By Marc Jampole
David Brooks, who frequently combines bad sociology with his
yearning for a fantasy past that never existed, is the latest to play the
conflation game to describe the political election, declaring that both the
Clinton and Trump campaigns suffer from a lack of vision.
Brooks sees a corrupted campaign on both sides, steered by
materialist concerns and far from the idealism of either the 1960s, represented
by Hillary, or the 1980s, represented by the Donald. His first mistake is to
consider the 1980s politics of selfishness as an expression of idealism, when
in fact it was a base gambit to transfer massive amounts of wealth from the
middle class, the upper middle class and the poor to the wealthy masquerading
as a set of conservative ideas and (non-existent) economic laws.
In his article titled “The
Death of Idealism,” Brooks says that both races display a lack of a
“poetic, aspirational quality.” Here is his extended peroration against both
the Trumpty-Dumpty and Clinton campaigns:
“There is no
uplift in this race. There is an entire absence, in both campaigns, of any
effort to appeal to the higher angels of our nature. There is an assumption, in
both campaigns, that we are self-seeking creatures, rather than also loving,
serving, hoping, dreaming, cooperating creatures. There is a presumption in
both candidates that the lowest motivations are the most real.”
What a load of week-old fish guts.
To be sure, the Trump campaign is based on the politics of
selfishness in its most extreme form, animated by an anger that is not directed
at social ills, but at the loss of a special status.
But to say the same about the Clinton campaign is not just a
conflation, but an out-and-out distortion.
Brooks presents as his proof that Hillary and her campaign
lack idealism the fact that when asked “why she wants to be president or for
any positive vision,” she responds by listing the programs she supports.
What Brooks doesn’t say is that behind each and every one of
her programs—I should say the programs of a united Democratic party—is a
shining vision of true equality of opportunity and an equitable distribution of
wealth that enables all people to have adequate education, healthcare, access
to higher education and retirement. Keep in mind that the Clintons are rich,
the Obamas are rich, the Warrens are rich, the Bidens are rich, the Sanders are
very well off. And yet these leaders and many others in the Democratic Party
have produced the most left-wing (I hate using the word “progressive” since the
historical Progressives were such racists!) political platform in history. These
rich people want to raise taxes on themselves and their big donors—How is that
not idealism? The Democrats could have moved much further right and still been
far to the left of the current Republican Party. But unlike a large number of
people who escaped their middle class backgrounds and became rich over the past
three decades, or became richer than they were before as in the case of
Trumpty-Dumpty, these Democratic leaders have a vision of a better world, not
just for the lucky and those who have already made it, but for everyone.
What was it, if not idealism, that animated the uplifting
and emotional Democratic convention? Speaker after speaker appealed to our
better nature, our responsibility to our community, and a higher mission than
naked self-interest.
In every speech I have heard Hillary give during the
campaign, she focuses on her longtime mission to help women, children and
families. If her consistent and persistent actions and statements advocating
the rights, safety, future and health of women and children don’t constitute
idealism, I don’t know what does.
Then there’s the not insignificant matter of nominating and
potentially electing our first woman president. All the women and many of the
men I know are psyched. The gradual and sometimes bloody granting of economic
and political freedoms to more and more people is a cornerstone of traditional
American idealism. To many, electing a
woman president will fulfill a dream that goes back to the original
Suffragettes. But to many others, the dream goes back even further, because
they connect the long hard struggle of women to achieve equality with that of
African-Americans and other minorities.
In other words, by its very nature, the Clinton campaign
can’t help but be idealistic and uplifting to all real Americans, even those
who don’t agree with her policies.
I’m not sure what bothers Brooks about the Clinton campaign,
but I suspect he doesn’t like its progressive principles and has therefore
tried to tar it with the false accusation of being materialistic and lacking
vision. It probably bothers Brooks that there is very little about a deity or
traditional religion in the Clinton/Democratic program, since Brooks is always
invoking a higher spirituality. Maybe Brooks wants to keep his taxes low. And
we can’t discount the possibility that Brooks just isn’t ready for a woman
president.
Brooks ends his
piece with “At some point
there will have to be a new vocabulary and a restored anthropology, emphasizing
love, friendship, faithfulness, solidarity and neighborliness that pushes
people toward connection rather than distrust.” Earth to Brooks: your dream of a politics
of connection exists already. It’s the central force behind Hillary Clinton,
Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.
No comments:
Post a Comment