They may believe that the Epstein file release will somehow hurt Trump. But they are undermining public trust and sowing public cynicism in ways that make the entire progressive project impossible. They are contributing to a public atmosphere in which right-wing populism naturally thrives.
I have been especially startled to see Ro Khanna, a House Democrat and one of the most impressive politicians in America, use the phrase “the Epstein class” in his public statements. In an interview with my colleague David Leonhardt this week, Khanna explained that he had gotten the phrase from voters who asked him if he was on the side of “forgotten Americans” or “the Epstein class.”
Khanna tried to describe the mentality of the people he encountered: “I realized how much the abuse by rich and powerful men of young girls and the sense of a rape island that Epstein had set up for people embodied the corruption of government. And then many of them saw Donald Trump as fighting this corrupt government.”
ADDED: I'd forgotten to put quote marks around the quote in the post title. Fixed.
Posts
119 comments:
Republicans do it because they are Machiavellian; it's inexplicable why Democrats do it.
Ladies and gentleman, I give you the New York Times house conservative.
“They may believe that the Epstein file release will somehow hurt Trump. But they are undermining public trust and sowing public cynicism in ways that make the entire progressive project impossible.”
How does transparency hurt public trust? Someone connect the dots.
"the New York Times house conservative."
The pay's good (I guess).
Democrats passed legislation that made discrimination for sexual orientation (e.g. pedophilia) a hate crime. #NoJudgment #NoLabels #AllsFairInLustAndAbortion
David Brooks is described by Wikipedia as an "American conservative political and cultural commentator". So a leading conservative sees Republicans as Machiavellian and Ro Khanna as one of the nation's most impressive politicians. Only right wing extremists disagree.
The NYT captures centrists, neuters them, and brands them "conservative" so that they can move the Overton Window leftward, ever more leftward.
’…Ro Khanna, a House Democrat and one of the most impressive politicians in America’
Alrighty, then.
in ways that make the entire progressive project impossible.
Progressive?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Brooks is one of those “often wrong, never in doubt” pitchmenz.
And Ro Khanna is as impressive as a fart in a wind tunnel.
"BREAKING - Newly released campaign finance records show that from 1990 to 2018, Jeffrey Epstein directed about 89% of his political donations to Democratic and progressive causes, with notable individual recipients including Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and Chuck Schumer."
The reality is - Epstein was a Democrat who supported Democrats. That does not fit the narrative.
’…Ro Khanna, a House Democrat and one of the most impressive politicians in America’
As usual, he means in a sartorial sense.
"...They may believe that the Epstein file release will somehow hurt Trump. But they are undermining public trust and sowing public cynicism in ways that make the entire progressive project impossible. ...."
...because now we're going to see just how big Epstein's bed really was, and how many Democrats were in it, their pockets stuffed full of Epstein political donations.
How quickly the story has morphed from 'Trump is guilty' to 'Waitaminute, the victims' to 'it's not about politics !!!', the latter with a certain desperate edge to it. The elephant in the room is a jackass.
Brooks sounds like the kind of journalist who would have eagerly dined with Epstein.
’…Ro Khanna, a House Democrat and one of the most impressive politicians in America’
-I'm sure Brooks knows he's socialist like Mandami..right?"
"Machiavellian Republicans spew conspiracy theories" while Democrats mistakenly hop on a bandwagon, according to Babbling Brooks.
"They are contributing to a public atmosphere in which right-wing populism naturally thrives." Maybe it should?
DD - the left's dot connecting consists of hearsay, lies, & disconnected /unrelated quotations. Russia Russia collusion all over again. Your evidence is flimsy, often or completely manufactured, conspiratorial, slimed with BS, and it does not take you where you want it to go.
I think maybe Trump set up the democrats to cry wolf. It’s Russia collusion de-ja-vu all over again. The dems just can’t help themselves.
“…And then many of them saw Donald Trump as fighting this corrupt government.” That is because he is - whenever corrupt Democrats and their corrupt judges will permit it.
Brooks is what he is. Not a man of good moral character.
Ampersand said...
"David Brooks is described by Wikipedia.."
That says right there is it is false.
Brooks point about the public losing trust in leaders and institutions is, to a degree, reasonable. The public figures it has been and still is being sinned against. The solution is ancient - confession, repentance, and penance, preferably painful, public and bloody.
"they are undermining public trust and sowing public cynicism in ways that make the entire progressive project impossible" Well, not impossible, because lefty voters are happy to be conned and will shrug off such cynicism for the next smooth-talking Mamdani,.
But the causal argument is a useful gaffe of sorts: transparency hurts progs. Exposing the moral rot in a mostly Dem elite will undermine the entirely unearned public "trust" and sow well-earned cynicism. As a result, some of the new-fangled cynics may indeed conclude that the progressive project itself is rotten--based on false premises, promoted in bad faith, executed by scoundrels. As we righties have known since forever.
I'm sure Brooks would agree that "Baroness Margaret Hilda Thatcher remains the most contentious figure in modern British politics."
It's always the people who see things differently than the court stenographers that are "contentious". They (the "progressive" press) work hard to stoke those fires.
'...Ro Khanna, a House Democrat and one of the most impressive politicians in America’
HAHAHAHAHHAHA!
Brooks has been hitting that bong too hard.
Governor Swallowswell?
Calunicornia! You know you deserve him.
’…Ro Khanna, a House Democrat and one of the most impressive politicians in America’
Have you seen his pants' creases?
NYeT publishes a Frosty Cacaphony.
Is David Brooks worried he might show up in the Epstein Files? Is this why he is worried that a Democrat is using the term, "the Epstein Class?"
And then many of them saw Donald Trump as fighting this corrupt government.
That’s the percrption because it’s the truth.
As Jack Nicholson says …
"How does transparency hurt public trust? Someone connect the dots."
The part I quoted built on material in the previous paragraph, so let me quote that for context: "I can kind of understand why Machiavellian Republicans would spew conspiracy theories. Those theories stoke cynicism, which serves Republican ends: The government can never be trusted; politicians are all liars. Cynicism causes people to check out of politics. Or, to be more precise, it causes them to care only about politics when they can destroy something. As The Economist noted in an editorial in 2019, “Cynical politicians denigrate institutions, then vandalize them.” It’s a straight line from Candace Owens to Russell Vought."
Any use of 'spew' is spewing.
The Vault Dweller said...
Is David Brooks worried he might show up in the Epstein Files? Is this why he is worried that a Democrat is using the term, "the Epstein Class?"
Not necessarily himself, but Larry Summers may not be the only senior Democrat whose name shows up in the files. Once it dawns on people that they won’t get Trump but may wind up losing important Democrat members of the House and Senate, tha’s a different story.
Brooks is pushing from one side and yesterday Jennifer Weiner pushed from a different angle. No Democrat cared much about the female victims as long as they might get Trump. When they might get senior Democrats instead, suddenly Jennifer Weiner is worried about the poor victims and Brooks chooses to amplify Ro Khanna’s concerns about voter perceptions of an “Epstein Class.”
tim maguire said...
“Ladies and gentleman, I give you the New York Times house conservative.”
The New York Times - the house organ of the Democrats. In Brooks’ case that organ is located midway between the top of the head and the feet.
"The government can never be trusted; politicians are all liars."
Unless you have a good clean crease in your pants!
“…Or, to be more precise, it causes [Republicans] to care only about politics when they can destroy something.”
It seems to me progressives would be quicker to destroy something than conservatives. Out with the old; in with the new! Progress, Comrades! You can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs!
Whereas conservatives would be guided by Chesterton’s Fence. They would have to understand why the fence was put there in the first place before deciding to tear it down.
Or maybe Brooks is trying to avoid even talking about the position that the whole metastasized deep state-ngo-governmental complex needs to be dismantled.
Republicans disparage institutions that is verbally.
Democrats, corrupt institutions, then loot them.
Ay There’s the rub. Populism is rule by have nots. Now the Aristo’s can’t have that can they?
