He is not a liberal, he's the end of liberalism - interesting perspective from... David Brooks

[question everything]

(snip)

I’ve just watched populism destroy traditional conservatism in the G.O.P. I’m here to tell you that Bernie Sanders is not a liberal Democrat. He’s what replaces liberal Democrats. Traditional liberalism traces its intellectual roots to John Stuart Mill, John Locke, the Social Gospel movement and the New Deal. This liberalism believes in gaining power the traditional way: building coalitions, working within the constitutional system and crafting the sort of compromises you need in a complex, pluralistic society. This is why liberals like Hubert Humphrey, Ted Kennedy and Elizabeth Warren were and are such effective senators. They worked within the system, negotiated and practiced the art of politics.

Populists like Sanders speak as if the whole system is irredeemably corrupt. Sanders was a useless House member and has been a marginal senator because he doesn’t operate within this system or believe in this theory of change. He believes in revolutionary mass mobilization and, once an election has been won, rule by majoritarian domination. This is how populists of left and right are ruling all over the world, and it is exactly what our founders feared most and tried hard to prevent.

Liberalism celebrates certain values: reasonableness, conversation, compassion, tolerance, intellectual humility and optimism. Liberalism is horrified by cruelty. Sanders’s leadership style embodies the populist values, which are different: rage, bitter and relentless polarization, a demand for ideological purity among your friends and incessant hatred for your supposed foes. A liberal leader confronts new facts and changes his or her mind. A populist leader cannot because the omniscience of the charismatic headman can never be doubted. A liberal sees shades of gray. For a populist reality is white or black, friend or enemy. Facts that don’t fit the dogma are ignored.

A liberal sees inequality and tries to reduce it. A populist sees remorseless class war and believes in concentrated power to crush the enemy. Sanders is running on a $60 trillion spending agenda that would double the size of the federal government. It would represent the greatest concentration of power in the Washington elite in American history.

(snip)

There is a specter haunting the world — corrosive populisms of right and left. These populisms grow out of real problems but are the wrong answers to them. For the past century, liberal Democrats from F.D.R. to Barack Obama knew how to beat back threats from the populist left. They knew how to defend the legitimacy of our system, even while reforming it. Judging by the last few debates, none of the current candidates remember those arguments or know how to rebut a populist to their left.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/opinion/bernie-sanders.html

[dumptrump1]

1. Fun.

[Anon-C]

2. Kicked and Highly Rec'd!

[Lunch Lady]

3. Bernie Sanders is a good man.

He cares about people like me.

[Shanti Mama]

6. I agree

But that doesn't negate any of what Brooks wrote.

[certainot]

119. how can anyone believe brooks judgement?

he's painting sanders with bullshit. for thirty years he's gone along with the limbaughs of his party while they sold whaat he's accusing sanders of.

people get pissed off at these fucking republicans setting us up for global warming and shit like corona and stop single payer and sabotage sane competent government. when hypocritical bothsiders like brooks come out calling sanders a commie for being angry they need to be recognized as full of shit, however good they are with words.

Liberalism celebrates certain values: reasonableness, conversation, compassion, tolerance, intellectual humility and optimism. Liberalism is horrified by cruelty. Sanders’s leadership style embodies the populist values, which are different: rage, bitter and relentless polarization, a demand for ideological purity among your friends and incessant hatred for your supposed foes. A liberal leader confronts new facts and changes his or her mind. A populist leader cannot because the omniscience of the charismatic headman can never be doubted. A liberal sees shades of gray. For a populist reality is white or black, friend or enemy. Facts that don’t fit the dogma are ignored.

brooks is talking about the royal sex-on-the-wrong-brain certitude that defines authoritarian leaders. that is what brooks fell in love with as a 'young republican' jacking off with ayn randian wet dreams and concluding market forces can simplify and solve all our problems. cons like brooks routinely ignore and discredit anything from liberals because it includes uncertainty/gray area they can't handle. it makes them uncomfortable and even scares them. any kind of certainty from liberals like bernie is hard for them to understand and is seen as a direct threat. brooks is full of shit, labeling sanders with what is clearly his own party's leaders defining characteristic.

frightened cons like brooks are in denial and have been denying global warming for decades. same with single payer and environmental regulation. and so on, simplifying the complex and reducing uncertainties with absolutes and binary values. they get scared without order and control.

they don't have any credibility when it comes to dealing with those issues or labeling us as totalitarians because we're pissed off and recognize the need for change.

he needs to retire

[Mister Ed]

60. My friends know me as a good man, and I care about people like you.

I don't think I'd make a very good president, though.

[HarlanPepper]

4. Calling him a "marginal" senator is being kind

[Blue_true]

100. He did co-write a wildly popular Veterans bill, but any democrat could have done that

and got it passed overwhelmingly.

[DanTex]

5. David Brooks. LOL. Conservatives like him don't like Bernie. No kidding.

[Uncle Joe]

8. LOL The curtain is most assuredly being pulled back.

[ehrnst]

22. Coming from someone who posts screeds from the Intercept, who doesn't like the Democratic Party....

on Democratic Underground...

[2naSalit]

45. +1

[Celerity]

57. they did do the best debunking of the Biden Ukraine tosh

Republican Conspiracy Theory About a Biden Scandal in Ukraine Is “Absolute Nonsense”

https://theintercept.com/2019/05/10/rumors-joe-biden-scandal-ukraine-absolute-nonsense-reformer-says/

VIRAL RUMORS THAT Joe Biden abused his power as vice president to protect his son’s business interests in Ukraine in 2016, which spread last week from the pro-Trump media ecosystem to the New York Times, are “absolute nonsense,” according to Ukraine’s leading anti-corruption activist. That evaluation is backed by foreign correspondents in Kiev and a former official with knowledge of Biden’s outreach to Ukraine after President Viktor Yanukovych was deposed in a popular uprising in 2014.

