David Brooks: "Stay Sane America, Please!"

[Ashton]

I quite liked David Brooks' column this week (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/stay-sane-america-please.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fdavid-brooks&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0). Thought you all might find it interesting.

Excerpt:


In January of 2017 someone will stand at the U.S. Capitol and deliver an Inaugural Address. This is roughly the place where Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan once stood. I am going to spend every single day between now and then believing that neither Donald Trump nor Ted Cruz nor Bernie Sanders will be standing on that podium. One of them could win the election, take the oath, give the speech and be riding down Pennsylvania Avenue. I will still refuse to believe it.



Yes, I know what the polling evidence is telling us about Trump, Sanders and Cruz, but there are good reasons to cling to my disbelief.



First, these primary campaigns will not be settled in February. They won’t be settled in March or April. Sometimes a candidate can sweep Iowa and New Hampshire and cruise to the nomination. But that candidate has to be broadly acceptable to all parts of the party. Trump, Cruz and Sanders are not.

[texan]

David Brooks has become an idiot.

[JVV]

What, David doesn't like the crease in Bernie's trousers?

[iustitia]

I got nothing out of that article except "I don't like these guys" and a public school belief that Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan were great presidents.

[TrueBlue]

David Brooks is so Spot-On in his assessment of the situation on this matter and as a foregone conclusion it sure points heavily in that he is rooting for Hillary Clinton without even having to mention her! http://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/ahswen/3.gif

[Ashton]

I got nothing out of that article except "I don't like these guys" and a public school belief that Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan were great presidents.

I believe the broader point was the idea that their campaigns will not be successful in the long run because they do not have establishment support. And, in his defense, Brooks is not the only one saying this. It is fairly common opinion that Trump, Sanders, and Cruz cannot win in the long run because they are too far outside the norm.

[iustitia]

I believe the broader point was the idea that their campaigns will not be successful in the long run because they do not have establishment support. And, in his defense, Brooks is not the only one saying this. It is fairly common opinion that Trump, Sanders, and Cruz cannot win in the long run because they are too far outside the norm.

So people should withhold or give their support based on what the elites -- who routinely fail us -- desire?

This isn't directed at you, but that's fucking stupid. Elections, in theory, are about choosing someone to represent you and your interests. I'm not wasting my vote if I choose Gary Johnson, even if he loses. I AM wasting my vote if I use it on some asshole I don't like, don't support, and who holds me in contempt. Like Hillary Clinton or whoever.

You're throwing your vote away when you decide to waste it someone you hate just because 'they' can get behind them. You're not wasting your vote if you follow your gut.

There are two kinds of voters. Partisans who will blindly support corrupt, unprincipled whores like Hillary Clinton. And then there's people with self-respect.

[Ashton]

So people should withhold or give their support based on what the elites -- who routinely fail us -- desire?

This isn't directed at you, but that's $#@!ing stupid. Elections, in theory, are about choosing someone to represent you and your interests. I'm not wasting my vote if I choose Gary Johnson, even if he loses. I AM wasting my vote if I use it on some $#@! I don't like, don't support, and who holds me in contempt. Like Hillary Clinton or whoever.

You're throwing your vote away when you decide to waste it someone you hate just because 'they' can get behind them. You're not wasting your vote if you follow your gut.

Everybody has their own opinions on what wasting their vote means. For me, my support will always go to the person that has the highest chance of being elected in the general election. Having a serious influence requires being in office. I would consider supporting someone that I do not think can actually be elected not only a waste of my vote, but actively voting against my own interests by drawing support away from a candidate that can actually win. Dividing one's own party does nothing but give the power to the other party. And elections in America are about parties, not candidates.

[iustitia]

Everybody has their own opinions on what wasting their vote means. For me, my support will always go to the person that has the highest chance of being elected in the general election. Having a serious influence requires being in office. I would consider supporting someone that I do not think can actually be elected not only a waste of my vote, but actively voting against my own interests by drawing support away from a candidate that can actually win. Dividing one's own party does nothing but give the power to the other party. And elections in America are about parties, not candidates.

So you have no principles besides winning?

[Ashton]

So you have no principles besides winning?

When it comes to elections, that is correct. It does not matter how adorable and forthright a candidate is if they lose — they no longer matter and the person that beats them will go on to run the country. I care about results and that requires being in office. Once the election is won, that is when principles and governing come into play. If you lose, congratulations, you get to sit and watch someone even more opposed to your principles run the country. Politics is a job and becoming elected is getting hired.

