OPINION - Shields and Brooks 1/19/2018

"Shields and Brooks on government shutdown blame, Trump’s first year" PBS NewsHour 1/19/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week's news, including the government shutdown showdown and the battle over an immigration deal, and how it will stick with voters on Election Day, plus what voters are thinking at the first anniversary of President Trump taking office.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  Now, on the eve of the anniversary of his first year in office, the President faces the possibility of a domestic crisis, a midnight deadline to keep the federal government open.  And with fears of a shutdown growing, both parties are pointing fingers at the other.

That brings us to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome, gentlemen, on this deadline [shutdown] night.

So, David, where is your finger pointing?

David Brooks, New York Times:  I really don’t know.  I’m embarrassed for my country.

We have gotten used to these shutdowns, but we really shouldn’t ever.  It’s all so stupid.  If we had like a Dwight Eisenhower or Franklin Roosevelt, they would just say, OK, let’s get in a room, we will figure it out, and they would act like grownups.

They would feel so demeaned to go through the rituals of condemnation.  And so we shouldn’t forget that elemental fact, it shouldn’t be like this.

The second thing, though — and the way I think this is actually a significant moment is that it does represent the parties defining themselves in the base, in the middle of a big demographic shift in the country.

This is all funneling down to a debate about immigration.  We used to have debates about the size of government or debates about war and peace, but immigration is now one of the central issues in American life, and it’s really at the core of this thing.  And the Republicans clearly feel, especially in red states, they can go to red states and say, you know, we wanted to keep government open for Americans, we wanted to keep health care for Americans, we wanted to keep the Army for Americans, and they wanted to hold it up for a bunch of illegal Americans.

So which party do you support?  And that’s what the Republicans are going to hang their hat on in a country that’s rapidly diversifying.

Judy Woodruff:  How do you size all this up?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Well, the only place I disagree with David is, the Republicans don’t say illegal Americans.  They say illegals.

[sarcasm] And like everybody else, like David and I, and I’m sure you, we made a decision at the age of 6 or 8 where we were going to live, where we were going to go to school, and what country we were going to — whose flag we were going to honor.

And, overwhelmingly, this is an issue on which Republicans are on the short side.  Americans of both parties, independents believe that people who have been brought here, had no decision in illegal entry, who’ve grown up here, worked, and contributed to the country are entitled to legal status.

The problem is, quite frankly, the Democrats have chosen this as the one issue to make a fight on, and which does echo not simply the cause itself, but the politics of 2016, and identity politics.

And of all the targets of opportunity that Donald Trump and these Republicans have given them, from knocking people off of health care, to attacking widows and orphans, they have chosen this one.

It is one, quite frankly, this issue, that the Democrats prevail on overwhelmingly across the country.  What Mitch McConnell and the Republicans in the Senate are playing right now is state-by-state politics.  It puts Democrats in red states, they think, on the defensive, whether it’s Joe Manchin in West Virginia, Joe Donnelly in Indiana.

Judy Woodruff:  So, it sounds like, David, Mark is saying the Democrats are making the wrong call by hanging this argument, hanging their argument on whether to keep the government open on immigration.

David Brooks:  Yes, well, I would say it depends on your time frame.

In the short term, it probably redounds to both parties’ ill will.  Nobody is going to be persuaded here.  The polls say who’s to blame.  Democrats say the Republicans are.  Republicans say the Democrats are.

This is not the sort of issue on which people are persuaded by evidence.  They just go back to their partisan camp.

In the medium term, 2018, if it matters in 2018 — and I think the parties’ basic posture on immigration will matter– I agree with Mark.  It’s bad — if you’re a red state senator trying to hold onto your seat, this is a bad posture for you.  It’s just not good.

In the longer term, of course, if the Republicans maintain the party, not only of Donald Trump, but they turn into the party of Tom Cotton, who wants to cut legal immigration by 50 percent, then that to me is ruinous for the party.

And one of the things that’s fascinating, I think one of the reasons there is so much confusion here, is this was a party that had a very strong Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George W. Bush wing.  And, suddenly, that’s shifted.  And how far has it shifted?  Has it shifted all the way over to Tom Cotton?  A lot further than a lot of us thought.

And so people are trying to catch up to where the party has shifted.  And Donald Trump has muddied the waters by being here, being there, being there, but mostly pretty restrictionist.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, you’re saying the Democrats had a choice.  They didn’t have to make this about DACA, about immigration, but they chose to do that, and they are taking a risk, you’re saying.

Mark Shields:  Well, yes.

