchmen. The celebrity culture has bi-partisan origins, but the denigration of civil service is an entirely Republican idea...
13
I’m closely related to one of those Washington insiders who quietly served this nation in the military and intelligence communities. I once asked him, what news do you watch? He replied, I don’t watch the news, I get briefed. Now we have a President who scoffs at those patriots and gets his intelligence from talk shows. And that approach is applauded by conservative politicians and pundits.
12
"Watching Taylor and Kent, I had a feeling of going back in time...They’ve dedicated themselves to the organization that formed them, and which they serve."
You were traveling back in time before the GOP embraced Ronald Reagan's mantra that "Government is the problem". This just in, Mr. Brooks, government is the organization that formed men of principle like Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent, and government is the organization that they serve. Men like Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent are not swamp creatures who create problems. They are the bedrock of democracy.
MAYBE conservatives who at one time decried bureaucrats and supported less government regulation will look at Donald Trump's ascent as the ultimate consequence of Reagan's mantra and re-think the notion of "government being the problem."
9
For brooks to write this column without reference to Reagan seems a great disservice. At the very least he should acknowledge the impact of Reagan's policies. Does he not see the link? Can he not imagine his readers?
"Everywhere rule-breakers like Trump, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Nicolás Maduro are in power and corruption is in the air.Everywhere rule-breakers like Trump, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Nicolás Maduro are in power and corruption is in the air"-Brooks.
This is even more surprising than Dershowitz calling the Democrats Stalinists and more justified. Although Brooks has not called POTUS a socialist, at least he is putting him in the right company.
I doubt that many would call POTUS, a public servant, like those who truly work for the people.
2
All well and good, but perhaps where there’s smoke there might be a bit of fire. Let’s look at the list of names that provides evidence that, just perhaps, some of us have reason to be skeptical about the intentions of the DC power elite: Hunter Biden and Joe’s brother (he of the massive Iraqi construction contracts); the Kennedy family and its mobile phone deal in Haiti; Peter Galbraith and Kurdish oil; the McConnell/Choi shipping deals; one of the Romney sons; the Clinton Foundation. On and on. It’s not the civil servants who need to be punished, it’s the elite. From both parties.
3
@JPE None of the folks you mention are public servants in the sense of being members of the bureaucracy like Taylor/Kent, so not sure what point you're trying to make.
1
Thank you, David Brooks, for your paean to Washington Insiders. For kudos and laurels to our non-partisan and dedicated public servants. For praising cool-headed experienced leaders in our government like the U.S. State Dept's diplomats William Taylor and George Kent, who proved their professional mettle during the first day of the Congressional Trump Impeachment Hearings.
We Americans rely on our democratic institutions to wield power safely. We are witnessing social change tearing our country apart under this president. Climate change is on our horizon, as well. The double whammy is headed for us.
How will we rid our country of demagogues, rule-breakers, amoral people and despots? Only when the cudgel of Donald Trump's fist is removed from the hands of the American mob will equality and liberty ring again in the land of the free and brave
3
In my many experiences with public employees from internships at the State and Justice Department to a short stint with a major District Attorney's Office to a now long career as a teacher, I've always been impressed with the dedication, intelligence, merit and apolitical nature of the people I worked for and with. I didn't always agree with their decisions, sometimes they took what I perceived as the easier way out but they overwhelmingly put the public interest over the private interest and never sought to favor one political party over another. In many cases, they were the best and brightest and chose to make a good middle class life over the riches that could've awaited them had they chose the private sector.
3
Thanks for this article. I watched all of the recent hearings and was astounded with Mr. Kent and Mr. Taylor. Their responses to the Republican members of the hearing were examples of how well they support the constitution.
Our Congress needs an overhaul as does the administration. We are sinking as a democracy and we all know it. The pain and anxiety many of us feel cannot be fixed with a strong man(s), but could be fixed by people such as Taylor and Kent.
3
While most must acknowledge that the vast majority of people in most jobs are good people trying to do their best, not all individuals will ever be uniformly good or bad. Every individual also has personal interests, strengths and weaknesses. Few are saints.
Therefore no group of people, in any position should be vilified or lauded with a broad brush, in my opinion.
Life is not a football game of systematic "team" winner and losers.
A brilliant behavioural scientist at the university of Geneva, Switzerland said this - I believe this is very useful to keep in mind when we make judgements, including about federal employees:
"Wisdom is a mix of skepticism, prudence, indulgence and tolerance"
2
I know someone who is a physician/researcher working for the government. She is a well-known expert in her field. The fellows she trains go on to positions outside government that pay double or triple her salary. They continue to call her for advice and send her their most difficult patients.
8
I worked in government for more than a decade. I revered those who came before me and thought of myself as carrying the torch those whom they revered had handed to them.
It began in the late 1770s by extraordinary men and women who created something out of the scraps of Locke, Voltaire, and Rousseau.
It has survived for 250 years because the torch of liberty, freedom, and democracy they lighted was passed down to Taylor, Kent, Hill, and others.
But, you will notice in whose hearts that torch burns most brightly.
In the sons and daughters of immigrants like Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman for they have seen or heard what it is like living in a country where the rule of law is ignored.
I lived through Watergate and it took the American people rising up to follow that torch and to contact their Republican members of Congress to demand that a corrupt man who was laying waste to the rule of law be removed from office.
So, in the coming days, be the oxygen to the fire that burns in the hearts of these patriots who have and will come forward, call Republican members of Congress, and let them know you are watching and that when the votes are counted, and a list is made of those who turned away, you will do everything in your power to see that they are turned away as well.
9
I rarely agree with David Brooks, but this column is absolutely his best in years. Sure, there are some cheap shots at progressives, especially since the ‘woke’ excesses pale by comparison with the deeply destructive activities of the Republicans now nearly overtaken by Trump. I too was proud of the two diplomats testifying on Wednesday. They represent the best of American society and government, and from my own limited experience with agencies like NEH and NSF and CIES, I know there are many more who work tirelessly in the shadows.
I wish Brooks had trained criticism on the side that I found the worst examples of American society and government: the ten GOP members of the Intelligence Committee, especially Jordan, Nunes and Ratliff, who spent Wednesday engaged in wild conspiracies, focused on defaming the public servants Brooks commends, defending a thoroughly indefensible president. That their antics were televised to the whole world was a deeply embarrassing moment for me.
12
Nailed it nicely Mr. Brooks!! They are the most important part of our government, they are irreplaceable in they're knowledge and dedication.
2
A good and necessary reminder of one solid reason America is both great and safe: the men and women who serve in our government, both civil and military.
Innovators, corporate CEOs, small business creators, everyday working Joe's and Sally's, and young men and women who put on military uniforms, all contribute to making America great and safe. But so do the men and women who enter government service, federal, state and local.
It is a popular myth that people take jobs in government only because they can't make it in the "real world." I worked for a federal agency for 33 years. Over that time I served with many talented and dedicated men and women. One co-worker eventually left to enter medical school and become a doctor. One went to school at night to get a law degree to advance into another department of the agency. Many, like me, had college degrees, some advanced. We helped ensure that Social Security checks timely reached the millions who had earned them.
Sadly, Ronald Reagan began the Republican attack on government and its workers. The myth of freeloading employees was expanded to "government is the problem."
Thomas Paine wrote long ago, government is "a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. freedom and security." I recommend reading "Common Sense," for a better understanding of America's choice of government, its purpose, and its and government workers' value to society.
4
I have been a baker for 46 years. I have been subjected to health inspections, more times than I can count. these inspectors are govt. workers of course. They are dedicated, thorough and at times a pain in the neck. thank God for them. I have one question for all these enlightened people who look down on govt. workers. Do you like to feel safe when you go out for dinner or would you rather risk food poisoning?
18
Some good points made here. There is a reflexive hostility toward government and institutions, and it costs our country dearly. I don't know if Brooks understands that it is the Republicans who have most embraced this ideology, treating Reagan as an anti-government deity. Government institutions are actually very competent in most areas, and are stable and reliable.
Brooks went off track a bit toward the end. Social movements can't get legislation passed? How does he think legislative change occurs? It is motivated and instructed by activists. Without activists, most legislators would do nothing but quibble over minor tweaks to the budget, and call it a day. I get it, though...Brooks is obligated by law to scold the left for something in every column.
6
It just came to mind that I was a teacher and a school counselor. I can't exaggerate how many of m colleagues were effective teachers, not economically well placed, ethical, and without any axe to grind. The general negative publicity and the reality in such an institution as education are two different things. Brooks reminded me of my own profession das I felt the same as he did when these outstanding public servants testified.
1
Odd that David is getting misty-eyed over the "good people" in government when his party since Reagan has done everything possible to undermine the very idea of government.
Odd indeed!
13
David, Thank you for this wonderful column and a reminder of all the public servants keeping our country and its citizens safe, secure and prospering. You are right that the trend to trash public institutions and public servants has been infecting our society for decades. I remember cringing listening to Reagan when he was in office equating government with the worst of everything. Carter also participated in this trend. In some ways, Bush HW was the best in appreciating government's importance. I believe that you have outlined the greatest issue facing our country, that is, the belief among our citizens that government is always the problem and not the solution. It is probably one of the main reasons why a person like Trump could have won the presidency. It is also at the base of the cowardness and corruption of the Republican Party. It will take a major effort and generations to fix this problem.
5
Item one: The president, his Congressional minions, and prominent insiders in the White House are clearly not conservatives but opportunists adopting a reactionary populist script. The civil servants are acting a lot more like genuine good-government conservatives devoted to the rule of law, not as opportunists using a second-rate television celebrity turned wanna-be dictator. Some in the media are calling them all conservatives, no doubt sending Burke and Adams spinning in their graves.
Item two: We are looking for the leader who can honor the career public servants and their expertise, not demonize them as “point-headed” intellectuals, in the frequent sneer of some prominent Republicans. We need the leader who can, for example, hold libertarian and communitarian sentiments in a kind of balance, finding the sweet spot of productive compromise, someone in other words who does not fear being considered boring by cable pundits. The responsible civil servants now on display will typically honor even the policies of elected leaders with which they may disagree if the political leaders honor the integrity of those who do the real daily work of government.
4
I agree with one point: this impeachment, contrary to the Republican's claim, is not about overturning an election, BUT about protecting what is right about our democracy. And every time a Republican blurts out the other notion, the immediate response needs to be (by everyone) you're wrong.
I disagree about the the role of social movements. The best social movements are not "mobs". Social movements have been shown to contribute most to important change, eg, women's voting rights, the civil right movement, LGBTQ rights movement, etc. There never was, nor will there likely to be, a politician or civil servants, in Washington that will originate or lead important social justice change.
3
"At this week’s hearings, the civil servant witnesses answering questions inspired a lot more confidence than the elected officials who were asking them."