In an interview with The Intercept, Daria Kaleniuk, an American-educated lawyer who founded Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Action Center, expressed frustration that two recent front-page stories in the New York Times, on how the conspiracy theory is being used to attack Biden, failed to properly debunk the false accusation. According to Kaleniuk, and a former anti-corruption prosecutor, there is simply no truth to the rumor now spreading like wildfire across the internet.

The accusation is that Biden blackmailed Ukraine’s new leaders into firing the country’s chief prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, to derail an investigation he was leading into a Ukrainian gas company that the vice president’s son, Hunter, was paid to advise. The truth, Kaleniuk said, is that Shokin was forced from office at Biden’s urging because he had failed to conduct thorough investigations of corruption, and had stifled efforts to investigate embezzlement and misconduct by public officials following the 2014 uprising.

Properly debunking this particular conspiracy theory is easier said than done, though, since it is set in Ukraine, a country with byzantine political intrigue at the best of times, and these are not the best of times. The rivalries between political factions in Kyiv are so intense that even the country’s new anti-corruption agencies are at each other’s throats.

snip

[ehrnst]

59. I don't see this as a defense of Biden as much as a slam of the GOP and a defense of Ukraine.

See this post for an example of their omission of relevant facts that don't support their contention that Democrats are as bad as Republicans, and their inflating of less than relevant facts to promote propaganda.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=596240

[LiberalFighter]

79. Relying on you to help me know others better. :)

[blue-wave]

48. Maybe if you would have actually read the article

you would see that he warns of "corrosive populisms of right and left." He criticizes both far sides of the political spectrum.

Actually listening to and learning from people you don't agree with is not a bad character trait. It's actually a very American trait and sometimes they might have a valid point. And I thought Bernie people were supposed to be the ones with open minds. Go figure.

[DanTex]

51. Yes, he likes the false equivalence game. It's absurd to compare Bernie to Trump, but right-wingers

like David Brooks always try to do that.

I have no problem learning from people who I don't agree with. But David Brooks is, and always has been, a right-wing moron. And this article is a great example of that.

[blue-wave]

56. Thanks for underscoring my point.

Please refer to post # 48.

[DanTex]

58. Your point? That I should listen to David Brooks?

Sorry, not gonna play. I've seen enough Brooks columns to know what his game is.

[ouija]

76. We

Before me, and we have them running scared. So scared for the mere thought of losing power that I can barely watch MSNBC right now.

[ehrnst]

95. Why should we listen to the Intercept? Brooks is far less hateful to the Democratic Party

than the Intercept.

I've read the Intercept too much to give them any credit when it comes to bashing Democrats and the Democratic party.

You may want to review the name of the board you're posting on...

[MarcA]

87. Agreed. False equivalence game and false left-right dichotomy. n/t

[KPN]

89. Yes, he conveniently threw that phrase and

dynamic in to legitimize his slam or, more accurately, fear mongering against progressives being somehow (and not very convincingly explained) monstrously different from FDR progressivism and the Democratic liberals of the past 40 years. He was somewhat right about the past 40 years but only in that those liberals did not have the vast popular understanding and support that progressives now have. His characterization of FDRs new deal being based in a spirit of collaborative change is pure bullshit. The capitalists of that era opposed and fought to deter FDR every step along the way. It was only because his programs and position on economic issues was so widely popular among the vast majority of Americans that he was able to achieve the changes and programs he proposed.

[charliea]

141. I read it.

So the former Weekly Standard writer who 'transitioned' to the NYT, who oft times spreads opinions of people he thinks he met in cabs or diners, says Bernie is the end of liberalism, because of his 'corrosive populism'. The characterization of Bernie as 'far left', seems to ignore the fact that polling shows his policies are supported by the majority of Americans. Sounds like Brooks is going for a 'both siderism' argument instead of assessing the opinion of the citizenry. It has no nuance.

If tRump is the exemplar of corrosive populism of the right, I hope that we'll survive to try the corrosive populism of a society centered around the health and welfare of the populace not corporations and banks.




#RESIST

[Cary]

67. Ad hominem

I have mixed feelings a out Brooks, myself, but that doesn't negate his argument.

I expect ad hominem from right wingers. I expect us to be better than that.

[DanTex]

69. His argument is his usual false equivalence between Trump and the left.

And Brooks is clearly a right-winger, deny it all you want.

[Cary]

77. He makes an argument

You still don't refute any of it and I haven't denied anything. I pointed out your logical fallacy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

115. It's his argument that Sanders is the equivalent of Trump that shows him to be a moron

Trump is a racist crook, who has spent his life stealing from people, discriminating, and looking out purely for himself (or, when he's a in a generous mood, for his children - never his wives, though). He stiffs the people he works with. Sanders has been a politician, working with Democrats for years, and is a perfectly reasonable human being.

You know all this already. You didn't need someone to refute it. Brooks is full of shit. If you'd actually thought for a moment, you'd realise you knew that too. Pointing out that it's no surprise that a conservative apologist like Brooks has attacked, yet again, someone on the left with a bad argument is not an "ad hominem", it's a remark of "so what's new?".

[Cary]

118. No.

Your logical fallacy here is called a straw man. That isn't the argument he made. His argument was more specific.

