Brooks and Capehart on how voters are reacting to federal cuts
It is finally sinking in just how dire our circumstances are right now.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Transcript Produced by ChatGPT on 3.22.25:
AMNA NAWAZ: For more on the mood on the ground from voters and the other big political stories that are shaping the week, we turn now to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That is New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post. Great to see you both.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: Thank you, Amna.
AMNA NAWAZ: Let's pick up where Lisa left off there. David, kick us off here. The anger she reported on yesterday from people at a town hall for a Republican lawmaker in Nebraska — frustration with the Democratic lawmaker tonight, he's not doing more — what do you take away from this? And what do you think lawmakers are taking away from these town halls during this recess?
DAVID BROOKS: Yes, it's a traumatic time, obviously. A lot of us feel traumatized and embarrassed, grief-ridden by what's happening in the country. But a couple of things have to be said.
First, the town halls are not representative of where the country is. Obviously, people who show up at a town hall are unrepresentative. And if you look where the country is, you have got to have anecdotes, like a town hall — oh, maybe that's something. But then you have got to have data. And so far, the polls show Trump is slipping a little, but not a lot. And so we haven't yet seen the kind of collapse the town halls kind of suggest.
The second thing is, what does fight mean in this context? Like, we all want to fight back. But what does fight mean? Does fight mean going on social media and saying something all your followers agree with? Like, that doesn't sound like fighting to me. It may make you feel good, but that doesn't sound like fighting.
And so, to me, fighting is probably the wrong word in a democracy. Persuasion is the right word. And I do think there are persuadable Trump voters, and those are the people you have to care about. He's not going to worry if people in Indivisible don't like him.
If you can persuade Trump voters that he is incompetent — don't go after moral outrage — say, he just doesn't know what he's doing, and he's causing you serious harm, and specify what the harm is: he's taking away this medical care, he's taking away that, you can't get your passport renewed, you can't get your VA benefits.
The history shows you have got to have very specific things that people are losing — that Trump supporters are losing — that will get them to change their mind. Just screaming, marching, resistance — the stuff that was tried in 2017 — I don't really think that works.
AMNA NAWAZ: Jonathan, persuade not fight?
JONATHAN CAPEHART: Breaking news — I disagree.
Look, when Democrats talk about fight, they're not talking about it in terms of violence, in terms of not having any purpose. People are angry. These aren't just progressives. It's not just people from Indivisible. It's people around the country who see what has been happening since January 20, and who are very angry and very afraid. And they run the political spectrum.
And so I think it's a mistake to say — to mistake the fact that the president's polling is slipping but hasn't collapsed — don't confuse that for the country not being angry. We're just two months in. And the president and Elon Musk have done so much in this time that the impact of what they have done is going to be felt.
And the anger and the desire of people wanting Congress — but particularly Democrats — to fight back... and the fight is not just fighting without any reason or any purpose. What Democrats want is for their elected members to do what Trump did for his members. Trump fought — Trump's followers and supporters like him because he fights. He doesn't necessarily win, but he shows that he is fighting for them because he's standing up for them. Democrats want their elected officials to stand up for them.
AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned Elon Musk, and we should mention today as well that Mr. Musk was at the Department of Defense, right, being hosted by the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth there — really an unprecedented top-level meeting that he was attending, part of his campaign, we believe, to continue to cut government spending.
And a lot of that anger at town halls has been directed at Elon Musk. But David, as Jonathan mentioned, we're 60 days into this presidency. What has this revealed to you — both the meeting today and also what we have seen so far about the role and the influence of Musk in this presidency?
DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I did not have DOGE being the center of the Trump administration before January 20. But it certainly has become the center.
And to me, it's revelatory. You get the richest guy in the world cutting off food for the starving children around the world — that's the essence of what it is.
The second thing it is — it's cruelty and ruthlessness. I have had so many conversations over the last couple of weeks with people inside federal agencies when the DOGE boys come to count. And they are naked in their cruelty — that this agency disagrees with Donald Trump. People here, we don't like what you believe, and we're just getting rid of you. And so that cruelty is kind of naked. And to me, it symbolizes something that is at the epitome of this administration.