David Brooks is the Jim Cramer of political opinion. If you do the opposite of what he says you are better off.
@Althouse, I’m going to push back on the notion of “Machiavellian” Republicans since you haven’t. It makes it sound as though the Republican leadership sat down in a room somewhere and decided that if they resisted releasing the files then the Democrats and their media allies would go half insane demanding their release, then the GOP springs the trap.
Do you really see it that way? Because I don’t. The Republican leadership would have had to be almost clairvoyant to foresee that (1) Democrats would blunder badly with the longest government shutdown in the history of the Republic, and (2) they would attempt to recover by getting so hysterical over the Epstein Files that they’d create their own trap and then blunder right in. Was all of that foreseeable? Was any of that foreseeable?
Or, to be more precise, it causes them to care only about politics when they can destroy something.
You say "destroy," we say "humanely put down for the safety of the community."
Is Brooks still touted as the conservative of the NY Times? The other day NPR had an opinion writer on who was bashing Trump, they closed by saying he was an editor of the conservative publication The Bulwark. I started laughing so hard I almost pissed my pants. Same goes with Brooks being called a conservative, makes me giggle every time.
Brooks? Count me out…
How does transparency hurt public trust? Someone connect the dots.
The only thing conservative about Brooks, and a fair number of others like him, is his desire to keep lèse-majesté on the books as a crime against the State.
Mike Benz on X: "Is there anything more Harvard than former President of Harvard University Larry Summers asking convicted child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein for sex advice on how to cheat in an affair with the daughter of a Chinese Communist Party official he worked with? https://t.co/DLO7xvXN0u" / X https://share.google/G7TDZkbltBkZK361Q
Brooksie is not mean ive given examplss but stupid (kinda of a venn diagram)
The thing about Brooksie is that every day he comes up with a new way to show the extent of his igrnorance/bias/stupidity. He has an endless well of such.
He takes it as a challenge
"they closed by saying he was an editor of the conservative publication The Bulwark."
Brings to mind Inga "informing" us on what's happening on the right.
Next George Will will write an overly complex essay on the benefits of a Jasmine Crockett Presidency.
Why dave the story is just getting interesting (thats when they change the channel)
"How does transparency hurt public trust? Someone connect the dots."
Because there is no such thing as perfect transparency. In the case of social deviants, particularly dead ones, the clearest "transparency" is more like nacht und nebel. As I have pointed out repeatedly to the patients in the Epstein fever ward, the documents will reveal exactly nothing that will satisfy them. Some people will be embarrassed by the emails and texts. But none will be made criminally liable. The documents will, however, fuel more inflammation of the sort D.D. Driver's smoldering hostility thrives on. Smart criminals don't keep records that reveal criminal intent. That's why the Mafia still thrives. That's why Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion, but never even indicted for the dozens of murders he either personally committed or suborned. DDD's use of the phrase connect the dots is quite revealing, as if criminal prosecution is a game for childlike minds. A set of dots can be connected in many ways. A prosecutor who brings a connect-the-dots puzzle to court is going to be humiliated by the defense. Connect the dots one way and you get the Easter Bunny. Connect them differently, and you get Godzilla. It's a Rorschach test, you ninny. The only thing revealed is the psychology of the connector.
The prevailing theory right now is that the "Epstein" files, full of victims and scandalous, powerful participants, are extremely harmful to Donald Trump and that they sat untouched for over 4 years of a Biden administration who exhaustively set out to destroy Trump via all means - including the Justice department.
And that this theory is being pushed by democrats now without real aforethought.
Seriously people?
- Epstein is clearly a tool of at least one government
- Epstein operated for decades at the highest levels of society
- Epstein's illegal activities and exploitation of women and children was well known and established far before his arrest in 2019. A U.S. Attorney under President Bush let Epstein off the hook despite a very well documented (by the FBI) series of abuse of dozens of women and girls. This happened in 2008, but built up evidence from years prior.
- Alex Acosta, the U.S. attorney in the prior point, told Trump's first transition team that "Epstein was part of intelligence and to leave him alone.
