David Brooks: What I love when I love America

posted in: All news | 0

Americans used to be nearly universally proud of their country. In January 2001, 90% of Republicans and 87% of Democrats said they were extremely or very proud to be American. Now the situation has changed. Today, 92% of Republicans still say they are very proud to be American, but only 36% of Democrats say that, according to a recent Gallup survey.

Members of the two parties have different sorts of pride in their country. Republican pride is unconditional. Democrats like Barack Obama and Joe Biden can get elected to the presidency, and it has almost no effect on the pride Republicans feel for America. Democratic pride is more conditional. It dropped a bit during George W. Bush’s first term, then began to gradually decline during the Great Awokening around 2014 and really collapsed during each of President Donald Trump’s two terms.

The trend is especially strong among the young. More Generation Z Democrats say they feel little or no pride in being American than say they feel very proud.

I don’t side much with the party of MAGA these days, but my patriotism is more like the Republican kind — unconditional. My love of country this Thanksgiving season is not based on what this or that politician does, but on what America has always been.

Its ability to arouse ambition

Let me put it this way: Through most of Western history, leading thinkers regarded ambition as an unmitigated sin. For much of civilization, people have lived in societies with feudal pecking orders; everybody had the station they were born into and would die in — peasant, merchant, aristocrat. To be ambitious was to try to rise above your station and thus disturb the whole system. Children who showed hints of ambition were told the story of Icarus, the man who tried to fly too high above his station and crashed to Earth, to his death.

Even a great man like St. Augustine argued that Adam and Eve were cast out of paradise because Adam “hungered for more than should have sufficed.” Centuries later, John Calvin was also warning about people who were so overly ambitious that they lusted to eat from the tree of knowledge: “We all daily suffer under the same disease, because we desire to know more than is right, and more than God allows.”

Ambition’s reputation in Europe didn’t begin to shift until the discovery of the New World. Suddenly there were new continents to explore; it wasn’t a zero-sum world anymore. From the start, America aroused great dreams, great energies, great ambitions. J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur, a Frenchman, came to America to fight in the French and Indian War in the mid-18th century and then settled on a farm up the Hudson River from New York. “A European, when he first arrives, seems limited in his intentions,” he wrote, “but he very suddenly alters his scale; two hundred miles formerly appeared a very great distance, it is now but a trifle; he no sooner breathes our air than he forms schemes and embarks in designs he never would have thought of in his own country.”

That’s what I love when I love America — its ability to arouse ambition, energy and activity. But here’s the catch. When you love America for its raw energy, you are loving it for a force that also produces crassness, materialism and, from time to time, immaturity. That is to say, the same cultural winds that propel the noble aspirations of an Abraham Lincoln also propel the gaudy display of a Donald Trump and the occasional recklessness of an Elon Musk.

America’s most faithful lovers have always seen that America’s spiritual greatness is intertwined with its embarrassing materialism. In his 1871 book, “Democratic Vistas,” Walt Whitman acknowledged Americans’ “almost maniacal appetite for wealth.” He lamented, “Never was there, perhaps, more hollowness at heart than at present.” Yet America’s striving ethos nonetheless serves as “a training school for making grand young men. It is life’s gymnasium” that produces “freedom’s athletes.” Whitman never stopped celebrating the nobility of regular working people: “Popular democracy, whatever its faults and dangers, practically justifies itself beyond the proudest claims and wildest hopes of its enthusiasts.”

Lincoln was regarded by Whitman, and by so many of the rest of us, as the embodiment of the American creed. His ambition, his law partner William Henry Herndon once said, was an engine that knew no rest. “I hold the value of life is to improve one’s condition,” Lincoln himself declared. It was precisely this same sense of possibility that Franklin Roosevelt loved about America, its capacity to encourage what his cousin Theodore called the “strenuous life.” Happiness, FDR argued, “lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort.”

These days it can seem that most Americans have lost faith in all that. A recent Wall Street Journal-NORC poll found that only 31% of Americans believe in the American dream — the idea that you can get ahead by working hard. Nearly half of Americans say they used to believe in it but no longer do, while 23% say they never did.

Maybe that state of demoralization explains why Americans watch passively as China leapfrogs us in one scientific and technological field after another. More papers in the elite scientific journals are now written by Chinese scholars than by American ones. Why are we not doing everything we can to preserve our status as the nation of futurity?