Let me be very clear.  I think Democrats are on the right side of history.  I think they are on the right side morally.  I’m talking about the political judgment and the political assessment that is made.  And will it work for Democrats in House races across the country generically?  Yes, it will give — put the Democrats on the advantage, Republicans at a disadvantage.

But when you’re Mitch McConnell and you’re trying to hold on to the Senate, you’re trying to figure out how I can put Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota on the defensive.  The Republicans can’t find anybody to run against her.  Everybody’s passed on it.

And how do they take on Claire McCaskill in Missouri or Joe Donnelly in Indiana, both of whom have proved themselves to be formidable in red states and in winning elections?

So I think that’s really where it is.  I just think that there are more opportunities for the Democrats who, in 2016, were, and I think rightly, rightly, targeted as a party of identity politics, of reaching out to constituency by constituency.

(CROSSTALK)

David Brooks:  I would say the one thing that — the tide has been swinging, it looks like, in the Democratic direction in 2018.  And the only way they can mess it up that I can imagine (so far), is if they have a base election, if they go — if they make their voters in New York, and San Francisco and L.A. super happy but make the voters in Indiana and Tennessee and Missouri super unhappy.

And they risk that sort of fissure with this.

Judy Woodruff:  So that’s the state-by-state or district-by-district political calculus.

But, David, is there a price to pay from standing back and looking at this from the way Washington runs standpoint, from the fact it just looks, again, like it’s a place where they can’t get the job done?

David Brooks:  Well, I think the big story there is a lot of people around the country look at Washington and say, why would I ever want to go there?  Why would I ever want to pay attention to that stuff?  Why would I ever believe in that system?

And that’s a problem for the country as a whole.  It’s just, government is obsolescence.  If we’re going to fix problems, we have got to do it some other way, because that thing ain’t working.

It’s a more specific — and Mark has made this point in the past — it’s a more specific problem for Democrats, because the party of government has to live with the discrediting of government.

And in the long term, as people become more disgusted and distrustful of government, it served the Republican Party, at least politically, reasonably well.

Judy Woodruff:  And this coincides, Mark, as we have been saying, with the one-year anniversary of President Trump’s year in office, time in office.

How does he come through this?  I mean, how is he looking right now?  Does he come out of this looking stronger?  What?

Mark Shields:  Well, I wanted to take a step back, so I talked today to Peter Hart, who conducts with Bill McInturff, the Republican, Peter being a Democratic pollster, the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll.  And they did a year assessment.

And Peter said the most common word that was used to describe voters’ feeling a year ago about Donald Trump after the election was hopeful.  The most common word used now is disgust.  And he called it the year of alienation, that Donald Trump — and why is this important, Judy, how people — because a President needs a reservoir of good feeling and goodwill and confidence.

Ronald Reagan had it at Iran-Contra.  And it sustained him.  John Kennedy had it at the Bay of Pigs, where people had a personal relationship.  Lyndon Johnson didn’t have it.  Richard Nixon didn’t have it.  So when they hit rough patches politically, they didn’t have that core of affection, feeling, confidence that voters just extended to them and gave them the benefit of the doubt.

And Donald Trump doesn’t have it.  He lacks it.  Voters don’t think he has temperament, maturity, judgment or selflessness.

Judy Woodruff:  But he does have that core of voters who say they’re still with him, the 35, 40 percent.

Mark Shields:  He does.  No, no question about it.

But, Judy, think about it.  We now have the best economic times probably since the late 1990s, tech boom, really just phenomenal times economically.  The stock market is going through the ceiling.  And he’s still, you know, mid-30s?  I mean, ordinarily, any President, President — would be 60 percent favorable in this kind of an economic…

David Brooks:  And that base, it’s a slow erosion.  It’s a lot slower than I thought, but it’s an erosion.

I cited on the show several weeks ago the FOX News voters are less pro-Trump than they were.  I saw a poll today.  Among white evangelicals dropped — support — favorability for Trump has dropped 17 percent, from 83 percent, down 17 percent.

So that’s an erosion.  And all of this — this porn star stuff, this stuff he says about the countries, that has this slow erosion.  It doesn’t mean they’re fleeing, because what we have in this country is negative polarization.  Nobody likes their own party very much, but they really hate the other party.  So that inhibits it.  But we’re seeing just a steady, slow drip, drip, drip.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 11/17/2017

"Shields and Brooks on sexual misconduct in politics, Republican tax goals" PBS NewsHour 11/17/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the week’s news, including allegations of sexual misconduct against and very different responses by Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore and Sen. Al Franken, President Trump’s criticism of Franken despite his own history being accused by women, plus the GOP tax plans.

Hari Sreenivasan (NewsHour):  But first to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

It’s a bit like Groundhog’s Day here.  We’re going the cover some topics you probably have never thought of before, sexual harassment and taxes.  But there are developments, after more and more developments of both of these stories.  And we will get to some more stuff, too.

But this week, we saw new women coming out and alleging sexual misconduct by Roy Moore, some of them underage.  And then we had Al Franken’s behavior in 2006, including a disturbing photograph that nobody can deny.

They are not parallel incidents, but the responses have been very different.

David Brooks, New York Times: Yes, I mean, I guess it’s inevitable, death, taxes, and harassment these days.

It seems to me the one failure that we’re seeing among a lot of people is how partisan the reaction would be, starting with the President.  Sexual harassment is not a Republican thing, or it’s not a Democratic thing.  It’s just a thing.  And it’s amazing how many people are reacting depending on which party the person is in, the guy is in, how their reaction is.

I personally, overall, still think this is a good thing.  Our standards are raising.  People who have done misconduct are being punished, an we’re cleaning out the swamp, as they — we’re supposed to say.

Alongside that, I think it’s important to make some distinctions among the different levels of sin here.  It seems to me what Harvey Weinstein did and what Roy Moore did has the highest level of vileness, and should be career-enders.

Then there are other levels of sin which probably should be career-enders, setting a predatory environment, whether it’s Bill Clinton or the guy — some of the journalists who have been involved.

And then I would put Al Franken so far in a different category, frankly.  What he did was callous and narcissistic and insensitive and just pathetic.  But if it’s one time, and if he can apologize, and then do real penance, my first instinct is that it shouldn’t be a career-ender for him.

Hari Sreenivasan:  But, Mark, oftentimes it’s not one time.  Oftentimes, we start to reveal a pattern of behavior that might be in the background, as more people feel empowered to speak up.

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  No, and that’s what we have found so far in these instances.  It’s not usually a single, solitary event.

But I think David makes a very persuasive point about what we have with Roy Moore, quite frankly, the reaction, in the opening news summary, when the governor, Kay Ivey, of Alabama says she has no reason not to believe the women, but she’s still going to vote for Roy Moore.

Now, there is a disconnect there.  And the only explanation can be just blind, unyielding, total partisanship, and I don’t care.

Let’s be very blunt about it.  There were feminists who rallied to Bill Clinton’s support during his long, complicated lying to the American people about a disproportionate power relationship that he had with a 21-year-old intern and adulterous behavior, who rallied to his support because Bill Clinton was pro-choice on abortion.

And there are those now who are ready to skewer Roy Moore — and I’m not going to deny that he needs skewering — for ideological reasons, and because he has proved he’s anti-woman by his political positions.

But if we’re just talking about behavior here, and not blind partisanship, I don’t think that Al Franken’s behavior rises to the level of eviction from the Senate or anything of the sort.

That is not — but for a party that has based an awful lot of its appeal on identity politics, that we are the women’s party, that we believe in women’s rights, that we respect women, and that Republicans don’t, this is a body blow.

And Al Franken has been a major fund-raiser for Democrats, and he has been an aggressive inquisitor on committees and — representing the Democrats.  So, I think it is serious.

I don’t know where it’s going to stop, and — but I think, in the final analysis, we have to come to grips.  It is power.  And it’s been men exercising power, generally speaking, with — almost overwhelmingly speaking, and the women in the position of supplicant, without the resources, without the means of protesting or just bringing to justice to these people.

David Brooks:  If I could add one thing on the — first on the Clinton thing, I think it’s — we just have to look back and say the people who ignored the testimony of Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick helped set the stage for this.

And the Democrats who defended Clinton in those Clintons, they helped set the atmosphere for what we’re seeing and for the behavior that Harvey Weinstein and the rest can get away with.

The second thing to be said is, there is a word for what defenders of Roy Moore are doing, the people who said they were vote for him nonetheless, and — well, two words.  One word is idolatry, and the other word is heresy, because the people who are putting — who are going to sacrifice morality for politics are making an idol out of politics.

They’re saying politics is higher than morality.  And no honest person can possibly believe that.  And if you’re putting politics above personal morality, above the way we treat each other, above the nature of your own soul, you’re just — you’re making an idol out of it.

And that is the ultimate in heresy.  And to see — I saw a tweet from Franklin Graham, Billy Graham’s son, defending Moore, you know, sort of, oh, they’re all a bunch of hypocrites up there.

