David Brooks finally nails it. Congratulations.

    By Oxy Mora on Fri, 03/04/2016 - 9:07am |

    Brooks column in the NYT today has been a long time coming. In his tortured columns over the past eight years he has confounded, amused, and frustrated me in his attempts to find kernels of truth and conservatism in the deeds of the Republican party. In today's column, he doesn't mince words about the con games the Republican politicians and the "establishment" have perpetrated upon Republican voters and most of the rest of us.

    Trump's appeal to Republican voters was initially denied by the power players in the Republican party. But Trump has been able to meld his xenophobic views with a frontal attack on the Republican party itself that has increased his sway with primary voters. Seeing their party and power apparatus falling into Trump's hands, leading Republicans are now mounting last minute strategies to stop him, and the best one seems to be to keep him from getting a majority of delegates before he reaches the convention---and then taking their chances on nominating---who, exactly?

    Enter Romney. I agree with many who are arguing that Romney's effort to derail Trump---in the context of this Republican civil war---will likely help Trump.

    And what happens if they manage to derail Trump at the convention? I wouldn't risk a twenty on the bet that Trump won't go the third party route.

    There aren't many good options for Republicans. But in our society---on a steady basis, Woody Allen type characters step off the screen, step away from a reality contest faux culture and become out best friends---how can we not expect "the Donald" to enter our lives as our new neighbor?  And now he's a real threat. Anyone here willing to gamble that he can't pivot enough to attract a swath of "Reagan Democrats"?

    There has been some discussion in these pages about the strategies of Progressives in effecting change. Also, the subject of how to change hearts and minds. I don't think you change hearts through a didactic process. Not saying the route might not be through the brain, but self awareness is what it says it is. Our racist hearts will change when we are sick of absurdities and insults to others.

    I particularly like the last paragraph of Brooks' column. I'm not saying Democrats don't have problems or that Clinton is anything other than hobbled by her own flaws. But nothing would be a better result from Trump's candidacy than to have Republican leaders see Trump in themselves, the revelation of their own con games and intolerance. The way to move this country forward is not by more policy developments from Democrats. The way for this country to move forward is for Republicans to see themselves as their own con artists and to reject their strategy of obstruction to anything that addresses substantive problems and solutions.   

     

    Comments

    Who loaned him the balls to write this column? It's March 4, 2016. Trump's been pulling this shit for decades. How did the poser get into the inner circle and become the anointed? Who would trust this fucked up party with America's security after this? It's like handing the keys to your mansion and racer to someone with a note on a napkin saying "I'm with Larry". They make the word "putz" come alive.

    But I hope they don't abandon him just yet. I at least want to see a fight at the convention, preferably ass-hattery all the way to November.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 03/04/2016 - 12:02pm

    Thanks. There is a certain glee in watching this, hoping it doesn't come back to bite us.

    Just spitballin' here but I read a piece the other day by the film critic Owen Gleiberman about old movies which might have predicted the possibility of a pop culture guy like Trump to pull off this act. Gleiberman suggested the movie, "A face in the Crowd" and "Network". In my own mind I see the book, "The Moviegoer" and the Woody Allen film. "Purple Rose", predicting the Trump phenomenon.  

    I'm not sure why I'm harping on all this but it seems that the pop culture and the faux outrage society orchestrated by and consumed on the Fox News system and on which the Republicans have relied, have combined to allow Trump's candidacy to flourish. Any frontal media attack on Trump would seem to be fruitless as the secret sauce has been pre-empted by Trump. Therefore I worry about how this guy is going to be taken down---not necessarily by Republicans, but by Democrats. Beware of policy prescriptions and identity politics. We're in a new age.


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 03/04/2016 - 2:01pm

    Yeah, I got the Purple Rose reference. Trump's just taking The Apprentice to its obvious reality-show conclusion. We trial-ran Ross Perot as goofy abrasive businessman-turned-pol, we ran vulture capitalist Romney as the GOP standard but he he'd no personality, so now we've got businessman + personality on steroids. Much of our policy is formed by watching Bill O'Reilly and Rachel Maddox and Comedy Central - why do we need actual policy makers? Running for government is the same as running government, right? And since the media is too dumb to actually fact-check policy proposals, Trump just skipped them. Ots like the alien (child) built town in Twilight Zone where you have drawers and rooms and cars that look right, but nothing opens, has an inside, actually works. Only the horse race matters, the entertainment


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 03/04/2016 - 2:42pm

    So how do Democrats handle an election which is in reality just a TV show---a phenomenon which Roger Ailes recognized at the time of the Kennedy-Nixon debates, but which is now ingrained and being pushed to its ultimate limit by Trump? There was some noise this morning about how effective the Fox moderators were in their direct questioning of Trump, but I'm not seeing the evidence.