And yet …

And yet I don’t quite believe that the American spirit has been as thoroughly trampled as it can sometimes appear. Yes, the country is in a low mood. But a nation’s cultural DNA is not something that gets rewritten in a decade.

If you probe more deeply you find that Americans still hold on to the values that have for centuries defined us most clearly.

According to a July Pew survey, nearly 80% of Americans say immigration is “a good thing” for America. Only 30% of Americans want immigration levels to decrease.

A survey this year sponsored by the Reagan Institute found that 83% of Americans believe America should stand up for human rights and democracy around the world. A large majority believe that America should take the lead in international events, including 69% of Republicans and 73% of self-identified MAGA Republicans.

A study done by Seamus A. Power, Richard A. Schweder and others and published this year in the journal Ethos, found that Americans still love diversity. Two-thirds of them want a more ethnically and racially diverse nation than exists even now. A majority of white Christians have a multicultural conception of America. Only a tiny percentage believe in the “great replacement” theory. Only 1.1% believe that America should be ethnically and racially homogenous.

Political lunacy

Some Democrats like Gov. Gavin Newsom of California seem to think they can win the White House by behaving more like Trump, by thinking more like Trump, by adopting that dark American carnage vibe. This strikes me as political lunacy.

Look at history. Americans lost faith in themselves in the 1970s, after the failures of the Great Society, the retreat from Vietnam, the corruption of Watergate, the impotent presidency of Jimmy Carter, the rising crime and divorce rates, the awful stagflation, the decay of our largest cities. But was this loss of faith permanent? No, Americans elected Ronald Reagan president in 1980. They elected optimism, patriotism and hope. There is still, deep inside the nation’s core, a little engine that knows no rest.

David Brooks writes a column for the New York Times.

Related Articles


Nina Stachenfeld: So DEI doesn’t work. What would be better?


Maureen Dowd: Time to let my brother do the carving


Noah Feldman: How constitutional limits become negotiable


Thanksgiving and the new births of freedom


Mary Ellen Klas: Since when is it treason to defend the rule of law?

Allison Schrager: There are worse things than rising inequality

posted in: All news | 0

The good news is that Americans have never been richer. The bad news is that most of them don’t feel like it.

There has been tremendous growth in income and wealth in the U.S. in the last half century, even for poorer and middle-class households. But because of the nature of that growth, as well as the changing structure of the national economy, a lot of the people who have benefited also believe that the economy isn’t working for them.

It is true the middle class is shrinking. In the 1960s the income distribution of U.S. households looked like a bell curve with a very thick middle. Today there are fewer Americans in the middle — largely because many have joined the ranks of the upper-middle class. In 1967, a little more than 5% of Americans earned or received more than $150,000 (in 2024 dollars). Now more than 30% do. And it’s not just the middle class that moved up: In 1967, more than 38% earned or received less than $50,000. Now that figure is 21%.

Income inequality also increased. The very rich — the top 5% and especially the top 1% — got much richer than everyone else, even the top 20%. The income distribution curve has flattened as more people have moved into the upper part, with the upper tail moving even further from everyone else.

The result? More Americans than ever are affluent — and more have the sense that something is wrong with the economy.

Americans earned more for several reasons. The first is that neoliberal economic policies worked as intended. In the last 50 years, there have been big increases in productivity, solid GDP growth and, since the 1980s, low and predictable inflation. All this helped make most Americans richer.

There has also been a decline in unionization, which helped to compress wages between the upper tail of the income distribution and the middle. More Americans now go to college, where they incur debt but also increase their lifetime earnings, especially as technology favors people with degrees. America is also older, and people tend to earn more later in their careers. On the lower end, income grew in part because the figure includes welfare benefits and tax credits.

There are legitimate reasons that many households feel poorer, even if their income is greater. It is a struggle to keep up with the price increases of many critical services in regulated sectors such as health care, education and housing. There is also some justified anxiety that the earnings growth and prosperity won’t continue. The last 60 years was the Era of the Baby Boomers, when income gains were large for anyone who went to college. The college premium still exists, but it has stopped growing and it comes at a higher cost.

And while technology and trade have made everyone richer, they have made a far smaller group of people much, much richer. It’s not just the handful of people who are rich beyond comprehension. There are hundreds of Americans who are worth more than a billion dollars. This is in part because technology changed and a few firms earned more — and paid more — than the rest. Working in certain industries also means much higher earnings. And a superstar economy rewards high performers much more than everyone else, whether that superstar is Taylor Swift or a talented manager in a fast-growing corporation.