It’s just appalling.  It’s just — it’s almost mind-boggling that people who — especially people who have been steeped in any faith could make this kind of fundamental error, which is warned against again and again in the Bible, and to be heretics.  They’re heretics.
-----
Hari Sreenivasan:  Let me ask you if you are surprised about something else that’s happened this week, which is the progress of the Republican tax plan.  Do you think that it — what do you think happens in the Senate?

Mark Shields:  I would say, first of all, I think that Paul Ryan, whom I have criticized, certainly did perform as speaker.  He got it through.  He rallied his Republicans, mostly, to it.

There’s just a couple things about it.  I have been going to Republican Conventions since 1976.  I have heard the party time and again solemnly pledge in its compact and covenant with the American people that we will support and fight for a balanced budget constitutional amendment.

I hope that never appears again, because they have proved that they don’t care about that.  All this tax cut is about, this tax thing, is cutting the corporate rate from 35 percent to 20 percent.  That’s all it is.

Everything else is window dressing.  And there are other factors to it that are important, that touch people’s lives.

And, usually, when there’s a tax cut, there is some behavior is required.  For a charitable deduction, you have to give — make a donation to a charity.  For a child care credit, you have to have a child, and there has to be some — there is nothing required of these corporations.

There is not a nickel they have to spend in investment.  There’s not a nickel they have to spend in retraining.  There’s not a nickel they have to spend in anything for their own workers.

And the idea that they’re going to pass this on and increase wages goes back to John Galbraith’s theory of economics, which is, if you stuff enough oats into the horse, that, eventually, a little will pass through to the road, and the sparrow will be fed.  And I just find it absolutely mind-boggling.

And the only other aspect to it that I found fascinating is the Republican Party that has stood for states’ right, and the states that have actually taxed themselves to improve their education and to improve their health care are going to be punished.

Hari Sreenivasan:  Yes.

Mark Shields:  That’s been in the tax code since 1913 that it was inducted.  They’re going to remove it.

Hari Sreenivasan:  So, David, that analogy of trickle-down economics, I have not heard before.

David Brooks:  Still following the biology of that thing.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  No, I wish it was only a corporate tax cut, because I think there’s a lot of good economic evidence that, if you give corporations tax cuts, they have more cash on hand, they do invest, and that there’s a fair bit of data on this.  And so I wish it were that.

And I think there are other good things in the bill.  Capping the mortgage interest deduction is a good thing.  I think maybe adjusting the state and local taxes is a good thing, because 90 percent of the benefit goes to people making over $100,000 a year.

The problem with it is, first, it explodes the deficit.  Second, it is a raw piece of political exploitation, taking the tax code and benefiting our people, at the expense of blue states.  And we shouldn’t turn the tax code into a spoils system.

And, third, it’s taxes the universities and the nonprofits in a way that I think is unconscionable.  So, I’m against it.  But there are some good things in it.  If they fell back to a corporate tax cut, which had sympathy in the Obama administration, it would be a little happier story.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 8/25/2017

"Shields and Brooks on Trump's contrasting speeches, GOP ruptured relations" PBS NewsHour 8/25/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week's political news, including President Trump's wildly different approaches to his address on Afghanistan strategy and his remarks in Phoenix, his attacks on top Republicans in Congress, and his Pentagon directive to ban transgender people from joining the military.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  The week began with the President's scripted speech on Afghanistan, followed by a raucous rally in Phoenix that helped widen a rift between Mr. Trump and top Republicans in Congress.  That's the backdrop as we turn to the regular Friday analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields, and “New York Times” columnist David Brooks.

Gentlemen, it's so good to see you both together.  Welcome.

So, Charlottesville, it's been almost two weeks since the tragedy there.  It has risen in the headlines again this week, David.  The President's in Phoenix, he makes this passionate speech unscripted, defending the way he handled Charlottesville, bringing on even more criticism.

Are we in the clear now on what this President believes about racism, about white supremacy and all of it?

DAVID BROOKS, The New York Times:  I think we're a little clearer on where the Republican Party is.  You know, the Trump campaign began really seriously with the Muslim ban.  It continued with a series of racial things about the wall.  It continued Charlottesville and the reactions.  And what's happened is the racial winking and content, the identity politics has become a rising motif in the Trump administration, especially as everything else including economic policy and economic populism has fallen away.