    It's been reported that the Clinton team has a strategy to attack Trump on his sordid attitudes towards women, a less than stellar business career (Trump University), and xenophobia. When Trump pivots a bit, picks up the likes of Kasich as a running mate ( we've progressed to the point where Sarah Palin now picks John McCain) to bring the moderates back in, how do you use media to take down a media monster who is writing the code.

    (Sorry, I'm repeating myself and going in circles, but I really don't know how we take this guy down.)

    Of course, we could all pivot to Bernie, stick to our policy prescriptions, bet on the lackluster citizens to be mad as hell and they aren't going to take it anymore---now all together, go to your windows, .....


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 03/04/2016 - 6:47pm

    I hear those people yelling at their windows...

    ...but they're yelling "Trump!"


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 03/04/2016 - 7:00pm

    Sometimes all it's possible to hear are the people yelling the loudest. I suspect there's just as many at the window saying quietly to the Trump supporters, "Chump"

    It gets back to the old argument about enthusiasm. No matter how hard and enthusiastically you slam the fucking lever down for your candidate it still counts the same as the person who reluctantly votes for the lesser of two evils.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 03/04/2016 - 7:55pm

    That's funny. But in the remake, I'm definitely going with Bernie Sanders in Howard Beale's role.


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 03/04/2016 - 7:37pm


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 03/04/2016 - 9:46pm

    I've long ago realized I have to just let go, watch the show, and do what little I can to convince those within my small sphere of influence. We can only hope that the democratic nominee will understand the electorate better than I do and come up with a strategy that convinces the low information "gut" voters. There's no way to objectively decide who will be the better nominee. I have to commend Hal that such a fierce partisan wrote a post on electability only slightly spun to favor his candidate. Agree or disagree, it's all subjective, until it plays out and we see how the voters vote.

    Almost all the trend lines look good for us. Sure, some Webb democrats may migrate to Trump but they are pretty small portion of the electorate. There are still moderate republicans who have been getting more and more dissatisfied with the right wing shift of their party. They're a much larger group than the Webb dems. Trump could be the final straw for some of them and could push some to our side. Indications are that it's already happening so we'll just have to wait and see how they fall.

    I still have some faith in the America people. I can't yet believe the majority will vote for some one so obviously unqualified for president, a bully, a clown, and a complete cipher. No one really knows what he'll do as president. He's come down on every side of every issue. It appears he'll say what ever it is that gets him the most accolades from the audience at the moment he says it. I've seen no convincing evidence that he has an advantage in the general and enough evidence to lead one to believe he can't win. We'll see.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 03/04/2016 - 7:28pm

    Thanks. Most likely by the time the election rolls around, Trump will have picked a moderate, David Brooks will find some way to weasel out of the column he just wrote and we will be back to square one---you know, the 2012 Democratic firewall, etc. BTW, I agree with you from downstream---that Trump has so damaged the Hispanic well that they will never gravitate back to the Republican party, as happened in California.


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 03/04/2016 - 7:43pm

    Could be Oxy, the republicans could unite and a mainstream vp like Kasich might bring it about. But I don't think so. There are limits to lesser of two evils voting. I'm not convinced moderate republicans can stretch that far. I couldn't and I've been voting for the lesser of two evils my whole life. For example I couldn't vote for a democrat like Jim Webb. That's too far right for me to stomach. I'd vote green before I'd vote for Webb and let the chips fall where they may. Again, it's not objectively provable. There are polls the seem to indicate that Trump is a bridge too far for some moderate republicans to cross but we just won't know for sure until the votes are counted.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 03/04/2016 - 9:27pm

    Hell, for 2 Hispanics, Rubio and Cruz have done a great job of pushing away Hispanics. Trump as carny master extraordinaire has excelled, but without them he wouldn't have had to break a sweat to rise above.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/05/2016 - 2:15am

    Peracles, it just dawned on me how totally perfect the parallel is between Trump's Apprentice T.V. show and his relationship with the other Republican candidates. He's fired them, one by one.

    So to follow a theme, the Apprentice show is the real world we live in and Trump has used his experience there to create a TV show called, "Fire your political opponent".


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 03/05/2016 - 9:56am

    Perhaps they work in tandem, the hive turns its attention to the next victim... I'd have to see if "Running Man" or "Hunger Games" had any parallels to this situation. And seems I recall Blofeld having short fingers as he pet his pussy. Could it be Ian Fleming was signaling the future?


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/05/2016 - 11:33am

    Trump has already shown the country that the Conservative elite and their mouthpieces such as Brooks are worthless parasites so whatever they do or say now to try to regain some of their forever lost influence is just more babble. No one but other pundits and fools are even listening to them. Rolling out Romney like a stuffed Brezhnev  to reassert Party discipline is  as pathetic as it is hilarious and will only increase the depth of the hole they are digging.