These DOGE people — Elon Musk, he went to Penn. The DOGE people went to Harvard. They went to Stanford. They worked at McKinsey. These are not populists. These are elitists. These are conservative micro-elites who've been in elite universities, who play in the elite circles, and they want to take it out on their fellow elites.
And that's what this administration has become about — a battle between elites, not somebody representing the working class for problems that are real.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: And this is why people are angry — exactly to that point.
AMNA NAWAZ: Let me ask you too about a couple of the earlier conversations we had on the show, because this is a big deal. We saw President Trump going after institutions, including big law, right? Including universities, as you mentioned, where many of these guys went to school.
And this week, we saw two big institutions take steps to comply with the demands of the Trump administration. We saw Paul Weiss agree to a settlement, essentially, that says they're going to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services. Columbia University agreed to a list of demands so they don't lose hundreds of millions of dollars in funding.
Jonathan, what does this moment — these steps from these institutions — say to you?
JONATHAN CAPEHART: It says to me that our democracy is teetering. And I will focus on Paul Weiss and the legal sphere.
We have seen a complete capitulation by the legislative branch — the Republican majority — to what the president wants to do in the executive. And all our hopes for the maintenance of our democracy now rests with the judiciary.
In the olden days, before Trump, you would rely on these white shoe law firms like Paul Weiss to provide pro bono help to the folks who are suing for redress — who want the courts to step in when Congress or the president goes overboard.
When a Paul Weiss decides to pull back, when other big law firms like that decide to pull back — what does that mean in terms of the judiciary's ability to stop a president like Trump? And that's what's so concerning to me about this piece of the capitulation.
AMNA NAWAZ: David?
DAVID BROOKS: Yes. People call Trump a transactional politician, but he's an extortionist. That's actually a difference. A transaction is, we do a deal. Extortion is, I bully you until you give me what I want. And so that's what we're seeing here.
Now, I put myself in the shoes of, say, the president of Columbia, the head of Paul Weiss. And I think, well, if I compromise with Trump, I'm hurting my institution. But if I lose $400 million, I'm also hurting my institution. These are real choices that people have to make, and I understand that.
In the case of Columbia, I personally think the Trump requests or demands — whatever it is — are kind of reasonable, and Columbia should have done all this stuff five or ten years ago. They really did get ideologically out of control. And if they were publicly funded — partially publicly funded — then you've got a problem. And they created this problem.
So I understand why — I’ve got to save my university. I’ve got to save $400 million. On the other hand, caving into an extortionist rarely pays off, because he will say, “Oh, I’ll take that. Here’s my next demand. Here’s my next demand.”
And if you look at the history of Zelenskyy, Macron — all the people who've tried to cozy up to the extortionists — they all end up losing in the end. And so I think it’s time for the universities as a body — and we saw this with the Princeton president — to say, “No more deals.” We are standing up. Because there will be a time — and again, I don't think this is quite the time to sort of beat down the Trump administration — there will be a time where everybody has to hold together and stand up and say, “No. No more deals.”
AMNA NAWAZ: There’s the institutions. And then there’s also — we're seeing the individuals who are holding the line wherever they are.
Judge Boasberg seems to be one right now who's overseeing the case that involves the wartime Alien Enemies Act the president has invoked to deport hundreds and hundreds of Venezuelan nationals to an El Salvadoran prison. This is someone the president and Elon Musk have called for to be impeached, along with other judges.
Jonathan, impeachment of a federal judge would take Congress to act. Do you see that happening?
JONATHAN CAPEHART: I don’t — primarily because, if they were really serious about it, they’ve got the Republican majorities. They should have done it by now.
And Congressman Swalwell — Eric Swalwell of California — has called them out on this, particularly the threat against Judge Boasberg. “You want to do it? Fine. Bring it to the floor.” But he also said that Democrats would fight it. And they should. Because these threats against not just Judge Boasberg, but other judges — threats of impeachment — it's an attack on the judiciary.