"Populists like Sanders speak as if the whole system is irredeemably corrupt. Sanders was a useless House member and has been a marginal senator because he doesn’t operate within this system or believe in this theory of change. "

[muriel_volestrangler]

122. He has been a member of Congress for many years, elected to both Houses

many times. Clearly his constituents keep choosing him to operate within the system, and he believes in it, or he wouldn't have stood so many times.

It's not a straw man. It's just that Brooks is a partisan dolt who wants his readers to join him in his delusions, and it's appalling to find DUers falling for his bullshit. Maybe you're blinded by the NYT publishing it?

[Cary]

126. He also is a Democrat only when he wants to use the infrastructure and money that he attacks

I said that Brooks has an argument and apparently, having your logical fallacies pointed out to you, you now concede that he does indeed have an argument.

Now please do try to avoid those fallacies.

[muriel_volestrangler]

133. Brooks has an opinion. It's a shit opinion, based on ignoring facts.

What Brooks has fed you are ... fallacies. No, he does not have an argument.

If you need these facts spelled out to you (and god knows why any DUer would), try this:

What David Brooks gets wrong about Bernie Sanders

The New York Times columnist is an exemplar of the baseless centrist freakout about Sanders’s supposed authoritarianism.

...
Consider his work on veterans health care reform with John McCain, a detailed piece of legislation that by its nature required compromise. Such work is, as my colleague Matt Yglesias explains, more the rule than the exception. “Sanders has always talked about his blue-sky political ideals as something he believed in passionately, but he separated that idealism from his practical legislative work, which was grounded in vote counts,” Yglesias writes.
...
It’s totally fair for Brooks, a conservative, to object to Sanders’s spending programs on the grounds that they’re too expensive. But supporting big federal spending programs does not an authoritarian make. If Medicare-for-all were some kind of neo-Stalinist ploy, then Canada and much of Western Europe would be totalitarian nightmares.

Brooks darkly hints that the Europe comparison is off: “Sanders also claims he’s just trying to import the Scandinavian model, which is believable if you know nothing about Scandinavia or what Sanders is proposing.” But Brooks does not point to any concrete difference between the Sanders platform and those countries’ policies that makes him more authoritarian, no evidence that he’d turn the US economy into his personal fiefdom. Plus, there’s the little problem of Congress — which would likely block Medicare-for-all, let alone some kind of proposed seizure of the means of production.
...
The filibuster is the best example. While other Democrats have proposed eliminating it entirely — including Brooks’s supposedly more compromise-minded liberal, Warren — Sanders has suggested he’d prefer keeping it. “I’m not crazy about getting rid of the filibuster,” as he put it in one interview. “Donald Trump supports the ending of the filibuster. So you should be a little bit nervous if Donald Trump supports it,” he said in another. He does have a somewhat dubious plan for getting around the filibuster to pass his signature legislation — but, again, the prospects of him being able to go through with it are vanishingly slim.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/28/21157634/bernie-sanders-2020-david-brooks-liberalism

And he's worked with Democrats from when he joined Congress. He was a founder member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and was its first chair. With members such as Nancy Pelosi.

I hope you will support Sanders fully if he wins the nomination. You appear to hate him.

[Cary]

134. You appear to be eager to change the subject

We were discussing your logical fallacies. You were making progress, but you regressed back to an ad hominem.

smh

[muriel_volestrangler]

136. The subject is not me. I am fucking amazed you think you can get away with pretending it is.

You are trying to make this entire sub-thread an ad hominem. All you're interested in is attacking a fellow DUer.

Hint: read the OP again.

Then think about what Democrats need to win this November. It's not your current attitude. And it's not credulous arse-licking of David Brooks or other conservatives.

[Darwin2019]

106. Agree Brooks has a good points

I Bernie is president he will get very little done. Repubs will label all his proposals communist, vote no. They will feel no compulsion to go along with anything Bernie does.

[Blue_true]

101. You dismiss him because he is a conservative.

Yet, you challenge NONE of his central observations.

[Cary]

109. I don't know

I have no confidence in venal, craven Republicans.

But we do need a loyal opposition. We cannot kneejerk reject all conservatives the way "conservatives" do us. If they have a colorable argument then we owe it to ourselves to listen and engage. Ad hominem doesn't cut it.

[melman]

131. lol

lol

[Blue_true]

137. Laughter is a sign of inadequate capacity to debate on merits. nt

[melman]

138. No

Laughter at the idea that David Brooks should be taken at all seriously is the appropriate response.

[Blue_true]

139. He made an argument. You have not said one word that counter that argument.

Dismissing him because he is conservative doesn't feed the bulldog.

[melman]

140. I don't take David Brooks seriously

You're welcome to do so but I never will. Sorry.

[ehrnst]

142. Yes, those who eagerly swallow whatever Democratic-Party-hating Intercept and Jacobin spew

will clutch their pearls at Brooks, who has never equated the two parties as "equally corrupt", or trashed Democrats like the Brogressive rags do regularly.... and are shared on DU as if they are the last word on progressive opinion...

[Blue_true]

143. Exactly. The lack of consistency is really iritating, but I guess a "revolution" calls for whatever

tactics work, even gutter ones.

[ehrnst]

144. Yes, it appears so.

[warmfeet]

128. Yep.

I see propaganda being used to divide and conquer. Our primary goal, it seems to me, is to get the current abomination out of office. If Bernie wins the nomination, I will gladly vote for him. I hope other Democrats see it the same way. If not, we may be facing another four years of you know who.