- Epstein claimed to be an intelligence agent and at least at one point was believed to be British intelligence.
- Epstein's personal worth was >$500 million at the time of his death and he was a master financier in many ways, so it is entirely possible far more of his wealth was hidden or simply not under his name.
I could go on and on, but the point is this concept this figure was anything other than someone well known to be a financial criminal and criminally abusive towards women - globally and well within the U.S. courts and government and financial systems - is just bunk. He was tolerated, and tolerated for a reason. And it's not unique to one party or one billionaire.
For crying out loud, a single Epstein victim has had a member of the British royal family evicted from his position.
"Epstein class" would seem to include David Brooks. While I don't think Brooks has ever been anything other than progressive, he is giving the Democrats good advice on this matter that they won't take- the Epstein files are going to disappoint the newly minted conspiracy theorists on the Left.
“…because now we're going to see just how big Epstein's bed really was, and how many Democrats were in it, their pockets stuffed full of Epstein political donations.”
If that were the case, Trump would’ve released the files months ago and wouldn’t have worked so hard to suppress it. Do you think Trump would’ve protected all those Democrats in Epstein’s bed? Seriously? Why did the left fight so hard to get the files released? Because we think that the perpetrators of sexual abuse of underage girls should be revealed to give some justice to the victims.
None of us know what if anything will be ultimately revealed. From the left we hear “Release the files and let the chips fall where they may”, from the right we hear excuses as to why the files should’ve remained sealed and NOW we hear how the files will have hoards of Democrats in them. We hear very little if anything about justice for the victims coming from the right, they’re to busy salivating over all the Democrats they think will be exposed.
Why is Brooks propping up the third leg of the liberal triad? A Democratic dissonant progression.
The media always writes about Epstein's Island as if it were 10 y.o. girls chained to beds, instead of twice-well-paid late teenagers who have since lost their agency, because no woman can be made to feel bad about her bad decisions. Someone on X claimed the "victim" in front of Pelosi at the recent Capitol Hill vigil imagined herself there from a recovered memory.
Epstein, as many on the left and the right have said could’ve been running a blackmail scheme for Israel. The US government under both Democrats and Republican presidents may have been willing to sacrifice the victims’ quest for justice to keep this state sponsored blackmail scheme quiet.
Of course that sounds like more conspiracy theory…
Yes the arrows point in one major direction prominent figures in finance media and academia almost exclusively democrats
Inag - why didn't democrats Release the files while Biden was President?
They had 4 years.
Monica Lewinski was a teen ager when President Bill Clinton groomed her and raped her. He was almost 30 years older than her.
If Epstein wanted to blackmail people - he had all sorts of opportunity.
Yet - he never did.
Quaestor - wise words.
A question or two for Brooks (and the lefties):
Would it "undermine public trust" and "sow public cynicism" if the "files" had exposed Trump as an ephebophile monster and/or someone who was being blackmailed by Epstein?
Why would that be a bad thing? Why would it not be good if prominent Democrats are exposed?
Any of the island women go willingly? How many were underage? Any of them benefit from the arrangements? Maybe some have settled down and have families and do not want their sordid past exposed. THOSe are the people Trump attempted to protect..
From the left we hear “Release the files and let the chips fall where they may”
Do you actually read what Althouse posts? Brooks is now saying--on behalf of "the progressive project" that the chips should be swept under the rug.
What?! Democrats don't have conspiracy theories of their own?! Spare me.
Man made global warming.
Trump pee pee tape.
Trans women are women.
Get the picture?
“Do you actually read what Althouse posts? Brooks is now saying--on behalf of "the progressive project" that the chips should be swept under the rug.”
Brooks is a conservative and doesn’t speak for progressives.
Remember the old days when out and proud militant homosexuals outed their "in the closet" brethren? Being gay was not widely accepted, closeted were embarrassed, shunned, humiliated, fired. Families destroyed, suicides.
Inga and her gang had hoped for similar results with release of files.
We hear very little if anything about justice for the victims coming from the right, they’re to busy salivating over all the Democrats they think will be exposed.