What an understatement. The candor, competent precision, and generally "truthiness" of Mr. Kent and Mr. Taylor put our elected representatives broadly to shame.
More than wishing for any particular impeachment outcome, I hope that a large number of citizens consume portions of these proceeding and come away with precisely the renewed faith in institutional experience, wisdom, and expertise that Mr. Brooks is writing about.
8
It's far easier to blame the bureaucrat ("public servant") than the person who promised you the moon and failed to even deliver "the bacon". Most lifers in public service see it as a higher calling to serve and improve public life. Politicians on the other hand, see it as a power trip and ego boost. Those outside the inner circle are trampled and feel disenfranchised and distraught that government isn't working for them. Trump and his kind have tapped into this anger and angst to capture power. Unfortunately, instead of actually working to solve the problems, their (inflated) egos coupled with their total lack of appreciation and knowledge of the system, they exacerbate the problems while blaming those protecting the infrastructure (laws and traditions, social concerns ...) for the mess they (the politicians) actually created.
Those tossed aside as "road kill" by Trump and chose to stand up for the true American values are to be celebrated and not vilified.
Now if only, the public and the GOP would also find their backbone, maybe America can be great again. Instead of sending Trump (and his minions) back to the WH, send them to the "big house".
6
People have messed-up theories of how you do social change. On the right many think that you need to elect some authoritarian strongman who will whip everybody into shape. On the left many put their faith in social movements, without explaining how social movements are going to write and pass legislation.
Nice passage.
2
Government is not the problem, big business is and always has been.
20
Um, they are not low paid, they are mostly well paid – as they should be. “The public buildings of Washington are filled with very good people working hard for low pay and the public good.” Mr. Brooks, good thoughts and good article, but really, get in touch with the reality of the millions of Americans that work hard for truly low, unfair pay. Relative to the zany millions and billions that an elite few make in our country they are “working hard for low pay…” but relative to 90+ percent of Americans they are making good money. Again, as they should!
9
Race, religion and nationality and gender.
America in 2019 has regained leadership of the debate of democratic futures.
Whether Trump is removed is not the issue.
The fact that Americans can and do hold one citizen to account by law is reassuring.
Mr Brooks wrote:
The public buildings of Washington are filled with very good people working hard for low pay and the public good. There are thousands of them and they are very much like the Foreign Service officers that we’ve seen or are expected to see testifying at the impeachment hearings: William Taylor, George Kent, Marie Yovanovitch and Fiona Hill.
These people serve the public.
Disclosure of private interests is part of the culture of public service.
I worked on Saturday afternoons at a footy club in Darwin as a gate keeper who collected money for admission.
This was the seventies.
As a member of the Australian Taxation Office I divulged my activities to my boss.
Yes in those days fans could bring many cans of beer to footy.
The club told me that it would be ok to accept two cans of beer rather than two dollars for the club.
Two cans of beer per hour or so.
It was hot.
Vale public servants.
Integrity and truth is fearless.
My disclosure is verifiable.
My tax returns are available.
Why do so few people trust the institutions built to protect them?
Look no further than the Gingrich Republican revolution of the 1990s. Yes, it all started with Goldwater individualism, but the real undermining of expertise came from "conservative" fundamentalists in the new know-nothing anti-government strain marketed as independent, free and reformative.
The Republican anti-government agit-prop was, of course, just a smokescreen for the reduced tax racket of Grover Norquist and Roger Ailes. It has ended up, as was predictable, with a new age of billionaire robber barons and a drowning populace.
Republicans are smearing public servants, jeopardizing our national security, allowing the president to get away with high crimes and misdemeanors and running up a deficit that our grandchildren won't be able pay off.
Why would anyone trust a government that acts this way?
19
@Nick R.
I agree with you that it was the Gingrich revolution that ignited this mess BUT it was actually started by Lee Atwater and his heir apparent, Karl Rove.
And, of course, their was the megaphone of Rush Limbaugh and the religious right.
I am constantly amazed at how we let ourselves be manipulated by these self serving charlatans.
1
Thanks David for pointing this out. In an increasingly Libertarian culture we often fail to acknowledge the skill and dedication of government workers who have a huge impact in our country.
Watching them in action whether it's giving testimony to congress, negotiating a complex international treaty or presenting scientific findings to a conference you realize the value of experience and the ethos of public service.
13
Brilliant analysis of the character of dedicated public servants. I look around and see similar folks, dedicated to their causes, but on a much smaller stage: our fearless military; caregivers in memory centers, medical facilities and hospice; policemen and firemen; advocates for children and animals; the list is endless. Each and every one of us knows a dedicated public servant, and the vast majority of us respect and admire them all. Why not those in the grander arena — silent, unseen, and relentless in their quest for a better and safer country, and a peaceful world?
7
America was founded by people who distrusted the mob. They didn’t like monarchy but the also feared demagoguery. The system they created, however imperfect, represents an attempt to navigate these threats. Right now we are thrust painfully close to the shoals of demagoguery. Who knows whether the Republic will founder? If it survives, it will be a darned close run thing.
8
A fine column by Brooks, but I have disagree with him on one point. The problem he describes did not emerge fifty years ago; it is endemic to the American attitude toward government. As early as the presidency of Andrew Jackson, some elected leaders dismissed the need for expertise in the federal bureaucracy. The concept of the "spoils system" rested on the assumption that government officials required no special training or skills.
American suspicion of any kind of elite sustained the spoils system for decades. Even the creation of the civil service system did not insulate bureaucrats from a measure of popular disdain. FDR's New Dealers confronted considerable hostility from members of congress whose influence their new agencies eclipsed. And, of course, Joseph McCarthy later enhanced his popular support by ridiculing our diplomats, the "boys in the striped pants."
A certain suspicion of government is deeply ingrained in the American psyche, and both elected and appointed officials feel its sting. This healthy skepticism, however, often becomes a tool for ambitious politicians like Trump.
12
"At this week’s hearings, the civil servant witnesses answering questions inspired a lot more confidence than the elected officials who were asking them. Why are they so impressive? It’s precisely because they are Washington insiders."
Brooks seems desperate to buttress the status quo. Otherwise, why would he engage in such palpable illogic? Yes, the civil servant witnesses are indeed "Washington insiders." And their dedication to selfless public service and willingness to tell the truth under circumstances adverse to career advancement let in a needed breath of fresh air. The Capital environment has come to reek of greed, corruption, opportunism and cowardice, and a reminder that such qualities are not universal helps restore a sense of balance.
But the elected officials asking the questions at the hearing are also "Washington insiders," as are the hordes of lobbyists who prowl the legislative and agency corridors, members of the White House media corps, the wonks who staff the think tanks, and the scores of legislative and political staffers. They perform different jobs but all qualify as Washington insiders.
To say that one cohort of Washington insiders performed honorably does not exonerate the entire category. On the evidence one may argue that those public servants who prefer to toil anonymously are morally superior to those that crave power and the limelight. But the sad fact is that the latter group is now so vast and potent that it can poison the entire process.
3
Brooks notes the essential change, but not how it evolved. To reduce it to a one-liner: The Right has adopted and adapted the approach, zeitgeist, and techniques of the Sixties/Seventies Left and the Left has adopted and adapted the approach, zeitgeist, and techniques of the Sixties/Seventies Right.
Thus the Right now is disrespectful of the military and intelligence agencies, clamors in colleges for free speech, and is happy to run up the national debt to support its programmatic goals. Meanwhile the Left begs for colleges to act in loco parentis and limit speech, evaluates people on the color of their skin, and focuses on electoral politics. All of these positions are more or less the total reverse held by the Right and Left of the Sixties/Seventies generation.
As an aside: it never ceases to amaze me how David Brooks is the Times best Rorschach blot, as (frequently highly Recommended) commenters read into his column stuff that simply isn't there.
1
Thank you David. I too have been deeply moved by the courage and integrity shown by the whistleblower and those who have come forward to testify in the impeachment hearings. They are putting their reputations on the line and exposing themselves to the inexcusable, self-serving and — how best to say it? —barbaric ridicule of the president and his lackeys in the Republican Party. My admiration for Taylor and Kent was matched by a searing revulsion for the behavior of the republicans on the committee, especially that of Jim Jordan. My parents and many of their friends in upstate New York in the 1960’s—1990’s were proud republicans who believed in government, and served on the Board of Planned Parenthood and the League of Women Voters. As many have noted, the Republican Party started down a dangerous anti-government path under Reagan, and under Trump they have completely lost their way. I am sickened by Trump. I am terrified of how the Republican Party has abandoned integrity, decency and truth in order to defend him at all costs. The price, I fear, will be devastating for our country to pay.
14
I liked this column. I worked for federal and state governments, including the military. Mistakes were made, yes, but for the most the trains ran on time and the public was served.
6
Thank you again David Brooks for your wisdom, your personal journey that has informed your public journey, and your ability to articulate the human spirit.
thank you, thank you!
3
This is a great example of what real conservatism is. Even though I am a proponent of progressive movements, at base I am a conservative in that I really believe in nurturing institutions. Long live the "deep state"!
7
Now that the corporate inheritors of Mr Brooks' conservative leaning ethos have elevated the un-fittest in all the land to highest office, you'd think he'd begin to see the light; acknowledge the ultimate futility of perpetuating a rigged system that abandons the most vulnerable to the designs of the greediest. Instead he takes this historical moment to praise the service of the unsung federal civil servant.
3
It wasn't all that long ago that everyone you saw on C-Span behaved the same way--recognizing that they were representing and participating in a great experiment, and that those they interacted with in the seat of power deserved respect as colleagues in that experiment, even those on the other side of the aisle. Often adversaries but rarely enemies, and all sworn to protect the Constitution.
4
In a parallel judicial world, how about Trump's tax returns that he wants the Supreme Court yo agree he can shield.
Trump's tax returns will show how the Trump Organization uses multiple shell corporations to hide a very minuscule income, but a massive Russian debt.
That may well be Putin's leverage over Trump. That and dangling a maybe for a Moscow Trump Tower, unless Donnie does Vlad "a favor, though"
4
Most people in the government are just as careerist and self-centered as people in the private sector. They just happen to like power more than money. And lots of times they get the money too. That's their choice, but let's not heap praise upon people whose careers are fundamentally about seeking power (of course, they'll call it "making a difference," but that's just semantics). The careers that should be praised are ones where people help others and get neither money nor authority in exchange.
4
In this otherwise excellent piece, Brooks does not indicate his thoughts on how we got where we are. To put it into a long bumpersticker I would say, "The Right adopted and adapted the approach, zeitgeist, and techniques of the Sixties/Seventies Left and the Left adopted and adapted the approach, zeitgeist, and techniques of the Sixties/Seventies Right."
