David Brooks: What if We’re the Bad Guys Here?

[ThatRobGuy]

Opinion | What if We’re the Bad Guys Here? (Published 2023)

How the modern meritocracy made Trump inevitable.

www.nytimes.com

(or for those who need a non-paywall version)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2023/08/03/what_if_were_the_bad_guys_here_604518.html

DNyuz - Latest Breaking U.S. News

Latest Breaking News, U.S. and World Politics, Crime, Business, Science, Technology, Autos, Entertainment, Culture, Movie, Music, Sports.

dnyuz.com

I think he does a good job explaining some things here and perhaps lays out some uncomfortable truths with regards to analyzing why some people on the right have hitched their wagon to Trump, as well as gives some perspectives that don't conform to the standard "People who support him are either stupid, bigoted, resistant to change, or all 3" kinds of talking points.

 

[RoBo1988]

Opinion | What if We’re the Bad Guys Here? (Published 2023)

How the modern meritocracy made Trump inevitable.

www.nytimes.com

(or for those who need a non-paywall version)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2023/08/03/what_if_were_the_bad_guys_here_604518.html

DNyuz - Latest Breaking U.S. News

Latest Breaking News, U.S. and World Politics, Crime, Business, Science, Technology, Autos, Entertainment, Culture, Movie, Music, Sports.

dnyuz.com

I think he does a good job explaining some things here and perhaps lays out some uncomfortable truths with regards to analyzing why some people on the right have hitched their wagon to Trump, as well as gives some perspectives that don't conform to the standard "People who support him are either stupid, bigoted, resistant to change, or all 3" kinds of talking points.

I was ready to post the same article. Brooks also kind of paints the 'Never Trump' crowd as snobs.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I was ready to post the same article. Brooks also kind of paints the 'Never Trump' crowd as snobs.

Having not been familiar with his work, this is the first piece I've read from him. While I disagree with him on a few points, for a lot of the big stuff, I think he's hitting the nail on the head.

And thus far, he's one of the very few progressive op-ed writers I've seen be willing to take some partial ownership for the situation and be willing to acknowledge "Hey, maybe it's not that they think Trump is so great, maybe it's just a middle finger to us because of how we (collectively as progressives) have talked down to them for decades"

 

[FireDragon76]

For all the hand-wringing about calling people dumb, well, the reality is that a sizeable percentage of Americans are indeed, not bright. However, they used to be content to watch pro-wrestling and NASCAR. Their stupidity had to be weaponized for them to care about politics. And you can blame right wing think tanks, armed with billions of dollars in dark money, working for decades trying to figure out what buttons to push for that. Not left-coast liberals.

This is why moderates and liberals lose politically in this country. The far right don't wring their hands about their own perceived weaknesses in some perverse act of political seppuku. That is one thing, the only thing, to their credit.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

For all the hand-wringing about calling people dumb, well, the reality is that a sizeable percentage of Americans are indeed, not bright. However, they used to be content to watch pro-wrestling and NASCAR.

This sounds like what the author was talking about.

Their stupidity had to be weaponized for them to care about politics. And you can blame right wing think tanks, armed with billions of dollars in dark money, working for decades trying to figure out what buttons to push for that. Not left-coast liberals.

And here's more of it... The notion that anyone who's right leaning and doesn't like the rapid pace of change that's being prescribed and foisted on them (and a lot of moderates aren't crazy about it either), "they must be mouth breathers who got tricked because otherwise they'd be watching nascar and wrestling) is the exact kind of condescending tone the author is referring to.

When big money entities steer conservative people towards a particular entity, they vote for people like George W Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. When they're sick of being talked down to and want to give the middle finger to the people condescending to them, they vote for people like Trump.

The big money entities you refer to (that have been trying to tip elections toward their preferred candidates for decades and decades) actually weren't backing Trump. You think that a bunch of rich guys sitting in a darkened room forming secret plans want to entrust their super-secret plans to a loose cannon like Trump?


I'd never vote for Trump...but if I were inclined to that type of reactionary politics, it wouldn't be because of a misleading ad on TV or getting "tricked" by some billboard or flyer, it'd be because some smug person was trying to tell me what I was and wasn't allowed to say, and wanting to spite them by picking the person I knew they disliked the most.

This is why moderates and liberals lose politically in this country.

Moderates are the only ones losing... We're the only ones who don't have a legitimate option in the voting booth.

