Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The topic of New York Times op-ed columnists came up recently while I was chatting with a friend. He is, among other things, a fan of David Brooks, and I told him I wasn’t. Why? In the past I’ve been pretty tolerant of Brooks, but over the past few years I feel like he just isn’t earning his rep. He’s gotten lazy. He sees a single poll or a single study and he suddenly divines the meaning of life from it—but without doing the work to find out what the study really means, whether it’s supported by other work, and just how broadly its results apply.

Ivo Daalder points out a perfect example of this today. A few days ago Brooks took a look at a single poll from the Center for American Progress and immediately concluded that Americans are exhausted by the rest of the world and want to pull back from it. But even a cursory look at other data suggests exactly the opposite. So for your reading pleasure, here’s the antidote to Brooks, courtesy of Daalder:


My “in short” summary would be a little different: Americans are just as bloodthirsty as they’ve ever been. All we need is a push from a demagogish president and we’re ready to bomb the crap out of anybody. Brooks has nothing to fear on that score.

On the “liberal internationalist” axis, too, nothing much has changed: Americans still favor treaties and trade and alliances as much as ever—which is to say, we vaguely think they’re good things, but our support for them is pretty thin.

As for the things Brooks says he’s most worried about—promoting democracy, taking on Chinese aggression, promoting trade, fighting global poverty, and defending human rights—“the core activities of building a civilized global community”—Americans have never really cared much about that stuff. We’ll tolerate a fair amount of it here and there, and of course we were always happy to use it as an excuse for various Cold War depredations—or for bombing the crap out of our enemy du jour these days—but that’s about it. I love my country, but it’s silly to pretend that we’ve ever been anything we aren’t.

POSTSCRIPT: Just to be completely clear, I’m not saying that Brooks is unquestionably wrong here. Maybe he’s right! I’m just saying that it’s really lazy to base a whole column on a single poll without doing even the minimal research it would take to see how well it fits with other research on public opinion.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate