Brooks’ Final Column

David Brooks has announced that he is leaving The New York Times, for an as-yet unexplained position involving Yale University.

Most days when the Times publishes a Brooks article, I read it–often with appreciation, other times shaking my head at what comes across as a self-satisfied imperviousness to contrary understandings. (His warnings against elitism display a lack of self-awareness–in my view, Brooks is the epitome of an elitist.)

That said, most of this “goodby” article belongs in the perceptive category. I entirely agree with this paragraph:

In reality, I’ve long believed that there is a weird market failure in American culture. There are a lot of shows on politics, business and technology, but there are not enough on the fundamental questions of life that get addressed as part of a great liberal arts education: How do you become a better person? How do you find meaning in retirement? Does America still have a unifying national narrative? How do great nations recover from tyranny?

Brooks steps back and takes a long view of what can only be described as American decline: the loss of faith in democracy, in America’s goodness, in technology and especially in our fellow Americans. As he points out,  Barack Obama could run a presidential campaign on hope as recently as 2008, but other trends have erased that hopefulness.

The Iraq war shattered America’s confidence in its own power. The financial crisis shattered Americans’ faith that capitalism when left alone would produce broad and stable prosperity. The internet did not usher in an era of deep connection but rather an era of growing depression, enmity and loneliness. Collapsing levels of social trust revealed a comprehensive loss of faith in our neighbors. The rise of China and everything about Donald Trump shattered our serene assumptions about America’s role in the world.

He lists evidence that America is a “sadder, meaner and more pessimistic country” these days. Public discourse is distressingly negative. Majorities believe the country is in decline. Americans distrust experts and so-called elites. “Only 13 percent of young adults believe America is heading in the right direction. Sixty-nine percent of Americans say they do not believe in the American dream.”

Brooks sees nihilism everywhere, especially in Donald Trump, and–like so many of us–finds it incredible and immensely disheartening that In the election of 2024, “77 million American voters looked at Trump and saw nothing morally disqualifying about the man.” Then he makes a point I have frequently made. It isn’t just Trump.

It’s tempting to say that Trump corrupted America. But the shredding of values from the top was preceded by a decades-long collapse of values from within. Four decades of hyper-individualism expanded individual choice but weakened the bonds between people. Multiple generations of students and their parents fled from the humanities and the liberal arts, driven by the belief that the prime purpose of education is to learn how to make money.

Brooks returns to one of his favorite themes–that Americans occupy a “naked public square,” that we lack a shared moral order. He bemoans what he calls the “privatization of morality,” and says the lack of shared standards makes social cohesion impossible. There is both truth and danger in that assertion. A shared morality/philosophy is important–but so is the content of those shared commitments.

After all, White Christian nationalists agree with Brooks–and are intent upon dictating the contents of that “shared morality.”

I strongly believe that a shared allegiance to the principles of America’s founding documents–the importance of individual liberty, civic equality and the rule of law, rather than a shared theology or the “spiritual climate” Brooks recommends–provide a sufficient basis upon which Americans can and should clothe that naked public square.

I do agree with Brooks’ assertion that a “true humanism” that upholds the dignity of each person is the antidote to nihilism. True humanism, as he says, “comes in many flavors”– secular, Christian, Jewish and so on. He defines it as “any endeavor that deepens our understanding of the human heart, any gesture that makes other people feel seen, heard and respected.”

Finally, Brooks recommends that readers engage in what he calls the “Great Conversation” over theology, philosophy, psychology, history, literature, music, the study of global civilizations and the arts. What he doesn’t seem to recognize is that he’s preaching to a relatively small choir. (A criticism that admittedly could be leveled at this blog.) One of the thorniest issues we face is how to engage all or most of our fellow Americans in a common conversation–how we bridge the distances between the bubbles we inhabit.

The essay is quintessential Brooks. He’ll be missed.

Comments

Yellow Lines And Dead Armadillos

Well-meaning people continue to urge folks on the political Left and Right to talk to each other, to listen to each other, and to come to the “middle.” This constant refrain drives me up the wall, because what I see are not “politics as usual” disputes, but a fundamental moral divide. The only “policy” being debated is the right of a lawless administration to send ICE goons (aka Trump’s Gestapo) into American cities to kidnap and brutalize citizens at will.

Even the terms “Left” and “Right” are inappropriate. The Republican Party once had a coherent, politically conservative agenda–free trade, limited government, respect for law and order, support for NATO… That party has vanished, substituting  virulent racism and devotion to Trump for anything resembling a conservative philosophy–or any philosophy, for that matter.

The morphing of the Republican Party into an alternate reality cult has also remade the Democratic Party (most of which was never as “Left” as Republicans used to charge). Actual conservatives and moderates have departed the GOP in droves. Many–probably most–now count themselves Independent, but a not-insignificant number now identify as Democrats, turning Democrats into a nearly ungovernable ideological mix.

The GOP has become a neo-fascist cult; Democratic voters are those who oppose that cult.

When I read pious exhortations about “coming together” and “listening to each other” I want to scream that I have been listening– I’ve heard MAGA loud and clear, and I know there is no “middle ground.”

A recent, welcome essay in Lincoln Square made that point forcefully. As Stuart Stevens began,

In this time of national trauma, we hear many calls for an end to the divisions that are shredding the national fabric. It all sounds lovely. Who could argue that Americans need to do more to understand each other and reach a consensus?

Well, I could.

I don’t want to understand the guy in the Camp Auschwitz sweatshirt during the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol.

I don’t want to understand the Death Squad ICE agents who murder innocent citizens.

I don’t want to understand the twisted hatred of Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem.

I don’t want to understand the MAGA followers who say the 2020 election was stolen.

Stevens–one of the sane Americans who fled the GOP–draws a stark line between those who he says are “defending the legacy of the Greatest Generation and those who defile its sacrifice.” He points out that carrying the same country’s passport  is an accident of birth, while values are a choice.

Too many Democrats still believe Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election when she said, “You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.” I don’t know how to break it to you guys, but that’s the sort of self-flagellating instinct that helped my Republican candidates win races they had no business winning.

The problem wasn’t that Hillary Clinton described MAGA as deplorable. The problem was that she stopped doing it. You win races by defining the other side in sweeping negative language. Races are about differences and choices. There’s nothing in the middle of the road but yellow lines and dead armadillos.

Stevens underlines that observation with a very simple question: Is this who you are?” He invokes the image of a ranting Stephen Miller “looking like he’s auditioning for Joseph Goebbels role as Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda” and suggests asking a normal American, a sane voter, “Is this who you want to be?”

We are taught that it is a positive character attribute to give another person the benefit of the doubt. That may work when debating converting the U.S. to the metric system, but it’s a Munich Accord-level of appeasement when dealing with the lunatics of MAGA. Those of us who view this moment as an existential threat to democracy should reject any assumption that the other side is acting in good faith. When a home invader has broken in your door, don’t act like he thinks he’s visiting a friend and has the wrong address. Do whatever it takes to get the bastard out of your house.

Legacy media “both-siding” to the contrary, Americans are not engaged in the sort of normal political debate that demands compromise and conciliation. MAGA folks understand that, while far too many of the rest of us don’t. We are facing a sustained, intentional assault on the very foundations of America’s identity.

That assault calls for resistance, not conciliation. There is no “middle ground” between liberal democracy and fascism.

Comments

Broad-Brush Bigotry

Yesterday, in a post about Nick Hanauer, I insisted that no group should be stereotyped–including people who are obscenely rich. Broad-brush negative characterizations–stereotypes– are increasingly being applied to constituencies seen as “Other”–usually, folks with different skin colors or religions but also financial categories.

I don’t waste a lot of sympathy on billionaires, who can certainly take care of themselves. I do harbor deep concerns over the increasingly public and unrestrained bigotries based on race and ethnicity, where the stereotyping of whole populations is both morally dangerous and factually inaccurate.

Take the administration’s effort to paint Somalis with a broad brush. It isn’t just Trump’s wildly unfair accusations about the Somalis in Minneapolis; it was preceded by the ludicrous racist charges (amplified by J.D. Vance) that Somalis in Ohio were eating their neighbors’ dogs and cats.

A recent op-ed by a group of academics–co-authors of a book titled “Somalis in Maine: Crossing Cultural Currents.”–addressed these attacks on Somali immigrants. (Link unavailable). As they wrote,

The hostile political climate targeting Somali Americans has escalated beyond racist rhetoric into unprecedented federal crackdowns that have now spread to Maine.

As members of the Somali Narrative Project, we spent a decade in Somali communities, gathering stories for our book, “Somalis in Maine.” We met people whose lives revealed the depth, complexity and everyday courage that characterize Somali communities across the United States.

The Trump administration’s depiction of Somalis as “garbage,” coupled with an aggressive and violent crackdown on Somalis and the withdrawal of legal protections is not only deeply offensive, it is a deliberate distortion designed to inflame fear and justify racist exclusion.

The essay described the administration’s aggressive militarization and violent arrests, and “the detention of U.S. citizens and immigrants alike.”

Even as activists call for the federal presence to end, the Trump administration moved to revoke temporary protected status for more than 2,000 Somali migrants, deepening fear and uncertainty for families and communities.

While their scholarship began in Maine, the authors point out that Somali communities are similar across regional differences; they are families that “rebuild their lives with fierce determination.” Their young people (many of whom have been born in the United States) “study hard, attend college and start careers and families; communities contribute economically, culturally and civically to the places they call home.”

They also become citizens. In Maine, nearly 65% of Somalis were citizens by 2021.