 

[FireDragon76]

George W. Bush's public image was tailored to appeal to the sort of people who voted for Trump. Whenever he talked in front of a podium, he was doing a performance. People that have actually seen him away from the podium know he doesn't talk like that. He isn't nearly as "folksy" as he appeared.

"Man of the people" is exactly the sort of image that right-wing authoritarian cultivate. Trump was merely the apotheosis of decades of Republicans cultivating and refining that image, he was not some accident. If some never-Trump Republicans don't like that, like David Brooks, perhaps they need to look more deeply into their own ideological commitments. You can't vote in clowns for the tax breaks and presidential prayer breakfasts, and be surprised when you wake up one day and the country is a circus. Trump merely out-clowned the other clowns.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

George W. Bush's public image was precisely tailored to appeal to the sort of people who voted for Trump. Whenever he talked in front of a podium, he was doing a performance. People that have actually seen him away from the podium know he doesn't talk like that. He isn't nearly as "folksy" as he appeared.

"Man of the people" is exactly the sort of image that right-wing authoritarian cultivate. Trump was merely the apotheosis of decades of Republicans cultivating and refining that image, he was not some accident. If some never-Trump Republicans don't like that, like David Brooks, perhaps they need to look more deeply into their own political motivations.

Really? So their plan was to pick increasingly watered down republicans 3 election cycles in a row, and then throw in a wild card out of nowhere?

Or could it be that the elitists Brooks was referring portrayed Bush voters as terrible, so then they went with McCain, and when people still called them terrible, they went with a guy like Romney (who's about as edgy and controversial as bran flakes), and when they were still called terrible "clingers", they eventually said "you know what, screw you guys, we're punching back".

It sort of resembles that dynamic of the older sibling who mercilessly taunts and harasses the younger sibling and calls them names until they finally haul off and hit them, and then they run crying to mom and dad about it acting like they had nothing to do with it.

 

[Fantine]

The article shows a picture of income inequality.

But who has driven income inequality in Congress and state houses? Which party continually pushes tax cuts for the risk while busting unions, opposing fair wages, trying to end Social Security, trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act at least 40 times? Who is against student loan forgiveness? Who opposes free community college? Universal pre-K which would give poor children a step up in kindergarten?

You know the answer. Who in Congress keeps bringing up that CEO salaries might have been perhaps ten times as high as the average employee's salary and is now hundreds of times as high?

BTW, most Ivy League graduates have little interest in entering government service as they race down to Wall Street to become hedge fund managers...

 

[FireDragon76]

Really? So their plan was to pick increasingly watered down republicans 3 election cycles in a row, and then throw in a wild card out of nowhere?

Or could it be that the elitists Brooks was referring portrayed Bush voters as terrible, so then they went with McCain, and when people still called them terrible, they went with a guy like Romney (who's about as edgy and controversial as bran flakes), and when they were still called terrible "clingers", they eventually said "you know what, screw you guys, we're punching back".

It sort of resembles that dynamic of the older sibling who mercilessly taunts and harasses the younger sibling and calls them names until they finally haul off and hit them, and then they run crying to mom and dad about it acting like they had nothing to do with it.

People like Brooks were willing to look the other way for years, hold their nose and vote for clowns, as long as they got the tax-cuts and prayer breakfasts. Sure, they would rather have a McCain or Romney, but they also supported Bush. Trump just crossed a line for them, but he's the logical result of decades of Republicans courting low information voters in the name of pushing their "shrink the government and drown it t in a bathtub" agenda.

 

[SimplyMe]

Having not been familiar with his work, this is the first piece I've read from him. While I disagree with him on a few points, for a lot of the big stuff, I think he's hitting the nail on the head.

And thus far, he's one of the very few progressive op-ed writers I've seen be willing to take some partial ownership for the situation and be willing to acknowledge "Hey, maybe it's not that they think Trump is so great, maybe it's just a middle finger to us because of how we (collectively as progressives) have talked down to them for decades"

To be clear, David Brooks is in no way Progressive. He is a Buckley(National Review)-style conservative.

 

[Pommer]

For all the hand-wringing about calling people dumb, well, the reality is that a sizeable percentage of Americans are indeed, not bright. However, they used to be content to watch pro-wrestling and NASCAR. Their stupidity had to be weaponized for them to care about politics. And you can blame right wing think tanks, armed with billions of dollars in dark money, working for decades trying to figure out what buttons to push for that. Not left-coast liberals.