Thus the Right now is disrespectful of the military and intelligence agencies, clamors for free speech, and is happy to run up the national debt. Meanwhile the Left begs for colleges to limit speech, evaluates people on the color of their skin, and focuses on electoral politics. All of these positions are more or less the reverse held by the Right and Left of a generation or so ago.
3
Brooks writes:
"Watching Taylor and Kent, I had a feeling of going back in time. Why did it feel so strange? It was because I was looking at people who are not self-centered. They’ve dedicated themselves to the organization that formed them, and which they serve."
Wait a second. If we go back in time, Brooks and the rest of the Conservatives were busy denigrating people like Taylor and Kent; remember St. Reagan's mantra that the government is the enemy of the people?
And didn't Conservatives trash bureaucrats for "getting overpaid to do nothing?"
And more recently, hasn't Brooks and his Conservative cohort denigrated "Washington insiders" for being "elitists" and "out of touch" with "real Americans" from the Heartland?
I don't think that it "felt strange" to Brooks because he was nostalgic for the past; rather, I think he felt strange for suddenly realizing that he was wrong for all those years!
Funnily, when Brooks notices these people instead of just looking at his Conservative buddies, he sees people who actually aren't "self-centered!" Maybe if he had hung out with us Socialist, wealth-redistributing Liberals, he would have realized that there are lots of non-self-centered people in the world.
And no, Mr. Brooks, they weren't formed by and dedicated to "an organization"; rather, they are dedicated to our country, which transcends all individual organizations like businesses, religions, and especially political parties (ahem!).
22
How ironic that Brooks writes that "we don't pay enough attention to all the planes that take off and land safely." Ronald Reagan destroyed the air traffic controllers union as part of his "government is the problem" policies. It is a miracle that planes take off and land at all after Reagan. If people have lost faith in institutions, the very good reasons include a tacit acceptance by Americans that Reagan was right. The myths of "American Exceptionalism", rugged individualism and self-reliance make acceptance of anti-government attitudes inevitable. The egregious Trump has forced many Americans to question long-held hostility to the necessity of responsible people in government institutions. Brooks naturally feels as if he's taken a trip in the way-back machine after watching Taylor and Kent. But he supported the policies of Reagan and the Bush dynasty that paved the way for Trump. At least now he acknowledges the integrity of some government representatives. The system is certainly rigged economically to favor the rich against the poor. Brooks takes the ritual NYT Op-Ed swipe at the left, by dismissing social movements for not explaining how coalitions of people outside of government are going to write and pass legislation. So patronizing. Political/ social movements exist to influence those in government who can write and pass legislation to do so.
21
One case where Mr. Brooks's conservatism serves all of us well: a reminder of the importance of expertise, institutions, science, and knowledge, in our public life. Great piece with one exception:
A idea we should all push back against, however, is the idea of "moral codes" being "absorbed" - this vague, usually self-serving notion is subjective and conservative and serves also to promote anti-democratic structures like ritualistic military elites, hierarchical religious institutions, etc.
4
I am very optimistic. The Trump Administration and this president will be held accountable by our laws, as will his family. We shall remain a nation of laws.
9
Lots of agreement, and laurels for Brooks, in the Comments. Yet he was part of a right wing gang which has demonized and denigrated public service for decades. Where is his self-reflection?
14
@Oncle Antoine
I totally agree with you! Brooks seems to forget his past, and is trying to reinvent himself. Shameless!
David doesn't connect the dots once again leaving his readers ill- informed so as not to expose his own culpability. It has been solely a Republican effort to destroy the American public's trust in its government and institutions over the past 50 years which leads us to this moment in time. It was fine to suggest to repair a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy, but the Right was not after that - it wanted a federal government small enough to drown in a bathtub (Norquist), it wanted you to fear the aid of the US government (Reagan), it wanted you to believe it was out to destroy Democracy (Trump).
There are too many reasons why Conservatives wanted this but the results are income inequality, banks that are too big to fail, corporations not paying appropriate taxes, inept action to combat climate change, a divided electorate, and the highest costs for education and health care in the world.
David likes to bemoan the harmful effects of distrust but can't place the blame where it belongs - with the ideology that he has championed his whole life.
29
@Lucas Lynch
Thank you for saying this! I wrote a similar comment, but they didn't print it. I'm glad that they posted yours.
10
@Lucas Lynch It may have been that Mr. Brooks was more extreme as a younger man but I have been reading his columns for many years and find him someone who is thoughtful in way that it is clearly evident his views have evolved and moderated. It seems to me that in the comments section of every Brooks column there are critics that do not actually read the columns for anything other than to find some point in which to call Mr. Brooks to task for real and alleged views from decades past. Its a shame because that man often has thoughtful insights that seem to go over the heads of his chorus of critics that are stuck in the distant past. Please show me something he has written in the past ten years that is worthy of this chorus of vitriol that regularly appears in the comment section. Then lets compare that to the many worthwhile columns that have been written in the past decade. Mr. Brooks has evolved and grown wiser over the years. I'm not so sure about his critics.
5
@Lucas Lynch
Agree. Republicans need to do what Mr. Brooks has started doing here- acknowledge and thank the dedicated, intelligent, and honest federal employees who are literally putting their careers and lives on the line to speak up.
It’s also time for the Republicans who decided to pull that lever and voted for Trump, thinking it would be ok, to acknowledge as these brave civil servants have that it is not ok. We will not just get over it. We need them to look at the facts, speak to their Republican representatives, and remove Trump.
3
Well said, Mr. Brooks. This applies to all levels of governmental administration and public servants. There was a time when honor for these professions was pervasive and civil duty was held in high esteem, and competence was the expected norm. Many such examples still abound and the spotlight on the heroic examples we are witnessing presently are heartening.
The same should be said of the incredible work many journalists are performing now as well. We are fighting a war of sorts within our country right now, and these men and women are performing heroic patriotic duty on our behalf. They should be celebrated, and let us hope the voters will soon come to their aid.
7
I agree with the general argument. Certain institutions do mold a person into something greater, sharpening mental or physical abilities in the service of a larger cause. I do think the counter argument goes too far here: "Trump is an example of a person who wasn’t formed by an institution. He is self-created and self-enclosed." This gives Trump too much credit while overlooking the institutions that formed him: the gangster capitalism he seems to have internalized from his New York real estate years and the tabloid and reality TV media industries that framed his persona for consumption by the masses. No, Trump is hardly self-created, though his formative institutions do tend to reward an extreme version of selfishness and mold a narrowly defined, immature self. Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of similar selves who identify with Trump out there. The institutions that formed them do not appear to promote our better natures.
7
It is interesting to see how various different people develop over several decades of life. It is interesting to see how different people develop over several decades of life. Compare William Taylor, for example, to Donald Trump. Taylor is by far the wiser, happier, more secure, and successful man. As a career civil servant, he has engaged with civil society and warmly exudes respect for it. I don't know him personally, of course, but I suspect he has over the years developed many circles of friends and acquaintances. In short, he loves and is loved.
On the other hand, as we have seen vividly in the last four years, Trump is all bluster and bravado, clearly an unhappy wisp of a man! He is unwise, insecure, bankrupt at times, bereft of friendship or group. David Brooks rightly notes that Trump has never been formed by an institution. He actively disdains good, formative institutions. He bullies them and tries to obliterate them if he cannot overpower them. Republicans may toe his line, but they do not love the man. He has few true friends, and he is much to be pitied.
Institutions have tremendous power to build up thousands of circles of friendships and alliances, and their produce blossoms exponentially into all of society. We need to save them from Trump's malevolence.
10
I recently concluded a career of over twenty years in the federal government. It’s nice to know that at some dim level, expertise, ethics, honor and dedication to the country and its ideals are still recognized and appreciated by people like Mr. Brooks. I only wish more people had the view that competency, skill and integrity were ideals to be reached for and celebrated, rather than sneered at.
22
Everyone should applaud these brave public servants. They uphold institutions central to our republic and to our democracy.
However, you write how these brave "Washington Insiders" uphold "rules" without once mentioning that the "rules" derive from the US Constitution. Further, you fail to state that these public servants are upholding their oaths of office. Why do you fail to make such obvious connections? The only conclusion is that you seek to avoid addressing what it means when public officials refuse to uphold their oaths.
Federal employees take the following oath: "So help me God. As Federal civil servants, we take an oath of office by which we swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America." What we've seen from all those like William Taylor is a belief in the sanctity of that oath, in the Constitution, and in the rule of law.
Nothing more greatly contrasts the honor of these men and women than the total dishonor, venality, and treachery of Trump and Congressional Republicans who destroy the US Constitution while blatantly violating their oaths of office. Take your reasoning to its logical conclusion and Trump and all Congressional Republicans must be removed from office.
We don't need to travel "all around the world" to find "demagogues who tell (people) that our problems are easy to solve if we just get rid of the bad people." Trump and all Congressional Republican say it, so they're not just "rule-breakers", they're demagogues.
22
Strange how a man like Trump can fool so many people. For the majority of my working life I worked for fortune 500 companies. Companies that care about profits, basically return on investment to share holders. Workers can be replaced. My last position, before retirement, was a job with the US Fish & Wildlife Service in Northern California. This was the BEST job that I have ever had. Kind people that worked hard to protect the environment, that cared. People that were under paid and respected everything and everyone. Its great to retire on a high note. So when Reagan said that government is the problem, I say no, Reagan, the Republican God is the problem.
39
The likes of Kent and Taylor and other dedicated public servants give me hope indeed. When was the last time a firefighter or first responder asked a victim what their party affiliation was before rendering assistance? Term limits on all branches of government and tweaking of the constitution to achieve that end is when we can start to see clear water.
10
The two parties are not equally to blame here. The GOP has done far more to destroy trust and prevent bipartisan cooperation, Moscow Mitch is proud of not permitting hundreds of bills to even be discussed on the Senate floor. In times past a bill passed by the House would be amended by the Senate and differences would be worked out in a conference. Not today. The GOP prevents action on infrastructure, climate, healthcare, election security, and gun safety and then blames everything on the Democrats, whom they insult personally rather than respect as fellow Americans with different views.
Not OK. The Republican Party does not deserve Americans’ votes until it regains its conscience.
38
"Let me tell you a secret. The public buildings of Washington are filled with very good people working hard for low pay and the public good."
I'll tell you a secret: It's NOT a secret.
And it's too bad the truth needs to be told so repeatedly.
23
Actually, @MJ, it IS a secret, or has been until now. General mistrust of government as an institution began to grow during Vietnam and Watergate. Then Ronald Reagan amplified and focused it against those within government. Subsequent administrations were not as direct but did nothing to reverse the general attitude. Now comes the Trump administration and congressional allies who unleash attacks against “unelected bureaucrats” in ugly and personal terms. I’m hoping that the American public watching these witnesses will believe what they see, not what they hear.
