OPINION - Brooks and Capehart 7/23/2021

"Brooks and Capehart on Jan. 6 committee, infrastructure, budget, vaccine hesitancy" PBS NewsHour 7/23/2021

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including the Jan.  6 insurrection investigation, the infrastructure and budget negotiations in Congress, and vaccination efforts in America.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  From aspirations around infrastructure to political cracks in the investigation into the insurrection, there is a lot to unpack with the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.

That is New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, columnist for The Washington Post.

Hello to both of you on this Friday.

Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post:  Thanks, Judy.

Judy Woodruff:  It's always so good to see you.

Let's start with the fireworks this week, David.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi surprised, I think, a lot of people by saying, no, I'm not going to accept two of the five Republicans appointed to this January 6 select committee.  And then, in turn, you had Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, saying, well, if you are going to do that, I'm going to pull the whole group.

What did you make of all this?  Does it move the process forward?  What do you think?

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks, New York Times:  No, it's round 947 of stupidity in Congress, I guess.

We had this commission.  The idea is, you each — in normal life, in a normal country, the two parties would get together, leaders would get together, and say, let's put — do this commission, important to understand.  We have a basic kind of person we want on this commission, the kind of people who is trusted by both sides, and then we will put some honorable people, trustworthy people on this commission.  And we will get to the answer.

But, of course, none of that obtains in this situation.  Pelosi and McCarthy never get together.  There are very few people trusted on both sides.  And then McCarthy takes the extraordinary step of appointing Jim Jordan and Jim Banks, two people who are explicitly opposed to the commission, and would clearly undermine it.

He could have picked any one of dozens of other people who would have been quiet and seemed sort of normal.  But this is like throwing it right in your face.  And Pelosi then takes another extraordinary step of not letting the Republicans pick their own people.

And so it's just one escalation of dysfunction after another.  And we're not going to get, at least out of Congress, a bipartisan investigation.

Judy Woodruff:  What did you make, Jonathan, of the arguments that each one of them was making here?  And where does that leave this whole thing?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, I just want to push back on something David just said, that Speaker Pelosi wouldn't let Leader McCarthy pick his own people.

He picked five people, or he picked — he picked Republican members.  Two of them, as you rightly said, were basically stink bombs in the process.  But he was given the opportunity to choose people.  He decided to throw a huge wrench in the process.

I think I have said it on this air.  And I'm going to say it again.  For Nancy Pelosi, for Speaker Pelosi, her faith in the Constitution is only second to her Catholic faith.  She takes her role as a constitutional officer in the United States government extremely seriously.

So, for her, getting to the bottom of why Americans storm the U.S. Capitol to overturn a free and fair election, at the behest of the then sitting President of the United States, is something that is important to her.  It is vital for the history of the country.

And so for Kevin McCarthy to do what he did, and then to blame her, blame her for — she's the reason why the Capitol Police weren't prepared, to me, listening to — listening to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy had shades of — had flashbacks to Benghazi.

January 6 is the new Benghazi.  Speaker Pelosi is the new Hillary Clinton.  The Capitol — she didn't have the Capitol Police prepared enough is the Hillary Clinton gave a stand-down order.  It is theatrics on the part of Kevin McCarthy.  It is constitutional duty that Speaker Pelosi is trying to engage in.

Judy Woodruff:  David, Kevin McCarthy more to blame here than the speaker?

David Brooks:  I think, on balance, yes, more to blame.

I think Republicans should still get to pick, but, clearly, they would have screwed up the whole works.  Why did Jordan and Banks get picked?

Well, (A) it could have been so Nancy Pelosi would throw them off, and McCarthy could have a fit.  He must have foreseen that.

Jonathan Capehart:  Right.

David Brooks:  She's not going to — and, second [B], it's further regulatory about where the party is, that it's more a [Jim] Jordan party than it is a Cheney party, Liz Cheney.

And so the party is still over there.  And McCarthy is not an ideological person, but he probably knows where the center of his caucus is.

And just this afternoon, I read a piece in The New York Times by Michael Wolff, who's written three books on Donald Trump, just had dinner with him, saying he was certain Trump was going to run for President again.  And if he's going to run for President again, then I guess that's the center of the party, and that's what McCarthy has to genuflect to.

Judy Woodruff:  And, given that, Jonathan, that's — I mean he's — I mean, this is a minority leader of the party who is responding to the — in his view, the titular head of the Republican Party.

Jonathan Capehart:  Right, and also taking his cues where he thinks the base of the party is.

And then there's another golden rule to keep in mind.  I told you the golden rule about Speaker Pelosi.  Here's the golden rule about House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.  Everything he says, everything he does is geared to one goal, becoming Speaker of the House.

That's why you see him doing what he's doing.