To be clear, this system helps create economic growth that makes everyone better off. But in the very top tier of income, it can feel like a zero-sum competition between the merely affluent and the truly rich.

This poses a challenge not just for economic planners but for the very meaning of prosperity. Growth and rising incomes are usually the goal of economic policy, including neoliberal economic policy. But the last two decades show that rising incomes aren’t always enough to engender good feelings about the economy.

This intra-top-quartile resentment may also help explain why more politicians want higher taxes on super-high earners but don’t ask the upper middle class to pay any more. The taxes are not just a way to pay for more middle-class welfare benefits. They are a form of economic retribution.

The catch is that there is a tradeoff between growth and equality. At least some of the growth at the top came from more productivity. Innovative companies, some founded or led by billionaires, help make the American economy (or at least Americans’ stock portfolios) richer. Yes, there is room to increase taxes on the rich, but punitive taxes can harm growth.

The idea that the economy is rigged and zero-sum is leading to a rise in populism in both parties. The result will probably be less trade and more price controls, which would mean a slower-growing economy — or even one that is shrinking. Then Americans will learn that the only thing worse than rising inequality is flat or declining income.

Allison Schrager is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering economics. A senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, she is author of “An Economist Walks Into a Brothel: And Other Unexpected Places to Understand Risk.”

Related Articles


Nina Stachenfeld: So DEI doesn’t work. What would be better?


Maureen Dowd: Time to let my brother do the carving


Noah Feldman: How constitutional limits become negotiable


Thanksgiving and the new births of freedom


Mary Ellen Klas: Since when is it treason to defend the rule of law?

Nina Stachenfeld: So DEI doesn’t work. What would be better?

posted in: All news | 0

It is no secret that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs are under attack in our country. They have been blamed for undermining free speech, meritocracy, and America itself. The University of Virginia is the latest to settle with the government and walk away from its DEI initiatives rather than defend its programs or find a new solution.

Those who decry DEI say they do so in the name of meritocracy. They argue that those who benefit from DEI programs do so at the expense of other, more qualified individuals, and that these programs are weakening professions such as our military, science, education, and health care.

But these arguments have it exactly backwards. DEI programs were never designed to give privilege to underrepresented people. They were put in place to chip away at discrimination and nepotism, both concepts that are antithetical to meritocracy.

The idea that we had a merit-based system before DEI is a fantasy. A true meritocracy is devoid of racism, sexism, and ageism. It doesn’t exclude based on ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, sexual identity, or other biases. In a true meritocracy, no one would have an advantage simply because of the socioeconomic station into which they were born.

Yet we do not all start on a level playing field. Consider the systemic and structural racial and ethnic discrimination built into our system. Consider low funding levels for non-white schools. Consider repeated instances of environmental racism and poor access to health care for minorities, which result in high rates of both acute and chronic illnesses, increased school absences for children, and greater morbidity and mortality rates in adults.

According to a 2024 White House report, Racial Discrimination in Contemporary America, racial discrimination accounts for the loss of trillions of dollars in the U.S. When kids go to poorly funded schools, they can’t access the stepping stones to success, such as basic health care, college training programs, afterschool activities, and standardized test training.

Then there’s persistent sex discrimination. A recent study found that in all but one age group, men continue to earn 15% more than women. The gap has continued even as more educated and experienced women enter the workforce and attain the managerial and higher-paying jobs that had been reserved for men.

Women also report being treated differently by employers, and sexual harassment remains an issue for more women than men, both in public spaces and within the workplace. The MeToo Report found 26% of all respondents experienced sexual harassment or assault between 2018-2024, with women more than twice as likely to experience this than men (32% vs.15%).

Critics of DEI programs have offered nothing to replace DEI other than a return to norms that perpetuate their false meritocracy, like legacy preferences in university admissions. The Institute of Higher Education reported that 42% of private four-year colleges considered legacy in their admission process in 2022. Unsurprisingly, it also found that the more racially diverse universities are the ones that do not consider legacy. Although these impacts on racial diversity might be small, they are meaningful and clearly unmeritocratic.

Nepotism has a similar antimeritocracy effect in our other institutions. Indeed, nepotism was so alive and well in 2020 in the Army that they wrote a policy to stop it.