[iustitia]

So you have no principles besides winning?


When it comes to elections, that is correct.


Once the election is won, that is when principles and governing come into play.

Principles don't matter... until they do. Right. Sorry but I don't accept the idea that principles can be turned off and on when convenient; they're not principles then.

[Ashton]

Principles don't matter... until they do. Right. Sorry but I don't accept the idea that principles can be turned off and on when convenient; they're not principles then.

Of course, they can. Before an election, all that matters is your party winning. After the election, you support legislation and governing as best fits your principles. If you would rather call it something other than 'principles' at that point, it is no skin off my nose. For me, principles only come into play once in elections: when I decide which party to support. Once that is done, I will automatically pick the primary candidate that I think has the highest chance of winning the general election. In a roundabout way, one could say that process is still voting for principles because I think any other method is actively harming what I support.

[Subdermal]

Of course, they can. Before an election, all that matters is your party winning. After the election, you support legislation and governing as best fits your principles. If you would rather call it something other than 'principles' at that point, it is no skin off my nose. For me, principles only come into play once in elections: when I decide which party to support. Once that is done, I will automatically pick the primary candidate that I think has the highest chance of winning the general election. In a roundabout way, one could say that process is still voting for principles because I think any other method is actively harming what I support.

No. What you're describing aren't principles. You are confusing your "principles" with moral relativism, which utilizes pragmatism where principles used to be.

[Ashton]

No. What you're describing aren't principles. You are confusing your "principles" with moral relativism, which utilizes pragmatism where principles used to be.

Pragmatism and principles are not mutually exclusive. Don't confuse idealism with having principles.

[Ethereal]

I don't consider it winning if you have to water down your principles. To me, that's a loss. And even though libertarians don't have much electoral success, I sense they are having an increasing cultural and ideological influence on the country with issues like LBGT equality, drug legalization, gun rights, and anti-war policies. I know that last one might seem especially outlandish, but you have to consider the results comparatively. It was only a little over a decade ago that the US invaded two countries with thousands of troops. Now the US's wars, although arguably more extensive, are being fought increasingly with robotic platforms like drones, which saves American lives, costs less tax money, and generally leaves a smaller footprint than a large scale occupation, and I think that has a lot to do with the anti-war movement's incessant harping on the costs and realities of warfare. It's not satisfactory by any means, but it's an improvement over the previous paradigm.

[Subdermal]

Pragmatism and principles are not mutually exclusive. Don't confuse idealism with having principles.

Of course they are mutually exclusive. You're attempting to make a synonym out of words which aren't. Principles are unyielding. Pragmatism, by definition, is the opposite.

[Ashton]

I don't consider it winning if you have to water down your principles. To me, that's a loss. And even though libertarians don't have much electoral success, I sense they are having an increasing cultural and ideological influence on the country with issues like LBGT equality, drug legalization, gun rights, and anti-war policies. I know that last one might seem especially outlandish, but you have to consider the results comparatively. It was only a little over a decade ago that the US invaded two countries with thousands of troops. Now the US's wars, although arguably more extensive, are being fought increasingly with robotic platforms like drones, which saves American lives, costs less tax money, and generally leaves a smaller footprint than a large scale occupation, and I think that has a lot to do with the anti-war movement's incessant harping on the costs and realities of warfare. It's not satisfactory by any means, but it's an improvement over the previous paradigm.


I can see the reasoning behind that. I know many folks that will always support the candidate that best represents their position. People have every right to be involved how they wish. I would say 'more power to them,' but that isn't how it usually works in this case.

[Ashton]

Of course they are mutually exclusive. You're attempting to make a synonym out of words which aren't. Principles are unyielding. Pragmatism, by definition, is the opposite.

I never said they were the same. Just that they are not mutually exclusive. They can both exist side by side just fine. Every single person that votes for the 'lesser of two evils' is allowing pragmatism influence their participation. I just do it earlier.

[Ethereal]

I can see the reasoning behind that. I know many folks that will always support the candidate that best represents their position. People have every right to be involved how they wish. I would say 'more power to them,' but that isn't how it usually works in this case.

Sometimes people have a tendency to fixate only on what happens in the political realm, but there are other arenas of life that drive change and determine how things will shape out politically. I sense that Republicans and Democrats, even if they aren't sincerely interested in libertarian ideology, feel like they need to at least pay some lip service to their concerns about markets, social freedoms, and non-interventionism, and that is a pretty big improvement from where the libertarian movement was a decade or two ago when nobody even knew what a libertarian was, let alone felt the need to pay lip service to them. Millennials in particular seem to be moving in that direction, at least in the social and foreign policy sphere. Economically, the trend is somewhat more ambiguous. Millennials love the market but they also seem very sympathetic towards socialized welfare programs. I think a candidate who can find a way to maintain the dynamism and independence of the market while improving or optimizing extant government programs has a good chance of bridging that gap.

[Ashton]

Sometimes people have a tendency to fixate only on what happens in the political realm, but there are other arenas of life that drive change and determine how things will shape out politically. I sense that Republicans and Democrats, even if they aren't sincerely interested in libertarian ideology, feel like they need to at least pay some lip service to their concerns about markets, social freedoms, and non-interventionism, and that is a pretty big improvement from where the libertarian movement was a decade or two ago when nobody even knew what a libertarian was, let alone felt the need to pay lip service to them. Millennials in particular seem to be moving in that direction, at least in the social and foreign policy sphere. Economically, the trend is somewhat more ambiguous. Millennials love the market but they also seem very sympathetic towards socialized welfare programs. I think a candidate who can find a way to maintain the dynamism and independence of the market while improving or optimizing extant government programs has a good chance of bridging that gap.

Sure, I agree with most of that. There are plenty of things that have an impact on the country besides literal politicians. Social movements, cultural movements, corporations, the list is almost endless. And I do agree that, at some point, politicians are going to start having to pay more attention to Millennials. But that will only happen if Millennials turn up to vote in higher percentages. Until then, they are not one of the most important constituencies.

[Mac-7]

I quite liked David Brooks' column this week (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/stay-sane-america-please.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fdavid-brooks&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0). Thought you all might find it interesting.

Excerpt:


In January of 2017 someone will stand at the U.S. Capitol and deliver an Inaugural Address. This is roughly the place where Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan once stood. I am going to spend every single day between now and then believing that neither Donald Trump nor Ted Cruz nor Bernie Sanders will be standing on that podium. One of them could win the election, take the oath, give the speech and be riding down Pennsylvania Avenue. I will still refuse to believe it.



Yes, I know what the polling evidence is telling us about Trump, Sanders and Cruz, but there are good reasons to cling to my disbelief.



First, these primary campaigns will not be settled in February. They won’t be settled in March or April. Sometimes a candidate can sweep Iowa and New Hampshire and cruise to the nomination. But that candidate has to be broadly acceptable to all parts of the party. Trump, Cruz and Sanders are not.


I dont like David Brooks.

He is the token conservative for the ny times the way joe scarborough is the token republican for msnbc.

he is a conservative only by comparison to the flaming liberals that infest his newspaper.

But in this case I am beginning to share his reservations about trump

I think it has been weeks since we or he talked building a wall to stop the flood of illegals.

Instead I watched trump on the O'Rielly factor and the entire interview was about his refusal to attend the debate tonight.

True, the subject matter was driven by bill orielly but trump has that affect on people.

his personality fills the room or stage or audiotorium and the moment becomes all about him.

Could he be a good president if elected?

I dont know.

Ted Cruz is ok and we would be lucky to get him in the white house.

But trump and the washington establishment are working to destroy any chance he has of winning.

This is the same process of elimination we saw in 2012 that eventually gave us romney and I dont like it.

But it seems to be happening again

[Ashton]

I dont like David Brooks.

He is the token conservative for the ny times the way joe scarborough is the token republican for msnbc.

he is a conservative only by comparison to the flaming liberals that infest his newspaper.

But in this case I am beginning to share his reservations about trump

I think it has been weeks since we or he talked building a wall to stop the flood of illegals.

Instead I watched trump on the O'Rielly factor and the entire interview was about his refusal to attend the debate tonight.

True, the subject matter was driven by bill orielly but trump has that affect on people.

his personality fills the room or stage or audiotorium and the moment becomes all about him.

Could he be a good president if elected?

I dont know.

Ted Cruz is ok and we would be lucky to get him in the white house.

