Here's the thing: Today's political divide is largely a class divide. Brooks represents the haves - and "MAGA" is nothing more than a polite euphemism for "have nots." (A dog whistle, if you will, to use the favorite pejorative of the white ruling class.) It's an unusual moment in our history because the haves are angry - viciously, brutally, vitriolically outraged - that the have nots are daring to assert themselves politically on their own, without letting the haves mediate said engagement for them as happened since the Great Depression and the New Deal led to most working class voters switching to FDR and a Democratic Party that was at least willing to try something, anything to improve the country's economy.
But now?
There is a direct correlation between your income or social identification and your partisan loyalty - and the more you earn or the higher you feel you stand socially, the more likely you are to identify - and vote - with the Democrats.
Which has led to the Democratic Party shrinking rapidly - by several million people over the same decade that has Brooks so upset - and simultaneously becoming richer and whiter.
The remaining members of the Democratic Party are not at all happy about their former allies abandoning them.
We see this in the private sector unions, whose leaders still endorse ruling class Democratic candidates while their members overwhelming vote for rebellious Republicans.
But it plays out in a variety of other ways too, of course, as we see in the legacy media's coverage.
Now, the ruling elite's self-image still has them as the patrician protectors of the poor, so they can't overtly attack the poor - thus, "MAGA."
Brooks misses all of this - and yet his biggest blind sport, as well as that of the entire ruling class media establishment, is that Trump isn't the cause of any of this.
He's no more than a symptom, a tool if you willl, of working-class and poor frustrations.
It's an ongoing "Can you hear me now?" moment, and the ruling class refuses to even try to take the call.
This article speaks for me! I am 78, and I have never seen an American president keep his promises the way Trump does. In addition, his promises were completely consistent with what his voters wanted, and he has not pulled the usual bait-and-switch maneuver that politicians love to execute. While he is often described as "transactional," even that is a helluva a lot better than politicians who betray their loyal voters. Obama was the worst example of a perfidious president, turning on his base after they campaigned for him tirelessly in enormous numbers for free and got him elected.
I would add that Trump's presence of mind, courage and toughness at Butler after he was shot was extraordinary. I saw for the first time that he has depth and toughness of character that is not always apparent, but which emerged in startling fashion when the chips were seriously down.
I don't agree with all of Trump's decisions, but I don't agree with all of anyone's decisions, including my own sometimes, after the fact.
Totally! I don't know if we have ever had this many elitist snobs in our country. Maybe that is an inevitable outcome of national success, the accumulation of these insufferable fools at the top of the economic ladder.
Here's the thing: Today's political divide is largely a class divide. Brooks represents the haves - and "MAGA" is nothing more than a polite euphemism for "have nots." (A dog whistle, if you will, to use the favorite pejorative of the white ruling class.) It's an unusual moment in our history because the haves are angry - viciously, brutally, vitriolically outraged - that the have nots are daring to assert themselves politically on their own, without letting the haves mediate said engagement for them as happened since the Great Depression and the New Deal led to most working class voters switching to FDR and a Democratic Party that was at least willing to try something, anything to improve the country's economy.
But now?
There is a direct correlation between your income or social identification and your partisan loyalty - and the more you earn or the higher you feel you stand socially, the more likely you are to identify - and vote - with the Democrats.
Which has led to the Democratic Party shrinking rapidly - by several million people over the same decade that has Brooks so upset - and simultaneously becoming richer and whiter.
The remaining members of the Democratic Party are not at all happy about their former allies abandoning them.
We see this in the private sector unions, whose leaders still endorse ruling class Democratic candidates while their members overwhelming vote for rebellious Republicans.
But it plays out in a variety of other ways too, of course, as we see in the legacy media's coverage.
Now, the ruling elite's self-image still has them as the patrician protectors of the poor, so they can't overtly attack the poor - thus, "MAGA."
Brooks misses all of this - and yet his biggest blind sport, as well as that of the entire ruling class media establishment, is that Trump isn't the cause of any of this.
He's no more than a symptom, a tool if you willl, of working-class and poor frustrations.
It's an ongoing "Can you hear me now?" moment, and the ruling class refuses to even try to take the call.
Amen
This article speaks for me! I am 78, and I have never seen an American president keep his promises the way Trump does. In addition, his promises were completely consistent with what his voters wanted, and he has not pulled the usual bait-and-switch maneuver that politicians love to execute. While he is often described as "transactional," even that is a helluva a lot better than politicians who betray their loyal voters. Obama was the worst example of a perfidious president, turning on his base after they campaigned for him tirelessly in enormous numbers for free and got him elected.
I would add that Trump's presence of mind, courage and toughness at Butler after he was shot was extraordinary. I saw for the first time that he has depth and toughness of character that is not always apparent, but which emerged in startling fashion when the chips were seriously down.
I don't agree with all of Trump's decisions, but I don't agree with all of anyone's decisions, including my own sometimes, after the fact.
David Brooks inveighing against the “moral turpitude” of Trump supporters is an example of the kettle calling the pot black.
It is also inexcusably anti-American.
Ensconced within the blue elites of Manhattan Brooks must shudder at ordinary Americans as “barbarians at the gates!”
Totally! I don't know if we have ever had this many elitist snobs in our country. Maybe that is an inevitable outcome of national success, the accumulation of these insufferable fools at the top of the economic ladder.
Q: Why Do So Many People Think Trump Is Good? Dunning Kruger Effect.