OPINION - Shields and Brooks 10/19/2018

"Shields and Brooks on health care, Trump’s Khashoggi reaction" PBS NewsHour 10/19/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss health care, Democrats’ campaign strategy and an unfolding American “cultural drama.”

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks, joining us this evening from Los Angeles.

And welcome to both of you.

Midterm elections, we can just feel it.  They're just a bit over two weeks away.

The President has been out on the campaign trail.  He's been talking up Republican candidates.  His language, the rhetoric is getting more combative.

I want you both to listen to something he said.  He was in Montana last night talking about the terrible things that will happen if Democrats are elected, mob rule and so forth.

But he went out of his way to praise Montana Congressman Greg Gianforte, was convicted two years ago of misdemeanor assault on a news reporter.  And here's what the President had to say last night.

President Donald Trump:  Greg is smart.

And, by the way, never wrestle him.  You understand that?  Never.

(LAUGHTER)

President Donald Trump:  Any guy that can do a body slam, he's my kind of…

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

President Donald Trump:  He's my guy.

Judy Woodruff:  So he's been talking — he's been partisan, David, but now the language is getting tougher, more combative.

What do we make of this?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, a couple things.

One, it's appalling.  I mean, anybody who assaults a journalist for doing their job has done something appalling.  And anybody who praises that is doing something appalling.

Second, he is a showman.  He's like the Mort Sahl of the ethnic right.  And so he tries to offend.  And when he offends, his people go crazy and they like it.

And so I sort of think it is appalling.  I sometimes wonder if we should ignore it, because it sets off a cultural drama where one group of people gets upset, and then the other but people are delighted the other group of people got upset, and it just creates this drama that benefits Trump, frankly.  And he's not stupid about that kind of thing.

Judy Woodruff:  So we're amping it up by talking about it, Mark.

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  I think we have to talk about it, Judy.

I mean, this is a week in which the disappearance of Mr. Khashoggi, the murder of a journalist, a Washington Post journalist, for what he was writing, apparently, has been front and center.  And the President is not unaware of this, because he's been a central figure in disparaging the investigation and taking up the cause of those who were allegedly involved in it.

So this is — this is irresponsible, it's reckless, and it's really cheap, in the literal sense of it.  This is a — this is a reckless act of an irresponsible man.  And I don't think it go unremarked upon.

Judy Woodruff:  Are there consequences, David?

David Brooks:  Well, I mean, I think the major damage Donald Trump is doing to the country is weakening the norms of decency and civility.

And if you don't have those norms, it's all dog eat dog.  And so I don't underestimate the harm that gets done.

I just observe that, since the first Presidential debate, when he went after Carly Fiorina for the way she looked, and other people, those — the ethos of World Wide — the World Wide Wrestling Federation has been the ethos Donald Trump has played on, on the campaign trail.

And there is some bit of owning the libs, as conservative say, that the desire to offend is part of the fun of the thing.  And, sometimes — I totally get Mark's point.  You got to try to maintain some sense of standards of how public officials are supposed to act with integrity.

But, sometimes, I feel manipulated when I do react, because that's sort of what Donald Trump wants.

Mark Shields:  I want David to trust his own instincts, which are good.

(LAUGHTER)

Mark Shields:  No, I mean, but David touched on what I think is the central element of this campaign.

Are we going to have guardrails.  Are we going to reestablish guardrails in this country as to what is right, what is wrong?  And I think that to a great degree is what this election is about.

But I mean, let's remind us — our listeners that Gianforte himself publicly apologized for what he did after it happened and accepted the court's judgment.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 4/13/2018

"Shields and Brooks on James Comey’s tell-all, Paul Ryan’s retirement" PBS NewsHour 4/13/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join John Yang to discuss the week’s news, including James Comey’s memoir detailing his interactions with and impressions of President Trump, what House Speaker Paul Ryan’s retirement means for the GOP and the pardoning of Scooter Libby.

John Yang (NewsHour):  But first to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks, who joins us tonight from San Francisco.

Gentlemen, welcome to you both.

We have a lot of talk about the new book by James Comey.  He talks about — describes the President as being unethical, untethered to the truth, and describes his presidency as a forest fire.

David, let me start with you.

What — from what you have read of the reporting and the excerpts, what’s your takeaway?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, I think President Trump has done a pretty good job of confirming everything Comey said by his tweets today.  I mean, the word slimeball shouldn’t be coming out of the White House.

I think it’s aptly titled.  One of the things we see in this book is a guy who is like, frankly, a lot of people who work in government in Washington as part of the career civil service, that their loyalty is not to red and blue.  And we’re used to covering politics as a red and blue tribal war.

But their loyalty is to their profession, to their agency, to their institution, to some other set of standards.  And they get in the middle of red-blue fights and they probably have their own personal opinions, but Comey seems to be a guy who has loyalties to other things.

And he’s offended Democrats mightily.  He’s offended the Republican President mightily.  And I think he passes the smell test, by and large.  And I so think he’s honest that it could — it’s quite possible that Donald Trump didn’t do anything criminal here, but did do something mafioso-like.  And that’s, frankly, not a completely new revelation.

John Yang:  Mark?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  I think David makes a very good point about Jim Comey, who has been a rather remarkable public servant for a long time and then found himself, in 2016, on the receiving end of vilification from both candidates, from the Clinton people for his handling of the e-mail matter right up to the Election Day, and by the Trump people since and then his firing.

And the President’s adding to the sort of annals of American Presidential rhetoric this week, along with malice toward none and charity toward all, and the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, to a weak and untruthful slimeball is what he’s called James Comey.

I do think that this is not to be confused with the “Fire and Fury” book, which was great gossip and great anecdotage.  This is the testimony, straightforwardly, on the record, of a rather remarkable public servant who kept notes on everything and gives his own testimony.  It’s not hearsay.  This is what he says.

And I think it will be given great attention.  It’s already gotten great sales.  And it will become part of the national dialogue, and much to the consternation of the President.

John Yang:  David, I have got to ask you.  There is so much of what has been said about this in the press is talking about the sort of personal comments and personal observations about the President, the size of his hands, the complexion, orange tone to his — hue to his face.

It sort of feels like — does it feel to you that Comey is goading the President in a way?

David Brooks:  Not really.

And that reads to me like novelistic detail.  One of the things we know about Comey is, he’s a serious reader.  He’s a big fan of Reinhold Niebuhr, as am I.  And so I think he was trying to write a book which had some literary detail that 'you are there.'

I do think, in general, from what I have read of the book and the excerpts, it passes the smell test.  One important moment for me was his description of his handling of the Clinton e-mails.

And now he says, my goal consciously wasn’t to let politics influence my decision.  But he allows — and this is him showing some vulnerability — he allows the possibility that the thought of her winning election and then having the e-mail investigation come out might seem illegitimate to people.

And he didn’t want her to be elected and then something new comes out right after the election.  He thought that might hurt the institution of the Presidency.  And so he allows that possibility could have had some unconscious influence on him.

And that strikes me as a man who is looking at himself and saying, is it possible I messed up?  Is it possible I was influenced in ways that I wasn’t consciously aware of?  That strikes me, by the standards of Washington memoirs, as a reasonably high level of honesty.

Mark Shields:  And I think one thing that we will see is, he is a very effective witness on his own behalf.  And he’s going — it’s full-court press.

There’s going to be media coverage.  He will be on the “NewsHour.”  He will be on the networks.  He will be everywhere.  And he will be answering all the questions, and he will influence, if not drive, much of the conversation for the next couple of weeks.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 2/9/2018

"Shields and Brooks on budget deal economics, White House domestic abuse scandal" PBS NewsHour 2/9/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the bipartisan budget deal that increases spending and add to the deficit, President Trump’s defense of a White House aide accused of domestic abuse, and questions about the future of Chief of Staff John Kelly.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Gentlemen, welcome.

So, I’m sorry, Mark, to go from that great music in Appalachia to talking about the budget.  But that was the big thing that passed in the wee hours of this morning.  The President signed it today.  Both parties somehow came together.

What does it say about their priorities?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Well, first of all, Judy, step back.

And Edmund Burke, who was a friend of mine the 18th Century…

(LAUGHTER)

Mark Shields:  … conservative, said 'all government is compromise and barter.  And this was.'

This was a compromise and barter.  Each side got some things they wanted and other things they didn’t.  So that is sort of — it evokes echoes of an earlier era in this city.  At the same time, it was…

Judy Woodruff:  You mean because they agreed?