[irisblue]

7. Every time I see Brooks trending on twitter

I wonder if he & Bed Bug Brett Stephenson are in competition for stupid op-ed of the week.

[KayF]

12. careful

Bret is going to call your provost on you

[irisblue]

14. Bring It Brett!! 🤣😂🤣

A true advantage of cronehood, I really don't have to answer to any but my mom, supercrone herself, and my family.

[question everything]

25. Why kill the messenger?

Why not rebut the specifics?

Yes, I am turned off by, among other things, that he claims every single industry is "corrupt" including the pharmaceutical one with products that have saved his and our lives.

[rwsanders]

44. You're really going to try to hold up the pharmaceutical industry as a paragon of virtue?

Please let me know and "hold my beer" so I can hit the search engines.

Next you'll be telling me that the MIC is really great at accountability with expenses.

[question everything]

98. Where, do you think, did the stents that were put in Sansers' arteries come from?

Do you think they developed them and conducted expensive rigorous studies just to earn his gratitude?

Yes, profit drives innovation. Facts of life. Sanders, of course knows this. He already has his millions. Too bad that his followers will learn the facts of life the hard way.

There is plenty to regulate but the industry, all industries, are not “corrupt.”

[Kaiserguy]

132. Where did the Stents come from

Good question. The man who invented them was named Julio Palmaz and he came up with them at the University of Texas. You can read about it on Wikipedia by using his name. Credit is also given to Hans Wallsten native of Sweden. I'm guessing that like so many medical invention that they got the funding from the taxpayer and then BB bought the rights.

[irisblue]

50. Brooks has a multi yr history of bad op eds.

My disdain for him is not not just for yesterday's column.
Example-This 2017 snobby opinion captured by Vanity Fair
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/david-brooks-worst-take-of-the-week

Title-The Worst Take of the Week? David Brooks Slammed for “Sandwich Shop” Elitism
JAMES WARREN, CHIEF MEDIA WRITER, POYNTER.ORG
JULY 12, 2017 10:30 AM


And here is a 2010 example-https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/opinion/15brooks.html

snip--"As Lawrence E. Harrison explained in his book “The Central Liberal Truth,” Haiti, like most of the world’s poorest nations, suffers from a complex web of progress-resistant cultural influences. There is the influence of the voodoo religion, which spreads the message that life is capricious and planning futile. There are high levels of social mistrust. Responsibility is often not internalized. Child-rearing practices often involve neglect in the early years and harsh retribution when kids hit 9 or 10."




Brooks is a long term very entitled man who has a very safe job, numerous media places to share his insights.
And honestly, I got much better things to do in life then fact check Brooks.

[ProfessorPlum]

146. thank you

the minute I start taking David Brooks' opinion for anything is that day the dementia has finally taken hold of me

[irisblue]

149. He post his op-eds on Thursday evening, by Friday 6 AM, David Brooks said Stupid Stuff is trending

[ProfessorPlum]

150. lol

[certainot]

36. brooks is a prince from bothsiderville. in another recent column seems like he spent the whole thing

Last edited Fri Feb 28, 2020, 04:49 PM - Edit history (1)

discovering that things are more complex than 'we' thought, as if he finally discovered maybe ecology had some merit and market forces couldn't fix everything

[wundermaus]

9. Throwing everything - including the kitchen sink...

To see if anything, ANYthing sticks.

“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

― Frederick Douglass

When Bernie wins the Majority, what will their game plan be then?
1968?

[SergeStorms]

88. Bernie will never win the majority of Democratic voters.

Not in any primary election. A plurality, perhaps, but never a majority. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[wundermaus]

105. It won't be my bubble that bursts

We shall see, shan't we?

The fallout from a repeat of "1968" will be fatal to our democracy.

?t=208

[SergeStorms]

114. BS will be fatal to the Democratic party.

One way or another, the Democratic Party will suffer irreparable damage because of BS. It was a huge mistake to allow BS to caucus with Senate Democrats in 2006. They actually thought his vote would help them. He's been nothing but a thorn in our sides since.

[JakeBailey]

10. Bernie speaks as if the whole system is irredeemably corrupt because...

the whole system is irredeemably corrupt.

[question everything]

27. Just curious. If this is your opinion

why are you still undecided on these pages?

[JakeBailey]

93. Great question...

I'm undecided mostly because the imperative in my mind is to beat Trump in November and I don't know who can do that in this field of candidates.

I am a huge fan of all of them save Bloomberg and would be thrilled to have any of the others in the Oval Office. My heart goes with Bernie, but my head with Mayor Pete, Warren and Klobuchar (Amy is the only candidate I donated to thus far)...I don't think Biden has the mental acuity necessary to do the job anymore.

The system is irredeemably corrupt and has been for a long time and perhaps a revolution may be called for to change anything, but I don't know if Bernie can deliver it.

[melman]

11. Some "NeverTrumper" he turned out to be

[Ace Rothstein]

13. Imagine posting an op-ed by David Brooks on DU to bash one of our own candidates.

Sad.

[Voltaire2]

16. Oh wait what?

I assumed the point was “right wing pundit bashed Bernie”, as in this op was boosting Sanders.

You’re telling me I’ve got it backwards?

[question everything]

28. Why kill the messenger?

Why not rebut the specifics?

[Maven]

102. That's nothin'

People used to post Charles Krauthammer hit pieces here to bash Hillary.

[MFGsunny]

15. k & R .... Excellent analysis unmasking populism's warts n/t

[Act_of_Reparation]

17. Fuck David Brooks.

Why are were creaming our pants over his insipid bothsiderist drivelings?

