I couldn't agree more. I concluded 20+ years ago (so far back I can't remember at least) that at best, following Brooks was utterly pointless. He's not the worst voice out there... he's just not really worth paying any attention to.
I don't know the way forward, but I think you are absolutely right that elitism that is present in so many parts of our society is a serious issue. Michael Sandel has written a lot about this that is worth reading. I know he's a Harvard prof... but still. His book "The Tyranny of Meritocracy" changed the way I look at things.
I don’t subscribe to the NYT any longer because I think that too many of its reporters and columnists treated Trump with kid gloves and did not take the existential threat he poses to American democracy nearly seriously enough after he was impeached for the second time in 2021, which is one reason why I think Trump was re-elected.
But Brooks is actually a lot better than Ross Douthat and Brett Stephens, especially Douthat, in my judgement, from what I can remember. I didn’t think his insight was that bad and my elderly dad really enjoys his political commentary with Johnathon Capehart Friday evenings on the PBS NewsHour.
However, Reed’s ex-colleague at the Lincoln Project, Steve Schmidt, has also been quite critical of Brooks from time to time for a similar reason that Reed was in yesterday’s Homefront. And a very nice woman who I once worked with on a political campaign in Chicago also took a disliking to his personality. He comes off as phony to some people, I guess.
Hi Reed, I subscribed so I could weigh in this morning with a gently dissenting voice. I've followed David Brooks' writing and commentary for years, and drawn from it many times as someone who's professionally dedicated to bridging political and social divides (including the diploma divide, economic divides, etc) in the U.S. I believe Brooks truly loves this country and carries hopes for all Americans, elites and non-elites alike, in his heart. He's been vulnerable in sharing his journey with all of us, right up to last Friday's column, "We need an uprising..." And we do, we need everyone right now, it's an all hands on deck moment. Some are faster to the front lines, and some are slower. Some voices reach NYT readers, and others reach Fox watchers. And that's all OK; we need interpreters of this moment across all audiences. Why spend your energy denigrating Brooks and -- by extension -- his "elite" readers and viewers? What are you trying to accomplish, and who are you trying to exclude, from efforts to rebuild the country? Genuinely curious.
Thanks for your comment. First, your question on exclusion is interesting given what I wrote points out the very exclusion of 300 million Americans I'm concern about.
I think Brooks has, over his many years, shown an affinity for the elite and a disdain for those who aren't readers of the Times' opinion page. If he's all in, I think that's great. But I'm a trust but verify person. He spent years soft-pedaling Trump and his acts. If he's had a true conversion, I couldn't be happier for it.
The people he writes for are already convinced of his viewpoint. If he wants to lead in this fight, he should find a way to expand his own perspective.
Lastly, I think far too often, he's been an exemplar of the "do as I say not as I do" establishment that many people have decided acts in its own, and not in their interests.
I have to admit that David Brooks often seems hapless and out of touch. I was looking for Reed exposing some latest cringe worthy exploits by him. But judging from the piece, I too find perplexing why the ammo on a fairly benign figure. On the other hand, would certainly welcome some fire on Kimberly Strassel on the Wall Street Journal, maybe Holman Jenkins and a few others on the Journal.
I appreciate reading Reed's and others' responses to my comment. Thank you for engaging with my thoughts. What I see David grappling with, what I think we all need to grapple with, is: can we build a supermajority for change in this country ... one that galvanizes the 300M without demonizing the 30M (and the institutions they lead, inhabit, break, and fix)? Can we rebuild the American experiment and the American dream simultaneously, without suggesting that any group is strictly "the problem" and can't be part of the solution? Call me a wide-eyed optimist (guilty as charged) but I think millions of Americans, rich or not rich, advanced degree or high school diploma, rural or urban, etc etc are looking for a message and a movement that holds us all together right now.
100% agree. Right now, there is a gulf, real, geographic, economic, political, social, chasm between the two. My fear is that what we have now is a county where some people on the right vote. Some people on the left vote. Some people in the middle vote. And far too many people skip it altogether. You’re right that we cannot and should not fall for the cheap thrill of demonizing the other. However, continually reminding those without the their chances of be those with opportunities keeps them away from the conversation, explicitly and implicitly.
I guess there are some good points there. Late converts are still converts. I just have always found Brooks to not be enlightening at all. But if he's on the right side now, probably we should just take it for one more convert. We need many.
Perhaps I am fortunate. Never read the NY Times. Don't know Brooks. I will say this, way back in the day my generation was all encouraged to go to college. So many good state colleges/universities available and most of us picked the affordable ones. And why would we discredit anyone at all that didn't go to college!!! Most of us felt lucky to go to college. I remember a grandmotherly lady telling me, "They can't take your education away from you." That education could be public school to university. It's Education! Not where you received it.