This is why moderates and liberals lose politically in this country. The far right don't wring their hands about their own perceived weaknesses in some perverse act of political seppuku. That is one thing, the only thing, to their credit.

It’ll only take a few years until “politics is boring” again.

Yes, it turns out that the best method of “voter suppression” is a functional government.
Go figure.

 

[FireDragon76]

To be clear, David Brooks is in no way Progressive. He is a Buckley(National Review)-style conservative.

Which puts his comments in perspective. It's a veiled criticism of "liberals" or being perceived as "liberal".

Like I said, Brooks problem is ideological. Republicans can't have the respectable, Eisenhower-esque "prayer breakfast conservativism", and tax cuts, and win elections. The average Republican voter no longer cares about such a "Norman Rockwell" vision of America, nor do they necessarily share his religious-based sensibilities and scruples.

 

[USincognito]

And thus far, he's one of the very few progressive op-ed writers..

Brooks is a conservative.

David Brooks Media Bias Rating

Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of David Brooks. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.

www.allsides.com

 

[KCfromNC]

It is interesting to see all of the attempts to somehow conjure up something, anything, to blame Democrats for the GOP's issues.
Why not just admit that the GOP's strategy is a failure of their own making? I mean, surely in addition to all the nonsense culture war stuff they actually have plans to govern in a way which could appeal to a majority of voters?

If not, perhaps that's the problem and not Democrats being mean, having a double standard, not giving in to every GOP demand, or whatever the victim blaming excuse of the hour is. But admitting that the modern GOP is a failure would be like saying one's home sports team is bad, and we can't have that get in the way of the blind faith loyalty that the GOP seems to attract. If they lost that, what would they do, win elections on "tax breaks for billionaires, sorry about your health insurance"?

 

[FireDragon76]

Brooks is a conservative.

David Brooks Media Bias Rating

Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of David Brooks. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.

www.allsides.com

Yup. I followed him alot during the pandemic on PBS News Hour, every Friday night with Jonathan Capehart.

Not only is he a conservative, he's also an Evangelical Christian. But not in the "cultural" sense it's used today in the news media, to refer to somebody who has white nationalism at the center of their religion.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Brooks is a conservative.

David Brooks Media Bias Rating

Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of David Brooks. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.

www.allsides.com

I'd be interested in how they came up with that conclusion.

He describes himself as
"on the rightward edge of the left—in the more promising soil of the moderate wing of the Democratic Party."

He critiques the concept of meritocracy, and has made statements like these:
"if you define conservative by support for the Republican candidate or the belief that tax cuts are the correct answer to all problems, I guess I don't fit that agenda.

He's also open about the fact that he voted for Obama twice and then Hillary.

He also wrote a piece called "why the nuclear family was a mistake"

Although, if that is how he's categorized, then I guess posts I've made in the past about how much the goal posts have shifted have some merit.

If a guy who holds some fiscally progressive values, moderate on abortion, votes for democrats, voices support for SSM, critiques the meritocracy and nuclear family unit is "conservative", then perhaps the political affiliation descriptors we typically used have lost their meaning.

I guess that makes a lot of sense actually. If all it takes to be labelled as "right winger" is simply rejecting some of the political correctness and suggesting that maybe some on the left have gone a little too far, too fast (despite holding left-leaning values on a myriad of other issues), then that would line up my personal experience as well.

And that's perhaps why other guys like Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Andrew Sullivan are being labeled as "lean right" on that same website when they were considered progressive by American standards a few short years ago.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'd be interested in how they came up with that conclusion.

He describes himself as
"on the rightward edge of the left—in the more promising soil of the moderate wing of the Democratic Party."

He critiques the concept of meritocracy, and has made statements like these:
"if you define conservative by support for the Republican candidate or the belief that tax cuts are the correct answer to all problems, I guess I don't fit that agenda.

He's also open about the fact that he voted for Obama twice and then Hillary.

He also wrote a piece called "why the nuclear family was a mistake"

Although, if that is how he's categorized, then I guess posts I've made in the past about how much the goal posts have shifted have some merit.

If a guy who holds some fiscally progressive values, moderate on abortion, votes for democrats, voices support for SSM, critiques the meritocracy and nuclear family unit is "conservative", then perhaps the political affiliation descriptors we typically used have lost their meaning.