[Cosmocat]

24. Yeah

not a Bernie fan, but Brooks's opinion as a VERY SERIOUS CONSERVATIVE INTELLECTUAL is worth jackall.

[Act_of_Reparation]

145. It's like we all forgot Brooks has spent the better part of his career...

...giving legitimacy to the same howler monkeys he's now claiming to oppose.

[Cosmocat]

151. As is the case with most of them

nm

[ProfessorPlum]

147. +1,000,000

[NRaleighLiberal]

18. David Brooks? More often wrong than a broken clock

[IndyOp]

33. Yep. All I can conclude is that pigs must be flying because I agree with him. (nt)

[highplainsdem]

20. K&R

[rustbeltvoice]

23. David F Brooks

Here follows an ad hominem attack: Brooks fed at the teat of Wm Buckley. Brooks can speak politely while giving the same mouthfoamer nonsense and lies as his fellow comrades and appartchiks in the partei. This idiot liked to use the phrase "Bush derangement syndrome" to kill arguments and criticism against gwbjr; when practically every argument and criticism was correct. But the years of 2000 through 2008 have fallen down the memory hole.

Brooks is not an academic. Brooks is not a journalist. Brooks is a Republican propagandist, albeit one that you needn't worry will shit his pants in public.

[The Mouth]

54. Excellent summation

I don't know why this original post is even allowed on DU, I thought "Don't post Right Wing Talking Points" was a reason to remove something.

Not that I want it removed, but to have anything that knuckle dragging jackwagon says taken seriously? Where the fuck am I, Freerepublic? Brooks had his lips so far up GWB's nether regions he got whiplash everytime chimpie stood up.

[yaesu]

26. pffft. nt

[Kurt V.]

29. where the hell am i? lol

[question everything]

31. Hopefully, in a forum that debates ideas and opinions

based on relevance not on the source when no one here actually has offered a meaningful rebuttal.

[Kurt V.]

97. i can only read the snip but here goes. the bolded sentence is evidence free, to put it nicely.

in the house, sanders passed more bipartisan amendments in a repbub congress than any other member. brooks did not do his homework. why? bc sanders represents a phantom that is of brooks own creation.

[Iggo]

52. Same place that canonized Romney a few weeks back.

Weird, huh.

[SergeStorms]

90. This is Democratic Underground.

Not, 'Socialist who uses the Democratic party's infrastructure for personal gain Underground.'

[LisaM]

30. I wish I could cram all this into a sign

And stand at a highway overpass and wave it.

The term liberal implies a true open spirit and a willingness to see other sides. I'll leave it right there for you to decide if you think that definition fits Bernie Sanders.

[rzemanfl]

32. Bookmarking. n/t

[shadowmayor]

34. Brooks

Can choke on a dried turd for all I care.

[mikeysnot]

35. Curious why wrong wing propagandists

articles are getting posted here?

[JudyM]

42. Posting a right wing pundit's screed, what have we come to here?

[mikeysnot]

80. Vote Blue No Matter Who!*

*Unless it is Bernie.

[LexVegas]

37. "Sanders was a useless House member and has been a marginal senator"

[mjvpi]

38. How do Sanders positions differ from FDR? The new deal?

Especially when you look at the second new deal that FDR was proposing. Income inequality in the US is out of control. Bernie is a gruff old fucker, but not outside of historic Democratic norms.

[wnylib]

111. How do they differ? FDR was a liberal

Democrat.

Sanders is not a resurrected FDR. He is a socialist.

FDR worked within the system for reforms. Sanders would throw the system out.

FDR cultivated political allies, made agreements and compromises. Sanders promotes "my way or the highway" thinking that only divides the nation further.

FDR had executive experience before running for president. Sanders does not.

FDR saved democracy and capitalism by incorporating liberal reforms into the system. Sanders runs against the system for a political philisophy that would diminish democracy.

Sanders is no FDR.

[bucolic_frolic]

127. FDR

FDR used the existing capitalist system and tweaked it for working people. He was friendly with the titans of industry and found ways to encourage them to cooperate with his plans through higher taxes to pay for the New Deal in exchange for some tariff protection and relaxation of antitrust enforcement. Also he ran a very efficient government. I read parts of the Kenneth Davis FDR biography, and his administrators told him it would be something like $415million for the New Deal. FDR cut it down to $300million because he knew high deficits would hurt his chances for reelection.

Also the reforms he made were basic. Social Security was old age food rent and heating basic subsistence. Today it's based more on income and high earners can pull down $2500 a month or more. FDR empowered unions, workers rights for health, safety, and a living wage. Worker owned cooperatives and government ownership of factories were not a goal of the New Deal.

[brutus smith]

39. Still letting the repubs set the narrative.

[Hav]

40. You can argue with the author of a piece

But tell me what he's wrong about when he made the following statements:

"This liberalism believes in gaining power the traditional way: building coalitions, working within the constitutional system and crafting the sort of compromises you need in a complex, pluralistic society. This is why liberals like Hubert Humphrey, Ted Kennedy and Elizabeth Warren were and are such effective senators."

"Liberalism celebrates certain values: reasonableness, conversation, compassion, tolerance, intellectual humility and optimism. Liberalism is horrified by cruelty."

"A liberal sees inequality and tries to reduce it."


His arguments to highlight how liberal values stand in contrast with BS' dangerous populism are on point. He is indeed not a liberal.

[Perseus]

55. You do know that trump run on a populist message, right?

Where is the populism from Sanders? The core of his campaign is "Healthcare", "Education", "Fair Tax Reform", "Regulated Capitalism", and more of the same things that have made many of the European countries have a balanced economy.

David Brooks should know that trump IS a populist, he just caters to the trash of the people where fear of others, discontent, ignorance, and hate prevail.

This is insane, DU using a David Brooks article to try to make a point...very sad.

[TwilightZone]

63. You might want to learn something about populism.

Sanders is pretty much the embodiment of it. A high-level description of populism is emphasizing the idea of "the people" in contrast to "the elite" and expounding on the antagonistic relationship between the two and the oppression of the former by the latter. That's pretty much Sanders' entire political worldview. Liberalism and populism go hand in hand. So do socialism and populism.

Trump's populism was fake. Sanders' is quite real.

[Perseus]

66. I have lived through the kind of populism trump

used, and they are all fake.

Sanders is not populism, it is regulated capitalusm to open doors to many who are being left behind. Where is the populism with healthcare when it benefits everyone, with education?
Its easy to accuse, to use words to frame the narrative, and maybe you should learn about populism, I lived it, not sure if you have but dont assume...

[Hav]

65. Bernie is a populist in my opinion

He tries to get support with promises that will be very hard to get through Congress while others are more realistic. He basically tries to "bribe" certain groups, for example by promising debt relief. Of course they'll support him if he promises them that their financial burdens caused by their education or medical costs will suddenly be gone.

One of his major tools is inciting emotions against supposed enemies, among them Democrats, or the establishment as he calls them. Besides dividing the party, that can lead to dangerous actions. He doesn't just argue for his policies, he always stresses the enemy. It's close to inciting hatred and there is a reason why many of his supporters don't act like those of the other Dem candidates. He is a textbook populist. All talk, easy solutions for complex problems. He makes many promises and I'd agree with several of them but when it comes to details or how to implement them, it gets very thin. Until recently, he wouldn't even talk about the costs or how exactly to pay for it. And the numbers and attempts to explain how he'd pay for his plans he recently published on his site were laughable, bordering on insulting the intelligence of his followers.

[dchill]

41. I desperately want to get ALL my ...

... information on liberalism from David Brooks!

*This is SARCASM*

[rickyhall]

43. Oh, come on, he ain't Vladimir Lenin...

[MineralMan]

46. I can't argue against anything said there.

I don't like Brooks, but populism is, indeed, a dangerous thing.

[Perseus]

47. David Brooks???? Now David Brooks is right? Why are conservatives afraid of Sanders?

That should be the question...

David Brooks is a piece of crap, unless of course he fulfills a narrative that is useful to my cause...Please, how many times have people in DU bashed David Brooks for his conservative stupidity, and now he is someone to listen to?

Sounds desperate to me...

[cab67]

49. I'm no fan of David Brooks...

...but he's entirely correct here.

[Ingersollman]

53. I

hate to say this and honestly thought I never would but, I agree with Brooks on this.

[Me.]

61. Jeepers Brooks

"rage, bitter and relentless polarization" by "a useless House member and has been a marginal senator"

[Fresh_Start]

62. Populist erode checks and balances on the executive.

Populists frequently erode checks and balances on the executive. Over 50 per cent of populist leaders amend or rewrite their countries’ constitutions, and many of these changes extend term limits or weaken checks on executive power. The evidence also suggests that populists’ attacks on the rule of law open the way to greater corruption: 40 per cent of populist leaders are indicted on corruption charges, and the countries they lead experience significant drops in international corruption rankings.

https://institute.global/policy/populist-harm-democracy-empirical-assessment

[Wounded Bear]

64. From the guy who helped kill conservatism...

[McKim]

68. David Brooks is Very Comfortable

David Brooks is very comfortable with the best of health care. I don’t care what he thinks.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

70. So posting conservatives is OK

as long as it hits at Bernie, because he is not a real Democratic Party member, who will ruin everything we have worked for.

Got it.

[BeckyDem]

71. From a con.

How persuasive lol

[IluvPitties]

72. Indeed. I don't like the revolutionary talk.

[oasis]

117. "Revolution" would be a hard sell in middle America. nt

[whathehell]

73. Vox: What David Brooks gets wrong about Bernie Sanders

Cross-posted from GD

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/28/21157634/bernie-sanders-2020-david-brooks-liberalism

[ancianita]

74. It's not the "end" end, it's the expansion of liberal space to include progressive People-controlled

government. Liberal is the new label we've given to the Founders' Enlightenment era values. So no, David Brooks can't just declare the end of the liberal world just because populism if the resistance to austerity economics and global pressure to take over this country's government.

Liberals and populists can easily coexist. There need not even be rebutting. When they focus on their mutual goals they usually don't divide on differences. imo

[aka-chmeee]

75. And of course, If the post had been titled "He's not a Liberal, He's the salvation of Liberalism"

Any number of these highly critical of David Brooks posters would have an epiphany and be praising David Brooks' great erudition on DU in multiple threads.

[Fiendish Thingy]

78. I looked up "journalistic hack"...

And there was a picture of Brooks.

I would trust him if he was reading sports scores directly from the scoreboard.

[LiberalFighter]

81. My thought when I read the word populist was Castro.

[Hekate]

154. And Trump: Another guy who can give a 2-hour rant to cheering crowds. But seriously, populism is

...sweeping the planet just now, with its signature hatred of anyone who won't agree with the "people's will," as proclaimed by the Leader, and the projection of that animus -- that those who disagree are "haters."