If "the victims" hadn't already received at least $750 Million worth of "justice," perhaps you would hear more.
But let the lawsuits go forth. I have not heard of anyone on "the right" opposing this. Frankly it's been hard to hear anything over the Democrats baying for Trumpian blood.
Chomsky being on the hook is rocky road favor of schadenfreude
Thats what the 2002 settlements were about
Brooks is a conservative and doesn’t speak for progressives.
Ahahahaha!
I'm curious as to the last time Brooks actually expressed agreement with a "conservative" political view. About anything.
"Brooks is a conservative"
No. Not even close.
This is why we laugh at your reporting on what's going on with conservatives.
The soap opera about poor dr jin is the least interesting part of ghe story
The global sysgy which is govt academia media
"Brooks is a conservative and doesn’t speak for progressives."
Is Inag dishonest or just stupid?
You would think they would quit while they are ahead
David Brooks: A political and cultural commentator who has been a columnist for The New York Times since 2003 and describes himself as a "moderate Republican".
Now he wants release the pillows (until the story stops moving)
"Is Inag dishonest or just stupid?"
Embrace the power of AND.
There hasnt been a decent center right figure since william saffire (he was mostly a libertarian)
Quaestor said...
"Is Inag dishonest or just stupid?"
While Inga believes some of what she posts, most of her stuff is for he own amusement. Imagine our normals here going on Daily Kos, MSNBC, The Nation, New York Times etc, and posting stuff to get them riled up.
She crossed the line last night joking about Kirks murder and suggesting Jews were gonna get Musk next.
"David Brooks: A political and cultural commentator who has been a columnist for The New York Times since 2003 and describes himself as a "moderate Republican"."
Do you really think, Inga, that no one here knows what the NYT, and Brooks himself, claims to be his political leanings? The only real question is whether Brooks and the Times believes it themselves.
He was right about bobbie inman about total information awareness among other things
narciso said...
Chomsky being on the hook is rocky road favor of schadenfreude
It truly is, but it shouldn't really surprise anyone. Many of the big lefty thinkers of the last half century have been super creepy.
Yes but his rep as anarchist dissident (actually commie apologists notably in year zero)
I laugh at Trumpers who are stuck in the purity bubble, Brooks isn’t a Trumpist, so he can’t be a conservative… yeah whatever.
Oh don't be so naive and historically ignorant - Inag.
Brooks has been a phony "conservative" for decades.
Brooks is a "Moderate Republican" - LOL. Who happens to always support and vote for, democrats.
..."We hear very little if anything about justice for the victims coming from the right, they’re to busy salivating over all the Democrats they think will be exposed. ...."
They didn't have to salivate for very long, did they Inga? What's the body count, so far? And how many Republicans? Oh, that's right. Well, maybe we can start with a list of political donations. Oh.
You seem to be assuming that nobody had access to all these files during the previous administration, but maybe it's more likely that somebody went searching for 'Trump' with 110% effort, but when their word search came up with nothing they could use, they didn't bother actually wading into the material to understand it? I guess we'll find out, eh? I've got a feeling the media tide is shifting a little bit, maybe bringing in some new blood into the White House media pool will mean the Democrats don't get full free political cover anymore? You're OK with that - right?
Inga said... Brooks isn’t a Trumpist, so he can’t be a conservative… yeah whatever.
Name one person other than you who has ever said that.
Brooks has supported the Democratic candidate in every presidential election of the last 20 years and supports the liberal position on every issue in the public debate.
Conservatives hold conservative positions and liberals hold liberal positions. That's how it works, in case you didn't know.
The 'purity bubble' you refer to, Inga, is the one where some dufus that refers to himself as 'conservative' for employment reasons, is actually required to show some behavioral indications that he really is one, from time to time. This 'purity bubble' is also sometimes be called 'proof through action'.
That's why us 'cultists' sometimes find it useful to watch what people actually do and react accordingly, instead of relying on what they say , like simpletons and true cultists do.
We are surrounded by this sea of shallow biased trash from the local tv station to the gannett and tribune chains to the times (remarkably they have exactly the same take: how does that happen?)
