David Brooks Leans Towards Bernie Sanders in Surprising Shift!

Did the November 5 victory of Donald Trump transform New York Times’ leading conservative voice, David Brooks, into a supporter of Bernie Sanders’ ideology? His article the day after the election, titled “Voters to Elites: Do You See Me Now?”, certainly suggests a shift.

In response to data indicating a surge in working-class votes—spanning various demographics—for the Trump/Vance ticket over the Harris/Walz duo, Brooks delivered a stark class-based analysis. He criticized the Democrats for abandoning their core mission, echoing Bernie Sanders’ post-election critique of the Democratic establishment. Sanders had pointed out the alienation of the working class from the Democratic Party, a sentiment Brooks seemed to agree with.

Brooks wrote, “The Democratic Party has one job: to combat inequality.” He observed a glaring oversight by many Democrats regarding the chasm of inequality right under their noses. He continued, “I’m a moderate. I prefer when Democrats position themselves toward the center. Yet, Harris did that efficiently, and it failed. Perhaps it’s time for Democrats to consider a disruption à la Bernie Sanders—something that might unsettle those like me.”

So, has Brooks shifted to the left, and if so, why does it matter?

Brooks has been a figure of interest to me since his days at The Weekly Standard, a neo-conservative magazine overseen by Rupert Murdoch and Bill Kristol. Brooks stood out for raising critical questions about America’s direction—questions that, in my view, the left too often disregarded or even mocked, despite their historical importance as explored by figures like Thomas Paine and Martin Luther King Jr.

Despite all his discussions about class inequality and his new realizations about what Democrats ought to have been doing, he still doesn’t fully grasp what brought us here…

Even though Brooks often posed the right inquiries—in works like “A Return to National Greatness” (1997); “What is America For?” (2014); and “What are We Supposed to Do (about the growing class divide and the impending nomination of Trump)?” (2016)—his conclusions frequently missed the mark. I previously criticized his approach in response to one of these articles: “How could Brooks, with his conservative leanings, truly understand and articulate America’s purpose and promise—ideals etched into our national consciousness by foundational speeches and documents from our history?”

However, Brooks was never entirely blind to class issues, unlike many of his conservative peers. His November 6 article presented a populist class analysis that acknowledged the nation’s elites’ role in Trump’s successes in both 2016 and 2020. He notably refrained from dismissing Trump’s supporters as mere “deplorables,” a label some liberals have used since 2016. Instead, he pointed out that dismissing Trump’s win to mere racism, sexism, and authoritarianism is a losing strategy. He urged for humility and a willingness to learn from the electorate, who, while not always wise, are generally sensible.

Brooks describes the past 40 years as the “information age,” which led to a bifurcated class structure: a highly educated governing class and a less-educated working class. He criticizes the educated class for shaping policies primarily around their needs, neglecting the less fortunate. This oversight has not only caused economic disparities but also fostered a pervasive lack of respect and recognition toward the working class, leading to deep societal disillusionment.

Brooks concedes that the Democratic Party has addressed various forms of inequality but has largely ignored class disparities. As Democrats moved towards identity politics, Trump fully embraced class conflict, attempting to rebuild the coalition that Democrats once aspired to form—a multiracial working-class majority.

Although the Biden administration attempted to appeal to working-class voters with financial incentives, Brooks argues that these efforts do not address the core issue—a “crisis of respect.”

With these observations, Brooks answers the initial question: Has Trump’s win transformed him into a “Bernie bro”? While he shares some populist views, he doesn’t align completely with us. Respect is crucial, but it’s not the sole factor behind the class divide and the challenges faced by the working class.

Brooks is not one of us, but he’s also no longer the conservative he once was…

Ultimately, Brooks overlooks the broader class warfare waged by corporate elites, Republican conservatives, and Democratic neoliberals over the last half-century. This war has targeted the democratic rights and progressive achievements of the New Deal era. Brooks acknowledges the need for a major rethink within the Democratic Party. To truly regain its footing and counter the rise of fascism, Democrats must embrace a progressive, social-democratic vision that resonates with most Americans and actively fosters grassroots engagement.

Though Brooks’ views have evolved (perhaps due to the extreme shifts within conservatism), he remains a significant voice. From his platform at the Times, he reaches not only conservatives but also moderate Democrats, essential for transforming the party and reclaiming American democracy.

So, welcome to the left, David Brooks, sort of.