That’s the other piece of the previous answer that I gave: that they’re attacking Judge Boasberg. They’re attacking other judges. My big concern going forward is, let’s say that when the judge issues his decision — does the president, does the Trump administration abide by his decision?
And from everything that I have seen so far, I don’t expect them to. And then where are we?
DAVID BROOKS: Yes. I’d just like to talk about one other set of conversations I find myself having frequently. These are people in the judicial system, in the government agencies. People are saying, “Well, if I speak out, how am I going to guarantee my safety or my family’s safety?”
I can’t tell you how many conversations I have had in the last six or seven weeks — whatever it’s been — “How much does a personal security detail cost?” It turns out it really costs a lot. But that’s how people are thinking, and that’s the climate of fear that pervades everything that’s going on here — a sense of “I’ve got to keep my head down or else I won’t be safe.”
AMNA NAWAZ: We did not.
David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart — always great to see you both. Thank you so much.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: Thanks, Amna.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted. Any use of the term "Brandon", "Traitor Joe", or any variations thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted. Right wing trolls can expect to have their irrelevant questions and comments deleted.
Tags
Who is online
48 visitors
Brooks is catching up to where Capehart was weeks ago. That is to say,"Holy Hana! I didn't think it would be nearly this bad...."
And it’s going to get worse.
David Brooks is a pussy.
Your point is?
Does that impact the substance of what he said?
What was one thing he said that you agree or disagree with?
David Brooks is a long time both sideser and that is how he starts out his comments in this video. His solution seems to be "lets persuade persuadable Trump supporters". That is an election strategy not an obstruction strategy, and the next election is 20 months away. We need to make Trump so dysfunctioning that he will be forced to rein himself in or lose his "legacy" to an uproar of events. I dont believe that David Brooks would approve of obstructing Trump.
We need to make Trump so dysfunctioning that he will be forced to rein himself in or lose his "legacy" to an uproar of events.
Two questions
1. Do you think Trump is concerned about his legacy, in the traditional sense of former American presidents?
2. I total agree that the DOGE activities and methods of "governing" we are seeing are counter to what is best for the country in every way, but how do you propose to make Trump "dysfunctional"?
I know that these questions were directed at John, but am going to throw my two-cents in.
I really do not think that he is concerned about his legacy because I feel he wants to control the media and discussions of him. He (Read "his administration") is rewriting history of past actions and I believe that if he is allowed to continue in this same vein, he will continue to obfuscate truthful discussions by the manipulation of "official" information.
To quote Trump: By all legal means necessary.
Which, is kind of ironic, seeing as how the majority of his actions taken since his totally facetious rendering of the oath of office have been pushing the boundaries of credulity, the law, the Constitution, and basic common decency, in my not so humble opinion.
America should have seen this coming years ago. It is more than a shame that the country as a whole did not. Especially post Biden debate when the authors of Project 2025 came out a little prematurely with their victory speeches.
Thomas
You are right I asked John (but not everyone to discuss things back and forth) but I totally appreciate your response and you make excellent points.
Assuming the next president is not another MAGA zealot (we can only hope), the undoing of the chaos Trump has and will create in our government and country will take significant actions to repair and part of that repair will be the total destruction of any value legacy that anyone thinks Trump has or is going to have
America should have seen this coming years ago. It is more than a shame that the country as a whole did not.
On target again - the country (led by an unknowing plurality of citizens) certainly shot themselves and the country in the foot (and other parts of the government body) back in November.
I am confident (perhaps hopeful is a better word) that there is a leader out there than unite (rather than divide) the right, left and middle and ward of the fringes elements on both sides to bring the country back together.
gullible fence sitters were part of the problem ...
I suppose - I was actively opposed to Trump being president but felt that Harris would also be very bad for the country. I voted for neither, but sat on no fence I was simply raised to believe that the lesser of two evils is still evil.
Is any cult leader concerned about their legacy? Not really. If Trump could convince every human on earth to drink poison, he would do it without a second thought. Trump is not about legacy, he is about power in the here and now. He doesn’t care about consequence, he just cares that he is the reason for the consequences. As long as his name is being repeated he doesn’t much care about the context. If the context isn’t flattering for him he just doubles down so that his name is uttered even more frequently.
