David Brooks and Mark Shields with Jeff Greenfield
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- When commentators of the caliber of syndicated columnist Mark Shields and The New York Times op-ed columnist David Brooks get together to discuss today’s major issues, you know you’re in for an illuminating and stimulating evening. The PBS “NewsHour” sparring partners will present their views, analyze the day’s news and maybe even make a prediction or two on the outcomes of election 2016. Moderated by Jeff Greenfield.
Subscribe for more videos like this: bit.ly/1GpwawV
Facebook: / 92ndstreety
Twitter: / 92y
Tumblr: / 92y
Instagram: / 92ndstreety
Vine: vine.co/92Y
On Demand: www.92yondemand...
I miss Mark Shields. Great character and so insightful. Rest in peace Mr. Shields 🕊️🌿
I'm always amazed at the depth of knowledge and perspective of David Brooks...I enjoyed his comments about Bloomberg's possible run as an independent and insight into the state of our national political landscape...
+Logan Waller
I agree. I do not agree with David Brooks on many things, but I like his civil thoughtful comments and that fact that he has enough integrity and courage to stand up to Conservative radicalism ... and he never gets credit for that. I think a lot of the man and I enjoy these interactions with Shields and on PBS/NPR as well.
I am a fairly far left Liberal, but I feel a kinship with Brooks in that he has the same issues with far Right Conservatives that I do with far Left Liberals.
Shields is good too. I never appreciated Shield until I heard him talk on ... some NPR show that I could not get a recording of, perhaps Cambridge Forum, but he talked about his history in the press and he was very interesting.
These two are the perfect pair to editorialize to American from the moderate positions of both Left and Right, and there is just not much of that these days.
Watching this so many years later, I agree with you on Brooks' knowledge, but he did not see Trump coming, he seemed out of touch with the zeitgeist. Greenfield and Shields not only saw it but understood how Trump was possible.
Amazing to watch this in 2019!
In watching it in March of 2021
2023!
Great talk guys. I miss the time when the nightmarish possibility of a trump presidency seemed ridiculous.
Yes, but it showed who republicans really are and always were. It’s the party who welcomed cultural wedge issues, hate, racism, sexism, xenophobia on and on. They’re delusional god people who were primed for a demagogue. It just took a con man good enough to bring them together under the idea of hate, lies, & dangerous conspiracies
There's quite a bit of prescience in this discussion that bears revisiting now.
yup. those "g.d.emails" basically STUCK to Hillary....and as they said..."why did she even go through the door of the Clinton Foundation"? "If she ran unopposed, she'd lose."-Mark Shields
wow, some of this was prophetic
Looking from 2021, at this discussion between learned men. I wish they had been right, all it tool was good people reverting to tribalism.
What a tasty time capsule this is in Dec 2021!!
0:31:53 The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much but whether we provide enough for those who have too little.
.
This idea of all of us being on the front lines for freedom and social justice and all being harms way if we fail is absolutely right.
depends what you mean by freedom.
I enjoyed this. Thanks so much.
For the record, Jeff Greenfield is a collaborator with the PBS NewsHour Weekend with Hari Sreenivasan. #PBSNEWS
Jeff Greenfield, in 2005, nailed both the Trump nomination AND Clinton's selection of Tim Kaine. Bravo, Sir.
A Baptist school where Atheist professors teach Jewish students St Thomas Aquinas...
So poignant listening to this upon Mark's passing. They embody the civil society we sorely need today.
The decision to finally withdraw from Afghanistan by president who has had a child in the armed service (and possibly killed by that service: exposure to burn pits leading to cancer), makes a lot of sense compared with the past three presidents who talked a lot about ending the engagement, but never did.
Comments below show that the problem isn't the politicians or pundits.
The problem is us.
Soylent green is people.
In what way?
Watching this 5 years after it happened, & Biden is now president. It strikes me they were right about almost everything. They were asked to predict a number of unbelievable events and they were mostly right. We’ll miss Mark on Newshour for a long time.
Brooks was completely wrong about his own tribe. He was so far off from those with whom he aligns himself. Rubio is politically dead, Trump is a criminal ex-president, & the Paul Ryan was at no point a “good or rational” man.
ok. Jeff Greenfield you are batting a 1000. guessed Trump for the times and Tim Kaine as Hillary running mate!! I plan to trust your insight from now on!!
Very informative.
Can someone please send this to davidbrooks😮
RIP Mark Shields.
amazing how the two pundits got so much wrong, and the interviewer/host got so much right
What did they get wrong?
Not really. I have played 8 different productions of this show. I am a bit weary of it and the music.
How naive all these otherwise smart and thoughtful people were. Crooked Donny showed the world exactly who he was when he was running. Those who are horrified now at his despicable behavior just weren't paying attention.
I suppose hindsight is 20/20, but David Brooks was so naive in thinking Clinton would pick Klobuchar as her running mate. An all-woman ticket (which will happen eventually) would have been an unnecessary risk in 2016. Hillary was the first women nominated for president. Two women on the ticket would have been overkill - voters usually need some time to get used to a change like this. Also, Klobuchar is not especially likeable. Hillary herself has always had a "likeability" problem and Klobuchar on the ticket would have effectively been asking the voters to elect two Hillarys.
Old school political thinkers ...not always right but not always wrong either. Sometimes boring is better
Mark Shields' point about why he objected to the Iraq War. Thank you on behalf of American soldiers who died, were maimed, and suffered depression. The biggest tragedy, however, is the destruction of Iraqi society: university students were about to take exams when Bush/Cheney started "Shock and Awe" and proceeded to cause so much chaos that Shia hit squads started killing, kidnapping for ransom turned into a daily risk for children on their way home from school, and meanwhile US troops didn't speak Arabic, have a plan, understand either Islam or its laws. ***We /US poured trillions into sand and it disappeared in Pashtun corruption, warlords' coffers, skimming contractors and Army / CIA stupidity -- they delivered cash by the airplane load. THOSE WERE MY TAX DOLLARS and YOURS. The incompetence was & is beyond imagination. Why are we funding a Defense Department which can't trace its expenditures? Why did the officers who utterly failed in Iraq - and multiply that by a 1000 in Afghanistan -- get promoted? There are no consequences for causing the displacement of millions? for Abu Ghraib? for Guantanamo, and waste of trillions.
Brooks must have found his words deliciously disgusting after Trump got elected.
sorry boys were not going back to the 90s..these rinos need to retire.
text
It is upsetting that Mark has to politicize everything and be so divisive. There's never a missed opportunity for him to crap on the Republicans, and lacks David's medial ability to be self-critical and even self deprecating about where the American Left and Democrats are today, and about Hillary and Bernie.
+MarketAndChurch Mark is a skillful partisan political animal. I say that with great admiration. Whenever he is asked to comment on or defend what might appear to be a weakness in a position he espouses, he often times would obfuscate and wastes no time in turning on his attack mode, sometimes even on a new thread or something that has already been talked about. I watch discussions such as this not to become more partisan, but to be enlightened on reasonableness and plausibility.
+Peter Lui I agree with this assessment. Brooks seems more self-aware and generally aware of actions he takes and the feedback he receives from others regarding his behavior. I would imagine Shields insulates his consciousness from most criticism he receives, so the obfuscation you observe is not the result of a tactful strategy, but rather the dullness of a mind attempting to deflect negative characterizations. (This is incredibly assumptive of myself) Full disclosure: I'm left-leaning, far from being politically aligned with Brooks.
It is also worth noting, Brooks looks like an easily excited child. Shields is far more composed.