In a recent piece, columnist David Brooks expressed his deep concerns about the current state of American democracy, particularly in the wake of Donald Trump’s influence on the Republican Party. Brooks, a moderate conservative, lamented the apparent failure of democratic institutions to counteract what he perceives as a growing authoritarianism. He referenced historical figures like Cicero and Cato, questioning their effectiveness in preventing tyranny, and posed a critical question: “Why hasn’t a resistance movement materialized here?”
This inquiry is particularly poignant given the recent wave of protests across the nation, where millions have taken to the streets to voice their dissent. Brooks’ call for a mass movement of resistance echoes a sentiment that many activists have been advocating for years. However, it is worth noting that these protests are often driven by grassroots efforts rather than the guidance of established pundits like Brooks.
Brooks envisions a coalition that transcends traditional political boundaries, one that combines populist and progressive ideals. He suggests that such a movement could reshape public sentiment and challenge the prevailing narratives of class and culture wars. Yet, his vision seems to align more with the desires of centrist figures who oppose Trump but are hesitant to embrace more radical progressive ideas.
Interestingly, Brooks’ prescription for a resistance movement includes “brave, disciplined, and dignified” nonviolent tactics, which many activists have already employed. The Black Lives Matter movement and various anti-Trump protests have demonstrated these qualities, often at great personal risk. Yet, Brooks appears to overlook these existing efforts, implying that they fall short of his standards.
Historically, Brooks has been critical of movements that challenge the status quo. For instance, during the height of the Occupy Wall Street protests, he dismissed participants as lacking credible ideas. His past critiques suggest a pattern of skepticism towards grassroots activism, which raises questions about his current advocacy for a mass movement.
The reality is that the United States has a complex history with protest movements, often characterized by a resistance to lasting change. As author Kurt Vonnegut noted about the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War, the collective effort can sometimes feel less like a powerful force and more like a futile gesture. This cynicism about the effectiveness of mass movements is not unfounded, as many activists have experienced the challenges of sustaining momentum and achieving tangible results.
While Brooks acknowledges the need for a resistance movement, he fails to recognize that such movements often arise organically from the communities they seek to represent. His insistence on a specific ideological framework may inadvertently stifle the very diversity of thought and action that could drive meaningful change.
In conclusion, while Brooks raises valid concerns about the trajectory of American democracy, his perspective may not resonate with those who are already engaged in the fight against authoritarianism. Activists and protesters have been carving out their paths, often without the guidance of established figures. For those seeking inspiration, it may be more beneficial to look towards the voices of those on the ground rather than the prescriptions of a columnist whose views may not align with the realities of contemporary activism.