I guess that makes a lot of sense actually. If all it takes to be labelled as "right winger" is simply rejecting some of the political correctness and suggesting that maybe some on the left have gone a little too far, too fast (despite holding left-leaning values on a myriad of other issues), then that would line up my personal experience as well.

And that's perhaps why other guys like Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Andrew Sullivan are being labeled as "lean right" on that same website when they were considered progressive by American standards a few short years ago.

There are conservative Democrats. It's not a complete oxymoron, though they are rarer than in the past.

Brooks is conservative because he believes in small government. He's just not overly ideological about it, and tends to favor pragmatic responses when needed. He also believes religion should have an important, privileged place in society. Like I said, he has a Normal Rockwell vision of America. The modern GOP doesn't really care about those sorts of values. Their sensibilities are more in tune with reality telivision, wrestling, and NASCAR- spectacle over substance, and they aren't particularly religious in the usual sense (church attendance among alot of white "evangelicals" is actually low, and it's become an ethno-cultural identity).

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It is interesting to see all of the attempts to somehow conjure up something, anything, to blame Democrats for the GOP's issues.
Why not just admit that the GOP's strategy is a failure of their own making? I mean, surely in addition to all the nonsense culture war stuff they actually have plans to govern in a way which could appeal to a majority of voters?

It's not an attempt to blame Democrats for the GOP issues per say, the op-ed piece was an attempt to explain why so many people ended up gravitating to a loose cannon like Trump in the first place.

From a political standpoint, if you were in a political faction that was conceding ground election after election, and still getting called "stupid" "terrible" etc... How many election cycles would pass before you got fed up with that and maybe went a more "in your face" type of candidate?

Was the expectation that conservatives should have to concede on absolutely every single position they have?

You could see a little bit of that earlier in this thread when the other poster made the comment about how "they should've just been content to sit at home and watch nascar and wrestling like they used to". Sounds an awful lot like saying "they should be content to just pick more and more watered down candidates so we can beat them easily, continue calling them stupid hillbillies, and then we can do what we want with little to no resistance"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The modern GOP doesn't really care about those sorts of values. Their sensibilities are more in tune with reality telivision, wrestling, and NASCAR- spectacle over substance.

Even when they did, many of the same condescending insults were still lobbed their way...

Even when republicans were voting for candidates (who ended up opposing Trump - like Bush, McCain, and Romney), they were still getting the same types of jabs.

Those 3 are now labelled as "the good ones" because of their vocal opposition to Trump that ended up happening, but it was very different when they were at the top of the GOP ticket during those election cycles.

The guy who hangs out with Ellen at baseball games and is friends with Michelle Obama, and started making rounds on late night shows

....was the same guy who, when he was actually running for president, had people making signs like this about him

And people voting for him were getting all the same critiques Trump voters get now.

As did Romney supporters in 2012 (the same Mitt Romney who participated in BLM protests in 2020), they were labelled as "racist" because of an out-of-context "47% of people don't pay taxes" comment.


So to pretend that that the reason conservatives are getting flak is because Trump is uniquely terrible isn't looking at the whole story.


I don't buy the "well, if the republicans would just quit picking extreme people, we wouldn't insult them like this"...because they did pick a less extreme person, they picked Romney in 2012, and still got insulted with many of the same talking points.

After that pattern gets repeated a few times, it starts to look more like "it doesn't matter how polished or polite of a person you pick, if you don't go along with our agenda on everything and let us do what we want, we're going to call you out-of-touch racist hicks and not view you as legitimate participants in our democracy"

 

[FireDragon76]

It's not an attempt to blame Democrats for the GOP issues per say, the op-ed piece was an attempt to explain why so many people ended up gravitating to a loose cannon like Trump in the first place.

From a political standpoint, if you were in a political faction that was conceding ground election after election, and still getting called "stupid" "terrible" etc... How many election cycles would pass before you got fed up with that and maybe went a more "in your face" type of candidate?

Are you a political partisan? I'm not the one using that term, you are. No amount of ingratiating ourselves is ever going to convince a certain segment of American society to undertake a kindler, gentler kind of politics. As I said, this is just a veiled, back-handed attack on perceived "liberals", when in reality, "never-Trump" Republicans and moderates have only themselves to blame.

I just call things like I see it.

BTW, I never said anything about "hillbillies". The pastor at my church is from that region of the country. Nor did I even single out a region of the country. So, who is making stereotypes here? I was just calling out low-brow spectacle, and pointing out how we don't need this kind of junk in our politics, even though we are drowning in it.