And that's meant the Republican Party or at least some portion of it, and I don't know how big, has become more of a white ethnic party, ethnic nationalist party.  That has made life impossible for a lot of people who signed up as Republicans but didn't sign up for this.  And we've had fights within Republicans on a lot of different issues on taxes, on wars and things like that.

But this is upon which parties break apart because you can't Republican — if the Republican Party becomes a party aligned with bigotry in some overt way or in any way, you can't be a Republican and try to be a decent person and be a part of it.  And I've watched within my friends here in Washington, friendships ending in a way I never really seen before.  And friendship ending I think in the evangelical world, friendships are ending.

And Senator Danforth had an op-ed today and Gary Cohn is put in this position.  And so, what you're seeing is a hint of a rupture the likes of which I really haven't seen before.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  And I was going to ask you both and David brought it up, Mark, this column and today an interview by the former Republican senator from the state of Missouri, John Danforth, saying if the Republican Party doesn't disassociate itself from Donald Trump over his handling most recently of Charlottesville and the race question, but he lists other issues as well, he said the party sunk.

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist:  Yes.  Jack Danforth comes with credentials as a senator, as the Senate sponsor, personal endorser of the only African-American ever nominated to the Supreme Court by any Republican President, Clarence Thomas, who had worked for him.  So, he is — he is someone who has certainly street cred on this issue.

Judy, it's quite I think obvious at this point that the President does not understand what the job is.  I mean, the job of the President of the United States is to be the voice of compassion, is to be, to provide equanimity in spirit, is to provide magnanimity of view.  He, in a scripted, teleprompted address, he can give a coherent speech as he did on Afghanistan, a colorless, energy-less but nevertheless coherent speech as he did for veterans.

But he only thrives, he's only alive, he's only authentic when he unleashes his indictive, when he stirs up the basest instincts of his supporters, and he responds only to cheers, cheers and jeers of those whom he opposes, whom he's still running against some 10 months after the election he's still running against.

So, it's a sad, sad time.  It has to be sadder for those who work in this administration to learn as the Quinnipiac University poll, a respected poll, show this week that Americans by two to one believe that Donald Trump is dividing the country rather than writing the country.  That solid majority, 3-2, they believe the press, the dreaded media over Donald Trump to tell the truth.  And they believe — three out of five Americans believe he is giving aid in comfort to white supremacist, and encouragement.

So, it's a truly sad — I don't — I can only say to Republicans, I mean, it is a time you're going to be asked about this.  You're going to be asked where you stood.  And what you did on Donald Trump.  And I thought Gary Cohn — it only took him two weeks to come to it and —

JUDY WOODRUFF:  This is the President's economic adviser, yes.

MARK SHIELDS:  Yes, and then he came to the decision of conscience that Janet Yellen made a very candid statement today, recognition statement at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, where she announced that she, in fact, the regulations imposed on the big banks after the collapse of 2008, the financial crisis, were necessary, were wise and should not be repealed.

So, Gary Cohn holding on, slimly, perhaps to the hope of becoming chair of the Federal Reserve swallowed his misgivings, and the odor of anti-Semitism that smacked Donald Trump's remarks and agreed to continue as a patriotic man to serve and I guess we could only salute him.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  It’s a zigzag course, David.  I mean, as both of you said, when the President is reading from the teleprompter, the message is that we reject racism, we reject white supremacy, neo Nazis, but it’s in these speeches where there’s another message that seems to come out.  I was just reading the radio address that the White House is going to put out tomorrow from the President.  He’s back to the scripted lines, rejecting everything that smacks of racism.

DAVID BROOKS:  To his credit, he’s incapable of insincerity and hypocrisy.  He can — he can keep up for an hour, for a day, for 24 hours, he’ll say what they want him to say, but then within 24 hours, he’s got to come back to be himself and he’s going to explode beyond those barriers.  We’ve seen that again and again and again.

I just think the Trump administration is going to wander into these fields more and more in the months and years ahead, simply because they don’t have an economic agenda, there’s very small chance of tax reform, they don’t have the populist thing they can bring to people.  And so, what they have is this ethnic nationalism.  And they are frankly going to be helped sometimes by Democrats or by radicals on the left who are going to deface the Thomas Jefferson statute or do something like that. And then that’s it for Donald Trump.  He can say they’re defacing Thomas Jefferson.

So, then the identity politics of the left and identity politics play off each other and you get this war of people who think that white and black are the only two categories in life and they should have some sort of political war over this and it begins to look like the Sunnis and Shiites.  And as I say, that’s a Republican Party that decent people don’t want to be a part of, frankly.