One pernicious tactic used by this administration is the deliberate magnification of isolated criminal cases — such as the small group of individuals charged with fraud in Minnesota —into sweeping indictments of an entire population. In reality, the number of people charged represents only a tiny fraction of Minnesota’s Somali community — well under 1% .

As the essay notes, blaming an entire ethnic group for the actions of a small number is not analysis; it is bigotry. “When white Americans commit fraud, we call it fraud. When Somali Americans commit fraud, certain politicians call it culture.”

Somali immigrants came to this country to seek a better life, which until recently is what America offered to immigrants. As our book emphasizes, Somalis brought linguistic skills, Islamic traditions of scholarship and faith, oral poetry, extended kin networks and cultural resilience. These strengths helped families survive war and displacement, and then to build new lives in the United States, carving pathways into many professions, including meatpacking, entrepreneurship and academia.

The truth about Somali Americans stands in stark contrast with the Trump administration’s rhetoric — and the broader anti-immigrant platform advanced by Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller — that targets brown and Black people while welcoming white South Africans as refugees…

When the president of the United States labels a community “garbage,” and his vice president pounds the table in approval, they are announcing that they believe human beings are disposable. They are sending a clear signal that a population can be thrown away, diminished or eradicated without moral consequence.

Dehumanizing language cultivates the conditions under which human rights can be dismissed, families can be separated, people can be detained and be deported to countries where they have no ties and are vulnerable to violence. The state thus justifies actions that would once have been unthinkable and makes life perilous for everyone.

But the Somali Americans across New England, the Midwest, the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere are living evidence of a different truth. They are parents working multiple jobs to give their children access to opportunity. They are college students majoring in political science, engineering and nursing. They are small-business owners revitalizing commercial corridors. They are imams working for peace, interpreters expanding access to health care and civic leaders advocating for neighborhoods too often overlooked by policymakers.

These stories are not peripheral to American life. They are American life.

Amen.

Comments

Listen To Nick Hanauer

I have previously referred to billionaire Nick Hanauer, and his clear-eyed view of what economic evidence tells us. Hanauer has, for example, explained multiple times why raising the minimum wage, not cutting taxes, creates jobs: it’s when people have enough disposable income to buy your widgets that employers hire people to make them. (When Seattle ignored the plutocrats’ warnings and raised its minimum wage, Hanauer’s position was vindicated.)

In 2023, Hanauer and a co-author wrote a book titled “Corporate Bullshit,” intended to help readers identify the “pernicious propaganda” promulgated by the wealthy. The book identified six categories of falsehoods that Hanauer says repeatedly thwart progress on issues ranging from civil rights, to wealth inequality, climate change, voting rights, and gun responsibility.

As Hanauer points out, Americans have a bad habit of giving credence to arguments made by the wealthy and powerful simply because those making the arguments are wealthy and powerful. (It always reminds me of that lyric from  Fiddler on the Roof’s “If I Were A Rich Man.”  “The most important men in town would come to call on me, asking questions that would cross a Rabbis eyes–and it won’t make one bit of difference if I answer right or wrong…When you’re rich they think you really know.”)

Recently, on Facebook, Hanauer shared a letter he’d sent to one of the “movers and shakers” who spoke at Davos. Since he publicly shared it, I assume I can share it as well.

Here’s his letter:

I listened closely to your remarks at Davos, and you’re right about the core problem: capitalism is losing public trust because prosperity has left too many people behind. I warned us all about this when I wrote “The Pitchforks Are Coming for Us Plutocrats” back in 2014. You’re also correct that GDP and market caps are terrible proxies for whether an economy is actually working for working people.

But here’s the thing—this isn’t a mystery anymore, and it hasn’t been for a long time.

For more than a decade now, I’ve been having conversations—often with people who run large institutions, manage serious capital, and employ thousands—about exactly what to do next.

On Pitchfork Economics and in conversations across the ecosystem, we’ve talked with people like Joseph Stiglitz, Heather Boushey, Mariana Mazzucato, Robert Reich, Todd Tucker, Elizabeth Anderson, Mark Blyth, and many others who have laid out, in plain language, what will actually fix this problem.

They all point to a similar set of solutions:
–Tax extreme wealth and income at levels that reflect their real social cost
– Rebuild antitrust enforcement and curb monopoly power
– Strengthen labor markets and worker bargaining power
– Invest aggressively in public goods that make broad-based prosperity possible

None of this is radical. In fact, it’s how the U.S. built the most prosperous middle class in history. So when you say the answer is more “conversation,” I have to strongly disagree. We’re past the conversation phase. There are many ideas on the table, from every corner of the world. The evidence is overwhelming. And the political backlash you’re worried about is already here precisely because action hasn’t followed conversation.

