Jump to content

Political Divisions - David Brooks

This topic is 6614 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

David Brooks has an interesting column on the enduring divisions in the American electorate this morning (Sat., Oct. 23):





The More Things Change....

David Brooks


Why is this country still tied?


Over the past four years, we've experienced a major terrorist attack, a recession, a dot-com shakeout, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, corporate scandals and an active and tumultuous presidency. We've had an influx of new citizens. Millions have died of old age, and tens of millions have moved to new towns and new states.


Yet the political landscape looks almost exactly the same. We're still divided right down the middle. We're still looking at razor-thin margins in states like Florida. If you compare the demographic breakdowns of the Bush-Kerry race to those of the Bush-Gore race in 2000, you find they are quite similar. Why does everything in America change except politics?


That is the central mystery of this election.


The only possible conclusion is that there is some deep, tectonic fissure that shapes the electorate, a fissure so fundamental that it is unaffected by the enormous shocks we've felt over the past four years. Remember, it is very unusual to have two close presidential elections in a row. This hasn't occurred for about 120 years.


But what explains this stable divide?


Let me first tell you what it is not. Foreign, domestic and social policy debates do not explain the current tie. The election of 2000 was fought on a different set of issues. Then, we were arguing about things like lockboxes, compassionate conservatism and how to use the surplus. Now, we're arguing about war, terrorism and the deficit. The issues have changed, but the political landscape has not.


Moreover, as the Stanford political scientist Morris Fiorina has shown, Americans are not that polarized on issues. When you ask people about policies - even abortion - you see a big group of moderates. If issue differences were shaping this campaign, you'd see these centrists sloshing back and forth and breaking the tie.


But two forces do account for the stable political divide. First, partisanship. We've just seen how passionately some people care about the Yankees and the Red Sox. Many people care that passionately about being a Democrat or a Republican.


Human beings are tribal. When they find themselves in a closely fought contest with a rival group, they become ever more tightly bound to their tribe. They see reality in ways that flatter the group. They nurture the resentments that bind the group.


In this campaign the two candidates do not just describe different policies. They describe different realities. In short, the partisan rivalry fuels itself. Once an electorate becomes tied, there is a built-in emotional pressure that keeps things that way. Even people who claim to be independents find themselves sucked into the vortex.


Second, and probably more important, we're in the middle of a leadership war. Underneath all the disputes about Iraq, we're having a big argument about what qualities America should have in a leader. Republicans trust one kind of leader, Democrats another. This is the constant that runs through recent elections.


Republicans, from Reagan to Bush, particularly admire leaders who are straight-talking men of faith. The Republican leader doesn't have to be book smart, and probably shouldn't be narcissistically introspective. But he should have a clear, broad vision of America's exceptional role in the world. Democrats, on the other hand, are more apt to emphasize such leadership skills as being knowledgeable and thoughtful. They value leaders who can see complexities, who possess the virtues of the well-educated.


Republicans and Democrats have different conceptions of the presidency. Republicans admire a president who is elevated above his executive branch colleagues. It is impossible to imagine George W. Bush or Reagan as a cabinet secretary. Instead, they are set apart by virtue of exceptional moral qualities. Relying on their core values, they set broad goals and remain resolute in times of crisis.


Democrats see the presidency as a much more ministerial job. They admire presidents who engage in constant deliberative conversations. Democrats from Carter through Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry have all been well versed in the inner workings of government. It is easy to imagine each of them serving as a cabinet secretary.


It just so happens that America is evenly divided about what sort of leader we need: the Republican who leads with his soul or the Democrat who leads with his judgment. Even the events of the past four years have not altered that disagreement.


That's why we are still tied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: David Brooks Crap


Those who are familiar with the books he has published are well aware that David Brooks has a habit of making up "facts" that fit his pet theories about the differences between "Red America" and "Blue America." When reviewers point out that many of the generalizations he makes about the behavior of most people who live in "Red" states or in "Blue" states are demonstrably untrue, Brooks doesn't deny it -- he merely calls it "poetic license." I call it CRAP.


It's extremely easy to demonstrate that Brooks's theory about the stark differences in the kind of leaders that Democrats and Republicans prefer is crap. One only has to look at how much support John McCain was getting from Democrats in 2000.


Democrats are not united by their desire to elect a leader who emphasizes policy details rather than values. They are united by their desire to get rid of a leader who uses cant about values to disguise a radical right-wing agenda. The reason the country's divisions are the same today as in 2000 is simple -- Bush is running again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: David Brooks Crap


The differences have been around since Jefferson and Adams. The major change in the last 200 years is that New England gave up the religious influence of the Puritans, and the South adopted the religious influence of the Baptists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...