Mark Shields:  Because they agreed.  And the parties were split.  It wasn’t unanimous on one side or anything of the sort.

But, that said, I think it’s fair to say that the deficit itself is now dead as an issue.  All of us have gone to Republican Conventions where it was solemnly sworn that they would be for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.  That’s over.

Maya MacGuineas was on the show earlier today.  And she has been very conscientious, very effective.  But there is no move now.  The debt is out of control.  We went from were borrowing $436 billion more this year than we did last year, and that’s even before this latest agreement.

So, Republicans — Bill Clinton did balance the budget.  Nothing since has been remotely approaching that.

Judy Woodruff:  So, David, red ink as far as the eye can see forever and ever?

David Brooks, New York Times:  It was a compromise, but it’s the kind of compromise we always see.

Ever since we came, or since our segment started — maybe as Burke and Paine in the 18th century — it was…

(LAUGHTER)

They have been able to compromise when it comes to expanding the deficits.  And that’s consistently been true over the past many years.

If you’re just — if every side gets to spend on what they want to spend, that’s the way they can compromise.  They have never been able to compromise when both parties have to take some pain.  And so that’s the kind of compromise they can’t do.

What strikes me as special about this is that everyone is a hypocrite on the deficits.  They’re all for cutting red ink when they’re in the minority and they’re all against it when they’re in the majority.

But there is a shift in tone in the Republican Party that seems interesting to me, which is, it used to be a party that talked the language of economics first.  Its native language was economics, an economic language, and so the budget really did sort of matter, and the budget really mattered, and tax cuts mattered.

Now economics is a secondary language for the Republican Party.  Immigration is the first language.  It’s an identity party, not an economic party, right now.  And so they’re willing to compromise on a lot of spending if they can win on immigration.  And that’s sort of where the party has gone.

Judy Woodruff:  And because immigration wasn’t part of this deal, Mark, as David, that’s how the Republicans were able to sign on.

Mark Shields:  It wasn’t.  It wasn’t a part of this.

Judy Woodruff:  That’s what I said, that it wasn’t.

Mark Shields:  No, no, and that — I think it’s fair to say, though, Judy, that if the Senate were determinant, I think there’s at least 60 votes in the Senate, and maybe even a solid veto-proof majority, for immigration reform that provides relief for these young people who were brought here as children and who have been contributing members of our society ever since.

But it’s the Republican House, and it’s in particular the anti-immigration caucus that paralyzes Paul Ryan.

But I just — I do want to point out one thing on the deficit itself.  We went through two World Wars, the Civil War, the Louisiana Purchase, and the Great Depression, and ran up a total indebtedness of $1 trillion.  And the Democrats were accused of being the tax-and-spend party.

And then we got the tax cut and spend.  The debt quadrupled, quadrupled, under Reagan and Bush, and that really set the pattern.  It was successful politically.

Bill Clinton, for all his failings and all his foibles, in eight years went from the biggest deficits in our country to the biggest surpluses.  So, now we have had 17 years of war financed by three tax cuts, I mean, which I think does reflect what David was talking about.

Judy Woodruff:  So is one party or another more responsible for this, David, or is there blame to go around?

David Brooks:  I do think there is blame to go around.  Deficits tend to come down when we have divided government.

When one party has control, deficits go up, because they can spend on their priorities.  And the Democrats like spending.  The Republicans love tax cuts.  You get a little of both.

I’m not a big believer in third parties, but if there is a third party movement, I suspect the debt will be a big part of that.  Remember how powerful that issue was for Ross Perot.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

David Brooks:  And so we can say deficits are going away as an issue, but deficits aren’t going away as a reality.

And as interest rates go up, the burden of paying just down the debt begins to swallow more and more of the budget.  It cuts out of the defense spending.  It cuts out of domestic discretionary spending.  And you just become a government that just pays bankers.  And that could be a gigantic issue, especially as interest rates rise.

Mark Shields:  And I would just point out, for those who think about deficits at all, the borrowing on the interest rate, Judy, and the payment of the debt to bondholders is a transfer from people of ordinary income to the wealthiest Americans.

It’s an absolute anti-decency transfer of wealth to people who have to pay their taxes in order to pay off bondholders.