I am in the target group Brooks supposedly talks for, and still think he is an idiot. I grew up in a suburb of DC where kids's fathers worked for the government or like mine owned a tiny business in DC (a single diner, a grocery store, a liquor store, a dry cleaners . . . at which government workers shopped.) Their kids mostly stuck together, because when we ventured out and befriended classmates from diplomatic families, the military, or Congress, all to soon they moved away. My best friend from 4to 7 was the daughter of the the under Ambassador to Sweden, and even though at 4, I knew she was only living on my block for 3 years. 3 years sounded like forever. Alas it came all too soon. We learned to watch election night news about House of Representative elections for districts in other states, because, often as with my beloved 3rd grade teacher who was going to move back to Texas if the Representative her husband worked for lost his election, e elections directly affected our lives.
Neither of my parents had gone to college and except for a few unexpected neighbors like the Under Ambassador to Sweden and a few local Doctors and Dentists, no one else's had either. But at age 9, I got straight A's for the first time and I decided I would go away to college.
Fast forward to high school and I was accepted to an Ivy League College and went there. I loved the academics but found classmates to be unbelievable distant from the physicality of government. I worked as a fill in typist at NASA the summer before freshman year. In the Fall I sat at our lounge tv with supposedly smart fellow students listening to the US President announcing massive moves of agencies between government departments. They were all saying how efficient that would be and how it made sense. They had no idea of the practical and physical aspects of bureaucracy. I said it would be months or years before there could be any benefit, and by then a new president would change it again. All the stationary would be reprinted as the agencies moved departments. Everything had to be packed up and moved to other buildings. Chains of command would be wrenched apart. I realized the divide between me and them.
Fast forward 50 years, and few people think about the good aspects of the "deep state"-----the people who know how NASA or NIH or any agency actually works. The culture and infrastructure, which at times was infuriating, but overall gave needed stability between administrations. I think about that now with DOGE. The "intellectual" talking heads understand none of that. They don't ask themselves about all the steps required to mail or direct deposit social security benefits to those who rely on them.
I am happy with my Ivy degrees and love my work as a physician, but I still roll my eyes listening to Brooks, et al. who could never get a piece of mail delivered, or NIH research done---who offer opinions with no knowledge of process.
I know it's a long rant, but clearly Reed shows his actual understanding of government process, as well as having intellectual appreciation of the role of government.
I couldn't agree more. I concluded 20+ years ago (so far back I can't remember at least) that at best, following Brooks was utterly pointless. He's not the worst voice out there... he's just not really worth paying any attention to.
I don't know the way forward, but I think you are absolutely right that elitism that is present in so many parts of our society is a serious issue. Michael Sandel has written a lot about this that is worth reading. I know he's a Harvard prof... but still. His book "The Tyranny of Meritocracy" changed the way I look at things.
I don’t subscribe to the NYT any longer because I think that too many of its reporters and columnists treated Trump with kid gloves and did not take the existential threat he poses to American democracy nearly seriously enough after he was impeached for the second time in 2021, which is one reason why I think Trump was re-elected.
But Brooks is actually a lot better than Ross Douthat and Brett Stephens, especially Douthat, in my judgement, from what I can remember. I didn’t think his insight was that bad and my elderly dad really enjoys his political commentary with Johnathon Capehart Friday evenings on the PBS NewsHour.
However, Reed’s ex-colleague at the Lincoln Project, Steve Schmidt, has also been quite critical of Brooks from time to time for a similar reason that Reed was in yesterday’s Homefront. And a very nice woman who I once worked with on a political campaign in Chicago also took a disliking to his personality. He comes off as phony to some people, I guess.
Hi Reed, I subscribed so I could weigh in this morning with a gently dissenting voice. I've followed David Brooks' writing and commentary for years, and drawn from it many times as someone who's professionally dedicated to bridging political and social divides (including the diploma divide, economic divides, etc) in the U.S. I believe Brooks truly loves this country and carries hopes for all Americans, elites and non-elites alike, in his heart. He's been vulnerable in sharing his journey with all of us, right up to last Friday's column, "We need an uprising..." And we do, we need everyone right now, it's an all hands on deck moment. Some are faster to the front lines, and some are slower. Some voices reach NYT readers, and others reach Fox watchers. And that's all OK; we need interpreters of this moment across all audiences. Why spend your energy denigrating Brooks and -- by extension -- his "elite" readers and viewers? What are you trying to accomplish, and who are you trying to exclude, from efforts to rebuild the country? Genuinely curious.
Thanks for your comment. First, your question on exclusion is interesting given what I wrote points out the very exclusion of 300 million Americans I'm concern about.
