E-mail a friendDavid Brooks
original airdate September 2, 2004
David Brooks has been described as a provocative thinker and a sensible conservative. An Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times, he's also a regular commentator on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. In 2000, he published his first book, Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There. Brooks' latest release, On Paradise Drive: How We Live Now (And Always Have) in the Future Tense, takes a look at how being American shapes us.
David Brooks
Tavis: If you're a regular PBS watcher, certainly if you watch the PBS 'NewsHour with Jim Lehrer,' then you know this face...David Brooks...and you really can't miss him if you read "The New York Times' as I do. David Brooks, columnist for "The New York Times.' David, nice to see you.
David Brooks: Good to see you again.
Tavis: Glad to have you on. This time you're not on a stool and open empty naked space that you hide behind. Nice to see--
Brooks: People can't see how much bigger you are than I am.
Tavis: I may be bigger than you, but I'm not a better writer than you. I'd love to be half as good as you are.
Brooks: Thank you.
Tavis: Two pieces specifically you've written lately that I was just fascinated by, as I am by most of your pieces, about the piece you wrote the other day in "The New York Times' about why you think that Giuliani, McCain, and Schwarzenegger were chosen as speakers. The conventional wisdom is that they're at this convention, wanting to showcase, wanted to showcase moderate speakers. Your take was a little different.
Brooks: Yeah, because, you know, when they got out there, they didn't really talk about gay marriage, abortion, guns, some of the issues they really are moderate at. They talked about strength. They talked about courage. And that's sort of the theme of this convention. We've got a really courageous President. We're going to put a bunch of manly men out there, and the interesting--
Tavis: No girly men.
Brooks: No girly men, yeah. And the interesting thing is, you know who that's targeted to? It's not targeted to men. They're bringing all these manly men out there, but if you watch the polls and you watch the movement, it's women who are concerned about security. So Bush had really lost a lot of those people, and in the last month he's picked them up a little. And the perverse thing is that the more manly men they throw out there, the more it seems to respond to women. We'll see if that lasts.
Tavis: Why not throw women out there? Isn't it a bit sexist to say that the way to get a woman's vote is to put a man on the stage?
Brooks: Yeah, well, I think if they had a Margaret Thatcher--
Tavis: They'd put her out there.
Brooks: She'd be four hours, you know. But, you know, the talent in this Party, the other perverse thing, and this is a pretty conservative Party, but the talent is all in the center. You takethe stars of this Party: Rudy Giuliani, McCain, Schwarzenegger, even a guy like Mitt Romney from Massachusetts, that's where the talent is. So this Party is going to make a decision in a couple of years, do we go with our talent, or do we try to find somebody who's as conservative as we are?
Tavis: Yeah. The other piece that got my attention, and a whole lot of other folks that read "The New York Times' on Sunday at least, the cover of the 'New York Times' magazine a week or so ago was written by David Brooks. It's called, 'The Era of Small Government is Over: Republicans 2008." it says, "The Case for a New Progressive Conservatism," the case that is, for a new progressive conservatism. As you see, I had trouble saying that because it's almost oxymoronic to say a progressive conservatism. I couldn't even get it out. What do you mean by progressive conservatism?
Brooks: You started in the days when this Party started with Abraham Lincoln, and you go up to Teddy Roosevelt. You had a Party that believed in limit, using government for affirmative, for positive things. For uplifting people who didn't have chances. For giving them second chances and third chances and fourth chances. Not in a liberal way, maybe the way the Democratic Party stands for, but using government in a positive way. I think that tradition is just sitting out there. I sometimes say we have two conventions but three parties in this country. The McCain-Lieberman Party is sitting out there in the center waiting to be born. So I try to give some coherence to that because I really think the Party we're seeing this week is an unstable Party. They've been saying since Barry Goldwater, that we've got to cut the size of government, cut government, cut government. The American people don't actually want that and they've shown it again, and again, and again. They've got to find the new governing principle. So what I was trying to do is kind of lay that out, what it might be.
Tavis: I've only got a couple of minutes with you, unfortunately, let's top-line some of the things that you recommended in the article that the Republican Party can do, if they're going to stick with the platform of being the conservative party, how they can be more progressively conservative.
Brooks: Well, let's start, say, with inequality. You know, the number of people who say they're have-nots in this country has been rising for 20 years. And that's because they sense they don't have the skills to succeed. So there's a lot of things that this Party can do. Fundamental school reform, which would include choice, charter schools, a really radical remaking of schools, that's something they could do. There are other things that they came up with like wage subsidies, giving people who are working, who are off welfare and working, giving them some actual money because they're doing what we ask them to do. Give them some tax credits or some actual subsidies so they can live middle-class lives. That would improve the culture of a lot of our neighborhoods and that would reduce the inequality. Those are issues I think the Republican Party just has to deal with.
Tavis: To those first two points, wouldn't the Bush people respond by saying well, David we did push no child, leave no child behind, that's what we've been trying to do on your concern about education. On the economic front, we gave tax cuts and we, you know, a rising tide lifts all boats. It's simplistically--isn't that how they respond to those first two points?
Brooks: Yeah. And to me, that's not quite good enough. Let's start with education. You know, what they did is they took the current educational system and they said well, if we put tests at the end, somehow the system will improve, to get up to the tests. Well, to me it doesn't work that way. The tests are being dragged down into the system, because the system isn't built to respond to the tests. They can't produce the kids that can pass these tests. So, to me, you've got to change the system. You can't just sort of meddle around on the outside of the system; the system is the problem.
Tavis: Is it yoursense that the Republican Party ever really will make a serious effort, have a real shot, a real chance at getting more people of color to come into this big tent party they've been talking about for years. And I ask that against the backdrop, as you well know, that America is now the most multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-ethnic place ever. And it really is kind of tragic, even as an African -American, to see all the African Americans, all the Hispanics, basically on one side of the ledger here.
Brooks: Right. No, I think it's possible, but they've failed obviously for 20 years.
Tavis: Do they want to? Do they care?
Brooks: I think they do care. I think in their heart of hearts they--it bugs them. You know, race is the central issue of American history.
Tavis: That's not going away as the country becomes more colored.
Brooks: But then you look at the people at this convention. They tend to be blue state Republicans. Giuliani did reasonable well with African Americans, not great, but reasonably well. Pataki is from New York State; Mitt Romney is from Massachusetts; Schwarzenegger is from California. You've got people who are used to dealing with a lot of places with communities of different colors. And so I think those people are just more comfortable with it. And it really gnaws at them; it did with Jack Kemp, another guy from New York State. And I think an agenda that really responds to the problems of the schools in some of these areas would at least get people listening.
Tavis: Let me ask you in 30 seconds whether or not you think the Republicans accomplished, to use one of their phrases,was mission accomplished this week?
Brooks: Well, partially. I think what they did is they made this a war about terror and Bush comes out pretty well on that. Whether they've laid out a sort of positive agenda, I'm not sure what they've laid out is really bold enough to carry them through. You got to know what the guy wants to do in the next four years, and I don't think either Party has really done that very well.
Tavis: Is the race still close? Does Kerry still have a chance of winning?
Brooks: Oh sure, he has a chance, but let's fact it, momentum is now with the Republicans.
Tavis: Wow. David Brooks, if you haven't had a chance to read this piece, you really should get it. It's a fascinating piece, 'The Era of Small Government is Over: The Case for a New Progressive Conservatism' on the cover of last week's 'New York Times' magazine, specifically, the August 29th issue. I was fascinated by it, as I'm sure you will be as well. David, nice to see you.
Brooks: Good to see you.
Back to September 2, 2004