But trump and the washington establishment are working to destroy any chance he has of winning.

This is the same process of elimination we saw in 2012 that eventually gave us romney and I dont like it.

But it seems to be happening again

I would agree with your last bit. It is very similar to 2012 in the slow trudge towards Bush or Rubio. And the Democrats are doing the same thing with Bernie.

[JVV]

Brooks has been completely wrong about this election season since Trump got into the race

He has admitted that on public television.

But he never learns.

[zelmo1234]

I believe the broader point was the idea that their campaigns will not be successful in the long run because they do not have establishment support. And, in his defense, Brooks is not the only one saying this. It is fairly common opinion that Trump, Sanders, and Cruz cannot win in the long run because they are too far outside the norm.

That is why the people like them. Look at what the establishment has done over the last 16 years? do you actually think we are better off?

[donttread]

I quite liked David Brooks' column this week (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/stay-sane-america-please.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fdavid-brooks&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0). Thought you all might find it interesting.

Excerpt:


In January of 2017 someone will stand at the U.S. Capitol and deliver an Inaugural Address. This is roughly the place where Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan once stood. I am going to spend every single day between now and then believing that neither Donald Trump nor Ted Cruz nor Bernie Sanders will be standing on that podium. One of them could win the election, take the oath, give the speech and be riding down Pennsylvania Avenue. I will still refuse to believe it.



Yes, I know what the polling evidence is telling us about Trump, Sanders and Cruz, but there are good reasons to cling to my disbelief.



First, these primary campaigns will not be settled in February. They won’t be settled in March or April. Sometimes a candidate can sweep Iowa and New Hampshire and cruise to the nomination. But that candidate has to be broadly acceptable to all parts of the party. Trump, Cruz and Sanders are not.



Are you somehow implying that the politics of the past 15 years can be defined as "sane?"

[Mac-7]

That is why the people like them. Look at what the establishment has done over the last 16 years? do you actually think we are better off?

Brooks and everyone in his world of intellectual elites are doing ok.

If we ever find a way to fire politicians, academics, and pundits so we can replace them with cheap workers from mexico brooks might sing a different tune.

too bad we cant do that

[Chris]

I quite liked David Brooks' column this week (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/stay-sane-america-please.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fdavid-brooks&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0). Thought you all might find it interesting.

Excerpt:


In January of 2017 someone will stand at the U.S. Capitol and deliver an Inaugural Address. This is roughly the place where Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan once stood. I am going to spend every single day between now and then believing that neither Donald Trump nor Ted Cruz nor Bernie Sanders will be standing on that podium. One of them could win the election, take the oath, give the speech and be riding down Pennsylvania Avenue. I will still refuse to believe it.



Yes, I know what the polling evidence is telling us about Trump, Sanders and Cruz, but there are good reasons to cling to my disbelief.



First, these primary campaigns will not be settled in February. They won’t be settled in March or April. Sometimes a candidate can sweep Iowa and New Hampshire and cruise to the nomination. But that candidate has to be broadly acceptable to all parts of the party. Trump, Cruz and Sanders are not.

But, in not mentioning her name, he believes Hillary would do?

Sanders, despite his policies, is the only one with any dignity, imo.

[Mac-7]

But, in not mentioning her name, he believes Hillary would do?

Sanders, despite his policies, is the only one with any dignity, imo.

He is a member of the northeastern liberal elite.

Hillary is next in line for the job.

[Tahuyaman]

I quite liked David Brooks' column this week (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/stay-sane-america-please.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fdavid-brooks&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0). Thought you all might find it interesting.

Excerpt:


In January of 2017 someone will stand at the U.S. Capitol and deliver an Inaugural Address. This is roughly the place where Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan once stood. I am going to spend every single day between now and then believing that neither Donald Trump nor Ted Cruz nor Bernie Sanders will be standing on that podium. One of them could win the election, take the oath, give the speech and be riding down Pennsylvania Avenue. I will still refuse to believe it.



Yes, I know what the polling evidence is telling us about Trump, Sanders and Cruz, but there are good reasons to cling to my disbelief.



First, these primary campaigns will not be settled in February. They won’t be settled in March or April. Sometimes a candidate can sweep Iowa and New Hampshire and cruise to the nomination. But that candidate has to be broadly acceptable to all parts of the party. Trump, Cruz and Sanders are not.