    Once Trump with his energized followers are finished with reducing the Conservative power structure to babbling idiots and born again HRC supporters the next and even more educational phase of this extravaganza will commence, the destruction of the illusion of the Democrat Party as a progressive force in politics.

    Trump is to the left of HRC on many critical issues and with a little moderation on his so called xenophobic stands he will be in the position to show just how retrograde, hawkish and anti working people HRC and the democrat elites actually are.  Clinton will return to her comfort zone on the Right after finishing off Sanders so we won't hear too much more of her progressive sounding rhetoric when the triangulation begins and she thinks the rubes have no other choice.


    by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 03/04/2016 - 1:35pm

    I agree with what you said about Trump being able to show some moderation on his xenophobic stands. And I think we underestimate his appeal to many white voters who would otherwise sit out the election. 


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 03/04/2016 - 2:17pm

    Not thirty minutes after i wrote the comment above i read that Trump is offering to  negotiate  on immigration and visas which should attract not just more moderate conservative white but also Hispanic and even possibly some young Sanders supporters who already despise the corrupt Democrat Party elite. .


    by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 03/04/2016 - 4:17pm

    Just calling for self deportation caused Romney to get about 40% less hispanic votes than Bush. And now you think simply an offer to negotiate from Trump will move hispanics back to Trump even after all that's been said. I doubt it. I think you allow your wishes to direct your beliefs rather than fact based rational analysis. We'll see how right you are in Nov.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 03/04/2016 - 4:34pm

    You would probably have trouble verifying your statement about Romney losing so many Hispanic votes over one statement he made. I found some verified numbers on Hispanic voters that showed that almost 40% voted Republican in the last election up about 7% from 2008 which is a large shift and Trump already received 45% of the Hispanic Republican vote in NV so his harsh illegal immigration stance doesn't seem to anger that demographic, some of whom are legal immigrants,  and his moderating that position may attract others.

     


    by Peter (not verified) on Sat, 03/05/2016 - 11:09am

    Neither of us have interviewed a thousand Hispanics so it's all speculation but all reporting from numerous sources seems to focus on Romney's statement about self deportation as a major factor.

    At 27% this year, Romney's Latino support is dramatically lower than former President George W. Bush's support in 2004, which was 44%, and Arizona Sen. John McCain's 31% in 2008, according to exit polls.

    You're constantly telling us you've seen things that aren't true. Where's your link?

    Winning Hispanics in a republican primary doesn't tell us anything about the general since the vast majority of Hispanics vote in the democratic primary. In addition this was a caucus primary so the vote was even smaller. The sample size from exit polling was too small to even accurately measure the Hispanic vote in the republican caucus let alone to extrapolate to the general.

    But of the 1,573 Republican voters polled in Nevada, only 125 – or 8 percent of the electorate– identified as Latino. So critics said the sample was too small to be accurate. The margin of error for such a small sample is 10 percent.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 03/05/2016 - 12:29pm

    You diverted attention away from your unverifiable statement about Romney and missed the meaning of the numbers I used from the 2010 election although the 2012 numbers also show that a large minority of Hispanic voters are not Democrats and a sizeable number of these voters don't seem to be wedded to either party as their shift in voting over the years shows. Trump has the opportunity to attract some of these voters is all i was inferring and our elections are often decided by small shifts in voter preference and turnout which is also favoring Trump.


    by Peter (not verified) on Sun, 03/06/2016 - 11:38am

    Which numbers are you using? From which source did they issue?

    If you don't know how to link to websites, I can pm a set of instructions.


    by moat on Sun, 03/06/2016 - 12:10pm

    This.

    Peter, it's not possible to have a discussion about the "numbers" when you don't have any. I've linked to exit polls and analysis that support my opinions. If you have numbers that support your opinions link them.

     


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 03/06/2016 - 1:32pm

    Once again you reveal a rather childlike view of the complexity of the world around you. No one person speaks for all republicans just as no one person speaks for all democrats. But Brooks is an influential columnist. There are still moderate republicans, about 30% of the republican party, and they read Brooks. He speaks for them and to them and influences their views and voting patterns. I'm not happy about that nor am I defending him as I disagree with most of his views. Just pointing out a fairly obvious truth that your inane attachment to the removal of all establishment figures and government itself prevents you from seeing.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 03/04/2016 - 2:47pm

    I'd say this column and the previous one, The Governing Cancer of Our Time, which I discussed on my blog, show just how much Brooks is in the bag for the establishment.


    by Donal on Sat, 03/05/2016 - 12:46pm

    Latest Comments