Judy Woodruff:  Infrastructure, our favorite subject.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  I know you're dying to talk about it.

Negotiators are still negotiating, David, but it looks like — the smoke signals look like something's going to happen.  Are you getting the sense that this is going to be a good thing?  What is your — how are you reading all this?

David Brooks:  We should have Thomas the Tank Engine to talk about infrastructure.  It would be more PBS-like.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  Wait a minute.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  In a good way.

You know, I think what's interesting to me is that there — for those who remember last week's episode, there are two bills.  There's a bipartisan bill that's smaller and infrastructure-y.  And then there's a partisan reconciliation bill that's more progressive.

One would have thought the partisan-only bill would have had smoother sailing, because it's all — just all Democrats.  But, to me, it looks like the bipartisan bill is progressing, progressing, progressing.  And we will know, of course, they're negotiating and there are stops and starts.  But that bill seems to be really moving forward.

And I begin to wonder.  Say they pass or at least get a deal on the bipartisan bill.  Do a bunch of moderate senators on the Democratic side say, I got what I need, I really don't need this other bill?

And so I wonder if the bill I thought was more secure is actually more in trouble, which would be the partisan reconciliation.

Judy Woodruff:  You mean in trouble among Democrats?

David Brooks:  Among Democrats.

Judy Woodruff:  Among Democrats.

How are you reading this, Jonathan?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, you mentioned smoke signals.  To me, that says that something might be on fire.

And so, just before we came out here, a story hit about how there's another wrinkle.  Last week, it was Republicans were against the pay-for by the IRS enforcement.  You had the interview yesterday with Senator Capito.

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

Jonathan Capehart:  And you asked her a question about that.

Then, earlier this week, it was — I guess, even this morning, battle over transit funding, the proportion of transit funding.  Then, just before we came on, there's a story about there's consternation with — among Democrats because Republicans are pulling out something related to the prevailing wage.

It seems like this bipartisan bill that you have so much hope for, there's still so many moving pieces and so many embers that are burning that I don't know if the bipartisan bill is really going to — is going to make it.  We will see on Monday.  So they say.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes, we will learn more earlier — early next week, we think.

Vaccine politics.

David, we are now seeing more Republicans, a few more Republicans come out and say openly, hey, people, please get vaccinated, Steve Scalise, who's the number two Republican in the House of Representatives, a number of Republican governors, including Kay Ivey of Alabama.

And I'm reading what she said in part this week:  "It's time to start blaming the unvaccinated folks, not the regular folks.  The unvaccinated let us down."

I mean, that's not all Republicans, but it's — how significant is it?

David Brooks:  I loved what she said.  I think that is true.

If we face a shutdown again, herd economy, poor people laid off, that's not the disease.  That's human error.  And that's us.

And so getting more aggressive, the way she is, and the way some others strikes me as absolutely right.  Will it be effective?  I'm not so sure.  I think, once Donald Trump and other Republicans made it a manhood issue, or a freedom issue, or whatever kind of issue they made it, it's hard to walk back that culture war signal.

And it comes at a time when the party has trouble talking about collective good and the common good, and how we're all in this together.  We're certainly all in the air we breathe together.

And so I'm not — I think that has been dug deep into American history, but especially the Republican Party right now.  And I'm not sure Mitch McConnell saying a few things is going to reverse that trend.

Judy Woodruff:  How do you — how much difference do you think this could make?

Jonathan Capehart:  This being more…

Judy Woodruff:  A few more Republicans in the media, as well as conservatives in…

Jonathan Capehart:  I have to — David just spoke for me in what he said.

I think, if we had had a President of the United States who took this seriously when this first came on the scene, if we had a Republican Party that took this seriously enough to warn everyone, their constituents saying, wash your hands, then put on a mask, then go get the vaccine, we wouldn't be where we are right now.

And I agree with David.  I think that this has become such a cultural point that, even if Donald Trump were to come out tomorrow and say, you know what, not only did I get COVID, I survived it, and I also took the vaccine, and you should too, so you can vote for me again in 2024, he could say all of that, and, to David's point, I think the point has been driven so far deep, that he won't convince anyone, no one to get the vaccine who doesn't want to get it right now.

Judy Woodruff:  How do you — David, I mean, what kind of a divide is this among Republicans?

I mean, is it based on science?  Is it — how do you read what's going on here?

David Brooks:  Yes.

The people I know personally who are not getting the vaccine, for them, it was like, they rushed this thing.  Who knows what's going to happen to all these people who get the shots in 10 years or 20 years?  So, why should I take the risk?

And that's not completely crazy, but it's not — it's based on some sense of general distrust for the establishment, including the medical establishment.  And that establishment — that distrust is the core of this thing.

