Brooks and Capehart on if a cultural shift away from negativity will benefit Harris

New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart join Geoff Bennett to discuss the week in politics, including the GOP facing a major scandal involving Mark Robinson, the Republican nominee for governor in North Carolina, Donald Trump’s latest comments about Jewish voters and Israel and if an electoral culture shift will benefit Kamala Harris.
Geoff Bennett:
And for more on the 2024 race we turn tonight to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That’s New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.
Hello. Good to see you.
Jonathan Capehart:
Hey, Geoff.
David Brooks:
Good to see you.
Geoff Bennett:
So, the 2024 election is officially under way, with early in-person voting starting in three states, and this is as the GOP faces a major scandal in a critical battleground state, North Carolina.
The state’s Trump-endorsed lieutenant governor, Mark Robinson, is adamantly denying reports that he had anything to do with racist and sexually explicit online posts. CNN has published a story, and they attribute Robinson — they attribute these messages to Robinson, including one where he characterizes himself as a Black Nazi, another where he defends slavery, and it just devolves from there.
David Brooks, what does it say about the modern GOP that a candidate like Mark Robinson, who had a number of known liabilities up until now — this is not — in some ways, this is not new. What does it say that he got this far?
David Brooks:
Well, we should reassure viewers that was the G-rated version of what he had to say.
(Crosstalk)
Geoff Bennett:
Super-sanitized version of what it was that he said.
David Brooks:
It’s nastiness, and mind-boggling nastiness.
Well, what it says is the Republican Party used to be a normal party, which had the normal vetting procedures. Like, you were a College Republican, and then you got vetted by your local state assembly, and then — so you had a normal — like any industry, basically, that there’s a whole series of structures that people who are just complete opportunists and degenerates, if I can use that word, don’t pass through the system.
But that whole system was wiped away. And so, ever since the Trump era came in, we have had a whole series of candidates who don’t pass basic muster, and who have done — it’s not just skeletons in their closet. It’s, I don’t know, morgues in their closet. And so this guy’s one of them.
Will it hurt Donald Trump in North Carolina? I’m a little skeptical. People really know Donald Trump. And so I don’t think it’ll bring him down, but the guy’s losing in the polls big time, Robinson.
Geoff Bennett:
And didn’t Mitch McConnell warn about this two years ago? He said Republicans have to care about candidate quality.
Jonathan Capehart:
Right, right, and he was roundly ignored. He was roundly ignored in ’22, and he was roundly ignored now.
The ad that the Harris campaign has put out tying Mark Robinson and Donald Trump, I think, has two goals. The first goal is to reach those Republicans, the squishy Republicans who are like, I don’t like Donald Trump and the way he behaves, but I don’t know if I can vote for her.
This is a way of showing them that, with Trump, you get this kind of chaos. On the other side, it’s — because the ad is sort of young and hip in the way they do it, it’s showing young Democrats in North Carolina, look, you can either sit on the couch or you can see both of these guys get elected. And this is a reason — the things that they show, this is a reason why you should vote for Harris.
Geoff Bennett:
You have described the ad. We actually have it, and we can take a look at it right now.
Jonathan Capehart:
Oh.
Donald Trump, Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. Presidential Candidate: And he’s been an unbelievable lieutenant governor, Mark Robinson.
Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson (R-NC), Gubernatorial Candidate: For me, there is no compromise on abortion.
Donald Trump:
I think you’re better than Martin Luther King.
Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson:
We could pass a bill saying, you can’t have an abortion in North Carolina for any reason. Abortion in this country, it’s about killing a child because you aren’t responsible enough to keep your skirt down.
Donald Trump:
I have been with him a lot. I have gotten to know him and he’s outstanding.
Narrator:
Donald Trump and Mark Robinson, they’re both wrong for North Carolina.
Geoff Bennett:
And so, David, in talking with Harris campaign staffers, the reason why they think this scandal might put North Carolina in play is because reproductive rights, in their view, is such a resonant issue in this election.
And you can see that in the ad. They’re trying to link Mark Robinson to Donald Trump on this issue of abortion rights.
David Brooks:
Yes, I guess the counterargument would be, first, if you’re for abortion rights, your mind is made up. Like, you don’t need Mark Robinson’s case to persuade you.
And, second, if I could — this is a tangent, but I just think the abortion issue is obviously a great issue for Democrats. But I think the Harris campaign is spending too much time talking about it. They should be talking about the economy, the economy, the economy. And so I think tying everything to abortion rights is probably something they have done enough and should pivot.
Geoff Bennett:
What do you think about that, Jonathan?
Jonathan Capehart:
No.
(Laughter)
Jonathan Capehart:
I mean, right now, it is an issue — while the message is about abortion rights, it’s bigger than that. It ties into the freedom argument.
And for a lot of people, the ability to have control over your bodily autonomy has maybe something to do with reproductive freedom, but it also has a lot to do with your economic freedom. And in the stories of Amber Thurman and Cindi (sic) Miller, part of the issue here was economics.
Amber Thurman could not get back to North Carolina. She couldn’t afford to because of the six-week abortion ban in Georgia.
And if I could just have just an aside, for Donald Trump to say that Mark Robinson is better than MLK, he even went on to say that he thought he was MLK on steroids, is just — I mean, it’s reprehensible.
Geoff Bennett:
Well, speaking of Donald Trump, he spoke at an event last night that was said to have a focus on antisemitism, and he appeared to blame the Jewish community if he loses this fall.
Here’s what he said.