DEI programs were introduced to counter biases such as legacy and nepotism. The goal was to level the playing field, expand access to opportunity for a broader range of students, and identify and develop the most talented individuals.

Our society improves when we include more voices and talents in our institutions. A study published by the Boston University School of Public Health found that when DEI programs are successful, they reduce racist and sexist attitudes, reduce ageism, and improve organizational culture, as well as conflict resolution and job satisfaction. This study also concluded that successful DEI programs are those implemented at the institutional rather than individual level and include longitudinal training.

We should not now run from DEI programs and look to the past for false meritocracies. Rather, we need to learn what works and what does not work when it comes to identifying, nurturing, and promoting talent.

Studies show that DEI opponents object to perceived threats to the status quo. To forestall these objections, new programs aimed at leveling the playing field could emphasize that the workplace will continue to uphold its values and that everyone — including the majority — will remain treated fairly.

Rather than truly attempt to problem-solve, diminish discrimination, and allow institutions to draw on the broadest pool of talent available, today’s DEI opponents have only resurrected the discriminatory policies of the past. We all must have the courage to imagine what a truly inclusive and fair society could look like.

Nina Stachenfeld is a Senior Research Scientist at Yale University School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences. Dr. Stachenfeld is also a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project in partnership with Yale University. She wrote this column for The Fulcrum, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news platform covering efforts to fix our governing systems.

Today in History: November 30, ‘Fast & Furious’ star Paul Walker killed in crash

posted in: All news | 0

Today is Sunday, Nov. 30, the 334th day of 2025. There are 31 days left in the year.

Today in history:

On Nov. 30,2013, actor Paul Walker, star of the “Fast & Furious” movie series, was killed in a single-car accident north of Los Angeles; Walker’s friend Roger Rodas, who was driving the car, also died. Walker was 40 years old.

Also on this date:

In 1782, the United States and Britain signed preliminary peace articles in Paris for ending the Revolutionary War; the Treaty of Paris was signed in September 1783.

Related Articles


Today in History: November 29, the Sand Creek Massacre


Teen brands win over wary Black Friday shoppers while other deals disappoint


Lawsuit: Meta allowed sex-trafficking posts on Instagram as it put profit over kids’ safety


Melania Trump launches production company ahead of controversial Amazon doc


Airlines adopt software fix for Airbus A320 after plane has sudden altitude drop

In 1936, London’s Crystal Palace exhibition hall was destroyed by a massive fire.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed the Brady Bill, which required a five-day waiting period for handgun purchases and background checks of prospective buyers.

In 1999, an estimated 40,000 demonstrators clashed with police as they protested against the World Trade Organization as the WTO convened in Seattle.

In 2004, “Jeopardy!” fans saw Ken Jennings end his 74-game winning streak as he lost to real estate agent Nancy Zerg. Years later, Jennings became the host of “Jeopardy!”

In 2012, Israel approved the construction of 3,000 homes in Jewish settlements on occupied lands, drawing swift condemnation from Palestinians a day after their successful bid for recognition by the United Nations.

In 2018, former President George H.W. Bush, a World War II hero who rose through the political ranks to the nation’s highest office, died at his Houston home at the age of 94; his wife of more than 70 years, Barbara Bush, had died in April.

In 2024, Syrian insurgents took over most of Aleppo, the country’s largest city, facing little or no resistance from government troops. The insurgents would capture the capital of Damascus days later in December as President Bashar al-Assad fled the country, ending his family’s decades-long rule of Syria.

Today’s Birthdays:

Filmmaker Woody Allen is 90.
Filmmaker Ridley Scott is 88.
Historian and screenwriter Geoffrey C. Ward is 85.
Filmmaker Terrence Malick is 82.
Playwright David Mamet (MA’-meht) is 78.
Actor Mandy Patinkin is 73.
Singer Billy Idol is 70.
Historian Michael Beschloss is 70.
Comedian Colin Mochrie is 68.
Actor-filmmaker Ben Stiller is 60.
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is 54.
Singer Clay Aiken is 47.
Actor-filmmaker Gael García Bernal is 47.
Actor Elisha Cuthbert is 43.
Actor Kaley Cuoco (KWOH’-koh) is 40.
Model Chrissy Teigen is 40.
Chess grandmaster Magnus Carlsen is 35.