I can see where the choice between a career prosecutor or a convicted felon would be difficult for some ...
i can’t, as there NEVER was any choice, and in order to have that higher ground voice, one needed to vote for Harris, cause now we all got the embarrass meant for maga and those like Robert who thought they could just sit on a fence, actually the poll, cause these decisions are exactly WHY this POS is fckn this country royally, because who he was and what his fckd up agenda was, were out there, all out there why he LIED like he always does and did, so fence sitters, you are as guilty as maga, in my not so humble opine, cause Everyone should have seen this coming , the guy that stated he would be a dictator on day one!
For a change, he told the truth, cause that piece of shit, ain’t no baby Ruth
it's electoral socialism. the average americans get to suffer because of the extremely poor decisions by 25% of them. all the warning flags were plainly evident, well before election day ...
devangelical
You need to read the words in my comment and understand what they mean before you respond to them.
I did not choose between a felon and a former prosecutor -- I chose to vote for neither of them, I left the line on the ballot blank and voted for the under-card positions.
I think that should be clear enough
it certainly is, and it looks like you still got what you voted for ...
Was it really those that left the line blank .....
....or all the centrist Democrats and independents that fled from Harris to Trump that got him elected?
I wonder
It is interesting that in their search to find who/what is to blame nominating a terrible candidate seems to be ignored by most on the left.
Interestingly, this is a modification of a well known quote. (I suppose he realizized the original was overly-inflammatory, so he added the word "legal":
Here's the original:
Who came up with by any means necessary?
I had always thought it was first used by Malcolm X-- I did know know that it actually originated with Sartre.
This poster, based on a famous photograph from Ebony , popularized the slogan.
a black woman, with less than 4 months to campaign, and losing by less than 1.5% of the vote to the great white dope seems to be ignored by most on the right ...
Excuses excuses. If she was the best they had to offer they deserved to lose
we'll see what happens in the next election, if there is one ...
One of the many lame scare tactics used instead of coming up with an actual plan Americans would vote for.
... like a POTUS with dementia? like now?
like a POTUS with dementia? like now?
The POTUS with dementia was the Biden administration and the steadfast support (while ignoring his many, many missteps) by the Democrats got us to where we are today
Biden enabled Trump by seeking a second term. Trump supporters elected him. Those who irresponsibly, irrationally and unpatriotically voted for Trump got us to where we are today.
The GOP had plenty of alternatives all of which would have made a better PotUS than Trump and several who would have likely been good, normal presidents. They chose Trump.
If you can't see a difference between Trump and Biden with regards to dementia you might want to hand in your internet medical degree.
I guess nominating a candidate because she checked off a couple boxes was not the winning strategy the Dems thought it was.
You would think putting up a candidate that looked so bad people would rather have Trump, especially some groups the dems count on, would give the dems something to ponder. It seems they have not learned from their stupidity.
It almost seems the Republicans wanted to hand the election to the dems. So what did the dems do? They handed it right back. I guess people thought being able to string sentences together when talking to the country or different country leaders was an important trait to have and being far far left was an important trait to not have.
The Ds have issues to work through; they need to get their shit together ASAP, especially for the midterms.
But right now the problem is Trump and a spineless Congress that is not performing their constitutional duty of checks and balances on the Executive branch.
We have a rogue PotUS who is an irresponsible loose-cannon making bad decisions on a weekly basis that are damaging this nation. The only checks on this irresponsible buffoon is the Judicial branch and the people. Unfortunately, for the people to do their job (being practical), they will need to realize the pain caused by Trump. This will take time.
Even with the chaos Biden caused by running for a second term, the Ds produced a candidate who would have been a sane, normal PotUS. The GOP, in contrast, had all the opportunities afforded by a normal primary and they chose a traitor who tried to steal the 2020 election through fraud, incitement, lying, and coercion. It was a profound failure of judgment by the GOP and then by the electorate in the general election.