2
I was struck by the closing paragraph. "Watching Taylor and Kent, I had a feeling of going back in time. Why did it feel so strange? It was because I was looking at people who are not self-centered. They’ve dedicated themselves to the organization that formed them, and which they serve."
It's too bad most of the GOP members of Congress don't have the same feeling. They're not fulfilling their oaths to support and defend the Constitution as these outstanding public servants are.
23
Well said, David. For the first time since Trump was elected, I want to call myself an American. Before our eyes just a few days ago, we witnessed patriotism, honesty, and truth with a whole lot of dignity. There will be no statues erected to Mr. Kent and Mr. Taylor. But that would be the last thing these devoted civil servants would want. They and their hundreds of colleagues in the service of our democracy aspire to just that...a fair and equal democracy. Who knows where this impeachment will lead us? One hopes it is toward a return to ethics and morality. But even without the desired result, we are still winning this war against infamy and notoriety. Just think of all those unsung heroes awaiting in the wings to save us from those lesser angels. There is hope after all that this nation can become whole again. Yet it takes all of us to join the few. We can do wonders together.
20
Robert Brooks makes a good point:
"The public buildings of Washington are filled with very good people working hard for low pay and the public good."
But then he transitions into a praise of insiders as opposed to outsiders, and here his argument is weak.
He gives a reassuring message as the US faces a constitutional crisis. The government has become so partisan that the two sides are allowing democracy itself, and the Bill of Rights, to be compromised.
Proper action requires activities of outsiders, in fact people who belong to NEITHER political party, because both parties are wrong.
The poor were worried about immigration, so they chose Trump who seemed to listen.
But Trump is bad (even offensive) with words. He doesn't understand compromise. He has the instincts of an autocrat. And to top it off, he is so incompetent that he cannot formulate coherent policy or lead his own cabinet.
Democrats have responded by becoming more entrenched in their own trends. These include an inability to follow the rules of due process.
The hearings for Brett Kavanaugh were turned into a trial for an attempted rape in high school for which evidence was lacking.
Yet Democrats essentially voted along party lines to convict Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, thereby inflaming half of the country.
The Southern Poverty Law Center cites Stephen Miller as a purveyor of "hate speech," but Democratic Senators cannot see their own "hate speech" when they label Kavanaugh as "unfit to serve."
@Jake Wagner …"The hearings for Brett Kavanaugh were turned into a trial for an attempted rape in high school for which evidence was lacking."....Was the women who accused Kavanaugh a case of mistaken identity or was she lying. Based on you statement one or the other has to be true.
Good grief. A woman with a name and a face went before the nation to accuse Kavanaugh of attacking her years before. Do you think she enjoyed the spotlight? She did what she thought was right at no small personal cost. Kavanaugh survived it and today nobody but she and Kavanaugh know the truth. But was the Senate supposed to ignore her accusation? You seem to consider the whole thing a great injustice. That’s your right, but it doesn’t mean the Senators who investigated the accusation were unjust. A whole lot of people, myself included, believe they did their jobs.
So, how is the credo of "move fast and break things" working out for us--in the start-up or the governmental realm?
Conservatives are flat wrong when they intone "too much government is the problem". A much bigger problem is when you don't have ENOUGH government--which is when you get a Flint water crisis, or a series of E. coli outbreaks . . .or a Donald Trump.
23
This is a good piece. Though I strongly disagree with David Brooks on a large host of issues, he’s right about the importance of a properly functioning state. I think he downplays the seriousness of the threat of ever increasing partisan polarization and the GOP’s role in exacerbating it.
20
Badly needed and literally decades overdue. Reagan was worshiped by many for his simplistic tirades against government, setting a model that still applies.
Government investment led to the Internet, GPS, computers, medicines, better agricultural productivity. Because of regulators we can usually trust the restaurants we eat at, and enjoy the rivers that have returned.
As this article shows, character in government still exists. Not everyone is corrupt. Let's also remember that if President Carter, now in the hospital, who is a tremendous human being, doesn't make it. Character had better still count, or we're never going to recover from this political era.
So we need a restored government. This doesn't mean government is perfect. Operations can often be improved as is true with any sector.
Bold thinking is also needed in government, as well as elsewhere, to deal with the wicked problems we're facing. The next President, his/her cabinet officials, and staff are going to have to innovate like crazy and get rid of or refine any bureaucratic processes that get in the way. Government has done that at times, but it needs to be a restored expectation and duty of the job, and respected as we can hope character now will be in the next Administration.
Culture counts, too. Whistle blowers need protection. The public, politicians, and media can publicize government workers who go all out. Politicians in the out party can be tolerant of promising policy experiments that need tinkering.
6
Thank you so much for standing up for our institutions and the good people who work within them.
9
I agree, Mr Brooks, but to attribute this to some general societal shortcoming is, at best, disingenuous. If I could just remember which party has been running on “Government IS the problem!” For over forty years.
23
Thanks again Mr Brooks for reminding us about a truth you predicted as this Trumpian era got started, you said then that the insiders would save us from ourselves. This reminds me that education is above money and materialism, a degree in foreign service and experience abroad develops culture, knowledge, an elite that is admirable. The class of people helping FDR during the Depression and WWII were earning modest government salaries. The Roosevelts had bookcases in the White House!
13
What Brooks is saying seems true and profound, but it raises another question to me: When so many of us work for institutions, large and small, everywhere in our nation, why do so many of us indulge our adolescent rebelliousness against authority, expertise, and norms? Why don’t we understand instinctively that is it shallow and wrong?
Perhaps “A Time to Build” has an answer. I fear that the answer may be that we have infantilized ourselves through our unhealthy fascinations with technology, entertainment, and consumer goods.
5
It was very comforting watching Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent testify. Seeing these two intelligent, thoughtful and honorable public servants was a breath of fresh air after all our country has gone through. They give me hope that our country can earn back the trust we have lost between each other and other countries.
Mary Gunderson
Talkeetna, Alaska
17
David I liked this piece.
I would recommend that you as a political analyst should consider the other party. The party you have followed is in following instead of realizing that their party is worthless because of inaction for the last 30 years.
We are all in this together but it seems the republican party is in it for there re-election.
It's time to put your foot down and wait when the republican party comes back to the party of Lincoln.
14
A very good column on a dimension of modern America that needs more attention and respect. Brooks dwelled on the ethics and patriotism of those who toil on behalf of a working Democracy. But there is another quality—skill. Since Reagan we’ve been taught to believe anybody can jump in higher levels of government and do a good job, do it even better. It seems like accepted fact now. But from personal experience, I can say it’s hard and perilous to “do” government right. It’s understanding myriad interests, forces, and consequences before acting. It’s adjusting and improving as you go. One thing it is not. It is not making and selling widgets. I for one appreciate what government workers do everyday.
14
Wow. Unelected bureaucrats who intend to overturn the will of the people. If that is true gravitas and faith in democracy, I’ll have less of it please.
1
@Jason McDonald
I assume by "will of the people" you mean the electorate. I hasten to remind you that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. I'd love to see THAT "will of the people."
25
The "will of the people"?
Are you actually suggesting that "the people" wanted this recklessness and ignorance?
I suppose so.
How depressing.
Be careful what you wish for. Unelected “bureaucrats” are making the system you depend on work day in and day out.
1
Now this is a column that tackles a true problem for our Country. The outrageous cynicism concerning government workers is unhealthy and very much unfair.
One of the political parties has made it their mantra. “Government doesn’t work.” And, then, they often lead in such a fashion is to make this the truth.
15
Well said; although I am a liberal Democrat I fully agree with Mr. Brooks! I was very impressed by the nonpartisan testimony by Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent yesterday. They are a tribute to our much needed government.
20
I appreciate your recognition of these fine men and their non-partisan service to their country and to their oath. But David, where is your commentary about the shameful behavior of the GOP "questioners" in this hearing who did little more than try to denigrate this service and rant about issues other than those that this hearing is trying to address? Come on, time to confess that the Republicans are NOT the patriots these civil servants art. Please.
27
My wife and I watched the Wednesday hearing from 11:15 through to the end. There were moments when William Taylor and George Kent made my eyes well up with pride. Pride that we have such patriotic, intelligent, knowledgeable and professional people serving us at this level of our Government.
Mr. Brooks writes: "At this week’s hearings, the civil servant witnesses answering questions inspired a lot more confidence than the elected officials who were asking them."
Because Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent were so on point, disciplined and clearly trustworthy to my eyes and ears, I agree with Mr. Brooks's statement on the whole.
I beg to differ with his lumping Democrats and Republicans together on that Committee. To misuse Trump's statement on Charlottesville, there were not good people on both sides of that aisle.
I ask those who watched, how many Republicans actually asked questions that were pertinent to the two professionals experience and prior testimony, as opposed to simply repeating ad nauseam the irrelevant talking points that Donald Trump wanted to present in defense of his actions?
I found that the vast majority of the Democrat's time was spent in earnest inquiry, certainly, not the Republicans.
41
A professional is someone who does their job without preventing other from doing theirs. Trump doesn’t have the first clue about professionalism. His government-by-tweet means that decisions are made without any deliberation or preparation, leaving everyone to improvise until he changes his mind— think the Muslim ban, the caving in to Erdogan. Even worse, he has no understanding of the basic pillars of a civil society— independent judiciary, free press, even the necessity of paying taxes, because not paying taxes is “smart”. I am waiting for some evidence of buyer’s remorse from his red-hatred fan base, but it doesn’t seem to be happening. This is the most worrying thing of all.
20
As a senior member of the Reagan White House, I can tell you that David Brooks nailed it when he shows that our senior members of the federal government are a real asset. I saw first hand the professionalism and dedication of so many federal employees, and while we complain about the process we also should recognize the value and commitment of these people.
27
and why do you not address Reagan's denigration of these same people? it's just odd .
"These public servants tend to be self-effacing and deeply knowledgeable about some small realm of public policy."
I suggest starting by reading the wiki articles on Kent and Taylor. These people, because of their devotion to truth and honor, are deeply knowledgeable about much more than "some small realm of public policy". They have long and varied careers, military, academic, and diplomatic all over the world and speak several languages.
"[Trump] is self-created and self-enclosed."
Trump may well be described as "self-enclosed" but he definitely is NOT self-created. He inherited his fortune and his shaky moral core from his father Fred. Trump is the classic example of someone being born on third base (or really a couple of inches from home plate) and when somehow he blunders on to home plate expects the rest of the world to sing his praises. Very few of us are truly self-made. And those who having attained great fortune or renown who claim that they are self-made generally are quite insufferable.
23
Wielding power safely, the value of institutions. Thank you for that concise observation. I've been looking for words like this.
Unchecked power is terrifying.
14
"The public buildings of Washington are filled with very good people working hard for low pay and the public good. There are thousands of them and they are very much like the Foreign Service officers that we’ve seen or are expected to see testifying at the impeachment hearings: William Taylor, George Kent, Marie Yovanovitch and Fiona Hill."
