If Sanders did win the nomination Brooks would go right back to fear mongering though. He's using him as a cudgel because he has a beef with the Democratic party and Sanders is now too old to run again. He's just a dumbass.
He's an old-school Regan conservative who writes a column for the New York Times. He also does a weekly PBS news segment; it used to be with this even older liberal named David Brooks (Mark Shields, what a dumb typo), but he retired, and now it's with a young liberal who's so moderate they barely even disagree.
Funny enough, I actually don't think he's being contrarian. He was on PBS Newshour for their election night coverage, and he seemed shook. The next day, he commented on Twitter something to the effect of, "maybe the answer is that the Democrats need to pick someone that makes people like me unconformable." I think he's watched his economic outlook completely win American politics over the last 40 years, only to find the prize at the end was fascism.
Don't assume that he actually developed any self-awareness. I'm sure he takes no responsibility for the horrible columns he's written over the past few decades. To him, the facts on the ground changed, and certainly he never got anything wrong.
Well, I doubt he blames himself for anything that's occurred, and I certainly don't think he's going to become a socialist or anything like that. He does seem aware that 40 years of free market capitalism without any pushback from a real progressive party on behalf of the working class has created the conditions necessary for Trump, and that's more self-awareness than I've seen from Nancy Pelosi. That being said, I'm sure this newfound progressive streak will boil down to, "let's raise the federal minimum wage so we can get back to capitalism as usual."
The same newspaper that said Clinton had a 91% chance of winning in 2016.
Even if this guy individually changed his mind, it doesn't change the fact NYT is a mouthpiece of the DNC and has every notoriously reported false information multiple times even up to this year over Gaza which they refused to pull from publication or change.
We don't need to end liberalism but we absolutely do need to tax and regulate.
Definitely need both. Neoliberalism is a center right to right wing ideology that inherently favors moneyed interests and the status quo over workers and progress.
Having it as the leftmost ideology of only two political parties with real influence is lunacy.
So, how do we get people who fear socialism to vote for a socialist that inspires blue voters to vote or steals enough working class votes to get elected enough rather than slowly spiral into fascism?
Keep fascism in check for the next two years and hopefully win mid terms so we get the House and Senate again.
Starting prepping a 50 year old straight white man for presidency.
Somehow convince people that the firehouse of falsehoods isn't worth their time.
Keep it up another two years after to get the presidency back.
Kill the filibuster.
Stack the supreme Court after all the Republican extremist ones die.
Fund public education in a way that isn't based on local property values.
Bring back the fairness doctrine.
Stave off NatCs for another 20 years and hopefully profit?
I think dems underestimated the feelings of the working class. I've mentioned offhand to a few people who voted for Trump that Bernie probably could've won and they actually agreed.
Climate collapse is coming, the window to stop the worst case scenario was just lost. Forget fighting fascism, the liberals will just go full mask off when the resource wars start in earnest.