I think Brooks has, over his many years, shown an affinity for the elite and a disdain for those who aren't readers of the Times' opinion page. If he's all in, I think that's great. But I'm a trust but verify person. He spent years soft-pedaling Trump and his acts. If he's had a true conversion, I couldn't be happier for it.
The people he writes for are already convinced of his viewpoint. If he wants to lead in this fight, he should find a way to expand his own perspective.
Lastly, I think far too often, he's been an exemplar of the "do as I say not as I do" establishment that many people have decided acts in its own, and not in their interests.
I have to admit that David Brooks often seems hapless and out of touch. I was looking for Reed exposing some latest cringe worthy exploits by him. But judging from the piece, I too find perplexing why the ammo on a fairly benign figure. On the other hand, would certainly welcome some fire on Kimberly Strassel on the Wall Street Journal, maybe Holman Jenkins and a few others on the Journal.
I appreciate reading Reed's and others' responses to my comment. Thank you for engaging with my thoughts. What I see David grappling with, what I think we all need to grapple with, is: can we build a supermajority for change in this country ... one that galvanizes the 300M without demonizing the 30M (and the institutions they lead, inhabit, break, and fix)? Can we rebuild the American experiment and the American dream simultaneously, without suggesting that any group is strictly "the problem" and can't be part of the solution? Call me a wide-eyed optimist (guilty as charged) but I think millions of Americans, rich or not rich, advanced degree or high school diploma, rural or urban, etc etc are looking for a message and a movement that holds us all together right now.
100% agree. Right now, there is a gulf, real, geographic, economic, political, social, chasm between the two. My fear is that what we have now is a county where some people on the right vote. Some people on the left vote. Some people in the middle vote. And far too many people skip it altogether. You’re right that we cannot and should not fall for the cheap thrill of demonizing the other. However, continually reminding those without the their chances of be those with opportunities keeps them away from the conversation, explicitly and implicitly.
I guess there are some good points there. Late converts are still converts. I just have always found Brooks to not be enlightening at all. But if he's on the right side now, probably we should just take it for one more convert. We need many.
Perhaps I am fortunate. Never read the NY Times. Don't know Brooks. I will say this, way back in the day my generation was all encouraged to go to college. So many good state colleges/universities available and most of us picked the affordable ones. And why would we discredit anyone at all that didn't go to college!!! Most of us felt lucky to go to college. I remember a grandmotherly lady telling me, "They can't take your education away from you." That education could be public school to university. It's Education! Not where you received it.
I am in the target group Brooks supposedly talks for, and still think he is an idiot. I grew up in a suburb of DC where kids's fathers worked for the government or like mine owned a tiny business in DC (a single diner, a grocery store, a liquor store, a dry cleaners . . . at which government workers shopped.) Their kids mostly stuck together, because when we ventured out and befriended classmates from diplomatic families, the military, or Congress, all to soon they moved away. My best friend from 4to 7 was the daughter of the the under Ambassador to Sweden, and even though at 4, I knew she was only living on my block for 3 years. 3 years sounded like forever. Alas it came all too soon. We learned to watch election night news about House of Representative elections for districts in other states, because, often as with my beloved 3rd grade teacher who was going to move back to Texas if the Representative her husband worked for lost his election, e elections directly affected our lives.
Neither of my parents had gone to college and except for a few unexpected neighbors like the Under Ambassador to Sweden and a few local Doctors and Dentists, no one else's had either. But at age 9, I got straight A's for the first time and I decided I would go away to college.
Fast forward to high school and I was accepted to an Ivy League College and went there. I loved the academics but found classmates to be unbelievable distant from the physicality of government. I worked as a fill in typist at NASA the summer before freshman year. In the Fall I sat at our lounge tv with supposedly smart fellow students listening to the US President announcing massive moves of agencies between government departments. They were all saying how efficient that would be and how it made sense. They had no idea of the practical and physical aspects of bureaucracy. I said it would be months or years before there could be any benefit, and by then a new president would change it again. All the stationary would be reprinted as the agencies moved departments. Everything had to be packed up and moved to other buildings. Chains of command would be wrenched apart. I realized the divide between me and them.
Fast forward 50 years, and few people think about the good aspects of the "deep state"-----the people who know how NASA or NIH or any agency actually works. The culture and infrastructure, which at times was infuriating, but overall gave needed stability between administrations. I think about that now with DOGE. The "intellectual" talking heads understand none of that. They don't ask themselves about all the steps required to mail or direct deposit social security benefits to those who rely on them.
I am happy with my Ivy degrees and love my work as a physician, but I still roll my eyes listening to Brooks, et al. who could never get a piece of mail delivered, or NIH research done---who offer opinions with no knowledge of process.
I know it's a long rant, but clearly Reed shows his actual understanding of government process, as well as having intellectual appreciation of the role of government.