[Magoo48]

82. What a monumental load of horseshit.

[Volaris]

83. Meh. He MIGHT be describing a Sanders presidency;

hes ABSOLUTELY describing the Trump presidency.
Physician, heal THYSELF.

The david brooks, never trumpers spent the previous 30 years at least trying like hell to get this particular kind of monster elected in the first place. Now that they're all upset with themselves that it finally worked, they wanna tell US, THE REAL LOYAL opposition, the best way to solve, FOR THEM, the problem THEY FUCKING CREATED, AND they expect us to do this ON THEIR TERMS!?.

LOL Na, Bro...

Sorry David, that's NOT how this is gonna work this time.

I'm not so much inclined toward voting for Sanders in the primary, but if I happen to end up in the minority there, I'm GONNA vote for him in the General Election (because duh), and i wont much care what david brooks thinks of that. He can have all the sadz he wants when we pass some version of Medicare for all, and I'll allow that.

Until then, he (and all his Never -Trumper Brethren) can shut the fuck up about OUR CANDIDATES (and dear lord the FUCKING GALL of these people smdh heh).

[Duncan Grant]

121. Truth found here. (nt)

[Sloumeau]

84. This may be the only decent column David Brooks has ever written.

I guess a broken clock is actually right twice a day.

Brooks should have his column framed.

[Tweedy]

85. David Brooks?

I like Senator Klobuchar. She has earned our respect, if not our votes.

But David Brooks!

Yes, his big brain is "sort of" on the people's side now, but what an intro!

Brooks and his mentor, William F. Buckley, Jr. co-opted one of the liberal lions of history as one of the GOP's first acts of doublespeak. For that historical atrocity alone, Brooks should be dismissed from all liberal definitional parties.

I am talking about Edmund Burke, liberal lion--

Who stood for Irish home rule (& lost his seat for it).

Who argued for semi-autonomy for us, then British colonies, but was ignored

Who argued for labor rights long before they were cool

And who opposed slavery in a world built on the backs of slaves.

With that false co-option, Brooks lost all right to lecture anyone on liberalism.

[Nitram]

86. I think Brooks makes a few interesting points here, but nothing he says is really relevant

to liberals or the Democratic Party.

[Cha]

91. KICK

[Scruffy1]

92. Brooks is an idiot.

If he's against it, it must be good. Bernies been in public office a long yime and knows a hell of a lot more than Brooks about how things work.

[Hekate]

94. David Brooks is intelligent, broadly educated, and a conservative it would be a pleasure to talk to.

As it happens I think he is right. Thanks for this.

[ProfessorPlum]

148. David Brooks is a complete idiot

look up Charles Pierces take downs of Brooks' essays. There must be hundreds of them (take downs). Brooks doesn't have the first clue what he is talking about, and lives trapped inside his own mind.

[Hekate]

153. Ah, I see the point of departure. I've heard & disagreed w him innumerable times on PBS...

...opposite Mark Sheilds, but this time he had me at John Locke & the rest of his connection to the currents of actual Western history. After 8 years of Dubya living ahistorically in a version of the eternal now, and the horrendous Trump living in a solopsistic bubble, it's a pleasure to read someone who sees history as something alive.

I, too, have observed the rise of populism around the planet with great dismay, and I don't trust it. All too often it is used as a mask for the rise of authoritarian regimes.

Not that that would ever happen with someone running in my party, right?

But it is a fact that there is only one group of people at DU who feel the need to make all the rest of us sign loyalty oaths in case it's our candidate who doesn't get the nomination, while theirs does. People hoping for Amy K, Mayor Pete, Elizabeth Warren, good old Joe -- I have not seen a single post or survey from them demanding we swear to vote for their candidate despite presumably overwhelming disappointment should someone else not make the cut. The Yang Gang didn't. Didn't hear it from Beto's people.

Just one group feels that kind of anxiety (not everyone, but a visible minority) -- and it is the same group, ironically, who harbors people who still say (outside of DU, to be sure, thanks to the TOS) they will raise a stink at the convention if their personal candidate is not the nominee despite what the rules say. Meanwhile, here comes another post explaining in detail why we, the base of the party, the establishment (so I've heard) have to promise we will vote for the gentleman if he gets the nomination. I don't see how this is even a question -- for Democrats.

Have a good day, Prof. Plum.

[Indykatie]

96. Brooks Rarely Gets Anything Right Bit He Pegged Bernie to a T Here

[Autumn]

99. Yeah David Brooks would know liberal. He knew all thing when Bill Clinton was elected

[Maven]

103. LOL. Not a Bernie fan by any means but...the end of liberalism?

A. I don't need David Fucking Brooks to tell me what liberalism means, and

B. Anyone who could call Bernie Sanders "the end of liberalism" for pushing free college and healthcare while we are living through this authoritarian crime wave disguised as a presidency is not credible enough to pay attention to.

[Laelth]

104. It is unacceptable to equate Sanders and Trump. Period.

This essay reminds me why I roll my eyes and scroll away whenever I see David Brooks' name come up in any online publication. I should have followed that tried and true rule again today.

-Laelth

[hangaleft]

107. Barack Obama was not a "Liberal"

He was a center-left moderate.

Ted Kennedy was a “Liberal”. The only “Liberal” seeking the Democratic nomination is Elizabeth Warren.

I want to stress that it is not my intention or desire to disparage Barack Obama in any way. When a list of the best presidents our country has had is listed in 100 years (if, by some stroke of luck, we and the planet survive that long), Barack Obama will certainly be in the Top 10. I merely wanted to point out that Barack Obama was not a “Liberal”. It was not intended to be judgmental and should not be taken in such a manner.