Inga is the real cultist. Tired nonsense, boomerang logic, blind to facts, unabated loyal belief in every conspiracy theory, (even after it explodes into bits and the lie is revealed underneath.) She stays the course.
Inga said "Brooks is a conservative and doesn’t speak for progressives."
that right there has us all laughing.
Maybe some have settled down and have families and do not want their sordid past exposed. THOSe are the people Trump attempted to protect..
----------
Bullshit.
Let me see if I can do this here:
Epstein israel
Epstein israel
Epstein israel
Epstein Israel
EpsteinIsrael
It's not so much about connecting dots, but transparency.
The Epstein class Brooks fears are the globalist Jews.
ann likely knows this.
Cohens are not Epsteins but there must be a reason mama bear suddenly wants her cubs back in madison living next door. A lot of Jews will get swept up into the witchhunt even if they don't identify as Jews, like brooks and her own boys...
Open your eyes people?
Everybody wants to take risks
nobody wants to take the losses.
David Brooks is a Jew.
In the end, that's what they all fear being identified as.
"Are you a good witch,
or a bad witch?" isn't
often asked in most witchhunts.
Don't look now when you decide to run
but the waystation refuge up ahead is closed.
Monica Lewinski was a teen ager
She was 22 and a college graduate.
Progressives are Diverse, Equivocal, and Indifferent. Politically Congruent. #HateLovesAbortion
Conservatives are pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness under a Constitution that mitigates authoritarian progress and liberal license.
David Brooks is a ventriloquist's dummy for the Left, complete with bow tie.
Monica was an intern sexually exploited in a power differential relationship a la Polanski, Epstein, trans groomer-gate, #MeToo, etc. #NoJudgment #NoLabels #HateLovesAbortion
I do read the Times like a very dark comic strip, for reasons i've spelled out before, the Bezos post has surpassed it, in some regards,
Convention of libtards: Conspiracy? Or Comedy Gold… you be the judge…
https://x.com/its_The_Dr/status/1991663419200557284?s=20
was that the Texas Tribune, that was a barrel of monkeys,
’He was right about bobbie inman about total information awareness among other things’
Almost posted something about the admiral the other day, but thought better of it. He’s still alive… lol
Brooks has embarrassed himself so many times that a self-respecting intellectual would only mention him in order to mock him. He's one of those people who can't even get the easy stuff right.
Uber deep stater Larry Summers was fired so thoroughly that he was not even allowed to teach the last 3 weeks of his current class at Harvard.
NYT fired him, didn't renew his contract, so thoroughly that they are paying out his contract without letting him actually write anything.
Stacey Plasket, the New Yorker who represents Little St James A/K/A Pedo Island, is walking dead.
Ditto Hakeem Jefferies.
Clintons may have to flee the country to avoid appearing before congress to talk about pedo island.
No wonder the Dems don't want to talk about the document dumps.
Careful what you wish for, Dems.
Strangely, nothing negative about Trump has ever come out of the Epstein files. Not recently, not under Biden, not under Obama, not never.
Some say that this is evidence that Trump is complicit. They drag up the Sherlock Holmes trope of "The dog that didn't bark"
They are fundamentally silly people who have nothing.
But will keep telling us the walls are closing in!
John Henry
its amusing and exasperating at once,
Machiavelli is just about courtship in general.
But they keep telling us the walls are closing in.
Machiavelli as courtship is in Kenneth Burke's A Rhetoric of Motives.
Brooks sounds like the kind of journalist who would have eagerly dined with Epstein”. Epstein didn’t traffic little boys to my knowledge, but mebbe any port in a storm?
David Brooks and Ben Shapiro have a lot in common.
Inga said...
I laugh at Trumpers who are stuck in the purity bubble, Brooks isn’t a Trumpist, so he can’t be a conservative… yeah whatever.
You laugh because you are a retard and you don't know what you are talking about.
What was wrong with Bobby Inman, besides his eyebrows?
let us say he had a strong 'realist' perspective toward certain states in the levant,
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.