Donald Trump:
I wasn’t treated properly by the voters who happen to be Jewish. I don’t know. Do they know what the hell is happening? If I don’t win this election, and the Jewish people would really have a lot to do with that if that happens, because, at 40 percent, that means 60 percent of the people voting for the enemy. Israel, in my opinion, will cease to exist within two years, and I believe I’m 100 percent right.
Geoff Bennett:
How do you account for this?
I mean, the Trump campaign believes that they see gains with Jewish voters as helping them in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. But is this the way to do it?
David Brooks:
By blaming them in the end? No, it’s not the best sales technique for a guy who used to be a salesman.
Listen, I thought the Trump administration policies on Israel were pretty good. I think the Abraham Accords were really impressive. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem was good. I think they weakened Iran during the Trump years. So all that’s true, and I’m sure a lot of Jewish voters are appreciative of that.
But Jewish voters are like any other group, Jewish voters, which is they have a lot of different interests. And I saw a survey of — they asked Jewish voters to list the 11 things that they are voting upon, and Israel came in ninth. So they’re like anybody else. They think of inflation, about health care, whatever.
And so they’re traditionally allied with the Democratic Party because Jewish voters tend to be a little more socially progressive than median voters. They tend to be more urban than the median voters. And so they’re traditionally the Democratic Party. And, finally, he got the numbers wrong. Harris has 75 percent of Jewish voters and he has about 25.
So — and, finally, just to say, accusing is not a sales technique. And so it’s wrong on all sorts of fronts.
Geoff Bennett:
Jonathan.
Jonathan Capehart:
David speaks for me on this. I agree with you 100 percent.
And just sort of personally, I’m insulted on behalf of Jewish people, my Jewish friends, that a person running for president of the United States is already pre-blaming a group of people: If I lose, it’s your fault.
And I also can’t help but think of you go to an antisemitism event and dabble in antisemitism, dredging up sort of the dual loyalty thing that really gets under the skin of Jewish American voters, and I think rightly so.
Geoff Bennett:
Well, as we round out our conversation, David, your column this past week caught my eye. The title is “How a Cultural Shift Favors Harris.”
I’m going to do that thing where I read what you wrote and ask you more about it.
(Laughter)
Geoff Bennett:
But you wrote: “Right now, I’d say Kamala Harris is benefiting from the beginning of a cultural shift and is beginning to have the cultural winds at her back. Donald Trump is beginning to be slapped in the face by those winds.”
Tell me more.
(Laughter)
David Brooks:
That’s such a good opening. You should do that every week.
I have been traveling a lot. I have been in 13 or 14 states in the last two weeks, some red, like Nebraska and Kansas, some blue, like Colorado and New York and California. And one thing I have noticed is people talking about negativity. They’re just tired of the negativity of our public life.
And there’s this — periods where you go through periods of indignation, where people are really angry. But then they — you can only be angry for so long. And Donald Trump won because people were really indignant.
But my sense is that they have had enough of it. In the 1960s, in the early 1970s, there were 4,000 bombings on American college campuses. It was — days of rage, it was called. By 1974, they’re into EST and crystal and New Age stuff.
And so people eventually get tired of all the negativity. And I think that cultural pivot is happening right now, at a time when Kamala Harris — and she’s — not because she’s reading it, it’s just who she — is cheerful and joyful and let’s not be negative all the time, and let’s have a good time as a country.
And so I think she’s benefiting from the cultural pivot. Is it enough to hand her the White House? No, but it helps.
Geoff Bennett:
Jonathan, that word joy, Kamala Harris, Vice President Harris, when she sat down with the three reporters from the National Association of Black Journalists today, one of them asked her about how she views a tax on her joyful warrior approach.
And she defended it. And she said, people will try to sometimes use your best asset against you. What do you make of that and this notion that she’s benefiting from a cultural wave?
Jonathan Capehart:
I don’t think she’s benefiting from a cult — a cultural — yes, she is, and I read your column, David.
It’s not so much that she’s riding — she’s — like see this wave coming and she’s riding. No, she is part of the culture. And that’s why I think when she became the top of the ticket, everyone marveled at how quickly the light switch flipped. That can — and it happened so organically in a very dramatic fashion.
That, to me, says you can’t manufacture that. And she was able to do that because she is the culture. She is part of the culture. She’s part of what’s driving this culture that I think you said will slap Donald Trump in the face. It’s slapping him in the face now, which is why I think he’s so discombobulated.
He doesn’t know how to deal with her. I think it’s why the polls are, the momentum is moving in her direction. And to your point about happy warrior, and David is right, this is the way the vice president has always been, which sort of reinforces what you’re saying. It’s not that she has met up with the culture. She in her entire career has been the happy warrior about helping people and leaving aside the negativity.
It just happens to hit at the right person at the right time.
Geoff Bennett:
Is there a cultural or historical precedent for this kind of thing?
David Brooks:
Well, yes, look at Donald Trump. He emerged in the ’80s, which was an era of self and of money and raw capitalism. The culture was with him, and then he sort of vanished and went down because the culture had shifted.
And so we — politicians and celebrities rise and fall by how the culture moves. And culture really does move, and you get these periods of anger and hostility and conflict. World War I then leads to the Flappers in the 20s. World War II leads to the domesticity of the 1950s.
So decades shift, and people want something different. And so I think we’re in one of those shifts.
Geoff Bennett:
Got to say, I enjoyed this conversation.
(Laughter)
Geoff Bennett:
David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, thank you both. Appreciate it.
Jonathan Capehart:
Thanks, Geoff.