Yes, career civil servants are not evil. Glad you finally realized, now just convince the remaining 90% of your party of that fact.
All that being said, Mr. Brooks you are leaving out the people who are ACTUALLY underpaid, the administrative and cleaning staff, and they actually struggle day to day. The white-collar government jobs certainly don't pay as much as an equivalent position in the private sector, but they are not exactly struggling to get by if they make smart life-decisions (you know, what the GOP is always telling minimum wage workers to do).
10
Sorry to rain on your parade, but the examples of regulatory capture of federal agencies by industry are just too numerous to swallow Mr. Brooks’s portrait of the heroic bureaucrat—and this was BEFORE Trump removed all pretense to serving the public by installing department leaders actively hostile to departmental missions. I’m not saying there are not many good men and women serving at their posts, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the weakness of those bureaucrats in the FAA, EPA, FCC and other agencies that have led to all kinds of disasters for the public good.
5
@Kryztoffer If you "look" closely those weak bureaucrats you are referring to are actually mostly "political appointees" , not career professionals. They are usually brought in under the pretext of "shaking things up", "waking up" a slumbering bureaucracy. Instead, they do more damage due to their lack of knowledge and experience. You raise an important question though - over time institutions can become unwieldy, steeped in its processes rather than substance. But that is what should be addressed rather throwing out all that's good about them.
1
@Krytzoffer, you fail to differentiate between the folks in the trenches and the political appointees who rule them, put in place by incoming administrations to impose the politics of the moment. The latter are the ones wreaking untold damage at places like EPA. With luck, they’ll all be gone in little more than a year.
1
We take them for granted and we shouldn't. They are the front line, the first responders we count on to protect us and who never expect anything in return for simply doing their jobs. They are true patriots masked in their humility. They represent the best of America.
To each and every one of them, 'Thank You For Your Service.'
844
@Guido Malsh
Mr Brooks lists the State Department, the World Bank, the Brookings Institution, the National Security Council...
They were David Halberstam's "the best and the brightest", and that was not a compliment, just dissonance with their righteous stupidities so sanctimoniously inflicted on an unsuspecting world.
A well functioning state is necessary, but one fossilized to continue obscene inequality and Forever Wars, with regime change for any country who will not submit to US dominance and play by the Washington Rules makes Trump look necessary
a spanner in the works...
but the self reflection and change that is so needed will happen only if the ordinary people organize and rebel.
With leadership from President Sanders we will change the trajectory of government towards a more fair, more just, more sustainable and less violent future.
Mr Brooks says we can't, but we can!
A better future is not going to be forged by fossilized Washington Insiders who made and protect the status quo of obscene inequality and Forever Wars
5
@Lucy Cooke
Sorry Lucy but those you rail against are not the "Washington insiders."
Those who are "fossilized" and who "continue obscene inequality and Forever Wars, with regime change for any country who will not submit to US dominance and play by the Washington Rules" are in fact the elected politicians and those appointed by elected officials.
I think you missed the point of Brooks' essay - as well as the difference between the Washington Insiders and the outsiders (elected officials) who blame the "insiders" - unjustifiably (as you have here).
35
@Mimi
You ignored the my quoting Mr. Brooks and naming the type I considered fossilized,
" the State Department, the World Bank, the Brookings Institution, the National Security Council..."
Clearly the Washington Insiders think the President should follow their advice.
"It is clearly in our national interest to deter further Russian aggression,"said Bill Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.
What if Trump does not think it is important to deter Russia?
Trump may think that getting along with Russia is a wiser policy
The U.S. constitution "empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries."
The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor the "consensus view of the interagency", NOR WASHINGTON INSIDERS to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy.
President Obama was against giving weapons to Ukraine, and he was not accused of being against the national interest.
Trump believes that he was elected to change US foreign policy. He had stated his opinion on Russia during his campaign and won the election. It is not 'malign influence' that makes him try to have good relations with Russia. It is his conviction and legitimized by the voters.
Ukraine's President Zelenski may think it better for the Ukraine to get along with Russia.
Would the US Washington Insiders allow that?
Thank you, Mr. Brooks, for describing the Washington (well, OK, the Bethesda, Md.) I grew up in during the 1960s and 1970s. My father was one of the public servants you describe, well-educated, well-inculcated, dedicated, heads down, nonpartisan. Good thing he was all that, because he worked for the AEC which became the NRC; the safety of nuclear power plants depended on him and people like him. My father was liberal-minded though not registered to any party. Two of the people who most inspired me growing up were also public servants, also liberal-minded. One was our next-door neighbor, the father of my best friend and a dear friend of my parents. The other, the father of another great friend, inspired in me a lifelong love of wilderness and outdoor adventure. Both men happen to have been Republicans who served in the Nixon administration, but politics didn't define them. They were defined by their humanity, their excellence and their dedication to public service.
535
@Marc Vassallo Thanks fro the personal and inspirational comment. I would say this about Nixon, he had his issues, but overall he really didn't compromise the democracy in a meaningful way, and did quite a lot of good i.e. EPA
6
Not sure I have ever been prouder of my "Deep State" colleagues (as a former fed). Someone reported between the two of them, 70 YEARS of experience. Yes, rail against the noted blunders the US Government, but please also recognize the value of this type of expertise, calmness, depth, and sheer breadth of knowledge. And that, is worth everything. Good piece, David Brooks.
948
@Holden Sill
These elite effete educated foreign service officers lack the brave honorable patriotism of Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning who openly risked personal and professional bipartisan condemnation.
But for the legally hidden and protected whistle blower they would still be likely silent while vehemently and vociferously denying that they are not the whistle blower.
1
@Blackmamba There are different manifestations of patriotism. I believe that ES and CM exhibited one form of patriotism. These civil servants another. We all have patriotic tendencies when we educate ourselves on social, political, constitutional, environmental, legal, etc issues; when we actively inform ourselves about local and world issues. I do not have to carry a gun into battle or wear a flag pin daily or bow to a political party to be a patriot. One thing I do know, in defense of the non-whistleblower, is that pointing out unethical or illegal practices within your circle of employment is not at all easy. It can be traumatic and fruitless in the end.
16
Amen, David Brooks.
My husband had three Fulbright appointments abroad and we saw up close the professionalism of our foreign service
officers and their extraordinary devotion to promoting American values. In one posting the consul asked us if we would help her by being “American faces” as she was stretched very thin and of course we agreed.
I was so pleased and proud of Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent and that other Americans could see that professional attitude on display.
549
What are American values? Based on the GOP enablers and cult worshipers, they are Trump's values, which are an oxymoron.
2
Driving today on Ronald Reagan Highway here in Cincinnati, I was reminded of his words "...government IS the problem," which of course are now Republican dogma. The irony was not lost on me that without government neither the road nor the "Ronald Reagan Highway" signs adorning it would exist. On the radio, an NPR program described the horrific conditions in overcrowded, underfunded and understaffed Alabama prisons, and I wondered to myself, "Hmmm, another Reagan legacy?" I passed a roadside accident with police cars, fire trucks and emergency vehicles, and I remembered Reagan saying, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." I then drove slowly past those government employees caring for the injured on my behalf, and whispered a quiet "thank you." Then impeachment news came on the radio, extolling (as David Brooks does here) the extraordinary integrity of Taylor and Kent in contrast with the scurrilous tactics of Nunes, Jordan and company. Due to the accident, I was a bit late meeting my friend at Panera, yet we had a bit of time to chat about his work in support of trade unions, arguably the backbone of the middle class, and of course another Reagan target and casualty. My prayer on my way home was simply this: God bless our government and our public servants, and God save us from those who seem intent on dismantling the very institutions we citizens have created to serve the common good.
56
I appreciate your comment. Another Reagan target the rollback of regulations at the FCC and we see the fruit of this across the board on tv and radio who portend to be the truth in journalism.
1
I wonder what George Kent thought about the utter irony of having devoted so much of his career to anti corruption efforts and testifying under oath about the actions of the most spectacularly corrupt president that America has had thus far. When Representative Himes asked Kent to describe the elements of a comprehensive anti corruption program, he gave a brief, expert summation. It was fascinating.
When I watched these gentleman testify, when I read the testimony of Vindman, Hill, Yovanovitch, I thought about the deep expertise resident in the State Department and on the NSC, the devotion to advancing the ideals of America, and the belief in diplomacy. As wrenching as life under Donald has been, seeing these professionals speak truth to power has been inspiring and beautiful. It gives me an understanding of what it truly means to serve your country. I have nothing but admiration for these men and women and am enormously grateful that they represent America around the world.
1030
@NJlatelifemom
I've been, as many others have, deeply depressed by all that is occurring in this administration. Having a president that shows no integrity or moral gravitas makes me deeply sad.
But listening to Kent and Taylor, men of integrity, a deep sense of duty, long time service to this country, I felt honored. I sat up straighter, felt lighter than ever. Because I had begun to believe that there were only those like Trump et al and they proved me wrong.
115
@NJlatelifemom
But what happens if it all comes to nought? I'm so frightened.
9
@Jonathan Smoots: Most likely what will happen if Trump survives both the impeachment process (due to more corrupt GOP enabling) and the election process next November (courtesy of colossal voter ignorance and/or depravity) is that America will simply become an even more hideous joke than Trump and Republicans have already made it. Whether Americans would again be able to look at themselves in the mirror with pride, or claim to be an "exceptional nation", without bursting into tears or loony laughter is anyone's guess.
8
I worked at a US Department of Energy national laboratory for 30 years. Professionalism and non-partisanship abounded.
706
@Marty
Thank you, I was hoping someone would mention that our diplomatic corps is not the only segment of our government worthy of mention.
Our scientific community is just as praiseworthy.
I tire of people bashing our government agencies--that's what the residents of third world countries do. Authoritarian leaders encourage it because they can say--'don't listen to them, they're all liars, listen to me.' It works, and I'm sorry to say it seems to be working here now.
It has been more than once that I've heard my friends, who call themselves liberal, say that only second-rate people work for the government; the first-rate people are making big bucks in private industry. That makes me sad. Even liberals are tending to think that everything is only and always about money.
12
For me, "Washington Insiders" usually refers to elected officials, their staff, and media entourage, not "career public officials" the pejorative for whom is usually, "bureaucrat."
We both agree over the positive example set by George Kent and William Taylor, career public officials, doing an honest and necessary job, and doing it well, which stands in start contrast with the example set by too many elected officials.
Kent and Taylor make me feel good about the government generally, not about elected officials personally.
I sit on the Left. I still believe in government. Never stopped. And I still believe in Capitalism. Never stopped. But my hopefulness, doesn't blunt the fact that I think we are sinking and need urgent reform in both Democracy and Capitalism.