I'm with him in that I don't believe neither Trump, Cruz or Sanders will be our next President.

He's also correct that winning Iowa and New Hampshire historically doesn't guarantee anything.

[Common Sense]

Sorry David, it's too late.

[Truth Detector]

I quite liked David Brooks' column this week (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/stay-sane-america-please.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fdavid-brooks&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0). Thought you all might find it interesting.

Excerpt:


In January of 2017 someone will stand at the U.S. Capitol and deliver an Inaugural Address. This is roughly the place where Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan once stood. I am going to spend every single day between now and then believing that neither Donald Trump nor Ted Cruz nor Bernie Sanders will be standing on that podium. One of them could win the election, take the oath, give the speech and be riding down Pennsylvania Avenue. I will still refuse to believe it.



Yes, I know what the polling evidence is telling us about Trump, Sanders and Cruz, but there are good reasons to cling to my disbelief.



First, these primary campaigns will not be settled in February. They won’t be settled in March or April. Sometimes a candidate can sweep Iowa and New Hampshire and cruise to the nomination. But that candidate has to be broadly acceptable to all parts of the party. Trump, Cruz and Sanders are not.

Big shocker; David Brooks thinks Shrillary should be standing on that podium. :biglaugh:

[Truth Detector]

David Brooks has become an idiot.

Has become? More like always has been.

[Truth Detector]

I believe the broader point was the idea that their campaigns will not be successful in the long run because they do not have establishment support. And, in his defense, Brooks is not the only one saying this. It is fairly common opinion that Trump, Sanders, and Cruz cannot win in the long run because they are too far outside the norm.

What is this "norm" they're so far outside? You mean the norm of politicians still bringing us half trillion deficits? The norm of pandering to low information voters promising them stuff? The norm of never passing a balanced budget to stop the massive increase in US debt? Or is it the norm of tweaking the tax code to favor one industry over another's at everyone's expense?

[Truth Detector]

Principles don't matter... until they do. Right. Sorry but I don't accept the idea that principles can be turned off and on when convenient; they're not principles then.

How does one turn their principles off when they KNOW that only ONE of the TWO major candidates will become President and therefore, casts his vote for the one that best matches those principles?

I find that specious claim ignorant and cannot fathom how throwing a vote away makes anyone more principled. It's child like in its naïveté. There will NEVER be the ideal candidate that will meet EVERYONES principles and believing that such a fantasy would ever occur is incredibly naive and child like.

[Tahuyaman]

Big shocker; David Brooks thinks Shrillary should be standing on that podium. :biglaugh:

I don't know David Brooks from the moon, but I didn't get that from his comments. He may very well be a liberal elite supporting Hillary Clinton, but I believe he's right in his view that neither Trump, Cruz or Sanders will be inaugurated as POTUS.

Of course, that would change in the unlikely event Sanders wins the nomination and a Either Trump or Cruz does also.

I'm with him in the belief that none of them will be on the ballot come November.

[Truth Detector]

I don't know David Brooks from the moon, but I didn't get that from his comments. He may very well be a liberal elite supporting Hillary Clinton, but I believe he's right in his view that neither Trump, Cruz or Sanders will be inaugurated as POTUS.

Of course, that would change in the unlikely event Sanders wins the nomination and a Either Trump or Cruz does also.

I'm with him in the belief that none of them will be on the ballot come November.

I assume you don't watch Sunday morning political all shows.....David has been around for a very long time and calling him a Conservative is about as absurd as claiming the sun won't rise in the morning.

[Tahuyaman]

Sorry David, it's too late.

Not hardly. About the only thing it's almost too late for is some other candidate jumping in now.

The Democrats are basically stuck with Clinton and the Republicans have a pretty diverse group from which to pick.

[suds00]

david brooks is independent.the ny times may not want to keep him now that they support the nomination of trump.i agree with him.that said,i'm going into hibernation till next year.

[suds00]

the norm of abiding by the law of the land.

[Tahuyaman]

I assume you don't watch Sunday morning political all shows.....David has been around for a very long time and calling him a Conservative is about as absurd as claiming the sun won't rise in the morning.

first, I rarely, if ever watch them.

Second, I never called Brooks a conservative. I said that I know nothing about the dude. Still, even if he is a liberal elite, I believe he's right on his opinion about who will not be elected POTUS.