David Brooks disapproves of Trump

.
In a recent op-ed in the New York Times, David Brooks, the political commentator and columnist expresses his earnest condemnation of Donald Trump.

But rejecting Donald Trump is one thing, but suggesting a remedy to prevent this situation happening repeatedly is quite another.

Fifty years ago, the US--and most of the world--was under the leadership of a small, educated elite.  The story of most nations is the story of wriggling out of the control of this kind of elite.  This was the case in China, in the US, in Britain, in Germany and France, in Australia, India, Pakistan, practically every country on the planet.

There were a few advantages to being led by an elite.  Being what they were, they were rarely interested in international political aggression.  Like the Monarchies that had gone before, the Kings and Queens were all "cousins", and war was synonymous with family quarrel.  With the educated elite, they all knew each other, had all attended Cambridge or Princeton or the Sorbonne, and misunderstandings could be quickly cleared up.

But Politics is nothing if there is no participation by the people.  The common citizen may be better off leaving government to the eggheads, but ultimately Democracy--thinking of it as government of the people, by the people, for the people--holds out the promise that the rights of the people have to be backed by the right to vote and be heard, and that the rights  of people should not be left to the whims and fancies of a ruling minority, no matter how benevolent.

That's a lot to absorb.  It seems obvious, until you realize that in the good old days, it was the benevolent Ivy Leaguers who acted as caretakers of the people.  Gradually the people, all over the world, are becoming more interested in presenting their interests and their needs directly, without the mediation of well-meaning experts.

A lot of the civility of old-time US politics can be attributed to the unwritten rules of good behavior in Congress and the White House (not good behavior from the point of view of adultery, mind you; just from the point of view of civil discourse, keeping the welfare of the people front and center, putting the welfare of the electorate above that of one's family, and so on).

Gradually, the people wanted their own champions in Washington, and we have had some very questionable people's champions indeed.  Then, of course, Big Business wanted its champions in Washington, and some of the slimier "People's Champions" were only too delighted to offer their services to Big Business.

But the influx of slime into Washington is entirely legal.  Lobbying is entirely legal.  If lobbying as it stands at present were to be outlawed, other methods of persuasion will be discovered by Big Business, which has a lot of money to spend.

And here's the bad news: because of the sort of clever slime-mongers who we find in positions of responsibility today, and because of how we depend on various commercial sources for our information (and, more dangerously, our thinking) today, those of us who are most intellectually vulnerable will continue to be swayed by slime-mongers.  Just because the rest of us don't like Donald Trump doesn't mean that we can ever find a way of ensuring that such a person will not win the candidacy again.  I am honestly unable to think of a fair way of preventing a huckster such as Trump from winning the candidacy of some party every single time.

The anti-intellectual environment that seems here to stay ("My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" - Isaac Asimov) makes it impossible to educate our way out of this mess.  I teach mathematics at a four-year college, and it requires students to take at least one course in mathematics.  This is well-intentioned, and I am unable to think of an alternative.  But the students who think of mathematics as an unnecessary hurdle that will never benefit them at all are in the vast majority.  In fact, the vast majority of students regard a college education as a mere hurdle, and not an opportunity to learn something.  It is to these people that Trump appeals, in addition to those who have lost their jobs, lost their homes, and lost members of their families to various things that can be blamed on the government.  People resent education, and Trump comes across as the champion of something for nothing, a fellow who is successful despite not thinking very deeply at all.  Thinking is hard, and Trump is a long-awaited, welcome relief.

But what is the solution?  I don't know.  Something very radical will have to be done.

Arch