406
@Paul
"... Washington insiders are unelected bureaucrats, denizens of the swamp, the cesspool or a snake pit... the establishment, the power elite, the privileged structures of the status quo."
Paul you are 110% correct on this! Exactly this! It's almost like Mr. Brooks is deliberately misconstruing this in order to write this column. Additionally, the fact that he attempts to inject the 'fair and balanced' point of view that "both sides do it," only becomes possible as a result of his misconstruing this basic understanding of the term "Washington Insiders."
7
@Paul I'd add -- at the top of the list of "Washington insiders" (the bad kind) -- lobbyists. That's where big money and corruption seem to wield incredible control over government. That sure looks like the swamp to me.
As Brooks points out about the unelected career public servants with depth of knowledge and actual expertise: Isn't attacking them for having those qualities anti-intellectualism of the most short-sighted, dangerous kind?
10
Thanks for this piece Mr. Brooks.
I watched the first 5 or so hours of the hearing with Mr. Kent and Mr. Taylor. I was extremely impressed by their thoughtful professionalism. Clearly, their deep knowledge has been earned through years of experience. Just as clear to me is their commitment to the mission of service to country, and commitment to an ethical code of conduct. It gives me a much-needed shot of optimism to consider that there are likely many more public servants like them.
To Mr. Kent and Mr. Taylor, if you happen to read this, thank you!
587
One party attacks these good people who are all patriots and whom some are even heroes having served in war before becoming civil servants.
Republicans have been waging a war on civil servants since at least Reagan: one of many reasons why that president's luster should have long since waned, in fact it should never have shined as bright as it did even during his lifetime.
Democrats on the other hand count on these people, they're the ones that Democrats believe in. It is easy to think negative things about these people if you don't know any of them if you've never met them, it is much harder to do after you have met them.
335
@anon. Mr. Brooks, together with Bret Stephens and Ross Douthat, find it impossible not to recognize the horrors of the Trump mob. However they often manage to interject a bit of false equivalence, to condemn the left in the same column.
That leaves only moderate conservatives (i.e. themselves) as pure of heart and worthy of telling us how the society should operate.
8
@anon. Reagan was a waste of skin long before he got to Washington
2
@anon. Your point about Reagan is spot on. I've always believed that our downward spiral regarding the works of goverment began with him. Perhaps a warm person but a terrible president.
4
To serve the public is a privilege and a responsibility, Only politicians see it as a way to power, money and prestige. The career folks are there to serve, first. Of course many of them desire to advance in their careers, but in almost all government organizations that means serving the client (read taxpayers). As with all human endeavors there are those who see themselves as protectors of the rules---but even those bureaucrats think by protecting the rules they protect the taxpayers.
This country would be in horrible shape if we had only political appointees at every level of government. That is why we have the aptly named Civil Service.
288
@Lewis Rich
Fact is, MANY politicians go into public service for the exact same reason: to try to improve things.
Obama is of course a perfect example here, but so were all the Democrats in Congress who in 2010 voted for the ACA, knowing very well that the GOP smear campaign would make them lose their jobs and probably make Democrats lose the elections and their majority in Congress, which would block their agenda for years to come. They voted for the ACA anyhow. Why? Because it saves an additional half a million American lives a decade, and is a clear step forward compared to the previous system, and as far as it was democratically possible to go at that time.
And there are TONS of politicians all over the country who are like that.
Fighting cynicism, as Brooks invites us to do here, means finally ending our assumption that an entire group of people MUST be bad, simply because of the type of job they're doing.
These assumptions aren't merely utterly unfair, they are also undermining our democracy, because only when "we the people" engage can we obtain a government "for" the people, and we will only engage as citizens when we dare to believe that we can improve things. Cynicism makes us imagine that we can't. And THAT is when a democracy automatically transforms into a corrupt oligarchy.
6
Civil servants engage skillfully with laws and rules, but are hardly conformists. In fact, to work so closely with government in the absence of rank bias, makes them positively avant garde today.
I worked for an agency where it was a firing offense to be overheard speaking of politics in the cafeteria. Still, I disagree that staff were not opinionated. How can we -- whose salary and programs are funded by legislation -- fail to notice politics? But such insights didn't influence our work.
The case of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok is illustrative. How could talented senior officials investigating a campaign fail to come to a conclusion? That wasn't the fault -- presumably most people in the FBI vote -- but that it was indiscreetly shared, which made the investigation vulnerable to predicable malfeasance on the part of those who have disproportionately and opportunistically ranted and raged over it with no interest in how the outcome serves anything but their personal greed for wealth and power.
In contrast, when Strzok testified before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees he came across as a most intelligent, principled, knowledgeable, and dedicated public servant, schooling everyone in the room with his clarity.
(Finally, how many times has DB published the term "elite" as a pejorative here? 200+? Didn't he call the impeachment process itself, elitist?)
15
@Eric As a former FBI SA in the offices where Strzok and Page walked the halls, thank you for this thoughtful comment.
Thank you David.
I am simply stunned at the number of people who have absolutely no grasp of how many people it takes to run a complex organization and the needed experience and regulations they work under.
Suppose a highway bridge on an interstate collapsed and after 10 years people were still fording the stream bed because no one knew who was in charge or how to fix the bridge. Or suppose it was fixed after a year and then fell down again because of shoddy workmanship and ignoring construction requirements.
Trump and his crew only know that they should demolish the agencies that oversee such work.
They really have to go ASAP, certainly by 2020.
43
When I heard term "the swamp", in previous years I thought it referred to the disproportionate role of lobbyists and big money influence on legislation and policy. Current Republican voices have completely changed the very meaning of the word, a tactic described well by George Orwell.
72
There is a good reason Lenin did not get rid of the Czarist bureaucracy when the Bolsheviks took power. He had read what mob rule looked like during the French Revolution or the chaos of the 1848 revolutions across Europe.
In France, the Third and Fourth Republic saw governments rise and fall like seasons in the year, but the wheels of French bureaucracy kept on turning steadily and the institutions prevailed. So here's to the deep state, and I hope it is very deep indeed! Thanks David Brooks for pointing this out.
17
It's concerning that Trump and Cabinet officials are working so hard to dismantle agencies and get rid of talented, experienced people, as Michael Lewis portrays in his latest book. Seems like a lot of permanent damage is being done that may be impossible to undo
28
Yes. Permanent damage. The people of our democracy are getting it “good and hard,” which is the outcome of the democratic experiment that Mencken predicted.
1
David, thank you for supporting these unsung heroes of the so-called deep state in spite of the current attacks of the Trump administration and their media supporters.
I think populism is distrustful of the management, not the employees. The management are the despicable Republican and Democratic machines that are mostly concerned with increasing their elected margins and not on improving outcomes for the majority of Americans. The employees are the great civil servants who manage to keep the company going despite the grandstanding and wrongheadedness of management.
15
Stop including the Democratic “machine” with the despicable Republicans. Dems work for the little people. Republicans work for the wealthy and corporations. It’s the Dems that gave us a weekend, workman’s comp, union bargaining, social security, cleaner air and water, consumer protections, the minimum wage. Republicans are always attacking all those things. It’s their efforts that have made working people’s lives worse, through financial stresses of healthcare costs that ruin lives and bankrupt families. They’ve eliminated pensions so now, if you’re lucky, you can play roulette with your retirement nest egg in the stock market. They make money on the backs of students trying to get loans for school. They makes those loans undischargeable ( I may have just made that word up). Why is the government giving money to banks and other financial institutions to make student loans creating crushing permanent debt. Why isn’t the government making zero interest student loans. They’ve busted the equalizing power of unions. They fight against minimum wage hikes. We had to put a floor to wages for God’s sake. It’s literally them saying l,”if we could pay you less we would.” Don’t lump the Dems with Repubs.
It’s the ultimate false equivalence
2
Yes, they are professionals and seem like good people. However, they are not elected. Both Kent and Taylor have clear policy positions related to Ukraine. They consider that it is a priority to bring Ukraine into NATO. This can be questioned. Is it a national security interest of the US to push Ukraine to NATO against Russia. Why is Russia an absolute enemy and a risk to the USA security? These are very legitimate questions. The people decide about policy through the election process, not longtime respectful diplomats. So apart from the Trump story, while I was watching the hearing I was thinking that they do not decide the policy, they are in charge of implementing what people have decided. And people have elected Trump, whether we like it or not.
3
@Ed Congress, our elected representatives, by a huge majority, decided that about $400M should provide aid to Ukraine. The professionals were trying to comply with U.S. policy. Regardless, the president using his office to leverage a foreign government to investigate a political opponent is rather impeachable.
47
@Ed With all due respect, most of the "people" couldn't point to Ukraine on a map if their lives depended on it, so maybe their judgment about who has the best policy re: Ukraine shouldn't be controlling. The policy toward any given issue is informed by career experts across military, diplomatic, economic, and other disciplines, and *usually* those experts' opinions are heard and considered by the elected officials, who are afforded the opportunity to examine, question, and challenge the opinions and recommendations. The fear that these experts are "making policy" despite the fact that they were not elected is absurd, in my opinion. They are insulated from the vicissitudes of the election cycle, are insulated from influence from one input source over another, and their sheer numbers are a guarantee that no single person can have too great an influence on the recommendations made to the president or Congress. Are you afraid their decisions might be too principled? Too expert? Too considered?
39
@Ed, you are right that any policy can (and should) be questioned, and that Kent and Taylor are not elected officials. As such, hey do not make policy but instead are reflecting long standing U.S. positions that were validated in the Trump Administration's National Security Strategy, which was published in December 2017.
18
Her insider status was what I liked best about Hillary Clinton. She was the most qualified candidate we've had in decades. It's too bad the pundits didn't appreciate that. And yes, I'm pointing at you Mr. Brooks.
151
Absolutely agree. But Mr. Brooks was a lesser offender. The real prize goes to Ms. Dowd, and I’ve long been prevented from displaying THAT fact in my comments, with supporting documentation in Her very own words.
Just saying.
4
@hen3ry I so agree.
Trump's "Deep State" refers to experienced professionals with appropriate skills and ethics.
That is, exactly the sort of people likely to get in the way of his criminal activity.
138
For eight years I worked at Harvard's Kennedy School helping students and alumni realize their goals of becoming public servants to the benefit of their fellow citizens. It was my honor to do so. While they all had strong and differing opinions about the most effective means of improving society, their ultimate goal was the same: to improve society. They were not concerned about personal gain or self aggrandizement. It would be a shame if the current state of affairs in Washington was to discourage future students of public service and world affairs. Mr. Brooks, so much more eloquent than I, has illuminated this danger and should be applauded for doing so. It should be a bipartisan priority to inspire young people to pursue careers in public service, and so I encourage others like Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Kent to come forward and speak truth to power, and clear the air that is currently being fouled in our White House.