If we lived in high society, where we all felt the institutions of our society could be trusted, we'd all get the shots.  But the pervasive distrust, which really started in the '60s and 70s with Vietnam and Watergate, and has been ramping up pretty steadily over the last five decades, that's the core villain here.

And how do you get people to trust each other and societies like this, the fundamental problem in America right now?  And it's a very big one.

Judy Woodruff:  And there's still a stubborn — or a core out there, Jonathan, of people who are saying, I'm not going to take this.

There was a new survey out this afternoon, I think, from the Associated Press, people saying, I am not going to get it, no matter what.

Jonathan Capehart:  Which is — it breaks my heart, because you read stories of the — I think it was a doctor in Alabama who wrote about — talked about how, before she intubate someone, they plead with her, can I have the vaccine, and she's, I'm sorry, it's too late, and then going to the family members and saying, honor your loved one, get the vaccine.

And they tell her, I thought it was all politics.  I thought it was a hoax.

That just broke my heart, because that says, to David's point, trust in anything and anyone that isn't themselves, it's completely broken down, completely.

Judy Woodruff:  And, I mean, I remember seeing an interview this week with a man in the — in his hospital bed after serious COVID saying, even if he had it all to do over again, he wouldn't get vaccinated, that he so distrusts — it's just what you said.

David Brooks:  Religion is a powerful thing.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  And I would just say, we have got to make it so to get into any fun thing to do in America, you have to show your card.

And that, to me, I think is the only way to do it.

Judy Woodruff:  David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart, both of you, stay safe.  The Delta variant is out there.

Jonathan Capehart:  You too, Judy.

(LAUGHTER)

Jonathan Capehart:  Thanks, Judy.

Judy Woodruff:  Thank you.

OPINION - Brooks and Capehart 5/21/2021

"Brooks and Capehart on Israel-Hamas cease-fire, Jan 6 commission" PBS NewsHour 5/21/2021

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart join Amna Nawaz to discuss the week in politics, including cease-fire in the Middle East and the Senate’s chances of establishing a commission to look into the Jan 6 insurrection.

Amna Nawaz (NewsHour):  From the impact of the Mideast cease-fire on U.S. policy, to a potential commission looking into the January 6 Capitol attack, it's a good time for the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.

That's New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, columnist for The Washington Post.

Good to see you both.  Welcome back.  Happy Friday.

David, I want to start with you.

The President was just speaking at the White House, actually, and was asked about this latest cease-fire, asked also if there's been a shift in Democratic Party politics when it comes to the approach in Israel.

This is what he had to say:  "There is no shift in my commitment to the security of Israel, period."

David, what do you make to have the way the President has handled these last 11 days and this cease-fire?

David Brooks, New York Times:  I think he's handled it pretty well.  He's kept the U.S. out of being the center of the story.  He's learned from some of the mistakes we made in 2014, ending that Gaza war.

He was pressured to lean on Bibi and Israel to do the cease-fire or to condemn them publicly.  But, if he does that, then Bibi has to push back.  So it actually delays the cease-fire, just so Bibi can show his independence.  And if he does that, Hamas thinks, oh, Israel — U.S. is leaning on Israel, so Hamas gets more aggressive.

So, this was a case in which being a little passive and doing things in private was much more effective than they would have been to do anything in public.  And so I think the administration was wise, basically, to handle it as they did.

Amna Nawaz:  Jonathan, he was asked that question, though, because there's been growing pressure from within the party, right, from progressives like Bernie Sanders and others, to do more, in the way of standing up for the human rights of Palestinians.

But if you take a quick look at where the country is today, I want to point to some quick numbers we looked up from Gallup.  This is from a February poll, so it's before this latest conflict.  But it does show that 75 percent of Americans do have a favorable opinion of Israel.  That is up in the last 20 years by 10 points.

That same poll, though, when you're looking at the number of people saying who they think the U.S. should put more pressure on, 35 percent now think that the U.S. should put more pressure on Israel.  That number is also up; 44 percent say they should put more pressure on Palestinians.

Are you seeing any of that, Jonathan, show up in the Biden approach?

Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post:  Well, I think — I would love to see what a poll would show today.

I think that the bombing, the Israeli Defense Forces' bombing of that high-rise building in Gaza that also housed international news organizations was a pivot point in all of this, where the private conversations that were happening took on even more urgency, and then forced the President to go even more public in terms of putting pressure on the Israeli government to do something to curb the violence.

But where — when it comes to the Democratic Party and the forces pulling back and forth, I bring up that pivot point, because Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, who is the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is known in Washington as being a stalwart ally, if you will, within the United States Senate, supporter of Israel and Israel's right to defend itself.

After that bombing of that building in Gaza, Senator Menendez put out a statement that caught the White House by surprise and a lot of people by surprise by condemning or raising very serious questions about what Israel had done.

