This NYT article tries to explain why Donald Trump remains popular in the polls despite facing frequent indictments. Brooks explores two different perspectives on Trump's appeal. One perspective comes from anti-Trump individuals who see his supporters as reactionary bigots and authoritarians, while they see themselves as tropes of progressive forces of enlightenment. However, Brooks challenges this view and presents a more reasoned and alternative perspective.
Brooks suggests that the educated elite class, including anti-Trumpers, might actually be the "bad guys" in this story. They argue that this class created a system of meritocracy that favors academic achievement and excludes others. Highly educated parents pass their privileges to their children, leading to a concentration of power among the educated elite. This elite class dominates professions, media, and politics, and they tend to congregate in a few prosperous metro areas.
The elite class regularly supports policies that benefit themselves, like free trade and open immigration, and free tuition, but may negatively impact others. They use language and cultural norms as tools to recognize one another and exclude those who don't conform to their standards. The erosion of social norms, such as discouraging having children outside of marriage, affects less-educated classes more severely. The Brookings study on poverty shows a direct correlation between out of wedlock children and generational poverty.
Brooks doesn't label the elite as "vicious or evil" but points out that they benefit from "oppressive systems." This disconnect between the elite class and the less-educated classes creates a sense of economic, political, and cultural assault, leading many to rally around Trump as their champion against the elite. This is especially true as "rules for thee but not for me" manifests throughout the country.
While Brooks holds the opinion that Trump's indictments are not a political witch hunt, he emphasizes the need for self-reflection and discretion among the elite class. The article ends on this note: The elite class must stop behaving in ways that make Trumpism inevitable and at least attempt to address the grievances of the less-educated classes.
The NYT article presents two perspectives on Trump's popularity: one sees his supporters as bigots and Trump as a monster who deserves punishment, while the other views the elite class as the architects of a system designed to exclude and oppress, leading to a backlash represented by Trump's appeal. Brooks calls for a deeper understanding of the underlying issues to bridge the vast divide between the two groups.
Sociologist E. Digby Baltzell wrote decades ago, “History is a graveyard of classes which have preferred caste privileges to leadership.” That is the destiny the elite class is now flirting with. We can condemn the Trumpian populists all day until the cows come home, but the real question is when will the elites stop behaving in ways that make Trumpism inevitable?