84
I didn’t vote for some calcified embedded bureaucracy Mr. Brooks. I voted for President Trump. The bureaucracy is adroit at serving only itself. The President truly serves at the pleasure of the people.
2
@Fred C Dobbs
President Trump does Not serve at the pleasure of the People. He serves at the pleasure of the Electoral College. Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. I would certainly not claim he represents a majority of Americans until he happens to win both the Electoral and Popular votes.
Beyond that - the public servants of DC are necessary. Do you know someone who has a doctorate in Chemistry and is willing to work below industry-level pay to manage an EPA lab that helps set standards for the cleanliness that you and I drink in NC? Do you know someone with experience in business law who is not a lawyer for a business but instead is willing to serve the public on the CFPB, putting the needs of you and I as consumers over the interests of Verizon/Equifax/Goldman-Sachs? Do you know anyone with a degree who is willing to be paid less than what they would make in private industry so they can serve the public? Anyone at all?
Because that is what the DC bureaucracy is - it is a veritable army of highly qualified people taking less money than they deserve to be paid so that they may serve this country. We need them, and we certainly don't appreciate them enough.
241
@Fred C Dobbs Mr. Dobbs. You may have voted for Trump, but his election did not bring with it the right to abuse the power of his office. It did confer the obligation and responsibility to act in the best interest of the country.
57
Thank you for that accurate summary. Too many people have no idea what public service means, It is easy to deride something you have no experience with and no understanding of. Public service is not political, these people usually stay in place because they have so much detailed knowledge they are hard to replace.
Education is the key. When millions of people have poor education, because the funding is not there, or the will is not there, democracy itself becomes tenuous. Why the funding or the will is not there is the real question.People have to be able to think for themselves, and they need to be able to see reality by themselves before they can do this. Education should teach one how to think (not what to think). Education opens the door of the mind. This is what we need now. Trump dislikes education,and you can easily see why.
12
People of integrity who do their job with professionalism, expertise, and commitment, such as Kent and Taylor, exist throughout all levels of government, and they deserve our thanks. I see them almost every day and in many venues: teaching and protecting our children, patiently explaining a property tax bill to a homeowner, helping someone whose eyesight is poor complete a form, leading people to safety in a flood--doing their job. And I'll never forget one of the most impressive public servants I ever met--a gentleman with one of the lowliest jobs in the City of Philadelphia: Rat Eradication. He enobled himself with his energy and expertise. And don't think the halls of the capitols are hopeless, either. Here in Arkansas, where wheeling and dealing continue a long history, a straight-arrow legislative auditor restored my faith in government. It's encouraging to remember that people of integrity are doing their best to make government work for us.
57
Republicans from Ronald Reagan on, most notably Lee Atwater, Speaker Gingrich, David Brooks and Grover Norquist and every Republican Presidential candidate in the last 30 years have openly advocated for the the destruction of the the bureaucratic state.
The state of affairs decried in this column by Mr. Brooks did not just happen!
83
Read Michael Lewis' most recent book, "The Fifth Risk."
Lewis celebrates career government professionals and area expers such as William Taylor and George Kent, in departments across the Federal government.
Lewis also writes about how, particularly in the Trump administration, that just as career professionals in the State Department, Justice Department enforcement (FBI), intelligence agencies, have been denounced, demoralized, let go, so too are professionals and area experts are being demeans and dimished by the Trump administration.
Trump is not only attacking our foreign policy and national security. Trump is doing everything possible to make sure our government does not work for citizens. So that Republicans can more credibly criticize the government for not working. Nothing upsets Republicans more than effective government.
Voters should be looking at how their elected representatives actually represent their interests. Believe me, voters would celebrate the elimination of Federal taxes, but then howl when all of the benefits they derive from government are no longer available: Public schools, clean air and water, social security, etc.
Just ask the voters in Louisiana and Kansas what happened when their Republican governors slashed taxes. Those state governments collapsed. And had to be rescured. By Democratic governors. Because the only thing Republicans learn by making catastrophic mistackes, is how to keep making catastrophic mistakes.
90
For decades, the Republican Party, not simply Trumpian Republicans, have vilified those who work for the federal government. It began with Ronald Reagan's comment about those who work for the government being "the problem;" for the last 40 years, Republicans have worked to damage the civil service.
So, I read Mr. Brooks' piece and I cannot help but think "too little, too late." Like many who read Mr. Brooks' pieces, I am waiting, perhaps in vain, to hear him admit to his role in helping to create the world of Trump.
174
@Alexandra M. Lord
Seems to me that you are falling into polarized thinking. For a long time, I have considered myself a libertarian (not of the Roger Stone variety) advocating for effective government. Just because one supports cutting programs that don’t work does not mean one is anti civil service or anti institution. Programs grow and metastasize. We absolutely must demand accountability because those who support Trump have a sense that a lot of it isn’t working right. And it isn’t. I know from experience.
But a lot of it works very well and the expertise of Kent and Taylor demonstrate that.
The best news about what we’re going though is that we may be able to newly appreciate the complexities of running a government, respect facts and expertise and work together to try to address the many difficult challenges we face.
9
Exactly! I have railed forever about the technique used by the Republicans to sully government as the enemy. Government isn’t the enemy but politicians who do not value their own responsibilities as public stewards of our democracy are definitely the enemy of our country.
3
Spot on!
Agree, very impressive and intelligent; versus the vain congressmen and women, both parties I should add. The question is why? Why can’t they be our leaders. And occasionally someone comes along, like Sen Pat Moynihan, a true scholar, gentleman and office holder with first class temperament and intelligence. Anyway, the answer seems simple enough to me. This is a government of the people and by the people and that’s why - our elected officials are our reflection. These two diplomats are not, they represent the noblesse oblige of superior people. It is because the contrast with Trump is stark, that they really stand out.
21
@Mel I watched Chairman Schiff's opening statement and subsequently replayed it twice more. I firmly believe his stating the significance and necessity of the hearings rose to the level of Senator Moynihan's best. The response that followed was as Mr. Nunce put it was merely a show by him and his followers meant to detract from the from the hearings' significance and necessity. Whether or not the president is removed from office, Chairman Schiff's statement will be remembered in history books.
3
@Mel, Thank you for mentioning Patrick Moynihan, my favorite Senator. It should not be forgotten that this erudite gentleman, who wrote more books than most of his fellow Senators had read, grew up in a destitute neighborhood (Hell's Kitchen) in Manhattan, where he shined shoes and then worked as a longshoreman before he entered City College (my own alma mater).
1
Thank you, David Brooks. For a long time now I have been one of those who mistrusted the insider. Watching the impeachment hearings has been my wake-up call. Your article reinforces my newly found faith in the institutions that these public servants protect. Many of our elected officials, on the other hand, translate public service into self-service. They are the source of pollution and the keepers of the swamp. Term limits could help wrestle power back to the people.
23
Thank you for this essay. Few sayings annoy me more than “well, that’s close enough for government work!”, with its implication of the slap-dash laziness of government bureaucrats. It was my honor to serve my government as an attorney at the Securities & Exchange Commission. I could have made 6 times my salary in private practice, but I loved my work and fulfilling the SEC’s mission.
53
@Janet Russell-Hunter And it was my honor to serve my country as a Special Agent at the FBI in DC. The widely-held belief that our government employees are lazy and disinterested is so misguided; anyone who has worked in government knows that the vast majority of are engaged and motivated to make this country better. Taylor and Kent represent what I know our government to be, and I was proud they stood up there and represented us all so well.
36
@Janet Russell-Hunter I see that phrase another way. To me, that means you strive for perfection but don't let it be the enemy of good or even great. For me if I get to 90% of where I need to be, I use the phrase "Good enough for government work." I think learning when to stop is an even harder skill than being a perfectionist or being lazy whereas I see that phrase striking a balance due to the necessity to having to get things done.
Just my view - maybe it's better viewed positively than negatively.
3
I beg to differ with the statement that Trump was not formed by an institution. He most certainly was and the institution is the Republican party. When are you going to abandon them David?
90
@Paul Sitz
Donald Trump had nothing to do with the Republican Party until he ran for President. Unfortunately, what has happened is Trump has formed the Republican party in his image, not the other way around, Shame on them for allowing that to happen.
3
A column to remind us of those professionals who keep the public sector going. I am as liberal as Mr. Brooks is conservative and I have had occasion to work with government officials in several contexts representing several agencies. I have found them to be knowledgeable, dedicated, responsive and enjoyable. Further, I have never been able to figure out to which party they belong or if indeed they have political positions.
Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent show what public service is, and how desperately we need them. It is an honorable calling; thank you both for your dedication and perseverance.
45
@Babs, well said. Throughout my 35 years of government service, I held strong political views — I was a citizen after all, not just a bureaucrat. Those close to me knew those views. Those I worked with and for did not.
1
Part of Trump’s disdain for public servants likely stems from his total inability to relate to them: it is unfathomable to someone like him, that someone would dedicate their life to making the world a better place, for a fraction of what they could make applying their skillset in the private sector.
“Washington insiders” and “bureaucrats” are an existential threat to Trump, because their loyalty is to the Constitution, and not for sale like the thugs he is accustomed to doing business with.
112
Ronald Reagan famously said, "Government is not the solution to our problems, government IS the problem." Look where that slippery slope has taken us: lies about the "deep-state," the slandering of fine public servants. The debasement of government institutions has become part of the DNA of the modern Republican party. The brave women and men who are testifying before Congress are a credit to our nation. What a contrast to corrupt self-dealers like Trump and Giuliani, and the Republicans who enable them.
161
Saint Ronnie was very much in the throes of Alzheimer’s throughout his Second term. It was ignored and covered up.
Trump is a sociopath, from birth. PERIOD.
2
Why, then, Mr. Brooks, are "Washington insiders" Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes and other Republicans clamoring for the full identification of the whistleblower? These people are what we used to scorn, in my college days, as "the establishment."
The whistleblower "moved to defend the code." And, in spite of the gratitude of millions of Americans because he (or she) did so, how to square the savagery of the attacks on Ambassadors Taylor and Kent yesterday? I think their attacks were less about defending the president than they were in broadcasting a dangerous message to America: service to country is not a respectable profession unless that service is soldered to the extreme right.
You were hardly alone, Mr. Brooks, in feeling pride and some semblance of balance while watching and listening to the two men who defended the foreign service and the Constitution and the true greatness of service to our nation instead of bending the knee is criminal obeisance to a man to whom good order and decency are anathema.
The Republican defense of the president is appalling and unpatriotic. They are mean-spirited attack dogs who want to sink their fangs into the flesh of ordinary Americans who arrive daily to work for the country's improvement. Men like Jordan and Nunes seek only to diminish employees whose thoughts are for the greater good, not for the temporary occupier of high office.