On behalf of the handful of us zillionaires who have benefited from this system, we don’t need more panels or better messaging. We need the courage to support policies that will redistribute power, not just wealth—and to do so even when it’s uncomfortable or expensive for people like us.

You said that in order to solve inequality, the mountain—meaning Davos—needed to come down to earth. It’s a nice image, but it doesn’t reflect reality. What really needs to happen is the mountain needs to stop extracting from everyone else.

It’s fashionable these days to bash all billionaires, and a large number of them certainly deserve that bashing. But billionaires–like all other groups of people–are not a monolithic category. Just as all Somalis aren’t guilty of fraud in Minneapolis, all Jews do not support Israel’s activities in Gaza, and (possibly) all ICE agents aren’t thugs. We lose our grasp of reality when we fail to recognize the differences within identifiable populations.

Billionaires aren’t all like Jeff Bezos and Larry Ellison. There are also people like Nick Hanauer and Abigail Disney. When the people with pitchforks come for the billionaires, as Hanauer has warned, they’ll need to be selective….



Comments

The Smell Of Hypocrisy In The Morning…

I know we Americans are facing truly horrific challenges–the White House is occupied by a man whose malevolent insanity is impossible to ignore. His ICE agents are America’s version of a (masked) Gestapo. Our “guardrails” have failed us, with feckless Congressional Republicans refusing to honor their oaths of office and a corrupt Supreme Court enabling the madman in the Oval Office.

It’s an ugly picture, and I don’t want to minimize how dire things are. But what has really incensed me–probably out of proportion to the severity of all the other threats we face–is the unbelievable hypocrisy of both Trump and MAGA.

Let’s talk about guns. Trump wouldn’t have won in 2024 without the gun lobby–his victory was thin. He sold himself to the NRA and other Second Amendment “patriots” as a defender of their ahistorical application of that Amendment. Now, he defends the murder of a peaceful protester by his ICE thugs by declaring that the protester’s lawful possession of a gun–which that protester never held and certainly never “brandished”–justified killing him, saying “You can’t bring a gun. You just can’t.”

I’m waiting for those intrepid Second Amendment protectors in Congress to call for his impeachment…

Then there’s Trump’s even more egregious lie about why he sent ICE into Minneapolis–and his rhetoric about stamping out “fraud” that he attributed to all Somali residents (they’re Black, you know, so they must all be guilty). It was immaterial that those allegations, which involved a small number of Somalis, had already been investigated and addressed by state law enforcement. That excuse was really rich, coming from a President who continues to pardon people found guilty of multiple crimes–including fraud–by juries. Of course, those pardons only issue when the fraudster or a relative pays him off, or when–like the January 6th rioters–they engaged in criminal behaviors at his request.

And don’t get me started on Trump’s excuse for bombing fishing ships out of international waters and murdering an estimated 124 people on board without any due process or evidence. His excuse was that those boats were carrying drugs. Meanwhile, he granted a full and complete pardon to Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras who was given due process, and who had been convicted in a court of law for conspiring to import over 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S.. 

Perhaps the most blatant hypocrisy is coming from Minnesota, where Trump’s MAGA supporters are having what one pundit called a “toddler tantrum” over the fact that hundreds of Minneapolis area businesses have put “NO ICE SERVED HERE” signs in their windows. The MAGA people fulminating over this “outrage” are the very people who have spent years protecting the “religious rights” of business owners. They are the same people who’ve gone to court to protect the “First Amendment rights” of bakers to refuse to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples, and to protect web architects from having to design websites for gay folks.

And they won. Our disgraceful Supreme Court went out of its way (okay, out of the Constitution’s way) to accommodate those very “sincere” religious folks, to allow them to refuse to serve people whose very existence offended their “sincerely held” beliefs. Our home-grown theocrats celebrated the “liberty” of business owners to discriminate on the basis of principle. Their current outrage is just evidence of what the rest of us have always known: they were hypocrites. They weren’t interested in defending just any “principles” or moral beliefs upon which a given business owner might sincerely be acting–they were only interested in sending a “religious” message to particular people of whom they disapproved.

Trump’s hypocrisy is nothing new.

Back in 2022, Austin Sarat wrote in The Hill that Trump’s hypocrisy undermines democracy by eroding trust and breeding cynicism. “What Trump practices and what he preaches have little in common. He feels no compunction about doing the very things that he denounces and uses to demonize his political opponents.”

But democratic politics cannot thrive, or perhaps even survive, when hypocrisy becomes the norm. Political scientist John Keane has rightly observed that “Hypocrisy … is the soil in which antipathy towards democracy always takes root.”

Keane argues that democratic politics rests on a foundation of trust among citizens and between citizens and their representatives. Hypocrisy erodes that trust. It leads people to discount what others say in the political arena and promotes a corrosive disgust with politics.

“Corrosive distrust.” Sounds like a pretty apt description of where we are….

Comments