They don't seem to be moving in that direction. It seems their whole strategy is stop Trump. That did not work so well before and it seems they are doubling down.
That is and was a matter of opinion. Obviously the electorate rejected it.
I think millions of them were voting against Harris as the greater of two evils.
She was a radical leftist moron not qualified to be president.
If they can stop Trump then that would be a productive effort.
The only fact that is obvious is that Trump won the election. That fact says nothing about whether or not Harris would have been a sane, normal PotUS.
I suspect many Trump voters are regretting their decision and one can only hope that this is a trend that will continue.
It would be nice if they actually had a plan and a message for the country and not run a campaign on "not Trump " again.
Another ridiculous comment apparently designed to be obnoxious.
Amazing that you can write crap like that when you can see all the damage caused by a rogue, incompetent, vindictive Trump and can compare this buffoon to our history of presidents to see just how unfit he is for the office he holds.
At least you should be able to see that.
The Ds are a minor concern to me. Right now my concern is the damage that Trump is doing to this nation. Have you not noticed?
Obviously but it is also obvious the majority of voting Americans would have rather had Trump elected than give her the chance.
Maybe, maybe not. There is also a year and a half before the midterms, alot can happen between now and then. Plenty of time for the dems to come up with a plan for the country and to let the country know what it is. But it seems they have not started yet. They have one guy doubling down on DEI and another guy trying to convince people he is a moderate when in reality he is about at left wing as a governor can get.
I have noticed it seems that is your only concern right now, even though you have no control over it.
Not a good way to choose but I think that is what the presidential election has come down to the last several elections.
How many people do you think believe that they, as an individual, can control what a PotUS does?
What a stupid comment. Each individual who opines, analyzes, criticizes what happens in the political arena does not have control over it. Should everyone then just STFU by your reasoning?
And with that, I am done
the will of the people vs the willfully ignorant people.
That's great. Keep up the good work that was started with Hillary's deplorable declaration. That works so well.
T G
The GOP had plenty of alternatives all of which would have made a better PotUS than Trump
I absolutely agree with you there
An addendum to that declaration is that there were other candidates could have and should have put in place long before Biden voluntarily bowed out that would have easily defeated Trump
And a lot of us that didn't vote for either Trump or Harris would have voted for that candidate over Trump without a second thought.
Correct. That is why I have stated that Biden enabled Trump when he decided to run for a second term. That was immediately obvious as a big mistake but the Ds did not correct it in time.
We would have been much better off with Harris rather than Trump.
A whole lot of people disagreed with that position on election day - hindsight as they say is always 20/20
One can only hope. Thus far, it looks like the cultish attachment to Trump survives no matter how outrageous and stupid his words and deeds.
That's an interesting take... I'd love more insight.
IIRC, several Trumps have ties to Penn:
As Barron Trump preps for spring 2025 at NYU, here's where his family graduated (and who didn't)
Just mark the page of all the Republican cheerleaders that say folks are overreacting.
Because they ignore American voters pain and are living in denial in their own comfortable wealthy bubble.
They don't actually care enough until Trump comes after them when some crazy move he makes targets their livelihood or wallets.
The crash of millions of lives will be heard, felt and protested regardless of smug Republican talking heads who play all this destruction down simply because Republicans elected it and supported it.
I still have the awful feeling that they won't blame trmp for it
trumpski is already telling them who's to blame for his policies in his cabinet meeting today ...
They can't use Biden forever
nothing is ever trumpski's fault ...
“They can't use Biden forever.”
Oh, but it happens every day in the ‘whataboutism’ whirled. And it’s not just Biden…it’s Obama, both Clinton’s, LBJ, the Kennedy’s (except one), FDR, the democrats from the 1860’s…ad infinitum, ad nauseam…
that won't stop them from trying. their theme is it's already too far gone to fix, so they need to trash it all ...
Many won't-- some will.
Well here you go...
I think those maga FAFO stories are hilarious ...
"boo hoo hoo, I thought trump was going to bend the libs over, not mommy and daddy ..."
They still don't see that it is America who he wants to bend over.