And so I think that made it possible for President Biden to be a little more, how shall we say, forceful in his conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Amna Nawaz:  Well, David, let me ask you more broadly about President Biden's approach, not just on this one issue.

You had a good chunk of time to sit down with him for a fascinating interview.  It's the subject of your latest column that's called "Has Biden Changed?  He Tells Us."

And, in it, you write right at the top:  "What happened to Joe Biden?  Many people thought he was a moderate incrementalist, but now he's promoting whopping big legislative packages that make many on the progressive left extremely happy.  The answer seems to be, it's complicated."

David, tell us about that conversation with him.  How is it complicated?

Jonathan Capehart:  Oh.

Amna Nawaz:  Oh, I believe we have lost the connection with David Brooks.  We will try to get him back in just a moment.

In the meantime, Jonathan, let me bring you back in here.

Jonathan Capehart:  Sure.

Amna Nawaz:  You have certainly read this column.

Jonathan Capehart:  Yes.

Amna Nawaz:  It's a long assessment of where President Biden is and faces this criticism of no longer being a moderate incrementalist many accused him of.

What do you make of it?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, David's column was terrific, in being able to sit down with the President, particularly this President, who he wears everything on his sleeve.

And I have been on a phone call between the President and opinion writers, including — including David, so I have — I can pretty much imagine how that conversation went.

Look, I think President Biden is sort of the President who — the man who is meeting the moment.  A lot of people wonder whether progressives have pulled the party farther to the left or are pushing the party farther to the left.  And I counter that.

And I think President Biden, by doing what he's doing, it's really that the party is catching up to the country.  You tick off any issue and ask where the American people are — and let's just take raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour.  The American people want that done.

The Democratic Party has been pushing for that for a long time.  The President now, the President of the United States, Joe Biden, is pushing for that.

And so the beauty of David's column and what I loved about it is that it takes sort of the policy issues that we're talking about now, whether it's the American Jobs Act — the American Jobs Plan, the Families Plan, the American Rescue Plan, and broadens it out in the way that only — that David famously does to the 35,000-foot level and shows that Joe Biden — it's the last line in the column — Joe Biden hasn't changed.  It's just that he's gone bigger.

The price tags on these things that he's pushing have gone bigger than what he pushed for when he was in the Senate for 36 years.  The policies that he championed when he was Vice President, with President O — yes, with President Obama.

So, I don't know if it's right to call President Biden incrementalist.  I think he is incrementalist when it suits his purposes to get something done right away.

But I think, if you look at everything that he's trying to do, he's going big.  And he's going big because the problems facing the country are large, but, also, he views it to the international prism, which I think David puts in his column, because of his time on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that the problems that America is facing, they are impacting not just America at home, but America's standing abroad.

Amna Nawaz:  For anyone wondering why David Brooks isn't weighing in on his own column, we just lost the connection with him.  We are trying to bring him back into the conversation.  And we will do so as soon as that connection is reestablished.

But, Jonathan, while I have you, I also wanted to talk about this vote on the potential commission to look into the January 6 Capitol attack.  There was a proposal that came before the House.  They voted on it.  It passed there; 35 Republicans, 35 Republicans joined Democrats to back that commission.

Did that number surprise you?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, Amna, here's the thing that surprised me.

It's — what surprises me is that it was only 35.  Leave aside the politics of everything of why it was just 35.  This — the January 6 commission should not be a partisan issue.  This should be a patriotism issue.

What happened on that day was horrifying, people trying to rush the Capitol, invading the Capitol, while the United States Congress was certifying a free and fair and legitimate, a small-D democratic election, certifying the election, and making it official that Joe Biden would be the president of the United States.

Those people tried to stop that.  The people who voted against the commission, the other Republicans who voted against the commission, they were there that day.  How they could not vote to approve a commission that would look into what happened, so that we find out what happened, but also so that we can learn things that we could do to ensure that it doesn't happen again, the fact that they voted — only 35 Republicans have voted for it, I think, is a shame.

Amna Nawaz:  I need to ask you as well, Jonathan, because this is right now with the Senate.  Ten Republicans there would need to back it for that commission to move forward.  Do you see that happening?

Jonathan Capehart:  I'm really having a hard time seeing that happening.

I mean, if memory serves, seven Republicans voted with the Democrats to vote to come to convict then-President — well, at that point, he was former President Trump, during impeachment.  I don't see where the other three votes to get to 10 come from.  That's assuming that those seven vote for the commission.

Amna Nawaz:  Jonathan Capehart joining us tonight.

I apologize to David Brooks.  Tonight's Brooks and Capehart is mostly just Capehart.

(LAUGHTER)

Amna Nawaz:  But, Jonathan, it's always good to talk to you.  Thanks for being here.

Jonathan Capehart:  Great to see you too.  Thanks.