I don't think Americans, in the main, accept this kind of selfless service for granted. We're grateful.
69
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18 given how Trump and his lackeys have treated these dedicated professionals, and that the rest of the country, including our youngest, have witnessed this, it may take generations to recover from this parody of a presidency.
19
The real threat posed by the radical rightwing GOP members, as named in this piece, and in this narrow circumstance, is the clear threat to the life of the whistleblower and his family.
They want him/her dead, or unable to provide corroboration of the allegations already made and substantiated, as Trump has signaled. There are plenty of Trumpets out there ready to do his bidding.
Who is going to protect the WB and his family??
Where does the mistrust of institutions and government come from? There is no attempt to explain what is pretty easy to see because it's not convenient. It would require David Brooks to look back at the party he's supported his whole life and realize he's been part of the problem all along.
Reagan said something like ' the worst words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' That wasn't the beginning of the right's denigration of government and by proxy civil servants, but it does illustrate the kind of thinking that underpins every policy decision. It's even a justification for why rich people think they shouldn't pay higher taxes. It's all gotten out of hand, and there is only one party responsible.
116
@Tiago Not every policy decision -- only the Republicans' policy decisions
Fantastic take on institutions and superb people formed by them. Individuals came to these institutions with a huge grain of goodness in them naturally.
11
One of the reasons I like Elizabeth Warren is the time she has spent as an "insider" who sees how and where the scales are balanced against the common citizen. She's a reforming leader we need to remediate the pernicious inequality breeding discontent.
13
@Bill P ...Now if only she could think a little more like a pragmatist.
1
Finally, a David Brooks column I can love!
"Watching Taylor and Kent, I had a feeling of going back in time. Why did it feel so strange? It was because I was looking at people who are not self-centered. They’ve dedicated themselves to the organization that formed them, and which they serve."
I had exactly the same reaction.
55
Thank you David! I haven't had the opportunities to meet these courageous people but have met some of their children over the years. Children who grew up moving from one country to another. Its a life of dedication and we should honor them all!!
18
It seems like the choice in the last presidential election was the ultimate rebuke of public service and insiders experience in favor of the outsider, Hillary Clinton verses Donald Trump.
So here we are. Split into red and blue tribes.
And I think we all know how we got here.
For the sake of the nation this national division must be reconciled.
Perhaps consider reinstating a modern version of the fairness doctrine to prevent the "misinformation" and "alternative facts" from going unchallenged at the sources.
"A lie can travel halfway around he world while the truth is putting it's shoes on."
23
Thanks for writing this recognition of the value of governmental institutions and the people who work in them. It's a tragedy of our time that so few of us know about these people: how good they are at what they do, how conscientious they are in doing it.
Populists thrive by convincing people that governing is simple. This frame of mind is only possible because most of government works most of the time. It never occurs to those enchanted by populism that maybe things work because there are legions of smart, hard-working people making them work. If it doesn't work perfectly, well, that's lazy bureaucrats, and if we just burn it all down, things will work by themselves. Nothing could be further from the truth.
32
@Bill this is a fantastic comment. Well said!
1
Note that he is talking about civil servants, not lobbyists who are also termed "insiders".
16
Here’s a salute to all the civil servants and administrators whose professionalism and devotion are often unheralded. They work for us and without much prestige or compensation. These individuals are not any enemy of our country, they keep this nation’s wheels turning.
37
David, I am so glad that you wrote this piece in support of our "bureaucrats". I was a registered Republican for 30 years and worked in the private sector. My last job before retirement afforded me the chance to interact with people from the Defense Security Service (DSS) and FBI. I will never forget my first meeting with the DSS sitting across the table. It was a perfect opportunity to see that the government side had too many people doing too little, their role better served in the private sector or not at all, and their incompetence. It was exactly the opposite. They are stretched thin, underpaid and lack resources to do their jobs well. Yet they were professional, dedicated and treated us as partners, not someone out to get us. Like those of us in the private sector, they are just trying to do their jobs the best they can. I also interacted with many government employees on the phone and found them extremely helpful and competent. I was incredibly impressed and we should all be happy they are representing our national interests and working on our behalf.
110
I owned and managed small restaurants for 25 years. I did the hiring and often gave jobs to teenage kids. In the '90s many people from Mexico and Central America arrived in California and they soon took many of the restaurant jobs. I do clearly remember one obvious trait of all these workers: whether they swept the floor in an efficient, thorough and experienced way, or not. It was easy to tell which ones had learned this simple task from family life, especially if it had been expected of them but in a non-punitive way. And then the others, who obviously had never been asked to do such a menial chore of daily life - they looked as if they didn't know which end of the broom to hold!
So, if you want someone to do the job right, in any field and any environment, from the guy raking the leaves on the White House lawn to the Oval Office, watch them sweep the floor.
19
As a nation we are in thrall to a narcissist whether we are for him or against him. Trump has made it all about him. We need to remember that we are a nation of laws not men. And reflect that all the faith traditions call us to commit to something outside of and greater than ourselves.
31
David Brooks just can't help himself. In a column in which he should be condemning the authoritarianism of Trump unconditionally, instead he takes cheap swipes at the very people who are standing up for democracy:
"On the left many put their faith in social movements, without explaining how social movements are going to write and pass legislation."
Would those social movements include the civil rights movement? The women's rights movement? The movement to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, finally giving tens of millions of working Americans something close to a living wage? Would those be the movements, Mr Brooks, that you just denigrated?
After all these years, David Brooks should understand and acknowledge that it is Democrats who are standing up for the oppressed, fighting against Republican authoritarianism, and holding the line against Trump's criminality.
Instead, he continues to make excuses for his side while taking pot shots at the real heroes: progressive Democrats.
433
@Sean, I believe you have done David wrong. I don't believe he was referring to the necessary social movements you describe. My impression is that he was referring to the "woke" socialism of many of our young college student "progressives".
22
@JerryV you said:
"After all these years, David Brooks should understand and acknowledge that it is Democrats who are standing up for the oppressed, fighting against Republican authoritarianism, and holding the line against Trump's criminality.
Instead, he continues to make excuses for his side while taking pot shots at the real heroes: progressive Democrats."
Absolutely agree. Come on Dave, step up to it.
44
@JR Berkeley Opps, my bad, that was Sean's post I was referring to, not Jerry's.
As to Sean's point about David not condemning Trump, I'll also second that one. As to how anyone with a soul can still support the GOP is beyond me.
28
A fine essay with which I mostly agree.
Nevertheless, not entirely.
You say: “In reality, institutions are the only vehicles for legislative change.”
Really?
Martin Luther might disagree. Indeed, Martin Luther King, Jr., would disagree. Gandhi would disagree.
Individuals like Donald Trump can so corrupt a society that only the fine women and men dedicated to the institutions which uphold that society can save it.
But at other times it is different. Institutions of society can become so systemically corrupt that only courageous individuals willing to speak truth to power can hold the balance of the future in their hands.
There is no one answer Mr. Brooks.
There is always the discernment of the times, and the risk of the moment.
But you are surely right about this particular moment.
35
The same should be said of your local community. Whether the civil servant be 911 operator, prosecutor, legal assistant, court clerk, librarian, administrative assistant, or the many others that overworked and underpaid. It is easy to say that taxes are too high when you take their work for granted and they are your faceless neighbors. Unfortunately it is only when there are budget cuts or government shutdowns that most people learn how many contribute to making institutions function. And why the "joke" about I'm from the government and I'm here to help" is a slap in the face to these dedicated workers.
112
"Let me tell you a secret. The public buildings of Washington are filled with very good people working hard for low pay and the public good."
This is no secret. At least half the citizens of the United States know perfectly well this is true. At least half the citizens of United States support building these institutions, not tearing them down. At least half the citizens of the United States understand there's a role for government that can't be fulfilled by religions and charities.
635
@Don For sure!!! And I blame the politicians, and the press that doesn't call them to account, for these pejorative, intellectually lazy one-liners that are shameful. And do check out our two GOP reps who indulge in such name calling on a regular basis.
9
Cogent observations well articulated. The question is whether enough Americans will see these two men and the others to follow in the coming days in the same way to sway Republicans who are only looking out for themselves rather than the health and safety of the country. I wish I could say I am hopeful. Where are the Barry Goldwaters, Irvin Dirksens, etc of the Republican Party of yore?!? They knew when to put partisan politics aside and tell Nixon he had to resign.
16
Thank you to Ambassard Taylor and Mr. Kent for their dedication and service to our nation and for showcasing the incredible people in our foreign and civil service - nonpartisan Americans who serve our nation's interests abroad and at home.
These 2 gentlemen epitomize the very best of America. Our nation is lucky they chose public service.
267
I wonder how many Republicans in the House and Senate feel this way, and whether it will matter on impeachment. Actually, I don’t wonder. I know. They will say and do nothing, and Trump will persist. I hope for our collective moral sanity that I’m wrong.
37
Your comment "not self-centered " captures the integrity of our Foreign Service. And they speak the truth. A grateful citizen.
33
well said. mr. brooks. everyone in this country needs a broader education on how/why our institutions have worked in keeping the integrity of our republic. they are bulky. they move slowly. but in a country as large as we are, they provide stability and are the actual reason this experiment called The United States has lasted as long as it has.
26
I agree about the role of institutions. And it saddens to see how many people unthinkingly admire the actor/politician who told us "..government is the problem."
199
@JC Speaking as a Federal Gov't employee who deals directly with the public, I can't tell you how much lasting damage was caused by the one phrase.
128
@JC, I remember years ago when HE died and was "lying in state" and a reporter was out on the National Mall filming the miles of aisles of people slowly inching forward responding to his question by saying "he was a great man, a great president, he did so much good for our country." I could not believe it. I still remember that and shaking my head.
34
@JC Reagan was loathsome and did a lot of damage. I have never understood why people venerated him.
5
This is a TV-level look at bureaucrats. When I look at how science education has been supported and funded by Federal bureaucrats over the last few decades, they should all be fired.
@stormy I don't understand what you said. Is funding too low? Blame Congress, which decides the funding (and defies Trump's cuts). Are the wrong things being funded? Blame the researchers who request the funds for their research. Teachers teaching the wrong things? Join the School Board.
42
"...corruption is in the air." For once I unequivocally agree with Mr. Brooks. Does this mean Mr. Brooks will publicly advocate for impeachment and conviction or will he take cover in the journalistic refuge of "On the other hand?"
134
@larry bennett He'll make some obscure reference to what the "real Americans" feel and hold the "coastal elites" to a higher standard than he does the inhabitants of the states that worship Trump and his fellow swamp dwellers. David Brooks is a shined.
1
@larry bennett
Expect nothing forceful from Brooks that shames the anti-government, anti-science, morality obsessed bedrock Republicans he's encouraged throughout his career.
1