I would wager that Obama himself would take issue with being characterized as a “Liberal”.

[question everything]

108. Agree. Both Clinton and Obama were centrist

And when I read on these pages that "centrists" do not win - I have to state the facts.

[hangaleft]

110. Your favored candidate is certainly in the tradition of Clinton and Obama

More Obama than Clinton, the latter being a tad to the right of the former.

I support Elizabeth Warren, but would certainly vote for Klobuchar if she were our nominee. And there’s no doubt in my mind she would win were she to run against rump.

[OnDoutside]

155. Everything is relative ! To Europeans looking at US political parties, both used to be viewed as

center and right. Nowadays the GOP is full on "nuts populist far right" while the Democratic Party would be viewed as pretty liberal. You're only talking about degrees of Liberal.

It's hard to see what these terms mean anymore.

[myohmy2]

112. isn't...

...david brooks a republican?

...I don't listen to republicans...

...they give me the hives...

[honest.abe]

116. Superb article.

Despite being written by David Brooks.

[Redleg]

120. Brooks is wetting the bed again

I am not a supporter of Bernie nor am I on the left-wing of the Democratic party. Having said that, I don't believe that Bernie is an authoritarian in waiting or a revolutionary seeking to overthrow the system. Bernie understands how government works, he understands politics, and believe he knows that if elected, he will not be able to accomplish the most ambitious items in his agenda due to the system we have. I believe he wants to focus our attention on the parts of the "system" that are broken or rigged against working people. Elizabeth Warren has pointed out many of the same issues.

I think all of us Dems can agree that there are parts of our system that are broken, that should be changed for the good of our nation. Example 1 is the Electoral College. This archaic, ill-conceived idea serves no useful purpose today and it is debatable that it ever served a useful purpose, other than as a compromise.

I think most of us Dems can agree that the influence of big money on politics has a net negative impact on us. This was brought to us by the Supreme Court.

Many of us on the left are troubled by un-regulated capitalism and the extreme disparity in wealth and income and the increasingly lower federal taxes paid by the wealthy and big corporations.

Most of us are still concerned about systemic discrimination against minority groups and women.

These are just a few of the "systemic" problems we face. I would like to ask David Brooks how we solve these without changing some aspects of the system. Without changing the system, we simply move back and forth between passing new regulations/higher taxes on corporations and passing deregulation/lower taxes on corporations depending on who is in the White House and who controls Congress.

[Vivienne235729]

123. +10000 EXACTLY!!

[bucolic_frolic]

124. Agree, and quite a surprise to me considering the source

And that's why Sanders would be trounced in the election. Because the powers that be cannot find a wink of evidence that he would pay homage to existing structures and power bases in order to reform them.

Bernie is having a conversation with himself more than anything else.

[ProfessorPlum]

125. Thanks. I need David Brooks' strawman of Sanders

Like I need an extra hole in my head

[Gore1FL]

129. David Brooks as a source of wisdom on DU.

Was Jonah Goldberg busy?

[czarjak]

130. Trump went back to Bush policies on steroids, WTF else do you want, mister?

[Hekate]

135. Brooks had me at John Locke and John Stuart Mill..

Traditional liberalism traces its intellectual roots to John Stuart Mill, John Locke, the Social Gospel movement and the New Deal. This liberalism believes in gaining power the traditional way: building coalitions, working within the constitutional system and crafting the sort of compromises you need in a complex, pluralistic society.

This is why liberals like Hubert Humphrey, Ted Kennedy and Elizabeth Warren were and are such effective senators. They worked within the system, negotiated and practiced the art of politics.

Once, we were all proud to be called a small-L liberal small-D democracy. One of the things that makes Brooks a valuable ally is that he is grounded in Western history and the philosophy that shaped us.

[Beringia]

152. Warren has not gotten much done either

Elizabeth Warren was the primary sponsor of 9 bills that were enacted. The most recent include:

S. 693: National POW/MIA Flag Act
S. 1501: Blast Pressure Exposure Study Improvement Act
S. 3130: SIT-REP Act of 2018
S. 2355: A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 25 New Chardon Street Lobby in Boston, Massachusetts, as the “John Fitzgerald Kennedy Post ...
S. 1503: Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame Commemorative Coin Act
S. 1198: Veterans Care Financial Protection Act of 2017
S. 670: Over-the-Counter Hearing Aid Act of 2017

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/elizabeth_warren/412542



Bernie Sanders was the primary sponsor of 7 bills that were enacted:

S. 885 (113th): A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 35 Park Street in Danville, Vermont, as the “Thaddeus Stevens Post Office”.
S. 2782 (113th): A bill to amend title 36, United States Code, to improve the Federal charter for the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and for other ...
S. 893 (113th): Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013
H.R. 5245 (109th): To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1 Marble Street in Fair Haven, Vermont, as the “Matthew Lyon Post Office Building”.
H.J.Res. 129 (104th): Granting the consent of Congress to the Vermont-New Hampshire Interstate Public Water Supply Compact.
H.R. 1353 (102nd): Entitled the “Taconic Mountains Protection Act of 1991”.
H.J.Res. 132 (102nd): To designate March 4, 1991, as “Vermont Bicentennial Day”.


Does 7 not sound like a lot? Very few bills are ever enacted — most legislators sponsor only a handful that are signed into law. But there are other legislative activities that we don’t track that are also important, including offering amendments, committee work and oversight of the other branches, and constituent services.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357